Harper promises bill to elect senators
Thu, 2006-09-07 12:44
#1
Harper promises bill to elect senators
Thu, 2006-09-07 12:44
#2
Now who said we didn't have a progressive PM?
This is great news!
[URL=http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/09/06/harper-senate.html][/...
Thu, 2006-09-07 13:02
#3
yes real great [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] abolish this albatross. It won't be any different in composition than the house of commons.Just less democratic because it will be 1 province 5 votes or something where no matter population same number of votes. So the west will vote mostly CRAP with a mix in the east. Then if the libs win ontario again nothing will get done because whatever the libs pass in the house will get shot down by the senate....dumb dumb dumb. More lobbiest jobs I guess if you consider that a plus.
Thu, 2006-09-07 13:06
#4
its always cute to see folks get excited about the smoke and mirrors show that our political leaders put on. The promise of a "house of sober, second thought" has never been realized thus far. Nor will it occur any quicker if the mutts are elected. How anyone can conceive of an elected senator being any better than an elected parliament has been over the ages is beyond understanding.
But you can be sure there will be a hell of a lot more politicians provided access to the more than generous salaries, perks and obscene pensions that senators receive as the turn over of these guys is accelerated into hyper drive by the election process. Instead of a handful of these guys staying in office till they die or simply fade away, we will see a steady flow of them into and out of those not so august halls.
However, it does give Herpies the chance to fiddle with our Constitution and that is probably what this is really all about. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2006-09-07 14:17
#5
My understanding of the senate is fairly minimal, so can't comment with any authority on the topic. But I'm inclined to think that anything that Harper says is good for Canada is probably going to wind up just the opposite.
Thu, 2006-09-07 14:22
#6
Disgusted, thats a pretty obtuse reply when you state you don't really understand the Senate. Buy a book, read it, and then make an informed opinion.
Not to hard is it?
Thu, 2006-09-07 14:24
#7
My opinion has already been informed by watching what Harper has done since he became PM. I'm not impressed.
Thu, 2006-09-07 14:35
#8
Or simply google it.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada]wiki link[/url]
quote:
In 1980, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Senate Reference that it would be beyond the legislative authority of Parliament to amend the Constitution to abolish the Senate or otherwise to alter its fundamental features and essential characteristics. The Court did not rule specifically on the issue of Senate tenure, but cited the 1965 amendment as an example of how Parliament could act alone to amend the Constitution.
[url=http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/lgc/default.asp?Language=E&Page=newsroom&Sub=pr... link[/url]
Thu, 2006-09-07 14:55
#9
My problem with an elected senate is that it will have a legitimacy without first having it's parameters , role, and relationship to the other parts of government fully worked out. Clearly, (at least to me) it will tend more to be a house of the provinces, and a force for decentralisation. This has been a philosophical pet of the old reform for ages.
You can't majorly tinker with one part of the government without having very thorough deliberation on how other parts will be affected, and they certainly will be affected.
Right now the Senate has considerable powers under very limited circumstances, and very limited authority under most circumstances. What it does offer is a ready made body when you need a committee or study on something. Some may (rightly) see this as irrelevant, but it's a lot cheaper than setting up a Royal Commission every time you need to do this. Also, the Senate takes a certain amount of heat off the House by passing routine day to day non-controversial housekeeping legislation.
Actually, I'm not too sure what to do with it. The last thing we need is for the senate to be just a body representing the provinces. I'd rather see out and out abolition.
Thu, 2006-09-07 15:19
#10
Isn't the idea of a "Triple E" senate just basically designed to give Canada government of, by and for Alberta?
And to the poster who said this would be "progressive" basically, had there been such a senate at earlier points in Canadian history, there would be no single-payer health care(because Alberta would have stopped it)no bilingualism and thus the death of Quebecois culture(because Alberta would have stopped it)and probably no transfer payments to poor provinces, much smaller social spending and a massive Canadian war machine(because that's what Alberta would have demanded).
Oh, and probably mandatory gun ownership as well.
Thu, 2006-09-07 15:21
#11
An elected senate would counterbalance the powers of the PM. We all remember the abuses of the Chretien era.
Thu, 2006-09-07 15:26
#12
An elected senate would mean that Canada would have Tory governance forever, despite what the majority voted for.
It would just be Alberta saying no to all change.
Except change for the worse, of course.
Thu, 2006-09-07 15:48
#13
quote:
An elected senate would counterbalance the powers of the PM
Oh sure. That must be why Stevie is doing it! Less power for him. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2006-09-07 17:21
#14
The Senate has real power as it is set up now. But it is reluctanct to wield that power because of it's undemocratic nature. Of course the fact that the Liberals have controlled both Chambers of Parliament most of the time has palyed a role in extending the life of the current morass, it's not too often people disagree with themselves.
As an elected body with all the legitamacy that entails the Senate will be more likely to use the power it currently has to offset the will of the House of Commons. If a powerful Senate forces the House to 'moderate' legislation that negatively impacts one region of the country or another, then it's not all bad. Or if legislation is blocked all together, that may not be bad either. The status quo can be better than what may be proposed.
Let's just say that it would be very unlikely that a government in the House of Commons dominated by support from central Canada and one party in the House of Commons would be able to get a National Energy Program that forces one region to subsidize the interests of another through the Parliament that has an elected Senate.
Thu, 2006-09-07 17:25
#15
An elected senate would be like putting lipstick on a pig. The senate envisioned by Harper would be anti-democratic, anti-city and anti-progressive. Much like the senate in the U.S. has been historically. Which is why he wants it.
Thu, 2006-09-07 17:39
#16
There are many reasons to be against Senate reform, particulary given the hints that the Conservatives have provided on the form of that Senate.
However, it still does not explain the rampant nonsense on this board.
I don't know why Ken Burch is under the impression that this will give complete power to Alberta. Perhaps he can enlighten us - or just leave his unadulterated bias against Alberta stand as it is.
As for democratic, it's certainly going to be more democratic than a senate that's appointed? How precisely are appointees more democratic.
Honestly, if you're going to criticize government policy, at least make your points semi-credible.
Thu, 2006-09-07 17:39
#17
If that represents the will of the people, what's the problem?
Thu, 2006-09-07 17:49
#18
The problem is that the senate can be used to thwart the will of the people. My understanding of it(which I admit is imcomplete)is that the West would be able to use the disproportionate power it would have in a Senate to stop legislation enacted by a government with a clear parliamentary majority.
The West(read Alberta) is determined to have this
in order to force its particularly sanctimonious, heartless and anal-retentive form of conservatism on all Canadians forever, election results be damned.
As to my feelings about Alberta(which are shared, I suspect, to varying degrees by most Babblers)from what I can see(and I'm willing to be corrected if anyone can prove I'm wrong) it is the most reactionary, homophobic, antidemocratic, antilabour and antifrancophone province in the country. Alberta wants to prevent basically any progressive legislation from being enforced within its boundaries.
It's Alberta
...that led the fight against bilingualism and against recognition of the equality of francophone culture within Canada,
...that led opposition to single-payer health care,
...that is more obsessively anti-union and antiworker than any other part of Canada,
...that repeatedly and vindictively cuts its welfare payments even though the province is insanely wealthy(meanwhile congratulating itself on how "Christian" it is).
And it's Alberta, more than anywhere else in Canada, that is determined to keep gay and lesbian relationships legally inferior to heterosexual marriage.
Basically, a place that wants to stop time in 1958. A place against compassion, tolerance, equality and in favor of militarism, bigotry and tax cut after tax cut after tax cut for the rich.
Or a bigger Texas but with cold winters.
Can anybody seriously quarrel with the above assessment?
And can anyone seriously argue that such a poisonous place should be given an entire parliamentary chamber with which to block any legislation it doesn't like through endless delay?
Also, people should look at what happened in Australia in 1975, a scenario which could be repeated in Canada should a genuinely left-wing government win a majority in the Commons.
In that year, the Labor government, which had just won a second solid majority in the lower house of Australia's parliament, was dismissed by the governor general just because the Senate had defeated a piece of legislation the government had introduced. This led to a snap election in which a reactionary "Liberal Party" government came to power, an election that should not have been called because the Labor government still had a parliamentary majority in the lower house.
(The CIA was involved, for those who were wondering, and would be again if this scenario were to repeat in Canada.)
[ 07 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
Thu, 2006-09-07 17:55
#19
Cueball
Well if you were really concerned about regionalized jinogism, you would probably not be so concerned about the regional proportionality of homophobes and reactionaries, as they are everywhere.
For instance, if you were to break down political views on the basis of urban vs. rural and elminate the major cities such as Vancouver, from BC; Toronto, from Ontario; and Montreal, from Quebec, you would probably find that rural Albertans more or less shared the similar views as rural British Columbians.
Thu, 2006-09-07 17:57
#20
Nope. You have it in a nutshell aand before anyone from Alberta starts freaking out please, talk to the neo-cons and so-cons that reside there prior to pissing on people who don't happen to like the fact that Alberta is a Conservative province. All I can say is, thank god for Quebec!
Thu, 2006-09-07 18:01
#21
Still, they do have a level of dominance in Alberta that exists nowhere else in Canada.
Look at the comparative provincial election results. Alberta has had uninterrupted right-wing provincial government, either Social Credit or Tory, for SEVENTY-ONE FREAKIN' YEARS.
And, as a Yank, I also remember what our beloved
"upper house" did(and continues to do) on civil rights and worker's rights for most of our country's history. Which was to say "no, no, no, no, no, and no". These were the people who wouldn't even pass an anti-lynching law. We can assume Harper's senate would be just as loathsome.
Thu, 2006-09-07 18:07
#22
Not to mention that shamefully Alberta may become (or already has become?) the only province to outlaw same sex marriage. Never mind, here it is, from Wikipedia:
quote:
On July 12, 2005, Klein conceded that the advice given to him by legal experts is that a challenge in Court to refuse to marry same-sex couples has no chance, and wasting taxpayers' money to fight it would be "giving false hope." Klein said, "much to our chagrin," the Alberta government will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples when the bill receives royal assent. Klein also said that the Alberta government would enact provincial legislation to protect religious and civil officials who do not wish to perform a same-sex marriage. This means that an Alberta marriage commissioner who refuses to solemnize same-sex marriages would not be liable for dismissal on those grounds — in most of the other provinces, marriage commissioners face automatic dismissal if they refuse to solemnize a same-sex marriage.
Thu, 2006-09-07 18:23
#23
quote:
The Senate has real power as it is set up now. But it is reluctanct to wield that power because of it's undemocratic nature. Of course the fact that the Liberals have controlled both Chambers of Parliament most of the time has palyed a role in extending the life of the current morass, it's not too often people disagree with themselves.As an elected body with all the legitamacy that entails the Senate will be more likely to use the power it currently has to offset the will of the House of Commons. If a powerful Senate forces the House to 'moderate' legislation that negatively impacts one region of the country or another, then it's not all bad. Or if legislation is blocked all together, that may not be bad either. The status quo can be better than what may be proposed.
This is an excellent analysis of the Canadian Senate. Originally proclaimed as a [i]Hosue of Sober Second Thought[/i] it was expected that the Senate would be a control mechanism against the excess of a rogue or otherwise self-serving government.
But partisanship in the appointments to the Senate has turned the Senate into nothing more than a payoff for the party faithful.
However, if the Senate seats where to be decided by another form of voting, namely public referendum, whereby only non-political personalities may compete, it is possible that we might get a bunch of people occupying those seats who have no real political baggage or loyalty contaminating their voting preferences.
Thu, 2006-09-07 19:05
#24
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]
The West(read Alberta) is determined to have this
in order to force its particularly sanctimonious, heartless and anal-retentive form of conservatism on all Canadians forever, election results be damned.[/b]
Did you mention you were an American cuz that would explain why you could possibly think anyone could take your rant seriously?
Provincial Senate Seat Distribution
NF 6
NS 10
NB 10
PEI 4
QU 24
ON 24
MN 6
SK 6
AL 6
BC 6
YK 1
NW 1
NU 1
Add in that the NDP has Govts in both MN and SK and has formed Govt in BC and would have their first reps in the Senate in the West.
How are those 6 Albertan senators going to initiate the reign of terror you spout off about?
Keep in mind that it takes a constitional change to change the above numbers which requires the House, the Senate and all ten provincial legislatures to pass - and probably a national referendum.
[ 07 September 2006: Message edited by: George Pringle ]
Thu, 2006-09-07 19:25
#25
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]The problem is that the senate can be used to thwart the will of the people. My understanding of it(which I admit is imcomplete)is that the West would be able to use the disproportionate power it would have in a Senate to stop legislation enacted by a government with a clear parliamentary majority.The West(read Alberta) is determined to have this
in order to force its particularly sanctimonious, heartless and anal-retentive form of conservatism on all Canadians forever, election results be damned.As to my feelings about Alberta(which are shared, I suspect, to varying degrees by most Babblers)from what I can see(and I'm willing to be corrected if anyone can prove I'm wrong) it is the most reactionary, homophobic, antidemocratic, antilabour and antifrancophone province in the country. Alberta wants to prevent basically any progressive legislation from being enforced within its boundaries.
It's Alberta
...that led the fight against bilingualism and against recognition of the equality of francophone culture within Canada,
...that led opposition to single-payer health care,
...that is more obsessively anti-union and antiworker than any other part of Canada,
...that repeatedly and vindictively cuts its welfare payments even though the province is insanely wealthy(meanwhile congratulating itself on how "Christian" it is).
And it's Alberta, more than anywhere else in Canada, that is determined to keep gay and lesbian relationships legally inferior to heterosexual marriage.
Basically, a place that wants to stop time in 1958. A place against compassion, tolerance, equality and in favor of militarism, bigotry and tax cut after tax cut after tax cut for the rich.
Or a bigger Texas but with cold winters.
Can anybody seriously quarrel with the above assessment?
And can anyone seriously argue that such a poisonous place should be given an entire parliamentary chamber with which to block any legislation it doesn't like through endless delay?
Also, people should look at what happened in Australia in 1975, a scenario which could be repeated in Canada should a genuinely left-wing government win a majority in the Commons.
In that year, the Labor government, which had just won a second solid majority in the lower house of Australia's parliament, was dismissed by the governor general just because the Senate had defeated a piece of legislation the government had introduced. This led to a snap election in which a reactionary "Liberal Party" government came to power, an election that should not have been called because the Labor government still had a parliamentary majority in the lower house.
(The CIA was involved, for those who were wondering, and would be again if this scenario were to repeat in Canada.)
[ 07 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ][/b]
Some things just take your breath away, don't they?
Ken, would you mind doing me one small favour? Could you please tell me where on earth you get your information from?
I'd really like to look into your sources some more.
If you can do that for me, I'll promise to be really, really, nice and stop ramming my neocon agenda down the throats of all these poor, unsuspecting Canadians.
[ 07 September 2006: Message edited by: Abe from Alberta ]
Thu, 2006-09-07 21:01
#26
[ 15 June 2007: Message edited by: Joey Kay ]
Thu, 2006-09-07 23:04
#27
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Still, they do have a level of dominance in Alberta that exists nowhere else in Canada.
[/b]
Please explain first how could one province alone control the senate the way you said.
Fri, 2006-09-08 01:50
#28
If the Senate is "triple E", then Alberta would have the same number of senators as Ontario. The Alberta Senate delegation(which we can assume would always be all-Tory)would force all the Tory senators from the rest of Canada to back it up on any filibuster or delaying tactics to stop the passage of progressive legislation.
If an elected Senate didn't give Alberta and other right-wing areas of the west blocking power, why would Harper be bothering to make it elected?
Fri, 2006-09-08 05:20
#29
Exactly. What some of the others are failing to see is that Harper wants to model the U.S. Senate. Where Wyoming has the same number of seats as California.
Abolishing the senate is the best way of amending it.
Fri, 2006-09-08 06:19
#30
The Senate cannot be abolished because that would require constitutional amendment. The policy of abolishment is nothing more than a convenient way for parties like the NDP to avoid taking a real position on Senate reform. Even the NDP concedes that the seat allocations in the present Senate are a total farce, and are indefensible by any reasonable person. No democracy in the world features such a blatant example of one region dominating another.
At the same time, since the NDP doesn't favour western empowerment or provincial equality either, they have come up with a policy of abolishment which allows them to at least participate in the debate without having to fear that eastern Canada will lose its undemocratic domination of the Senate.
Ken Burch, I will ask you again, can you please explain where you get your information from? Is it from reading the posts of your fellow leftists here on Babble, or do you have some other source?
[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Abe from Alberta ]
Fri, 2006-09-08 06:33
#31
quote:
The Senate cannot be abolished because that would require constitutional amendment. The policy of abolishment is nothing more than a convenient way for parties like the NDP to avoid taking a real position on Senate reform.
How is that not a legitimate position? Or are the RepubliCons now dictating the parameters of the debate.
Fri, 2006-09-08 06:35
#32
quote:
Originally posted by Pinko525:
[b]If that represents the will of the people, what's the problem?[/b]
The problem is, it doesn't.
Fri, 2006-09-08 06:50
#33
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
May I suggest a new title for this thread?
How's about: [b]"Harper promises to unilaterally force U.S. style Senate on Canada"[/b]
Once we have a more honest title for the thread, we can discuss the bright new opportunities it will create for gerrymandering and graft.
[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]
Fri, 2006-09-08 07:22
#34
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]May I suggest a new title for this thread?How's about: [b]"Harper promises to unilaterally force U.S. style Senate on Canada"[/b]
Once we have a more honest title for the thread, we can discuss the bright new opportunities it will create for gerrymandering and graft.[/b]
That's not an honest title.
A minority government cannot pass legislation 'unilaterally'.
Fri, 2006-09-08 07:41
#35
Canada should ditch democracy altogether.
Way too "US-Style".
By the way, doesn't the US have a Democratic Party and Canada a [i]New[/i] Democratic Party?
Now that's "US-Style"!
Fri, 2006-09-08 07:59
#36
Ken... You seem to have struck a nerve with Albertans here [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
The West(read Alberta) is determined to have this
in order to force its particularly sanctimonious, heartless and anal-retentive form of conservatism on all Canadians forever, election results be damned.
Something to consider... More than half of Albertans don't bother voting federally (in many ridings atleast, Alberta has the lowest voter turnout by quite a wide margin), theres no point. Why? I have the Liberals telling me we're backwards or the backwards conservatives. You're definately winning friends aren't you? Keep pointing and wagging your finger. Funny enough, the Cons have drifted along ways to the center and aren't far off the right leaning Liberals anymore ^^ SSM is a dead matter within any conservative circle that I see (I'm in Calgary, so I see alot of these circles), and it's generally Liberals that bring the topic up over and over again. I wonder why that is?
For an elected Senate... Lovely idea to replace a rather archaic system, but I fear we're just replacing it with another out of date system. If (big if) the senate elections could be done proportionally in each province instead of a first past the post system, I'd be much more excited.
Unfortunately, I see the entire senate election degrading to the usual Canadian politics with neither side voting on issues but instead basing their vote on 'Ack Backwards Conservative' or 'Ack Upper Canadian Liberal'... Whos values should we be more scared of this time?
Fri, 2006-09-08 08:00
#37
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
[b]How is that not a legitimate position? Or are the RepubliCons now dictating the parameters of the debate.[/b]
It is a legitimate position from a theoretical point of view. It simply isn't relevant from a realistic point of view.
There are two issues that serious people and parties debate when it comes to Senate reform: (i) composition of the Senate, and (ii) method of selecting Senators.
The NDP has a position on neither. Ironically, they did favour the Charlottetown Accord, which means not so very long ago even the NDP was able to at least discuss the issue of Senate reform without lapsing into irrelevant anti-American babblings.
[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Abe from Alberta ]
Fri, 2006-09-08 08:42
#38
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]That's not an honest title.
A minority government cannot pass legislation 'unilaterally'.[/b]
True enough. But I was only speaking of Harper's 'promise'. What he promises and what he can actually do are thankfully not the same thing.
Fri, 2006-09-08 08:52
#39
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
[b]Ken... You seem to have struck a nerve with Albertans here [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
Not at all. I was actually thinking about compiling Ken's frothing posts and publishing a bathroom reader. I think it would be a bestseller in Alberta. I mean, what better complement to taking a dump could there be, than reading the political ruminations of Ken Burch.
I wish he'd go on and on.
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
[b]Something to consider... More than half of Albertans don't bother voting federally (in many ridings atleast, Alberta has the lowest voter turnout by quite a wide margin), theres no point.[/b]
Actually, according to Elections Canada, 61.9% of Albertans voted in the last federal election. The national average was 64.7%.
Given that the NDP and Liberals don't bother to campaign here - except for a couple of ridings - that is not that bad.
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
[b]Why? I have the Liberals telling me we're backwards or the backwards conservatives. You're definately winning friends aren't you? Keep pointing and wagging your finger.[/b]
You are correct. What little campaigning the Liberals actually do in Alberta is offset by their voter suppression techniques. Alberta's main role in both the 2000, 2004, and 2006 campaign was to be the foil. The message was: Alberta is going to destroy medicare, and an eastern Canadian Liberal Prime Minister was needed to stand up to Alberta.
It's pathetic propaganda really, but was nevertheless quite effective.
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
[b]Funny enough, the Cons have drifted along ways to the center and aren't far off the right leaning If (big if) the senate elections could be done proportionally in each province instead of a first past the post system, I'd be much more excited.Unfortunately, I see the entire senate election degrading to the usual Canadian politics with neither side voting on issues but instead basing their vote on 'Ack Backwards Conservative' or 'Ack Upper Canadian Liberal'... Whos values should we be more scared of this time?[/b]
Senate elections could be done on the basis of proportional representation. In addition to equal provinces, a contingent of Senators specifically representing aboriginal people could be enshrined.
The Conservatives wouldn't oppose either of these measures. In fact, they are far more "progressive" on Senate reform than either the Liberals or NDP.
[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Abe from Alberta ]
Fri, 2006-09-08 09:06
#40
It’s interesting how the lefties are holding on to the traditional (conservative) Canadian senate. How progressive is that?
The current system has the issues of (un)credibility and cronyism. If we are to have law writers decide what is good for us, there must be some check and balance as to their decisions, the voter. The same holds true with the head of state. Then, hold them to the powers of their office by voting. How can that be undemocratic?
Elect the law writers so the people can judge their performance. There are many countries besides the USA in this world that elect their senate as well as their head of state. Why does Canada have to stay in dark ages of blue blood monarchy?
Fri, 2006-09-08 09:11
#41
I'm all for abolishing the House of Lords. Generally, I support the idea of an elected second house, but I'd prefer to see it elected as a 100% PR body than a 1-province X-seats FPTP body. Atlantic Canada's voting record would ensure Liberal rule for a long time under such a set up. The worst kind of Liberal rule, at that, the Pork-Barrel Liberals (a label which includes quite a few local Cons, btw).
A triple-E Senate would really emphasize the differences bewteen the various regions of this country, much more so than it does in the US. Perhaps that is one of Harper's goals?
Fri, 2006-09-08 09:20
#42
No party or region could ever dominate a EEE senate. Atlantic Canada and western Canada would gain more power. This is a good thing.
Fri, 2006-09-08 09:32
#43
quote:
Actually, according to Elections Canada, 61.9% of Albertans voted in the last federal election.
The rural vote + edmonton knocks that number up a bit. I should have been more specific and isolated calgary on it's own.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=001709]Green Vote[/url] is starting to become a valid alternative to Conservatism here... I'm begining to think it'll be by far better for the lefties here to distance themselves as far as possible from the Ken's of Canada, which may ultimately lead to bailing on the NDP/Liberal parties ^^
Fri, 2006-09-08 09:33
#44
Why? Because Quebeckers will feel even more marginalised? Newfoundlanders? Albertans? Because it will allow the ROC to make Ontario feel marginalised? I see many negatives and few positives. Just abolish the damn thing.
I really don't buy the line that no Party or Region could dominate a triple-E Senate. A few carefully funneled, well-moneyed campaigns in strategic regions could easily insure a single-Party majority, if I'm picturing the make-up of a triple-E Senate correctly.
Fri, 2006-09-08 10:07
#45
quote:
There are two issues that serious people and parties debate when it comes to Senate reform: (i) composition of the Senate, and (ii) method of selecting Senators.
Oh, so now you've narrowed it down to "serious people." [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
It’s interesting how the lefties are holding on to the traditional (conservative) Canadian senate. How progressive is that?
Is there a strawman in the room? Most of the "lefties" on here have been arguing for getting rid of the thing altogether.
Fri, 2006-09-08 10:07
#46
If voting patterns across Canada over the past 139 years stay to coarse, the Liberal Party should win a majority in an elected senate.
What has to be determined is how the (3E) seat distribution is proposed, by province or by region? As each province is an equal partner so I can only expect they will want an equal number of seats. PR could be an experiment. 50% +1 vote, run off elections could be another. What actual powers will this body have, law writing, veto, limitations? If we move forward with referenda, the senate could be the submission point.
A point was made previously regarding city status. However, I think this is more of a constitutional issue.
Fri, 2006-09-08 11:10
#47
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
[b]Oh, so now you've narrowed it down to "serious people."[/b]
Yes, and if you and the NDP want to be taken seriously, perhaps you can put forward a foreseeable scenario wherein the governments of Canada, and two-thirds of the provinces, would agree on abolishing the Senate - particularly when the Conservatives and Liberals have never supported abolishing the Senate.
How many provincial Conservative and Liberal parties favour abolishing the Senate? Given the NDP is "serious" about this option, I'm sure they have figured this out, or are we to believe that NDP provincial parties are going to sweep the country, all at the same time?
You are aware that the Senate can veto it's own abolishment, aren't you? Another problem for you and your NDP colleagues to ponder.
Since the NDP is "serious" about Senate abolishment, I'll look forward to your report. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Abe from Alberta ]
Fri, 2006-09-08 11:16
#48
quote:
Originally posted by Abe from Alberta:
[b]No party or region could ever dominate a EEE senate. Atlantic Canada and western Canada would gain more power. This is a good thing.[/b]
How nice that Alberta would share power with others. I'll be more impressed when it shares oil.
Fri, 2006-09-08 11:20
#49
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]How nice that Alberta would share power with others. I'll be more impressed when it shares oil.[/b]
Geez, I haven't even published the Ken Burch Bathroom Reader yet, and we already have a new convert to Burchianism.
I told you this thing has some legs.
Fri, 2006-09-08 11:26
#50
There are three Bills coming in the Senate, one to create 8 year terms, one to create elections with specific electoral districts both do not need a constitutional amendment. The last one gives BC 4 more seats, Alberta two more and SK/MN one each.
There is no EEE Bill except for a couple of people here who using a lot of excessive loud rhetoric and an equal Senate would give Alberta less than 10%, hardly enough to control the Senate.
Except for Fortier, Harper has not appointed anyone, if this all falls apart, he should continue that until no one is left in 20 years.
I'm glad someone brought up that the Senate was created by England to mirror the House of Lords and done in a way the Family Compact elitist ruling class would have an old boys chamber. It should have been reformed in 1982. That's what people who oppose Senate reform are supporting.
Fri, 2006-09-08 11:28
#51
Political conservatives love big government.
The Senate has been an expensive Shady Pines for retired political hacks of the two old line parties for far too long. Abolish the senate, Steve Harper, and save Canadian taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year in patronage appointments which your party and the Libranos have used and abused for the last 100 years in a row.