Canadian Senate Takes Another Hit

[Big Guy]

Brazeau has not been charged and is back in the Senate:

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/07/13/crown-drops-all-charges-against-patrick-brazeau.html

Just saw the CTV interview with Brazeau this morning and his happiness at being back – and his excuses for just a few of his dumb moves. I wonder if the aboriginal community is pleased with this representative of their views and future leader of their initiatives in the future.

[Smallc]

How is that a hit to the Senate? The charges weren't brought or dropped by the Senate.

[Big Guy]

How is that a hit to the Senate? The charges weren't brought or dropped by the Senate.

I guess it depends if one considers Brazeau as an asset or a liability to our Senate and form of government.

[Smallc]

I guess it depends if one considers Brazeau as an asset or a liability to our Senate and form of government.

He was already a Senator. This didn't change that.

[Big Guy]

He was already a Senator. This didn't change that.

May I then assume that you do not consider the return of Brazeau to the Senate as something negative to the institution. Why is that?

[The_Squid]

Another Harper legacy screw up....

[Smallc]

I don't really consider it to be anything. The senate didn't pick him, charge him, or drop the charges.

[?Impact]

How can we develop a system to fire Senators that is non-partisan?

[The_Squid]

How can we develop a system to fire Senators that is non-partisan?

Elect them. And then don't elect them next time.

[Smallc]

Elect them. And then don't elect them next time.

I'm not a big fan of that - we already have an elected house. There's got to be a better way.

[The_Squid]

I'm not a big fan of that - we already have an elected house. There's got to be a better way.

There is a fundamental issue of being governed by the elected. I don't believe that anyone should be governed by the unelected, especially when they are appointed for terms that can last decades.

Brazeau will be governing us until he's 75.

System = broken.

Edited July 14, 2016 by The_Squid

[Smallc]

I think there's a better method of selection - for example, the original system used for the US Senate. In that scenario, the provincial legislatures would select the representatives for their province.

[The_Squid]

I think there's a better method of selection - for example, the original system used for the US Senate. In that scenario, the provincial legislatures would select the representatives for their province.

How does that get rid of the issues with partisanship appointments, Canadians being governed by the unelected, and a turkey like Brazeau in there for 40 years?

I couldn't imagine who Christy Clark would appoint.... It would be as much a disaster as Harper's appointments.

[Smallc]

No it wouldn't be Christy Clark - it would be by secret ballot of the BC Legislature.

[The_Squid]

No it wouldn't be Christy Clark - it would be by secret ballot of the BC Legislature.

Same problems.

[Smallc]

The US Senate as currently composed is proof to me that direct election would be a poor idea. Australia is another example where deadlock occurs.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Smallc

[dre]

There is a fundamental issue of being governed by the elected. I don't believe that anyone should be governed by the unelected, especially when they are appointed for terms that can last decades.

Brazeau will be governing us until he's 75.

System = broken.

That does not necessarily mean its "broken".

Does the Senate do a good job? Has it blocked bills that should have passed, or failed to block bills that shouldn't have?

I hear a lot of complaints about the senate, and how its made up. But not usually any real substantive complaints about their work product. Do you have any of those?

[JamesHackerMP]

The US Senate as currently composed is proof to me that direct election would be a poor idea. Australia is another example where deadlock occurs.

Actually, deadlock in the Australian Senate is a rather special case. If there's a lot of it, the Prime Minister has the "trigger" to dissolve, not only 1/2 of the Senate that's up for election normally (they tipped their hat to the US Constitution to have a Senate that was elected only partially at once but a House elected entirely), but to dissolve the ENTIRE Senate in what they call a "double dissolution election": all senators and all MPs are up for grabs. This ends up settling things nicely by allowing both chambers to re pass bills that were bouncing back between the two chambers.

Also, from what a Canadian was telling me, who I've been talking to for years, the Canadian Senate doesn't have near the power of its Australian counterpart (and by extension, anywhere CLOSE to the power of its US counterpart). You Canadians would know better than I would, but what's the exact amount of "power" your Senate has?

From the minimal research I have done, PM Mulrooney needed to appoint eight senators to pass the goods and services tax. But on the other hand, if your Senate is appointed, it can't possibly have that much authority---can it?

See from my original thread (under US/Canadian politics) that I said I was here sort of for research into your system, and wanted to learn more than I could on, say, Wikipedia or something. So that's why I am putting my 2 cents in here, I wanted to know from the rest of you, how much power does your Senate have? Is it really that important compared to the Commons? What is it able to actually do? Or not able to do?

[The_Squid]

That does not necessarily mean its "broken".

Does the Senate do a good job? Has it blocked bills that should have passed, or failed to block bills that shouldn't have?

I hear a lot of complaints about the senate, and how its made up. But not usually any real substantive complaints about their work product. Do you have any of those?

And dictatorships can govern really well too, but that doesn't mean that they're a good system of governance.

[dre]

And dictatorships can govern really well too, but that doesn't mean that they're a good system of governance.

I never said the senate governed really well. Just asked if you had any substantive evidence that its "broken".

I personally like having the senate there... especially with the HOC constantly writing bad legislation and trying to hide obnoxious little bits of legislation inside huge omnibus bills that nobody reads. From what I can tell they do a decent job.

[The_Squid]

I never said the senate governed really well. Just asked if you had any substantive evidence that its "broken".

I personally like having the senate there... especially with the HOC constantly writing bad legislation and trying to hide obnoxious little bits of legislation inside huge omnibus bills that nobody reads. From what I can tell they do a decent job.

When did they stop any of Harper's omnibus bills or obnoxious legislation? Edited July 15, 2016 by The_Squid

[Queenmandy85]

Senators should be appointed according to the Constitution. That way you have a body of non-partisan eminent persons. Take the politicians out of the process.

[The_Squid]

Senators should be appointed according to the Constitution. That way you have a body of non-partisan eminent persons. Take the politicians out of the process.

How does the Governor General appointing Senators take politicians out of the process?

[-1=e^ipi]

The US Senate as currently composed is proof to me that direct election would be a poor idea. Australia is another example where deadlock occurs.

Then support abolition.

[Smallc]

Then support abolition.

That's not a good option in a federal state.