The Canadian Senate

[Cartman]

Eureka said:

Make no mistake about it. The Senate does a lot of work. Some of this is in questioning the actions of Parliament and one body would be a contradiction; a conflict of interest.

I don't think there would be any savings.

I will be honest with you Eureka, you probably know more about what the Senate actually does than I do. But, I do not (yet at least) accept your argument that the Senate effectively plays the role of conscience for our gov't. IMO, this role is better played by the official opposition. How can it play an effective role when it is appointed by the governing Liberals? If Layton came to power and appointed all NDP Senators, would they represent the views of the Conservatives? I think August's point about having a duplicate layer of government for each level of government is also valid to an extent.

I also do not go for the regional representation argument. The Senate will never be reformed to give an equal voice to all regions. Been there, tried that, never caught on. But, even if it did, there would likely be chaos. Imagine if we had a Senate comprised of an NDP/Bloc coalition and a Conservative fed. gov't. What are the chances of getting a budget through? If it did go through and there were clearly negative effects of that budget, who is to take responsibility? I am tired of the provinces and the feds blaming each other for ineffective government and I suspect the Senate would complicate matters further.

Canadians have the vote and governing parties should be given a mandate by those who bother to vote. If we have a Senate with the ability to actually block legislation and send it back to MP's and then back to the Senate etc etc, the Senate would be duplicating services, costing more tax money to inevitably invoke the legislation that was mandated to the government via voters in the first place (i.e. FTA).

As I said, I am not expert on the Senate, but I have yet to see an important role for it to exist or a way that it has given me any service. I will keep an open mind about this though.

BTW, what is the term for a Senator? Is it for life?

[Big Blue Machine]

Yes, it is for life until 75, then they have gold platted pensions. Most senators double dip their incomes, that's mean they could work in therir spare time and make more money plus their Senator salary.

[Guest eureka]

More than any words of mine, I think you would be conviced by some readings. I don't mean that offensively but in the belief that you really do have an open mind. That is contrary to the stance taken by most of the detractors of the Senate who spout from "invincible ignorance."

An excellent source, one that is easy and even enjoyable reading requiring no analysis of the legal or Constitutional niceties, is Eugene Forsey's memoirs; "A Life on the Fringe." The Chapter on the Senate - coming from one who had earleir supported its abolition - is enlightening.

Forsey, a long time Socialist, sat as a Liberal Senator, and, interestingly, Frank Scott, the dean of Constitutional legal experts, refused to accept an appointment for, it is thought though he never said so, the same reasons, that he could not stomach the NDP policies on Quebec and came to oppose its position on the Senate.

I have had the same problem. I can support no political party and not the NDP where my sympathies lie, for those reasons.

With respect to the Senate, there is no federation in the world that has not found an Upper House necessary because of the need for representation of Regional intersts. Many so-called Unitary states also have experienced the advantages. However, Regional input must not trump National interest and therein lies the problem of the dysfunctional American system. We do not need to copy that. The Triple E Senate would be that inferior and paralysing product.

Forsey states without equivocation that the Senate does not consist of party hacks and that very frequently it will strongly oppose agovernment made up of similar party status. He, himself, voted against Liberal government Bills more often than he supported them. He is also quite explicit about the amount of work involved, mostly, but not all, in committees.

Senate opposition does not block a Bill from the House. It is usually on proposals for amendments to proposed legislation that is often hurried and poorly drafted by a Commons that has neither the time or the expertise available to the Senate. The Senate itself is made up of far more experienced people than the Commons. Few Parliamentarians have the backgrounds that Senators have. Few, in my humble opinion, have the intelligence either. Senators are those who have proved themselves, not merely won an election on a Prime Minister's coattails or party affiliation.

In my own opinion, there should be a better method of appointment: one that does not give the opportunity for abuse even though the Senate itself has almost always not allowed itself to be the rubber stamp for wrongful Acts of Parliament. The possibility is there and, in the past, certain Prime Ministers have threatened. That is reason enough for a greater distance between th Senate and the PMO.

[Cartman]

I will do some reading on the Senate over the holidays, (possibly including the ones you suggest). But, the problem seems to be that there are many in the Senate (mostly Liberals because most gov'ts have been Liberal), that rarely show. Are they as productive as they should be? I was rather unhappy when they claimed to be against the FTA but were inneffective because they had little authority due to being appointed rather than elected and legit.

[Guest eureka]

As I have understood the "question" of attendance, it is a media invention and a political canard. The media does not attend the Senate deliberations - there is no exitement to entertain the public. Most of the work is done in committe and some Senators who do not speak much are very active in those and in research.

Many Senators did oppose the FTA. There opposition is not translatable into the failure of the Commons wishes. They can only try to make amendments for the consideration of the Commons. I am sure that they did that and, while I do not have the information at hand, I would be surprised if some were not incorporated in the final legislation.

The Senate receives draft Bills to analyse and consider. It does not dictate legislation.

It is interesting that you mention the FTA in this context, tghough what I am saying really has little to do with the Senate. Free Trade proposers and supporters in the past have been annexationists; those who wanted to become part of the United States. I would suggest that similar considerations motivated the Conservatives who brought it about. They could not be straightforward about it as those in the 1880's were. However, they did indeed, surrender much Canadian Sovereignty.

It is not the fact that the Senate was appointed and not elected that made it ineffective against the FTA. It was the limitations on Constitutional power that would prevent them from doing more. That is as it must be. Parliament must be supreme. I fault the opposition and the media for not informing the public of the consequences and the probable effects on Canada.

All of this is why I so thouroughly despise Prton Manning and some of his present day disciples. The average politician and Parliamentarian is not much more aware of the obligations and duties of the Senate. The leaders, though, in spite of their limited ontellects and understanding of anything, had those around them who should know better.

The current proposals for Senate reform or abolition are the product of demagoguery and personal ambition by those who do not have the interests of the nation in mind. I include Klein and the present Albertan leadership in that.

If I seem to write strongly on this issue, it is because I see the destruction of the Senate as a wedge leading to possibly the destruction of Canad. If not, certainly to an Americanization of our political institutions and, actually an end to "responsible government."

[Cartman]

The current proposals for Senate reform or abolition are the product of demagoguery and personal ambition by those who do not have the interests of the nation in mind. I include Klein and the present Albertan leadership in that.

If I seem to write strongly on this issue, it is because I see the destruction of the Senate as a wedge leading to possibly the destruction of Canad. If not, certainly to an Americanization of our political institutions and, actually an end to "responsible government."

I appreciate the perspective Eureka. This is an interesting take on the Senate and I will give it serious thought.

[Big Blue Machine]

The problem with the Senate is if there is a Conservative gov't and a Liberals Senate, the Senate will harrass the gov't by blocking legislation. They can't do that. They should pass the legislation.

[JWayne625]

If I seem to write strongly on this issue, it is because I see the destruction of the Senate as a wedge leading to possibly the destruction of Canad. If not, certainly to an Americanization of our political institutions and, actually an end to "responsible government."

Since when did we develop a responsible government in power in Canada? I cite the sponsorship program as an example of one that is totaly irresponsible.

One of those Senator's appointed by Mulroney to assure the passage of both the FTA, and GST was one Nancy Clark-Teed. Albeit she didn't get a chance to sit because she was tragically killed in a traffic accident shortly after being appointed. That aside, she was incompetent, and had just been kicked to the curb by the electorate in Saint John, NB. Not only did she not win reelection but she finished in last place in her riding. Her appointment to the Senate by Mulroney was a slap in the face to the people of New Brunswick, because iy was just like him saying to the people, that we may not have reelected her to office but now you're going to pay her anyway. Her claim to fame was that she was a well connected individual to the PC Machine, and everyone knew that the reason she was appointed was because she would do as she was told, and vote the way she was told to vote, just like all the rest of those who have been appointed to the Senate for decades.

Until the Senate is comprised of elected individuals, you will have a hard time convincing most Canadian's that individual's appointed by the governing party, will represent anyone except those that appointed them to their positions. The same can be said for our Supreme Court Justices, they also should be elected to serve specific terms, at least they would be accountable to someone for any decision's they make.

[Guest eureka]

I would suggest that you should find out a bit more about the Senate and the judiciary before regurgitating the Provincialist nonsense.

Nothing is more important than an independent judiciary. There is no hope of democracy without one or of Rule by Law and of Law.

Take a look to the south where the judiciary is selected according to poitical criteria and the Senate is elected. Democracy there is a sham. All that keeps it from collapsing is the inability to totally muzzle speech and expression. Bush et al are trying to do that.

[Big Blue Machine]

We don't need the Senate elected. If we had the Senate elected, there would be two elected houses of parliment. We should have one elected and one appointed.