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

[Bar Sinister]

Yes, I see some merit in your first two points though I could take issue with some details--not being elected, for instance, senators tend to be less partisan--but this third point I don't get at all. First, I don't see how you could possibly know the Senate gives very poor value for money compared to other government bodies that could do the same things it does. The cost of running the Senate is a pretty small fraction of public expenditures. Second, what are these other government bodies? Only the Commons and the Senate have any legislative power, there is no other government body that can do that. I will cite the conclusion from the chapter about the Senate in the well-known basic textbook, Dawson's The Government of Canada, 5th edition, page 303: "There is every reason for the Senate to remain a secondary partner in the Canadian Parliament. There is no reason for it to remain the comparatively unimportant and ineffective body it has become; if it remains so, it must be emphasized, it will be by the Senate's own choice." That's as true now as it was when the book was printed in 1970. The Senate needs a better class of senators, not reform or abolition.

Other government bodies? The only thing even remotely useful that the Senate has ever done is to conduct investigations into major problems in Canadian society. However, a permanent body costing millions of dollars could easily be replaced by using members of the existing bureaucracy to carry out that function. At worst such investigations could be contracted out at a much lower cost than that of running the Senate.

As for the Senate having legislative power, when was the last time it used it effectively? Since for the most part the Senate consists of carefully chosen lapdogs loyal to the government (as Mr. Harper so aptly illustrated with his last three appointments). One of the original concepts of the Senate was to provide some regional representation. There is no indication that the current Senate in any way performs that function.

Given the fact that the Senate no longer performs the function it was intended to perform (if it ever did); and that it is essentially a retirement home for failed politicians and supporters of the party in power; and that it has little real power and seldom uses what power it has; one has to wonder why this institution still exists. It is interesting to note that many nations with Upper Houses including New Zealand, the Netherlands and Sweden, have recently abolished them; then perhaps it is time for Canada to do the same.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I agree completely that abolition is preferable to reform. An elected Senate will become a rival to the Commons, which I think would be a dangerous and profoundly dumb thing to create. I'm promoting another option, which amounts to taking it seriously in the role for which it was originally intended, and that depends on the PM taking it seriously when he recommends new appointments for the G-G to rubber stamp, and the Senators taking themselves seriously. It had a bit of a revival in the late 1960s when Paul Martin Sr. was in it, but it's been moribund ever since. As that citation I quoted said, if the Senate disappears it'll be because it self-destructed, not because it's useless in principle.

 

[taxslave]

Actually I believe it is useless for several reasons. First of all, the Senate has only temporary power to block legislation from the House of Commons. Any bill passed twice simply bypasses the Senate, essentially rendering the Senate powerless.

Second, the Senate is usually packed with members loyal to the government in power, making it very unlikely it will block any legislation at all. I remember one scenario when Trudeau was PM when forty bills were presented to the Senate just two days before Parliament was to recess. In spite of minor cries of outrage, the Senate passed the bills in the allotted time.

Third, the Senate gives very poor value for money. It doesn't do anything that cannot be carried out by other government bodies more cheaply. It is interesting to note that nine of Canada's provincial goverments have no upper house and manage just fine without one.

Don't give the parasites any ideas on how to spend more of our money.

 

[YukonJack]

If every Senate appointee had even half the honesty and integrity of this gentleman hockey legend, the whole idea of Senate would wither on the vine:

Canada?s Walk of Fame celebrating Inductee Jean Béliveau

 

[Omicron]

Actually, the Senate serves an extremely useful and vital purpose... the problem is the way it's populated now had twisted it out of usefulness.

Even Americans, when they tore down everything in order to build a more perfect democracy, saw the need for a Senate.

In their case, it was to have a body representing the Establishment. The Establishment would not pass yokel policy that would threaten the order of things.

Indeed the Canadian Senate has lost utility what with the way members are appointed, but the solution is *not* to abolish it.

Rather, the solution is to fix the way members get appointed.

I see two option.

One: Let it be elected, but the people running for it must be iconic representatives of Canadian civilization, i.e. Brian Adams and Celine Dion, and the great authors, would be valid candidates.

In that case, their job would be to filter policies coming from the Commons threatening the principal of Canada being the best place on earth.

I can see tangles in that, what with the way icons tend to be ruled by managers with giant beady yellow eyes with grey scaled leathery skin, but you get my point.

Option two would be to do it the way the Germans do, which is have a Senate where-upon after each election the seats all get re-appointed, according to popular vote.

In that case, it would result in something where only 40% of the seats would be occupied by neo-Conservatives. The Green party would have 8-9 seats. etc.

Give them free vote, not according to strict party policy.

The reason I know you guys will hate that idea is because it makes sense.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

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.

Ooh, I like that idea. Create a constitutional crisis and the PM gives the GG the political boot and actually shows whose boss. Make the airy-fairy constitution agree with the political facts on the ground.

Once the senate is abolished, then make every voter in the House of Commons equal, pure rep by pop. So an urban vote isn't worth 1/2-1/4 of a rural vote.

 

[ironsides]

Ooh, I like that idea. Create a constitutional crisis and the PM gives the GG the political boot and actually shows whose boss. Make the airy-fairy constitution agree with the political facts on the ground.

Once the senate is abolished, then make every voter in the House of Commons equal, pure rep by pop. So an urban vote isn't worth 1/2-1/4 of a rural vote.

You got it, every person has one vote no matter where they live. The Canadian Senate has a very similar purpose to the Senate in the U.S., it was put there in order to keep the elite in power, and stop the common person from totally taking over the government.

 

[Omicron]

Ooh, I like that idea. Create a constitutional crisis and the PM gives the GG the political boot and actually shows whose boss. Make the airy-fairy constitution agree with the political facts on the ground.

Once the senate is abolished, then make every voter in the House of Commons equal, pure rep by pop. So an urban vote isn't worth 1/2-1/4 of a rural vote.

Uh huh... and would they have to vote according to party line?

You got it, every person has one vote no matter where they live. The Canadian Senate has a very similar purpose to the Senate in the U.S., it was put there in order to keep the elite in power, and stop the common person from totally taking over the government.

Actually it was put there because they knew the House of Commons tended to be drunk.

That's why they call it the house of Second Sober Sight.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Uh huh... and would they have to vote according to party line?

.

The HoC would be like it is now. Right now urban votes are worth much less than rural votes. The subject is a bit off the topic, but one House is good enough for me. We don't need a Senate.

 

[Omicron]

The HoC would be like it is now. Right now urban votes are worth much less than rural votes.

Actually, on the Alberta provincial government level, rural votes carry way more clout than city votes.

The subject is a bit off the topic, but one House is good enough for me. We don't need a Senate.

No it's not off topic.

How about dividing it between the Commons represents commercial interests, while the Senate represents social issues?

 

[Tonington]

Ooh, I like that idea. Create a constitutional crisis and the PM gives the GG the political boot and actually shows whose boss. Make the airy-fairy constitution agree with the political facts on the ground.

Once the senate is abolished, then make every voter in the House of Commons equal, pure rep by pop. So an urban vote isn't worth 1/2-1/4 of a rural vote.

Senate quorum is 15 members, including the speaker. That is a lot of retirees before the Senate can no longer function.

 

[Omicron]

Senate quorum is 15 members, including the speaker. That is a lot of retirees before the Senate can no longer function.

Okay, yeah... some reform is in order.

 

[ironsides]

Uh huh... and would they have to vote according to party line?


Actually it was put there because they knew the House of Commons tended to be drunk.

That's why they call it the house of Second Sober Sight.

I think we both have grown up from (House of Commons and House of Representatives) just being drunks, who am I kidding they all have problems, especially the Senate. :lol: There would be no need for party's either, the people would vote for what and who they want. True "Popular vote" and the candidates would really have to work for the votes.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Senate quorum is 15 members, including the speaker. That is a lot of retirees before the Senate can no longer function.

Hmm, that's not too many. A suspiciously low number for a quorum. I punched in "quorum meetings" on google and found that most organizations require 50%.of the members to have a quorum like the US senate. Canadians are very politically passive, one group makes a rule, and we submit, as if it came from Allah/G-god/Elvis, and to possible conflict afterwards, we don't let ourselves correct an odious mistake. Fifteen members is a nauseating joke.

What Constitutes a Quorum to Conduct Business at the Meeting? | eHow.com

General Rule

• Generally, organizations follow Robert's definition of a quorum as one-half of the members present, plus one additional member. For example, when 10 members are present at a meeting, the quorum would be six members. However, any organization is free to designate any number it chooses as its quorum.
  
  

Different Rules for Different Purposes

• Sometimes, organizations require different quora for different purposes, such as regular business, establishing new policies or issuing public statements. The numbers can vary from one-half plus one to two-thirds, three-quarters or even a full membership.
  
  

​

---------------------------

Considering how useful the senate has been over the years, abolishing it probably wouldn't affect the political system too much. Time to reboot and give the senate the boot.

 

[Omicron]

The Queen says she has no problem with whatever people want in so long as they do not behave like idiots.

Cut cut cut. Cut programs to me as someone who already was paying the lowest business taxes on the planet. My coleagues in Chicago were jealous.

This whole thing, if you've read history, is about turning that realm over to who can be strong enough to claim their part of the land.

They're doing Humpty Dumpty.

Humpty Dumpty was a story about how the Roman Empire collapsed, and nobody could put it back together.

You don't know how bitter an Albertan can be.

He does not care about the results. He does not not care about civilization. He only cares about showing that he got strong enough to have the power to f-ck things up.

I hate to say it, but for defense it might require the Queen.