Senate Reform

[shortlived]

Buying the public with ads instead of paying into the party coffers of Harperite cronyism, but why?

Oh right there is an election in what 3 years?

Clock is ticking.

Must deliver something other than broken promises

or is it simply acknolwedged that no one is going to elect them to go past the decade mark... 14 years in office is a long time for any government. 2006-2020 is a hell of a long run when you already have more than half the senate, and will have all the supreme court seats, most federal officers and commissions etc... etc...

I think for being perhaps only 30% of the voting population or about 15% of the population that is a lot of power for such a small minority of the citenzenship.

This type of projection is very strange to see though

2012/04/02 5 Conservative 139 1 Liberal 43 NDP120

That was a long time ago though.

Although the other new element is cell phone voting online.... with elections Canada proposing "online voting"?

On the topic though.. they have to deliver otherwise it is a broken promise only corrupt party members will like.

Edited February 9, 2013 by shortlived

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

Everyone knows the process. That's like saying politicians don't call elections or prorogue Parliament or decide legislation because the Crown is the one who actually does it in the end. The Crown is just a rubber stamp formality 99.9% of the time. The PM (or cabinet, or government, or however knick-picky you want to be) for all intents and purposes appoints Senators.

You still haven't answered my question. If you want to get all technical, then instead of the GG appointing Senators why not change it to make Lieutenant Governor's of each province the ones who appoint Senators for their respective provinces?

[Smallc]

You don't like the First Nations period.

I like them just fine. I don't like the failure to recognize them as normal human beings.

[shortlived]

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.

Parliament should pay for itself, plain and simple. Leave the tax payer funds out of it, aside from donations and tourist shop purchases. If they can't raise money to run their own business how can they be expected to run Canada?

[shortlived]

Things don't need to be elected to be respected. This is the same of the Governor General, the Queen and judges. Fact is there are lots of appointed positions. I think a good first step would be creating the new body, before thinking about removing organs that allowed continuance of state for 125 years and more. Nothing wrong with starting a new body.. but why step into the unknown if you don't need to. Those sorts of social experiments should only be done when there is a need rather than a fancy. Just stop paying. I don't think Stephen Harper would put himself on dialysis without a need so why put Canada on dialysis? His actions seem to just say, I made really bad picks, we better change this up after I'm gone. THE RIGHT MOVE would be to make a new legislative chamber that is proportional representation. and another that is elected fully by number of votes without ridings involved. JUST STOP PAYING MPS FROM TAX PAYER FUNDS UNTIL THE DEBT IS GONE AND THERE IS A SURPLUS. Paying them to put Canadians in debt is just absurd.

Edited February 9, 2013 by shortlived

[cybercoma]

You still haven't answered my question. If you want to get all technical, then instead of the GG appointing Senators why not change it to make Lieutenant Governor's of each province the ones who appoint Senators for their respective provinces?

That is what SmallC suggested and I agreed with.

[g_bambino]

nstead of the GG appointing Senators why not change it to make Lieutenant Governor's of each province the ones who appoint Senators for their respective provinces?

It's technically feasible, but would take a lot of constitutional reordering. Also, while it would take the process of appointing senators in a direction away from the federal Cabinet, it wouldn't completely remove that body altogether; the lieutenant governors making the senatorial appointments are still themselves appointees of the Governor General-in-Council. I don't know whether or not that remaining link would invite federal ministers to meddle--possibly threateningly--in the appointment of senators.

[Moonlight Graham]

It's technically feasible, but would take a lot of constitutional reordering. Also, while it would take the process of appointing senators in a direction away from the federal Cabinet, it wouldn't completely remove that body altogether; the lieutenant governors making the senatorial appointments are still themselves appointees of the Governor General-in-Council. I don't know whether or not that remaining link would invite federal ministers to meddle--possibly threateningly--in the appointment of senators.

How could federal ministers meddle in the appointments? Federal ministers technically have no lawful power in the matter, correct? Is it not by convention, not law, that the GG takes the advice of the federal cabinet on the appointments? So instead of taking the advice of the federal cabinet, the GG would simply take the advice of the lieutenant governors (or just skip a step, and take the advice of the Premiers). This technically may not even need a constitutional amendment I don't think, since the GG would still be appointing the Senators and all the other formalities are by convention if I'm correct. Things like age limits are law, so they would need an amendment. As long as the provinces and the federal cabinet agreed in principle to make this change in the appointment process, it would have legitimacy.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

I don't know whether or not that remaining link would invite federal ministers to meddle--possibly threateningly--in the appointment of senators.

Serious question, how could they threaten the Lt. Governors?

The only thing I can think is threatening to have the Gov. General remove them, but can (s)he do that for no reason?

[shortlived]

Everyone knows the process. That's like saying politicians don't call elections or prorogue Parliament or decide legislation because the Crown is the one who actually does it in the end. The Crown is just a rubber stamp formality 99.9% of the time. The PM (or cabinet, or government, or however knick-picky you want to be) for all intents and purposes appoints Senators.

You still haven't answered my question. If you want to get all technical, then instead of the GG appointing Senators why not change it to make Lieutenant Governor's of each province the ones who appoint Senators for their respective provinces?

Or what about a new ceremonial post.. Crown Senate Appointer. Cause all them execs probably have more important things to do. They could instead appoint the appointer, then the appointer would appoint.

You know the clerk of the senate for instance might be able to be recorder and "appointer" they could determine it on being clearly spoken, having a clear grasp of an official language, and being able to travel 3 times a year to the senate or was it 1 time every 3 years?

Perahaps we can just skip the 8 year terms completely and just have an alternative jury duty each week. With a free flight there and back for the appearance, and group home for the jurors. What is another million or so for a large complex on parliament hill to house the senate jurors, with the 50+ million renovations each year ongoing. You know you could build it next to the crumbling walls so they don't need to be propped up every year for 50 million dollars. You could build a rock wall with the bricks or something to keep protestors off the hill.. and save security time setting up barricades. Think progressive!

Keep them away from alchohol for the week and a sober second thought is assured!

Edited February 10, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

How could federal ministers meddle in the appointments? Federal ministers technically have no lawful power in the matter, correct?

They currently have all the power. In the hypothetical scenario we're discussing, however, it's almost certain they would have none. But, I say almost certain because, while the provinces have been regarded as sovereign of the federal government (except where the constitution provides otherwise) since the 1880s, the lieutenant governors remain federal appointees, a relic of the highly centralised federation John Macdonald wanted and thought he'd got in 1867. So, while a federal minister can't directly tell a lieutenant governor what to do in terms of provincial legislation or orders, etc., the federal Cabinet can direct the governor general to replace a lieutenant governor at any time. I merely wonder if that link between federal government and provincial crowns could be a conduit through which the federal Cabinet--the prime minister, really--could try to exercise influence over senatorial appointments. Unlikely, but maybe still possible.

The occupants of upper chambers in some other federations are chosen by the state/provincial governments or legislatures; that's how the US Senate was originally populated. However, I couldn't find another example where the heads of those subdivisions were chosen by the federal government. In Australia, the state governors are appointed directly by the Queen at the direction of the state government, not by the governor general on the advice of the federal Cabinet. If that were the case in Canada, I imagine I'd have no reservations at all over the idea of provincial governments or parliaments choosing federal senators.

So instead of taking the advice of the federal cabinet, the GG would simply take the advice of the lieutenant governors (or just skip a step, and take the advice of the Premiers).

That idea is not far off the present arrangement wherein a person who was chosen by provincial election is put forward by the prime minister for appointment to the Senate; it works as a casual arrangement, but only so long as the terms are upheld. The prime minister retains the right to choose someone else and the governor general is constitutionally bound to follow the prime minister's direction over that of any provincial election or lieutenant governor-in-council.

[g_bambino]

Or what about a new ceremonial post.. Crown Senate Appointer. Cause all them execs probably have more important things to do. They could instead appoint the appointer, then the appointer would appoint.

You know the clerk of the senate for instance might be able to be recorder and "appointer" they could determine it on being clearly spoken, having a clear grasp of an official language, and being able to travel 3 times a year to the senate or was it 1 time every 3 years?

How does this conform to the principle of responsible government?

Perahaps we can just skip the 8 year terms completely and just have an alternative jury duty each week.

Six to nine years is already too short a term. The Senate requires people in it with expertise, which comes with serving for a long time.

[Peanutbutter]

I am quite upset with PM Harper on the Senate issue. He promised he would have respect for the taxpayer and put them ahead of the Senator he is reversing this.

At first he didn't appoint any Senators at all until the coalition thing came about that was when he started stacking the Senate.

I truly hope we have an elected, accountable Senate some day.

[Moonlight Graham]

That idea is not far off the present arrangement wherein a person who was chosen by provincial election is put forward by the prime minister for appointment to the Senate; it works as a casual arrangement, but only so long as the terms are upheld. The prime minister retains the right to choose someone else and the governor general is constitutionally bound to follow the prime minister's direction over that of any provincial election or lieutenant governor-in-council.

I'm not a constitutional expert, but I know many things are outlined specifically (written) in our constitution, and many things are also not, and are done by convention. For example, there is no written mention of the "prime minister" or his/her function(s) in any Canadian constitutional document. Therefore, how can the GG be "constitutionally bound to follow the prime minister's direction over that of any provincial election or lieutenant governor-in-council" (or do you mean the cabinet, not the PM)? I'm not sure, but is it by convention or by written law that the GG follows the advice of the cabinet? Doesn't the GG have the power to unilaterally appoint senators, but by convention the GG follows the advice of cabinet (let by the PM)? I'm not sure.

[g_bambino]

I'm not a constitutional expert, but I know many things are outlined specifically (written) in our constitution, and many things are also not, and are done by convention. For example, there is no written mention of the "prime minister" or his/her function(s) in any Canadian constitutional document. Therefore, how can the GG be "constitutionally bound to follow the prime minister's direction over that of any provincial election or lieutenant governor-in-council"?

Well, you mention it right there in your post: convention. These unwritten rules are as valid as the written ones. The conventions that put into practice the principle of responsible government have been in use for at least two centuries (though their roots lie even deeper than that) and are central to the operation of democracy in this country. Thus, they can't just be done away with because they haven't been written into law.

I suppose that, if senators were consistently chosen by lieutenant governors-in-council and appointed by the governor general for a hundred years or more, it would become a convention. Or, that system could be implemented by putting it into written law. But, until that happens, the esablished convention of the governor general always following the lawful advice of his prime minister (who is responsible to the elected chamber of parliament) is the rule.

[Bonam]

Well, you mention it right there in your post: convention. These unwritten rules are as valid as the written ones. The conventions that put into practice the principle of responsible government have been in use for at least two centuries (though their roots lie even deeper than that) and are central to the operation of democracy in this country. Thus, they can't just be done away with because they haven't been written into law.

What is the advantage of not taking all of these important conventions that specify how our government actually works, and codifying them into a written document? Besides the fact that it would be politically difficult to do, I don't see any reason that all of these rules should be kept unwritten.

Or are they really rules? For example, do we really have to have a prime minister? What if a party had no leader, but two or three leaders who held themselves to be equal with each other? Could we have a prime ministerial triumvirate?

Edited February 16, 2013 by Bonam

[shortlived]

What is the advantage of not taking all of these important conventions that specify how our government actually works, and codifying them into a written document? Besides the fact that it would be politically difficult to do, I don't see any reason that all of these rules should be kept unwritten.

Or are they really rules? For example, do we really have to have a prime minister? What if a party had no leader, but two or three leaders who held themselves to be equal with each other? Could we have a prime ministerial triumvirate?

Yeah I bet you'd suggest we write down the handshakes and pass phrases too right... No no prime minister is required but the governor general would likely have to work a lot more like picking people to appoint to head the ministries and show up to meetings and run GIC and all that jazz, my gosh they'd probably have to hire a press secretary just for meet the press days with all them trips overseas representing the government in photo ops and wasting tax payer funds on security operations. The GGs life might become stressful rather than spent pining awards on people and reading books to nominate for awards. The opposition would go insane having to resort to picking on back benchers who might feel pressured to actually respond to the questions asked during QP not having mastered their make witty comment repeatedly and sit back down skills. The government would be ruined. Yes these roles must be constitutionally recorded to save Canada from ruin! I think without a PM Canada would have to make a mascot that could be put in some seat in the commons, perhaps a giant moose head, or a beaver, or perhaps a Tv set could be wheeled in with clips of rockey and Bullwinkle, and it could beplayed during question period perhapssomething around 420 mark in this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVIeBuqelc4

as a response played over and over, but a different eposiode clip would need to be picked for each session to answers. 6:40 is a wonderful example of how the PM serves in cabinet. Edited February 16, 2013 by shortlived

[eyeball]

Scrap the senate and vet Parliament's legislation with Citizen's Assemblies selected randomly like our juries. Selectees could be vetted through some process that screens for obvious idiots and such and after a few years randomly selected batches could be cycled out and new ones brought in. Perhaps those who really shine during their term of service could be persuaded to run for Parliament.

[ReeferMadness]

It would be great if we could have a senate that is elected but I don't think we need any more emphasis on the provinces. This country is barely hanging together as it is. The HoC has become regionalized, first by the BQ and later by the Reform/Conservative Parties. On top of that, we have wannabe dictators like Harper madly centralizing power in the PMO. Bad, bad.

What would be really cool is we could have a house where constituencies could be built in a way that is not primarily geographic. The practice of building constituencies based solely on geography is so 1880s.

Any meaningful senate reform is going to require a constitutional amendment. Any meaningful change will be DOA because the provinces who benefit from the current lop-sided senate will block it. Gridlock.

[g_bambino]

What is the advantage of not taking all of these important conventions that specify how our government actually works, and codifying them into a written document? Besides the fact that it would be politically difficult to do, I don't see any reason that all of these rules should be kept unwritten.

I imagine they haven't been codified because there's no reason to do so; the same rules aren't codified in Australia, Britain, Israel, and other places. Plus, there's a certain benefit to avoiding the riditity of written law; conventions allow some flexibility should the system have to deal with circumstances lawmakers could never foresee.

[shortlived]

I don't understand are you suggesting people who are 'elected' are responsible?

How does this conform to the principle of responsible government?


Six to nine years is already too short a term. The Senate requires people in it with expertise, which comes with serving for a long time.

Just give direct rule to the people. And insure equal rights and access to the non government militia that is self forming by the citizens. rather than oligarchical elitists.. We have the systems to give the people the vote on all issues so why are we forced to representatives to maybe vote the way we want?

I'm not calling for instantaneous revolution but create a third house, the house of the people.

If we all are expected to bank everyday via ATMs then why doesn't government use ATMs to allow us to register our votes on issues, and to suggest new legislation. These are within our technological means, yet the people are still disenfranchised. Parliament is not the will of the people but rule by party elitists.

Bring real democracy to Canada instead of the farce that is a dual party system of corrupt politicians that has debted and robbed the common people of Canada for over a century.

The people want a vote on laws that will rule the people!

Edited February 20, 2013 by shortlived

[cybercoma]

Responsible Government

[g_bambino]

Just give direct rule to the people.

And tyranny ensues. No thanks.

[Peanutbutter]

And tyranny ensues. No thanks.

What do you call the minority ruling over the majority? Democracy?

[g_bambino]

What do you call the minority ruling over the majority? Democracy?

What does it matter?