Senate Reform - How To Do It Wrong

[Smallc]

We built it so things will be impossible to change. We just didn't know it.

Things aren't impossible to change at all. Ontario, Alberta, BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would certainly be on side with Senate reform. Polls show that the people support reform...so, have a a referendum. The provincial governments aren't going to stand in the way of the voting public within their provinces.

The only reason it can't be changed is because the Conservatives seem to have no real desire to change it.

[Smallc]

Last I heard, the Senate was part of Parliament. The unelected part.

There are 3 parts to parliament. One is elected, one is appointed, and one is eternal. They are meant to act as a protection against each other.

[Moonlight Graham]

A 12-year limit is a pathetic start to reforming the Senate. The average senator serves 9.7 years (since 1975) as it is now. I can't see a 12-year limit having a huge impact on that number.

Also, the OP brings up a very valid point. This would be a significant reform to the Constitution and won't go through without a bunch of Provinces kicking up a big fuss. There have been other bills introduced in Parliament the last few years that proposed 8-year terms limits, but i believe they were chopped when Parliament prorogued at different times.

[Moonlight Graham]

There are 3 parts to parliament. One is elected, one is appointed, and one is eternal. They are meant to act as a protection against each other.

They don't do a very good job.

[Smallc]

They don't do a very good job.

Whenever they try to do their jobs, people get mad and call them illegitimate.

[Wilber]

There are 3 parts to parliament. One is elected, one is appointed, and one is eternal. They are meant to act as a protection against each other.

When I go to the Parliament website I only see reference to the Commons and Senate. Which is the eternal part?

[Smallc]

When I go to the Parliament website I only see reference to the Commons and Senate. Which is the eternal part?

The Parliament of Canada (French: Parlement du Canada) is the federal legislative branch of Canada, seated at Parliament Hill in the national capital, Ottawa. Formally, the body consists of the Canadian monarch – represented by her governor general – the Senate, and the House of Commons, each element having its own officers and organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Canada

[Wilber]

The Parliament of Canada (French: Parlement du Canada) is the federal legislative branch of Canada, seated at Parliament Hill in the national capital, Ottawa. Formally, the body consists of the Canadian monarch – represented by her governor general – the Senate, and the House of Commons, each element having its own officers and organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Canada

Still, with all do respect to that infallible source wikipedia, there is no mention of the GG on Parliament's own site. Besides, like the Senate, the GG is appointed by Prime Ministers. Doesn't seem much of a recipe for the protection of anything.

[Moonlight Graham]

Whenever they try to do their jobs, people get mad and call them illegitimate.

Because they aren't. The Crown and the Senate aren't elected and are very undemocratic. That's why each has squat for power, because each is seen as not very legitimate compared to the elected House.

[ToadBrother]

A 12-year limit is a pathetic start to reforming the Senate. The average senator serves 9.7 years (since 1975) as it is now. I can't see a 12-year limit having a huge impact on that number.

Also, the OP brings up a very valid point. This would be a significant reform to the Constitution and won't go through without a bunch of Provinces kicking up a big fuss. There have been other bills introduced in Parliament the last few years that proposed 8-year terms limits, but i believe they were chopped when Parliament prorogued at different times.

Let's look at it the other way. What happens after eight years or twelve years if a Senator says "I'm not stepping down"? So far as I can tell, at that point, if this bill is in fact law, there's precious little Parliament could do.

[Smallc]

The Crown is part of Parliament. Wikipedia was simply a quick source. Wikipedia is a bit wrong with it's wording though. It's not about the Governor General, it's about the Crown. The Crown (not the Governor General) is eternal and unchanging. The idea is that it's above the politics and has a simple role to ensure governance and protect the Constitution when necessary. A bill to limit Senate terms may not be something that the Governor General could sign.

[ToadBrother]

Still, with all do respect to that infallible source wikipedia, there is no mention of the GG on Parliament's own site. Besides, like the Senate, the GG is appointed by Prime Ministers. Doesn't seem much of a recipe for the protection of anything.

To probably seem as if I'm splitting a hair, the GG is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.

[Smallc]

Because they aren't. The Crown and the Senate aren't elected and are very undemocratic. That's why each has squat for power, because each is seen as not very legitimate compared to the elected House.

Each has power. Each uses its power all of the time. The idea that everything in a democracy should be voted for is rather unbelievable.

[punked]

Each has power. Each uses its power all of the time. The idea that everything in a democracy should be voted for is rather unbelievable.

We already have an unelected arm of the Government it is called the courts why do we need two?

[Moonlight Graham]

Each has power. Each uses its power all of the time.

No they don't! They have power Constitutionally, but by convention they rarely use any of the powers they are given. Constitutionally, the Senate has equal power to the House of Commons minus the power to introduce money bills. Can you tell me the last time the Senate did ANYTHING other than investigate things through committees, fix legislative technicalities then rubber stamp those bills? How many times has the Senate vetoed a bill from the House in the last 100 years?

The GG also has huge power Constitutionally, but by convention due to legitimacy reasons rarely goes against the advice of the PM. She didn't prevent Harper from proroguing in Dec. for a reason.

The idea that everything in a democracy should be voted for is rather unbelievable.

You can't vote for everything. Completely direct democracy is unrealistic with a country this large and so many complex issues debated/voted on everyday. But in my opinion having the Senate and our Head of State elected is far from unreasonable. The U.S. does it. The U.S. system is far from perfect either but certainly isn't as inherently flawed as ours.

[Smallc]

We already have an unelected arm of the Government it is called the courts why do we need two?

I'm not sure you understand what you just said. The Senate isn't an arm of government, it's part of the legislative branch. If people really want reform, I won't fight it, but so far, the Conservatives (and the NDP) have done nothing to move the matter forward.

[Moonlight Graham]

We already have an unelected arm of the Government it is called the courts why do we need two?

Senate, Crown, courts. That's 3, are there even more i can't think of?

[Smallc]

No they don't! They have power Constitutionally, but by convention they rarely use any of the powers they are given. Constitutionally, the Senate has equal power to the House of Commons minus the power to introduce money bills. Can you tell me the last time the Senate did ANYTHING other than investigate things through committees, fix legislative technicalities then rubber stamp those bills? How many times has the Senate vetoed a bill from the House in the last 100 years?

The GG also has huge power Constitutionally, but by convention due to legitimacy reasons rarely goes against the advice of the PM. She didn't prevent Harper from proroguing in Dec. for a reason.

The Senate examples you gave and the fact that the Governor General prorogued Parliament are both examples of the institutions using their real power.

The U.S. system is far from perfect either but certainly isn't as inherently flawed as ours.

Arguably, it's just as flawed in different ways. Nothing can get done without a debate that goes on forever, and money means everything.

Name me one benefit of an elected head of state...quite frankly, I don't care what the US does. There are many first world countries (half of them in fact) that don't elect their heads of state.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Senate, Crown, courts. That's 3, are there even more i can't think of?

There are many in every system.

[punked]

I'm not sure you understand what you just said. The Senate isn't an arm of government, it's part of the legislative branch. If people really want reform, I won't fight it, but so far, the Conservatives (and the NDP) have done nothing to move the matter forward.

The NDP have been calling for a referendum on the question for years, seeing that we are in such a tight place with the constitution.

[Smallc]

The NDP have been calling for a referendum on the question for years, seeing that we are in such a tight place with the constitution.

And I blame the Conservatives most of all for not moving it forward. There's no reason for them to have not had a referendum on the subject.

[Wilber]

The Senate examples you gave and the fact that the Governor General prorogued Parliament are both examples of the institutions using their real power.

Unaccountable institutions. On who's "advice" did the GG prorogue Parliament? She didn't dream it up by herself.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Name me one benefit of an elected head of state...quite frankly, I don't care what the US does. There are many first world countries (half of them in fact) that don't elect their heads of state.

The US elects its head of state specifically and historically because you can't....God Save the Queen.

[punked]

And I blame the Conservatives most of all for not moving it forward. There's no reason for them to have not had a referendum on the subject.

I agree.

[Smallc]

On who's "advice" did the GG prorogue Parliament? She didn't dream it up by herself.

What exactly do you think a head of state is supposed to do?