Senator Brown letter to senate

[cybercoma]

And so the goalpost shifts...

You are aware, I trust, that every bill has to go through the Senate before passage. Perhaps part of the problem here isn't that nothing happens in the Red Chamber so much as the media and the public pay little enough attention to it.

As it is, getting rid of the Senate seems even less likely than something modest as term limits. Why don't you ask for the sun to always shine over your house while you're at it?

It strikes me that some people need to understand the concept of depriving an institution of power, or negative power. For instance, the Queen still holds ultimate executive power, which prevents the Government from absolute control. As well, the Senate holds substantial legislative power, even if rarely used, which can be used to counter the dominance of the Commons.

So we might as well keep paying billions into a redundant institution, filled with party hacks and patronage appointments, that doesn't really do anything anyway? I think that money could be spent on better things.

[ToadBrother]

So we might as well keep paying billions into a redundant institution, filled with party hacks and patronage appointments, that doesn't really do anything anyway? I think that money could be spent on better things.

Democracy and checks and balances are expensive. This idea that you can just rely on the courts seems to me to be misguided, and in fact intrudes the judiciary overmuch into areas that are best left to the legislature.

If good government boils down to costs alone, then we're doomed.

[ToadBrother]

The Senate might "represent" regional interests, but they do very little to nothing to support it.

I'm not sure what this even means. From what I can tell, most folks are at best only dimly aware of what the Senate does. How do you know what the Senate does or does not do?

[cybercoma]

Democracy and checks and balances are expensive. This idea that you can just rely on the courts seems to me to be misguided, and in fact intrudes the judiciary overmuch into areas that are best left to the legislature.

If good government boils down to costs alone, then we're doomed.

You said it yourself that they do next to nothing as far as a check and balance goes.

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure what this even means. From what I can tell, most folks are at best only dimly aware of what the Senate does. How do you know what the Senate does or does not do?

It's a matter of public record. As a check and balance to legislation, they do next to nothing. They've rewritten a handful of bills and rejected even less. Sober second thought doesn't happen when the Senate is packed full of party hacks and patronage appointments.

[g_bambino]

As a check and balance to legislation, they do next to nothing. They've rewritten a handful of bills and rejected even less.

This logic is faulty. It presumes that only an active senate is a valuabe senate and what constitutes an active senate relies entirely upon your self-created but undefined benchmark of just how many bills must be rejected how often in order for an institution to be classified as active.

Even if we put that aside, you still neatly avoided ToadBrother's rather key point about negative power, or the idea that one institution exercises influence by denying power to another institution. If the Senate were abolished, it would only increase the prime minister's control over the legislative process by eliminating both a less partisan filter that is beyond the prime minister's control and the body that gives voice to the federation's regions (especially the less populous ones).

[ToadBrother]

You said it yourself that they do next to nothing as far as a check and balance goes.

I didn't say that at all. Every piece of legislation has to go through the Senate. Clearly they act as a check.

I don't understand this allergy to an upper house. Most federated states (possibly all, depending on how you define "federated") have two houses in their federal legislature.

[ToadBrother]

Even if we put that aside, you still neatly avoided ToadBrother's rather key point about negative power, or the idea that one institution exercises influence by denying power to another institution. If the Senate were abolished, it would only increase the prime minister's control over the legislative process by eliminating both a less partisan filter that is beyond the prime minister's control and the body that gives voice to the federation's regions (especially the less populous ones).

Indeed. One only has to look at a potential partial revolt among some Senators in the Tory caucus to see that the Government of the day's ability to enforce caucus unity is at least partially undermined by having a group of Parliamentarians who are not, in fact, bound by the electoral winds of the day. That is why the US has a six year term for Senators, to shield them and allow them to function with a longer sight than the next electoral cycle. This is basic political theory; that an upper house in a legislature which has the power to constrain, moderate or even delay the will of the lower house creates a check, even if rarely used, on the power of the lower house and of the government.

I think the negative power notion is key, and one that is rarely mentioned. I am very uncomfortable about this notion that we can just simply rely on our judiciary to act as a legislative check. First of all, on the face of it, it breaks the separation of powers. The judiciary should not have a legislative role beyond interpretation, and in the case of constitutional questions, determining if legislation adheres to the basic requirements of that constitution.

Beyond that, judicial review of legislation can take considerable amounts of time, whereas the Senate can act very quickly indeed. When a bill is introduced into the Upper Chamber for debate, a bill can be killed in days, maybe even hours depending on how the legislative schedule is arranged. To quash a bill through a challenge to the Supreme Court can take months. What's more, the courts can only be used to challenge bills within a very narrow focus. They have no legislative role, but a review role, and there is no lack of legislation that could be passed that could be defined as bad legislation, but does not impinge upon any particular constitutional or common law precept. In other words, the Supreme Court would be an incredibly unreliable replacement for the Senate, and to attempt to give it additional powers to make up for that narrow focus would in fact simply convert it into a legislative body, even if it were only one that could strike down offending laws. It would utterly undermine the separation of powers which has been so critical to our system of government for over three hundred years.

As you say, abolishing the Senate would accomplish only one thing, and that is to radically increase the direct powers of the Executive. It would be a massive mistake. To attempt to create a more potent Supreme Court to act as a proper check on Parliament would invite an even more unbalanced system, and would turn those justices, who are, just like Senators, appointed by the Governor General-in-council, into the single most powerful organ of the state.

I'm divided on the notion of democratization of the Senate, as it would alter the balance between the two houses in favor of a much more proactive Senate. I'm not against the idea of shorter terms in office, though I think they should be at least as long as two electoral cycles of the Commons (so eight to ten year terms). I'm also in favor of increasing its role as a regional representative body, whether that is as a strictly provincial formula (ie. ten senators per province), or on the older regional model (West, Central, Maritimes), or possibly even the inclusion of territorial senators and a suggestion I've long championed which is giving First Nations some Senate seats.

The one thing I do not want to say is its abolition. I think people need to think long and hard before they basically deliver more power into the hands of the PMO.

Edited June 21, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Molly]

...... having to constantly answer to 'Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease!' for unreasonable crap is not a sign of good, solid parenting. Being asked for a quiet, reasoned yes or no once in a blue moon means that your influence is consistent, and extensive enough to inform decision-making long before the last of it must be brought for a verdict.

The more ski8llfully and effectively a task is performed, the easier it looks....

I don't understand your hostility to the senate, Cybercoma- your determination to discount it.

[cybercoma]

Rather than serving the interests of the regions, the Senate has become a partisan extension of the parties. The provinces actually have more power in regards to regional representation than the Senate now. In this way, the Senate is an anachronism that sucks $100 million per year out of taxpayers' pockets.

[g_bambino]

Rather than serving the interests of the regions, the Senate has become a partisan extension of the parties.

Senators are politicians, and, as such, will be affiliated with parties, unless they sit an independents. The Senate, though, is less partisan than the House of Commons because a) party leaders have no power to threaten senators who deviate from the leader's personal preferences or even the official line of the party and senators don't have to factor their own re-election into their decision making processes. I fail to see how that prevents senators from representing the interests of the regions.

The provinces actually have more power in regards to regional representation than the Senate now.

That makes no sense.

[sp]

Edited June 25, 2011 by g_bambino

[Topaz]

Would you have said the same thing if the LPC won?

I am glad you show grudging admiration for anything about our country. Our government is basically a Rube Goldberg machine that functions despite itself.

I like to answer your first question...It doesn't matter who the PM is, no PM should have ALL the power if one wants fair and balance government. I would hope that Canadians would look at this as a Canadian and not as a Tory, NDP, Liberal or Green and wha tis the best thing for the country, Canada.

[ToadBrother]

Rather than serving the interests of the regions, the Senate has become a partisan extension of the parties. The provinces actually have more power in regards to regional representation than the Senate now. In this way, the Senate is an anachronism that sucks $100 million per year out of taxpayers' pockets.

I don't know where you get this idea that the Senate is a partisan extension of political parties. To be sure, partisanship still survives there, but all in all it is a much less partisan place than the Commons.

I'm getting to the point here where I honestly don't think you know very much about the Senate at all. It's one thing to be critical of an institution you understand, it's quite another to be critical of an institution you don't.