3 provinces (rep. 78% of population) want senate abolished, not reformed
- Thread starter Andem
- Start date
The Senate is just a Canadian version of the House of Lords. It has little power, it is a life appointment for being a good party member, and it should be reformed.
But, reform it along the lines of the US Senate. Where all bills have to pass BOTH houses, either house can begin a bill (except a financial bill, which must begin in the lower house), and either house can also kill a bill.
It would be great to have a 2nd house that could kill legislation, wouldn't it? And one who's terms run differently from those of the lower house, so even if a PM has a majority, the Senate could still ride herd on bills.
But, reform it along the lines of the US Senate. Where all bills have to pass BOTH houses, either house can begin a bill (except a financial bill, which must begin in the lower house), and either house can also kill a bill.
It would be great to have a 2nd house that could kill legislation, wouldn't it? And one who's terms run differently from those of the lower house, so even if a PM has a majority, the Senate could still ride herd on bills.
Why do I get the feeling that almost everybody calling for reform or abolition of the Senate really has no idea what it is or what it does?
That's already how it works.
You have the feeling because many of the people calling for reform or abolition of the Senate in reality have little understanding of it's form and function
When someone calls it a 'life appointment', you know they don't understand it.
he has been appointing senators because that is the job of the PM, and Harper is not afraid to act like a PM.
But he said that he would never do that.
So, you're saying that he simply says whatever pops into his head, and then continues to do what anyone else has done?
By that standard, we can assume that he has no actual intention to do anything to the Senate, because what he says and what he does are completely disconnected.
What he said he wanted to do was, in many respects, unrealistic. The Senate has the power to kill bills (as well as send them to committee until the next gov't is elected), so any gov't wants to see progress on any issue that has any degree of controversy, they have no option but to replace exiting senators and install new ones. Now I don't like the way our gov'ts have repeatedly stacked the Senate over the years, and Harper has been no exception (and worse than some), but the way the politics have evolved, its almost a necessary evil.
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.
No.
by what standard? i did not know that it was that easy to reword my thoughts and unilaterally call it a 'standard'. Furthermore, use that standard to pass judgement on the PM.
Congratulations, you just managed to equate Harper's actions wrt to the senate to 'completely disconnected' . Imo, that is not a very reasonable assertion.
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.
Are you saying that one province has an upper house, or that one province's government doesn't manage just fine without one?
Im not sure of any specific example, but in general the senate is suppose to proactively acomplish what the Supreme Court of Canada acomplist.
At least in the sense that whenever there is bad legislation: The SCC investigates only after someone screams 'my rights were violated' yet the senate has an opportunity to stop the bad legislation before it is passed.
At least in the sense that whenever there is bad legislation: The SCC investigates only after someone screams 'my rights were violated' yet the senate has an opportunity to stop the bad legislation before it is passed.
Let me rephrase my question in my post #34:
Can you show me any example where/when the very existence of the Senate made even the slightest difference in the lives of Canadians?
If you can, do so, and if you can't, shut up.
Tell me why our tax dollars should support for a life-time a pasture for politically faithful sub-human mammals that are too low for to be called lemmings?
Can you show me any example where/when the very existence of the Senate made even the slightest difference in the lives of Canadians?
If you can, do so, and if you can't, shut up.
Tell me why our tax dollars should support for a life-time a pasture for politically faithful sub-human mammals that are too low for to be called lemmings?
looks like I am your google ***** today.
A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada
Robertson cites the following as some of the major pieces of government legislation rejected by the Senate since Confederation:
During the latter 1980's and the 1990's, the Senate became more active in formally opposing and amending Commons legislation. Among the more controversial bills which led to confrontation between the Senate and House of Commons were the following: (i) in 1985, Bill C-11, the Borrowing Authority Bill; (ii) in 1986, Bill C-67, the "gating" amendments proposed to the Penitentiary Act; (iii) in 1987, Bill C-22, the Drug Patent Bill and Bill C-84, the Immigration Bill; (iv) in 1988, Bill C-60, the Copyright Bill, Bill C-103, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Bill and Bill C-130, the Free Trade Bill; (v) in 1989, Bill C-21, the Unemployment Insurance Act amendments; (vi) in 1990, Bill C-28, the "clawback" Income Tax Bill and Bill C-62, the Goods and Services Tax; (vii) in 1991, Bill C-43, the Abortion Bill, which was defeated at third reading; (viii) in 1996, Bill C-28, the Lester B. Pearson International Airport Bill, which was also defeated at third reading; and, (ix) in 1998, Bill C-220, the profit from authorship respecting a crime Bill, which was defeated at report stage.
A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada
Robertson cites the following as some of the major pieces of government legislation rejected by the Senate since Confederation:
i) In 1875, the upper chamber rejected a bill for the construction of a railway from Esquimalt to Nanaimo in British Columbia on the ground it was an unwarranted public expenditure.
ii) In 1879, the Senate turned down a bill to provide for two additional judges in British Columbia on the ground that the provincial government was in the midst of an election and had, under the circumstances, no right to ask for the increase.
iii) In 1899 and 1900, the Senate rejected a bill to re-adjust representation in Ontario on the alleged ground that it was inexpedient to proceed with the bill until after the 1901 census, when re-adjustment of representation would be required under the British North America Act.
iv) In 1909, a bill which allowed appeals in claims from the Exchequer Court to provincial Supreme Courts in certain cases was rejected on the ground that it would lead to unnecessary litigation and confusion.
v) In 1913, the Senate defeated the Naval Assistance Bill and adopted the following resolution: "This House is not justified in giving its assent to the bill until it is submitted to the judgement of the country".
vi) In 1919, a bill bringing the Biological Board of Canada under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was thrown out on the ground that the Board should be independent and protected from political interference.
vii) In 1924, the Senate rejected seven bills sent from the Commons and drastically amended three others relating to the construction of the branch lines for the newly organized Canadian National Railway.
viii) In 1926, the Senate rejected the Old Age Pension Bill on the grounds that there was no general public demand, that the provinces had not indicated approval, and on the ground of social undesirability.
ix) From 1930 to 1940, thirteen bills from the Commons failed to pass the Senate, including one private bill relating to patents, two private members' public bills, a bill relating to pensions for Judges, and a bill which provided for the extension of Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
x) In 1961, the Senate Banking Committee recommended that a Bill declaring vacant the post of Governor of the Bank of Canada be dropped after the former Governor, Mr. James E. Coyne, resigned.
xi) In 1961, the Senate insisted on an amendment it made to a Government Bill to amend the Customs Act.
During the 1970's, Senate impact on Commons legislation was principally to be found in recommendations emanating from pre-study committee reports made to bills in advance of their coming before the Senate. Such pre-study of the 1975 Bankruptcy Bill led to almost 140 amendments being proposed. ii) In 1879, the Senate turned down a bill to provide for two additional judges in British Columbia on the ground that the provincial government was in the midst of an election and had, under the circumstances, no right to ask for the increase.
iii) In 1899 and 1900, the Senate rejected a bill to re-adjust representation in Ontario on the alleged ground that it was inexpedient to proceed with the bill until after the 1901 census, when re-adjustment of representation would be required under the British North America Act.
iv) In 1909, a bill which allowed appeals in claims from the Exchequer Court to provincial Supreme Courts in certain cases was rejected on the ground that it would lead to unnecessary litigation and confusion.
v) In 1913, the Senate defeated the Naval Assistance Bill and adopted the following resolution: "This House is not justified in giving its assent to the bill until it is submitted to the judgement of the country".
vi) In 1919, a bill bringing the Biological Board of Canada under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was thrown out on the ground that the Board should be independent and protected from political interference.
vii) In 1924, the Senate rejected seven bills sent from the Commons and drastically amended three others relating to the construction of the branch lines for the newly organized Canadian National Railway.
viii) In 1926, the Senate rejected the Old Age Pension Bill on the grounds that there was no general public demand, that the provinces had not indicated approval, and on the ground of social undesirability.
ix) From 1930 to 1940, thirteen bills from the Commons failed to pass the Senate, including one private bill relating to patents, two private members' public bills, a bill relating to pensions for Judges, and a bill which provided for the extension of Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
x) In 1961, the Senate Banking Committee recommended that a Bill declaring vacant the post of Governor of the Bank of Canada be dropped after the former Governor, Mr. James E. Coyne, resigned.
xi) In 1961, the Senate insisted on an amendment it made to a Government Bill to amend the Customs Act.
During the latter 1980's and the 1990's, the Senate became more active in formally opposing and amending Commons legislation. Among the more controversial bills which led to confrontation between the Senate and House of Commons were the following: (i) in 1985, Bill C-11, the Borrowing Authority Bill; (ii) in 1986, Bill C-67, the "gating" amendments proposed to the Penitentiary Act; (iii) in 1987, Bill C-22, the Drug Patent Bill and Bill C-84, the Immigration Bill; (iv) in 1988, Bill C-60, the Copyright Bill, Bill C-103, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Bill and Bill C-130, the Free Trade Bill; (v) in 1989, Bill C-21, the Unemployment Insurance Act amendments; (vi) in 1990, Bill C-28, the "clawback" Income Tax Bill and Bill C-62, the Goods and Services Tax; (vii) in 1991, Bill C-43, the Abortion Bill, which was defeated at third reading; (viii) in 1996, Bill C-28, the Lester B. Pearson International Airport Bill, which was also defeated at third reading; and, (ix) in 1998, Bill C-220, the profit from authorship respecting a crime Bill, which was defeated at report stage.
Nothing wrong with having a true majority rules, have people vote for both the house and senate. Let the PM work for his votes. I know that form of government looks like chaos based upon what you see in the U.S., but it does seem to work out. There is no reason for the House of Commons to pass anything twice to render useless the senate or bypass it. Both the House and Senate (with elected officials) vote and the people win.
