[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

To add another topic of debate.

If there was ever a question in my mind that the triple E Senate idea was a bad idea, the recent American experience removes all doubt from my mind.  There is no reason why we should follow the American example and create a system designed to fail.

Also given our recent experience of corruption within our own Senate I think it is time to abolish it.  The Senate serves no purpose that a properly constituted Parliamentary committee could not perform.  Granted the issue of the Constitutional Amendment would create huge headaches.

the problem of the Americans came from the House of Representatives, not the Senate.

The problem faced by the Americans is that two separate bodies have to agree before legislation is passed - assuming the President doesnt exercise a veto.  It makes no sense to replicate such a system here.

Canada has different issues from coast to coast.

That is why we have a Federal and not a Unitary State.

[crazy canuck]

It is a Federal initiative only in the sense that the Feds have laws which allow Provinces to structure these things the way they wish.  ie supply management isnt contrary to Federal competition laws.

Federal initiative:
Canadian Dairy Commission

I am not sure why you think that link contradicts what I said.

[viper37]

The problem faced by the Americans is that two separate bodies have to agree before legislation is passed - assuming the President doesnt exercise a veto.  It makes no sense to replicate such a system here.

We have the same here, you know:
- House of Commons, 1st reading, the bill is proposed
- House of Commons, 2nd reading, the bill is studied in detail, article by article.
- Senate, may send the bill back with comments or approve it as it is.
- House of Commons, 2nd reading if changes were made in the Senate, if not 3rd reading - final approval.
- Royal sanction, Prime Minister presents the bill to Governor General wich may refuse to sign it.

I see plenty of problems with this.  1st, House of commons, of wich is issued the Prime Minister is more often than not a majority, and in these cases, it means just about anything they propose will make it through.  They name the Senators, so it's as good as not having a Senate, they name the Supreme Court judges, they name the Governor General.  I see lots of political appointment here. So far the Conservatives haven't nominated ideologically oriented judges, but the Liberals sure didn't mind putting their people in the good places.

If we skip the Senate, as it is, it doesn't change anything. But compared to an elected senate, whose job is to represent the provinces, we miss an opportunity for a second, less populist reading of the bills.  Despite it's apparent uselessness, the Senate did block a project from the Conservatives to force small unions into complying to heavy transparency regulations, wich would have meant their death and a serious annoyance to bigger unions facing their opponents not subject to the same rules.  So, all in all, there is possibility of having a use for the Senate.

If you look at many European countries, you'll see they have some form of another of upper house.  The British have their house of Lords, the Germans have an higher chamber representing their  "provinces", the Belgians have their Senate too.  It does make a lot of sense when you think about it.  Especially for people who like to quote stuff about the tyranny of the majority (hinting at Malthus here).

I think the EEE Senate was one of the only good ideas the Reform Party had, and Harper should move in that direction.

[viper37]

It is a Federal initiative only in the sense that the Feds have laws which allow Provinces to structure these things the way they wish.  ie supply management isnt contrary to Federal competition laws.

Federal initiative:
Canadian Dairy Commission

I am not sure why you think that link contradicts what I said.

Read:

Since supply management was first applied to the dairy sector, the CDC has been in charge of two of the three pillars of the system: support prices and market sharing quota. Once a year, the CDC sets the support price of butter and skim milk powder following consultations with industry stakeholders. These prices are used as a reference by the provincial milk marketing boards to establish the price of industrial milk in each province. The CDC also monitors national production and demand and recommends the necessary adjustments to the national production target for industrial milk.

It's not just "waving the anti-competition laws", it's setting the rules for wich all provinces must follow.  A province could not decide by itself to end the milk quota system, it has to be a Federal ruling.

[viper37]

That is why we have a Federal and not a Unitary State.

and what do we do when the interests of Alberta collides with those of Quebec?  When Ontario wants something Quebec and Alberta don't want?

[Valmy]

That is why we have a Federal and not a Unitary State.

and what do we do when the interests of Alberta collides with those of Quebec?  When Ontario wants something Quebec and Alberta don't want?

What do we do when the interests of Saint-Félicien collides with those of Sept-Îles?  When Edmonton wants something Calgary and Grande Prairie don't want?

Aren't there rules for this sort of thing?

[viper37]

What do we do when the interests of Saint-Félicien collides with those of Sept-Îles? 

Simple, we let Sept-Iles burn, as it happened this summer.  Well, not Sept-Iles, technically, but a smaller village burnt because Quebec was otherwise to occupied with the Lac Mégantic tragedy.

If Quebec was independant, we sure would need a chamber to represent the regions.

When Edmonton wants something Calgary and Grande Prairie don't want?
Aren't there rules for this sort of thing?

You go to the tribunal, and you hire expensive lawyers.  I'd rather avoid that.

As it is, I can see the flaws of having only one chamber in Quebec, Montreal is usually the one getting everything they ask, just like Toronto with the Federal.  Politicians look at their map, see where they stand to lose the most MPs, so they vote with that in mind.  Smaller regions are most often sacrificed for the benefit of larger metropolitan areas.  Only when we start making national headlines with many deaths are we considered for some road enlargement or a moose fence.  20% unemployement rate in a region doesn't make headlines, but some Montreal artists protesting because their grant has been reduced 5% makes national headlines.

[Grey Fox]

What's the village that burned down?

[crazy canuck]

The problem faced by the Americans is that two separate bodies have to agree before legislation is passed - assuming the President doesnt exercise a veto.  It makes no sense to replicate such a system here.

We have the same here, you know:
- House of Commons, 1st reading, the bill is proposed
- House of Commons, 2nd reading, the bill is studied in detail, article by article.
- Senate, may send the bill back with comments or approve it as it is.
- House of Commons, 2nd reading if changes were made in the Senate, if not 3rd reading - final approval.
- Royal sanction, Prime Minister presents the bill to Governor General wich may refuse to sign it.

The point you are missing is that the Senate cannot defeat a bill.  Our Senate is really only an advisory body - and a poor one at that.  Their function could easily be replaced by a more robust committee process between second and third reading.

[viper37]

What's the village that burned down?

Baie Johan Beetz.  All the surrounding area burnt, and these people depends on their pourvoirie to live.  The entire Minganie area took heavy damage because Martine Ouellet did not issue orders to the SOPFEU and other emergency services.

[viper37]

The problem faced by the Americans is that two separate bodies have to agree before legislation is passed - assuming the President doesnt exercise a veto.  It makes no sense to replicate such a system here.

We have the same here, you know:
- House of Commons, 1st reading, the bill is proposed
- House of Commons, 2nd reading, the bill is studied in detail, article by article.
- Senate, may send the bill back with comments or approve it as it is.
- House of Commons, 2nd reading if changes were made in the Senate, if not 3rd reading - final approval.
- Royal sanction, Prime Minister presents the bill to Governor General wich may refuse to sign it.

The point you are missing is that the Senate cannot defeat a bill.  Our Senate is really only an advisory body - and a poor one at that.  Their function could easily be replaced by a more robust committee process between second and third reading.

It can and it did:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/senate-set-to-defeat-gambling-bill-passed-unanimously-by-mps/article5137550/

[crazy canuck]

That is why we have a Federal and not a Unitary State.

and what do we do when the interests of Alberta collides with those of Quebec?  When Ontario wants something Quebec and Alberta don't want?

That is why we have MPs elected from all those regions.  Its a political decision.  If what you want is a separate body that can have a veto over Parliamentary will then that is exactly the system I want to avoid.

[crazy canuck]

The problem faced by the Americans is that two separate bodies have to agree before legislation is passed - assuming the President doesnt exercise a veto.  It makes no sense to replicate such a system here.

We have the same here, you know:
- House of Commons, 1st reading, the bill is proposed
- House of Commons, 2nd reading, the bill is studied in detail, article by article.
- Senate, may send the bill back with comments or approve it as it is.
- House of Commons, 2nd reading if changes were made in the Senate, if not 3rd reading - final approval.
- Royal sanction, Prime Minister presents the bill to Governor General wich may refuse to sign it.

The point you are missing is that the Senate cannot defeat a bill.  Our Senate is really only an advisory body - and a poor one at that.  Their function could easily be replaced by a more robust committee process between second and third reading.

It can and it did:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/senate-set-to-defeat-gambling-bill-passed-unanimously-by-mps/article5137550/

You have posted a story that uses language poorly.  The senate can only send a bill back to Parliament for reconsideration.

[viper37]

You have posted a story that uses language poorly.  The senate can only send a bill back to Parliament for reconsideration.

wich is the same thing, really, legalese aside.

If the Senate does not approve of the bill, it can not receive the Royal stamp.

[viper37]

That is why we have MPs elected from all those regions.  Its a political decision.  If what you want is a separate body that can have a veto over Parliamentary will then that is exactly the system I want to avoid.

MPs need to represent their party first&foremost.  We have a strong party line in Canada, MPs do not necesseraly vote according to their conscience.  If they do, they are often expelled from the party.

Even when the Leader of the majority calls for a "free vote", some party whips may still enforce the party line.
A recent example of this was on the gay marriage issue, where the Bloc and the NDP forced the party line while the Conservatives had called for a vote free of the party line.

sometimes, MPs will disagree with their party on an issue.  Their choice is either to a) suck it up and betray their convictions or b) get fired, become independant.  Not much choices here, 99% of the time it's a), until you have enough time done to get your pension fund.

Although it has flaws, I'd much prefer a system similar to America (maybe Germany too, it's been a while since I studied that) where the party line is smoother.  And where we have an elected president instead of a foreign non elected monarch who inherited his/her position by birth.