PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[Videodrome]

Other it costs a chunk-o-dough, does the Senate have any relevance to anybody anymore? If we have to continue to have a bi-cameral system, I would much rather explore some version of the US House of Representatives where member are elected on a provincial/regional representative basis (perhaps other 2-house systems in other countries have other options - I don't know). I'm reluctant to say arbitrarily dump it because they do have some degree of authority in the legislative process. Our current Commons is too heavily weighted to the party & leader with power.

I would be fine without the Senate, but the Supreme Court said they can't abolish it.

I really love how people always argue that the senate is a place for Independence but if someone goes off the PC message they get expelled. What a great system.

She is a racist and isn't worth defending.

 

[jje1000]

I find the divergence between Canada and the US particularly interesting. Or it could just be lag. We got Trudeau, years after they had Obama. And now as Canada leans conservative, Republicans are pretty much hanging on to power in the US because of the Electoral College, gerrymandering, etc. They simply don't have a popular mandate.

I am curious to see how Canadians absorb what's happening in the US and translating that to our politics.

Let's not kid ourselves- the Democrats employ many of the same tactics as the Republicans (just look at a map of Chicago's voting districts), and have done 180-s on issues like illegal immigration after finding desired voter blocs.

I think one of the problems with politics in the US is that it's become very partisanly race-based and as the country becomes increasingly Hispanic, the Republicans will aim to lock down the 'white' vote while the Democrats look to court the very politically-active Hispanic and Black voter blocs (who focus largely on unquantifiable social issues). This of course is also set against a backdrop of an increasing economic divide, as cities become increasingly aggressively-progressive, global and powerful, while their hinterlands are cut off from the new economy and find themselves in relative decline. Both sides will look to lockdown their victories through jurisdiction, which means that these issues likely won't be fixed, and the fundamental structures of the democracy get eroded over time.

In Canada, immigration is more diverse, and most immigrants are not extremely politically active (aside from smaller groups like Sikhs and some Muslims), and usually don't not vote along party lines- it means that Ford can still campaign for and reliably expect a raft of support from immigrant groups like Indo- and Chinese-Canadians, who might not see themselves as 'having to' vote for a left-leaning group to get what they want (mostly economic issues). This also moderates the political climate, meaning that the administration is usually less toxic to the fundamental structure of the democracy.

 

[kEiThZ]

Other it costs a chunk-o-dough, does the Senate have any relevance to anybody anymore? If we have to continue to have a bi-cameral system, I would much rather explore some version of the US House of Representatives where member are elected on a provincial/regional representative basis (perhaps other 2-house systems in other countries have other options - I don't know). I'm reluctant to say arbitrarily dump it because they do have some degree of authority in the legislative process. Our current Commons is too heavily weighted to the party & leader with power.

It's really sad that people don't appreciate our Constitutional framework. The Senate actually does decent policy work. And mostly because they aren't as partisan as the House.

I'd like the Senate to go back to what they did be: protectors of provincial interests. Would love to see Senate appointments entirely devolved to the Premiers.

 

[Thorns_Embrace]

She is a racist and isn't worth defending.

The problem is if a certain ideology gets majority control in the senate the precedence has been set that they can just suspend the opposition for perceived racism and have no opposition. I am glad to know you are on record that you are ok with that. One racist senator literally has no effect on the public.

 

[Videodrome]

Blame Scheer for first taking away her committee assignments and than kicking her out of the CPC caucus. She has been "non-affiliated" for some time now.

 

[lenaitch]

It's really sad that people don't appreciate our Constitutional framework. The Senate actually does decent policy work. And mostly because they aren't as partisan as the House.

I'd like the Senate to go back to what they did be: protectors of provincial interests. Would love to see Senate appointments entirely devolved to the Premiers.

Much of the adverse public opinion of the Senate is of their own doing. I agree with your view on their policy and committee work. The problem is the Senate, and by implication the work they do, is essentially opaque to the public view until something goes south. I'm not convinced the current selection process, which essentially has candidates applying for the job, is much of an improvement. I know one Senator who, while reasonably accomplished, is a shameless self-promoter. Perhaps something with shorter terms and a more reasonable post term allowance would see better quality candidates. I could agree with provincial appointment if it wasn't solely in the hands of the Premiers, something akin to judicial appointment councils.

 

[jje1000]

Other it costs a chunk-o-dough, does the Senate have any relevance to anybody anymore? If we have to continue to have a bi-cameral system, I would much rather explore some version of the US House of Representatives where member are elected on a provincial/regional representative basis (perhaps other 2-house systems in other countries have other options - I don't know). I'm reluctant to say arbitrarily dump it because they do have some degree of authority in the legislative process. Our current Commons is too heavily weighted to the party & leader with power.

I would still retain some form of bi-cameralism in the Canadian government, if only to allow a second look at bills, and some time to pass as those bills filter through the system.

New Zealand was alarmingly revealing in how fast some laws could be pushed through in an uni-cameral system.

 

[JGHali]

It's really sad that people don't appreciate our Constitutional framework. The Senate actually does decent policy work. And mostly because they aren't as partisan as the House.

I'd like the Senate to go back to what they did be: protectors of provincial interests. Would love to see Senate appointments entirely devolved to the Premiers.

I don't think Premiers should be making these appointments directly - perhaps they could be selected by the provincial legislature instead. The only way that really works is changing senators' terms of office. If they're to be appointed by provincial governments or legislatures, it should not be until 75 but until a change of government and/or election in each province. Unlike almost every other possible change to the Senate's composition, I don't think this would necessarily be unworkable from a constitutional amendment standpoint. And if it sounds like I'm describing turning our Senate into a German Bundesrat... I suppose I am.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think Premiers should be making these appointments directly - perhaps they could be selected by the provincial legislature instead.

Which in case of majority governments is de facto the decision of the Premier. But sure, officially, I guess it should be delegated to the legislature of the province.

If they're to be appointed by provincial governments or legislatures, it should not be until 75 but until a change of government and/or election in each province. Unlike almost every other possible change to the Senate's composition, I don't think this would necessarily be unworkable from a constitutional amendment standpoint.

The problem we have at this point is how poisoned the well has become. The same political parties that appointed toadies to the Senate for years are now telling us how much they dislike the Senate. How well is that constitutional debate going to go down with this backdrop?

I would love to have something like single 12 year terms. Appointed by legislature. This would mean a province like Ontario or Quebec could appoint two every year. The Western provinces would do one every two years. The Maritimes would be just under every year to every three years. I would also love to see actual residency requirements for each province, prior to appointment. Such a chamber would effectively act as a 12 year moving average of political sentiment in this country. And since they couldn't do much beyond send bills back a few times, they wouldn't get much beyond delaying legislation a few months anyway.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'd like the Senate to go back to what they did be: protectors of provincial interests. Would love to see Senate appointments entirely devolved to the Premiers.

I am not sure how much protection provincial interests requires in our already decentralized federation - and especially given how partisan provincial appointments can be.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

I would still retain some form of bi-cameralism in the Canadian government, if only to allow a second look at bills, and some time to pass as those bills filter through the system.

New Zealand was alarmingly revealing in how fast some laws could be pushed through in an uni-cameral system.

I consider the New Zealand example a positive.

I also laud that our provinces, unlike US States are all unicameral.

I don't want a system of endless intransigence.

There are other ways to moderate gross excess in decision making or promote consensus.

But I want parties to be able to deliver on a platform and to be held accountable for so doing (or not)

 

[Northern Light]

As an alternative to bicameralism; for the purpose of checks and balances, I would propose:

1) Mixed Member Proportional Representation, which would rarely allow any one party absolute power.

2) A requirement that any bill must be passed by a majority of seat-votes (by which I mean, if we have 338 seats, then 170 votes would be required to pass a bill, no pluralities)

3) Setting an even higher bar for bills that imposed minimum terms of imprisonment or maximums over six months., say 2/3 of seat-votes)

 

[Videodrome]

I consider the New Zealand example a positive.

I also laud that our provinces, unlike US States are all unicameral.

I don't want a system of endless intransigence.

There are other ways to moderate gross excess in decision making or promote consensus.

But I want parties to be able to deliver on a platform and to be held accountable for so doing (or not)

Nebraska is unicameral and officially non-partisan, but it is still a conservative state.

 

[Northern Light]

Nebraska is unicameral and officially non-partisan, but it is still a conservative state.

I didn't draw any association between political ideology (conservatism/liberalism/socialism) and either unicameralism or bicameralism.

Rather, I draw the association between bicameralism and inefficient and unaccountable government. It is unnecessary (redundant) and not terribly useful except at providing political cover for government who never intended to deliver a particular promise or law in the first place.

I prefer higher-functioning unicameralism for being more efficient and accountable.

Unicameralism is not a savior, merely a preferred method.

I was unaware Nebraska was an exception to the normal bicameralism of US States.

 

[Videodrome]

Nebraska did this back in the 1930's. Their elected representatives are called Senators, so it was basically the lower house that was abolished.

Picard @Picard_Resists
11h

There's been lots of talk and spin about "sinking ships" in #cdnpoli lately. Here's what the actual numbers, as of today, are saying in regards to retiring MPs.
#LPC: 10/177 = 6%
#CPC: 13/98 = 13%
#NDP: 10/41 = 24%
Simple math paints a very different picture, doesn't it?

I seem to recall the amount of NDP retirements being bigger, but you get the point.