na85 Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 I'm interested in opinions: Suppose a law was passed mandating that the PM shall not recommend that the Governor General appoint to the Senate any person who has had significant ties to the PM's party, either federally or provincially. Perhaps an exception might be made for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, but I'm on the fence about that. I think this would be an extremely positive change down the road: Senate seats no longer filled by party hacks as a cushy reward for years spent as an attack dog or political hatchetman/woman Senate no longer a game of "which party can fill more seats so that they can fuck with the Government if they lose an election?" Senate can be filled with a mixture of scientists, engineers, artists, intelligentsia, etc., resulting in a Senate that better understands the issues facing society because it itself represents a pretty good cross-section of society Cliché as it sounds, an independent Senate might actually serve its intended purpose of providing "sober second thought" when unburdened by obligations to toe the Party line Senators can do what's best for the country with clear consciences, rather than what's best for the Government (which I argue are frequently at odds with each other). Honestly I'm having trouble seeing a downside. There will of course be those who say things like "Bah! Artists/Scientists/whoever can't be expected to perform the duties of a Senator! It's difficult, and hard work!" To them I would ask if they truly feel that the current crop of Senators are anything special. I'd go so far as to say the whole batch are merely average people who happened to land a really cushy job. If the PM selects Senators who have inquisitive minds and a demonstrated sense of civic responsibility, I don't see how it could possibly be worse than having the entire Senate stacked with hand-picked yes-men representing only two of the major parties. So. Suppose this law was passed, and never mind the unlikelihood of its passing. What then would be the long-term consequences in your opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Anyone not in power will be in agreement, much like they all say (cue Harper here) they'll do it different. Then they get in power and turn out just like all the other Ahole PM's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
na85 Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Anyone not in power will be in agreement, much like they all say (cue Harper here) they'll do it different. Then they get in power and turn out just like all the other Ahole PM's. Not to get in the way of you being edgy and cynical, but I'm not talking about an agreement. I'm talking about a law. One that gets enforced. The point of this thread was to discuss what I consider an interesting hypothetical. The interesting part of the discussion is the ramifications of such a law, not the argument that every single future PM would just ignore it. Any high-schooler can be grimdark and edgy like that. If you didn't want to take part you could have just simply not replied. Edited April 2, 2015 by na85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 I cant see such a bill ever being tabled, let alone passing a vote. Unless of course Tom Mulcair wins a majority government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 I don't think senate seats should be non-partisan and I don't think you could enforce that in practice. They'd form parties anyway or have party allegiances even if they weren't part of the parties on paper. A better solution would be for senators to be appointed by the region they represent. Each region has so many senators per province. The provinces should appoint their own senators to represent their region. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 I'm interested in opinions: Suppose a law was passed mandating that the PM shall not recommend that the Governor General appoint to the Senate any person who has had significant ties to the PM's party, either federally or provincially. So you want to create an upper chamber which can vote its collective conscience, which will either approve or disapprove legislation based upon their own personal ideological and philosophical agreements? It's not an idiotic idea. But here's the problem. You'll have created an APPOINTED assembly with real power power to overturn the legislation of the ELECTED assembly. Now I am not be completely in thrall to the perfection of the democratic system of government, but I have a problem with this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 I cant see such a bill ever being tabled, let alone passing a vote. Unless of course Tom Mulcair wins a majority government. Tom Muclair would have to be a raving idiot to ever table legislation for this. He would be ceding a significant portion of his own power to an unelected assembly which owes him nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 What constitutes a "party hack" or "significant ties"? Those are very subjective terms. Who decides? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Tom Muclair would have to be a raving idiot to ever table legislation for this. He would be ceding a significant portion of his own power to an unelected assembly which owes him nothing. Yep you are right. Somehow when I posted I was thinking of a motion to abolish the senate, not what the original was about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
na85 Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 So you want to create an upper chamber which can vote its collective conscience, which will either approve or disapprove legislation based upon their own personal ideological and philosophical agreements?Pretty much. It's not an idiotic idea. But here's the problem. You'll have created an APPOINTED assembly with real power power to overturn the legislation of the ELECTED assembly. Now I am not be completely in thrall to the perfection of the democratic system of government, but I have a problem with this...There already exists an APPOINTED assembly with real power to overturn the legislation of the ELECTED assembly. It's called the Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
na85 Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 What constitutes a "party hack" or "significant ties"? Those are very subjective terms. Who decides? Well, I think the specific selection criteria for this particular thought experiment is mostly irrelevant. Still, in my opinion "significant ties" should mean "having ever been a member of or donated more than $X to" the PM's political party. My opinion is that partisan appointments do more harm than good, and contribute to the breakdown of political discourse that we are all "enjoying" at present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
na85 Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 I cant see such a bill ever being tabled, let alone passing a vote. Unless of course Tom Mulcair wins a majority government. Well, suppose that it did pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
na85 Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) I don't think senate seats should be non-partisanWhy not? and I don't think you could enforce that in practice. They'd form parties anyway or have party allegiances even if they weren't part of the parties on paper.Can you give an example of why (for example) a person who's never been a member of the NDP would let their allegiance to that party override their best judgment when a bill comes up for a vote? In the year 2030, Leader of the Opposition Dom Dulcair says their party will vote against Bill C-23. Our independent Senator has what incentive or reason to vote against this bill rather than deciding in his own way? At least they can't be Whipped. Can you also give an example of a scenario that would develop that would both be worse than the current scenario, and also cannot develop under the current scheme? Edited April 2, 2015 by na85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Pretty much. There already exists an APPOINTED assembly with real power to overturn the legislation of the ELECTED assembly. It's called the Senate. Well... yes and no. Theoretically, they can sure throw a wrench into the works, but they rarely ever act up specifically because of party loyalty. Then, too, they are hesitant to interfere with parliament because they know the senate lacks legitimacy as an institution. You want to give it a lot more legitimacy, free it from party loyalty, and then see what happens. What's likely to happen is they'll take it upon themselves to be the overseers and supervisors of what our elected parliament does, yet with no public mandate to do so. You'd be setting us up for endless constitutional wrangling and crises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Why not? Can you give an example of why (for example) a person who's never been a member of the NDP would let their allegiance to that party override their best judgment when a bill comes up for a vote? In the year 2030, Leader of the Opposition Dom Dulcair says their party will vote against Bill C-23. Our independent Senator has what incentive or reason to vote against this bill rather than deciding in his own way? At least they can't be Whipped. Can you also give an example of a scenario that would develop that would both be worse than the current scenario, and also cannot develop under the current scheme? People who are interested in politics and involved in political change generally join political parties. You're going to have a rough time finding someone interested enough in doing the job of a senator who has NEVER been involved in any political party ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 People who are interested in politics and involved in political change generally join political parties. You're going to have a rough time finding someone interested enough in doing the job of a senator who has NEVER been involved in any political party ever. Ill do it as long as I dont have to eat cold camambert with broken crackers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Ill do it as long as I dont have to eat cold camambert with broken crackers. I know you're being funny...but I actually like cold camembert and crackers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 I know you're being funny...but I actually like cold camembert and crackers. Truth to tell, so do I. And Ill bet you, if whatshername would have asked, she could have been served a new pack of unbroken crackers, ad in the interim, she could have spoken to her seat mate and let the cheese warm up to suit her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 My understanding is that when the constitution was created, the idea was to have representation by population and making sure that every region would also have a say. The USA Senate is a good example, A state like Wyoming is represented by 2 senators and California is represented by 2 senators. Meanwhile, California has a population of 70 times that of Wyoming. While in the House of Representatives , California is allotted 53 and Wyoming is 1 - which more represents the ratio of population. In Canada, I believe that the Senate is meant to also allow lower populated provinces a greater say than by population. We have Ontario which has 130 times the population Prince Edward Island. How can we then guarantee that PEI and the rest of the Atlantic provinces are not ignored when legislation is being passed? I would like to see an elected (non party) Senate (perhaps elected during provincial elections) with representation which does not reflect population but gives the provinces much more say in passing legislation. The Senate would still be the court of second thought making sure that the smaller provinces do not get railroaded by Quebec and Ontario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 It's all just idle talk. Quebec and/or the Maritime provinces will never, ever surrender the provincial over representation they enjoy now, with both the Constitution and subsequent legislation ensuring that the West and Ontario can never be fairly represented in the Senate by population. It would not matter if Senators are elected or appointed, Quebec in particular will never give up that advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 I can't see the harm of having a number of former MP's from ALL parties being senators, plus a list of Canadians who would want the job. We could limit the number of MP's and then have the rest of voluntaries. I do not like the idea of getting rid of the senate because that would give tooooooo much power to the PMO. BTW, should the PM elect the GG or should it be the Queen??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted April 4, 2015 Report Share Posted April 4, 2015 It's all just idle talk. Quebec and/or the Maritime provinces will never, ever surrender the provincial over representation they enjoy now, with both the Constitution and subsequent legislation ensuring that the West and Ontario can never be fairly represented in the Senate by population. It would not matter if Senators are elected or appointed, Quebec in particular will never give up that advantage. That wasn't a stipulation in the proposal.....the Senate is and should always be regionally represented chamber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash74 Posted April 4, 2015 Report Share Posted April 4, 2015 So much easier to just end this good old boys club......... If they were elected I would loathe them as much but these people are just milking the system. I have yet to hear a good reason to keep this system around Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
na85 Posted April 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2015 (edited) People who are interested in politics and involved in political change generally join political parties. You're going to have a rough time finding someone interested enough in doing the job of a senator who has NEVER been involved in any political party ever. Did you read the OP? My criteria was simply not belonging to the party currently forming Government, not any party ever. Edited April 5, 2015 by na85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 6, 2015 Report Share Posted April 6, 2015 Did you read the OP? My criteria was simply not belonging to the party currently forming Government, not any party ever.What difference does it make when Senators sit for life? Eventually they won't belong to the party in power and in any case, the party in power in the provinces may not be the party in power in Ottawa. That's what the Senators, as regional representatives should be appointed by the provincial governments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.