.

[Topaz]

Reform the senate, make it independent from the House because if we get rid of the senate, then ALL the power goes to the House and under a majority government the power would be in the PMO and we've all seen what that can do!! The senate won't get abolished unless the House, the senate and 7 provinces vote for it, that that isn't going to happen in the near future, so it all about reforming it and senators shouldn't be under any party .

[Smallc]

To abolish the Senate, all 10 provinces would have to agree. It would probably be easier to get agreement on that than on change.

[-1=e^ipi]

Reform the senate, make it independent from the House because if we get rid of the senate, then ALL the power goes to the House and under a majority government the power would be in the PMO and we've all seen what that can do!!

Introduce proportional representation. Problem solved.

Threads like this make it tempting to vote NDP.

To abolish the Senate, all 10 provinces would have to agree.

I think once a government that supports abolition is elected, they have to play hardball with non-compliant provinces. If that means the government of the day threatens to pass policies that will disproportionately harm non-compliant provinces then so be it.

Edited June 12, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Smallc]

Introduce proportional representation. Problem solved.

We don't even have to go that far to make a huge difference. Introduce true rep by pop while eliminating the Senate. 1 MP for every 125K people in a province (rounded to the nearest). It would bring the vote result closer to reality if Ontario, BC, and Alberta had as many MPs as they were supposed to and places like NL, PEI, and SK had fewer.

[-1=e^ipi]

We don't even have to go that far to make a huge difference. Introduce true rep by pop while eliminating the Senate. 1 MP for every 125K people in a province (rounded to the nearest). It would bring the vote result closer to reality if Ontario, BC, and Alberta had as many MPs as they were supposed to and places like NL, PEI, and SK had fewer.

But that is still is an FPS system and has it's own problems. For one, an FPS system can't support more than 3-4 parties and personally I would like more options. Secondly, you can have major parties that get zero representation such as the Green party in Canada, UKIP and Lib-dems in UK, etc. Isn't the purpose of having a house of commons to try to represent the diversity of Canada? If not, then why not just abolish the House of Commons as well and just elect a dictator every few years (I don't advocate this, I just don't understand how FPTP supporters justify the existence of the House of Commons if it is not to represent the diversity of the political positions of Canadians)?

Edit: Also isn't there some law in the BNA act or something where no province can have less MPs than senators and no province can lose MPs? So as a result PEI has to have 4 senators and the number of MPs keeps increasing?

Edited June 12, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Smallc]

Edit: Also isn't there some law in the BNA act or something where no province can have less MPs than senators and no province can lose MPs? So as a result PEI has to have 4 senators and the number of MPs keeps increasing?

That's what I was talking about changing. If we're getting rid of the Senate, get rid of that nonsense too.

As for FPTP, I like it because of the stability it brings. In theory, I'm all for a true PR system with each province being its own region and each CMA inside of that being a sub region. Some places (PEI, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, etc) would only have 1 MP so would be defacto FPTP, but, I think it's better than the alternative of merging rural and urban votes. Nothing can be perfect.

[-1=e^ipi]

As for FPTP, I like it because of the stability it brings.

Are New Zealand and Germany not stable countries?

[Smallc]

Are New Zealand and Germany not stable countries?

Are Israel and Italy? Germany uses a complicated system (IIRC) that I don't enjoy trying to figure out.

[jacee]

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

In the middle of the night. Done it.

I guess it's that they never get media attention for what they do daily ... til Duffy.

[On Guard for Thee]

Introduce proportional representation. Problem solved.

Threads like this make it tempting to vote NDP.

I think once a government that supports abolition is elected, they have to play hardball with non-compliant provinces. If that means the government of the day threatens to pass policies that will disproportionately harm non-compliant provinces then so be it.

Apparently you missed the purpose upon which the senate is based. It was to offset population alone having complete power.

[jacee]

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.

They become politicians?

Citizens' Assemblies have been randomly selected and offered but people have a choice, can't force them.

It still has some merit, I think.

In Ontario the CA was to suggest electoral reform - PR.

They were really disappointed that McGuinty sabotaged the public education and referendum.

It was political smoke and mirrors.

People put a lot into it. Pffft.

A physical assembly setup only, is pricey and difficult ... but online has potential.

EG http://www.peoplesplatform.ca/

.

[-1=e^ipi]

Apparently you missed the purpose upon which the senate is based. It was to offset population alone having complete power.

I haven't 'missed' the purpose, I just disagree with it.

How about you have a constitution or charter of rights to ensure people have rights like freedom of speech that cannot be taken away by the majority? Then you don't need this useless senate.

[Canada_First]

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

Think Harper will fill those vacancies before the election?

.

The courts have already ruled that doing that goes against the spirit of Parliament.

[On Guard for Thee]

I haven't 'missed' the purpose, I just disagree with it.

How about you have a constitution or charter of rights to ensure people have rights like freedom of speech that cannot be taken away by the majority? Then you don't need this useless senate.

Apparently you have. Your question makes little sense with regard to why we have the senate.

[cybercoma]

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.

Is it people are convinced of that or is it that there's people who keep repeating that to try to convince others of it? Edited June 12, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Reform the senate, make it independent from the House because if we get rid of the senate, then ALL the power goes to the House and under a majority government the power would be in the PMO and we've all seen what that can do!! The senate won't get abolished unless the House, the senate and 7 provinces vote for it, that that isn't going to happen in the near future, so it all about reforming it and senators shouldn't be under any party .

A couple problems with what you're saying. The PMO doesn't have ALL the power because the SCC still interprets laws in relation to the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second, when has the Senate ever provided a credible check and balance to the power of the PMO? Someone mentioned earlier that they shot down a gambling bill. What else have they done to mitigate the influence and control of the House by the PMO?

I asked for examples earlier of the Senate's usefulness, concrete examples would be good. Frankly, I'm surprised no Senator nor group of Senators has come forward to defend the Senate and explain publicly why the Senate exists, why it's needed, and how it has been useful for Canada.

[eyeball]

Apparently you missed the purpose upon which the senate is based. It was to offset population alone having complete power.

Yes but we need an offset to the PMO having so much power. An X on a piece of paper every 4-5 years just doesn't cut it and relying on other branches of government is a mug's game too.

Edited June 12, 2015 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

Introduce proportional representation. Problem solved.

Threads like this make it tempting to vote NDP.

MPs could also have the power to conduct a leadership reviews, making the Prime Minister directly accountable to the cabinet and backbenchers.

I think once a government that supports abolition is elected, they have to play hardball with non-compliant provinces. If that means the government of the day threatens to pass policies that will disproportionately harm non-compliant provinces then so be it.

If the NDP is elected, it's the only party that is both provincial and federal. That means Alberta and Manitoba are already on board.

[cybercoma]

In the middle of the night. Done it.

I guess it's that they never get media attention for what they do daily ... til Duffy.

That's certainly true and like I said earlier, I would like to know more about what good they've done for this country. I would like to know the usefulness of the Senate. I'm surprised nobody from the Senate has come forward to explain this to Canadians. If they can't even make a case for themselves to the public, then maybe it really is time to scrap it. Edited June 12, 2015 by cybercoma

[overthere]

I heard another idea today, a way to allow the PM to appoint Senators as he is required to do.

He (or she) could appoint sitting MPs as Senators, for terms not to exceed their terms as MPs.

Cost would be nothing extra, legislation would get passed, they could do no more harm or cost more than what the Commons costs now.

[On Guard for Thee]

I heard another idea today, a way to allow the PM to appoint Senators as he is required to do.

He (or she) could appoint sitting MPs as Senators, for terms not to exceed their terms as MPs.

Cost would be nothing extra, legislation would get passed, they could do no more harm or cost more than what the Commons costs now.

That would certainly obviate any idea of sober second thought, so might as well just say get rid of the senate, Full stop.

[Icebound]

I would like to know more about what good they've done for this country. I would like to know the usefulness of the Senate. I'm surprised nobody from the Senate has come forward to explain this to Canadians. If they can't even make a case for themselves to the public, then maybe it really is time to scrap it.

Last night's CBC At Issue panel touched on the abolition issue, and on some of the "good" they've done for this country.

I think abolition is a non-starter, nor should it be. (Were it not for their stance on the Senate, I could be convinced to vote NDP this time around)

I think serious reform is required. The reason the senate worked better in years past, is that many of the senators actually DID have a lesser tie to their original party, once in the upper chamber and actually DID do some original thinking... or at least, more of it than now.

So that would be the first reform... they must sever ties with political parties.

The second reform is nomination and election. CANADA should not be appointing the senators, the PROVINCES should appoint their own. I would prefer that each province have a committee to create a nomination list of candidates, and then elections held when senate seats to be filled for that province... maybe some kind of rule that requires at least twice as many nominations as seats available at time of election, etc.

However, to simplify at start up, they could even be just APPOINTED by the provincial government of the day, with a view to further reform (elections) in the future.

[cybercoma]

Thanks, icebound. I'll be sure to watch that later. My original position was that the provinces should appoint the Senators. I don't agree with an elected Senate because then it brings it into conflict with the House of Commons. The House should be supreme and the Senate should always recognize its role as a body of oversight, not an elected and competing house. If i can be convinced that they do good work (we'll see from the video), I could be moved back to the reform position though. For now though, abolishing the Senate seems to be the best option.

[jacee]

That's certainly true and like I said earlier, I would like to know more about what good they've done for this country. I would like to know the usefulness of the Senate. I'm surprised nobody from the Senate has come forward to explain this to Canadians. If they can't even make a case for themselves to the public, then maybe it really is time to scrap it.

Very true. I've wondered that too.

If you take a look at the "Special Study" reports on their website, their 'longer term view' they do useful work.

Could it be done another way? Likely.

Who does take the long term view ... vision ... of Canada?

I find that question bothersome.

I think that's for citizens, not politicians to determine: We tell them.

.

[cybercoma]

The long-term view is why I don't particularly agree with term limits or elections for the Senate; however, I would like to see some outcomes of long-term studies. What benefit have they brought to legislation in Canada?