Should Canada adopt a US-style senate

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher


The US-style Senate would exist only to knock down/send back bills that trample on the rights of minority provinces, basically.

It can't create any new laws, so that's hardly a candidate for "tyranny of the minority".

Ok, so you don't want a really U.S-style Senate then, you want a Canadian adaptation of the Senate. That's a different ballgame, as the U.S. Senate does, indeed, have the power to create new laws.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The fact that the Liberals in Canada have held power for so long is testament to their ability to work the greatest good for the greatest number. Isn't that the purpose of a Federal government?

No, because the Federal Government exists to serve all Canadians, not the majority of Canadians.

But Alberta isn't Canada...

And if the current system isn't reformed soon people are really going to be pissed off that we're still part of Canada, particularly when there's no check/balance situation to protect us from the historically greedy and stupid Liberals.

[KrazyHorse]

2/3 of the branches are based upon population. The other 1/3 is there for minority rights

Both the EC and the Senate have their representation skewed in favour of small states. The Senate is more blatant than the EC, but the problem is still there. As well, I believe rural areas are overrepresented in Congress as well, though this isn't enshrined as deeply as the bias in the other two bodies is.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


But the potential is there for it to be that way in the U.S. In fact, that's what the U.S. 2-party system seems to be vying for. One party exercising total control over each branch.

Unlike the states, in canada only the sitting government/party can introduce fiscal bills. So no matter how we change our system here the sitting government would always hold power over each branch.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Asher's arguing for special interest representation. Once you start trying to protect minorities by giving them more representation in governmetn you've just started a "me too" debate. PEIans are a minority so they deserve special treatment. English Quebecers are a minority so we deserve special treament. French Canadians are a minority so we deserve special treatment. On and on.

PEIs would get the same representation as all other provinces.
If English Quebecers want their representation they can make their own province.

Frankly I don't see why the hell any English speaking person would move to Quebec, but you've made your choice...

[markusf]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


So, now you support dictatorships? Nazi!

Its better to let others think your an idiot then open your mouth and remove all doubt.


I suggest you look up the defination of "rule of law" While your at it maybe english common law.

[KrazyHorse]

Asher, there's a great big "NO!" to any unfair distribution of representation. If you want, we can argue about a Senate which has seates based on pop. like you, NYE and I started to do a while back. Like that proposal which lets regions vote by prop. representation for Senate and which gives them seats based on pop. (Ontario 35%, Western Canada 30%, Quebec 25%, Maritimes 10%).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by markusf
Its better to let others think your an idiot then open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Good advice. Why didn't you take it?

[markusf]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Exactly, markus.

Asher's arguing for special interest representation. Once you start trying to protect minorities by giving them more representation in governmetn you've just started a "me too" debate. PEIans are a minority so they deserve special treatment. English Quebecers are a minority so we deserve special treament. French Canadians are a minority so we deserve special treatment. On and on.

I know, its funny us older people are argueing against 14 and 15 year olds

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Asher, there's a great big "NO!" to any unfair distribution of representation.

Wake up, KrazyHorse

The current system is an unfair distribution of representation. Canada is huge and diverse, and you still seem to think it's okay that if 1001 of the people want to do something, and 1000 people don't, then it's still fine because the majority has ruled.

Get over yourself.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

PEIs would get the same representation as all other provinces.
If English Quebecers want their representation they can make their own province.

Frankly I don't see why the hell any English speaking person would move to Quebec, but you've made your choice...

My family's been here for the last 150 years on my father's side (English) and 350 years on my mother's side (French). This is our home, honey.

Next, we can discuss how French NBers should get their own province. Then about Métis Manitobans, and Native BCers, and on and on. Everybody will want their own province if that's the test you set for representation.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

Wake up, KrazyHorse

The current system is an unfair distribution of representation. Canada is huge and diverse, and you still seem to think it's okay that if 1001 of the people want to do something, and 1000 people don't, then it's still fine because the majority has ruled.

Get over yourself.

If 1001 of the people think we should spend tax money "X" way, then yes: we should do it after debate in Commons. That's what it means to live in the same country.

[Ramo]

IOW, the majority being upset that it can't trample the rights of the minority. Understandable, but suck it up and move on.

Err... no. IOW, the minority ends up trampling on the "rights" (assigning rights to political parties/divisions is silly) of the majority.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher

No, because the Federal Government exists to serve all Canadians, not the majority of Canadians.

There has never been a government, ever, that has served the will of every one of its citizens, nor will there ever be. This is because, realistically, there will be completely contradictory ideaology among many citizens.

The best any government can hope to do is to serve the will of as many people as it can while adhering to constitutional protection of all citizens.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If 1001 of the people think we should spend tax money "X" way, then yes: we should do it after debate in Commons. That's what it means to live in the same country.

Debates in the commons are totally and completely useless. When was the last time a bill was changed because the opposition disagreed?

You're trying to rationalize how you dumb everything down to simple "rule of the majority". It's almost funny.