The Canadian Senate

[Eagle]

An article I found on the Internet can give a good description of the Canadian Senate. This article can be found at The Canadian Senate

Should Canada change the way that individuals become Senators-from appointment to say, election?

Should the number of Senators from each 'division' change to properly represent the population in each division? Should we appoint/elect the same number of Senators from each Province instead?

Should the constitutional requirements of owning land of $4000 and real assets be amended?

[politika]

An article I found on the Internet can give a good description of the Canadian Senate. This article can be found at The Canadian Senate

Should Canada change the way that individuals become Senators-from appointment to say, election?

Should the number of Senators from each 'division' change to properly represent the population in each division? Should we appoint/elect the same number of Senators from each Province instead?

Should the constitutional requirements of owning land of $4000 and real assets be amended?

The senate is litterally useless. It is full of annoying old people that should have retired hundreds of years ago all they do is block bills and reforms that the government tries to pass. Tax payers money is wasted on the senate and should be paid to the real law makers of Canada which is the House of Commons, which should be the only ones making Canada's decissions as we elect them to do so.

[Eagle]

I do agree Politika that the structure of the Senate is useless.

It's main purpose was to have a parliamentary system based on the British system. Senators were typically meant to be the social elite who represent politics in Canada-hence the Constitutional requirments to become a Senator.

What I would personally like to see, is the structure of the Senate reformed. Perhaps if we were to elect members of the Senate, they would vote for/against bills at the will of the people.

In the current structure, you're right, the Senate is pretty much useless. I feel we should make it an important part of the democratic system. If we cannot do this, then we should consider abolishing it. But I would like to keep the Senate as a house in parliament, but have members elected.

[killjoy]

It is the useless appendix of our colonial ancestry.

Spike it in the heart with a rosewood stake.

[Nocrap]

It is the useless appendix of our colonial ancestry.

Spike it in the heart with a rosewood stake.

I think the senate is an important part of the structure of our government and can act as a watchdog for the House of Commons, where partisan politics play a key role in the passing of most bills.

Equal representation for provinces, based on population might be a good start. Elected? I'm not sure about that. More partisan politics?

[politika]

It is the useless appendix of our colonial ancestry.

Spike it in the heart with a rosewood stake.

I think the senate is an important part of the structure of our government and can act as a watchdog for the House of Commons, where partisan politics play a key role in the passing of most bills.

Equal representation for provinces, based on population might be a good start. Elected? I'm not sure about that. More partisan politics?

A watch dog? They are all appointed by the government they are not going to risk their jobs by puting a stop to the bill. Since we do not elect them lets leave it up to the elected MP's to decide what bill should pass or not.

[fixer1]

The Senate in the older days did have value as sober second thought and a watchdog of parliament. But in today's fast paced new reporting and open debates, that seem to go on forever, is there a need for sober second thought. It is that heated in the debates that wrong things can be missed and thereby slip past the watchful eye of the people? Back when news was a week to a month old before it got to the people, and yes more then a few of our MP's were influenced with too much wine at dinner, that there was a need for a Senate to over see that things have a second check before they are pasted on.

With the advent of the modern news media, most of the past problems are now long over, and if an MP showed up visibly impaired, I am sure it would be known and rectified asap. The government does not need this second house which really is used today as an award system for party faithful, and almost nothing to do with ones abilities. Why have this cost at all. Take all the money that would have gone into the senate and put it towards debt reduction. That way we will at least get some value for the money that is ours in the first place.

[Michael Hardner]

We need a lighter and more responsive government to restore the faith of the people. We should give less power to the House of Commons, more to committees and abolish the senate altogether.

[politika]

We need a lighter and more responsive government to restore the faith of the people. We should give less power to the House of Commons, more to committees and abolish the senate altogether.

Taking away power from the house of commons and more to committees would make it un reasonably hard to pass anything through the government. That would mean sending the 2006 federal budget to a dozen commitees just in time for the 2007 budget to be read! In the face of disastor just deciding alone whether we should re taliate by invading Mexico for bombing the CN tower would take a year to go through a decentralized house of commons and to a dozen committees.

Lets face it we should just leave it up to the people would put our faith in by electing.