.

[cybercoma]

Jacee, the PM doesn't have absolute power though. The Supreme Court has shot down his legislation already. He also doesn't have the authority to cancel elections. He's not even the head of state. He has a lot of power and MPs are willingly giving Prime Ministers even more power over the last 25 years, but it's not absolute.

[overthere]

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.

a). no that was never the intent of the Senate absolutely nothing has changed in the powers of the PM. The power of the position is most affected by the exisetence or not of a majority govt, and has nothing to do with the individual in our Westminster style of governance.

[cybercoma]

a). no that was never the intent of the Senate absolutely nothing has changed in the powers of the PM. The power of the position is most affected by the exisetence or not of a majority govt, and has nothing to do with the individual in our Westminster style of governance.

You have to admit that even with Chretien, Prime Ministers have been exerting more and more control over their parties' backbenchers. This essentially abdicates the balance of power against the executive branch (the Cabinet and Prime Minister, i.e. the government) by the legislative branch (the opposition AND the backbenchers). When you have a bunch of backbenchers just thinking they're government in waiting and are dangled that carrot by frequent cabinet changes, then you lose a portion of the legislative check on executive power. Edited June 11, 2015 by cybercoma

[overthere]

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

Think Harper will fill those vacancies before the election?

.

NO PM is going to go the constitutional amendment route, because it is pretty much impossible to get all provinces on board to abolish the Senate, or even to do any meaningful change.

Let's see if you can consider your happy world in which Harper and every one of his supporters is dead and not involved. Put whatever name you like in as PM. Would either of the suggestions I made(effectively having the Senate abolish itself) be possible?

[jacee]

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.

Senators operate out of the public eye so we don't know what they do, just the scandals that erupt.

Maybe we need random citizens to shadow them and make their work more public.

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.

The third element of the role of the Senate is taking a longer term view, the "Special Study" role.

Here are past reports:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Compilations/parliament/SubstantiveReports.aspx

And current:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/sencommitteebusiness/AllReports.aspx?parl=41&ses=2&Language=E

These are reports that MP'S use for reference when developing legislation.

Politicians have no interest in long term issues that won't help them get reelected.

Somebody has to take a long term view!

Is there a role here for our academic institutions?

Hmm ... an advisory/research body that operates under conditions of academic freedom ... hmm ...

Maybe the Senate should conduct a 'Special Study' of itself and report to Canadians what they have done and do.

.

Edited June 11, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

Seems to me these are minor issues that can be resolved with clarification of rules:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/senate-1/

Ferguson documents numerous cases where his audit found senators were not mainly living where they claim to have their primary residences.

Yes, they are supposed to be 'resident' in the province they represent.

And they are also supposed to be at work in Ottawa. ?

Surely that can be resolved!

Another issue is the mixing of personal business and parliamentary business when senators travel.

Ya the political parties need to stop using Senate expense money to pay for Party business.

That can be resolved.

This is a tempest in a teapot.

.

Edited June 11, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

Jacee, the PM doesn't have absolute power though. The Supreme Court has shot down his legislation already. He also doesn't have the authority to cancel elections.

He's getting really good at rigging them, which is why PR is soooo much more important than the Senate ... right now. The Senate is a red herring. This is all Harper strategy.

He's not even the head of state. He has a lot of power and MPs are willingly giving Prime Ministers even more power over the last 25 years, but it's not absolute.

The GG is nothing anymore.

Michelle Jean "lost her job" as she put it, because she delayed Harper's prorogue of Parliament for a few hours.

He appoints ... and unappoints them.

Harper is very slick, very incremental.

.

Edited June 11, 2015 by jacee

[overthere]

You have to admit that even with Chretien, Prime Ministers have been exerting more and more control over their parties' backbenchers. This essentially abdicates the balance of power against the executive branch (the Cabinet and Prime Minister, i.e. the government) by the legislative branch (the opposition AND the backbenchers). When you have a bunch of backbenchers just thinking they're government in waiting and are dangled that carrot by frequent cabinet changes, then you lose a portion of the legislative check on executive power.

No, I do not admit that. The control or lack of control over legislation is unchanged for over a century.The PM with the very least control of his caucus was surely Mulroney, who was obliged to fire and suspend so many of them for corruption and incompetence. Chretien also had a lot of Minsters depart, but he ruled his caucus with an iron fist until finally ousted by Martin.

There is no quick effective check on legislative power in the Commons or Senate our system when any govt has a majority. The only options backbenchers have to defeat govt legislation is to cross the floor, quit, or attempt to oust the sitting PM as party leader.

There is one check, but it takes a long time to reach or implement any decisions, and is thus cumbersome: the Supreme Court.

[eyeball]

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.

Not of they were picked randomly like a jury.

[overthere]

The GG is nothing anymore.

Michelle Jean "lost her job" as she put it, because she delayed Harper's prorogue of Parliament for a few hours.

He appoints ... and unappoints them.

.

Jean announced to the press in early 2010 that she would step out of the viceregal role near the end of the traditional, but not official, five-year period

[eyeball]

And who will screen them...

Politicians, bureaucrats, and people who are good at weedng out morons, sycophants and ideologues.

[eyeball]

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.

You're only saying that because the most popular alternative is to give the Senate's job to the people.

[Smallc]

You're only saying that because the most popular alternative is to give the Senate's job to the people.

I only say that because no one can agree on what needs to change.

[eyeball]

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.

.

Why not just a temporary duty?

[eyeball]

I only say that because no one can agree on what needs to change.

The Senate..The status quo.

[Smallc]

The Senate..The status quo.

But no one agrees on the solution. So I agree with Brad Wall - if we can't fix it, &!*@ it.

[eyeball]

If that's true then scrap it. I don't think that's necessarily true but I'll yield to the easy way out before maintaining it or making it elected.

[cybercoma]

Senators operate out of the public eye so we don't know what they do

That's not even remotely true. You can flip on CPAC and watch Senate proceedings any time you want.

[cybercoma]

No, I do not admit that. The control or lack of control over legislation is unchanged for over a century.The PM with the very least control of his caucus was surely Mulroney, who was obliged to fire and suspend so many of them for corruption and incompetence. Chretien also had a lot of Minsters depart, but he ruled his caucus with an iron fist until finally ousted by Martin.

There is no quick effective check on legislative power in the Commons or Senate our system when any govt has a majority. The only options backbenchers have to defeat govt legislation is to cross the floor, quit, or attempt to oust the sitting PM as party leader.

There is one check, but it takes a long time to reach or implement any decisions, and is thus cumbersome: the Supreme Court.

An interesting read for you on whips: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/allan-levine-a-brief-history-of-canadas-parliamentary-whips

Here's the pertinent quote.

Pierre Trudeau and his key advisers are generally held responsible for inaugurating the ever-expanding and centralizing power of the PMO. The change was inevitable: In the late sixties, government in Canada got bigger and more bureaucratic, and some semblance of order and efficiency had to be maintained.

MPs have become more and more like "trained seals" as John Nunziata, a former Chretien Liberal MP, puts it.

This wasn't always the case and to that end it's not how our system is designed. Backbenchers should be as much responsible for holding the cabinet responsible as everyone else in the House who's not a cabinet minister. In that regard, cabinet ministers used to resign if they couldn't stand in solidarity with the government, since cabinet ministers by default speak for the government as the government.

But this is a digression for a minute point: power has become increasingly consolidated in the PMO and it doesn't matter which part is in power.

[cybercoma]

Not of they were picked randomly like a jury.

Could be even worse. Imagine getting picked to be a Senator and not wanting it? You'll only end up with the people who want to be there and you know what they say about people who want power.

[Big Guy]

Keep the same number of seats in the Senate. Senate elections every 4 years with no party affiliations (this is already done on the municipal level). Keep the number of seats per region the way it is.

Change process: House creates legislation (50% vote carries), it goes to the Senate for analysis and possible amendments, goes back to Parliament for final decision. If Senate refuses to pass legislation then it goes back to House which requires 2/3 majority to override Senate veto to make it law.

[Shady]

Reform, yes, but can't abolish the Senate without a full review of the checks and balances on the power of the political machine.

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.

.

Bwaaaahaaaaa! Best case of Harper Derangement Sydrome ever!!!!

[jacee]

I only say that because no one can agree on what needs to change.

Dealing with complex and critical issues ... like the checks and balances in our democracy ... takes a lot of stamina to work through possibilities.

Knee-jerk "kill" reactions aren't very helpful.

.

Edited June 11, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

Why not just a temporary duty?

Again, some merit, but what about the Senate's role of 'taking a long term view'?

What about some of each?

Some temporary 'random' citizens rotating in and out, and keeping the long term ones too.

Could have some value:

- More public information on what the Senate does, as people report back on their experience (via media)

- Senators are more likely to be present and stay awake if random citizens are watching.

That could possibly be done without Constitutional changes, just using vacancies.

??

.

[-1=e^ipi]

Canada is an interesting place in that the political climate is that society becomes so convinced that something can't be changed, so they never try, and it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.

People are convinced that the senate can't be abolished, so never try it.

Politicians in Ontario are convinced that the Catholic School System can't be abolished, so never try it (even though the majority of Ontarians support its abolition).

Politicians in Ontario are convinced that the LCBO Monopoly can't be abolished, so never try it.

Politicians are convinced that supply management of our dairy and poultry markets can't be abolished, so never try it.

People are convinced that our Monarchy can't be abolished, so never try it.

And then you have abolition of the first-past-the-post system; though I think that's more to do with people in power wanting to stay in power.