Another five added to Senate

-TSS- · January 27, 2013

Countries with a federal system of government such as Canada is tend to have bicameral parliaments. One chamber representing the people and the other representing the constituent regions.

Smallc · January 27, 2013

Yes, but I don't like what can happen when you add elections to the regional house. Deadlock often ensues.

scribblet · January 27, 2013

Exactly what Harper did in the case of his senate promises.

There is a Senate Reform bill but could be referred to the SC because some provinces believe it's unconstitutional. It hasn't and isn't easy to get the provinces to agree with an elected Senate. Saskatchewan has a bill before parliament now, if passed Pamela Wallin will step down.

There was a private member's bill in BC last year but don't know what happened to it.

Edited January 27, 2013 by scribblet

The_Squid · January 28, 2013

Can't rely on Provinces to do this. Harper needs to put some effort into it. He hasn't even met with the first ministers since he's become PM, despite making promises to reform the senate. How can he reform the senate of he won't convene talks on it? It was an empty promise.

Topaz · January 28, 2013

Isn't there something about the reforming of the senate would require to open up the consitution and NO BODY what to open that. I don't think Harper could handle that since he doesn't want to be in the same room with all the Premiers and having a confidence call wouldn't so it.

Sleipnir · January 28, 2013

I like to see rules change on this as how many one party can have and spread it so ALL parties can be represented.

How about abolishing the senate completely? I have not come across any reasonable justification to keep the senate.

scribblet · January 28, 2013

I'm not sure about abolishing it. If that happened would our current system stay the same.

Actually Mr. Harper has put Senate reform legislation through, don't know where it is now other than sitting in the HOC.

It will eventually pass then go on to the Senate where they will have to vote on reforming their own institution. The Senate leader has expressed confidence it will pass.

Smallc · January 28, 2013

But the change being proposed, nine year terms, is not really an improvement, as it allows for east Senate stacking. Something in the 15 year range, non renewable, would probably be better.

g_bambino · January 28, 2013

I have not come across any reasonable justification to keep the senate.

Regional representation to balance the popular representation in the Commons. It's pretty well the reason why every federation on Earth has a bicameral parliament.

g_bambino · January 28, 2013

But the change being proposed, nine year terms, is not really an improvement, as it allows for east Senate stacking. Something in the 15 year range, non renewable, would probably be better.

Or leave the limit as is. People complain about stacking of the Senate now, but it still takes quite a while for it to happen. With senators replacable every nine years, the stacking will happen much quicker.

PIK · January 28, 2013

They want to make terms no longer than 9 yrs ,but it is being held up. Harper will change it when he can. But funny when the libs ran the senate, they never complained. You lost get use to it. And we also have to do something about the left using the courts to try to change election results when they don't like them, it is getting pathetic.

Smallc · January 28, 2013

Or leave the limit as is.

I can see the complaints about a 40 year term, but, this is probably the least important and second most dangerous change.

I still say Harper should change the constitution to give the appointment power to the provinces, and let each province decide how they pick their senators.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Smallc

g_bambino · January 28, 2013

I can see the complaints about a 40 year term...

It can be argued there's a benefit to it, too: Someone with decades of experience is more valuable than someone with less than one.

I still say Harper should change the constitution to give the appointment power to the provinces, and let each province decide how they pick their senators.

I'm open to the idea of senators being selected by the provincial governments or legislatures or whatever. But, I believe the process should be consistent throughout. Some senators being elected while others are appointed will lead to a rather sloppy mess wherein the elected ones might claim more "democratic legitimacy" to their opinions while the appointed ones could say their opinions are untainted by any suspicion of dishonest pandering to voters.

[ed.: -]

Edited January 28, 2013 by g_bambino

Smallc · January 28, 2013

I don't really see how they could claim that though. They'd be there by the power of each provincial Crown, no matter how they were selected.

g_bambino · January 28, 2013

They'd be there by the power of each provincial Crown, no matter how they were selected.

But the process of selection would make them different; an elected politician is not the same as an appointee (hence the debate over whether or not the governor general should be selected by some method of election or remain strictly appointed). If senators are all selected the same way, they're at least all on an equal footing, in that regard.

Topaz · January 28, 2013

I guess the only way around this is for the voters to give each party a time in power so they can appoint someone for their party in the senate and if the NDP are given a chance to govern, then it could become more fair, with each party having reps.

Sleipnir · January 28, 2013

Regional representation to balance the popular representation in the Commons.

I don't buy it, doesn't the system of electing MP does that?

g_bambino · January 28, 2013

doesn't the system of electing MP does that?

I don't understand the question.

The House of Commons provides popular representation. The population isn't evenly distributed across the country; thus, some regions are more represented in the Commons than others. Another chamber is therefore provided for regional representation, where the regions are supposed to be equally represented. (Of course, the Senate as currently constituted doesn't do that; some regions still have more seats than others. However, it's closer to equal than it is in the Commons.) As I said, this is why bicameral parliaments are used by every federation. Do you not think there's a reason there isn't a federated country with a unicameral legislature?

[ed.: c/e]

Edited January 28, 2013 by g_bambino

g_bambino · January 28, 2013

I guess the only way around this is for the voters to give each party a time in power so they can appoint someone for their party in the senate and if the NDP are given a chance to govern, then it could become more fair, with each party having reps.

I don't think the composition of the Senate should be the highest priority in any election.

eyeball · January 29, 2013

Regional representation to balance the popular representation in the Commons. It's pretty well the reason why every federation on Earth has a bicameral parliament.

Well sure, but every other federation has both oars in the water. Our stupid boat just keeps going in circles.

shortlived · February 2, 2013

The Pm has appointed five more people as senators and if this keeps going and the Tories are voted in again, then we may as well change Canada's name to Toryville. The senate is suppose to the "second thought" from Parliament and if the PMs are going to stack the senate, like the Liberals, did then its not a second thought democracy. I like to see rules change on this as how many one party can have and spread it so ALL parties can be represented. http://ca.news.yahoo...-173143764.html

OMG this is the best argument for the Tory lie of an elected senate ever!

Why not just give a direct vote to all Canadian citizens to vote on the laws?

and eviserate the bourgoisie?

or hows this why not let the citizens make the laws to to vote on rather than a group of people who are good at lying.

Why exactly are lygestlaters allowed to make all the laws anyway?

How often do ATM's and Banks get their accounts doctored? You'd think a vote bank were possible to be implemented. you know with like a voters chip card and an atm system. that they can confirm their vote afterward with.

Edited February 2, 2013 by shortlived

g_bambino · February 2, 2013

Why not just give a direct vote to all Canadian citizens to vote on the laws?

It takes more than just a vote to make a law.

jbg · February 2, 2013

How often do ATM's and Banks get their accounts doctored?

Huh?

What kind of accounts do ATM machines and banks have? With what institutions?

jbg · February 2, 2013

The Pm has appointed five more people as senators and if this keeps going and the Tories are voted in again, then we may as well change Canada's name to Toryville. The senate is suppose to the "second thought" from Parliament and if the PMs are going to stack the senate, like the Liberals, did then its not a second thought democracy. I like to see rules change on this as how many one party can have and spread it so ALL parties can be represented. http://ca.news.yahoo...-173143764.html

Didn't Chretien do likewise?

cybercoma · February 7, 2013

What makes them go along with the prime minister? Unlike as it is with MPs, the prime minister has no threat to hold over a senator should the latter not wish to follow the prime minister's diktats. In fact, senators appointed on Harper's advice have rejected Harper's own stated plans; on Senate reform, for example.

What accountability do they have to anyone? No accountability to the PM and no accountability to the electorate, all while holding a 6-figure job for life. To whom are they accountable?

Granted we're not a democracy, but still...