[saturn_656]

$1:

which provincial premier is going to rail against a democratic change to our national parliament?

My money is on the Premier of Quebec.

[EyeBrock]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

which provincial premier is going to rail against a democratic change to our national parliament?

My money is on the Premier of Quebec.

Probably. It would be nice if our friends in Quebec would join in with meaningful democratic reform that doesn't just involve them but the whole of the federation.

[saturn_656]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

which provincial premier is going to rail against a democratic change to our national parliament?

My money is on the Premier of Quebec.

Probably. It would be nice if our friends in Quebec would join in with meaningful democratic reform that doesn't just involve them but the whole of the federation.

They have a privileged position in the current Senate, I doubt they'd give it up in the name of democratic reform.

[EyeBrock]

I'd like to think that Quebec wouldn't go against real reform over it's own self interests.

That's what many Quebeckers on this forum have led us to believe when I and others have debated issues that have had us on opposing sides.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Derby, all this 'sober second thought' stuff is just bollocks.

Why? All this senate fur fight is based mostly on Harper not getting one single bill passed unaltered. Considering I agree and that Harper put forth a shitty bill I think the senate did its job. Again I'll point out that this is what, one bill in the how many he passed? Is that obstructionist or dysfunctional? Recall that the senate has long been called a "rubber stamp". They do nothing and they get criticized. They send again, one single bill back to be rethought and they get called obstructionist.

This is shades of 2008 election. Harper and his supporters crow about passing tons of legislation yet when his polls numbers go up he claims "parliament dysfunction" in order to break his own election laws and call an election.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It's a hangover from the old Executive Assembly of the Canada's et al that was appointed by the LG's and the the GG on behalf of the Crown. Family Compact and all that. The whole thing should have been abolished with the BNA's enaction in 1867.

I see. So Canadian tradition to you is only what you want. Kinda like people wanting to abandon any and all traditions associated with the British crown and the whole English heritage thing. It goes both ways.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Instead we have the 21st century version of the rotten-to-the-core Executive Assembly that basically caused the rebellions of 1837.

The senate is rotten to the core and caused the 1837 rebellion? Do you honestly think an 1837 rebellion reference has relevance in a 2010 senate reform debate?

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

'Sober second thought' is the line we hear from those who are quite happy with this unelected throw-back to colonial days.

Would you prefer the term "check and balance"? Even if we had a 3E senate the term would still be valid, IE they are there to "second think" whatever bill the government passes.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Whatever your particular political slant is, it can't escape the logic of Harper having to stack the Senate before he can change it. There has been no political will from the Liberals to change anything while they held sway in the Senate.

All I see is Harper reneging on his sworn assertion not to do what he criticized his opponents doing just like he did over floor crossing, EI usage, patronage, QB pandering, etc. Lets not forget his first appointment was to his unelected buddy. Hardly the ringing endorsement for change.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The cynic in me wonders why Iggy waited until the Libs lost the majority in the Senate before he suggested changes of his own.

Probably because he is doing the responsible thing. The fact is that senate reform has simply not been a voter issue and is only one now because of the strength of the internet and the blogosphere. If the voters didn't care before then why should a politician push it and of they care now then they are simply responding correct? If he ignored it you would be saying the Libs are ignoring the will of the people.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

As far as I'm concerned, either the Senate becomes elected for 4 year terms or they abolish it.

Why 4? Other have said 8. Why not 3? Why not 6? OK. I understand the question is capricious but term time limits is a valid question.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I'm aware that there are constitutional issues with the provinces re change but which provincial premier is going to rail against a democratic change to our national parliament?

So any bill Harper can possibly draft will ironically go to the senate for approval. In addition it won't ever be binding without provincial consent.

Now, I'd like to ask a few questions and point out a few flaws.

The first is this:

1) Why do you think elected senators will be any different/good when you hold elected MPs in such low regard?

2) Do you not think we'll end up with a mirror result of our current parliament in the senate complete with all the current problems?

3) Are you prepared for Bloc QC senators who have every reason to try and prove the senate is dysfunctional and thus QC should separate?

4) Are you willing to pay for the additional cost associated with the elections?

5) Are you willing to pay for the additional cost of this senate makeup considering that each senator will receive a full pension after only a 4 year term and that instead of a small number of golden handshakes we'll see a shitload more.

(yes, you'll say they shouldn't get a pension after 4 years but the truth is they'll make it law that any senator serving gets a full pension regardless)

That being said what about proportional representation? If we can affect senate reform we can effect voter reform too. Are you prepared to accept PR evening knowing that us leftist will get greater power and seats?

While I actually support an elected senate I'm also shocked that the people who seem to support it the most haven't considered all the angles.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Uh yeah, had you read more than the first paragraph you would have seen this;

$1:

Ignatieff proposed a 12-year term limit on Senate positions and an arms-length committee tasked with vetting candidates.

Harper proposed 8 years....much better than 12.

Secondly, having an "arms-length" committee is like having a Senate for the Senate. It'll be a committee of partisan people for whichever side is currently in power and it'll be a battle like the Senate has been. Terrible idea.

[Thanos]

Bah. Set up a sentient supercomputer as a GodKing and get rid of human-run participatory democracy altogether. It's messy, it's boring, and it causes too many bad sensations that are identical to the way ice-cream headaches feel. Let the damn machines do all the work while we thoroughly enjoy spending the rest of our lives doing nothing but goofing around.

[romanP]

uwish uwish:

unfortunately roman, bills being RAMMED through has happened under every governments watch.

And that is why we need the Senate. Without the Senate, bad legislation has a better chance of becoming law.

[romanP]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

romanP romanP:

I don't know what you're going on about. It is not the Prime Minister's job to pander to only those people who elected him. He is a representative of the entire country.

Yea, which probably explains why he's been all over the World on Canada's behalf while sending a massive amount of aid to Haiti while offering to match every Canadian donation as well.

Don't change the topic. You said he was "spending time with the people that elected him."

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

romanP romanP:

You don't think there might be a good reason why those bills were rejected by the Senate? It's pretty childish and cynical to think that just because you passed a bill through the house that you must have shit a gold brick. You've got to have a pretty delusional head on your shoulders to think that every bill you want to pass is the best thing since sliced bread.

Everyone and their red-headed step-child

I happen to be a red head. Got a problem with that?

$1:

knows that the Liberal stacked Senate did anything and everything it could to stall tons of legislation coming from the Conservatives.

They probably did. They may have had good, non-partisan reasons for doing that. The Conservatives have consistently demonstrated that they have a wrongheadedness toward just about every issue in the book. There was probably a lot of Liberal legislation that never made it through the Liberal Senate too. Somehow, I just don't think that adding Mike Duffy to that bunch is really helping. Stephen Harper could have at least picked someone with a background in law and ethics, rather than a local TV news guy, which I think really shows where his interests lie.

[romanP]

Thanos Thanos:

Bah. Set up a sentient supercomputer as a GodKing and get rid of human-run participatory democracy altogether. It's messy, it's boring, and it causes too many bad sensations that are identical to the way ice-cream headaches feel. Let the damn machines do all the work while we thoroughly enjoy spending the rest of our lives doing nothing but goofing around.

But.. but.. then we wouldn't be able to needlessly push paper around and shout at each other across big, expensive rooms. What's the fun in that?

[OnTheIce]

romanP romanP:

Don't change the topic. You said he was "spending time with the people that elected him."

And he was, while doing all the other stuff a PM does. He wasn't taking a vacation.

romanP romanP:

I happen to be a red head. Got a problem with that?

Sucks to be you. This does explain your attitude a fair bit.

[PluggyRug]

romanP romanP:

Stephen Harper could have at least picked someone with a background in law and ethics, rather than a local TV news guy, which I think really shows where his interests lie.

That's a joke, right?

Mixing law and ethics together is akin to cleaning your teeth with sulphuric acid.

Mike Duffy has a level head and is a good choice.

[uwish]

Derby, your sober second thought didn't stop that POS gun registry boondoggle did it? is it really the second thought when any ONE party controls it??

[DerbyX]

uwish uwish:

Derby, your sober second thought didn't stop that POS gun registry boondoggle did it? is it really the second thought when any ONE party controls it??

The senate had no reason to stop the gun registry and the cost overruns weren't planned were they?

As the recent piece about "what if the senate were elected" I think we can see that even if it was elected there is no reason to think they will be any more accepting of Harper's legislation (quite the opposite it seems) or that they would have stopped the registry or passed his crime bill.

In fact there is no reason to believe they would be any different then a mirror of our current HOC complete with all the partisan problems we have come to know and love.

[uwish]

there is no reason to think they anything, we haven't had an elected senate so your comment is purely speculation.