quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]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.[/b]
Save more money - abolish the Commons! With Stanley Knowles long gone, who else will miss it??
Josh, with the experiences of Meech Lake and Charlottetown, the senate cannot be reformed through constitutional negotiations. Trudeau’s emending formula is to blame for that. Ten Premiers and one Prime Minister couldn’t agree on how to tie a shoelace, let alone reform or abolish the senate. So, change will have to come through legislative means.
All I have seen in this thread from the lefties is negativity, ridicule and non-progressive attitude. If HoC balance of power is required, senate reform is a good place to start. After the senate, let’s move to reforming the Governor General’s office. Either you are anti-Harper for everything he does or you are trying to hold on to the old traditional (conservative) ways.
Josh, in your opinion, without chucking the senate, what should we do with it?
quote:
Originally posted by Sans Tache:
[b]Either you are anti-Harper for everything he does or [/b]
Stop right there. You've captured it.
quote:
Josh, in your opinion, without chucking the senate, what should we do with it?
I wouldn't care if the members were elected, as long as it remained "unequal and ineffective."
And of course, all this breast beating for an "elected" senate comes from all the great things that have been accomplished by the representative system thus far. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
[b]I wouldn't care if the members were elected, as long as it remained "unequal and ineffective."[/b]
Unequal and ineffective. The true Senate reform agenda of the NDP. What wonderful democratic virtues around which to structure public institutions.
Do you still want the NDP to be taken seriously?
Uh, I in no way speak for the NDP. So use someone else as your strawman.
[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: josh ]
quote:
And of course, all this breast beating for an "elected" senate comes from all the great things that have been accomplished by the representative system thus far
Isn’t this the type of government we have? I must have missed something. Am I to believe you do not want a representative, elected government? An elected government with checks and balances. Please define “breast beating” and “representative system” in your premise.
quote:
I wouldn't care if the members were elected, as long as it remained "unequal and ineffective."
Josh, please define your premise. Do you really want to have legislation tied up in political heckling and stalling with each new government? Do you want Ontario to conrol all of Canada? Please try to formulate our thoughts without sarcasm as I am truly interested in your opinion.
As to Abe from Alberta's clever japes and jibes aimed at myself
1)No, I'm not Canadian. I'm a Yank, but I've seen what OUR Senate does, which is basically to prevent social change from occurring until its too late to matter. That, obviously, is why Harper wants a stronger senate. It wouldn't be democratic for a Senate to give the West more power than it has in the Commons, since the Commons reflects more or less what the voters want(at least in terms of regional distribution).
Alberta doesn't have that much power their because most of the population doesn't LIVE in Alberta. No inherent injustice there.
(As to political arrangements in both countries, Abe, what I favor is legislative bodies elected on proportional representation, democratic control of economic decision-making(the only decisions that really MATTER to most of our lives)and, ultimately, a lot of decentralism of all power so that no one, and that includes oil executives, ranchers and evangelists, will dominate anyone else. I'm not defending the status quo except from those who want to bring in change designed to stop politics and make elections irrelevant.)
There IS no other possible explanation for wanting to give the Senate more power and to give the West more power within it than to encourage the rural West to be eternally neanderthal and to prevent change from occurring no matter how the election comes out.
Believe me, if there is one thing Canada DOESN'T need, it's the emergence of the filibuster as a major political tool. Delay is always in the service of ugliness and the preservation of injustice. Introducing more delay in Canadian politics can never be progressive or positive.
Also, Abe, the voting behavior of Albertans is what drives my conclusions about the views of people there. Your province gives massive support in every election for the most knuckle-dragging people possible. Why not, just once, at least consider trying something else? Why base your entire political culture on nurturing ancient and now-irrelevant grievances(like the NEP)and your obsession with putting Quebec in its place? Why does it always have to be payback, payback, payback?
Why can you guys NEVER move on?
(Also, if SSM were REALLY a dead issue, Harper wouldn't be bringing it up for another vote.)
If Canada HAS to have a Senate, and it has to be elected, than elect it through PR so that it isn't a case of first-past-the-post giving parties false dominance in particular provinces.
But if that is done, don't let the Senate have the power to actually stop legislation.
At least not for more than a couple of months.
[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]If Canada HAS to have a Senate, and it has to be elected, than elect it through PR so that it isn't a case of first-past-the-post giving parties false dominance in particular provinces.
But if that is done, don't let the Senate have the power to actually stop legislation.
At least not for more than a couple of months.[/b]
As a resident of Alberta, I can assure you there are few who see the value of proportional representation more clearly than I do. But as much as I favour those reforms, I don't see them on the table at the moment. What I see is the option of moving from an archaic appointed body to an elected body. We're not talking Triple-E here, just that senators would be elected rather than appointed. While I'm sure many of us would rather see a whole host of things happen, I really can't fathom why people would favour keeping the grossly undemocratic status quo institution over an elected body. Certainly, each appointment Harper makes is going to make the Red Chamber look much less attractive in its current form.
[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Draco ]
quote:
Also, Abe, the voting behavior of Albertans is what drives my conclusions about the views of people there. Your province gives massive support in every election for the most knuckle-dragging people possible.
Err, no we don't. In many ridings more don't vote than vote for conservative. You know the choices here Ken, why are you surprised by the voting habits? If I was given the choice between the Liberal view "ALBERTA SUCKS" that you've portrayed here and Conservative "lets invade Iraq"... I stay home.
Well Ken, you're getting into some thread drift here. I would be happy to talk to you about politics in Alberta, and why Albertans will likely never support the Liberals or NDP, but, this thread is about Senate reform.
I have your point on that. You are against any kind of Senate reform, for the reason that it may stop progressive change from happening in Canada. Further, according to you, Senate reform may facilitate Alberta's exploitation of Quebec and its hostility towards francophone culture.
These should clearly be major concerns for all progressive Canadians. Thank you for your insights and interest in Canada's political affairs.
Not sure what you're advocating, Noise. I realize you are in a tiny minority of progressive Albertans, but you can't honestly believe that your views would benefit from Harper's proposal, can you?
(And I would vote NDP, not Liberal, Noise.
What view towards Alberta's reactionary and apparently eternally unchangeable politics would you suggest progressives should take, btw? There's no way progressives could support what the Alberta oil industry wants and still be distinguishable from Tories. Also, why don't YOU vote NDP?, if everyone there who was like you did, rather than staying home, the politics there might be less loathesome.)
And no, Abe, I am not against ALL changes to the Senate. Just reactionary ones. Why does it have to be Harper's bill, and why does the Senate election HAVE to be first-past-the-post?
Also, Abe, why do you care about what progressive Canadians do, since you aren't one?
I assume you voted Reform and Alliance before you voted "Tory".
[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
quote:
I must have missed something. Am I to believe you do not want a representative, elected government? An elected government with checks and balances. Please define “breast beating” and “representative system” in your premise.
The representative system is an aberration of real, effective democracy. The representative system simply retains the patriarchical top-down structure practice by the monarchies that democracy was supposed to rid us of. Only today the "kings and queens" are party leaders and the aristrocrats are the corporate executives that own the parties.
Any student of the democratic process will tell you that deomcracy, by its very definition, means the people make the decisions that will impact their lives. Not representatives.
Yes, a participartory system is time consuming and yes, it is frustrating trying to achieve consensus [especially when we have so little practice with the process]. But too bad. That's the only way it works properly.
Of course, no one is suggesting getting rid of the representative system. Just please stop pretending it has anything really to do with the democratic process other than [i]allowing[/i] [at the kindness of our political masters] the people to cast a ballot every few years.
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]And no, Abe, I am not against ALL changes to the Senate. Just reactionary ones. Why does it have to be Harper's bill, and why does the Senate election HAVE to be first-past-the-post?[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ][/b]
Well, it has to be Harper's bill because he is the PM and the only one in a position to make any sort of change at present. A PR system wouldn't work to replace individual senators as they retire, since it requires large group of people to be elected at the same time. To implement that kind of system would require constitutional reforms.
And how is simply holding elections rather than appointing individual senators reactionary?
[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Draco ]
quote:
Originally posted by Pinko525:
[b]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.[/b]
Or its predecessor, the National Oil Program, which vanished down the Alberta memory hole so fast you would never know it had existed.
You know, the one where the rest of Canada had to pay [i]higher[/i] rates for Alberta oil, to help get the AB oil industry on its feet. Only problem was, when it was Alberta's turn to help out they screamed and cried and said the 'eastern bastards could freeze in the dark.'
But nobody in Alberta seems to remember the NOP, just the 2 year NEP from over 20 years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]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.
[/b]
First, an elected senate does not have to be triple E, and second, even in your scenario the PEI senate delegation (for example) will have the same power as Alberta, and could force all liberal senators from the rest of Canada to back it up on delaying the passage of reactionary legislation.
Ken, you've got too many conversations going on and I don't want to thread drift too much. But you'll find we're saying the same things.
My first post in the thread included:
quote:
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.
seems pretty inline with what you've said no?
quote:
Also, why don't YOU vote NDP?, if everyone there who was like you did, rather than staying home, the politics there might be less loathesome.)
Really? You'd vote for someone who ignores you (at best) or openly advocates that were you come from is the center of all evil?
For the record, 54567 votes cast in my riding, 30k were conservative (10k to liberal and less from there)... Out of 117,439 voters. Do the math, and also realize that views exactly like your own is what causes it. [url=http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/riding/242/]Canada votes[/url] if you want to see the numbers for yourself... Don't think I'm alone with this view.
Were you aware that our current mayor Bronconnier ran as a Liberal in 1997 vs Anders? Were you aware that he spoke out with urban calgary issues? Oh srry, I guess it's easier for you to keep telling yourself we're the root of all evil and leave us with no alternative to the Cons... Sadly, your view has become one of the best reasons to vote conservative
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Save more money - abolish the Commons! With Stanley Knowles long gone, who else will miss it??[/b]
They might as well. The two old line part(y) has had a stranglehold on power in Ottawa for the last 100 years in a row and giving each other golden handshake, non-elected senate appointments. It's a pretty good deal for showing up for work only a few days out of the year and enjoying gold plated taxpayer-funded pensions and perks up the wazoo. It's been one helluva gravy train ride for the old buggers.
The two autcratic old line parties should prolly just run the country from the Chateau Laurier dining room for all the good a Commons does for us, for sure. Good point, unionist.
(This post is responding to the most recent post by Noise, NOT the post immediately above it by Fidel. Just thought I should clarify that.)
What should the NDP do, then? sing of the glorious wisdom of the boys at the Petroleum Club?
Actually, what you and Abe should be fighting for is putting Alberta's oilfields under a PROVINCIAL crown corporation, and redistributing a large portion of the profits to education and the eradication of homelessness.
A large portion should ALSO go to investing in the development of a SUSTAINABLE base for Alberta's economy, since you're going to empty the oil reserves at some point.
That's a lot better than what Abe seems to be asking, which is for the Alberta left to throw just as many tantrums on behalf of Alberta millionaires as the Tories do. That's what "provincial rights" by his definition logically leads to.
Let the Alberta people collectively take the oil resources. Not the few at the top. THAT would be an alternative.
There's no way fighting for higher profits for the AB oil industry as currently constituted can ever have progressive or humane results.
[ 09 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
[ 10 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
quote:
As a resident of Alberta, I can assure you there are few who see the value of proportional representation more clearly than I do. But as much as I favour those reforms, I don't see them on the table at the moment.
So you'll take any ol' change that's offered, rather than demanding effective and progressive change?
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]
Atlantic Canada has 30 seats in the Senate which is unfair and we should each get 6 instead of NS and NB having 10. I fail to see how a triple E senate would help us though.
quote:
They might as well. The two old line part(y) has had a stranglehold on power in Ottawa for the last 100 years in a row and giving each other golden handshake, non-elected senate appointments. It's a pretty good deal for showing up for work only a few days out of the year and enjoying gold plated taxpayer-funded pensions and perks up the wazoo. It's been one helluva gravy train ride for the old buggers.
You present an accurate albeit cynical analysis of Canadian politics Fidel. Nor, as you point out, has it mattered which politicians or party happened to acquire the seats of our political offices over the ages.
Therefore, it must be the system, the very structure of governance that is the problem. Which raises the question as to why anyone would even consider continuing with this representative system - in the senate, the council room, the legislature or the parliament - since it has successfully corrupted and made a carpetbagger of pratically ever person that has been involved in it?
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Isn't the idea of a "Triple E" senate just basically designed to give Canada government of, by and for Alberta?[/b]
If every province had equal representation, Alberta would have 1/10 of the seats in the senate. This is 0.91% more representation than Alberta has in the House of Commons. Hardly a landslide.
Oh and by the way, I think it's pretty rich for an American to slag Albertans for not being "progressive" enough.
Alberta Tories remind me of the Republican politicians we suffer under here in Alaska.
That's why I have an interest in this subject.
It scares me when I see any part of Canada, a country where most areas DO have more humane values than mine, imitating the worst notions of our far right.
And a powerful Senate biased towards sparsely populated right-wing areas is one of the worst.
In our country the Senate was basically where hope went to die for most of our history. It goes without saying that a more powerful Senate, elected by first-past-the-post, would have to be just as bad. That's why Harper WANTS it, for God's sake. Harper wants the right to have a veto over what ANY future elected government does. That's the only rationale for what he wants to do.
If it were going to be elected by PR, that would be one thing. If the elections were, perhaps, by region rather than province, that might be another. But Harper's proposal has "reactionary wet dream" written all over it.
It could never be used for the good of the poor, the workers, First Peoples or the cause of peace.
The only people who would have power in it would be oil executives from Calgary.
We had a strong Senate here. Don't follow OUR mistake.
Abolishing the current one would be far better.
(And just because my COUNTRY has been right-wing doesn't mean every single Yank is. A lot more of us than you think resist reactionary rule here.)
However, if the MAJORITY of Babblers want me to stop contributing to the debate on THIS particular thread, I will gladly cease and desist.
[ 10 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]And a powerful Senate biased towards sparsely populated right-wing areas is one of the worst.[/b]
Because it counterbalances the power of Vancouver-Toronto-Montreal interests? How could I possibly support a system that prevents policies that screw over Alberta for their benefit?
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]If it were going to be elected by PR, that would be one thing.[/b]
Yes, it would be a way to get government by and for Toronto.
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]If the elections were, perhaps, by region rather than province, that might be another. [/b]
Ok, Canada adopts a model based on the American system. Since it's "Equal", both Provinces and Territories get 3 senators each.
Broken down by region:
"The North" (Yukon, NWT, Nunavut): 9
"The West" (BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba): 12
"The Centre" (Ontario, Quйbec): 6
"The East" (NFLD, Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick): 12
Alberta gets a lower percentage of the Senate seats than we have seats in the House of Commons right now. Ontario and Quйbec cannot rule the country by themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]The only people who would have power in it would be oil executives from Calgary.[/b]
That's absolutely impossible in a true EEE senate. Even if Big Oil is in complete control of Alberta's seats, that's still only between 7.7 and 10 percent of the Senate seats (depending on how the Territories are represented) for about 10 percent of Canada's population.
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b](And just because my COUNTRY has been right-wing doesn't mean every single Yank is. A lot more of us than you think resist reactionary rule here.)[/b]
This statement couldn't apply to Alberta because...?
A Senate elected on first-past-the-post would always send an all-Tory Alberta delegation to the Senate and would encourage the tribalist "Alberta HAS to vote as a robotic bloc and anybody who disagrees isn't a REAL Albertan" mentality that has done your province such damage so far.
And it's about time that Albertans accept that the interest of the people of Alberta and the interests of Alberta oil executives are NOT one and the same. The people of Alberta don't really benefit from more money in the pockets of the boys at the Petroleum Club.
PR would allow Alberta to have real and competitive Senate elections, and the rest of the country to do the same. It would be better if NO provinces sent a robotic single-party bloc of representatives to either chamber.
It goes without saying that you'd NEVER see a progressive Alberta senator, an Alberta senator of color or a female Alberta senator who wasn't personally approved by the executive board of REAL Women under FPTP. Sorry, but that's reality. Why would you support a body elected under a system that makes your province even more eternally reactionary in its politics? "Standing up to Ottawa" can't be done in a left-of-center way. More money for Alberta's rich NEVER gets to the people.
And yes, there are non right-wing Albertans, but there is no way THEY could want Harper's Senate bill since all it would do is create another layer of elected positions they could NEVER win.
A stronger Alberta has to mean permanently moving all of Canada further to the right, no matter what the beleagured progressive minority there might want.
[ 10 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
[ 10 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
quote:
Broken down by region:
"The North" (Yukon, NWT, Nunavut): 9
"The West" (BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba): 12
"The Centre" (Ontario, Quйbec): 6
"The East" (NFLD, Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick): 12
So under your plan, the two most populous provinces, home to over 60% of the citizens of this country, get a 15% say in the direction of this country?
BTW, the "Vancouver-Toronto-Montreal" axis that you so fear accounts for 40% of the population of the country. Alberta as a whole might just now be approaching 10% of our population.
What exactly does democracy mean to you?
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]
And a powerful Senate biased towards sparsely populated right-wing areas is one of the worst.
In our country the Senate was basically where hope went to die for most of our history. [/b]
You are using American stereotypes that are not applicable to Canada. In Canada, the "sparsely populated" provinces that benefit from the senate, is not limited to "right wing" Alberta. Most other less-populated province in Canada; e.g. PEI and Atlantic provinces, Saskatchewan, Yukon etc vote solidly Liberal or NDP. COmpare the election results for Atlantic Canada with Ontario.
How about abolishing the Senate and replacing them with 100 MMP MPs with a redistribution of Commons seats so BC, ALB and ON receive their rightful share by rep by pop?
That would be MUCH better, George.
I favour abolishing the Senate. In bicameral systems, legislation is passed in DIFFERENT forms by each House, Senate, or other chamber.
That's because each Chamber may have a different makeup, and thus offer and pass different amendments to legislation.
The dirty secret of bicameral systems is that a joint committee is required to iron out the details, and THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS!
Because our Senate is weak, this hugely anti-democratic result is avoided. Reforming the Senate a la Harper would place the greatest power in the hands of those who get on the joint committee.
How will they be chosen for those places? In the US, it is by seniority. That means that states with two party systems never get any representation, because their legislators cannot get re-elected twenty-five times in a row.
States with one party systems can. Those are usually the most reactionary states. Which provinces are effectively one party provinces? They stand to gain from a bicameral system.
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]So under your plan, the two most populous provinces, home to over 60% of the citizens of this country, get a 15% say in the direction of this country?[/b]
Yes.
My "plan" was a quick example made to demonstrate why Alberta doesn't gain anything by having an "Equal" Senate. If I really wanted to advance a proposal for Senate reform, I'd put together something a little bit more refined than some numbers that I picked out of the air to illustrate a point. That being said, limiting the ability of the most densely populated regions to trample over the interests of everywhere else is not something I oppose in principle.
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]Which provinces are effectively one party provinces?[/b]
PEI is the first one that comes to my mind [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
But seriously, I think it's good to point out those kind of details, because if we are going to reform the Senate, we should learn from instead of make the same mistakes as the Americans did.
I note you've ignored the most pertinent question once again.
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]So you'll take any ol' change that's offered, rather than demanding effective and progressive change?[/b]
I will support changes which I think are positive ones and oppose those with which I disagree. I don't see how opposing the reforms being put forward now would help the cause of more progressive reforms being implemented in the future.
If Harper's senate proposal goes through, the change just ends there.
What is needed for a new proposal, drawn up as a consensus between all Canadians, done with the intent of healing the country's wounds, not keeping them open and infected.
the country doesn't have any "wounds." Its pretty ok really. We are not being torn apart by huge inernal strife.
We have some things that need sorting out, but people are pretty civil, and get along ok.
A lot of the shite about the consitution and the satus of Quebec is all just hype the Liberals like to talk about when they don't have an issue. More pressing of course is the issue of the FN people, but with some attention this will resolove too, I think.
We are getting along pretty ok.
It is not the Balkans... yet.
[ 11 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]
OK, how about, "just not make things get suckier"?
quote:
I don't see how opposing the reforms being put forward now would help the cause of more progressive reforms being implemented in the future.
I oppose these reforms precisely because I can see no positive benefit.
At best the change is merely cosmetic (in which case, why bother?), and at worst, it creates a gerrymandered and anti-democratic tier of government that could go activist on us.
[ 12 September 2006: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]
quote:
The representative system is an aberration of real, effective democracy. The representative system simply retains the patriarchic top-down structure practice by the monarchies that democracy was supposed to rid us of. Only today the "kings and queens" are party leaders and the aristocrats are the corporate executives that own the parties.
Any student of the democratic process will tell you that democracy, by its very definition, means the people make the decisions that will impact their lives. Not representatives.
Yes, a participatory system is time consuming and yes, it is frustrating trying to achieve consensus [especially when we have so little practice with the process]. But too bad. That's the only way it works properly.
Of course, no one is suggesting getting rid of the representative system. Just please stop pretending it has anything really to do with the democratic process other than allowing [at the kindness of our political masters] the people to cast a ballot every few years.
Sorry Otter, I am too busy making a living to participate in all of the law-making within the country. However, I would like my say every now and then as to whom I send to represent me.
As for all of the proportional representation advocates and senate eliminators, it’s a great discussion but it won’t happen. I won’t be surprised if the next government, if it is Liberal, will scrap the Act and return to the old system. I will repeat myself, Trudeau made it so constitutional reform will NEVER happen (I sometimes wonder how you can implement a constitution that requires 100% agreement of all equal partners without having 100% approval of all partners to start with?). Even Bob Rae and the NDP had their chance to modify the Ontario Legislature, but decided against it.
Didn't want to start a new thread while this one was still open...
Que. threatens legal challenge over senate reform
excerpt:
Moreau said creation of an appointed Senate was part of the bargain struck at Confederation in 1867. The chamber was supposed to represent the regions and act as a counterbalance to representation by population in the elected House of Commons.
Electing senators could "change the balance" between the partners of Confederation, he said, "so that's the reason why we think any change at this level should require a constitutional amendment."
P&P tonight: so far three provinces agree that abolishing the Senate is a good idea, but Quebec - with 59 NDP MPs - remains opposed and is threatening to go to the Supreme Court, I think Evan Solomon mentioned one other province is opposed to abolishing the Senate, but I did not catch which one it is.
Section 42 (1) (b) of the Constitution Act provides that any change in the method of selecting Senators requires the consent of at least seven provinces that have, in the aggregate, at least fifty percent of the population of the ten provinces.
Seems pretty clear, but Mr. Harper plans to hold non-election elections to "consult" voters before he appoints senators. This will have to go to the Supreme Court of Canada before we know whether Mr. Harper can succeed in finessing this provision. He keeps urging provinces to hold elections for Senators so that he can appoint the winner. But in court the federal lawyers will have to say he did not intend to bind himself to appoint the winner. Should be fun.
By contrast, the recommendation of the Law Commission of Canada in 2004 for proportional representation requires no constitutional amendment.
Is Harper deliberately courting a constitutional crisis? What's in it for him?
Is Harper deliberately courting a constitutional crisis? What's in it for him?
Maybe he wants to see just how much he can put put the squeeze on the provinces to bend them to his will.
I suspect Mr. "drop in the champagne bottle" is hooked on something much more intoxicating and addictive.
Harper is continuing to be a bully. Four more years of this to come. 
Harper just appointed five more senators - now has a rock solid majority in the Senate, and a majority in the Commons.
Even if the Cons lose in 2015 - unlikely - his senators can block any progressive legislation they don't like.
Yes, but I expect once the eye of Sauron goes down in flames they won't be blocking any more legislation passed by the commons - if they know what is good for them.
Harper just appointed five more senators - now has a rock solid majority in the Senate, and a majority in the Commons.
Even if the Cons lose in 2015 - unlikely - his senators can block any progressive legislation they don't like - well into the future.
No one can touch the senators - hasn't that point been made already?
