Abolish the Senate

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Here's the thing.

With enough pressure now, this can actually become an election issue and that will at least get the ball rolling.

The problem though is that the senate is not even the worst part of our constitution. Even I am of the mind that unless we're prepared to rewrite the Constitition, then let's just leave it as is. The senate is such a minor part of that rag we call the Canadian Constitution. Senate Reform won't happen in the next madate, but a smart government could prepare for it. For instance, recognizing that the separate school system is in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Canada is a member-state and that official bilingualism is based on the old residential-school era belief in "two founding races" to the explicit exclusion of "the Indians and the Esquimos" as defined by the B&B Commission in its Book I, General Introduction, Paragraph 21, the Government could establish a "Royal Commission on Religion and Language" to recommend, applying the knowledge gained from universal legal, educational, linguistic, economic, ecological, physiological, religious, and other fields, and taking into account the impact of its recommendations on unofficial religious, linguistic, and ethnic communities, the most just revisions to be made to the religious and linguistic provisions of the Constitution of Canada and its indigenous Treaties, and to Canada's international linguistic policies, so as to conform them to today's universal human rights declarations and the religious and moral sentiments of residents of Canada.

The final report that this Commission would publish would then prepare any future government that does decide to open the Constitution to reform the Senate. That way, once the floodgates of the Constitution are opened wide, the Government is prepared for it so as to make it less likely for it to just be a Meech Lake part II.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2011-83-e.pdf

this document agrees with Machjo, ie the vote would be none binding, and the provinces would have to be on board, but will the leftard and Libtard provinces do that without wanting something in return?
I'd hardly call the Catholic vote library's and leftards, nor even right wing nuts. The Catholic vote would be just that, the Catholic vote. Same with the English lobby in Quebec and the French lobby in Canada. They are neither right nor left, but rather religious, linguistic, or ethnic lobbies of various kinds.

If you followed Canadian Politics you would realize the NDP has never participated in the Senator sham and still endorse it's removal........








Roll up the Red Carpet


Mulcair kicks off the NDP’s Roll up the Red Carpet

tour | Canada's NDP / NPD du Canada
Again, senate reform is small potato. I think we should get rid of the senate too, but not without reforming other far more problematic parts of the constitution that really make senate reform a truly minor matter.

It is a partisan issue though because the Cons and Liberals will look bad if the public outcry for abolition becomes an election
Why do you think conbots like Das keep trying to deter people from having this conversation?
We don't need just minor senate reform like the NDP seems to think. Opening the Constitution is long overdue. That rag is a mess that needs major revision on many points, senate reform being just the tip of the iceberg. Unless you're serious about constitutional reform, then let's not even waste our time on senate reform.

In fact, one reason I feel so unmotivated to vote in elections is that while our Constitution, the highest law in the kand, remains one big mess, politicians bicker over minor laws. In that sense, the differences even between the NDP and the Conservatives are superficial in comparison. I don't get how be op le can get all wound up between these parties when all of their fundamental policies are practically identical.
 
Last edited:

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Quick question from the average Joe on the constitution.

Why can't we just make changes on specific issues rather than making grand sweeping changes on the whole thing?
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
Quick question from the average Joe on the constitution.

Why can't we just make changes on specific issues rather than making grand sweeping changes on the whole thing?
see up above, they already answered that when I asked

nothing is that simple...I don't get why not either but d*ckwads want their way is the basic answer he gave
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Quick question from the average Joe on the constitution.

Why can't we just make changes on specific issues rather than making grand sweeping changes on the whole thing?

Because the average Jean on the street might see things very differently from the average Joe on the street. As you can imagine, the average Catholic Joe on the street will likely be of a very different opinion from the average non-Catholic Joe on the Street. And the average Joe Indian on the street, the average Joe English on the street, and the average Jean Français on the street and the average Wang xiansheng on the street will all have differing views of official bilingualism. And most importantly, they will all have very different beliefs about priorities, many considering senate reform to be relatively small fry compared to the big potatoes they want to bake, and so will be quite willing to leverage it. I know I would. I'm the average non-Catholic Jean Français on the street who's been influenced by the ideas of my friend Joe Indian.
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
Because the average Jean on the street might see things very differently from the average Joe on the street. As you can imagine, the average Catholic Joe on the street will likely be of a very different opinion from the average non-Catholic Joe on the Street. And the average Joe Indian on the street, the average Joe English on the street, and the average Jean Français on the street and the average Wang xiansheng on the street will all have differing views of official vilingualism. And most importantly, they will all have very different beliefs about priorities, many considering senate reform to be relatively small fry compared to the big potatoes they want to bake, and so will be quite willing to leverage it. I know I would. I'm the average non-Catholic Jean Français on the street who's been influenced by the ideas of my friend Joe Indian.
the thing is in spite of differences in faith likely everyone would like to get rid of the Senate pigs...if we could keep the issue clear we could make them go away...it's called cooperation with a common goal in mind...smart people do it
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,844
93
48
Senators should be appointed by each provincial gubmint from a list that is voted on by each province's citizens and each province has the power to rescind the appointment at any time.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
the thing is in spite of differences in faith likely everyone would like to get rid of the Senate pigs...if we could keep the issue clear we could make them go away...it's called cooperation with a common goal in mind...smart people do it

But smarter people will play strategy. To take one example. French Canadians are a minority in Canada, so some will try to leverage senate reform to get more rights for themselves.

Indigenous Canadians are an even smaller minority, albeit with some treaties they can leverage in their favour. If they can leverage senate reform in their favour too, they'likely do it. Some have proposed replacing the senate with a First Nations Assemvly. So good luck on agreeing on a particular reform.

Those who have been trying to get rid of the separate school system for years will likewise try to leverage it in their favour guaranteed.

Canada has a long tradition of the majority suppressing minorities. As a result, minorities have become cynical and so will play all they have to their advantage to level the playing field, including political blackmail.
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
Senators should be appointed by each provincial gubmint from a list that is voted on by each province's citizens and each province has the power to rescind the appointment at any time.
see I like this...waaaaaaaaaaay better than our current system

But smarter people will play strategy. To take one example. French Canadians are a minority in Canada, so some will try to leverage senate reform to get more rights for themselves.

Indigenous Canadians are an even smaller minority, albeit with some treaties they can leverage in their favour. If they can leverage senate reform in their favour too, they'likely do it. Some have proposed replacing the senate with a First Nations Assemvly. So good luck on agreeing on a particular reform.

Those who have been trying to get rid of the separate school system for years will likewise try to leverage it in their favour guaranteed.

Canada has a long tradition of the majority suppressing minorities. As a result, minorities have become cynical and so will play all they have to their advantage to level the playing field, including political blackmail.
I agree with what you are saying, it's just a shame that we can't set our differences aside...I do not view it as smarter people holding it back...it is in fact a a move to ensure we all lose...that is not smart
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Another way of looking at it. Because the Constitution itself discriminates on the basis of religion, language, and thus ethnicity, voters will likewise respond to the Constitution according to religion, language, and ethnicity. That's to be expected.
 
Last edited:

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Why do we even have a constitution?
(this is not entirely a serious question)
 
Last edited:

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Why do we even have a constitution?

Most states have a Constitution to protect the minority from the tiranny of the majority. In Canada it's the exact opposite: to extend the privileges of the dominant ethnic communities as can be seen with the separate school system and official bilingualiam.

You might point out how the Constitution does provide minimal recognition for indigenous treaties in one sentence, and that was only because the indigenous peoples had to fight tooth and nail for it. Remember that the same Chretien who wrote the Indian Policy of 1969 intent on the complete assimilation of Canada's indigenous peoples is the very same Chretien who co-wrote the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
You might mention how parts of the CCRF were inspired by the UDHR and how they too help to protect the minority from the tiranny of the majority. Though that is true, it doesn't change the fact that in relative terms compared to the UDHR, the CCRF goes out of its way to entrench a certain prestige status on the dominant ethnic communities through the separate school system which it reiterates from the NBA Act and official bilingualism.

Though not explicitly mentioned, the influence of the Indian Policy of 1969 on the CCRF in 1982 is conspicuous by the contrast of the lack of mention of clear rights for indigenous peoples beyond one sentence acknowledging the treaties and the articles upon articles of Rights granted to the English and the French through the separate school system, official bilingualism, etc.

Why do we even have a constitution?
(this is not entirely a serious question)

Too late. I took it as a serious question.

see I like this...waaaaaaaaaaay better than our current system

I agree with what you are saying, it's just a shame that we can't set our differences aside...I do not view it as smarter people holding it back...it is in fact a a move to ensure we all lose...that is not smart

It actually is smart. It's a form of mutually assured destruction which puts pressure on the majority ethnic groups to wield their power more responsibly towards reconciliation rather than wield it like a sledge hammer. The behaviour of the majority over the decades is what has led to this cynicism among the minority.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,624
2,378
113
Toronto, ON
It is a partisan issue though because the Cons and Liberals will look bad if the public outcry for abolition becomes an election issue.

Why do you think conbots like Das keep trying to deter people from having this conversation?

If Trudeau was PM now, would you, the chief Liebot, be having this conversation?

What is Justine's position on this?
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
Abolish or significantly reform. Doesnt matter to me which one but the status quo is unacceptable. Yes, that means changing the constitution - and Im all for it. Sure its difficult but someone has to do it one way or another eventually.

okay but "technically" could we do that?

could it be placed before the Canadian public as a vote
let's say the public voted abolish
open the Constitution...and change it so that could occur and then be done with it...

could we change the constitution one issue at a time or is that not possible with the way it is set up and if we can't why is that?

could it be done?


We elect the federal and provincial governments who are acting as we wish, in theory. So in a way we have already voted on that - many times. In theory perhaps this could be done but all it would take is one politician - like say Elijah Harper - an MPP in opposition in a small province to put an end to it when the constitution is opened. Chances are such a person does exist in one of the provincial if not the federal legislature.

Senators should be appointed by each provincial gubmint from a list that is voted on by each province's citizens and each province has the power to rescind the appointment at any time.

That would be better but not the best. The numbers of senators in each province should change if we are only reforming and not abolishing. It makes no sense for the west to only get a handful compared to Quebec and Ontario now.

What is Justine's position on this?

Interesting question considering he kicked all the Liberal senators out of the Liberal party. Im not sure where he stands on this issue.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,624
2,378
113
Toronto, ON
Interesting question considering he kicked all the Liberal senators out of the Liberal party. Im not sure where he stands on this issue.

Out of caucus. They still seem to have retained the "Liberal" monicker. I also don't believe this is any more than a token act and not "real". Too much power there for them not to still have their hand in the cookie jar.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Honestly, if we wanted a quick fix to the Constitution, we could just adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the primary Constitutional document in Canada to which all others must conform. That one act alone would automatically abrogate the separate school system and official bilingualism (due to Article 2 of the UDHR), and would also automatically guarantee reasonable private property rights, among other things such as parental choice in education and the right to employment (which could pose a challenge to closed shop unions and minimum wage legislation for example).

With all of the rubbish removed, it would then be easy to reform or abolish the senate with little to no resistance.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
For instance, recognizing that the separate school system is in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Canada is a member-state.




Explain to me why the atheists get to take away the rights of Roman Catholics? Why do the Atheists have the right to schooling of their choice, but The Catholics don't get to keep what was written into the Constitution, and in some cases, is written into the agreement for a particular province to join into confederation?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Explain to me why the atheists get to take away the rights of Roman Catholics? Why do the Atheists have the right to schooling of their choice, but The Catholics don't get to keep what was written into the Constitution, and in some cases, is written into the agreement for a particular province to join into confederation?

First off, I'm not an atheist.

Secondly, I support removing RC pricilege, not rights. There is a difference.

Thirdly, I support choice in education for everyone. For exanple, if we provided a school voucher, and enough parents wanted to send their children to a Catholic school, then you could have your Catholic school, but this would apply to all parents, and bot just Roman Catholic ones. Plus it would conform the Constitution to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Canada is a member state.

Thirdly, the residential school system was more or less part of the deal of Confédération too. Should we reintroduce that?
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Secondly, I support removing RC pricilege, not rights. There is a difference.


It's a right here in Alberta, not just a "pricilege".

Thirdly, I support choice in education for everyone. For exanple, if we provided a school voucher, and enough parents wanted to send their children to a Catholic school, then you could have your Catholic school, but this would apply to all parents, and bot just Roman Catholic ones. Plus it would conform the Constitution to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Canada is a member state.




Everyone has a choice right now.


A U.N. covenant...whoop dee doo. Let me know when the U.N. isn't full of hypocrites. The U.N., creator of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Which has had and has such esteemed member states as Nigeria, Qatar,UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan...... all beacons of Civil and Political rights. :roll:



Thirdly, the residential school system was more or less part of the deal of Confédération too. Should we reintroduce that?


more or less? Either it was, or it wasn't. If it was, quote the pertinent passages.