An elected senate

[jbg]

The Martimes would have 30 elected Senators and the west would have 24.

Isn't tha tbetter than the HOC ratio?

[jdobbin]

Isn't tha tbetter than the HOC ratio?

How do you figure that?

[M.Dancer]

Sure there is. A unicameral Parliament and a majority government is a basically a dictatorship.

As opposed to a majority house and a majority senate of the same party?

[old_bold&cold]

We now have what I call an elected dictatorship, where the leader of the elected party pretty much sets the stage for his own ends, and if the senate is a majority of his party then he really has a totally free hand till next election.

If we have an elected senate, then there would be not stacking the deck in theory. But I would maybe like to see it be divided up where things would be more democratic. Maybe elections for 80% of the seats and the last twenty should be filled with people outside of the public life, but with some background in laws and ethics. Maybe then we would not see it leaning too far to anyone parties side, and be more leaning towards what the people would want. I know this is like wishing for world peace, but if we are going to reform the senate then lets do it so the people have a say and the terms for seats should be no more then two full elction terms, for each vote. Maybe other can say and see this better then I can.

[Michael Bluth]

If we have an elected senate, then there would be not stacking the deck in theory. But I would maybe like to see it be divided up where things would be more democratic. Maybe elections for 80% of the seats and the last twenty should be filled with people outside of the public life, but with some background in laws and ethics.

Party politics will always rear it's head.

A long-term solution of some elected and some appointed Senators is a nightmare in the making.

It would create two classes of Senators. That just wouldn't work long-term.

[jennie]

I really don't understand why people think it needs to be changed. Obviously Harper is trying to circumvent the checks and balances of democracy. How is this desirable?

I think from some of the posts here, the problem is that people do not understand the Senate as it now exists. Harper is taking advantage of that lack of knowledge. We can only protect our democratic rights if we make our own informed decisions, not by following the self-serving wishes of the politicians. They do not look out for our best interests, only their own. However, they will try to sell it as if they are doing it for us. Don't be taken in.

I think Canadians need to hear directly from the Senators on this topic, first to educate us about what they do.

And I want to correct the misperception that Senators are there until they die: They are there until age 75, unless they die before that.

And btw, I would like to address the issue of the Senator found to be living somewhere in the sunny south, and not attending the Senate but still being paid, BECAUSE I feel this issue has been used as a political football to discredit the Senate in order to make this takeover more palatable to us ... the dumbed down masses.

1) The man was ill and close to 75, as I recall.

2) Many people have sick days or disability programs that are topped up to full salary.

Thus, there is absolutely no reason for this to be usedf to bias people's perceptions. It is perhaps important to reflect on the fact that the mainstream media broke the story, and the msm implements a corporate agenda which would include destroying our critical democratic balances in order to further their own agenda of greed.

imo.

I also have an opinion as to 'why now':

Canada's economy and corporate profits are largely dependent on the resource industries - mainly logging and mining. However, the loggers and miners are now smack dab up against aboriginal land rights and the laws are such that the courts can and do shut down industries to respect legal aboriginal rights. This is a HUGE threat to the corporations who intend to suck every la$t re$ource out of Canada and leave the land as dead as a doornail. They don't care about the environment, nor about our human lives that depend on the environment.

Indigenous Peoples have understood for milennia what we are just coming to realize: The earth is a living thing. If we pave the surface, it can't breathe, and the toxins kill all life in the earth. If we steal the minerals, it can't cleanse itself of toxins. If we contaminate the water, all the land and animals and people it touches become ill or die and the water can no longer sustain life. If we clearcut all the trees, the air cannot cleanse itself and it cannot sustain life.

What does this have to do with the Senate?

Because if we allow political and corporate greed to destroy our democratic checks and balances, we will not be able to sustain human life.

Democracy is not about our government telling us what is best for us: It is about us telling our governments what is best for us. Canadians have largely abdicated their democratic responsibilities to inform themselves, with the result that right now our democracy is very vulnerable.

[Higgly]

I could go for an elected senate if none of the candidates is allowed to belong to a political party, and if 3 nays from the senate had the power to defeat a bill. The third nay should require a poll with a very large sample taken by lottery from only those who voted in the last federal election and were willing to provide a contact point, and with the senate being allowed to phrase the question.

I think that would be pretty cool.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Higgly

[jennie]

I could go for an elected senate if none of the candidates is allowed to belong to a political party, and if 3 nays from the senate had the power to defeat a bill. The third nay should require a poll with a very large sample taken by lottery from only those who voted in the last federal election and were willing to provide a contact point, and with the senate being allowed to phrase the question.

I think that would be pretty cool.

Why do you think it should be changed, Higgly?

I think that would be pretty similar to what we have now. I have not yet heard a good argument as to why we should change it.

[old_bold&cold]

The senate should be changed because it has long been an outdatedand political pork barrel of appointed people for life. These will interfere with governments just for political purposes and it does not haev the best interests of the people in their present make up. No one should ever get a lifetime appointment to any political body. There has to be a way to get rid of the old party oriented senate and get somethingmore modern, that can address the issues of today to the betterment of the people and not the political party they belong to. If the want sober second thought on bills then it should be done without partisan members and be elected by the people, not political appointments. It is obvious that the present senate is obstructing laws on toughening crime and others that the vast majority of Canadians wanted past. Time to turf all these old farts and provide a better method of doing things.

[Topaz]

I, too.thought the senate should go, especially when we heard of one senator not showing up for work. BUT, I have watch them at work, in their committee hearings and I no longer feel that way. There's always a bad apple in every group and these people, all parties do a great deal for Canada. Have any of you ever watched the senate hearing on C-Pac.?

[Michael Hardner]

We should be taking out complexity from our processes, not adding it.

The senate isn't used for anything right now. Why do we need the colossal waste of another house of commons when it's not used. And now people want to add elections as well ?

[Higgly]

The senate should be changed because it has long been an outdatedand political pork barrel of appointed people for life. These will interfere with governments just for political purposes and it does not haev the best interests of the people in their present make up. No one should ever get a lifetime appointment to any political body. There has to be a way to get rid of the old party oriented senate and get somethingmore modern, that can address the issues of today to the betterment of the people and not the political party they belong to. If the want sober second thought on bills then it should be done without partisan members and be elected by the people, not political appointments. It is obvious that the present senate is obstructing laws on toughening crime and others that the vast majority of Canadians wanted past. Time to turf all these old farts and provide a better method of doing things.

There's your answer, Jennie.

[Higgly]

We should be taking out complexity from our processes, not adding it.

The senate isn't used for anything right now. Why do we need the colossal waste of another house of commons when it's not used. And now people want to add elections as well ?

That is a good point, but I am concerned that here are not enough checks and balances in our system. I am particularly worried about Harper's plan to reduce the power of the judiciary.

A majority parliament without some sort of second opinion just might be a very dangerous thing.

[old_bold&cold]

We should be taking out complexity from our processes, not adding it.

The senate isn't used for anything right now. Why do we need the colossal waste of another house of commons when it's not used. And now people want to add elections as well ?

I do not fear elections and I do nto think the Canadian people do either. These elections for the senate can be done every second federal election, as a seperate issue and only for an 8 year terms. If that is all that is stopping us from having a say in how we get represented in the second house, then lets go for it. But the fact that we have to elect senators would be a pleasure more then a task.

[jdobbin]

We should be taking out complexity from our processes, not adding it.

The senate isn't used for anything right now. Why do we need the colossal waste of another house of commons when it's not used. And now people want to add elections as well ?

It would make it more complex. And putting elections in place might make the place a much more assertive institution. We could have a constitutional crisis because the Senate thinks it has more authority than the government.

The unequal status of seat distribution in the Senate will likely be enshrined because provinces like Quebec have said no in absolute terms to changes.

So what we would have is an elected Senate where western Canada has fewer seats than Atlantic Canada. This is progress?

The government talks about incremental change. The problem is that while Harper may be able push through elections, he is powerless to unilaterally act on Senate changes on equality. That will require a constitutional change. We could be stuck with an elected, assertive Senate that is regionally weighted against the fastest growing area of the country.

[Higgly]

Well maybe if you divide it up by provinces. Why not do it by regions - Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies, West Coast, North? There might be battles between the Senate and the House, but would they be as often if you took political parties out of the mix?

[jdobbin]

Well maybe if you divide it up by provinces. Why not do it by regions - Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies, West Coast, North? There might be battles between the Senate and the House, but would they be as often if you took political parties out of the mix?

Since Quebec has adamantly said no to changes in its number of seats or anyone else's, reform would have to be against their wishes.

As for removing party politics, how would that take place? By not allowing Senate members from caucusing with like-minded people in the Commons?

All I see from this is more Meech, more Charlottetown. As soon as the Senate reform idea is opened up, you will have Natives asking for seats set aside, you will have demands for equality, demands for abolition, demands for gender equity, demands for an effective Senate, demands for a Senate that does not not hold up the Commons.

[Higgly]

Since Quebec has adamantly said no to changes in its number of seats or anyone else's, reform would have to be against their wishes.

I agree. That is a big problem.

As for removing party politics, how would that take place? By not allowing Senate members from caucusing with like-minded people in the Commons?

Just don't allow them to have party membership and take out the election funding problem. They'll be free agents who will be caucusing with whomever they wish.

[jdobbin]

I agree. That is a big problem.

Just don't allow them to have party membership and take out the election funding problem. They'll be free agents who will be caucusing with whomever they wish.

I guess I'm a little cynical that they still will be party members without the $10 membership card.

Edited October 15, 2007 by jdobbin

[jennie]

'Elected' whether Senate or HoC means the person is beholden to their constituents. They will NOT do make any unpopular decisions. The way the system is now, they are beholden to no one and can consider important issues that may not be popular.

I have yet to see anyone present any evidence of shortcomings of the Senate. What I am reading is conjecture and opinion with no basis in fact.

We all know Harper wants to control the Senate, for his own ends. Are you all going to just 'do for the master', or are you going to investigate it yourself, find some facts about what the Senate does and how, and think independently to come to you own conclusion?

One sick Senator is hardly a good reason to destroy the balance in our democracy.

[Wilber]

I really don't understand why people think it needs to be changed. Obviously Harper is trying to circumvent the checks and balances of democracy. How is this desirable?

How does a Liberal appointed and dominated Senate provide for checks and balances to a Liberal majority government? If nothing else Senators should not be the appointees of the Prime Minister. Let the Provinces provide the Senators, elected or appointed.

[jbg]

As opposed to a majority house and a majority senate of the same party?

Not if the PM or HM Opposition leader doesn't sign the Senate nominating papers.

[jbg]

Well maybe if you divide it up by provinces. Why not do it by regions - Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies, West Coast, North? There might be battles between the Senate and the House, but would they be as often if you took political parties out of the mix?

In our country, even when the House and Senate are controlled by same party, they often mark up different versions of the same bill, resulting in the formation or a "conference committee" between the houses. Often, they don't agree.

Checks and balances reduces the frequency of legislation passing. That can either be a good thing or bad thing, depending on your perspective.

[Michael Hardner]

Wilbur,

How does a Liberal appointed and dominated Senate provide for checks and balances to a Liberal majority government?

They don't. When conservatives gain power, many liberals become very concerned about preserving the senate, mainly to cause trouble for the conservatives.

Of course this changes again once the conservatives appoint their boys and regain the majority.

These games are pointless. I hope that Mr. Harper can see the advantage to Canada, and to his party, of pushing to dismantle this useless and unused institution.

[sharkman]

I don't know if abolishing it would be the answer or not. I would want to study early Canadian history to see if perform as it was supposed to first. What we have today is indeed a sham, but it might be fixable.

And how many threads on the Senate do we need?