Canadian Senate Reform
- Thread starter Francis2004
- Start date
Getting rid of the Senate poses a serious issue in that many technicality is often caught by that chamber.. We often discuss what the Senate does not do, but never want it does do properly..
Not having that buffer there could be a serious issue in our system..
I have no issue getting rid of the Senate if we have a way to prevent legislation from being its own worse enemy later keeping in mind that it will require Constitutional change to rid us of that chamber..
Keeping that in mind, what other democracy does not have another level of protection to review legislation ? Just curious ?
Here are a few that do..
The US has a Senate
The UK has the House of Lords
France has a Senate
Russia has the Federation Council
Francis, new Zealand is the only country I am aware of, which does not have a second chamber. I think India also has a second chamber.
NEW ZEALAND PARLIAMENT
The New Zealand National Party (National Party) is the largest partner in the National-led Government...last election 2008.
The New Zealand National Party was established in 1936 from the Reform-United Coalition. The party first entered Parliament that same year.
National Party message:
National stands for freedom, choice, independence and ambition. We believe in less government not more red tape. We stand firmly against political correctness and strongly for personal freedom and responsibility.’
Since it has been a battle between the Labour Party and this National Party in New Zealand politics I guess it is not the perfect party.. All good intentions do not lead to perfect Governments..
As a point to make New Zealand tried to being back a senate.. Oddly enough it was the Liberal Labour Party that shot down the idea there..
Parliament of New Zealand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Re: Senate Reform
I would venture to say that any system of legislature that seeks to refine and perfect itself should, in all cases, have a second chamber, with an aim of being a less partisan institution than the elected legislative assembly. The huge number of corrective amendments that are passed by the Senate, and accepted by the Commons, is proof enough that a chamber of more comprehensive review is an absolute necessity. If the Senate were elected, then it would become more concerned about the principles and political ideas of bills, rather than catching mistakes and closing loopholes.
There are those who argue that our honourable senators are a drain on resources — but when you consider the facts that (a) reports and studies published by the Senate have far more weight than those of the House of Commons; (b) honourable senators are paid much less than members of the House of Commons; and (c) the allowances and budgets provided to senators are far less than those provided to the House of Commons, you will see that it is in fact our elected representatives who should be far more concerned with whether they’re providing our money’s worth.
I have faith that Senator the Honourable Marjory LeBreton P.C. (Ontario), the Leader of Her Majesty’s Government in the Senate and Minister of State (Seniors) will continue to run an effective and principled Government caucus in the Senate, whether or not Government senators are in the majority. Let’s remember that once honourable senators are appointed to the Upper House, they are not beholden to the will of the prime minister — after all, the prime minister has no power to have senators dismissed; and even when removed from caucus, independent senators are in no way hampered from performing their duties, unlike independent members of the Commons.
I would venture to say that any system of legislature that seeks to refine and perfect itself should, in all cases, have a second chamber, with an aim of being a less partisan institution than the elected legislative assembly. The huge number of corrective amendments that are passed by the Senate, and accepted by the Commons, is proof enough that a chamber of more comprehensive review is an absolute necessity. If the Senate were elected, then it would become more concerned about the principles and political ideas of bills, rather than catching mistakes and closing loopholes.
There are those who argue that our honourable senators are a drain on resources — but when you consider the facts that (a) reports and studies published by the Senate have far more weight than those of the House of Commons; (b) honourable senators are paid much less than members of the House of Commons; and (c) the allowances and budgets provided to senators are far less than those provided to the House of Commons, you will see that it is in fact our elected representatives who should be far more concerned with whether they’re providing our money’s worth.
I have faith that Senator the Honourable Marjory LeBreton P.C. (Ontario), the Leader of Her Majesty’s Government in the Senate and Minister of State (Seniors) will continue to run an effective and principled Government caucus in the Senate, whether or not Government senators are in the majority. Let’s remember that once honourable senators are appointed to the Upper House, they are not beholden to the will of the prime minister — after all, the prime minister has no power to have senators dismissed; and even when removed from caucus, independent senators are in no way hampered from performing their duties, unlike independent members of the Commons.
What makes a senator worth $130.000 per year? when in fact they do not work all year maybe 7 months out of the year.
I could ask the same of members of the House of Commons, earning $155 400 per annum.
The work that the Senate does it well worth its modest pricetag — let’s remember that the House of Commons does not have the time or resources to perform the Senate’s functions. If the Senate were to be abolished, legislation would be passed and enacted habitually riddled with errors and loopholes — which is prevented, at this time, by the role that the Senate has in the legislative process. The Upper House is meant to exist as a revisory body, and not as a democratic powerhouse of policy-making — the Senate rarely flexes its ability to veto the decisions of the Commons, so I fail to understand why this is such an issue for some Canadians. Honourable senators, by and large, perform their functions admirably (much more so than their Lower House counterparts), and the House of Commons almost always agrees with and accepts the Senate’s recommendations.
The work that the Senate does it well worth its modest pricetag — let’s remember that the House of Commons does not have the time or resources to perform the Senate’s functions. If the Senate were to be abolished, legislation would be passed and enacted habitually riddled with errors and loopholes — which is prevented, at this time, by the role that the Senate has in the legislative process. The Upper House is meant to exist as a revisory body, and not as a democratic powerhouse of policy-making — the Senate rarely flexes its ability to veto the decisions of the Commons, so I fail to understand why this is such an issue for some Canadians. Honourable senators, by and large, perform their functions admirably (much more so than their Lower House counterparts), and the House of Commons almost always agrees with and accepts the Senate’s recommendations.
Get your facts right, SJP. Preston Manning of the Reform Party was the first person to present the idea of Triple-E Senate Reform: Equal, Elected, Effective. You can't blame all this on PrimeMinister Stephen Harper.
I would suggest there is a straight line relationship between the policies of Harper & Manning thru Day, that the triple E while effected by Manning was supported & pushed by Harper from the start & that the continual sniping is just another way of keeping the cons front ¢er in the hearts of the Canadian west
Of course, the flip side of that argument would be that the Liberals are opposed to any Senate reform as it would interfere with their master plan, starting with the belief that they have a divine right to be the permanent party in power (and they continue to believe this), thus being able to continously pad the Upper House with Liberal-appointed Senators who will expedite all legislation coming from the House of Commons in a most judicious manner. A most cozy, long term structure.
I realize that I made some assumptions in expressing that opinion, but I'm just trying to be consistent with the opposing point of view.
Of course, the flip side of that argument would be that the Liberals are opposed to any Senate reform as it would interfere with their master plan, starting with the belief that they have a divine right to be the permanent party in power (and they continue to believe this), thus being able to continously pad the Upper House with Liberal-appointed Senators who will expedite all legislation coming from the House of Commons in a most judicious manner. A most cozy, long term structure.
I realize that I made some assumptions in expressing that opinion, but I'm just trying to be consistent with the opposing point of view.
And how do you see that considering they will lose control of the Senate, again as in the Mulroney days, next month ( Jan 2010 ) ?
If their view of Senate reform does not change while they do not have control, does this mean it was honest then, in their view ?
Could it be there is more to Senate reform then Electing people ?
And how do you see that considering they will lose control of the Senate, again as in the Mulroney days, next month ( Jan 2010 ) ?
Part of a long term strategy.
If their view of Senate reform does not change while they do not have control, does this mean it was honest then, in their view ?
Yes.
Could it be there is more to Senate reform then Electing people?
Oh yeah, much more. Preston Manning entitled it Triple-E Reform.
Yup, Manning had such great ideas.. Too bad he got corrupted like all others.. :lol:
CBC News - Canada - Stephen Harper and the politics of suspicion
The point about Electing Senate people is that it could hold back House of Commons business a lot longer then it presently does.. Triple-E would require Constitutional Amendment.. Not sure it would pass in all provinces ..
Again I agree. This would be a very stormy subject and one that would divide greatly the country..
People do not realize the different view on this subject.
While we could well agree to "Elect" members to the Senate, I am sure many will want much more power in a house that will now gain, not lose, powers on legislation in Canada.
As well people already have a low perception of politicians.. This will turn Senators into just that.. Making voting apathy even worse.. :roll:
Francis said:
Preston Manning didn't have a chance to be corrupted he was summarily kicked out as head of the party. I know, as I am one of the turn-coats who voted in favor of Day. A decision I still deeply regret. :-(
Preston Manning didn't have a chance to be corrupted he was summarily kicked out as head of the party. I know, as I am one of the turn-coats who voted in favor of Day. A decision I still deeply regret. :-(