Step to Senate Reform

[blueblood]

CTV

Any thoughts?

[Wilber]

As Neil said "one small step". It's a start. If the electorate picks one person and the PM appoints another, he'll have some splaynin to do.

Gordon Campbell came out in favour although he said that if he had his druthers, he'd just get rid of it.

[MightyAC]

More window dressing instead of senate reforms. Maybe they don't want to start the whole process of tinkering with the constitution, maybe they feel the Libs and Bloc would kill it anyway but it still amounts to nothing really. It would be nice to electoral and senate reform debate take place simultaneously with PR and an elected, equal senate added to the constitution at the same time. Oh well at least this story should raise awarness amongst the masses a hair...and that's the first step to making it popular enough to change.

[jdobbin]

CTV

Any thoughts?

I think that the Senate should be abolished. However, that would require opening the Constitution.

And these aren't anywhere near elections. Harper's calling it "consultations." The prime minister would be free to ignore the referendum that chooses a candidate. They're calling this a compromise?

I think a province could challenge it the Supreme Court and win because it fundamentally changes the Senate. The only way to change to the Senate is to change the Constitution.

[madmax]

CTV

Any thoughts?

I think that the Senate should be abolished. However, that would require opening the Constitution.

And these aren't anywhere near elections. Harper's calling it "consultations." The prime minister would be free to ignore the referendum that chooses a candidate. They're calling this a compromise?

I think a province could challenge it the Supreme Court and win because it fundamentally changes the Senate. The only way to change to the Senate is to change the Constitution.

I thought Stephen Harper addressed Senate Reform in his first few days in office. He lead by example and appointed a backroom boy, giving him the file with the big pile of our money that the liberals used to exploit.

Now somehow thinking I have forgotten about this indescretion which challenges ones credibility, he offers the tiniest smallest baby step to appease his base. This isn't about us, its about votes.

I am with the above that the Senate should be abolished.

Open the constitution if we have to, and lets get on with it.

[geoffrey]

If the Senate is abolished, I'd like to see a majority of Premiers siding on a bill before it's past. So have the 10 Premiers act as the Senate. That'd preserve regional interests.

[bk59]

Abolishing the Senate seems a bit too much. There is excellent work that gets done there. Committee reports, research, introduction of amendments to bills, etc. A second set of eyes & minds is a good thing.

Yes, not all of the Senate is good. Then again, not all of the House is good either.

As for elected versus appointed. For those good senators that take their jobs seriously, there is a good argument to be made for appointed. These people do not have to worry about the political games that go on in the House. They are free to publish their reports and propose their amendments without having to jump through hoops to meet party expectations or without having to pander to the electorate to get votes. They are free to do what is right, even if it is unpopular.

Arguments for an elected Senate talk alot about accountability, but wouldn't this just make the Senate look a lot like the House? Thus defeating the point of having a "sober second look"?

All of that aside, this bill may not do a whole lot. The PM can still ignore the "voting" results if he/she wants. If we really want the Senate changed then it deserves the debate that can only be had through a constitutional amendment. After all, that is why an amendment is needed to change how it works.

[madmax]

If the Senate is abolished, I'd like to see a majority of Premiers siding on a bill before it's past. So have the 10 Premiers act as the Senate. That'd preserve regional interests.

Wow, I think this thought has potential for discussion. I mean premiers are supposed to be busy folk and all, but there is something in this Idea I like.

[geoffrey]

If the Senate is abolished, I'd like to see a majority of Premiers siding on a bill before it's past. So have the 10 Premiers act as the Senate. That'd preserve regional interests.

Wow, I think this thought has potential for discussion. I mean premiers are supposed to be busy folk and all, but there is something in this Idea I like.

Doesn't have to be the Premiers, but political reps that stand for the provinces.

Each bill would have to have regional and general population approval. Nice.

[bk59]

If the Senate is abolished, I'd like to see a majority of Premiers siding on a bill before it's past. So have the 10 Premiers act as the Senate. That'd preserve regional interests.

Wow, I think this thought has potential for discussion. I mean premiers are supposed to be busy folk and all, but there is something in this Idea I like.

The Senate does not just read a bill and say yes or no. There is no way that the premiers could possibly fill the void that would be left if the Senate was abolished. Not only that, but what happens when the federal government tries to enact valid federal legislation that the provinces do not like for some reason? I understand the desirability of looking after regional interests, but I see some conflicts of interest arising in giving that voice to a provincial official rather than a federal official from the region.

[mikedavid00]

If the Senate is abolished, I'd like to see a majority of Premiers siding on a bill before it's past. So have the 10 Premiers act as the Senate. That'd preserve regional interests.

I agree.

[mikedavid00]

For those good senators that take their jobs seriously, there is a good argument to be made for appointed.

Wow you just don't get the concept of democrocy do you?

[jdobbin]

If the Senate is abolished, I'd like to see a majority of Premiers siding on a bill before it's past. So have the 10 Premiers act as the Senate. That'd preserve regional interests.

I don't know that they any prime minister would act to abolish the Senate unless he had full support of the premiers.

As for premiers protecting regional interests, I think there is no question that they would. The only thing is that without checks and balances, it would lead to a non-functioning federalism.

[jdobbin]

Doesn't have to be the Premiers, but political reps that stand for the provinces.

Each bill would have to have regional and general population approval. Nice.

You could do that through the House of Commons. Just make a few seats that represent the whole province.

[Canuck E Stan]

The big question is whether the bill will pass. Harper already has legislation in the works to limit Senators' terms to eight years; but like many other government bills, it's still stuck in the Senate where Liberals hold a majority.

Harper noted that the bill was being introduced the day after the government's Federal Accountability Act received royal assent.

But he acknowledged getting this one passed won't be easy. He said the Liberals like the Senate "just the way it is" and that they recently defended senators having 45-year terms.

"A democratically elected and genuinely accountable Senate may not serve the interests of the Liberal party; but it will serve the Canadian people, and their interests come first to this government," he said.

"Just as the Liberals opposed the accountability act, the federal budget, the GST cut, child-care allowance, softwood lumber deal, the tax fairness plan -- do you see a theme here?"

"I don't expect them to embrace Senate elections without a fight."

Is this the new progressive Liberal way that all the leadership candidates talked about?

Seems like same old, same old Liberal way of doing business to me.

Delay and pay is the Liberal way.

[jdobbin]

Is this the new progressive Liberal way that all the leadership candidates talked about?

Seems like same old, same old Liberal way of doing business to me.

Delay and pay is the Liberal way.

Is this the same dishonest way that the right wing Conservatives figure that they can bypass the amending formula of the Constitution: by creating legislation that they can readily ignore?

[Saturn]

The big question is whether the bill will pass. Harper already has legislation in the works to limit Senators' terms to eight years; but like many other government bills, it's still stuck in the Senate where Liberals hold a majority.

Harper noted that the bill was being introduced the day after the government's Federal Accountability Act received royal assent.

But he acknowledged getting this one passed won't be easy. He said the Liberals like the Senate "just the way it is" and that they recently defended senators having 45-year terms.

"A democratically elected and genuinely accountable Senate may not serve the interests of the Liberal party; but it will serve the Canadian people, and their interests come first to this government," he said.

"Just as the Liberals opposed the accountability act, the federal budget, the GST cut, child-care allowance, softwood lumber deal, the tax fairness plan -- do you see a theme here?"

"I don't expect them to embrace Senate elections without a fight."

Is this the new progressive Liberal way that all the leadership candidates talked about?

Seems like same old, same old Liberal way of doing business to me.

Delay and pay is the Liberal way.

This is what HARPER said! Don't present it as if some independent observer commented that way.

[madmax]

The big question is whether the bill will pass. Harper already has legislation in the works to limit Senators' terms to eight years; but like many other government bills, it's still stuck in the Senate where Liberals hold a majority.

Harper noted that the bill was being introduced the day after the government's Federal Accountability Act received royal assent.

But he acknowledged getting this one passed won't be easy. He said the Liberals like the Senate "just the way it is" and that they recently defended senators having 45-year terms.

"A democratically elected and genuinely accountable Senate may not serve the interests of the Liberal party; but it will serve the Canadian people, and their interests come first to this government," he said.

"Just as the Liberals opposed the accountability act, the federal budget, the GST cut, child-care allowance, softwood lumber deal, the tax fairness plan -- do you see a theme here?"

"I don't expect them to embrace Senate elections without a fight."

Is this the new progressive Liberal way that all the leadership candidates talked about?

Seems like same old, same old Liberal way of doing business to me.

Delay and pay is the Liberal way.

I was watching CTV and more then a few Senators when questioned for change vs status quo, actually suggested abolishing the Senate.

I am not big on checks and balances, leave that for the US. I know that once a government earns the trust of the Majority, they get to run with the ball. We can move very fast in one direction, and then if things aren't going well, we can elect another majority or minority and slow down the change, or change the direction quickly and effectively.

The Senate rarely raises a peep, I recall a few moments during the Mulroney years. But really most of these quys are very glorified rubber stamps no matter whom is in power.

I still want it abolished, I agree with the Senators that offered abolishment as a viable option.

[blueblood]

yup the whole appointed arm of government is a double standard in democracy, I believe it should either be elected or abolished. But if this were to happen i'd have to suggest removing partisan politics in the House of Commons as I feel it undermines democracy, sure we get to pick which "tyranny" we want for an election cycle, but what about true democracy where it's a representative going to Ottawa to represent his ridings views in making laws. I believe that this would be best as not everyone in the Tory and Grit parties agrees 100% with party policy.

[jdobbin]

yup the whole appointed arm of government is a double standard in democracy, I believe it should either be elected or abolished. But if this were to happen i'd have to suggest removing partisan politics in the House of Commons as I feel it undermines democracy, sure we get to pick which "tyranny" we want for an election cycle, but what about true democracy where it's a representative going to Ottawa to represent his ridings views in making laws. I believe that this would be best as not everyone in the Tory and Grit parties agrees 100% with party policy.

It just means that things would be decided in backrooms and you wouldn't know what secret allegiances there were.

It is how city hall works...

[mikedavid00]

yup the whole appointed arm of government is a double standard in democracy, I believe it should either be elected or abolished. But if this were to happen i'd have to suggest removing partisan politics in the House of Commons as I feel it undermines democracy, sure we get to pick which "tyranny" we want for an election cycle, but what about true democracy where it's a representative going to Ottawa to represent his ridings views in making laws. I believe that this would be best as not everyone in the Tory and Grit parties agrees 100% with party policy.

I agree totally.

[blueblood]

yup the whole appointed arm of government is a double standard in democracy, I believe it should either be elected or abolished. But if this were to happen i'd have to suggest removing partisan politics in the House of Commons as I feel it undermines democracy, sure we get to pick which "tyranny" we want for an election cycle, but what about true democracy where it's a representative going to Ottawa to represent his ridings views in making laws. I believe that this would be best as not everyone in the Tory and Grit parties agrees 100% with party policy.

It just means that things would be decided in backrooms and you wouldn't know what secret allegiances there were.

It is how city hall works...

So does partisan politics, I only need to refer to the present mandate of the CPC to confirm that. At least without parties there is somewhat of a chance.

[Wilber]

Population per Senator by Province

Alberta 587,000

BC 709,000

Manitoba 196,000

New Brunswick 83,000

Newfoundland 103,000

Nova Scotia 133,000

Ontario 597,000

PEI 46,000

Quebec 345,000

Sask. 165,000

What a joke. Equal representation or dump it, one or the other.

[jdobbin]

So does partisan politics, I only need to refer to the present mandate of the CPC to confirm that. At least without parties there is somewhat of a chance.

Doubtful. I don't know that I ever heard of a government that didn't have allegiances resembling political parties.

[jdobbin]

What a joke. Equal representation or dump it, one or the other.

I agree. This is not a compromise. It lacks legitimacy as it still requires a prime minister approval.

Getting rid of it probably is better policy for Canadians.