Conservative get ready for senate reform

[g_bambino]

Trudeau, without recourse to a constitutional amendment, reduced a Senate term from life to a forced retirement at age 75. Harper's change to a term of 8 years (or 10 or 12) is similar.

Trudeu instigated that change before the amending formula came into effect. Regardless, I was clearly speaking specifically about the bill that deals with senatorial elections. It can do nothing to require either a province to hold elections for senators or a prime minister recommend persons elected by the majority of a province. To do otherwise, either way, without the approval of 2/3 of the provinces with more than 50% of the population, would be entirely unconstitutional.

[Wild Bill]

Bambino, you know otherwise.

Trudeau, without recourse to a constitutional amendment, reduced a Senate term from life to a forced retirement at age 75. Harper's change to a term of 8 years (or 10 or 12) is similar.

As to the PM appointing elected Senators, I think Harper is hoping to establish a precedent that may become part of the constitution in the future. As noted above, let a future PM refuse to name an elected senator and suffer the consequences. It was precisely this kind of situation that lead to the US 17th Amendment.

Quebec has said that it may contest Harper's senate reform to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. On what basis, I don't know.

I agree with you, August. Harper may not be able to make it constitutional but if a precedent is set that proves popular with the voting public then any premier or PM that tries to take it away would face a negative reaction at the polls. I'm betting that once Harper's changes are implemented the only way they would ever be removed is if for some reason Canadians hated them! Then some politician could remove them and claim to be some kind of savior.

As for Quebec, what basis indeed? Particularly when Quebec has not signed the Constitution. How can they use it as a defense?

I guess there's nothing more two-faced than a politician, anglo ou francais!

[g_bambino]

Harper may not be able to make it constitutional but if a precedent is set that proves popular with the voting public then any premier or PM that tries to take it away would face a negative reaction at the polls. I'm betting that once Harper's changes are implemented the only way they would ever be removed is if for some reason Canadians hated them!

The law still isn't necessary to set any precedent. In fact, the precedent has already been set, in 1990. Subsequent prime ministers ignored it to little detriment. This Act of Parliament is useless.

[Dave_ON]

We could argue about the Senate for another 50 years - and do nothing - which is likely what would happen. Or we can at least take SOME steps that would take most of the patronage and some of the partisanship out of appointments and permit a "refreshing" of Senators through term limits. Argue, carp, and do nothing....or start taking some steps?

But if the steps are void of any constitutional weight what is the point? This is little more than pandering on Mr. Harper's part. He's simply trying to make it look like he's keeping his promise to what remains of the reform base. It's a sham and does absolutely nothing, it's about as effective as the warnings on cigarette packages. How many smokers have quit as a result of that? I agree steps need to be taken for senate reform, but real steps, not window dressing. Let's draft a constitutional change, and go from there, THAT would be doing something.

[Dave_ON]

I agree with you, August. Harper may not be able to make it constitutional but if a precedent is set that proves popular with the voting public then any premier or PM that tries to take it away would face a negative reaction at the polls. I'm betting that once Harper's changes are implemented the only way they would ever be removed is if for some reason Canadians hated them! Then some politician could remove them and claim to be some kind of savior.

Honestly I'm not convinced that senate reform is a truly resonating factor for most Canadians. In the west perhaps, but certainly not in Ontario or the Atlantic. My guess is most people wouldn't even notice if a PM ignored a senate "election". Much like people won't care if Mr. Harper chooses to ignore his own "fixed election" law.

[Keepitsimple]

But if the steps are void of any constitutional weight what is the point? This is little more than pandering on Mr. Harper's part. He's simply trying to make it look like he's keeping his promise to what remains of the reform base. It's a sham and does absolutely nothing, it's about as effective as the warnings on cigarette packages. How many smokers have quit as a result of that? I agree steps need to be taken for senate reform, but real steps, not window dressing. Let's draft a constitutional change, and go from there, THAT would be doing something.

Opening the Constitution has failed twice before and as nice as it sounds, I doubt it will be attempted anytime soon. You MAY be correct.....if the Provinces don't come on board, it's useless.....but if they do, it's another story. One inhibiting factor is that the election should be combined with a Federal election - or maybe even a Provincial one - otherwise, the Provincial Government would bear an extra cost for an election - which is sizable. Perhaps the Senators' terms might be adjusted to be 8 years plus a variable term. The variable would be that they remain Senators until the following Provincial or Federal election. Anyway, we'll soon see how it plays out and how the provinces react. Harper has proven to be a shrewd negotiator and perhaps there is some sort of trade-off that can be bartered - especially with Health and Transfer payments coming up for negotiation. Again, if the Provinces are on board, it opens things up for reform. We'll be finding out fairly soon.

[punked]

Well right now the NDP Premier of NS and the Liberal Premier of Ont have come out in favor of abolishment. If they can get another 5 on board they can pass this maybe?

[RNG]

I still appreciate the fact that The Senate can slow a bill down. This often allows the media to expose it more when a government tries to fast-track something.

The rules regarding Senators and how they are chosen is another matter.

[punked]

I still appreciate the fact that The Senate can slow a bill down. This often allows the media to expose it more when a government tries to fast-track something.

The rules regarding Senators and how they are chosen is another matter.

So what put time limits on the bills. If a bill is not passed in the House by 2/3rds or unanimously put a waiting period on second and third reading. There we go Bill slowed that doesn't cost 500 million dollars a year.

Edited June 1, 2011 by punked

[RNG]

So what put time limits on the bills. If a bill is not passed in the House by 2/3rds or unanimously put a waiting period on second and third reading. There we go Bill slowed that doesn't cost 500 million dollars a year.

There is some merit to that. Let me think on it.

[Smallc]

There we go Bill slowed that doesn't cost 500 million dollars a year.

The Senate doesn't cost $500M per year, the entirety of Parliament does. Oh, and the Senate does more than slow bills.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Smallc

[punked]

The Senate doesn't cost $500M per year, the entirety of Parliament does. Oh, and the Senate does more than slow bills.

Nope just the Senate costs 500 million a year.

However even if it is 100 million a year it is way to much to do nothing. I promise you it will cost a lot more if they become elected.

Edited June 1, 2011 by punked

[RNG]

Nope just the Senate costs 500 million a year.

You or Smallc need to post a citation. I'm really interested. But based on what they pay those puppymakers, I'd bet you are right, punked.

[punked]

You or Smallc need to post a citation. I'm really interested. But based on what they pay those puppymakers, I'd bet you are right, punked.

My bad Small C is correct it is 100 million a year. Which is still to much for a bunch of guys who do nothing. You are looking at a Million dollars a Senator a year. Tell you what I will do their job for 100,000 dollars a year and I will do it better. Seriously for a million dollars a year we could hire a team of civil servants to do whatever Senators do. We could hire them to do it better, and we could do it cheaper. Get rid of them.

BTW here is a brand new Senator caught in another Scandal.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-senator-the-port-authority-and-the-big-boss-in-quebec/article1995433/

Edited June 1, 2011 by punked

[punked]

I would also point out a Study out of Alberta says even if you tack these Senate Elections onto provincial elections it will cost an EXTRA 3 Million a year. You talk across 10 provinces then you have an ELECTED Senate which costs us 105 million a year. Which still does nothing or does a job we could have other people do at a fraction of the cost.

It is a waste we already have an elected body which Represents Canada it is called the House of Commons.

[Bonam]

It is a waste we already have an elected body which Represents Canada it is called the House of Commons.

Why have just one when you can have two? Any robust system has multiple layers of redundancies and backups.

[punked]

Why have just one when you can have two? Any robust system has multiple layers of redundancies and backups.

That is a silly statement. I will tell you why not to have two 103 million dollars a year. Right now we operate all the provinces with 1, right now the Senate is a rubber stamp. There is no reason for it. Seriously "LETS HAVE 2 BECAUSE 2 Bureaucrats IS BETTER THEN ONE" is an argument I would never would have thought I would hear from Conservatives.

BC's Christy Clark has added her name to the List of provincial leaders calling for the Senate to be abolished. So now Ont, BC, and NS are all on board with the NDP position. I would point out those provinces make up 54.8% of the population of Canada.

I also assume Manitoba would be on board but that is an assumption.

[Smallc]

punked, until you argue from reality, you really have nothing to add. The Senate is not just a rubber stamp do nothing chamber.

[punked]

punked, until you argue from reality, you really have nothing to add. The Senate is not just a rubber stamp do nothing chamber.

It is when it comes to legislation. Seriously what do they do that can't be done for 1/25th of the cost. Seriously? They make sure laws are legal (which should be done by the house anyway) then they rubber stamp them and it costs a million dollars a Senator. Many of which abuse their power, don't show up much of the time, and go fund raise for their parties. They are a waste.

I think we can do with out them and we wouldn't need to replace them with anything. However you want to replace them give their jobs to civil servants who will do their jobs for 40,000 dollars a year and do it better.

Again right now their are 3 provincial governments on board making up 55% of Canada. Heck I bet you can get 4-5 more on board if you really tired. Alberta, Manitoba, and Sask are for sures if Harper wanted to push them.

Edited June 1, 2011 by punked

[Bonam]

That is a silly statement. I will tell you why not to have two 103 million dollars a year. Right now we operate all the provinces with 1, right now the Senate is a rubber stamp. There is no reason for it. Seriously "LETS HAVE 2 BECAUSE 2 Bureaucrats IS BETTER THEN ONE" is an argument I would never would have thought I would hear from Conservatives.

Almost every other nation that runs a representative democracy has a two chamber national parliament/congress, not just Canada. Two chambers inherently limits the power of government, because the two chambers can disagree or delay each other. Conservatives (real ones) are interested in limiting the power of government. $103 million a year is chump change for the government and is a bargain price for making sure that the bologna that comes out of the house is checked by another body.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Bonam

[Moonlight Graham]

It is a harmless way to payoff his supporters who are dismayed over his swing to the center.

Senate reform falls on the left-right spectrum??

[punked]

Almost every other nation that runs a representative democracy has a two chamber national parliament/congress, not just Canada. Two chambers inherently limits the power of government, because the two chambers can disagree or delay each other. Conservatives (real ones) are interested in limiting the power of government. $103 million a year is chump change for the government and is a bargain price for making sure that the bologna that comes out of the house is checked by another body.

Just because every other country does it doesn't mean we need to do it. You want to slow down Legislation then build in a slow down clause if you can't pass legislation with out 2/3rds or unanimous consent then that Leg needs to be put aside for 2 weeks before the next reading. That gives the PEOPLE time to lobby their government.

As for Limiting power, right now the Senate is a rubber stamp so it limits nothing. Canada seems to be doing fine right now. When you talk about the Senate limiting power just remember how they passed the GST. These arguments are old and tired. We will live just fine with out a Senate and save money. Again no province has a upper house however that isn't true in most countries. So now you want the provinces to have an upper house to because the rest of the world does it? Seems dumb to me, we get along just fine in that regard.

BTW legislation that comes out of the house is already checked by another body. It is called the Courts. We already have that arm of the government to make sure laws are above board.

Edited June 1, 2011 by punked

[Wild Bill]

Just because every other country does it doesn't mean we need to do it. You want to slow down Legislation then build in a slow down clause if you can't pass legislation with out 2/3rds or unanimous consent then that Leg needs to be put aside for 2 weeks before the next reading. That gives the PEOPLE time to lobby their government.

Punked, the goal is not just to slow things down! The purpose of an Upper House is to provide regional representation, as opposed to the "rep by pop" of a House of Commons.

The American Senate is a good example. Every state gets an equal number of Senators. The idea is that little Rhode Island can stand up to any bullying by California. Or PEI against Ontario or Quebec.

Like it or lump it, Canada runs by regions. The Maritimes couldn't give a damn if something is overwhelmingly supported in the national popular vote if it all comes from Ontario and Quebec. This is why so many PR systems get little support. They all tend to ignore regions in favour of the national vote in total. Central Canadians never think that this might be unfair to smaller provinces, especially on their own. If its pointed out to them they seem to have a hard time understanding the situation. After all, "they're all right, Jack!"

Historically, since our Senate has been essentially nothing more than a delay chamber it has poorly served as a defender of regional interests. Electing Senators is not going to change that, either. However, it is a step towards "Equal" and "Effective", the other two "E's" championed by Reform years ago.

[punked]

Punked, the goal is not just to slow things down! The purpose of an Upper House is to provide regional representation, as opposed to the "rep by pop" of a House of Commons.

The American Senate is a good example. Every state gets an equal number of Senators. The idea is that little Rhode Island can stand up to any bullying by California. Or PEI against Ontario or Quebec.

Like it or lump it, Canada runs by regions. The Maritimes couldn't give a damn if something is overwhelmingly supported in the national popular vote if it all comes from Ontario and Quebec. This is why so many PR systems get little support. They all tend to ignore regions in favour of the national vote in total. Central Canadians never think that this might be unfair to smaller provinces, especially on their own. If its pointed out to them they seem to have a hard time understanding the situation. After all, "they're all right, Jack!"

Historically, since our Senate has been essentially nothing more than a delay chamber it has poorly served as a defender of regional interests. Electing Senators is not going to change that, either. However, it is a step towards "Equal" and "Effective", the other two "E's" championed by Reform years ago.

Sigh. If the American System is what we aim for we are in big trouble. Down there they get nothing done. They have been fighting for 2 and half years now over wither if they should have an agency which makes sure financial problems like the big housing bubble of 2008 happen or not. Their court system is falling a part because whenever the Dems want to appoint someone the Republicans play the block card and visa versa.

As for Regional Representation right now we got a bunch of Rubber stamps who might be from the region but could care less what happens to their region. Heck Senator Duffy who is from the maritimes said just last week the maritimes should not get the 30 billion dollar ship building contract because they didn't vote the right way in the last election. If that is regional representation then I don't need it.

Canada is in very good shape right now, I think we have had good government picked by the Canadian people who don't let anyone get to far left or right in this country. I don't think we need a Senate at all. I understand what a Senate is for I just don't think this country needs one. Maybe some countries do but we have gotten by just fine for the last 50 years with out rubber stamp Senate so lets get by just fine with out them for the next 50 years and save 5 billion dollars.

Edited June 1, 2011 by punked

[Bonam]

Canada is in very good shape right now, I think we have had good government picked by the Canadian people who don't let anyone get to far left or right in this country. I don't think we need a Senate at all. I understand what a Senate is for I just don't think this country needs one.

This statement is self-contradictory. You say we've had a good government and that Canada is in very good shape. Well, the Senate has been part of that good government. You can't avoid that historical fact. If the government has been good, why change it?