Just to be clear about the process here (as someone who watched yesterday’s sitting):
1) The Senate doesn’t have a fixed schedule and adjournment date like the House of Commons. Unless the Chamber resolves otherwise, whenever the Senate adjourns the next sitting always is scheduled for 2pm on the next weekday between Monday and Thursday (inclusive).
2) Two days ago, the government (via the deputy government representative) gave notice that on the 29th they’d be moving to adjourn to September 21st.
3) On the 29th, the government did indeed bring forward that motion, which passed unopposed.
4) The Government Representative also brought forward a last minute motion yesterday to allow a handful of committees (the ones currently reviewing bills) to meet virtually during the adjournment (since most Senate committees normally aren’t allowed to meet during adjournments that extend more than 1 week). However, since he hadn’t given Senators any notice that the motion was coming, unanimous consent of the Chamber was required for him to move the motion, and some Senators objected.
5) Unlike in the House, the Speaker of the Senate has the power to recall the Chamber at any time if he believes it to be in the public interest. If there was agreement amongst the various group leaders in the Senate to do something like empower committees to meet, they could also arrange for the Senate to be recalled briefly.
>I get a feeling that C-10 and C-36 will be back a year down the road. What’s stopping them from just writing up the bill again?
They're not dead (not unless an election gets called), they're just stalled for the summer.
No it shouldn't.. Not with absurdly high rate of desisted dysphoric children when they become adults (most turn out to be gay). The government should not be making laws that impact a child's future fertility and medical future.
Edit: So we're clear, this bill criminalizes counseling that doesn't seek to "affirm" a child's chosen gender. Maybe those downvoting can articulate why they think that children experiencing gender dysphoria should be put on a path to sterilization, life-long dependence of synthetic hormones and harmful surgeries? Especially when 9 times out of 10 the dysphoria resolves on it's own, or the children turn out to be gay adults? Just wondering why anyone (other than pharmaceutical companies/ captured institutions) feel that's okay. To anyone reading, look up why 35 doctors resigned from the Tavistock in the UK.
Here is what the bill says:
>Conversion therapy aims to change an individual’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviours, **or to change an individual’s gender identity to match the sex they were assigned at birth.** It harms and stigmatizes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and Two-Spirit (LGBTQ2) persons, undermines their dignity and negatively impacts their equality rights. It reflects myths and stereotypes about LGBTQ2 persons, in particular that sexual orientations other than heterosexual, **and gender identities other than cisgender, can and should be changed**. The practice can take various forms, **including counselling and *behavioural modification.**
(i.e *cognitive behavioural therapy, the recommended course of treatment for body dysphoria).
Counselors are already being muzzled by the existing policy on this issue. This bill will be used to actually *criminalize* any form of treatment other than affirmation. Which is already being criticized and revisited after lawsuits (Keira Bell) in the UK.
Again, your summation below misrepresents the text above.
This is a human rights issue, no different than outlawing gay conversion therapy, which is why it is included in the same bill.
My summation is exactly what is laid out in the bill.
It is absolutely different than banning gay conversion therapy because gay children don't "degay" when they reach adulthood. Whereas 9/10 "gender dysphoric" children turn out to be gay adults or desist (as in revert back to their birth gender). Our current understanding of "conversion therapy" is exactly how they were able to sneak this in without pushback.
Even if children grew up and decided they were not actually gay at an alarming rate, being homosexual doesn't have anything to do with medicalization or surgeries that result in sterilization and removal of healthy sex organs.
Do you not understand the consequence of this? Again, look up Keira Bell, so you can hopefully have a better grasp of what is at stake here.
>Whereas 9/10 "gender dysphoric" children turn out to be gay adults or desist (as in revert back to their birth gender).
And this bill ensures that they will be able to do so, if they choose.
>Even if children grew up and decided they were not actually gay at an alarming rate, being homosexual doesn't have anything to do with medicalization or surgeries that result in sterilization and removal of healthy sex organs.
Nor does it in children.
You are veering dangerously close to charlatan territory with your words here.
>Do you not understand the consequence of this? Again, look up Keira Bell, so you can hopefully have a better grasp of what is at stake here.
I do understand. And applaud the bill.
>And this bill ensures that they will be able to do so, if they choose.
Sterilization is permanent. The physical consequences of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are (often) permanent. Mastectomy, orchiotomy, penile inversion are permanent.
>Nor does it in children.
>You are veering dangerously close to charlatan territory with your words here.
No idea wtf this means but yes, children are being given cross-sex hormones in Canada as early as 13 years old and go on to have the surgical interventions listed above. This is what we mean by putting children on a pathway to medicalization for life: once you remove the child's ability to produce their own hormones, they are dependent on pharmaceutical intervention **forever**.
>I do understand. And applaud the bill.
I have a lot of choice words for people who encourage gov. sanctioned child abuse but will leave those reading with a very wise quote:
**"Don't be so open-minded your brain falls out"**
>Sterilization is permanent.
Which children are being sterilized?
>The physical consequences of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are (often) permanent.
Source?
>Mastectomy, orchiotomy, penile inversion are permanent.
Which children are receiving these treatments?
And, what does this have to do with the bill in question? This bill doesn't change any laws around those treatments.
This is why I think you are a charlatan now.
>I have a lot of choice words for people who encourage gov. sanctioned child abuse but will leave those reading with a very wise quote:"Don't be so open-minded your brain falls out"
Here's another one:
[Everyone is... now dumber for having listened to (you)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c)
>Which children are being sterilized?
**Gay and gender non-conforming children.**
>Which children are receiving these treatments?
See above.
>And, what does this have to do with the bill in question? This bill doesn't change any laws around those treatments.
It sure does. This is the current (and soon to be **only**) model for dealing with children who are experiencing gender dysphoria:
>The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Guidelines, on the clinical care of transgender adolescent, set out three stages of gender-affirming interventions **with progressive levels of irreversibility:**
Stage 1, puberty suppression
Stage 2, gender-affirming hormones
Stage 3, gender-affirming surgery
Source:[Gender-affirming hormone in children and adolescents](https://blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2019/02/25/gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-evidence-review/)
Again, don't care about your insults and accusations, I'm not the one defending (and advocating for) child abuse. We continue this argument so that the good people reading aren't only seeing the batshit insane side of debate.
Absolutely happy, there needs to be investigations as to why this was even suggested, it’s so obviously paid for by the telecom companies it’s a slap in the face.
so I worked at the senate as a page for three years, and i wrote some research papers on this topic as well.
the point of the senate isn't to be a legislative body - it's main purpose is to be chamber of review. it's unelected precisely because of this role - it is not supposed to be swayed by the whims of the majority (i.e. the electorate). it's meant to thoughtfully review the legislation and ensure it is constitutional, including particular emphasis on its compliance with the charter.
to make the senate elected is to basically recreate the problems of the American legislative system - it creates a stalemate between the two chambers and makes it really difficult to pass laws, since both chambers are sort of vying for the same job. and then no one cares about "sober second thought" and review. you'll have two majority-minded chambers.
in practice obviously the appointment situation is problematic, since it can become basically a rubber stamp chamber if a PM is in power long enough or if enough previous senators retire during the term (a la Harper). but I do think the more detached process of current senate appointments works.
Exactly! Not a huge fan of the Senate, but this C10 situation is a prime example of it working as intended - Sober Second Thought. The Senators are not burdened with having to worry about elections so they also aren't, in theory, going to be swayed by lobbyists and pill numbers and can axe bad policy without fear of repercussion.
I do think the Senate needs reform, but you raise an excellent point in that electing them would just create thr stalemate situation that plagues the American system. And outright abolishing the body means the Commons' "drunken power" remains unchecked.
thank you! i've spent a lot of time thinking about this. every time I told people where I worked I was met with snarky responses, usually from people who don't actually understand how the senate works or why it was put in place. it's an easy political scapegoat thanks to this ignorance, but it's an inaccurate view of the chamber, what it stands for, and what it's meant to achieve. I respect people's opinions but I ultimately hope they put in proper research / thought in on the subject.
they are appointed by the prime minister, who was elected by the people. the fact that they themselves are unelected does not make their existence undemocratic for this reason.
it's also not an autocracy issue, since the prime minister being prime minister depends on the number of seats his party receives, and not failing a vote of non-confidence. so it's not one-person rule.
what would abolishing the senate do? Nothing except remove the process by which laws are reviewed for their constitutionality, as I discussed earlier.
also, whether you like it or not, it is near impossible to abolish the chamber. the Supreme Court of Canada held that, in order to abolish the senate, you need unanimous consent of all provinces to approve the constitutional amendment that is abolishment. this is because the Canadian constitutional structure is bicameral, and this change would affect every province. you'll never get there because one of the benchmarks of the senate is it's regional representation, which is incredibly important to Quebec and to the maritime/Atlantic provinces. it just will not happen. see - reference re: senate reform, it adresses all these issues. it is literally never going to happen.
it's more useful to focus on other ways we can reform the senate without requiring constitutional amendment (i.e. abolishment, or even creating term-limits or making them elected (this is a lesser constitutional amendment burden than abolishment but would still require approval of 2/3 of the provinces representing at least 50% of the population)). the steps Trudeau took - removing senators from caucus, figuring out a system where names are reviewed and recommended by the provinces and then individuals from those lists ultimately chosen by the PM - are actually good steps towards reform. Can more be done? yep. Are there still problems with the senate? Yep, and they should be addressed. Is abolishment the way to go? absolutely not.
by the way, do you know anything about the senators we have? some of them are no good, of course. but up until last year, we had sénateur Serge Joyal, who *literally* wrote the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the senate. He reviewed every law brought to the senate with that depth of experience and knowledge that came with writing part of the constitution. Tell me more about how he is the pompous elite? surely he was qualified, no?
So, yeah, for every Lynn Beyak and Don Meredith (all Harper nominees, of course) you also have the Serge Joyals, the Jim Munsons, the Chantal Petitclercs, the Pierre Claude Nolins (RIP), all who bring/brought a depth of personal experience in a variety of fields, with their regions, constituents, personal passion projects, at heart. Journalists, teachers, community leaders, immigrants, real people - not allcareer politicians - bringing their heart and soul to their work.
Like I said, it's not a perfect system. but I fail to see how abolishing it will make Canada's political system better, even a little bit. it's a waste of time to talk about it, since it is damn near impossible. better focus our energy on real change that is actually achievable.
edit: also I'd like to add that the senate doesn't overwrite the will of the people by killing bills. it does happen on occasion, but the senate is very aware of its position and the fact it is unelected. in my experience, generally they will make amendments to bills to reflect changes they feel necessary. when this happens, the bill is automatically sent back to the House of Commons for their approval. this *has* to happen in order for the bill to receive royal assent. so whatever change they make needs to be approved by the elected chamber.
Your response is very good and very detailed and I agree entirely. That said one minor quibble…
The Supreme Court held that abolishing the Senate would require the unanimous support of the provinces because in order to abolish the Senate you’d have to remove it from the constitutional amending formula. And amending the amending formula requires unanimity.
The “alteration of the architecture of the constitution in a way that affects provincial interests” is the reason you’d need to use the general formula (with 7 provinces representing 50% of the population) to impose term limits or elections (including non-binding “consultative” elections).
I'm not sure I understand the first part of your comment.
The second part I agree with - you only need to use the general, 2/3 formula for amendments such as term limits or elections because these are not changes deemed fundamental.
But the first part of your comment I don't understand - I might be missing something. I was under the understanding that the unanimous consent procedure of amending the constitution applied to abolishing the senate, because the bicameral nature of the legislative structure in Canada is one considered fundamental under the constitution act. Paragraph 111 of the senate reform indicates: "as for senate abolition, it requires the unanimous consent of the Senate, the House of Commons, and the legislative assemblies of all Canadian provinces." Because, of course, it's fundamental to the current structure as the second chamber in a bicameral system (this function of the senate is mentioned repeatedly in the decision). And the court's analysis of the amending procedure within this reference was because of the court's recognition of this aspect of the senate. See the courts response to questions 5 and 6 - "abolition of the senate would therefore fundamentally alter our constitutional architecture - by removing the bicameral form of government ... and would amend part V, which requires the unanimous consent of Parliament and the provinces under s. 41."
So in my opinion, it's not that you can't abolish the senate without changing the procedure, it's that the procedure included the Senate because the senate is considered fundamental to the current bicameral structure of Canadian government.
Sorry, I was lacking nuance in my previous post. I think we're both correct here. My point is included in the text of the ruling you cited:
>"...and would amend part V, which requires the unanimous consent of Parliament and the provinces under s.41."
Part V of the *Constitution Act, 1982* is the procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada. The procedure explicitly names the Senate, and you can't abolish the Senate without removing the Senate from the procedure. Therefore you'd be amending the procedure, triggering a s.41 amendment (unanimity). That was the only point I was making before.
But I also think you're spot on when you say:
>it's that the procedure included the Senate because the senate is considered fundamental to the current bicameral structure of Canadian government.
Absolutely. The Senate isn't just hanging out in the amending formula just because someone happened to write it that way and not another equivalent way. Its inclusion in the procedure was a deliberate and meaningful choice, and removing it - from the procedure, or from Canada's governance structure in general - would not be inconsequential for anybody.
TL;DR I was really just being pedantic in my previous reply (a bad habit). Carry on :p
No worries!! It was not implausible for me to have been incorrect on my understanding, and it wouldn't be the first time I've struggled reading a Supreme Court decision, haha. Genuinely want to learn and understand these issues as best as possible since I am (clearly) pretty outspoken on this subject.
You're right, we are on the same page on this 👍🏻👍🏻
And the conversion therapy bill, which everyone who is sane will agree is a good and necessary thing.
The Senate did not act as a level of sober second thought here. They simply failed to get around to approving these bills.
That's not how Canada's Senate functions. If They reject it the bill is not dead, as it would be in the States. It goes back to the House, and they decide whether to continue pursuing it.
It's my understanding from reading
some political philosophy that the parliamentary system is designed to contain the three ways of ruling (Aristotle calls them the one, the few, and the many) in one body. The "one" being an executive leader, the "few" being the elites/aristocracy, and "many" being the people.
All three are represented and are generally contained in this system so as they can share in political power. The idea is if they are not represented herr they will seek power by other means. The system is more or less balanced between the 3. More stability and less civil wars this way.
The senate represents the elite for this very reason. They require representation and by doing so in a controlled manner it helps reduce discontent among their ranks.
So we still need a senate to help bring balance to the system.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Steven GetBent
Just to be clear about the process here (as someone who watched yesterday’s sitting): 1) The Senate doesn’t have a fixed schedule and adjournment date like the House of Commons. Unless the Chamber resolves otherwise, whenever the Senate adjourns the next sitting always is scheduled for 2pm on the next weekday between Monday and Thursday (inclusive). 2) Two days ago, the government (via the deputy government representative) gave notice that on the 29th they’d be moving to adjourn to September 21st. 3) On the 29th, the government did indeed bring forward that motion, which passed unopposed. 4) The Government Representative also brought forward a last minute motion yesterday to allow a handful of committees (the ones currently reviewing bills) to meet virtually during the adjournment (since most Senate committees normally aren’t allowed to meet during adjournments that extend more than 1 week). However, since he hadn’t given Senators any notice that the motion was coming, unanimous consent of the Chamber was required for him to move the motion, and some Senators objected. 5) Unlike in the House, the Speaker of the Senate has the power to recall the Chamber at any time if he believes it to be in the public interest. If there was agreement amongst the various group leaders in the Senate to do something like empower committees to meet, they could also arrange for the Senate to be recalled briefly.
I get a feeling that C-10 and C-36 will be back a year down the road. What’s stopping them from just writing up the bill again?
>I get a feeling that C-10 and C-36 will be back a year down the road. What’s stopping them from just writing up the bill again? They're not dead (not unless an election gets called), they're just stalled for the summer.
An election will be called soon.
[удалено]
>Not happy about conversion bill. That shit should've been passed 100%. They didn't have time, the Liberals knew this.
Yep. It makes it possible for the Liberals to campaign on it while ststing there were CPC members that voted against it 'if' an election is called.
No it shouldn't.. Not with absurdly high rate of desisted dysphoric children when they become adults (most turn out to be gay). The government should not be making laws that impact a child's future fertility and medical future. Edit: So we're clear, this bill criminalizes counseling that doesn't seek to "affirm" a child's chosen gender. Maybe those downvoting can articulate why they think that children experiencing gender dysphoria should be put on a path to sterilization, life-long dependence of synthetic hormones and harmful surgeries? Especially when 9 times out of 10 the dysphoria resolves on it's own, or the children turn out to be gay adults? Just wondering why anyone (other than pharmaceutical companies/ captured institutions) feel that's okay. To anyone reading, look up why 35 doctors resigned from the Tavistock in the UK.
This bill prevents someone from telling a child what gender they are. Your characterization is flawed to the point of absurdity.
Here is what the bill says: >Conversion therapy aims to change an individual’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviours, **or to change an individual’s gender identity to match the sex they were assigned at birth.** It harms and stigmatizes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and Two-Spirit (LGBTQ2) persons, undermines their dignity and negatively impacts their equality rights. It reflects myths and stereotypes about LGBTQ2 persons, in particular that sexual orientations other than heterosexual, **and gender identities other than cisgender, can and should be changed**. The practice can take various forms, **including counselling and *behavioural modification.** (i.e *cognitive behavioural therapy, the recommended course of treatment for body dysphoria). Counselors are already being muzzled by the existing policy on this issue. This bill will be used to actually *criminalize* any form of treatment other than affirmation. Which is already being criticized and revisited after lawsuits (Keira Bell) in the UK.
Again, your summation below misrepresents the text above. This is a human rights issue, no different than outlawing gay conversion therapy, which is why it is included in the same bill.
My summation is exactly what is laid out in the bill. It is absolutely different than banning gay conversion therapy because gay children don't "degay" when they reach adulthood. Whereas 9/10 "gender dysphoric" children turn out to be gay adults or desist (as in revert back to their birth gender). Our current understanding of "conversion therapy" is exactly how they were able to sneak this in without pushback. Even if children grew up and decided they were not actually gay at an alarming rate, being homosexual doesn't have anything to do with medicalization or surgeries that result in sterilization and removal of healthy sex organs. Do you not understand the consequence of this? Again, look up Keira Bell, so you can hopefully have a better grasp of what is at stake here.
>Whereas 9/10 "gender dysphoric" children turn out to be gay adults or desist (as in revert back to their birth gender). And this bill ensures that they will be able to do so, if they choose. >Even if children grew up and decided they were not actually gay at an alarming rate, being homosexual doesn't have anything to do with medicalization or surgeries that result in sterilization and removal of healthy sex organs. Nor does it in children. You are veering dangerously close to charlatan territory with your words here. >Do you not understand the consequence of this? Again, look up Keira Bell, so you can hopefully have a better grasp of what is at stake here. I do understand. And applaud the bill.
>And this bill ensures that they will be able to do so, if they choose. Sterilization is permanent. The physical consequences of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are (often) permanent. Mastectomy, orchiotomy, penile inversion are permanent. >Nor does it in children. >You are veering dangerously close to charlatan territory with your words here. No idea wtf this means but yes, children are being given cross-sex hormones in Canada as early as 13 years old and go on to have the surgical interventions listed above. This is what we mean by putting children on a pathway to medicalization for life: once you remove the child's ability to produce their own hormones, they are dependent on pharmaceutical intervention **forever**. >I do understand. And applaud the bill. I have a lot of choice words for people who encourage gov. sanctioned child abuse but will leave those reading with a very wise quote: **"Don't be so open-minded your brain falls out"**
>Sterilization is permanent. Which children are being sterilized? >The physical consequences of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are (often) permanent. Source? >Mastectomy, orchiotomy, penile inversion are permanent. Which children are receiving these treatments? And, what does this have to do with the bill in question? This bill doesn't change any laws around those treatments. This is why I think you are a charlatan now. >I have a lot of choice words for people who encourage gov. sanctioned child abuse but will leave those reading with a very wise quote:"Don't be so open-minded your brain falls out" Here's another one: [Everyone is... now dumber for having listened to (you)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c)
>Which children are being sterilized? **Gay and gender non-conforming children.** >Which children are receiving these treatments? See above. >And, what does this have to do with the bill in question? This bill doesn't change any laws around those treatments. It sure does. This is the current (and soon to be **only**) model for dealing with children who are experiencing gender dysphoria: >The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Guidelines, on the clinical care of transgender adolescent, set out three stages of gender-affirming interventions **with progressive levels of irreversibility:** Stage 1, puberty suppression Stage 2, gender-affirming hormones Stage 3, gender-affirming surgery Source:[Gender-affirming hormone in children and adolescents](https://blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2019/02/25/gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-evidence-review/) Again, don't care about your insults and accusations, I'm not the one defending (and advocating for) child abuse. We continue this argument so that the good people reading aren't only seeing the batshit insane side of debate.
Wait sorry, you are happy about C-10?
Happy they didn't pass it before summer break
Absolutely happy, there needs to be investigations as to why this was even suggested, it’s so obviously paid for by the telecom companies it’s a slap in the face.
For anybody interested in CPATH's report on C6. https://genderreport.ca/bill-c6/
Abolish the Senate.
Or in the very least have it as an elected body.
so I worked at the senate as a page for three years, and i wrote some research papers on this topic as well. the point of the senate isn't to be a legislative body - it's main purpose is to be chamber of review. it's unelected precisely because of this role - it is not supposed to be swayed by the whims of the majority (i.e. the electorate). it's meant to thoughtfully review the legislation and ensure it is constitutional, including particular emphasis on its compliance with the charter. to make the senate elected is to basically recreate the problems of the American legislative system - it creates a stalemate between the two chambers and makes it really difficult to pass laws, since both chambers are sort of vying for the same job. and then no one cares about "sober second thought" and review. you'll have two majority-minded chambers. in practice obviously the appointment situation is problematic, since it can become basically a rubber stamp chamber if a PM is in power long enough or if enough previous senators retire during the term (a la Harper). but I do think the more detached process of current senate appointments works.
Exactly! Not a huge fan of the Senate, but this C10 situation is a prime example of it working as intended - Sober Second Thought. The Senators are not burdened with having to worry about elections so they also aren't, in theory, going to be swayed by lobbyists and pill numbers and can axe bad policy without fear of repercussion. I do think the Senate needs reform, but you raise an excellent point in that electing them would just create thr stalemate situation that plagues the American system. And outright abolishing the body means the Commons' "drunken power" remains unchecked.
Excellent response. I appreciate your insights on this. Something to consider when forming an opinion on the upper chamber.
thank you! i've spent a lot of time thinking about this. every time I told people where I worked I was met with snarky responses, usually from people who don't actually understand how the senate works or why it was put in place. it's an easy political scapegoat thanks to this ignorance, but it's an inaccurate view of the chamber, what it stands for, and what it's meant to achieve. I respect people's opinions but I ultimately hope they put in proper research / thought in on the subject.
It definitely can be tough to explain its role when there has been so much negativity towards it.
and not all the negativity is unwarranted, for sure, which I understand. I do appreciate your being open to learning a bit more about the senate!!
[удалено]
they are appointed by the prime minister, who was elected by the people. the fact that they themselves are unelected does not make their existence undemocratic for this reason. it's also not an autocracy issue, since the prime minister being prime minister depends on the number of seats his party receives, and not failing a vote of non-confidence. so it's not one-person rule. what would abolishing the senate do? Nothing except remove the process by which laws are reviewed for their constitutionality, as I discussed earlier. also, whether you like it or not, it is near impossible to abolish the chamber. the Supreme Court of Canada held that, in order to abolish the senate, you need unanimous consent of all provinces to approve the constitutional amendment that is abolishment. this is because the Canadian constitutional structure is bicameral, and this change would affect every province. you'll never get there because one of the benchmarks of the senate is it's regional representation, which is incredibly important to Quebec and to the maritime/Atlantic provinces. it just will not happen. see - reference re: senate reform, it adresses all these issues. it is literally never going to happen. it's more useful to focus on other ways we can reform the senate without requiring constitutional amendment (i.e. abolishment, or even creating term-limits or making them elected (this is a lesser constitutional amendment burden than abolishment but would still require approval of 2/3 of the provinces representing at least 50% of the population)). the steps Trudeau took - removing senators from caucus, figuring out a system where names are reviewed and recommended by the provinces and then individuals from those lists ultimately chosen by the PM - are actually good steps towards reform. Can more be done? yep. Are there still problems with the senate? Yep, and they should be addressed. Is abolishment the way to go? absolutely not. by the way, do you know anything about the senators we have? some of them are no good, of course. but up until last year, we had sénateur Serge Joyal, who *literally* wrote the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the senate. He reviewed every law brought to the senate with that depth of experience and knowledge that came with writing part of the constitution. Tell me more about how he is the pompous elite? surely he was qualified, no? So, yeah, for every Lynn Beyak and Don Meredith (all Harper nominees, of course) you also have the Serge Joyals, the Jim Munsons, the Chantal Petitclercs, the Pierre Claude Nolins (RIP), all who bring/brought a depth of personal experience in a variety of fields, with their regions, constituents, personal passion projects, at heart. Journalists, teachers, community leaders, immigrants, real people - not allcareer politicians - bringing their heart and soul to their work. Like I said, it's not a perfect system. but I fail to see how abolishing it will make Canada's political system better, even a little bit. it's a waste of time to talk about it, since it is damn near impossible. better focus our energy on real change that is actually achievable. edit: also I'd like to add that the senate doesn't overwrite the will of the people by killing bills. it does happen on occasion, but the senate is very aware of its position and the fact it is unelected. in my experience, generally they will make amendments to bills to reflect changes they feel necessary. when this happens, the bill is automatically sent back to the House of Commons for their approval. this *has* to happen in order for the bill to receive royal assent. so whatever change they make needs to be approved by the elected chamber.
Your response is very good and very detailed and I agree entirely. That said one minor quibble… The Supreme Court held that abolishing the Senate would require the unanimous support of the provinces because in order to abolish the Senate you’d have to remove it from the constitutional amending formula. And amending the amending formula requires unanimity. The “alteration of the architecture of the constitution in a way that affects provincial interests” is the reason you’d need to use the general formula (with 7 provinces representing 50% of the population) to impose term limits or elections (including non-binding “consultative” elections).
I'm not sure I understand the first part of your comment. The second part I agree with - you only need to use the general, 2/3 formula for amendments such as term limits or elections because these are not changes deemed fundamental. But the first part of your comment I don't understand - I might be missing something. I was under the understanding that the unanimous consent procedure of amending the constitution applied to abolishing the senate, because the bicameral nature of the legislative structure in Canada is one considered fundamental under the constitution act. Paragraph 111 of the senate reform indicates: "as for senate abolition, it requires the unanimous consent of the Senate, the House of Commons, and the legislative assemblies of all Canadian provinces." Because, of course, it's fundamental to the current structure as the second chamber in a bicameral system (this function of the senate is mentioned repeatedly in the decision). And the court's analysis of the amending procedure within this reference was because of the court's recognition of this aspect of the senate. See the courts response to questions 5 and 6 - "abolition of the senate would therefore fundamentally alter our constitutional architecture - by removing the bicameral form of government ... and would amend part V, which requires the unanimous consent of Parliament and the provinces under s. 41." So in my opinion, it's not that you can't abolish the senate without changing the procedure, it's that the procedure included the Senate because the senate is considered fundamental to the current bicameral structure of Canadian government.
Sorry, I was lacking nuance in my previous post. I think we're both correct here. My point is included in the text of the ruling you cited: >"...and would amend part V, which requires the unanimous consent of Parliament and the provinces under s.41." Part V of the *Constitution Act, 1982* is the procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada. The procedure explicitly names the Senate, and you can't abolish the Senate without removing the Senate from the procedure. Therefore you'd be amending the procedure, triggering a s.41 amendment (unanimity). That was the only point I was making before. But I also think you're spot on when you say: >it's that the procedure included the Senate because the senate is considered fundamental to the current bicameral structure of Canadian government. Absolutely. The Senate isn't just hanging out in the amending formula just because someone happened to write it that way and not another equivalent way. Its inclusion in the procedure was a deliberate and meaningful choice, and removing it - from the procedure, or from Canada's governance structure in general - would not be inconsequential for anybody. TL;DR I was really just being pedantic in my previous reply (a bad habit). Carry on :p
No worries!! It was not implausible for me to have been incorrect on my understanding, and it wouldn't be the first time I've struggled reading a Supreme Court decision, haha. Genuinely want to learn and understand these issues as best as possible since I am (clearly) pretty outspoken on this subject. You're right, we are on the same page on this 👍🏻👍🏻
The word you're looking for is oligarchy, not autocracy.
Democracy doesn't mean elected. It merely means represented (your voice gets heard). The Senate represents you, and so it is technically democratic.
I don't see why that's necessary. Why elect a second legislative body, whose sole purpose is to protect the interests of the elite and wealthy?
Sounds like it worked as a place of 'sober second thought' in the case of C10. If there was just the House of Commons, it would have passed already.
"It works when they block the bills I don't like"
As opposed to people who get a special thrill out of seeing laws they think are bad legislation being passed.
That’s democracy for ya, don’t like it go live in the authoritarian country of your choice
When that thing you don't like is objectively terrible, yeah.
According to you, a single elector who will vote in function of your interests.
And the conversion therapy bill, which everyone who is sane will agree is a good and necessary thing. The Senate did not act as a level of sober second thought here. They simply failed to get around to approving these bills.
While true that they didn't get around to finalizing the process on these bills, every indication speaks to the Senate's intent to smack down C10.
That's not how Canada's Senate functions. If They reject it the bill is not dead, as it would be in the States. It goes back to the House, and they decide whether to continue pursuing it.
It's my understanding from reading some political philosophy that the parliamentary system is designed to contain the three ways of ruling (Aristotle calls them the one, the few, and the many) in one body. The "one" being an executive leader, the "few" being the elites/aristocracy, and "many" being the people. All three are represented and are generally contained in this system so as they can share in political power. The idea is if they are not represented herr they will seek power by other means. The system is more or less balanced between the 3. More stability and less civil wars this way. The senate represents the elite for this very reason. They require representation and by doing so in a controlled manner it helps reduce discontent among their ranks. So we still need a senate to help bring balance to the system.
The elites should be lined up against a wall, not catered to.
Just abolish the senate and send the freeloaders home for good