An elected senate

[Higgly]

Steve has said he wants to move Canada towards an elected Senate. I think this is a great idea. The questions I have is "what is it that an elected senate is supposed to do? What power(s) should it have?"

Right now, the senate has only the power to delay bills. There is some usefulness in this, I suppose, if an election is on the horizon. But it is passive-aggressive power, which is no more than the bureaucracy has.

The question I have is this: what is it that an elected senate can contribute to Canada, and what has to change so that it can do so?

[no queenslave]

Steve has said he wants to move Canada towards an elected Senate. I think this is a great idea. The questions I have is "what is it that an elected senate is supposed to do? What power(s) should it have?"

Right now, the senate has only the power to delay bills. There is some usefulness in this, I suppose, if an election is on the horizon. But it is passive-aggressive power, which is no more than the bureaucracy has.

The question I have is this: what is it that an elected senate can contribute to Canada, and what has to change so that it can do so?

why not recognize the Statute of Wesminster and allow the people their right of sovereignty , and their right to make a constitution as to how much power they want a federal government to have. First -innocent till proven otherwise in an impartial court- no more appointing corrupt judges to stay in power.

[sharkman]

An elected Senate actually has to get their snouts out of the trough long enough to give voters a reason to re-elect them. The sneaky buggers we have now have no fear of being turfed.

[M.Dancer]

Abolish the senate. There is zero need for itnand no reason why parliament can't be unicameral.

[no queenslave]

Abolish the senate. There is zero need for itnand no reason why parliament can't be unicameral.

Canada should be run just like any other buissness- president- board of directors- and employees to run the country. The civill servants are the employers- the president is elected by the board of directors- the bord of directors are elected by the people.

The model has served companies well for along time. No need for an opposition or senate.

Look at how the northern part of the country is governed.

[jennie]

I am not in favour of an elected Senate, as that removes one of the critical checks and balances in our system. That is, of course, what Harper wants to do: remove the checks and balances so he can be a despot even with support of only a minority of Canadians.

There are certain issues that our short term politically beholden MP's are simply not equipped for or willing to handle. We need a stable body to deal with the important long term in depth issues that don't do well in the political fray.

The Senate is constructed to address these types of issues because it is stable over the long term. Although politically appointed, they are not as beholden to political whims and despots as the House of Commons. They have a quasi-judicial independence rather like academic freedom and the Senate can and does address necessary but politically unpopular issues.

This year, for example, the Senate released a report about Specific Land Claims called Negotiation or Confrontation? It's Canada's Choice. The report has been instrumental in supporting the demands for reform to the claims system.

There would NEVER in a million years be a negative report produced with a name like that nor those recommendations from a solely elected Senate, nor from the House of Commons.

Certainly not during a possible election year, and likely never.

One other point: Due to the manner in which they are appointed and their term (to 75 years of age), the Senate seats do not 'turnover' in every election like the House of Commons. Consequently, they are protected from the vagaries of political whims and in fact, more accurately reflect the choices in governments of the Canadian people over time, rather than at a single point in time. Again, this stability in our Senate is an important balance to the political winds of the House, and those are the checks and balances within the system as designed.

That may be good for Harper and the corporations to continue to plunder Canada's resources despite environmental devastation, but it is BAD BAD BAD for Canadian people, imo.

Before people jump on this bandwagon, I suggest you find out why the Senate is constructed as it is, and what checks and balances it provides to our system.

The foundation of successful democracy is an informed citizenry who can keep government power mongers in check. If we jump on every political bandwagon, we are only contributing to someone elses political power over us. Make no mistake: If the politicians are pushing it, it is because they stand to gain, not us.

[Pliny]

I am not in favour of an elected Senate, as that removes one of the critical checks and balances in our system. That is, of course, what Harper wants to do: remove the checks and balances so he can be a despot even with support of only a minority of Canadians.

Well, what if the Senate is stacked with "appointed"Conservatives? Right now it is stacked with appointed Liberals. That can be changed.

Make no mistake: If the politicians are pushing it, it is because they stand to gain, not us.

You mean like global warming?

[Pliny]

Canada should be run just like any other buissness- president- board of directors- and employees to run the country. The civill servants are the employers- the president is elected by the board of directors- the bord of directors are elected by the people.

The model has served companies well for along time. No need for an opposition or senate.

Look at how the northern part of the country is governed.

Companies have no authority to use force or delegate the use of force, governments do. There must be checks and balances to power, mostly to protect the people from government. You are suggesting an unopposed authority run a country without the citizenry having a means to appeal. If the President could be fired, as in a company, there would be many that would seek to fire him and we would have no effective government. Voting is not an effective tool against tyranny.

I think I understand that you believe in the business model and think it should be applied to the structure of government. Corporate structure and businesses, if compared to government, are socialistic in nature. They can run unopposed because they have no power to use force and they follow the laws (Force) set out to determine their conduct.

So socialism has it's place in society and it is not as a government.

The paternal family model is also socialistic in nature. Socialism within government, not being supportive of competition and wishing to not have competition ideally, such as business does or as the paternal family model wishes no competition to the father, attempts to eliminate both of them by the use of law (force). Socialistic governments become social engineers. Competition to their authority is always perceived as resistance to their authority and attempts to eliminate resistance eventually becomes incorporated in its laws if allowed or if it can slip it by an indifferent populace.

Government must operate with it's hands tied behind its back and having it's mandate clearly defined. Society can and should resolve most of its problems without the need of government - the use of government being an appeal to the use of force.

[Slavik44]

@ jennie

It is my opinion that there should be a balance struck between what you are proposing and what is proposed by Stephen Harper's "Triple E" Senate. I believe the central role of the Senate should be to act as a restraint against the Federal Government, while at the same time I believe it should better represent the will of the voters, with out leading to a Senate that is, nothing more than, a carbon copy of the House of Commons.

I believe the best way to resolve this issue. Is to limit Senate terms to somewhere between 7-10 years, and transfer the power of appointment to the provinces. As I said I believe the role of the Senate is to act as restraint on the powers of the Federal Government. I believe that allowing provinces to appoint Senators accomplishes this goal, better then either a carbon copy H.O.C, or the will of 40% of the population from 20 years ago.

Likewise, it also better reflects the will of the people, then our current appointment system, In particular the will of the people who are to be served by those senators. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister, who is generally the leader of the party with the most seats in the H.O.C. When it comes to the senate what it means, is that as it stands right now, if Manitoba has six seats, they are attributed to Manitoba in name and in name only. In Reality, 95% of the power of appointment lies outside the region those seats are supposed to serve. this is true of all regions, no region has full control over the senate seats that are supposed to serve them. This Creates a huge problem, because ultimately it does lend to the idea of senators as tools of the federal powers. It is a troubling situation when Senators at least in part owe their loyalty to Big Party Bureaucracies-- the people the senators are supposed to be acting as a restraint against.

[old_bold&cold]

The senate was to be a place where sober second thought about the things parliament passed were then examined for flaws. That was great back when those types of issues were easily tampered with. But today we pretty much have totally open debates on these subjects and the media are also there to make the public aware of each and every thing and how it will affect the people as to their lifes in just about every area of Canada. So the second thought to find flaws is not really an issue today. While myself, would probably go with deleting the senate completely, I would have to say that the majority would be, to go with elected senate and have definded terms, instead of the post for life, that is todays way. That way we have a say in how we have these people actually work and the mechanism to get rid of them when they do not work. Although it would be interesting to see just how this would be handled. I would also think that if the Senate were from elected people, who have never been in political life, that would cause a large hue and cry from all the parties, but it would most likely be the best working senate of all. I just have a view that even an elected senate will be filled with pork barrel politics, just as it is today. That is why I still say do away with it completely, but as I said earlier I think the majority will say elected senate.

[margrace]

Canada should be run just like any other buissness- president- board of directors- and employees to run the country. The civill servants are the employers- the president is elected by the board of directors- the bord of directors are elected by the people.

The model has served companies well for along time. No need for an opposition or senate.

Look at how the northern part of the country is governed.

So if this is true why do we have Unions?

[Pliny]

The senate was to be a place where sober second thought about the things parliament passed were then examined for flaws. That was great back when those types of issues were easily tampered with. But today we pretty much have totally open debates on these subjects and the media are also there to make the public aware of each and every thing and how it will affect the people as to their lifes in just about every area of Canada. So the second thought to find flaws is not really an issue today. While myself, would probably go with deleting the senate completely, I would have to say that the majority would be, to go with elected senate and have definded terms, instead of the post for life, that is todays way. That way we have a say in how we have these people actually work and the mechanism to get rid of them when they do not work. Although it would be interesting to see just how this would be handled. I would also think that if the Senate were from elected people, who have never been in political life, that would cause a large hue and cry from all the parties, but it would most likely be the best working senate of all. I just have a view that even an elected senate will be filled with pork barrel politics, just as it is today. That is why I still say do away with it completely, but as I said earlier I think the majority will say elected senate.

I think sober second thought is necessary in government. It is fairly easy to slip things by a complacent, unconcerned public. They have lives to live and want the straight goods from their government. They often don't get that. They get pork barrel politics.

[Michael Hardner]

If sober second thought is necessary, then why don't we use it ? The senate doesn't turn back legislation now. I don't know that they *never* do it, but you never hear of it.

The general public is not interested in more politics, more elections and more rhetoric. The senate should be banned.

[mikedavid00]

The general public is not interested in more politics, more elections and more rhetoric. The senate should be banned.

I think the senate should stay and be downsized to 13 people to represent each province. This was mentioned before.

But you know what though, I have a question.

So, if people were to elect a senator, how special interest exploit this vote?

Like.. who gets elected? Are they a member of a partisan party? Or are they a leader of a Mosque? Like how would this work?

As people know, i'm very worreid about exploitation of our political system.

[mikedavid00]

I think sober second thought is necessary in government. It is fairly easy to slip things by a complacent, unconcerned public. They have lives to live and want the straight goods from their government. They often don't get that. They get pork barrel politics.

It's not like we have a say anyway.

I feel that the public can decide if we are made to vote.

[Michael Hardner]

I think the senate should stay and be downsized to 13 people to represent each province. This was mentioned before.

But you know what though, I have a question.

So, if people were to elect a senator, how special interest exploit this vote?

Like.. who gets elected? Are they a member of a partisan party? Or are they a leader of a Mosque? Like how would this work?

As people know, i'm very worreid about exploitation of our political system.

MikeD,

I should have used the term 'banned', but 'disbanded'.

You have hit upon a major downside of elected senators, namely more politics.

[Rue]

why not recognize the Statute of Wesminster and allow the people their right of sovereignty , and their right to make a constitution as to how much power they want a federal government to have. First -innocent till proven otherwise in an impartial court- no more appointing corrupt judges to stay in power.

1. the Statute of Westminister was recognized

2. Canada is soverign

3. Canada has a right to make its own constitution

4. Canada has been defining on an on-going basis federal and provincial powers

5. please give names of the corupt Judges and how you know they are corupt

6. your obsession with the Queen is caused by what? The Queen is simply a symbolic figure for head of state-that is all it is-its a symbol, if you no like change it to Paris Hilton, go out and start a petition. Go check the amending formula requirements. I am sure Quebec would be on side right away.

Me I could care less who the TITular head of state is. I personally think it should be Shania Twain.

[jbg]

Steve has said he wants to move Canada towards an elected Senate. I think this is a great idea. The questions I have is "what is it that an elected senate is supposed to do? What power(s) should it have?"

Right now, the senate has only the power to delay bills. There is some usefulness in this, I suppose, if an election is on the horizon. But it is passive-aggressive power, which is no more than the bureaucracy has.

The question I have is this: what is it that an elected senate can contribute to Canada, and what has to change so that it can do so?

The answer is that if they're elected on any kind of a different formula than the HOC, and any legislation has to clear both houses, it poses a useful check on a runaway Prime Minister, e.g. Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who Frenchified the country with no mandate for such major changes. A non-elected Senate really cannot fulfull that function.

[jbg]

Abolish the senate. There is zero need for itnand no reason why parliament can't be unicameral.

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

[Moxie]

I think we should have the right to elect who represents us in the Senate, as it stands now it's a plum patronage posting until you are to old to show anymore or die. For those that can be bothered showing up. The liberals and now the conservatives can use this chamber to stack the deck after they get kicked out of office. I don't like that.

[Wilber]

I don't know that we need an elected Senate, just one that isn't stacked by appointees of the Federal party in power.

[jdobbin]

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

And an elected Senate with no changes in regional representation is a recipe for great unfairness.

Either it is changed completely or not at all. The west really gets screwed with an elected Senate.

[jbg]

And an elected Senate with no changes in regional representation is a recipe for great unfairness.

Either it is changed completely or not at all. The west really gets screwed with an elected Senate.

How's that?

[jdobbin]

How's that?

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

[Michael Bluth]

How's that?

It's easy to set up a false dichotomy that advances the platform of the Canadian left.

The Conservatives favour an incremental approach as a means to a triple-E senate.

The Canadian left wants the senate abolished.

So they downplay the benefits of the incremental approach and exaggerate the disadvantages.

By making it an all or nothing issue they think they are placing the odds in their favour.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Michael Bluth