NDP Cannot Abolish Senate Despite Promises To Do So

[Anonymous]

Doesn't Quebec have its own Constution?



Last time I checked, majority rules.

Quebec doesn't have it's own constitution.



If a majority said yes to abolition of the upper chamber, it would still require provincial assent. If 60% of Quebeckers said no, the upper house stays.

[RW]

Quebec never approved the Charter...



So let's get Quebec on board.

[Bricktop]

Every upper house of review in EVERY western democracy is an anachronistic waste of time, space and money.



However, in order to abolish the Senate, you need the Senate's approval.



Anyone else see the paradox?



So, the solution is simple. Put it to the people. Referendum.

It sounds like a good idea Sox, but it would still require opening up the constitution. The other issue is if the results varied regionally. If it passed nationally, but failed in Quebec that would create a lot of problems.

And there is our problem, in a nutshell.



The "Constitution". Itself an anachronistic document that was created in a different time, by people who could not see 20 years into the future, let alone 200.



The "Constitution" has become the protective barrier between politicians and their electorate. They hide behind it, and conduct themselves in loose accord with its general purpose and meaning. Like all things man-made, it is flawed...in EVERY nation...but is somehow regarded as irrefutable.



Whilst a "Constitution" might have been a good idea at the time, it is now the bane of our form of civilisation, and protects only the rich and powerful.



Instead of a "Constitution", we need a Charter of Civil Rights and Government Regulation, that defines our rights as individuals, and applies rules to how we are governed. The Charter will NOT be an "ad infinitum" set of rules, but a constantly reviewed and revised set of laws that responds to its time. The Charter will NOT be in the hands of the Government, but a People's Tribunal comprised of elected members who's role is to manage the Charter and put modifications to the plebiscite as it sees fit.

[Anonymous]

Quebec never approved the Charter...



So let's get Quebec on board.

Remember Meech Lake and Charlottetown? Both before our adult times, but no government has dared touch the constitutional debate since Mr. Mulroney. Mulcair won't either because he knows he would have to butt heads with a federalist premier of Quebec.



Monsieur Couillard is my fave premier after Brad Wall by the way.

[Anonymous]

Why not promise to abolish winter while you are at it Mr. Mulcair.

Politics is filled with sloganeering and feel-good promises that have little if any chance of being delivered.



And that's the best way to describe NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's renewed promise to abolish the Senate after the auditor general reported Wednesday that too many senators treat taxpayers' money as a kind of personal expense account over which they accept few controls and even less oversight.



No one's questioning whether Mulcair's sincere in his determination to make the Senate an election issue this fall, or that he can make a convincing case using Michael Ferguson's report to argue that the upper chamber is so corrupt, so filled with partisan hacks, so bereft of credibility, that it must be abolished.



What makes this promise a non-starter is a Supreme Court of Canada ruling from April 2014, when the country's highest court said abolishing the Senate would require the consent of all 10 provinces.



As of today, only one premier, Brad Wall of Saskatchewan, is in favour of abolition. This week he compared reforming the upper chamber to lavishing money on restoring an old car, knowing it will never run properly.



But Wall made it clear he has no intention, as in none at all, of actively campaigning to scrap the Senate.



 "Everyone knows Saskatchewan's position," he said. "I would like to see other provinces come on board but if they don't, even in light of this latest mess, then it's not really worth the effort to try to change their minds."



In other words, good luck there, Mulcair.



'Not in Quebec's interest'



On the other side is the premier of Mulcair's home province of Quebec.



Premier Philippe Couillard insisted Wednesday that the Senate's troubles are what he called ''administrative dysfunction" that can be fixed. He vowed to fight any effort to scrap the Senate because it would eliminate the important role the chamber plays, as an institution, in balancing regional interests.



Of course it's not in Quebec's interest to recommend abolition of the Senate."



Mulcair said he recognizes the historical context of the Senate and understands how nuanced the issue is. But he's undeterred.



"People are telling me they want us to work towards Senate abolition. That is what we are going to talk to Canadians about during the election campaign," he said Wednesday. "And the NDP will be seeking a mandate in October from the Canadian voting public to continue our work of trying to abolish the Senate."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-abolition-a-non-starter-despite-mulcair-s-push-1.3108540">http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate- ... -1.3108540">http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-abolition-a-non-starter-despite-mulcair-s-push-1.3108540

This is another reason I am disinterested in politics..



Making promises they know they cannot keep.

Jean Chretien won his first mandate promising to "kill the GST".

[Anonymous]

Jean Chretien won his first mandate promising to "kill the GST".

That's different though. They could have legally done that. It is almost impossible to abolish the upper chamber. Mulcair knows this too, but continues making promises he cannot keep.

[RW]

Every upper house of review in EVERY western democracy is an anachronistic waste of time, space and money.



However, in order to abolish the Senate, you need the Senate's approval.



Anyone else see the paradox?



So, the solution is simple. Put it to the people. Referendum.

It sounds like a good idea Sox, but it would still require opening up the constitution. The other issue is if the results varied regionally. If it passed nationally, but failed in Quebec that would create a lot of problems.

And there is our problem, in a nutshell.



The "Constitution". Itself an anachronistic document that was created in a different time, by people who could not see 20 years into the future, let alone 200.



The "Constitution" has become the protective barrier between politicians and their electorate. They hide behind it, and conduct themselves in loose accord with its general purpose and meaning. Like all things man-made, it is flawed...in EVERY nation...but is somehow regarded as irrefutable.



Whilst a "Constitution" might have been a good idea at the time, it is now the bane of our form of civilisation, and protects only the rich and powerful.



Instead of a "Constitution", we need a Charter of Civil Rights and Government Regulation, that defines our rights as individuals, and applies rules to how we are governed. The Charter will NOT be an "ad infinitum" set of rules, but a constantly reviewed and revised set of laws that responds to its time. The Charter will NOT be in the hands of the Government, but a People's Tribunal comprised of elected members who's role is to manage the Charter and put modifications to the plebiscite as it sees fit.

We have a Charter.  It was done up in 82.



I disagree with an elected tribunal.  We have the Suprene Court of Canada for that and it should remain appointed and above the pony show of electoral pandering.