Senate Reform

[Topaz]

About seven years ago, the Tories said they wanted to reform the senate by election and not by appointment and now they are looking into it with the Supreme Court of what the government can do on this matter . I think it would help if we had a commissioner, like the PBO, who will monitor what these senators are doing with the taxpayers money and if wrong doing is found thst senator is expelled from the senate and no second chances, so they better know the rules. BTW, now that the Tories own the senate, they now want to have elections, no surprise, after all it is the Tories we are talking about.

[Smallc]

We can already see what the Senate is doing.

[scribblet]

btw the Tories have wanted an elected Senate for a long time. New Senate appts. have to sign agreeing to terms and elections when legal.

The current bill is the 5th attempt.

[Smallc]

I don't want an elected Seante though, so, I'm fine with it being bear impossible right now.

[scribblet]

Abolishing the Senate is pretty drastic though and keeping the status quo isn't the way to go IMO. So what to do?

[Topaz]

Perhaps to become a senator one has to have certain qualifications, like to know the differences between right and wrong, how not to break the law and the rules of Parliament and most of all, be true to yourself and don't let someone bully you into a decision you may not want.

[Smallc]

Abolishing the Senate is pretty drastic though and keeping the status quo isn't the way to go IMO. So what to do?

Well, the US is a good example of what not to do. I'm sure there are other, more successful upper houses that we can look to.

[Smallc]

Perhaps to become a senator one has to have certain qualifications, like to know the differences between right and wrong, how not to break the law and the rules of Parliament and most of all, be true to yourself and don't let someone bully you into a decision you may not want.

[scribblet]

I'm pretty sure Australia and New Zealand abolished theirs.

[g_bambino]

I'm pretty sure Australia... abolished theirs.

Senate of Australia.

[ed.: +]

Edited February 5, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

New Senate appts. have to sign agreeing to terms and elections when legal.

Utterly irrelevant.

[Moonlight Graham]

Given the vast power our PM has within our political system, I don't want the Senate abolished as it's an important check on his/her power. It would also be near-impossible to abolish it since its likely that all provinces would have to consent to such a Constitution-changing action, and the likelihood of all provinces consenting is very slim. The Senate has flaws, but maintains important roles in our system. Most changes will likely involve some kind of constitutional change, meaning 2/3 of Provinces must approve. My views:

Elected Senate - tough call, since elections would bring another form of partisanship to the Senate, and any more power given to the Senate via its newfound "legitimacy" would mean legislative gridlock like the US. I'm fine with appointments, but not by the PM, the very person the Senate is needed to check the power of. How about Premiers appoint Senators for their given Provinces?

Term limits - they're needed, complacency is a problem if you can spend up to 45 years (age 30 to age 75) in the Senate. Lastest CPC bill wants 9 year limits, which may be too short. Vital expertise by Senators is also built up by spending many years serving, so something like maybe 12 years would be good IMO.

Property/wealth requirements - Should be completely eliminated, this was initially implented in order to mirror the House of Lords in the UK system but we didn't have the history of nobility in Canada in 1867 from which to pick from. Archaic and rediculous elitism. Only serving the views/interests of the wealthy is not in the interests of all Canadians, especially those of little income.

Age limits - 75 years might be too old, but its all depending on each individual senator's health/aging, so mandatory bi-annual physicals might be a good thing after, say, age 65.

[scribblet]

Utterly irrelevant.

Only in your opinion. It's relevant because it speaks to the PM's attempts to follow through on an election promise. He can't abolish the Senate with out the consent of all 10 provinces, according to some constitutional experts anyway. It also makes sense to wait for the SC decision on what can actually be done.

http://www.canada.co...de-02b3edc5ce2d

Australia's Senate is elected.

Edited February 5, 2013 by scribblet

[g_bambino]

Only in your opinion.

No, it's fact. Agreements, signed or not, by senators to step down at certain points have no meaning; following though on them is entirely voluntary; there's no way to enforce them, otherwise.

Australia's Senate is elected.

It is.

Interestingly, it is also the only one (in the Commonwealth, anyway) that has helped cause a constitutional crisis by refusing to pass a money bill until the prime minister met certain demands.

[cybercoma]

Term limits is the worst idea in the world. It makes the Senate even more useless than it is now. If there were term limits in place, every single senator would be a Harper crony right now. During Chrétien's time as PM, every single senator would have been one of Chrétien's cronies. How does that speak to the importance of having an upper house for "sober second thought"? The last thing we need is pre-mature term limits. If they're going to be put into place, then senators need to be elected and as bambino has pointed out many times, there are serious problems with an elected senate as well. There's no reason, other than statute that the Senate couldn't be abolished. It costs us millions and frankly we don't get any value out of giving permanent positions to party hacks and cronies. They've never struck down federal legislation and rarely do they improve any of it and that has been despite the part in power. It's practically useless.

[g_bambino]

There's no reason, other than statute that the Senate couldn't be abolished.

Except it would result in the total absence of regional representation to at least temper the popular and highly political representation in the Commons. As I keep saying: there's a reason no federation in the world has a unicameral parliament. However, the Senate as constituted is not playing its intended role to its full potential; mostly because it cannot.

I think each province having an equal number of seats is a start. The task of selecting senators should also be taken away from the Governor General-in-Council; appointment by the Queen on the advice of the relevant provincial Executive Council is one option; election is another. All require constitutional amendment, though.

I read yesterday some interesting information regarding the proposal of an elected Senate, which deals with the potential problem of such a body becoming a duplicate House of Commons and using "democratic legitimacy" as a reason to quash federal bills approved by the House.

A few years back, Mr. Brown discussed all this with the Prime Minister for four hours at a Calgary steakhouse, where Mr. Harper specifically asked the Senator to find a way to enshrine the House’s supremacy in the face of a newly legitimate, empowered and elected Senate.

Mr. Brown said he has since presented the Prime Minister with a mechanism dubbed the Elton-McCormick Override—named for two Lethbridge political scientists—and that Mr. Harper read the plan with interest. The override says if senators want to thwart a House-approved bill, they can do so, but only if the move has the support of a majority of senators in each of seven provinces representing 50% of the population (much like the requirement to amend the constitution itself).

If successful, the House could either “fix [the bill] or forget it,” Mr. Brown explained. The Senate could not, however, force a non-confidence vote or even cause prolonged gridlock because the override only gives senators one month or 12 sitting days to muster the votes for a veto.

Stephen Harper would seek to amend constitution to keep elected Senate from overruling House of Commons

This seems akin to the UK's Parliament Act 1911, which limited the power of the House of Lords to stop bills passed by the Commons. However, I haven't had enough time to think about possible negative ramifications.

[cybercoma]

The Senate should use its regional balance to quash bills. Otherwise, popular vote in Ontario would dictate almost all legislation. There's a reason the regions are equally represented, as you say. So deadlock would be the fault of a parliament that isn't creating good legislation that is in the interest of all Canadians.

[g_bambino]

The Senate should use its regional balance to quash bills. Otherwise, popular vote in Ontario would dictate almost all legislation. There's a reason the regions are equally represented, as you say. So deadlock would be the fault of a parliament that isn't creating good legislation that is in the interest of all Canadians.

It has: GST. However, senators (like the governor general) must remain cognisant of the fact that the House of Commons is the democratically elected chamber and so thwarting its will is akin to thwarting the will of "the people" (the majority, anyway). It can be done, and there are and may be times when it's needed to be done, but only when necessary.

[cybercoma]

How did that work out? Mulroney just added a few more GST Senators to change the balance to Conservative favour. I know you like to point out that technically Senators are not accountable to the PM, but reality is that the PM is not going to appoint Senators that aren't going to toe the party line.

[cybercoma]

Just to be clear, I don't know the answer. I think there needs to be an upper house for regional balance. I would also like to see First Nations represented in the Upper House, in balance to each of the regions. I like SmallC's idea of having the provincial crowns appoint the Senators for those regions. I really don't know how to fix the current issues though.

[Smallc]

I don't like the idea of ethnic senators, sorry.

[Moonlight Graham]

Term limits is the worst idea in the world. It makes the Senate even more useless than it is now. If there were term limits in place, every single senator would be a Harper crony right now. During Chrétien's time as PM, every single senator would have been one of Chrétien's cronies. How does that speak to the importance of having an upper house for "sober second thought"? The last thing we need is pre-mature term limits. If they're going to be put into place, then senators need to be elected and as bambino has pointed out many times, there are serious problems with an elected senate as well.

As I mentioned before, as an alternative to elections and PM-appointment, why not let the provincial Premiers appoint Senators for their given province? This would mean the party makeup of the Senate would be even more diverse (right now its virtually all Liberal and CPC), and reasonable term limits (like even 12 - 15 years) could be put in place, while avoiding the problems evident with elections.& PM-appointment overall. This would likely require a Constitutional amendment & approval by the provinces, though I can't imagine any province that would reject giving themselves more power so the amendment would very likely pass.

Any reform of the Senate MUST include removing the power of the PM to appoint Senators. The average Senator serves only 9 years anyways, so Harper has been able to appoint 53 of the 105 total Senate members, with 52 of these 53 being CPC and 1 being independent. The Senate is a total PM rubber stamp piece of bullshit when it comes to legislation as it stands.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

I don't like the idea of ethnic senators, sorry.

You don't like the First Nations period.

[cybercoma]

As I mentioned before, as an alternative to elections and PM-appointment, why not let the provincial Premiers appoint Senators

Because Senators are not appointed by politicians. They're appointed by the Crown. Which is why it really irks me when journalists get sloppy and write completely incorrect headlines, such as "Harper Appoints 5 New Senators." Harper doesn't appoint them. The Governor General does, despite doing it on the PM's recommendation.

Edited February 9, 2013 by cybercoma

[The_Squid]

Because Senators are not appointed by politicians. They're appointed by the Crown. Which is why it really irks me when journalists get sloppy and write completely incorrect headlines, such as "Harper Appoints 5 New Senators." Harper doesn't appoint them. The Governor General does, despite doing it on the PM's recommendation.

Semantics. They are Harper appointees.