Elected Senate Reform?

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

it does indeed require rewriting the charters of the country.

as for balances,
the senate represents the provinces/territories. the premier of each province/territory would also be a member of the senate.
the house represents the people, with each house member representing (more or less) the same number of constituants.
now for something to pass, it must meet approval of the provincial governments as well as the people of the country. this way there can not be a maveric PM or senator pushing something through.
now the GG has a special role, as he/she can strike down anything that goes against the charters of the country (send back for revision, send to courts for interpretation, etc).

order, the senate through the direction of the PM defines general policy of the country. the people of the country have a say in this through the house. The provinces then enact passed federal policy.

Wouldn't it just be easyier to forget about Confederation in your module and make each province a republic or state of some sort and just have a military alliance between the 10 provinces. In your currwent system none of the provinces would ever agree on anything. You miles while desolve Canada as a nation while your at it.

 

[the caracal kid]

There is enough common ground between the provinces that agreements could be reached. My system does not require 100% agreement either. I have not determined the most appropriate % for something to pass the senate. With an equal number of senators, the PM could be the tie-breaker, making 50%+1 possible.

The way the world is going fully independent provinces would not do all that well. Global politics and economics makes working together benefitial.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

There is enough common ground between the provinces that agreements could be reached. My system does not require 100% agreement either. I have not determined the most appropriate % for something to pass the senate. With an equal number of senators, the PM could be the tie-breaker, making 50%+1 possible.

The way the world is going fully independent provinces would not do all that well. Global politics and economics makes working together benefitial.

Wouldn't this just encourage regionaism even further and just help splite up Canada that much faster. How long would Quebec take being bullied by the rest of Canada, or say the West, or Even Ontario if provinces just couldn't agree?

 

[the caracal kid]

yes, there would be regionalism. there would be nationalism at the provincial level. There would however be also the benefits of working as a country what would outweigh region-centric rhetoric.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

yes, there would be regionalism. there would be nationalism at the provincial level. There would however be also the benefits of working as a country what would outweigh region-centric rhetoric.

I am sorry to say though on paper if everyone agreed to work together your idea may work. But in a nation like ours I really do think Canada would cease as a nation and across the nation with the provinces so powerful I think you would have the divions of the Canadian have and have not provinces worsen and then finally a cracking of confederation.

I still think the Classical Republican like Government of checks and balances which have in most part been accepted in almost every nation at least in theory, even Canada would work best.

Depending regionalism would split this country in half if not much worse. Can you not see that one of the big problems in the nation right now is regionalism. Quebec wanting to leave, the west pissed off with Ontario and Quebec, even there a regionalist nationalism on the rise, the east tired of being ignored. If you focused on regionalism to this extreme I couldn't see Canada lasting out a year.

 

[the caracal kid]

it would work because rather than the way things are now with regions being played off one another, the regions would be semi-autonomous. The feds would be responsible for those things that allow for a greater success of all provinces through common standards, currency, etc.

Strong federalism forces the provinces into confederation, my solution makes provinces want to be a part because of the benefits they recieve on top of being semi-autonomous.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

it would work because rather than the way things are now with regions being played off one another, the regions would be semi-autonomous. The feds would be responsible for those things that allow for a greater success of all provinces through common standards, currency, etc.

Strong federalism forces the provinces into confederation, my solution makes provinces want to be a part because of the benefits they recieve on top of being semi-autonomous.

You know places like Kosovo, and half of the Socviet Union where so called "autonomous" or "semi-autonomous" too and where did these states end up? increasing the power of regionalism will not help the causes of confederation. I don't know as a Canadian I could never support the weakening of the Canadian nation state to a collection of losely tied states with a weak national government. It would take almost nothing for Provinces to just break away if they got fed up with something. If you don't have some sorta transfer payments between the provinces you'd also have the have not provinves wishing to leave. If you did have the transfer payments in a weak union of provincial nations you would have regions such as Alberta just declaring independance or not listening to the national government at all.

I'd rather have a broken National government then a national government too weak to keep the nation together. I just don't see how it could ever work unless every single province was the same (which there not) and the inhabitants where the same (which they are not).

 

[the caracal kid]

in contrast, the current system does not work because the provinces and the peoples are not the same.

you want to have a federal gov force the provinces to stay, i want to give the provinces freedom and allow them to stay because it works better for them.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

in contrast, the current system does not work because the provinces and the peoples are not the same.

you want to have a federal gov force the provinces to stay, i want to give the provinces freedom and allow them to stay because it works better for them.

hmmm I think we see this issue way too differently. This is also more on the National Question then Senate reform

 

[FiveParadox]

If our Prime Minister were to be directly elected, on a national scale, then he or she would have no place sitting in the House of Commons; this would be a serious violation of convention although, granted, it would not be unconstitutional. I would oppose that suggestion; the Prime Minister should have his or her powers reformed perhaps, but the entire position should not be overhauled. So long as his or her powers are "checked," I see no reason to change the current process of the Governor General appointing the leader of the largest party to become the Head of Government.

As for the election of the Justices of our Supreme Court, I completely oppose that suggestion, far more than I would oppose any other. A keystone of Canadian justice is that those sitting in the courts remain impartial at all times; to elect our judges directly, or even through a proxy election, would be very dangerous for the integrity of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I would urge you to justify the suggestion.

As for the idea of Government bills being initiated in the Senate, this would not work without completely abolishing the current system of governance in Canada. The House of Commons is the only body authorized to initiate budgetary legislation, because it represents the present and current will of the people — the Senate does, and should represent only a chamber of second thought. As for the Prime Minister being required to sit in the Senate, yes, we have had Prime Ministers sit in the Senate in our history rather than the House of Commons, but it is in modern times very unconventional and would most likely seem undemocratic to the people, even if the Senate were to undergo some sort of ratification process.

My two cents.

 

[the caracal kid]

i am proposing an new system from the charters of the country on down. Perhaps it would be better if i renamed the bodies as to not confuse what my proposed new structure entails?

To simplify, imagine a first minister's meeting, now add another 13 bodies to it. You now have what is in essence the new senate. The new senate would initiate things because the new structure would be one where provinces have direct involvment in the development of federal policy.

 

[FiveParadox]

Well, personally, I think that the Senate — Commons partnership works well as it is, in terms of legislation. But again, I'm always open to the idea of "moderate" reform.

I'm just throwing an idea out there, but perhaps there could be a "third" federal Chamber of governance? Consider the following situation:

A new Chamber has been enacted into the Constitution, to be styled the Congress of Provinces, to give all Provinces equal representation. The "Congress" would be authorized to consider any bill initiated in either of the three Chambers, provided that

a) the Congress shall not have the right to "defeat" a Budget or delay the passage of a Budget for a period of longer than thirty days;

b) the Congress shall hold debate only so far as second reading, and clause-by-clause consideration shall continue to be a prerogative of only the original two Chambers; and

c) the Congress shall have the right to initiate legislation, insofar as such legislation would not call for the appropriation of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Governor General, by convention, would not provide his or her consent to any legislation that had not carried through third reading in both the Senate and the House of Commons, and second reading in the Congress of the Provinces.

As a "safety measure" to prevent smaller provinces from paralyzing legislative activity on Parliament Hill, the Governor General shall have the right to issue an executive order to deem a bill to have been passed at second reading in the Congress, if both the Senate and the House of Commons give an address to that effect, supported by two-thirds of the members of each Chamber thereof.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

Well, personally, I think that the Senate — Commons partnership works well as it is, in terms of legislation. But again, I'm always open to the idea of "moderate" reform.

I'm just throwing an idea out there, but perhaps there could be a "third" federal Chamber of governance? Consider the following situation:

A new Chamber has been enacted into the Constitution, to be styled the Congress of Provinces, to give all Provinces equal representation. The "Congress" would be authorized to consider any bill initiated in either of the three Chambers, provided that

a) the Congress shall not have the right to "defeat" a Budget or delay the passage of a Budget for a period of longer than thirty days;

b) the Congress shall hold debate only so far as second reading, and clause-by-clause consideration shall continue to be a prerogative of only the original two Chambers; and

c) the Congress shall have the right to initiate legislation, insofar as such legislation would not call for the appropriation of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Governor General, by convention, would not provide his or her consent to any legislation that had not carried through third reading in both the Senate and the House of Commons, and second reading in the Congress of the Provinces.

As a "safety measure" to prevent smaller provinces from paralyzing legislative activity on Parliament Hill, the Governor General shall have the right to issue an executive order to deem a bill to have been passed at second reading in the Congress, if both the Senate and the House of Commons give an address to that effect, supported by two-thirds of the members of each Chamber thereof.

The thing is with the System as it is. The Senate already represents the provinces and the Priemiers already have power over education, health and other important policies. I see no real problem with the theory behind our system it's just the funtioning which is the big issue. I don't think we have to add or remove any posistion as we have it now. Just tweek them and give each position a certain mandate from either the people or the provinces. The system we have now is the same basic system which people have been working with and on for over 2515 years, perhaps longer.

I'm not saying another system won't work. But from what I;ve seen of other systems, they do not have the same checks and balances and controls of the classical republican system which is in use in most of the world today... at least in theory. Because you would have resprentation from every field, and every political thought and each one would balance out and check each other when need be.

I think what we need in Canada is a solution which will bring us together and not divide us more. In theory what you propose might seem like inclusion but it would actually weaken quebecs voice in further. Right now they hold about 1/4 of the seats in the commons a little more. In your theory they would then hold 1/10th of the power in Canada. As you would have each provinces bitted against one another.

Yeah I think I'll stick with the classical module (Liberal and Conservative) or even the NDP's purely democratic or "Mob" rule before I'd switch to a collection of independant Canadian states. BTW we see how well that worked out for the former soviet union. That was there idea as well but the CIS totally failed and is barely there on paper anymore.

 

[FiveParadox]

Heh, I'm not advocating for equal provincial representation in a third Chamber, just threw out the idea 'cause someone mentioned something along those lines.

I think, as I believe you do, that we need to strengthen the system that we have now, and rather than radically reform it, "tweak" it in a way that would make it more effective and more representative of the people; and, wherever possible, to increase the checks and balances that we have available to us.

 

[the caracal kid]

the way the system is now, even tweaked, will lead to its collapse because it does not represent the needs of the country properly.

you can only force the provinces into line for so long, but eventually they will tire of it and leave.

keep the current system and say goodbye to canada.

 

[FiveParadox]

Well, notwithstanding the fact that keeping a Parliamentary Democracy in Canada will apparently lead to the end of Canadian civilization as we know it, I think I'm going to press on with the idea of Senate reform.

I believe that we could warrant the Senate's use of its powers through, as I have mentioned several times, the ratification of appointments to the Senate. Now, this can be done, if Canadians educate themselves regarding our Parliamentary institutions, without any amendments to the Constitution (which would be an extremely difficult process, as noted by Finder earlier in this forum).

The main provision regarding appointments to the Senate in the Constitution Act, 1982, reads:

(1) The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen's Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator.

Now, we could turn this into a far more democratic appointment process by amending the conventions by which Senators are appointed, rather than amending the Constitutional framework. As it is, the Prime Minister appoints Senators on entirely his or her own prerogative, assuming reserved Crown authority is not exercised.

The Governor General would, by convention, not accept the Prime Minister's recommendation unless he or she [the Governor General] receives an address from the Lieutenant Governor of the Province which that Senator shall represent, endorsing the appointment.

Now, obviously by another convention, a Lieutenant Governor would be expected only to give such an endorsement upon a majority vote in the Legislature of the Province to adopt a motion that such an address be issued.

This would only require that Canadians be educated in the "open" nature of the Constitution, and that they actively involve themselves in the process of Senator selection. No Constitutional amendment would be required, yet we could establish a far more representative Senate using this approach.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

the way the system is now, even tweaked, will lead to its collapse because it does not represent the needs of the country properly.

you can only force the provinces into line for so long, but eventually they will tire of it and leave.

keep the current system and say goodbye to canada.

thats utterly absoured. Your idea of a regional union is even worse and even you have said It would create regional nationalism.

Go with your system and Canada wouldn't last more then a year.

Fix our current system, or even stay with the broken one and we have a shoot.

You are way too extreme on your regionaism and devolutions of power. I am not a big centrial government support, but you still need at least a centrial law making and policy making government which has representives from all across canada from all regions on a multi layied government as we have now! But it's broken and thats why it doesn't work right.

Going to form a Union of Regions will not solve our problems but will make them ten times worse.

Look in the Senate if they had a mandate all the provinces are already represented. If there's constitional changes all the provinces still have to agree. Hell even the commons right now is chosen FPTP by regions. Regionalism is one of the big problems in Canada right now and focusing on what makes us different won't help the cause of federalism but will kill it faster.

I'm a Canadian and I'd like to stay that way. Maybe you would rather live in a Nation state of Alberta but I sure don't.

 

[FiveParadox]

Nicely said, Finder. I wholeheartedly agree. The last thing we need is to have each and every Province paralyzing the entire workings of our Government because the Legislatures can't agree on something. That's why there are Provincial legislatures, and the Federal Houses of Parliament.

 

[the caracal kid]

All keeping the status quo (or tweaking it) does is hinder the regions.

You can not force things together forever. There will be a breaking point.

I have no desire to live in Alberta.

What is a canadian to you? Perhaps defining what canada is would be a first step. A step that includes defining an inclusive and equal nation.

The current system is a relic, a representation of the past not the future. All it can lead to is stagnation and collapse.

If you want to be canadian i say build a canada rather than cling to a system that doesn't represent what the country currently is or is moving towards.

 

[FiveParadox]

With all due respect, the caracal kid, I completely disagree with what you said. I'll elaborate more tomorrow, but I've got to go to bed. :lol: Last-minute shopping, early tomorrow morning.

Good night, caracal and Finder, and happy holidays. I hope that this discussion continues to be just as lively tomorrow as it was today.