Conservatives eye six-year Senate cycle

[scribblet]

Too bad this uses the wording 'American style", that alone will be enough to set off the anti U.S. rants.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/...570527-sun.html

Conservatives eye six-year Senate cycle

By JENNIFER DITCHBURN

OTTAWA (CP) - Conservative policy planners are examining the

possibility of American-style Senate elections, where voters cast

ballots for certain Senators on one six-year cycle, and other

senators on a second six-year cycle.

The model, also used in Australia's Senate, would ensure a regular

influx of fresh blood into the upper chamber since all elected

senators would be required to step down after six years in office.

A senior government source familiar with the work said the idea of

staggered elections is just one of the many elements of a Senate

reform package expected to be put forward this fall, and will likely

include at least the promise of future constitutional change.

[Shakeyhands]

seems like a pretty good idea to me.

[Michael Hardner]

Here's a better idea: scrap the senate altogether. It hasn't done anything useful in years and they're probably about to cause a lot of trouble for the current government anyway.

[Black Dog]

Why is the CPC is spending their time moving forward on Senate reform in lieu of something meaningful?

[August1991]

Here's a better idea: scrap the senate altogether.

That would require a constitutional amendment making it impossible.

It hasn't done anything useful in years and they're probably about to cause a lot of trouble for the current government anyway.

True on both points. Good reason maybe to change it.

Why is the CPC is spending their time moving forward on Senate reform in lieu of something meaningful?

One of the five priorities is accountability and arguably, an elected senate would make the federal government more accountable.

This would also appeal to the ex-Reformers in the CPC. It would also appeal to federalist-regionalists in Quebec. I don't think the proposed changes would require anything more than an act of parliament.

[shoop]

There are a lot of other people this would apply to.

Just because the Senate is old and lazy, that doesn't meant you can't have meaningful reform.

The Senate has the constitutional power to be a very effective counter-balance to the House of Commons. The majority of people don't know that, or don't expect it because the Senate has never really done anything.

This would also appeal to the ex-Reformers in the CPC. It would also appeal to federalist-regionalists in Quebec. I don't think the proposed changes would require anything more than an act of parliament.

[geoffrey]

Having an elected Senate is very dangerous if they have the same powers as they do now. Nothing would ever get done, we'd be stuck in endless gridlock U.S. style. The Senate and HoC need different powers in order for that to be functional, otherwise, if they are merely two houses with the same power, we'd surely be in for absolutely nothing getting done and more ridiculous pork barreling.

[Leader Circle]

Having an elected Senate is very dangerous if they have the same powers as they do now. Nothing would ever get done, we'd be stuck in endless gridlock U.S. style. The Senate and HoC need different powers in order for that to be functional, otherwise, if they are merely two houses with the same power, we'd surely be in for absolutely nothing getting done and more ridiculous pork barreling.

I think Geoff is right here, we may end up with a few senators with agendas and something to prove, but the senate we currently have is a bunch of old fogies with no real purpose, but soaking Canadians with huge salaries.

[geoffrey]

Having an elected Senate is very dangerous if they have the same powers as they do now. Nothing would ever get done, we'd be stuck in endless gridlock U.S. style. The Senate and HoC need different powers in order for that to be functional, otherwise, if they are merely two houses with the same power, we'd surely be in for absolutely nothing getting done and more ridiculous pork barreling.

I think Geoff is right here, we may end up with a few senators with agendas and something to prove, but the senate we currently have is a bunch of old fogies with no real purpose, but soaking Canadians with huge salaries.

Agreed, something needs to be done.

But jumping willy nilly into changing out government is a dangerous idea, especially for the reasons I outlined above.

[Naci Sey]

Here's a better idea: scrap the senate altogether. It hasn't done anything useful in years and they're probably about to cause a lot of trouble for the current government anyway.

Is that not a contradictory statement? How can something that is ineffectual cause anyone trouble?

[Kiraly]

Here's a better idea: scrap the senate altogether. It hasn't done anything useful in years and they're probably about to cause a lot of trouble for the current government anyway.

Is that not a contradictory statement? How can something that is ineffectual cause anyone trouble?

Not really. You could argue that the Liberal controlled Senate did very little when the Liberals were in power. Now that the Conservatives are in power, they may try to "cause a lot of trouble" for the current government. I would not characterize this as being "useful".

[August1991]

Here's a better idea: scrap the senate altogether. It hasn't done anything useful in years and they're probably about to cause a lot of trouble for the current government anyway.

Is that not a contradictory statement? How can something that is ineffectual cause anyone trouble?

No, it's not contradictory. We now have a Conservative government in the House and a Liberal majority in the Senate. The lIberals have already announced that they will block the budget in the Senate. Mulroney was forced to appoint new senators to get the GST through, and then had to call an election about the FTA.

[August1991]

Having an elected Senate is very dangerous if they have the same powers as they do now. Nothing would ever get done, we'd be stuck in endless gridlock U.S. style.

Is gridlock bad? I say fettering government is not a bad thing. It should be hard for a government to change anything. I don't know if I would charaterize the US that way.

The Senate and HoC need different powers in order for that to be functional, otherwise, if they are merely two houses with the same power, we'd surely be in for absolutely nothing getting done and more ridiculous pork barreling.

Why would elected Senators, possibly in opposition to the House, lead to pork-barreling?

More bureaucrats usually mean a larger budget. More committee members usually mean indecision.

Canadian politics are driven by regional interests. Perhaps an elected Senate would better deal with this, while creating a counterweight to the House. Dunno.

[Naci Sey]

Here's a better idea: scrap the senate altogether. It hasn't done anything useful in years and they're probably about to cause a lot of trouble for the current government anyway.

Is that not a contradictory statement? How can something that is ineffectual cause anyone trouble?

No, it's not contradictory.

My point is, we can't have it both ways. The logic doesn't work. Either the Senate is ineffectual or it's able to cause some government trouble. If it's able to cause trouble, then it isn't ineffectual - it has an effect, although some people may not like it.

What we're all after, I suspect, is to have the Senate given more power, for that power to be clearly defined and for the Senate to function under an Accountability Act of its own.

On the election of members to the Senate, I'm uncertain and need to think more about the arguments pro and con.

[Michael Hardner]

What we're all after, I suspect, is to have the Senate given more power, for that power to be clearly defined and for the Senate to function under an Accountability Act of its own.

I'm after having it given less power. In fact, no power.

If the senate gives Harper trouble, he'll have to do what Mulroney did and appoint a dogpile of conservatives. What is the point ?