Senate Reform

[Oleg Bach]

Typical far left idealism's:

Ban this.

Ban that.

Regulate this.

Regulate that.

Setup a new this.

Setup a new that.

... it will only cost a few million..

And when this is done, everything will turn out just the way I want it. If not... well.. we'll cross that path when we come to it and make more rules and regulations and spend more money.

How about this.

ABOLISH THE DAMN SENATE

We have a system where money is the lubircant of society. Money is the state religion. It only makes sense as long as we follow this finaical dogma - that we allow the big dogs to be senators. These senators are highly skilled and experienced in dealing with large amounts of power in the form of money.....Why bring in unskilled senators through and electoral process? If it is not broken don't fix it!

[Oleg Bach]

Harper is smart - he will stacked the senate - over loaded the buracracy ---and made things so damned vast and complex that you will never untangle his creation...it is all about the creation of huge government that will not and can not answer to anyone..because you will not be able to get through the bureacratic shield ....to reach anyone that has an answer to a question...In other words it will become phyically impossible to have a government that answers to the people...you will have a beastly collective that is intentionally incoherant.

[Topaz]

Here's an article that appears in the Edmonton Journal that quotes the former Premier of Alberta Getty. He tried to reform the senate in the past with Mulroney and as he says its not easy. I think more information is need to get out to the public as to why it needs reforming. One thing he did say was the first thing that needs reforming is Harper's attitude thinking he wants it done so its going to get done. Harper can't do this alone even with his majority, its all of Canada decides. Vey good piece and many things to think about. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Senate+reforms+Alberta+Getty+fears/4991896/story.html

[cybercoma]

Mindless barking. You haven't given one thought to the consequences of such an action.

I disagree with the National Post's endorsement of the current Senate reform bills (they seem to have forgotten about the amending formula that was inserted into the constitution between the 1960s and the present), but the editorial board put this right:

[+]

I agree with needing a balance to representation by population for all the reasons you mentioned in the quote that won't copy above. However, the Senate is not given its mandate by the regions it represents. They're a bunch of party hacks who won the jackpot by being given their position by the Prime Minister (GG... yeah, I get it). If we're not going to abolish the Senate, Senators need to be accountable directly to the regions the represent. I would also argue that the First Nations ought to have equal representation to the regions in the Senate as well, since they have a direct relationship with the federal government.

[cybercoma]

Harper is smart - he will stacked the senate - over loaded the buracracy ---and made things so damned vast and complex that you will never untangle his creation...it is all about the creation of huge government that will not and can not answer to anyone..because you will not be able to get through the bureacratic shield ....to reach anyone that has an answer to a question...In other words it will become phyically impossible to have a government that answers to the people...you will have a beastly collective that is intentionally incoherant.

Amidst your insanity, you have moments of brilliance. You frighten me Oleg.

[ToadBrother]

ABOLISH THE DAMN SENATE

And how would you accomplish that, pray tell? If you can't even get shorter terms and pseudo-elected Senators through without at least a few Provinces going "Not without us you don't...", you're proposal might as well be "build ferris wheels on Mars".

[Oleg Bach]

Amidst your insanity, you have moments of brilliance. You frighten me Oleg.

I can feel both - sometimes I have a sense that there is an undiagnosed learning disablity in me ---other moments I feel like I have some brain damage and only have half the answers - other moments I can be spot on - I usually know that when it is taking placed - BUT I do not hold back if I am half baked - I expect someone else to finish the baking....at least the cake get put in the oven.... The senate is a place that is probably more real than parliment . because the people in the senate - are born rich - and not materially driven - they know who they are and don't need a constant ego boost like a commmon politican. It could be the fact that my first loves father was a senator - too bad he passed away so quickly...what I can say is that this class of person are not rats like us and will not just do things for money and glory - they have money already...........I say let the senate stand and curb this hate on for the establishment.

[ToadBrother]

That's the Conservatives' goal, yes: meaningless legislation that gives the appearance of reform; I refer, again, to the "fixed election" amendment to the Elections Act. Though, if these bills are defeated by the Senate, Harper can't blame it on Liberal senators. And, if the laws are struck down by the Supreme Court, can Harper blame it on Liberal activist judges?

The general idea behind such impossible legislation is that you have someone to blame. The amusing thing about this one is that Harper couldn't even get the Tory Senators in his caucus to back it to the man.

Regardless, what I was speaking about in the post you quoted was the goal of the NDP: abolition of the Senate. It's a preposterous idea and I can't believe there's more than one career politician in the NDP who can say with a straight face that Canada would be a better federated country with a legislature that operates solely by the fleeting whims of the majority and is devoid of a regional voice, as well as being more under the control of the PMO. Pat Martin is an ass to whom this is - like most everything else for him - a matter of class warfare; I can accept that he never thought about, because he doesn't care about, the negative impacts on the legislative process. But, what of the others in the party? Jack Layton and David Christopherson, for instance; they don't seem like unintelligent men. So, what gives?

[+]

Well, the same applies to Layton. He, like Harper, is in no particular position to force through any "solution", but continually declaring "we want it gone" soothes the class warriors.

In both cases, the political leaders are relying on general ignorance of the Senate's purpose, it's function and indeed it's activities. We see it here "bunch of party hacks, don't do nothing, collect lots of money." The media seems content to allow these claims to go uncontested, which is unfortunate, though I admit that, save for very brief moments, the Senate has never been as sexy or blood-curdling as the Commons, so doing stories on it that anyone would give a damn about his hard.

Frankly, I doubt Senate reform is really all that important to either of them. Both Harper and Layton know that even modest reforms may run afoul of the Constitution, but it keeps the rabble pleased to see their leaders working on the "problem", even if all they're doing is poking the Province's in the eye. I just don't think it's a useful application of Parliament's time, nor do I think constantly stomping on Provincial feet just to keep the chattering classes satisfied will lead anywhere good.

The fact is that Harper has no interest in actually sitting down, creating a proper constitutional convention with the Provinces and other potential interested parties because that's hard work, and requires compromise and even the ability to recognize that you may not get any of what you want if you can't get a sufficient number of Provinces on side. That's not Harper's style of government, and what's more, I think the more sensible side of him knows that there are substantial risks involved in this. I'm sure he'll be quite pleased if it all falls down, he can blame errant Senators or uncooperative judges or whoever he intends to finger for this, and get on with doing something else.

[Oleg Bach]

Laytons charge to power consisted of dragging along a cocktail waiter...and a kid who is as brain washed as Omar Khdar regarding the independence of Quebec. Layton might want the senate gone..but how will he fill the intellectual and skill laden void that will appear if he has his way? Maybe he can get some disgruntled postal workers who have done 25 years slugging mail to sit in some sort of chamber of sober second thought.....there would be a problem thought - most old posties are old hippies and they still like their beer and pot - so much for sober second thought if Layton has his way.

[jacee]

The amusing thing about this one is that Harper couldn't even get the Tory Senators in his caucus to back it to the man.

. . .

Well, the same applies to Layton. . . continually declaring "we want it gone" soothes the class warriors.. . . .

In both cases, the political leaders are relying on general ignorance of the Senate's purpose, it's function and indeed it's activities.

Frankly, I doubt Senate reform is really all that important to either of them.

. . .

I'm sure he'll be quite pleased if it all falls down, . . . .

I think you are quite right and we should be asking ourselves what issue all this "sound and fury signifying nothing" is designed to evade.

To me it is clear that all political parties want to distract us from the more popular issue of reform of the House of Commons via consideration of proportionate representation. It makes too much 'common sense' that the number of MP's in the house should accurately reflect each party's proportion of the popular vote. Can't have the public cluing in to that and disrupting the well oiled party machines! Let's throw the dummies a red herring!

How about we do an end run and we convince the beleaguered Senate to study and introduce legislation on PR! :-);-)

Edited June 23, 2011 by jacee

[ToadBrother]

How about an end run and we convince the beleaguered Senate to study and introduce legislation on PR! :-);-)

I think, if Harper keeps picking fights with Senators in his own caucus, they may just end up doing something like that.

[jacee]

I think, if Harper keeps picking fights with Senators in his own caucus, they may just end up doing something like that.

It wouldn't hurt to plant the idea in their heads. There's a reason for having a Senate that is outside the electoral process that can tackle issues that elected reps won't touch.

[ToadBrother]

It wouldn't hurt to plant the idea in their heads. There's a reason for having a Senate that is outside the electoral process that can tackle issues that elected reps won't touch.

It's a lovely dream. I doubt it would happen, but wouldn't it be something if the Senate introduced a bill to amend the electoral process for the House of Commons! Oh the sweet irony of that.

[eCitizen]

very good point.

since the reforms call for a single nine year term, make minimum pension eligibility at about ten years of service. It would change the nature of candidates dramatically.

Ten years? Even the most miserly private sector employer vests a pension after 3. Ten years is completely unreasonable.

[eCitizen]

Firstly, it is the job of the House of Commons to represent the transient will of the majority of voters (not "the people"). We don't need a second chamber to perform the same function.

Secondly, elected senators will group together into parties no matter whether or not they're banned from being members of officially recognised political parties. Political parties grew out of like-minded parliamentarians grouping together in the nineteenth century. There's nothing to say the same won't begin all over again in your imagined Canadian Senate.

If the will of the people was represented in the government of the day, how do you think government policy might be expressed on issues like : abortion in foreign aid projects..., the Middle East..., asbestos..., corporate tax cuts.... ?

Secondly, if they are not allowed to belong to political parties, senators will form ephemeral alliances according to the issue at hand but will not coalesce into voting blocs... which brings me to another point....

The idea of assigning equal senators to provinces is not going to work. Better to do a rep by pop thing, but put very very high majority requirements in place - for example, a majority in the senate is not 50% plus 1 but enough votes such that every province and territory would have to gang up on two of the smallest provinces in order to pass legislation.

[Smallc]

Oh, wouldn't that be a joyful situation. Nothing would get done.

[eCitizen]

Firstly, it is the job of the House of Commons to represent the transient will of the majority of voters (not "the people"). We don't need a second chamber to perform the same function.

Secondly, elected senators will group together into parties no matter whether or not they're banned from being members of officially recognised political parties. Political parties grew out of like-minded parliamentarians grouping together in the nineteenth century. There's nothing to say the same won't begin all over again in your imagined Canadian Senate.

If the will of the people was represented in the government of the day, how do you think government policy might be expressed on issues like : abortion in foreign aid projects..., the Middle East..., asbestos..., corporate tax cuts.... ?

Secondly, if they are not allowed to belong to political parties, senators will form ephemeral alliances according to the issue at hand but will not coalesce into voting blocs... which brings me to another point....

The idea of assigning equal senators to provinces is not going to work. Better to do a rep by pop thing, but put very very high majority requirements in place - for example, a majority in the senate is not 50% plus 1 but enough votes such that every province and territory would have to gang up on two of the smallest provinces in order to pass legislation.

[ToadBrother]

Ten years? Even the most miserly private sector employer vests a pension after 3. Ten years is completely unreasonable.

The whole idea of long terms (however you define it, six years in the US, until 75 years of age in Canada) is to insulate members of the upper house from the often confusing and contradictory electoral landscape. The point of an upper house is to take a longer view than the next electoral cycle. I'd say that if we're going to reduce the term from 75 years of age, it should match at least two electoral cycles (a minimum of 8 to 10 years). The US basically has any given Senator sitting through three electoral terms of the House of Representatives (although the Senate down there is a continuous body, meaning that only a portion of its members are elected in every cycle).

Edited June 23, 2011 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

If the will of the people was represented in the government of the day, how do you think government policy might be expressed on issues like : abortion in foreign aid projects..., the Middle East..., asbestos..., corporate tax cuts.... ?

We'd look like a California, possibly one of the most ungovernable jurisdictions in the industrialized world (well, maybe Italy's worse). As hard as it is for some people to admit, there is such a thing as too much democracy.

Secondly, if they are not allowed to belong to political parties, senators will form ephemeral alliances according to the issue at hand but will not coalesce into voting blocs... which brings me to another point....

Which is, to some extent, how the British Parliament functioned between the late 17th and late 18th centuries, until the modern party system evolved.

The idea of assigning equal senators to provinces is not going to work. Better to do a rep by pop thing, but put very very high majority requirements in place - for example, a majority in the senate is not 50% plus 1 but enough votes such that every province and territory would have to gang up on two of the smallest provinces in order to pass legislation.

I'm not sure of the point of this, or how this wouldn't lead to deadlock.

Edited June 23, 2011 by ToadBrother

[WIP]

The constitution requires a Senate and requires that it be filled, whether it has funds or not. A federation requires a bicameral parliament (even the Supreme Soveiet of the USSR was structured that way). That the NDP's elders can't grasp these simple concepts is why I can hardly ever take that party seriously.

I'd like to see a second opinion from a constitutional expert before I agree that we're stuck with the albatross in the Red Chamber. As for the magic of bicameral parliaments -- if division of powers between federal and provincial governments could be agreed upon and kept in check, there wouldn't be a need for this body of "sober second thought" to be sitting there in Ottawa...elected or not. The provincial governments, and the first nations governments would have enough independence to provide the regional balance.

Looking on the U.S. example -- their Congress is the template that the Reform Party used to create the triple E senate proposal back in the 80's. I would argue that the U.S. Senate has done more harm than good, since it has given small, largely rural states too much power in setting the Nation's agenda. It's the Senate that stifles reforms that mayors of large cities across the U.S. have been calling for for decades, while making the feds pay for the subsidizing of infrastructure to rural areas - increasing urban sprawl, and stupid, wasteful multibillion dollar farm bills, that make those supposedly rightwing republican keep-the-government-out-of-our-lives Red States the ones who draw more from Federal Government services than they actually provide in federal taxes. The Senate created to equalize power provides states like Wyoming and North Dakota the tail to wag the dog!

[ToadBrother]

I'd like to see a second opinion from a constitutional expert before I agree that we're stuck with the albatross in the Red Chamber.

Can you read? The BNA Act sets out that Canada's federal Parliament is bicameral. The Constitution Act, 1982 dictates how exactly you would go about altering or eliminating it. The only iffy area, depending on how you view the 1980 Upper House Reference Opinion, is whether Parliament can alter the terms of Senators without going to the provinces. Other than that, the language is clear and requires no special talent to read.

As for the magic of bicameral parliaments -- if division of powers between federal and provincial governments could be agreed upon and kept in check, there wouldn't be a need for this body of "sober second thought" to be sitting there in Ottawa...elected or not. The provincial governments, and the first nations governments would have enough independence to provide the regional balance.

Are you asserting that the Provinces be given some capacity to veto Federal legislation? I'd love to see how this would work.

Looking on the U.S. example -- their Congress is the template that the Reform Party used to create the triple E senate proposal back in the 80's. I would argue that the U.S. Senate has done more harm than good, since it has given small, largely rural states too much power in setting the Nation's agenda.

The United States is a federation of states just like ours is, with equality of those member states. Now you're saying that there should be two classes of states, based on population?

It's the Senate that stifles reforms that mayors of large cities across the U.S. have been calling for for decades, while making the feds pay for the subsidizing of infrastructure to rural areas - increasing urban sprawl, and stupid, wasteful multibillion dollar farm bills, that make those supposedly rightwing republican keep-the-government-out-of-our-lives Red States the ones who draw more from Federal Government services than they actually provide in federal taxes. The Senate created to equalize power provides states like Wyoming and North Dakota the tail to wag the dog!

It's like the whole history of North America sort of flew by you. The Senate in the US is specifically designed as the house of states. It is a check on the power of Congress, but it has its limitations and special powers, much more so than in Canada. The Senate cannot unilaterally force budgets or initiatives. In fact, just like in Canada and in most bicameral WEstminster parliaments, a money bill cannot originate in the Senate.

Edited June 23, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Smallc]

I would argue that the U.S. Senate has done more harm than good, since it has given small, largely rural states too much power in setting the Nation's agenda.

Canada is a very different place. I'm sure you must know that.

[WIP]

Can you read? The BNA Act sets out that Canada's federal Parliament is bicameral. The Constitution Act, 1982 dictates how exactly you would go about altering or eliminating it. The only iffy area, depending on how you view the 1980 Upper House Reference Opinion, is whether Parliament can alter the terms of Senators without going to the provinces. Other than that, the language is clear and requires no special talent to read.

It can also be changed, just like the Constitution. We are not governed by the rules of the BNA Act.

Are you asserting that the Provinces be given some capacity to veto Federal legislation? I'd love to see how this would work.

In case you missed it, the big contending issue dividing Liberals and Progressive Conservatives in the old days was regarding the incremental increase in federal powers that the Federal Government was assuming after WWII. It's not a matter of veto power, but what should or should not be governed by the Federal Government.

The United States is a federation of states just like ours is, with equality of those member states. Now you're saying that there should be two classes of states, based on population?

I pointed out some of the drawbacks to giving states equal votes regardless of population...if you don't like it, too bad!

It's like the whole history of North America sort of flew by you. The Senate in the US is specifically designed as the house of states. It is a check on the power of Congress, but it has its limitations and special powers, much more so than in Canada. The Senate cannot unilaterally force budgets or initiatives. In fact, just like in Canada and in most bicameral WEstminster parliaments, a money bill cannot originate in the Senate.

I am getting sick of Conservative/REform advocates acting like this is manna from heaven. If you can't see a downside to giving less populated provinces and regions greater voting power than those living in more heavily populated areas, then there's no point talking to a zealot.

[ToadBrother]

It can also be changed, just like the Constitution. We are not governed by the rules of the BNA Act.

We are where no later constitutional documents alters the clauses. Changing the Senate has always required an amendment, how that amendment is to be achieved changed in 1982. Like I said, it's all there in plain English.

I pointed out some of the drawbacks to giving states equal votes regardless of population...if you don't like it, too bad!

And I'd agree, if it wasn't counterbalanced. In the US, the Senate's powers are counterbalanced in multiple ways, but most importantly by the House of Representatives.

I am getting sick of Conservative/REform advocates acting like this is manna from heaven. If you can't see a downside to giving less populated provinces and regions greater voting power than those living in more heavily populated areas, then there's no point talking to a zealot.

But you're ignoring how both the US and Canada were formed. In the US, the original states were, after the British were successfully repelled, essentially independent jurisdictions who gave up their sovereign rights in return for an upper house that would represent their issues at a national level. In Canada, the original provinces were British colonies that agreed to join together into a single union with the guarantee set out in the BNA Act that the upper house's constitution would be dependent on at least partially representing their interests at a federal level.

Beyond that, both countries are federations. They are not unitary states. Just about every federated state I'm aware of constitutionally recognizes the semi-independence of states or provinces by giving them some sort of a voice, almost inevitably via an upper chamber. If you have some other method, then by all means provide it and detail how it will function better than the upper house model used by most federated states.

I have no idea where you get off accusing me of being a Conservative/Reform advocate, considering I am highly critical of the constitutionality of the Senate reform methods being invoked by the current government, and have said many times here that I have some problems with the notion of the Triple-E senate.

[RNG]

Whether they were successful or not aside, the concept of the US senate was to take the hard edge off "the tyranny of the majority". Yes, it has some downsides, but so does strict per capital influence.