Senate Reform

[Topaz]

At noon hour today, Van Loan was telling Parliament what they have done as a gov't and what they still want to do. I get the feeling the Senate is a thorn in Harper's side. They want to limit terms to 8 years, which I know even ALL senators are against, they rather have at least 12-15 years, because as a Con senator said, it takes a number of years for a person to get into the job. Harper then wants elections for senators, which I guess could be bad or good and if he can't have any of this he wants the senate gone, which after watching a number of senate hearings , they represent the people against the will of the gov't no matter who the PM is! While Van Loan was talking about the election of senator, it reminds me of...US Congress. IF the senate was good enough for the past conservative and liberals governments, why does this alliance/con, think HE can change this government so much. I say its not up to Harper to change the senate its up to the PEOPLE and I think if people watched the senate in their meeting, they would have a different view of them.

[Wilber]

If the Senate was elected, changing it would be up to the people. The people have never had a say in anything to do with the Senate.

[M.Dancer]

I say its not up to Harper to change the senate its up to the PEOPLE and I think if people watched the senate in their meeting, they would have a different view of them.

Most people would want the senate abolished if they saw it.....it is an anachronism....the senate evolved from the house of lords whose object was to represent the interests of the aristocracy and the church. To this day the house of lords has hereditary seats for nobility and seats for the clergy.

In Canada the senate was reserved for the wealth, and as a hold over, a senator must own a certain amount of property. recently a nun was selected and they had to but land for her in order for her to accept the seat.

Senators represent no one except their party (except the few who were elected).....

[fellowtraveller]

I can easily see Harper going to war in a very public way with the Senate. Not coincidentally, the Senate is Liberal controlled and will be for a generation.

He'll be trying to leverage an election out of the gore.

If he does, Dion may be forced into either eating a turd sandwich and pretending he enjoys it by supporting the dismantling of a tool that serves him, or defying Harper and bringing him down.

In any case, it is a relatively safe issue for Harper, he can point and laugh at an institution that few Candians respect. He could even attempt to dismember it, and most folks would be cheering him on.......

[Topaz]

I can easily see Harper going to war in a very public way with the Senate. Not coincidentally, the Senate is Liberal controlled and will be for a generation.

He'll be trying to leverage an election out of the gore.

If he does, Dion may be forced into either eating a turd sandwich and pretending he enjoys it by supporting the dismantling of a tool that serves him, or defying Harper and bringing him down.

In any case, it is a relatively safe issue for Harper, he can point and laugh at an institution that few Candians respect. He could even attempt to dismember it, and most folks would be cheering him on.......

If you go to the senate's website , you will see at least 12-14 senators are retiring by the next election date of Oct./09. IF harper was PM he could put that many Cons into the senate and there's even more retiring every year after that.

[Fortunata]

Topaz 12:45 PM

IF harper was PM he could put that many Cons into the senate and there's even more retiring every year after that.

He'll probably wait until after the next election and see where he's short on representation and which portfolios need new Ministers.

[kengs333]

I can easily see Harper going to war in a very public way with the Senate. Not coincidentally, the Senate is Liberal controlled and will be for a generation.

He'll be trying to leverage an election out of the gore.

If he does, Dion may be forced into either eating a turd sandwich and pretending he enjoys it by supporting the dismantling of a tool that serves him, or defying Harper and bringing him down.

In any case, it is a relatively safe issue for Harper, he can point and laugh at an institution that few Candians respect. He could even attempt to dismember it, and most folks would be cheering him on.......

And that's the only reason there's a problem with it, because it's controlled by the Liberals. If it was the other way around, we'd never hear a peep about from all those westerners who seem to have nothing better to worry about. Let's start with reforming the electoral system to be more representative, first.

[Higgly]

The senate is irrelevant and likely to stay that way because only parliament can give it any power and fat chance that will happen.

[old_bold&cold]

The vast majority of Canadians do not know what the senate does and they do not care to learn, but rather just get rid of it. Save the money for some other thing. Even of those who know what the senate does, a very large number also say it should be changed or gone. This is not something that Harper has recently got on to, but rather something that he has had for a very long time. Even it the senate was stacked with CPC, he would still be wanting to change it. It has never been a thing that he saw as a working tool of government.

While yes the senate is trying to give Harper a tough time right now, he is enjoying that as it is that kind of thing that is giving him a majority, the next time an election is called. People are starting to see that he must be a great PM, if he can get things past in an minority government. They will see him as working for the will of the people. The opposition refusing to bring his government down, is exactly how he said like a professor telling the student all that was wrong with his paper, and then giving him a passing grade. He is not overly pushing his joy in all this, but you can bet a few guffaws were let out once away from the cameras.

His mission to reform and triple E senate, will just be an extra along the way. If he was really wanting to fast track this, he easily could. Even with the guidelines for doing so.

[g_bambino]

Most people would want the senate abolished if they saw it.....it is an anachronism....

Whether they want it or not, should it be abolished? I can't think of a large, federated, democratic country that doesn't have an upper house.

If there has to be Senate reform, I'd be most comfortable with the Australian version.

[fellowtraveller]

And that's the only reason there's a problem with it, because it's controlled by the Liberals. If it was the other way around, we'd never hear a peep about from all those westerners who seem to have nothing better to worry about. Let's start with reforming the electoral system to be more representative, first.

Baloney.

Senate reform has been on Harpers plate, and the Reform plate, for at least 15 years.

Keep in mind he is looking for a way to an election. If he can sucker Dion into one over the Senate, it is a beauty issue for Harper. And Senate reform is part of electoral reform. Oh, you are probably wetdreaming about PropRep.

[Higgly]

I doubt Canadians will see Harper as especially good for getting legislation through in a minority situation. More likely they will see the Liberals as useless. One of the Es of triple E is effective. The senate will never be effective without some sort of real power and I cannot see a micro-manager like Harper ever giving the senate any real power at all.

[fellowtraveller]

If you go to the senate's website , you will see at least 12-14 senators are retiring by the next election date of Oct./09. IF harper was PM he could put that many Cons into the senate and there's even more retiring every year after that.

Dude , you have to pay attention. It would take a lifetime to change the guard there, and Harper is going to be very careful on appointments. His preference under the current, crappy, system would be to appoint Senators elected by the province, and he won't make the very basic and very stupid mistake of only picking Cons. If you believe otherwise, you have not been watching Harper very carefully.

[jdobbin]

His preference under the current, crappy, system would be to appoint Senators elected by the province, and he won't make the very basic and very stupid mistake of only picking Cons. If you believe otherwise, you have not been watching Harper very carefully.

An elected system with the same distribution of seats would be unfair to Western Canada. Moreover, Senators who got elected on their own would be less apt to follow instructions from the House of Commons or their political masters and would be rivals for power and legitimacy under the present rules.

It is incomplete Senate reform and not one that I'm convinced will be an improvement.

[geoffrey]

If there has to be Senate reform, I'd be most comfortable with the Australian version.

Good luck ever selling that to Quebec and Ontario and especially the Maritimes. The only provinces that would benefit from a equal seat distribution would be essientially Alberta and BC (Ontario and Quebec are currently underrepresented, but they'd lose even more if seats were equal. The only gainers that are currently hugely underrepresented are Alberta and BC). Everyone else loses.

Alberta and BC alone can't push Senate reform.

[geoffrey]

An elected system with the same distribution of seats would be unfair to Western Canada.

Your right. Giving power to the current distribution would be completely unacceptable to Alberta and BC. If the seat counts don't change, Senate reform is a major step backwards in representation. I would never support a government that gave legitimacy to the current mess.

I'd rather an ineffective senate than an effective one controlled by the Maritimes, sometimes with 20 times the representation per capita as British Columbia.

[Higgly]

Well here's a thought. Why associate the senate candidates with any region at all? Why can't the senate be an elevated body that represents the entire country? Let anybody from anywhere run for senate and make a stipulation that a senator and a senate candidate cannot have any party affiliation. Let senators be elected by national vote, like the US president. To remove the power of the party, restrict senate candidates to web sites and free time telecasts. Let all candidates have space on the senate web site and make media networks provide the time.

Then give the senate some real power.

[August1991]

Discussion of Senate reform in Western Canada is comparable to discussion of sovereignty in Quebec. Endless and pointless.

Changes to the Senate require unanimous approval and as long as Quebec has not signed onto the Constitution, no change in the Senate will happen. Harper seems to think that he can institute an elected senate and impose term limits but I don't think that's Constitutional. Anyway, Harper probably won't get this legislation through.

[jdobbin]

Your right. Giving power to the current distribution would be completely unacceptable to Alberta and BC. If the seat counts don't change, Senate reform is a major step backwards in representation. I would never support a government that gave legitimacy to the current mess.

I'd rather an ineffective senate than an effective one controlled by the Maritimes, sometimes with 20 times the representation per capita as British Columbia.

People are calling it incremental changes but I tend to think that if elections become the norm, it will make the Senate more of a sticking point for western dissatisfaction given the lack of fairness in representation.

Westerners will be want the other two Es of effective an equal and may never get that because that would require a Constitutional change.

[M.Dancer]

Let anybody from anywhere run for senate and make a stipulation that a senator and a senate candidate cannot have any party affiliation.

How would you enfrce that?

MEDIA:Mr. Dancer....you say that you are not a New Democrat, but you have every NDP policy in your platform, How do you account or that?

Mr Dancer: Coincidence?