.

[Bryan]

And who will screen them...

Good question. A lot of ways you could go about that.

One idea could be to have appointees from the major parties screen them the same way that lawyers do before a trial. Each party gets a certain number of peremptory challenges.

You could even combine the system with Cyber's idea of having the provinces appoint the senator: the party reps from the provincial parties that the open senate seat represents could do the "voir dire".

I suppose you could even just have the Governor General do it. Or the GG could appoint a team of official screeners.

[Wilber]

It's not just the majority, but it was also a problem when Chretien was getting sub-40% majorities. The House does not represent the voting behaviour of the electorate. That's a problem when majorities hold so much power.

What's more problematic with Harper is cutting debate short 100 times, creating massive omnibus bills bundled into the budgets so the appropriate committees don't have time or the ability to oversee the legislation, hiding from the media and insisting on special privileged debates, refusing to allow his MPs to speak on their own or in some cases attend debates themselves, making his MPs read notes drafted by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in the PMO, and the list goes on. It's an accumulation of many different things that has people calling him a dictator.

But that all has little to do with abolishing the senate.

All of which makes the need for a Senate more important. I agree that if a purpose of the Senate is to represent regions, senators should be appointed by those regions, not the PM. Unfortunately,don't expect any PM to give up that bit of power, particularly this one.

[Canada_First]

Why not elect senators? Let the people decide. That's democracy.

[Boges]

Why not elect senators? Let the people decide. That's democracy.

If Ontario elected a senator. They'd actually have a bigger mandate than any Federal politician.

[jacee]

But what happens if the PM, Harper or another, takes a different route?

There are already 20 vacancies out of 105 seats. What if the PM just refuses to fill any of them and the vacancies grew and grew until the place was empty?

No PM is going to do that. They want their majority in the Senate too.

Think Harper will fill those vacancies before the election?

.

[jacee]

I predict if JT gets a majority this whole dictatorship stuff will quickly stop being an issue.

Not to me.

The only thing worse than a systematic narcissistic sociopath grabbing absolute power for himself is an airhead with that power who can't comprehend it and is under the complete control of sociopaths we can't see.

Aaarrrrrgh! Maybe I just need another cup of coffee. ?

Edited June 11, 2015 by jacee

[PIK]

So lets put in tommy who has no clue how this country works. Real bright move that would be.

[Bryan]

No PM is going to do that. They want their majority in the Senate too.

Think Harper will fill those vacancies before the election?

.

True. Unless and until the system is changed, any sitting PM doesn't have much choice. If he doesn't, it's not as if the next guy will leave them open too. In the absence of what you'd like to do, you still have to pick the lesser of the things you'd rather not.

[jacee]

The senate may not serve the purpose it was intended anymore but that doesn't mean the purpose has gone away. I'd like to see the importance of vetting the legislation politicians propose restored to it's former prominence and I'd like to see that function performed by a citizen's assembly.

YES!!

Yes yes yes.

I would like to see reform to the way Senators are chosen, who they represent.

Another function of the Senate that doesn't get much mention is that they are intended to take a long term view of issues that don't get addressed by the 4 year plan and focus of the HoC.

They take on studies of issues that last longer than governments, produce reports that contribute greatly to the development of better legislation and are the 'corporate memory' of our governments.

.

Edited June 11, 2015 by jacee

[Wilber]

No PM is going to do that. They want their majority in the Senate too.

Think Harper will fill those vacancies before the election?

.

Not so sure. Considering the crap currently going on in the Senate, the pre election optics wouldn't be good.

[poochy]

We have Harper, a sociopath, with the absolute power of a majority ... a dictatorship that he once described as a "benign dictatorship".

He's not benign.

And now he has his secret police.

When we have proportionate representation in the Hoc, then we can look aat the Senate.

.

No sorry, i just remembered that on this forum someone form the left can say any completely crazy thing, and you aren't allowed to question their sanity when they say it.

Edited June 11, 2015 by poochy

[jacee]

A citizens assembly might be a good idea, but which citizens end up appointed would ultimately be a game of political patronage in the end sadly.

Possibly true ... but let's at least brainstorm some possibilities ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_assembly

The Belgium example is interesting as it doesn't require government approval: Just do it ... and governments can run to catch up!

It resembles something that is currently just beginning in Canada:

The People's Platform:

http://www.peoplesplatform.ca/

.

[Smallc]

I used to think it was worth reform. The truth is, it wouldn't make much if any difference from the way things work now. The people in that chamber represent no one but themselves. They have little interest in 'their' region. Kill it.

[jacee]

Not so sure. Considering the crap currently going on in the Senate, the pre election optics wouldn't be good.

He'll do it when something else overshadows it in the news.

Just like the C51 Senate vote got delayed til the day the Senate Expense scandal hit the press.

.

[cybercoma]

Harper has a majority because our first-past-the-post system was not designed for a modern era when politicians can predict and target votes with such a high degree of accuracy as is possible today.

People have a right to vote however they wish for whatever reason ... but the system isn't robust enough to preserve real representative democracy against 21st century statistical modelling and vote targeting.

That's why other countries have reformed FPTP.

It doesn't represent our votes well anymore.

.

I agree that FPTP needs reform. I don't think any part should have a majority after garnering a minority of votes. It's stupid that Harper has one. It's stupid that Chretien had one. And it's stupid that Rachel Notley has one. The House is representation by population more or less and should be representative of how the population votes. FPTP is fine for a two party system. It's not fine for a system with multiple competitive parties.

But we're getting off topic. Harper is not a dictator. He was elected under the rules of our current system. More people voted for the Conservative Party than any other party. We should remember that when we're getting out the vote.

[PIK]

The way it is now in not perfect but it is the best. We don't need a set up where the fringe has a say.

[cybercoma]

All of which makes the need for a Senate more important. I agree that if a purpose of the Senate is to represent regions, senators should be appointed by those regions, not the PM. Unfortunately,don't expect any PM to give up that bit of power, particularly this one.

I agree. It does make the Senate more important, but the problem is the Senate was never supposed to compete with the House, nor should it. It's an unelected body. The House, at least in theory, represents the wishes of the most Canadians (as opposed to the majority of Canadians). We don't want an unelected senate shooting down legislation and creating gridlock with an elected house. That would be disastrous and completely undemocratic. Which is why the Senate's role is so unclear.

[jacee]

I've maintained for some time that the senate should be like jury duty. People from the general public just get randomly selected when there is a spot open.

I have some interest in that concept.

However, we are talking about lifetime appointments to high paying positions, not temporary duty, so I think more thought is in order.

.

[Bryan]

I have some interest in that concept.

However, we are talking about lifetime appointments to high paying positions, not temporary duty, so I think more thought is in order.

.

For sure. Even under it's present composition, the Senate should never have been a lifetime job anyway. Something like an 8 year term would be much more appropriate.

[cybercoma]

I used to think it was worth reform. The truth is, it wouldn't make much if any difference from the way things work now. The people in that chamber represent no one but themselves. They have little interest in 'their' region. Kill it.

That's where I'm at with it now too. I'd like to get an honest recounting of work that the Senate has done and the outcome of that work. If I had time, I would research what bills they've amended or passed back to the House, what bills they got and shot down, what committee work has been done and the outcome of that work. I just don't have the time for this and that's the problem with politics. Things are more complicated than the average person has time to investigate. Nor is the average person going to understand a lot of things even if they do. But I think if we can come up with some examples of the work they've done and how it has impacted legislation, we can try to see if there's a case for their usefulness.

Call me crazy for wanting to dig up evidence against myself for leaning towards abolition. But, I want to see if there's any reasonable argument for keeping it. The best I have is to balance the regions against a tyranny of the majority, which would give almost all the power for federal legislation to Ontario and Quebec. Except, the Senate doesn't seem to be doing much towards that end anyway. So that's why I'm now leaning towards abolition. The expense of the Senate and these pigs who've bellied up to the trough of public revenues is a burden Canadians shouldn't have if they're getting absolutely nothing in return.

[cybercoma]

For sure. Even under it's present composition, the Senate should never have been a lifetime job anyway. Something like an 8 year term would be much more appropriate.

I think an 8 year term would be even worse. Two terms as Prime Minister and you've stacked the Senate 100%.

[Bryan]

Not so sure. Considering the crap currently going on in the Senate, the pre election optics wouldn't be good.

I don't doubt that the opposition would do their best to make hay of it, but he's really got no choice. I'd be absolutely shocked if he left all those spots open, and I doubt any Conservative supporter or strategist would want him to. The people who have voted for him in the past would want him to make the appointments in the absence of a better available option at this time.

[Bryan]

I think an 8 year term would be even worse. Two terms as Prime Minister and you've stacked the Senate 100%.

Which is why how those Senators get appointed also needs to change.

[jacee]

I agree that FPTP needs reform. I don't think any part should have a majority after garnering a minority of votes. It's stupid that Harper has one. It's stupid that Chretien had one. And it's stupid that Rachel Notley has one. The House is representation by population more or less and should be representative of how the population votes. FPTP is fine for a two party system. It's not fine for a system with multiple competitive parties.

Agreed.

But we're getting off topic. Harper is not a dictator.

It's very much on topic, and Harper has all the tools to be a dictator now - secret police, secret detention etc., none of which will be under judicial, constitutional or parliamentary scrutiny.

The Senate is supposed to be a check on the absolute power of the PM, but we are pretty much devoid of any checks and balances in the system now.

He was elected under the rules of our current system. More people voted for the Conservative Party than any other party. We should remember that when we're getting out the vote.

Yes, we should remember to get out the vote for the party that has never been in the pockets of the corporate elites.

.

[cybercoma]

Which is why how those Senators get appointed also needs to change.

Yeah, if we're going the reform route, then it can't be piecemeal.