The senate

[Topaz]

I just heard a debate on "Power and Politics" and the Tories are leaning more of abolishing the senate than reforming it. The Tory said if it can't be reformed, ( I don't know why it can't be rather than abolishing it) put something else in its place. What would replace the senate? Does anyone know what the Tories have in mind?

Edited July 31, 2013 by Topaz

[Bryan]

I've said it before, the upper house should be like jury duty. A random cross section of the public gets subpoenaed to it.

[hitops]

Let's get rid of it. It makes no sense to have a non-elected body have lifetime appointment for anything that involves any kind of real power.

[Topaz]

Let's get rid of it. It makes no sense to have a non-elected body have lifetime appointment for anything that involves any kind of real power.

Ok, say we get rid of it, who or what do Canadians have IF the second thought of Bills the Parliament pass, gets a second review?? Do you want the House of Parliament or should I say the majority party to make all the rules in Canada no matter how we like or dislike them? I say reform it make stronger rules, have them elected by provinces but even though we do that, people like Duffy may still be in the senate and IF you get rid of the senate ALL those senators would get pension and maybe severance if you are closing it down. There are many things to think about and its nor going to be as esay as saying close them down.

[Smallc]

We can't get rid of it or make large changes for it...people just don't care enough.

[Topaz]

The new minister, Pierre, says he thinks he can get rid of it or reform it without an agreement from the provinces. I have a feeling with this guy at the head its going to get nasty. I also wonder if the "senate" has replace the "gun registry" for the Tories to get donations and votes? The NDP want to get rid of the senate, Liberals want to reform it and right now, the Tories are all over the page and I not sure what Harper wants. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/07/31/pol-poilievre-announcment-senate-reform.html

[Smallc]

That's not what he said...and there's a good chance he's still wrong.

[Bryan]

The point is, the govt put the matter before the supreme court FIRST. Getting the answer as to what they can and cannot do before anyone tries to challenge it is a very smart tactic.

[Topaz]

Why ask the SC about abolishing the senate IF they really want to reform it? I've heard Pierre on this topic many times and he doesn't like the fact the senate can redo what the Parliament has done with Bills and wants all the power in the House or another way of saying it THEY want all the control and power. I can understand more info from SC about reforming, which would be alot easier than trying to get rid of it,unless they are using the action of abolishing to get what they really want is reform.

[Smallc]

The Senate is part of Parliament.

[cybercoma]

That's not what he said...and there's a good chance he's still wrong.

Well, yeah. It's Pierre.

[Demosthenes26]

Why ask the SC about abolishing the senate IF they really want to reform it? I've heard Pierre on this topic many times and he doesn't like the fact the senate can redo what the Parliament has done with Bills and wants all the power in the House or another way of saying it THEY want all the control and power. I can understand more info from SC about reforming, which would be alot easier than trying to get rid of it,unless they are using the action of abolishing to get what they really want is reform.

The senate is proscribed in the constitution. We'd need to amend the constitution to get rid / reform of the senate. The amendment formula requires the senate in all cases we have to go through the sc to over turn it.

[AlienB]

I just heard a debate on "Power and Politics" and the Tories are leaning more of abolishing the senate than reforming it. The Tory said if it can't be reformed, ( I don't know why it can't be rather than abolishing it) put something else in its place. What would replace the senate? Does anyone know what the Tories have in mind?

I don't know but it would be a miracle for them to do it in two years based upon past time frames for policy delivery.

[AlienB]

IMO on the senate we should be reducing public service jobs, transferring work load over to new houses that better represent a "national" election system, that is people voting nationally instead of ridings. Like presidential elections but without boundaries just people with the most votes get into a new house of representatives by number of votes not by challenges.

IMO we also should have a better petition system and the public should have a vote after legislation has been finalized, all legal changes should go to a referendum (via atm type voting, with safegaurds to insure vote accuracy)

Changes need to be made but we shouldn't be eliminating organs were should be healing them, and making the creature stronger, or livable.

It is unfortunate if in the public mind, enough controversy can be created, the PR damage will allow the public to be fooled into sacrificing something that is useful to the public.

Less representation is not better government.

Clearly they need a lot more people to get things right based on their current track record in policy creation.

Things really arn't made well.

Edited August 1, 2013 by AlienB

[Topaz]

Everyone knows how much a headache it is dealing with the consitution is, and I can't see Harper wanting to open that up again, even to reform the Senate, when he doesn't like meeting with the Premiers!

[Smallc]

Yeah, well, they can't abolish it without opening the Constitution either, so...

[Demosthenes26]

Its cruelly ironic because if we could count on the senate to act on behalf of the good of the nation rather than their own self interest. Reforming the senate wouldn't be an issue. But if we could then we wouldn't need to reform the senate.

[hitops]

Ok, say we get rid of it, who or what do Canadians have IF the second thought of Bills the Parliament pass, gets a second review?? Do you want the House of Parliament or should I say the majority party to make all the rules in Canada no matter how we like or dislike them?

That's already what happens in 98% of cases even with a senate. An elected senate would just be a second elected body, like the US. It's largest impact there is the creation of complete gridlock most of the time. It is redundant, we have an elected body already. we don't need a second one. I understand this may not be practical because of constitutional issues.

[AlienB]

Everyone knows how much a headache it is dealing with the consitution is, and I can't see Harper wanting to open that up again, even to reform the Senate, when he doesn't like meeting with the Premiers!

Well the point it is at now is to just ask the Supreme court which is I think all but one or two conservative appointments. The idea is just to ask the supreme court if the government can remove the senate on its own.

The government is saying basically, well, since we are the government we get to decide on all functions of government including parliament.

Effectively the senate however manages its own affairs. It would be judicial intererance. While the senate could conduct itself improperly, this would be grounds for the governor general to declare senate seats vacant after about two years.

The senate could agree to disolve but after two years the prior senators would be void and new senators could be appointed.

Otherwise it would require a constitutional amendment (amendments) if going by history under the amending formula of the constitution 1982.

Anything other than this is just a fabrication, and not in anyway following parliamentary law.

In essence the commons does not run parliament it is the lower house of a three leveled parliament. It has the privilege of proposing law. Government is only suppose to "administer law" it isn't suppose to invent law, or change government.

Edited August 2, 2013 by AlienB

[Icebound]

We should NOT abolish the senate. In another thread, I proposed an easy reformation of the senate that could be done in a matter of months without any constitutional haggle: simply force senators to renounce party affiliation and membership... and prohibit them from any fundraising, public appearances, etc., with any political party or elected member. (A few other minor things like term limits, etc., would be nice.)

Then there is HISTORY. In still another thread, I put forth this simple challenge. Did anybody figure it out?

quote:

In 1919 a fledgling political movement published a short manifesto in a European newspaper. It proposed solutions for the four issues of the day: political, social, military, and financial.

The "solutions" for the Political "problems" consisted of 5 very reasonable proposals, enumerated a) to e).

Item c) was simply: "Abolish the Senate".

I leave it to the readers to recall history and determine which political movement, and whose newspaper....

:unquote

The senate may be expensive, inefficient, and a whole lot of other ills. But if we want some semblance of "democracy", it is still better than no senate at all.

...

[hitops]

We should NOT abolish the senate. In another thread, I proposed an easy reformation of the senate that could be done in a matter of months without any constitutional haggle: simply force senators to renounce party affiliation and membership... and prohibit them from any fundraising, public appearances, etc., with any political party or elected member. (A few other minor things like term limits, etc., would be nice.)

Then there is HISTORY. In still another thread, I put forth this simple challenge. Did anybody figure it out?

quote:

In 1919 a fledgling political movement published a short manifesto in a European newspaper. It proposed solutions for the four issues of the day: political, social, military, and financial.

The "solutions" for the Political "problems" consisted of 5 very reasonable proposals, enumerated a) to e).

Item c) was simply: "Abolish the Senate".

I leave it to the readers to recall history and determine which political movement, and whose newspaper....

:unquote

The senate may be expensive, inefficient, and a whole lot of other ills. But if we want some semblance of "democracy", it is still better than no senate at all.

...

shortlived, is that you?

[Topaz]

All the provinces are in agreement that the province have to be included in changes made in the senate and now we may have the provinces vs the Harper government over this. In the following article, it tells the questions that the Harper govt is asking the Supreme Court. I'm sure if the Harper government wins on this, the provinces will probably go back to the SC and have a debate on why? In the end , the voters will have the power to decide later. http://www.canada.com/news/Provinces+insist+consent+required/8745421/story.html

[Icebound]

shortlived, is that you?

I pretty sure that I do not have long to live (well, hopefully a couple of decades, maybe), but I don't think that I am "shortlived".... A buddy of yours, I presume???

[hitops]

I pretty sure that I do not have long to live (well, hopefully a couple of decades, maybe), but I don't think that I am "shortlived".... A buddy of yours, I presume???

lol well hey welcome back. A futures market predicting time to your next ban might be interesting, unfortunately intrade has been shut down.

[Icebound]

lol well hey welcome back. A futures market predicting time to your next ban might be interesting, unfortunately intrade has been shut down.

Considering that I have never BEEN banned, predicting a "next" time will be somewhat less than profitable. I am pretty sure that you are thinking of someone else.