Senate reform or abolition

[Canuck E Stan]

NDP wants referendum on Senate

The NDP has called for a referendum so Canadians can vote on whether the Senate should be abolished.

"Let's give Canadians a chance to make that decision," party leader Jack Layton said in Winnipeg on Sunday.

He said the Senate is outdated and undemocratic, but the NDP still wants Canadians to have a say on its future.

The party will introduce a motion in Parliament calling for a referendum.

Two weeks ago, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal proposed a referendum on the Senate.

"The legitimacy of the place is under attack on a pretty regular basis," he said.

The government said it will reintroduce a Senate reform bill, previously blocked by Liberal senators, in the new session of Parliament.

Looks like Senate reform is coming much sooner than later.

[Leafless]

Canada should hold a referendum on whether to continue the $60-million Senate in the next federal election, NDP Leader Jack Layton said in a stopover in Winnipeg Sunday.

"It's a 19th-century institution that has no place in a modern democracy," Layton said.

The Senate is undemocratic because Senators are appointed by the ruling government and not elected.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingn...p-4672676c.html

I think Jack Layton's propoal makes sense and he is on to something. But would all ten provinces agree to it.

As it is now:

the Senate because of its pointless nature, critics of the Senate have alleged that the institution is fast becoming nothing more than a "country club" for friends of the Prime Minister. Senators get a lot of perks and high pay and they don't have to do much in return. An Ontario professor recently released a shocking report on the Senate, in which he revealed somewhere around 20% of all Senators never even bother showing up to vote. One Senator had even been living in Mexico for the last year, and was still collecting his Senate paycheck. The professor also pointed out that the only time all senators ever showed up for work was on "pay raise" days, in which they would vote to increase their salaries.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/canguide...lmnt_senate.php

[shavluk]

Now he is even doing hand off work for Harper?

Layton and Harper what a team!!

Making Canada work.

Pretty cozy in my view although the ndp have never been in a position to make senate appointments if they did I am sure they wouldn't put ed broadbent or stephen lewis in there ,,yeah right.

I would still support this referendum as I agree abolish or make them elected.

[jdobbin]

Looks like Senate reform is coming much sooner than later.

Even if a referendum is called for Canada and a vote comes in for either abolition or a triple E Senate, it still has to go to the provinces. A few like Quebec are resisting any change.

[kengs333]

There's probably no more useless issue in Canadian politics than senate reform. What we really need is electoral reform first, so we can at least have an electoral system that is democratic rather than the joke FPTP system we have now.

[geoffrey]

Even if a referendum is called for Canada and a vote comes in for either abolition or a triple E Senate, it still has to go to the provinces. A few like Quebec are resisting any change.

Quebec has no veto. It will take more than that. I think you'll see opposition from the Maritimes as well.

[kengs333]

Who cares about the senate when we need electoral reforms first; our electoral system can hardly be considered democratic since in most riding 40-75% of votes stand for nothing. There were probably only about 35-40 ridings in the last Ontario election where a candidate received 50%+1 of the vote--thats only about one-third of seats. Sad, very sad.

Moreover, we need to look at a process whereby judges are elected. These people have considerable influence on law, and as it stands the Canadian public has little or no understanding of who these people are.

[jdobbin]

Quebec has no veto. It will take more than that. I think you'll see opposition from the Maritimes as well.

There is no consensus on the Senate. Quebec by itself can't veto it but with some provinces wanting abolition and others wanting a triple E Senate, you are not going to be able to get that far with a referendum nationally.

[Wilber]

There is no consensus on the Senate. Quebec by itself can't veto it but with some provinces wanting abolition and others wanting a triple E Senate, you are not going to be able to get that far with a referendum nationally.

f

No consensus among governments but it would be interesting to see what the public thinks. You might find that there is among the people.

[maldon_road]

Quebec has no veto. It will take more than that. I think you'll see opposition from the Maritimes as well.

We will never have constitutional reform - which is needed because of the geographic imbalance of Senators. However, if Harper can convince some provinces to at least elect Senators it will help with the Senate's credibility.

[old_bold&cold]

I would welcome any form of working senate, but I also would like to see it elected and set terms for each senator. I have a huge problem with the way it is now, where it can be stacked with lifetime appointments, and then used as a weapon to stall things or speedy passage. I like the idea of a sober second thought, but not the patisan methods seen today. Harper has the right idea and it is something that he should try to put forward as much as he can. This is the kind of thing that can be done by adding the referendum questions to the voting ballots, during the next federal election. It would also make for a good campaigne strategy for all parties depending on how they see the new senate being formed. This issue would be more telling about things then a lot of the things each party wants to be shown as, during an election.

Quebec might surprise many of us as I do not think the voters would be against senate reform, where the provincial governments may be more so. Iguess I would see the split on this as being one where the Liberals would be against reform, but the fact that I do not know what the Liberals are standing for anymore, I guess they may surprise me on that.

[Topaz]

PM MacDonald described the senate as "a sober second thought" that would curb the "democratic excesses" of the elected House of Commons and provide regional representation. It was to be a "brake " on the House of Commons. The senate was deliberately made an appointed house, since an ELECTED Senate might prove to be TOO powerful and TOO popular to block the will of the House of Commons. Now, Harper says there more Libs than Cons within the senate and he is right BUT in 2008, alot of the Libs are retiring and therefore he could appoint Cons and therefore the senate would have more Cons than Libs! So what is his beef. The senate seems to me after watching them in committee meetings, they are there for US, the taxpayer, the voter!! Layton wants to get rid of it because the NDP a very few as senators, so maybe he could make a deal with Harper to put so more NDP in there. If the senate is gotten rid of then we will probably ended up with a US run government, where Harper will veto anything he doesn't like and the taxpayers have no representation!

[fellowtraveller]

There's probably no more useless issue in Canadian politics than senate reform. What we really need is electoral reform first, so we can at least have an electoral system that is democratic rather than the joke FPTP system we have now

I disagree that it is a useless isuue.

I reckon Harper is going to make very good use of it if the Senate slows down anything passed in Parliament.

He'll stop waiting for the Liberals to tire of debasing themselves, and force an election himself on the basis that the Senate made him do it. A referendum may accompany the general election that follows.........

[kengs333]

I disagree that it is a useless isuue.

I reckon Harper is going to make very good use of it if the Senate slows down anything passed in Parliament.

He'll stop waiting for the Liberals to tire of debasing themselves, and force an election himself on the basis that the Senate made him do it. A referendum may accompany the general election that follows.........

Oh, well, let's not forget that the Conservatives were only elected by about 36% of the electorate, and their approval rating hasn't increased all that much. I think many Canadians wouldn't have a problem with the Senate stalling anything that passes because they don't want the Conservatives screwing up the country. Moreover, and election would only result in another minority government, so calling an election is apt to piss off more people than Harper would like.

[kengs333]

PM MacDonald described the senate as "a sober second thought" that would curb the "democratic excesses" of the elected House of Commons and provide regional representation. It was to be a "brake " on the House of Commons. The senate was deliberately made an appointed house, since an ELECTED Senate might prove to be TOO powerful and TOO popular to block the will of the House of Commons. Now, Harper says there more Libs than Cons within the senate and he is right BUT in 2008, alot of the Libs are retiring and therefore he could appoint Cons and therefore the senate would have more Cons than Libs! So what is his beef. The senate seems to me after watching them in committee meetings, they are there for US, the taxpayer, the voter!! Layton wants to get rid of it because the NDP a very few as senators, so maybe he could make a deal with Harper to put so more NDP in there. If the senate is gotten rid of then we will probably ended up with a US run government, where Harper will veto anything he doesn't like and the taxpayers have no representation!

I suppose should the senate be abolished outright as some would like, then the Monarchy would be next. Both of these institutions are added security, and enhance Canada's democratic system. When I look at how things work in the United States, it frightens me that there are people who want to adopt that flawed system. I'm not trying to be arrogant or snide when I say this, but Canada's system really is superior and we should not be changing it.

[Michael Bluth]

Moreover, and election would only result in another minority government, so calling an election is apt to piss off more people than Harper would like.

Only result in a minority?

The Conservatives definitely have a shot at a majority next time around. That's why Steph is bending over and allowing the Conservatives to do what they want in order to avoid the election.

The only people who would be pissed off by an early election are the Liberals and their supporters.

[guyser]

That's why Steph is bending over and allowing the Conservatives to do what they want in...

...must resist temptation...must resist temptation....

[kengs333]

Only result in a minority?

The Conservatives definitely have a shot at a majority next time around. That's why Steph is bending over and allowing the Conservatives to do what they want in order to avoid the election.

The only people who would be pissed off by an early election are the Liberals and their supporters.

No, I get the impression that people don't want to waste lots of money on elections every 1.5 to 2 years, and to have to listen to politicians of all stripes go around making promises they won't keep.

There are a lot of things that are dogging the Conservatives and Harper; Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition may not be able to make much of it, but they are there. Harper has some serious personality and control issues, his antipathy towards women and social programs, pandering to Quebec, his stance on Afghanistan. You never know what can happen during an election campaign; maybe a bunch of soldiers get killed in Afghanistan, some paper gets leaked, he makes an insulting remark about something.

[Michael Bluth]

You never know what can happen during an election campaign; maybe a bunch of soldiers get killed in Afghanistan, some paper gets leaked, he makes an insulting remark about something.

I do agree with you that you never know what can happen during an election campaign.

Still not sure how you can say that and say:

An election

would only result in another minority government

If anything can happen how do you know what the result would be?

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=CTVNewsAt11

NDP Leader Jack Layton has won the backing of the prime minister to hold a nation-wide referendum on the abolition of the unelected Senate, CTV News has learned.

Insiders say Stephen Harper is prepared to support an NDP motion that would call for a national referendum on Senate abolition at the time of the next general election that is set for October 2009.

Sources also say Layton and Harper have held private discussions about Layton's proposal in recent days.

Tory insiders say the prime minister will have the Conservatives vote for the NDP motion that could be tabled in the Commons as early as next Tuesday.

The NDP referendum plan is similar to an idea floated by Conservative Senator Hugh Segal.

Harper has put his own reform proposals that call for electing senators but that has been blocked by the Liberal-dominated Senate.

Harper has also put legislation before Parliament that would set eight year terms for senators.

The combined Tory-NDP vote would allow for the passage of Layton's proposal but it would still likely have to pass the Senate, where Liberal senators have objected to any significant reform.

I wonder what happened to Harper's elected Senate plan?

EDIT

This was the opening post of a previous thread entitled: Harper Backs Layton on referendum on Senate

which has now been merged into this current thread.

The current thread was once called: Senate Reform-More sooner than Later? NDP and Conservatives calling for referendum.

and has now been renamed.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Charles Anthony
merged into active thread of the same topic

[Smallc]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=CTVNewsAt11

I wonder what happened to Harper's elected Senate plan?

He said either change or go away. It looks like its go away.

[jbg]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=CTVNewsAt11

I wonder what happened to Harper's elected Senate plan?

I suspect any referendum would include that as an option.

[geoffrey]

Ladies and gentlemen, we're opening the constitution. What is Harper thinking?

Oh wait. I know. This will never pass the Senate and it gives Harper an excuse to call an election (Liberals refusing to hear the voices of Canadians... sounds SOOOO good).

Brilliant move Steveo, brilliant move.

[jdobbin]

I suspect any referendum would include that as an option.

There's been no mention of that option in any of the TV news reports tonight. Since four provinces lean towards abolition, it is the one idea that might get constitutional approval.

[WestViking]

Ladies and gentlemen, we're opening the constitution. What is Harper thinking?

Oh wait. I know. This will never pass the Senate and it gives Harper an excuse to call an election (Liberals refusing to hear the voices of Canadians... sounds SOOOO good).

Brilliant move Steveo, brilliant move.

I think you mean (Liberal Senators refusing to hear the voices of Canadians... sounds SOOOO good).