Supreme Court sets framework for Senate reform

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why aren't there any garbagemen in the senate?

Landscapers?

Line cooks?

How many garbagemen, Landscapers, & Line cooks are there in the HoC?

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why aren't there any garbagemen in the senate?

Landscapers?

Line cooks?

If the senate was 'for the people', why is being a landowner a requirement?

Good question. The reason for the $4000 property requirement was an archiac way of ensuring that the Senator would be representative of his territorially defined region, that representation in Britain and North America be based only on geographically defined communities, to ensure they aren't say representing "the grocers, or the tobacco farmers' union etc". It was to ensure that the Senators had an invested interest in the region they were to represent. Mind you, I'm sure in the thousands of Senators we've had in our history, some have began their careers as line cooks, or landscapers, etc. I ask you how do you know there haven't been any Senators who once held those jobs?

[Zulu29]

Well, this news shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, we're stuck with it. Now that it's confirmed were stuck with it, I think all parties should get together to come up with an all party panel on approving senators. I don't believe senators should carry any particular political stripe and should live up to their original purpose as a sober second thought. An all party panel would a) eliminate any perception of partisan bias (lib PM appointing his cronies con PM appointing his cronies etc) b) collectively come up with a list of appropriate candidates for the senate c) allow all parties to have a voice and d) change the current model of the Senate. I believe this accomplishes significant changes to the Senate, perhaps enough to "right the ship".

[FlamesAddiction]

They should start with at least making them accountable to show up and participate.

I would love to see a system where people who meet a certain number of eligibility requirements can apply to be included in a pool of potential senate candidates, and then have them either drafted or randomly selected. There should also be a quota to ensure representation to provinces, genders, aboriginals and minority groups.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why aren't there any garbagemen in the senate?

Landscapers?

Line cooks?

If the senate was 'for the people', why is being a landowner a requirement?

Yes, that was a bizarre argument. The Senate is based off the British House of Lords. That title alone should give away that the upper chamber has never existed to represent the common man. That is what the House of Commons was for.

And, as you note, separation from the common man is also why the $4000 land requirement exists. That was put in place to ensure that the Senate was filled only with the elite. The Bank of Canada's inflation calculator only goes back to 1914, but $4000 in 1914 is $83,200 today. Go back to 1867 and that is what? $150k+? The red chamber does not exist to represent any of us.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Because it's almost impossible to get provinces to agree to anything. Can you really see the Liberal government in Ontario doing anything to support a Harper initiative? No chance unless they were getting some other concession. If you ask the average person if the Senate needs to be reformed I'm sure the majority would say yes, introduce partisan political parties and it's almost impossible to get a consensus.


Don't even get started with that crap, your Liberals are just as guilty as anyone else. Trudeau appointed hundreds of cronies in his final days to plum positions. Chretien appointed a Liberal to represent Alberta when we had an elected senator in waiting, that was a giant F-you to us.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...prime_minister

So basically you're cool with his actions because someone else acted improperly before. That's quite a standard to set.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

They should start with at least making them accountable to show up and participate.

I would love to see a system where people who meet a certain number of eligibility requirements can apply to be included in a pool of potential senate candidates, and then have them either drafted or randomly selected. There should also be a quota to ensure representation to provinces, genders, aboriginals and minority groups.

The Senate Draft, on CBC this Thursday, 8ET, 5PT! Who will be picked to represent the Maritimes? We find all that out and more!

Maybe TSN should bid for this, would be more exciting than the NHL draft lottery.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

The Senate Draft, on CBC this Thursday, 8ET, 5PT! Who will be picked to represent the Maritimes? We find all that out and more!

Maybe TSN should bid for this, would be more exciting than the NHL draft lottery.

Or they could have the monkey pick. She couldn't do any worse.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

So basically you're cool with his actions because someone else acted improperly before. That's quite a standard to set.

Not at all, I don't support the current Senate appointment process at all. It has been abused by both parties and will continue to be until it is reformed. Now it appears that any reform is not likely to happen anytime soon.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, that was a bizarre argument. The Senate is based off the British House of Lords. That title alone should give away that the upper chamber has never existed to represent the common man. That is what the House of Commons was for.

And, as you note, separation from the common man is also why the $4000 land requirement exists. That was put in place to ensure that the Senate was filled only with the elite. The Bank of Canada's inflation calculator only goes back to 1914, but $4000 in 1914 is $83,200 today. Go back to 1867 and that is what? $150k+? The red chamber does not exist to represent any of us.

Bizarre argument straight from primary sources of the time? I'll add in a quote from Sir George Ross, analyzing the first 304 senators appointed after 1867.

"Not one can be said, either by heredity or factitious pre-eminence, to be less democratic than the chosen representatives of the people in the House of Commons. Very few, if any, represented either large estates or accumulated capital which would separate them in business or interest from their fellow citizens... [In] no respect, either by education, environment or personal interest or pretentions are they different from their fellow legislators in the Lower Chamber... So when we invest the Senate with a certain power, we are merely investing the democracy with a second voice in the councils of the nation."

Yes, the Senators came from wealthier origins than many people in Canada, but also remember that those property requirements actually were extended into the voting requirements. In Quebec, you had to own at least $300 in property to vote in 1867. It was very different form of "democracy" at that time, and when they state for the people, they mean it differently than they do today. But both cases evolved similarly, so you can interpret what was said than to what the Senate should be now.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Not at all, I don't support the current Senate appointment process at all. It has been abused by both parties and will continue to be until it is reformed. Now it appears that any reform is not likely to happen anytime soon.

Well if we're being entirely truthful here Justin Trudeau has already contributed more to Senate reform than Harper has since he was first elected. I wouldn't say that no reform is possible.

[19Yzerman19]

Hey look another set of newspaper articles discussing a Supreme Court decision that doesn't bother to actually provide the text of the Supreme Court decision, or even the name of it.

God ******* damn it. I. Hate. News. Organizations.

EDIT: located at http://www.scribd.com/doc/220263683/...rm-2014-SCC-32

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well if we're being entirely truthful here Justin Trudeau has already contributed more to Senate reform than Harper has since he was first elected. I wouldn't say that no reform is possible.

LOL!

Trudeau's "independent Liberals" are just as big a case of paying lip service as you claim Harper's reform attempts are.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Can you really see the Liberal government in Ontario doing anything to support a Harper initiative?

Sure. So long as it advanced their interests. If it doesn't advance their intereats why bother? Premiers aren't in the business of servicing the Prime Minister... if the Feds want something out of the Provinces then they have to do what they have to do to get the "yes".

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

LOL!

Trudeau's "independent Liberals" are just as big a case of paying lip service as you claim Harper's reform attempts are.

Why? They're not meeting with caucus and take no direction from the Liberal party. That seems to be a pretty big point of departure from the CPC?

If one of the things people want to see from the Senate is less partisanship, then severing ties seems like a pretty straightforward step. It's a significant one, to be sure.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Sure. So long as it advanced their interests. If it doesn't advance their intereats why bother? Premiers aren't in the business of servicing the Prime Minister... if the Feds want something out of the Provinces then they have to do what they have to do to get the "yes".

Because they are (or should be) in the business of representing the people?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Because they are (or should be) in the business of representing the people?

I don't see a disconnect here.

They're in the business of representing the people and if whatever the hypothetical Harper Initative is in the best interests of the people they represent then it advances their interests and thus falls under the "Sure".

Call me an optimist if you want but I believe the governments of the various provinces and territories aren't going to say no to something just for the sake of saying no. If they say "no" it's because they either see it as a net negative on balance or net neutral (and thus a waste of time).

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I don't see a disconnect here.

They're in the business of representing the people and if whatever the hypothetical Harper Initative is in the best interests of the people they represent then it advances their interests and thus falls under the "Sure".

Call me an optimist if you want but I believe the governments of the various provinces and territories aren't going to say no to something just for the sake of saying no. If they say "no" it's because they either see it as a net negative on balance or net neutral (and thus a waste of time).

... which is presumably perfectly consistent with the "Fata off, Ottawa, and leave Alberta alone" chorus that usually rings out from the conservative corners of this forum.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Call me an optimist if you want but I believe the governments of the various provinces and territories aren't going to say no to something just for the sake of saying no. If they say "no" it's because they either see it as a net negative on balance or net neutral (and thus a waste of time).

I'd call you an optimist. Call me a pessimist but I don't see the feds ever getting agreement to ammend the constitution without addressing a laundry list of grievances from provinces, parties, special interest groups, etc.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Makarov

... which is presumably perfectly consistent with the chorus of "Fata off, Ottawa, and leave Alberta alone" chorus that usually rings out from the conservative corners of this forum.

I know right... leaving this forum aside it's really strange to see a whole bunch of conservatives (usually ardent defenders of provincial interests) bemoaning the fact that the SCC just confirmed that Ottawa can't do an end run around the provinces.

Bizarro world.