News   Jan 08, 2025
Quintet of High-Rises Proposed on Kingston Road in Pickering
 548     1 
News   Jan 08, 2025
News Roundup for January 8, 2025
 483     1 
News   Jan 08, 2025
Framing the New Year
 642     0 

Canada has had 'no natural governing party' since 1950s

Senate reform has a near infinite number of possible permutations. It need not be used for representing a popular vote. Reforming it would require constitutional change, which would make it plenty o'fun.

The powers of a new senate would have to be well-defined. And because Canada is structured differently from the United States, it's quite doubtful that the system of government would be reproduced here. I don't like to think of methods of democratic representation as being "red tape" either.

Politics in a democracy is messy. Period. If you want relative order in government (and a reduction in red tape), that has to be structured into the public service and bureaucracy of government, which has to do all the drudge work of enacting policy. When the machinery of government works well people tend to be happy, as that is the portion of government they mostly interact with.
 
Hydrogen, let me put it this way.

Its not "red tape", but rather a system where representatives who don't represent any proportional amounts of people what-so-ever are allowed to roadblock and absolutely shelf the ability of any bill to ever be passed altogether. And remember, the US Senate was created and ran for a longer period of time in US history under Senate members being appointed by US state legislatures. There were no elections held for US Senate members until the progressive era of the 1910's.

The US government was created on compromise, the founding fathers were a dynamic mixed group of people, some of which hated power going to people, others who wanted a purely greek-democratic form of government.

The people who wanted virtually no power from the people forced the US Senate to be created along with people who wanted to give small states a disproportional voice in government, with members appointed by state governments and no popular election. That's the history of the US Senate by comparison.

We altered that non-democratic form of representation during the 1910's progressive era to popularly elect Senators, but we did not change the fact that a Senator from Wyoming who represents barely 500,000 people has 100% equal say to a Senator from California who represents 36 million people.

The US Senate is not just red tape, it was my way of cordially saying I disagree with a core value in our system. There's nothing democratic about our Senate, its a roadblock and doesn't represent anything.

I think the Canadian Parliamentary model is slightly better in the world schemes of government. At least your Senate is more ceremonial and doesn't edit and shelf any bill it sees fit.
 
BrandonTO416 said:
I think the Canadian Parliamentary model is slightly better in the world schemes of government. At least your Senate is more ceremonial and doesn't edit and shelf any bill it sees fit.
Click to expand...


But the Canadian Senate could alter bills. It has powers to do so. I don't see anything wrong with examining ideas for a more effective two-house structure at the federal level in this country. I see nothing wrong with examining clear delineations between federal and provincial responsibilities, either. I'm sure people will disagree for a whole range of reasons.

No system, or changes to a system, will ever satisfy all people. That's for sure.
 
Hydrogen said:
But the Canadian Senate could alter bills. It has powers to do so. I don't see anything wrong with examining ideas for a more effective two-house structure at the federal level in this country. I see nothing wrong with examining clear delineations between federal and provincial responsibilities, either. I'm sure people will disagree for a whole range of reasons.

No system, or changes to a system, will ever satisfy all people. That's for sure.
Click to expand...

In a Parliamentary system, parliamentary procedure is based sometimes on the common law system. In common law, certain procedures "just are" and when you step out of line, its considered unconstitutional. Think of England's unwritten laws... There are tons of them.

In the Canadian system, the Senate isn't expected nor does it edit and block any bill it chooses. There would be an uproar and reform would be inevitable if that were the case. So by default the Canadian Senate defaults to a more ceremonial role. The House of Commons would hold the right to reform the Senate right out of existance if they started regularly overstepping their boundaries, hence the Canadian model is still better IMO. The US House has no constitutional right to get rid of the Senate, unlike in Canada.

You know this already, but the points still stand. Just like Queen Elizabeth has no real power in Canada, the Senate (while holding some real power unlike the Queen) still is largely ceremonial. If it were to step outside its boundaries and become like the US Senate, basically making and breaking every bill and law, then it would break Canadian common law history and thus by default be unconstitutional.

Hence I still agree with the Canadian model more, the Senate is just a millionaire's club for ceremony and it should remain that or be abolished. Any other kinds of reform I'm not supportive of. I wouldn't mind the Senate to remain, or if Canada forever retains the crown as its official head of state. History is history and there is a common history with England. But those figures of state know their powers are limited and could be totally done away with via reform from the House of Commons.

Not that it matters, I can't vote in Canada or have any power, just my opinion. ;)
 
I don't really have much interest in senate reform. We have more glaring issues, and while our system does have it shortcomings, I still prefer it to the American system!
 
Brandon,

I quite understand the role and traditions of the Canadian Senate. When I raise the issue of the Senate and Senate reform, in no way am I suggesting a direct emulation of the U.S. Senate. I can't understand why you want to maintain what you refer to as a "millionaire's club" rather than to explore ways on improving democracy and democratic representation. The constitution can be changed in order to change the role and structure of the Senate. It certainly won't be easy, but it may be necessary as the country evolves.
 
Hydrogen,

Why you pick a topic that I haven't responded to for over a month to just have a disagreement on is amusing. You're free to believe what you wish, all I can say is that I prefer for the Canadian Senate to remain as it is today or be abolished instead of other "reforms" that won't serve the nation in a positive way.
 
I guess your posts have a "best before" date to them. As you are neither a resident of Canada, nor a citizen of the country, your thoughts on the Canadian Senate are immaterial, are they not?

As a resident, a citizen and a taxpayer, I'd prefer to see the role of the Senate evolve. Nevertheless, I respect the views of my fellow citizens should they have a differing view on this topic.
 
Did I say that?

As Canadians, if we comment on American politics, it has no effect on the politics or electoral process in that country.
 
BrandonTO416's comments have no effect on the politics or electoral process in this country.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top