Conservative get ready for senate reform

Dave_ON · June 3, 2011

We don't have it now we have a bunch of yes men and the parliament works just fine we do not need a house like in the states that leads all legislation to a grinding halt. I promise you if we do this in a number of years you will be crying because no one will be able to get anything done.

Easy for you to say Punked you Live in Ontario, as do I, but Ontario essentially presiding over Canada would bother you if you were from anywhere else in the nation. Throw in Quebec and there's not a damn thing any of the rest of the nation can do to stop it. Why don't you see the inequity and unfairness in that? Why are you ok with essentially a central Canada Oligarchy? Without the senate this is precisely what we would have, why aren't you getting that a country is not the same as a province, or that every other federation has a two house system, not because it's quaint, but because it's a necessity. Sometimes legislation, needs to grind to a halt, I'm certain AB/SK would be a lot happier if the NEP had been halted by the senate. That's just one example of where the senate could have actually helped. You can't simply pull at the loose threads of confederation, and not expect the whole thing to come unraveled, the system we have is tried and true and there is a reason for it. Without a second house there is too much power concentrated in the PMO. The fathers of confederation were not comfortable with concentrating too much power in one area, so I'm not certain why you're a ok with it.

Moonlight Graham · June 3, 2011

Or maybe they've come to realize that there isn't nearly so much wrong with the senate as they first thought.

Not bloody likely! From the article you posted:

"Within our own caucus...there is disagreement, I think, on the length of the terms but I don't know anybody who disagrees with the concept," Conservative Senator Linda Frum told Postmedia News Wednesday.

In other words, hey sounds great!...just don't let it affect me & my cushy job.

Easily one of the best jobs in Canada. Work 3 days a week (plus lots of extra vacation time), fantastic pay/benefits, not overly demanding work, virtual guaranteed job security until you're about ready to die, no boss riding your ass. Why ruin a great thing!

Smallc · June 3, 2011

The job is not so easy as anyone thinks. There is a massive amount of research involved, and I mean massive. This is the kind of generalization I'm talking about.

Moonlight Graham · June 3, 2011

The job is not so easy as anyone thinks. There is a massive amount of research involved, and I mean massive. This is the kind of generalization I'm talking about.

Massive enough to work about 3 days a week. They do some fine work in committees , i never said they are useless, but they aren't exactly going to keel over from work-related stress.

RNG · June 3, 2011

The job is not so easy as anyone thinks. There is a massive amount of research involved, and I mean massive. This is the kind of generalization I'm talking about.

If a Senator is conscientious you are correct. But how many bother? Anecdotal I know, but my wifes uncle was a biggie in the PCP, and he said many just sleep there, many rarely show up and only a few actually work at it.

Sandy MacNab · June 3, 2011

Easy for you to say Punked you Live in Ontario, as do I, but Ontario essentially presiding over Canada would bother you if you were from anywhere else in the nation. Throw in Quebec and there's not a damn thing any of the rest of the nation can do to stop it. Why don't you see the inequity and unfairness in that? Why are you ok with essentially a central Canada Oligarchy? Without the senate this is precisely what we would have, why aren't you getting that a country is not the same as a province, or that every other federation has a two house system, not because it's quaint, but because it's a necessity. Sometimes legislation, needs to grind to a halt, I'm certain AB/SK would be a lot happier if the NEP had been halted by the senate. That's just one example of where the senate could have actually helped. You can't simply pull at the loose threads of confederation, and not expect the whole thing to come unraveled, the system we have is tried and true and there is a reason for it. Without a second house there is too much power concentrated in the PMO. The fathers of confederation were not comfortable with concentrating too much power in one area, so I'm not certain why you're a ok with it.

Thank you for that concise, excellent summary of why a senate is so necessary. I don't suggest we have a constipated system like the Yanks but a damper on the PMO and an elimination of the Ont/Que hegemony are vital.

Smallc · June 3, 2011

Massive enough to work about 3 days a week.

They aren't only working while in the chamber, you do realize that, right?

Wild Bill · June 3, 2011

Call me naive......but if Senators are elected with a prime goal of serving the region that they represent, it would seem to me that would reduce partisanship. I'm not sure of the "process" but each candidate vying for Senator should make it clear that they are not beholding to any party - only to the effective representation of their regional constituents. I'm sure it would more "partisan free" than the current system. Perhaps an independent committee system at the Provincial level to "vet" candidates before they are cleared to run would further ensure the proper caliber and allegiance.

What would complicate things today is that we still have almost ruthless party solidarity. There would be no problem with Senators having party affiliations as long as they were free to vote their constituents wishes and not those of their Party.

Harper has shown no sign so far that he supports that old Reform principle. To be fair, while he was in a minority situation he had to make all his MPs toe the party line or have his government fall. Now that he's in a majority, we'll have to wait and see if his backbenchers are allowed to be anything more than trained seals.

If Senators were still bound by party solidarity then they would indeed be nothing more than just a rubber stamp, like they always have been up till now. We would have no positive change for any efforts.

RNG · June 3, 2011

The problem as I see it is that no constituency really has an overwhelming attitude to most issues. So how can the theoretical elected Senator represent his constituents. I am sick and tired of hearing politicians say "the majority of Canadians think xxxx." Every time I have heard this, I didn't think xxxx and neither did any of my friends and colleagues. I want non-binding referrenda (if that's the plural) attached to every local, provincial and federal election ballot. Non-binding because we all know that the wording of a question can affect results, and if a little kid has just been killed there is a surge of emotion and such. But at least we could then, hopefully have the politicians be a little more honest.

Mr.Canada · June 4, 2011

It seems like Harper wants to have the same government as in the US. They elect congress and the senate, more harmonizing for future plan, I guess.

Your against more accountability? Sad.

I want to elect our judges as well.

RNG · June 4, 2011

I want to elect our judges as well.

I have internally debated that many times, over many years. Do we want judges who pander to the masses? But do we want judges who as lawyers were more adept than their colleagues at sucking political privates?

Mr.Canada · June 4, 2011

I have internally debated that many times, over many years. Do we want judges who pander to the masses? But do we want judges who as lawyers were more adept than their colleagues at sucking political privates?

Yes, we should have judges which do what the majority of the people want them to do. We're the ones paying them.

We should want judges who can be held accountable for their actions. Letting people off with light sentences so they can further victimize our people should not be tolerated. If we voted in our judges our justice system would stiffen up over night.

g_bambino · June 4, 2011

If we voted in our judges our justice system would stiffen up over night.

You say we should want judges do what the majority of the populace wants. I'd imagine (or, I hope) the majority wants judges to met out justice according to our laws and customs, not use the bench and the people before it in an endless campaign for re-election.

TimG · June 4, 2011

Yes, we should have judges which do what the majority of the people want them to do. We're the ones paying them.

We want judges to administer the law. If we don't like the choices being made by judges we change the laws to limit their choices. Electing judges is a politicizes the judicial process which makes it a really dumb idea.

Jerry J. Fortin · June 4, 2011

It would be my hope that Ontario and or Quebec will not attempt to block Senate reform measures. Beyond any legislative attempt made in Ottawa, lets not forget each province has a say in Constitutional reforms as well. The entire subject is smoke and mirrors and Harper has no serious plan to actually implement change in regards to the Senate. Why would he? He is not finished stacking it, yet he already controls it. He has already told the back bench to be nice and toe the party line, does anyone think he hasn't talked to the Senate? Harper has taken control, believe it or not that is the way it is.

To open the Constitution successfully, then debate the proposed changes, will not provide an assured outcome. At least not without the support and efforts of the provinces themselves. Anything that would detract from provincial authority or influence at the federal level must be carefully considered before being made public or official. Otherwise failure is the most likely outcome.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Jerry J. Fortin

Moonlight Graham · June 4, 2011

They aren't only working while in the chamber, you do realize that, right?

Well, if you can provide a link to what Senators do the other 2 days per week, or 25 weeks of the year, i'd honestly like to know.

My poli-sci Canadian politics textbook by Rand Dyck states:

"The Senate timetable is rather lax. Attendence is taken, and most Senators show up three days a week for no more than 27 weeks a year."
*snip*

"Although some Senators have done virtually no work for their paycheques, others have made useful contributions. Many have outside interests, so that only a handful are totally focused on their senatorial responsibilities."

Smallc · June 4, 2011

Senators work outside of the chamber. Do you honestly think that they do research inside the chamber? They spend the rest of the time reading, writing letters, and traveling to research issues.

Smallc · June 5, 2011

A very interesting article. I like it:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Democracy+just+elections/4892644/story.html

punked · June 5, 2011

A very interesting article. I like it:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Democracy+just+elections/4892644/story.html

Yah that article is Bull. I take issue with anyone who says the Kerby Report is "infinitely superior" to the Romanow Report. Seriously there is no point for the author to say such a thing, let alone something that isn't true. Romanow vs. Kerby is just why we should have no Senate or an elected one. Kerby is beholden to no one accept those who put him in power thus wrote a report that said the bad news they wanted him to deliver. Romanow on the other hand understands the political realities of our health care system thus puts out a report with bad news in it but one that political parties can at least work with.

What a bad article.

Smallc · June 5, 2011

Just tow that partly line. :lol:

g_bambino · June 6, 2011

Yah that article is Bull. I take issue with anyone who says the Kerby Report is "infinitely superior" to the Romanow Report.

Way to miss the point!

g_bambino · June 6, 2011

A very interesting article.

Yes. This, I think, is it's core:

A lot of people think democracy just means getting elected in the first place. Real democracy, though, is when the electorate gets a chance to pass judgment on what the government does with the power it is given. The essence of democracy is about accountability. But the Senate reform being proposed by the government, for example, would create an elected but democratically unaccountable Senate...
The Senate as a body would never have to meet the electorate as a whole so that the country could pass judgment on their actions as an institution. The non-accountable nature of the Senate doesn't matter when senators must give in to a determined Commons. But having a Senate with powers essentially equal to the Commons' that doesn't have to give way and with no formal mechanism for resolving disputes is a formula for deadlock, not democracy...

Democracy isn't just elections

Refreshing to see a journalist who gets that democracy isn't just about a ballot box.

punked · June 6, 2011

Way to miss the point!

Oh I got the point. Senate good because it can do what is unpopular. That doesn't actually mean the Senate is good at all.

Smallc · June 6, 2011

Oh I got the point. Senate good because it can do what is unpopular. That doesn't actually mean the Senate is good at all.

Do you think that unpopular, non political things to should ever happen?

punked · June 6, 2011

Just tow that partly line.

In this case I will not only tow the party line I will preach it because it is right. The Senate is useless as a governmental body and branch of the government. You are right it has responsibilities none of which though are required or necessary to run our country. All of which could easily be given to other branches of government in order to save us lots of money and end a body which makes it almost impossible to elect anyone accept those who have been in power sometime in the last 40 years.