News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Bjays92 said:
The timing of this is not at all suspicious
Click to expand...
If one is going to have an unelected Senate (I am not a fan myself) I see no reason why vacancies should exist for long. There are still 12 more Senate seats to fill which seems quite high as most occur due to Senators reaching the age of 75. One might better complain that MORE appointments need to be made and all need to be made faster.
 
DSC said:
If one is going to have an unelected Senate (I am not a fan myself) I see no reason why vacancies should exist for long. There are still 12 more Senate seats to fill which seems quite high as most occur due to Senators reaching the age of 75. One might better complain that MORE appointments need to be made and all need to be made faster.
Click to expand...

The whole point of the Senate (a truly functional one anyways) was to serve as a counter to a House, for the lack of a better word, that had lost its' mind. As such it need to be somewhat insulated from general whims of the public - and making it an elected body would negate that. Mind you part of the reason why Trudeau was able to make so my appointments (which isn't necessarily a healthy thing either) was because Harper sat on his rear on appointing Senators just because he wanted to make his point - not that he made particularly great appointments either (e.g. Mike Duffy, Lynn Beyak, Patrick Brazeau, Don Meredith).

Perhaps what we need is a process with a vetted shortlist of potential Senators.

AoD
 
Last edited:
mjl08 said:
The Cons just confirmed they are losing next election.
Click to expand...
1624398457109.png

I was not going to vote for them anyway but .... What a lot of 19th century hicks!
 
DSC said:
If one is going to have an unelected Senate (I am not a fan myself) I see no reason why vacancies should exist for long. There are still 12 more Senate seats to fill which seems quite high as most occur due to Senators reaching the age of 75. One might better complain that MORE appointments need to be made and all need to be made faster.
Click to expand...
I have no real use for the senate either, but also don’t much like these extended vacancies.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The whole point of the Senate (a truly functional one anyways) was to serve as a counter to House, that for the lack of a better word, that had lost its' mind. As such it need to be somewhat insulated from general whims of the public - and making it an elected body would negate that. Mind you part of the reason why Trudeau was able to make so my appointments (which isn't necessarily a healthy thing either) was because Harper sat on his rear on appointing Senators just because he wanted to make his point (not that he made particularly great appointments either (e.g. Mike Duffy, Lynn Beyak, Patrick Brazeau, Don Meredith).

Perhaps what we need is a process with a vetted shortlist of potential Senators.

AoD
Click to expand...

While I favour abolition of the Senate; I could agree your suggestion has merit if we must abide one.

****

In respect of abolition........

I don't think its so hard to address the needs of smaller population provinces, and Quebec, who might feel they lose some weight if the Senate were abolished.

There are a variety of options.

For Quebec, there could be a double-majority requirement to pass bills that concern language, where they effect French and/or Quebec.

In general, we could raise the threshold for passing bills, this is something I have long favoured, and which tends to favour smaller voting caucuses......
ie. Instead of a majority of votes, subject to quorum..............I would prefer than a bill must pass with 50% plus one of the votes (seats) in the House.
By which I mean if there are 338 seats, a majority is 170. Therefore no bill could pass without at least 170 votes.

We could add, bills which seek to amend the constitution shall pass with at least 60% plus 1 of the votes etc.

I don't want to raise the threshold pass 50+ commonly, but I do feel its a good idea to prevent whimsical change on serious matters.

Notably, Criminal Law. The thought that you could imprison someone, at all, if up to 49% of the House disagreed with the matter being a crime strikes me as a real problem.

But I digress.

For the maritimes, I really do feel we need to find a way, as a country, into to talking those provinces into a merger.
I'm not above political bribery to do it........We have 4 provinces, that when combined, have a population smaller than the City of Toronto.
Perhaps if the Feds agreed to cover the costs of the merger, compensate any adversely affected capital cities, and forgive 1/2 the combined debt of the new province?
As a single province, the region would have a much stronger voice.
 
Northern Light said:
While I favour abolition of the Senate; I could agree your suggestion has merit if we must abide one.

****

In respect of abolition........

I don't think its so hard to address the needs of smaller population provinces, and Quebec, who might feel they lose some weight if the Senate were abolished.

There are a variety of options.

For Quebec, there could be a double-majority requirement to pass bills that concern language, where they effect French and/or Quebec.

In general, we could raise the threshold for passing bills, this is something I have long favoured, and which tends to favour smaller voting caucuses......
ie. Instead of a majority of votes, subject to quorum..............I would prefer than a bill must pass with 50% plus one of the votes (seats) in the House.
By which I mean if there are 338 seats, a majority is 170. Therefore no bill could pass without at least 170 votes.

We could add, bills which seek to amend the constitution shall pass with at least 60% plus 1 of the votes etc.

I don't want to raise the threshold pass 50+ commonly, but I do feel its a good idea to prevent whimsical change on serious matters.

Notably, Criminal Law. The thought that you could imprison someone, at all, if up to 49% of the House disagreed with the matter being a crime strikes me as a real problem.

But I digress.

For the maritimes, I really do feel we need to find a way, as a country, into to talking those provinces into a merger.
I'm not above political bribery to do it........We have 4 provinces, that when combined, have a population smaller than the City of Toronto.
Perhaps if the Feds agreed to cover the costs of the merger, compensate any adversely affected capital cities, and forgive 1/2 the combined debt of the new province?
As a single province, the region would have a much stronger voice.
Click to expand...

Starting from the bottom up, I disagree the region (and I assume you mean the Maritime provinces, not the Atlantic provinces) would have a stronger voice. As they stand now, they have 3 premiers and legislatures to lobby their cases, sometimes collectively on behalf of one.

Trying to establish some kind of population equity is a bit of a Mug's Game; otherwise we would have a single province west of Ontario and north to the pole to even approach Ontario's population.

Our Senate is an evolution (devolution?) of the Westminster House of Lords - 'the Mother of Parliaments' - where, in the early days, the uneducated and unwashed weren't trusted to run the place all by themselves. Being a sitting peer was often accepted as a responsibility that came with their privilege.

I'm not sure if successive governments here are afraid to go after the Senate - either to modify or abolish - as they are afraid to open up the Constitution. Perhaps if they could get an ironclad agreement from all provinces that it would be open for this and only this topic then it could be feasible, but then you would have all the various 'non-government entities' who would feel aggrieved. There are arguments on both sides for elected or abolition that have merit. I'm reluctant to give it more power while it remains unelected, but if we go with elected then party politics come into it. The US Senate vs House and the deadlocks it gets involved in should be instructive.

I don't know what the answer is. Half of our legislative system and all of the judiciary are appointed, as is the reserve authority of the State (GG). Quite frankly, I think we'd get more mileage out of reforming parliament so that power is divested from the PMO. If we could do that and elevate the Members from something other than trained seals, I could live with tossing ineffective money at the Senate.
 
DSC said:
If one is going to have an unelected Senate (I am not a fan myself) I see no reason why vacancies should exist for long. There are still 12 more Senate seats to fill which seems quite high as most occur due to Senators reaching the age of 75. One might better complain that MORE appointments need to be made and all need to be made faster.
Click to expand...
I was by no means trying to imply the senate should continue to have vacancies. I just find it incredibly interesting that the very day an incredibly controversial bill the liberals are trying rush through parliament is passed by the house to go on to the senate, is the same day Trudeau fills appoints 2 new members to the senate.

That was all I was getting at
 
lenaitch said:
Starting from the bottom up, I disagree the region (and I assume you mean the Maritime provinces, not the Atlantic provinces) would have a stronger voice. As they stand now, they have 3 premiers and legislatures to lobby their cases, sometimes collectively on behalf of one.

Trying to establish some kind of population equity is a bit of a Mug's Game; otherwise we would have a single province west of Ontario and north to the pole to even approach Ontario's population.

Our Senate is an evolution (devolution?) of the Westminster House of Lords - 'the Mother of Parliaments' - where, in the early days, the uneducated and unwashed weren't trusted to run the place all by themselves. Being a sitting peer was often accepted as a responsibility that came with their privilege.

I'm not sure if successive governments here are afraid to go after the Senate - either to modify or abolish - as they are afraid to open up the Constitution. Perhaps if they could get an ironclad agreement from all provinces that it would be open for this and only this topic then it could be feasible, but then you would have all the various 'non-government entities' who would feel aggrieved. There are arguments on both sides for elected or abolition that have merit. I'm reluctant to give it more power while it remains unelected, but if we go with elected then party politics come into it. The US Senate vs House and the deadlocks it gets involved in should be instructive.

I don't know what the answer is. Half of our legislative system and all of the judiciary are appointed, as is the reserve authority of the State (GG). Quite frankly, I think we'd get more mileage out of reforming parliament so that power is divested from the PMO. If we could do that and elevate the Members from something other than trained seals, I could live with tossing ineffective money at the Senate.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt we will ever get ironclad agreement from all the provinces - and if we do, I suspect I wouldn't like any of it because it would undoubtedly be about decentralizing this already schizoid Canadian federation further. Anyways, what I wanted to see isn't an elected Senate, or even a proportionate Senate by provincial population - my preference is to rid geography from it altogether. What I want to see is excellence and known good judgement among the representatives - and the body serving as a genuine sober second thought function by referring legislation back to the House for improvements as needed (plus increasing the investigative functions via Senate committees)

AoD
 
Last edited:
lenaitch said:
Starting from the bottom up, I disagree the region (and I assume you mean the Maritime provinces, not the Atlantic provinces) would have a stronger voice. As they stand now, they have 3 premiers and legislatures to lobby their cases, sometimes collectively on behalf of one.

Trying to establish some kind of population equity is a bit of a Mug's Game; otherwise we would have a single province west of Ontario and north to the pole to even approach Ontario's population.

Our Senate is an evolution (devolution?) of the Westminster House of Lords - 'the Mother of Parliaments' - where, in the early days, the uneducated and unwashed weren't trusted to run the place all by themselves. Being a sitting peer was often accepted as a responsibility that came with their privilege.

I'm not sure if successive governments here are afraid to go after the Senate - either to modify or abolish - as they are afraid to open up the Constitution. Perhaps if they could get an ironclad agreement from all provinces that it would be open for this and only this topic then it could be feasible, but then you would have all the various 'non-government entities' who would feel aggrieved. There are arguments on both sides for elected or abolition that have merit. I'm reluctant to give it more power while it remains unelected, but if we go with elected then party politics come into it. The US Senate vs House and the deadlocks it gets involved in should be instructive.

I don't know what the answer is. Half of our legislative system and all of the judiciary are appointed, as is the reserve authority of the State (GG). Quite frankly, I think we'd get more mileage out of reforming parliament so that power is divested from the PMO. If we could do that and elevate the Members from something other than trained seals, I could live with tossing ineffective money at the Senate.
Click to expand...

I offer this:

www.cp24.com

Toronto, Canada and Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24
www.cp24.com www.cp24.com

It may turn out, sometimes one voice, is more powerful than three.
 
lenaitch said:
I don't know what the answer is. Half of our legislative system and all of the judiciary are appointed, as is the reserve authority of the State (GG). Quite frankly, I think we'd get more mileage out of reforming parliament so that power is divested from the PMO. If we could do that and elevate the Members from something other than trained seals, I could live with tossing ineffective money at the Senate.
Click to expand...
We should make sure we have one house of parliament that is properly democratic before worrying about the Senate.

I don't think we'll find a solution for the Senate that can be agreed to by enough provinces in a constitutional amendment. If we make it legitimate and powerful, the regional inequities will become untenable.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top