Canadian Senate Takes Another Hit

[Smallc]

Only in that was as it was written. If you wish to open & revise the "contract" then I agree, I just don't think you'd like what follows.

I'm sure it would be very difficult. For the moment, I'm happy with the minor changes that Trudeau has made. Not everyone will be.

[Bob Macadoo]

I'm sure it would be very difficult. For the moment, I'm happy with the minor changes that Trudeau has made. Not everyone will be.

I'm OK with them as well. I agree as well if there are no real hiccups, not ginned up ones like that appointed guy's uncle's uncle donated 50 bucks to the Liberals, then it'll only be added to and not repealed.

[?Impact]

Most countries have an upper house that is used to balance the regions against the populace.

There are only 20 federations with an upper house, it would be interesting to see how many of them give equal representation to the member states within them. It would be further interesting how many of those have great disparity between the population sizes of the member states (94:1 for Canada, 67:1 for the US), and there is plenty of displeasure in the US about their level of disparity. The nice thing about the US is at least the peoples representative by state is almost 1:1 where in Canada it is 3:1.

People in BC don't like think of themselves as being lumped in with people from Saskatchewan.

Do you think people in Kenora like to think of themselves as being lumped in with people from Toronto? Do you know that it is shorter to drive from Flin Flon Manitoba to Kamloops BC, than it is from Kenora Ontario to Toronto Ontario?

[Smallc]

There are only 20 federations with an upper house, it would be interesting to see how many of them give equal representation to the member states within them. It would be further interesting how many of those have great disparity between the population sizes of the member states (94:1 for Canada, 67:1 for the US), and there is plenty of displeasure in the US about their level of disparity. The nice thing about the US is at least the peoples representative by state is almost 1:1 where in Canada it is 3:1.

Do you think people in Kenora like to think of themselves as being lumped in with people from Toronto? Do you know that it is shorter to drive from Flin Flon Manitoba to Kamloops BC, than it is from Kenora Ontario to Toronto Ontario?

I've driven almost the entire length of the country, so I'm well aware. Still, Ontario exists, and is far more tangible than the 'western region'.

[JamesHackerMP]

another question: I read senators are appointed for life (life until 75, that is) and it's really the Prime Minister who's doing the appointing not the Governor-General on his own "personal decision" right?

[?Impact]

another question: I read senators are appointed for life (life until 75, that is) and it's really the Prime Minister who's doing the appointing not the Governor-General on his own "personal decision" right?

Yes.

Technically the Governor-General does the appointing, but I am not aware of a single case where he or she did so without the Prime Minister pulling the strings other than the first 73 Senators in 1867; they were appointed by Royal proclamation but under the advice of the original elected members of Parliament (in that case the partisan division in the Senate almost exactly reflected the party standing in the House of Commons).

The Prime Minister has always picked along partisan lines with only 3 notable exceptions:

• Conservative PM John A. MacDonald (1867-1891) picked 9 Liberals and 3 others (14% of his total)
• Liberal PM Pierre Trudeau (1968-1984) picked 8 Conservatives and 3 others (14% of his total)
• Liberal PM Paul Martin (2003-2006) picked 5 Conservatives (30% of his total)

Other than that all Prime Ministers have either been 90% or more partisan, with most of them being either 100% partisan or a single token exception.

[JamesHackerMP]

Is there any kind of political or tangible benefit (to the system itself, or to the people of Canada) of doing it like that in your opinions?

[?Impact]

Is there any kind of political or tangible benefit (to the system itself, or to the people of Canada) of doing it like that in your opinions?

I think there is a significant tangible benefit to doing appointments rather than elections. Elections are influenced by a single factor - money. Politics, platform, and even the individual are about 1 billion steps behind the money. I like the idea of doing appointments for the upper house, the only problem is we are brain dead in allowing the Prime Minister do the appointments. They should be done by a multi-partisan committee (makeup of said committee should reflect the popular vote in the last election), and the province to which the Senate seat is assigned should actually get at least 50% say (again part of the committee with similar makeup). Appointments should have a much stronger vetting process on actual capabilities, other than being able to smile and raise money for said Prime Minster.

[Archduke al-Qaddafi]

Is there any kind of political or tangible benefit (to the system itself, or to the people of Canada) of doing it like that in your opinions?

No. A senate appointment is, in the vast majority of cases, a reward for political hackery. Fundraisers, party donors, spin doctors, hack journalists etc are given a high-pay low-responsibility job-for-life as a reward for their partisan service. Senators rarely do anything of value for the people of Canada. These are the worst kinds of patronage appointments and ought to be illegal.

[JamesHackerMP]

Impact: neat idea: in Jamaica (or the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, I forget which: check the CIA World Factbook where I found it), the appointment to the legislative council or whatever they call the upper house of one of its members must be agreed to jointly by the PM and the opposition leader. Neat idea?

[JamesHackerMP]

Also: while it's not my place to tell a Canadian what to do with his/her own sovereign government, it sounds like proportional representation would take the party hackery of the Commons and multiply it by a factor of 10. It usually does in countries with PR elections, btw. (I've studied this in political science classes in college.)

[?Impact]

Also: while it's not my place to tell a Canadian what to do with his/her own sovereign government,

Not to worry, us Canadians are always commenting on American government. Opinions should always have a place, you don't get a vote but you do get to speak your mind. If you are heard depends on the quality of your argument, but we respect your right to express it. We are all influenced by others, the French had a large influence in the American form of government; not by meddling, but providing an example. Britain had a large influence in both our countries, although the Americans were much more active in eliminating some of the problems of their system early on. Britain had a big influence on the legal system of America and most of Canada, although France influenced the law practiced in Quebec (yes, we have two legal systems in Canada).

[JamesHackerMP]

Impact, I'm glad you said that. I thank you.

Actually America does the same thing (as per your example of Quebec): state law of the State of Louisiana is not British Common Law, as is the legal systems of the other 49 states and DC, but the Napoleonic Code of France. (Which surprised me when I found that out...that must be terribly inconvenient for lawyers who want to practice law in Quebec or Louisiana you'd think.)

If you want to take my advice about what to do about the Canadian Senate, a decent model---though perhaps not a fully applicable one---would be that of my previous mention of Australia. Both chambers are elected, but they manage to avoid gridlock like you would think there would be. The 1975 constitutional crisis was rather exceptional, and had to be resolved by the Governor-General, in fact. But, today, if there ends up being so much gridlock between MPs and senators bouncing bills back at each other, the GG is allowed to call a "double dissolution election", in which all 76 senate seats, not just roughly half, are up for grabs. The new parliament then reassembles and works on all the bills that caused the gridlock and attempt to resolve them. It's actually not a bad system, and allows the people to operate in both branches of the federal parliament.

[?Impact]

state law of the State of Louisiana is not British Common Law, as is the legal systems of the other 49 states and DC, but the Napoleonic Code of France.

Cool, I didn't know that. Does it affect the appointment of Supreme court justices? Here we have to have 3 out of 9 with practical experience in the Quebec civil code which essentially means they must be from Quebec. That is not too bad because Quebec has 25% of the population, and that is only 30% of the justices. I can't see that happening when Louisiana has less than 2% of the population.

b.t.w. the civil code of Quebec is only for civil litigation, criminal law is consistent across the country.

[JamesHackerMP]

I think in LA, the Napoleonic Code is for criminal law as well as civil, though I could be wrong.

No, it doesn't affect the appointment of SC justices. I have no idea what happens when court cases are appealed from LA state courts to federal courts...hmmm, interesting situation though, i'm sure it would be.