CPC Hijacking The Senate?

Fortunata · July 6, 2009

The Senate is the body of thought on legislation (among other things). PErhaps we need to find a new way to select them (other than election or appointment). Some kind of committee maybe?

Exactly right. There should be a committee with an equal number of representatives from each party (not including the Bloc). There then could be a determination of what kind of expertise is lacking in the Senate and appointments made on that basis. The PM could not veto or ignore the Committee's pick and the GG would appoint strictly based on the Committee's choices.

You think there is political cynicism and apathy now? It would just be so much worse if Senators were elected. A US Senator said in an interview once that as a Senator she spent one third of her time with Senate duties and two thirds fund raising and working toward the next re-election. Is that really want we want? Do we really need more partisan-ness in government?

Keep it simple, keep it honest and keep it non-partisan.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 6, 2009

Exactly right. There should be a committee with an equal number of representatives from each party (not including the Bloc). There then could be a determination of what kind of expertise is lacking in the Senate and appointments made on that basis. The PM could not veto or ignore the Committee's pick and the GG would appoint strictly based on the Committee's choices.
You think there is political cynicism and apathy now? It would just be so much worse if Senators were elected. A US Senator said in an interview once that as a Senator she spent one third of her time with Senate duties and two thirds fund raising and working toward the next re-election. Is that really want we want? Do we really need more partisan-ness in government?

Keep it simple, keep it honest and keep it non-partisan.

You suggest we perpetuate the mediocrity of the partisan system by entrenching it within an elected senate. Even as you do this you exclude the choice of the Quebec people, that will not fly very well.

To make the Senate do its job (defined as a means of provincial representation at the federal level) then the Senate should be elected. There should be an equal number of Senators per province. The PM should simply appoint individuals at the direction of the democratic process in each province and territory. The Senate should be given a focus of federalism and the Senate should have responsibility for social programs. The House of Commons should be responsible for ALL external affairs including the military, as well as all other national efforts outside of the scope of social programs.

Dave_ON · July 6, 2009

Yes appointing people who have not lived in a certain province for 30 years is very good representation for said region. Is that the kind of representation I get in the Senate? Well no thank you for that.
As for your assertion that the provinces some how need to be run differently then the country I think you are being silly. Large and small provinces run fine with out it and they will continue to do so just as the country will. Although the will of the people might be enforced a little more, who needs people appointed 20 years ago at a different time in Canadian politics and who are well past their due date still making decisions for Canada.

Ohhhhh god I can not believe you are advocating that having a government body who is not indebted to the people and does not have to answer to them as the best form of democracy. That is all we need to go backward in time to an oligarchy. That is great they have to answer to no one. No thank you I would just as soon get rid of them.

This type of post serves to demonstrate my point. You truly don't understand how the senate works. I can't believe you're advocating changing a system that has worked for over 140 years. You think the senate is bad because it's keeping the NDP down. This is not the case it's the people of Canada that are keeping the NDP down, that's why they have never come close to forming the government.

You can't compare provinces to the country anymore than you can compare civic politics to provincial politics. Scale is everything and the larger the area you are governing the more government it takes. Elected commons appointed senate that is the balance and there is nothing undemocratic about that. Why? Because the appointees are appointed by an elected MP namely the PM.

Could the senate use some reform? Yes absolutely, outright abolishment? Absolutely not. You've yet to give a good reason as to why we should get rid of the senate. I know you are minimizing the importance of the "sober second thought" philosophy but it absolutely does work. It's not about killing legislation or subverting the democratic process, it's about ensuring that the whims of a few elected politicians don't go unchecked. This is the same reason we have appointed, rather than elected judges. Judges and Senators should be focusing on what is constitutional and what is right for the country. Let the MP's worry about what the people want. Frankly the people are too ill informed about most issues in order to tell the government how to run the country. Besides the fact that the largest, longest lasting democracies the world over have a two body system. Clearly the US, Canada, and most of Europe is wrong simply because punked believes it to be so.

Simply because the house reads a bill three times does not mean they get a fresh perspective on it. The same people reading the same document are generally going to draw the same conclusions; this is the function of the senate, a fresh perspective without the foregone conclusions. If you can't see that, I can't explain it any more clearly.

As for Referendums ad nausea, no thanks, completely and utterly unnecessary. You think the democratic process is slow now, imagine how long it would take to pass referendums all the time. Both sides running election style campaigns incessantly to pass their specific bill. The people would be no better informed and no better served by such a system. All that it would provide is the illusion of choice. An ill informed vote does not serve democracy in the least, and the vast majority of people would vote for whichever side advertized the most/best.

Smallc · July 6, 2009

What is your reasons for not having them elected as a separate entity?

Why do they need to be elected? They hold too much power to be a completely partisan elected body.

At least if they have a term of election then they would be obligated to show up.

They are obligated to show up, though I do think the amount they are required to show up should be increased.

A life time appointment is a license to abuse the system and create non accountability.

They are appointed until 75, the lifetime appointments no longer exist. They are accountable to the other senators.

I believe they should be elected from regional boundaries so we have a good cross section of the country represented. Also have various professional designations represented to give intelligent discerning.

How could those two things even work together?

Smallc · July 6, 2009

Even as you do this you exclude the choice of the Quebec people, that will not fly very well.

Any party with seats in a particular province would probably have to have a say.

madmax · July 6, 2009

Could the senate use some reform? Yes absolutely, outright abolishment? Absolutely not.

Abolish the Senate

Smallc · July 6, 2009

Very convincing argument.

Remiel · July 7, 2009

"It was not my intention when we started this strategy to use this process to make sure bills don't see the light of day," he said. "Certainly within the rules that could be the outcome. But we're going to review them on a case-by-case basis."

I do not know if I should be afraid or relieved because the government is bold enough to say, effectively, that, " We are going to cheat on a case-by-case basis. "

Edited July 7, 2009 by Remiel

Fortunata · July 7, 2009

I do not know if I should be afraid or relieved because the government is bold enough to say, effectively, that, " We are going to cheat on a case-by-case basis. "

This government seems to do a lot on a case by case basis, for example - they decide which Canadian they will help in a foreign country. Yet they want blanket decisions on Court cases, not leaving Judges discretion to determine what punishment fits on a case by case basis.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency with these guys.

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

Glad that the CPC have the time for this foolishness while unemployment steadily climbs. I'm also glad that they have their priorities in the right place. Can't wait til fall and this group gets kicked to the curb.

It seems strange why the Tories would sponsor bills that would have likely died in the Senate. It does seem like some ploy.

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

Abolish the Senate

Open the Constitution?

punked · July 7, 2009

Open the Constitution?

I stick by you would not have to open the Constitution to abolish the Senate if their was a Referendum on it. Wasn't that what Bill C-81 was about?

Smallc · July 7, 2009

The referendum would have to come in addition to an amendment using the most difficult formula.

madmax · July 7, 2009

Open the Constitution?

If you don't open the Constitution... it is Status Quo.

The Senate is a Farce.

Abolish it.

madmax · July 7, 2009

Very convincing argument.

lol

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

If you don't open the Constitution... it is Status Quo.
The Senate is a Farce.

Abolish it.

I have no problems getting rid of the Senate. The provinces certainly got rid of their upper houses.

If you can get the provinces to agree to it and only it as a constitutional change then by all means. I suspect though that everyone and their dog will start wanting to add things and we will see numerous other amendments tossed in and the Canadian people will will rightly toss them out if it is taken to a vote.

Edited July 7, 2009 by jdobbin

jdobbin · July 7, 2009

I stick by you would not have to open the Constitution to abolish the Senate if their was a Referendum on it. Wasn't that what Bill C-81 was about?

Each province has a right to a referendum on Senate changes. It can't be done with one vote controlled by Elections Canada. Any attempt to ram through a change like that would find the Feds in the Supreme Court where they would be slapped down.

Topaz · July 7, 2009

They aren't wrong though. What does the Senate do besides give cover to those parties which control it now to vote one way and hold legislation up in the Senate? You should own your vote if the majority passes legislation, then it should go through that is democracy.

[/quote

The reason the NDP are against it is they don't have that many people in the senate. Duffy even came out and said in the past weeks he didn't realize how much work there is being a senator and how important they are. Have your ever watched the senate committees on C-Pac? IF no, you should, it may change your mind.

madmax · July 7, 2009

The reason the NDP are against it is they don't have that many people in the senate. Duffy even came out and said in the past weeks he didn't realize how much work there is being a senator and how important they are. Have your ever watched the senate committees on C-Pac? IF no, you should, it may change your mind.

You have things a bit reversed.

The NDP is against the Senate, because, ever since their CCF days they have campaigned for its abolishment.

There are NO NDP Senators because of that policy. There never has been in over 75 years, its not about to change.

(In the meantime, Mike Duffy is a quite the doofus, and pretty much proved it with his naive comments)

Back to.....the useless Senate.

From the Regina Manifesto...

9. B.N.A. Act
The amendment of the Canadian Constitution, without infringing upon racial or religious minority rights or upon legitimate provincial claims to autonomy, so as to deal effectively with urgent economic problems which are essentially national in scope; the abolition of the Canadian Senate

We propose that the necessary amendments to the B.N.A. Act shall be obtained as speedily as required, safeguards being inserted to ensure that the existing rights of racial and religious minorities shall not be changed without their own consent. What is chiefly needed today is the placing in the hands of the national government of more power to control national economic development. In a rapidly changing economic environment our political constitution must be reasonably flexible. The present division of powers between Dominion and Provinces reflects the conditions of a pioneer, mainly agricultural, community in 1867. Our constitution must be brought into line with the increasing industrialization of the country and the consequent centralization of economic and financial power—which has taken place in the last two generations. The principle laid down in the Quebec Resolution of the Fathers of Confederation should be applied to the conditions of 1933, that "there be a general government charged with matters of common interest to the whole country and local governments for each of the provinces charged with the control of local matters to their respective sections".

The Canadian Senate, which was originally created to protect provincial rights, but has failed even in this function, has developed into a bulwark of capitalist interests, as is illustrated by the large number of company directorships held by its aged members. In its peculiar composition of a fixed number of members appointed for life it is one of the most reactionary assemblies in the civilized world. It is a standing obstacle to all progressive legislation, and the only permanently satisfactory method of dealing with the constitutional difficulties it creates is to abolish it.

punked · July 8, 2009

Each province has a right to a referendum on Senate changes. It can't be done with one vote controlled by Elections Canada. Any attempt to ram through a change like that would find the Feds in the Supreme Court where they would be slapped down.

So it could be done with out opening the constitution though?

jdobbin · July 8, 2009

So it could be done with out opening the constitution though?

Not according to some of the foremost constitutional experts. If you tried to force elections on Quebec, for example, that province could go to the Supreme Court and the Feds would be slapped down so fast their heads would spin.

Likewise, if the NDP ever got into government and they did not appoint Senators, they would be in defiance of the Constitution and the Governor General would make the appointments instead. If you don't believe that, look it up. The Governor General has that power and would not tolerate unilateral abolition of the Senate by one political party by not appointing people.

punked · July 8, 2009

Not according to some of the foremost constitutional experts. If you tried to force elections on Quebec, for example, that province could go to the Supreme Court and the Feds would be slapped down so fast their heads would spin.
Likewise, if the NDP ever got into government and they did not appoint Senators, they would be in defiance of the Constitution and the Governor General would make the appointments instead. If you don't believe that, look it up. The Governor General has that power and would not tolerate unilateral abolition of the Senate by one political party by not appointing people.

However with a Federal through the provinces you could do so?

jdobbin · July 8, 2009

However with a Federal through the provinces you could do so?

For Senate changes, it is 10 out 10 provinces must agree. I say good luck with that. Anything is possible but 10 out 10?

punked · July 8, 2009

For Senate changes, it is 10 out 10 provinces must agree. I say good luck with that. Anything is possible but 10 out 10?

I really need to study this but that does not sound right. I really think it is 7 provinces that must agree making up over half the countries population. Anyway we need to get rid of the upper house and it is a fight worth fighting for.

Smallc · July 8, 2009

There are several amending formulas. For a change such as abolition, there would maybe have to be unanimous agreement among the provinces, the Senate, the House, and the Crown. Also, by convention (as created by the Charlottetown Accord) the people may need to be consulted.

The 7/50 rule is also possible, but because it would affect this:

( B ) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

it may not be.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Smallc