3 provinces (rep. 78% of population) want senate abolished, not reformed

[Andem]

Provinces want Senate abolished

Three provinces are advising Prime Minister Stephen Harper to forget about reforming the Senate and simply abolish the upper chamber.

Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia say instead of introducing legislation to set term limits for senators and allow for elections, the so-called chamber of sober second thought should be closed forever.

At the same time, Quebec is warning it will go to court if necessary to stop Harper from unilaterally reforming the Senate, but unlike the three other provinces, it does not want the Senate abolished.

"Ontario's position on Senate reform: abolish the Senate," Premier Dalton McGuinty said via his Twitter feed Tuesday morning.

Harper is expected to move quickly to introduce two separate Senate reform bills — one to impose term limits on senators and the other to allow provinces to elect nominees whom Harper would then appoint to the Senate.

However, McGuinty said he's spoken with other premiers and believes the best option is to simply get rid of the Senate altogether.

"We think the simplest thing to do is abolish it, and I think, frankly, to reform it in any substantive way is just not possible," McGuinty said after touring a Chrysler factory in Brampton, Ont. "Based on my discussions with other premiers, based on the formula that's in place in order to ensure that there is reform, it's not going to happen."

The Canadian Press: McGuinty rejects Senate reform; calls on Harper to abolish upper chamber

 

[wulfie68]

I can agree that abolishing the Senate is almost perferable to the situation we have now, where a body of unelected officials can stall actions by the elected gov't (until such time as the PMO appoints enough new senators to push their legislation through), but I also believe that a 2nd House is a necessary check and balance (especially in a majority gov't situation), thus in the end, I believe in an elected Senate with term limits.

Now all this being said, nothing the House of Commons and the existing Senate approve, has immunity from being repealed by a future gov't without a constitutional ammendment (including McGuinty's idea of abolishing the Senate)... and I just don't see that happening without a drastic shift in the way people and thus their provincial gov'ts view the entire country and our legal system. Re-opening the constitution for pretty much any reason is a non-starter with the radically different viewpoints held across the nation.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I do't think opening the constitution is the big pariah you make it out to be. It is not really a constitution anyway, it is a royal proclamation so Queeny and her doltards in the City of London can just issue another edict. If they had ever actually ratified the constitution and charter by referendum of the people it would be a big deal but they didn't.

 

[mentalfloss]

Doesn't Layton want to abolish the senate as well?

 

[wulfie68]

Well it was approved by all the provincial gov'ts at the time save Quebec, as well as Trudeau's feds, so it did have a fair amount of support.

As to reopening, it WOULD be a clusterf***. As regionally divided as the nation is, there would be no consensus on anything, and as soon as negotiations begin on one item, there will be demands to re-open/re-examine others before some provinces will agree to anything. Quebec, the Maritimes, the Prairies, they all have priorities they want addressed and I don't think most of our premiers are above holding the talks on one issue for ransom to get everyone examining their pet issues...

 

[taxslave]

IF the Senate was abolished what would the party hacks do for income?

 

[Tonington]

Deputy ministers, or hired as consultants.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

It is not really a constitution anyway, it is a royal proclamation so Queeny and her doltards in the City of London can just issue another edict.

You have some very strange, and incorrect, ideas about how these things work.


I think reform is the worst possible thing to do with the Senate, we should either abolish it or leave it alone, and I'd favour the latter. Elected senators would have a political legitimacy appointed ones don't have, they'd be representing the interests of the people who elected them, and they'd try to exercise that legitimacy, with incalculable consequences. If the senators are elected by province, for instance, as Harper's reform ideas indicate would be the case, what does that do to the power and influence of provincial premiers in the federation? How long before people start campaigning for senate seats, and what would they campaign about, what would the issues be? How long before an elected senate starts demanding more powers based on its new political legitimacy, and starts to challenge the House of Commons? What if we get an elected majority from rival parties in the Commons and the Senate? You think the Senate can be obstructive now, just wait.

Besides, governments need a place like the Senate, to reward their faithful toilers, and to bring into the national councils the wisdom and experience of people like the distinguished constitutional scholar and academic Eugene Forsey, who was an exemplar senator. Maybe reform to the extent of rethinking the qualifications for senator so we could get more people like that into it instead of hockey players and skiers and retired party hacks of no particular merit might be a good idea, but in general I think the Senate is best left alone.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Just out of curiosity what would happen if a Prime Minister refused to appoint any more Senators? After a few years, as those already in the Senate retired or died, it would eventually have so few members as to become utterly irrelevant to go along with being utterly useless.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I think the Governor-General might step in on that one, it's actually the G-G who makes the appointments. Read up a bit on the Senate, it's not useless. Certainly there have been some useless people in it, just as there have been in the Commons, but it does have real legislative functions and it does make a difference.
Senate of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TenPenny]

Ah, but Harper has been telling people that the Senate is useless, and they believe him.

 

[shadowshiv]

Like I give a rat's ass about anything that comes out of Dalton "McLiar" McGuinty's mouth. I don't put much(if any) stock in what he has to say.

 

[cranky]

Ah, but Harper has been telling people that the Senate is useless, and they believe him.

Yes, and Yes.

 

[lone wolf]

If the Senate adored him and agreed with everything he said, he'd want it conserved....

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Just out of curiosity what would happen if a Prime Minister refused to appoint any more Senators? After a few years, as those already in the Senate retired or died, it would eventually have so few members as to become utterly irrelevant to go along with being utterly useless.

We are talking decades and different governments before that plan would work and it wouldn't because not all parties feel the same away about the senate.

 

[cranky]

If the Senate adored him and agreed with everything he said, he'd want it conserved....

I thought that is currently the case, yet, he does not want it conserved.

 

[lone wolf]

We are talking decades and different governments before that plan would work and it wouldn't because not all parties feel the same away about the senate.

How many decades? Most Senators are much closer to 75 than birth date. Killing it requires opening the Constitution again - thus keeping Layton's word to Quebec....

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

How many decades? Most Senators are much closer to 75 than birth date. Killing it requires opening the Constitution again - thus keeping Layton's word to Quebec....

Interesting you should mention that. I took a look and I was going to post all the names and ages here, but that would have put me over about 4000 words so here;'s a link.

List of current Canadian senators by age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The average age of a senator is in the range of 60-63 years old, but we have some as young as 46 and some that are up in their 80's.

My point about it being decades is that no serving government would adhere to an intention of abolishing through attrition.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

....we have some...that are up in their 80's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta

Can't be, retirement's mandatory at age 75, and the list at that link reflects that.

 

[TenPenny]

Yes, and Yes.

Ah, but apparently it's not useless, since Harper has been breaking promises and appointing Senators, and therefore it must have a purpose. Or is it useless, and he's just doing this to reward his friends?