Elected Senate Reform?

[FiveParadox]

Model for Political Reform

I thought I'd draw up what I think, personally, would be the best system of governance in Canada. Keep in mind that I'm writing this as it enters my head, so there may be some blatently flawed principles somewhere in here that I'm not thinking of. :lol:

Governor General

The Governor General shall continue to be appointed by Her Majesty on the advice of the Prime Minister, as is consistent with Canadian conventions, tradition and heritage.

If the Senate is sitting, then the Prime Minister shall be called to the Senate to present and justify the proposed appointment. If for some reason a Governor General must be appointment when the Senate is not sitting, then the Speaker of the Senate shall recall Senators notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution, and the same presentation shall take place.

The appointment of a Governor General must be adopted by at least one more than half of the members of the Senate to be deemed legitimate, and the Prime Minister shall, by convention, not recommend that a Governor General be appointed where the Senate has not adopted the appointment.

Senate

Senators shall continue to be appointed by the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister. However, the Governor General shall not consider a Prime Minister's recommended appointment until he or she has consulted the Speaker of the House of Commons, and established that the House consents to the Prime Minister's appointment.

That is, perhaps the House of Commons should be required to vote on and adopt any appointment of a Senator made by the Prime Minister. For example, the Prime Minister could move "that the Prime Minister, with the advice and consent of this House, do call upon her Excellency the Governor General to appoint [name] to the Senate of Canada", and the recorded division could be presented to Her Excellency by the Speaker as proof that the appointment had been "ratified."

Senators shall continue to serve until the age of seventy-five, and cannot be removed except through a proclamation of the Governor General (this would be to prevent, for example, a Liberal majority government from attempting to "undo" the appointments made under a previous Conservative majority government, but would still leave a mechanism for removing a Senator in exigent circumstances).

House of Commons

Members of Parliament shall continue to be elected under the current, "first-past-the-post" system. However, the leader of a party (such as the Prime Minister, or a Leader of the Opposition) shall also be elected by the people.

That is, on a ballot, one would vote for the candidate of their choice in that riding. Next to the candidate they chose, would be the names of those persons running for leadership of that same party. A voter shall only have the right to vote for the leader of a party where they have voted for a candidate of that same party in their riding. In this way, they are voting both for a candidate, and for the leader of the party, and thus Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition would be elected, albeit not "directly".

Sorry for the length of the post, by the way, I had a lot of ideas. lol

Note This post has been edited to make minor corrections.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

hey reverend, what would be your model if you were to draft a completely new system of federal governance for canada (including the charters)?

I really think the best approach is to design an new framework that reflects the realities of canada and then compare it to what we have now. Reference models are wonderful, and we may actually come up with a real solution to the current problems. (I am not a fan of patchwork methodologies).

My best solution to reform the Senate, which I doubt will happen for a long time and thats why I think Harpers is the best short term solution is as follows.

The Senate is the Upper house and should be treated as such so the min age for a Senator should be 35 or older. Also though I'd rather have the lower house elected by PR or mixed I think the Senate should be either FPTP by the populace or voted by the prov parliments. I would totally be against voting in Senators by PR since this would counter act the reason you have an more older "conservative" minded upper house to counter act the more "liberal" younger lower house.

How Canada's Government is set up now has this theory in mind but because of the modern age and the demand for the populace to have a say in government the head of State is a figure head with no power and so is the upper house. Both for largely the same reason. If they were ever to excersice there little power they may still have it would create a constitutional crisis. Since these people love there comfy little jobs and largely are opritunists and careerists (another Soviet like trait amongist the Senate), these Senators/GG don't have the balls to do little more then to rubber stamp. We need people in these positions with a mandate by the people or at least by the prov parliments to get a job done, not sit on there ass a collect a wage for no service asked or done for the people.

 

[Finder]

Re: Model for Political Reform

I thought I'd draw up what I think, personally, would be the best system of governance in Canada. Keep in mind that I'm writing this as it enters my head, so there may be some blatently flawed principles somewhere in here that I'm not thinking of. :lol:

Governor General

The Governor General shall continue to be appointed by Her Majesty on the advice of the Prime Minister, as is consistent with Canadian conventions, tradition and heritage.

If the Senate is sitting, then the Prime Minister shall be called to the Senate to present and justify the proposed appointment. If for some reason a Governor General must be appointment when the Senate is not sitting, then the Speaker of the Senate shall recall Senators notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution, and the same presentation shall take place.

The appointment of a Governor General must be adopted by at least one more than half of the members of the Senate to be deemed legitimate, and the Prime Minister shall, by convention, not recommend that a Governor General be appointed where the Senate has not adopted the appointment.

Senate

Senators shall continue to be appointed by the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister. However, the Governor General shall not consider a Prime Minister's recommended appointment until he or she has consulted the Speaker of the House of Commons, and established that the House consents to the Prime Minister's appointment.

That is, perhaps the House of Commons should be required to vote on and adopt any appointment of a Senator made by the Prime Minister. For example, the Prime Minister could move "that the Prime Minister, with the advice and consent of this House, do call upon her Excellency the Governor General to appoint [name] to the Senate of Canada", and the recorded division could be presented to Her Excellency by the Speaker as proof that the appointment had been "ratified."

Senators shall continue to serve until the age of seventy-five, and cannot be removed except through a proclamation of the Governor General (this would be to prevent, for example, a Liberal majority government from attempting to "undo" the appointments made under a previous Conservative majority government, but would still leave a mechanism for removing a Senator in exigent circumstances).

House of Commons

Members of Parliament shall continue to be elected under the current, "first-past-the-post" system. However, the leader of a party (such as the Prime Minister, or a Leader of the Opposition) shall also be elected by the people.

That is, on a ballot, one would vote for the candidate of their choice in that riding. Next to the candidate they chose, would be the names of those persons running for leadership of that same party. A voter shall only have the right to vote for the leader of a party where they have voted for a candidate of that same party in their riding. In this way, they are voting both for a candidate, and for the leader of the party, and thus Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition would be elected, albeit not "directly".

Sorry for the length of the post, by the way, I had a lot of ideas. lol

Note This post has been edited to make minor corrections.

Why not have the PM stay the same with your system and the people elect a president! Have the GG stay the same to keep the monarchists happy as a figure head. This is sorta having two heads of State like Rome once had with a head of government (PM) as well.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Model for Political Reform

Why not have the PM stay the same with your system and the people elect a president! Have the GG stay the same to keep the monarchists happy as a figure head. This is sorta having two heads of State like Rome once had with a head of government (PM) as well.

Well, personally, I think that this would only serve as a detriment to our system of governance. Once a President is elected, specifically if we use the American system of Presidency as an example, he or she is no longer accountable to the people. This can pose problems, specifically where there are fixed and limited terms, where a President can find him or herself with "nothing to lose." In Canada, it is important that the Head of our Government can be defeated on a motion of non-confidence.

I can see what you mean, though. But I think that in my proposal, everyone is being elected, albeit sometimes by proxy. Members of Parliament are directly elected, Senators are elected by our representatives charged with serving our interests, and the Governor General would be elected by a second-level proxy.

Besides, I think that the Governor General should not be so scared to "wander into" the political arena every now and then. For example, with the recent defeat of the Government, I think that it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Governor General to have denied dissolution until the Prime Minister's previously proposed date. But the Governor General's authority to act is an entirely different topic, so I'll stop there. :lol:

Those are my thoughts. But I can see where you're coming from; I'm just very cautious about allowing Canada to have someone with real power in a high position, who could not be removed if the need arose.

Note Edited; again, minor revisions.

 

[Finder]

Re: Model for Political Reform

Why not have the PM stay the same with your system and the people elect a president! Have the GG stay the same to keep the monarchists happy as a figure head. This is sorta having two heads of State like Rome once had with a head of government (PM) as well.

Well, personally, I think that this would only serve as a detriment to our system of governance. Once a President is elected, specifically if we use the American system of Presidency as an example, he or she is no longer accountable to the people. This can pose problems, specifically where there are fixed and limited terms, where a President can find him or herself with "nothing to lose." In Canada, it is important that the Head of our Government can be defeated on a motion of non-confidence.

I can see what you mean, though. But I think that in my proposal, everyone is being elected, albeit sometimes by proxy. Members of Parliament are directly elected, Senators are elected by our representatives charged with serving our interests, and the Governor General would be elected by a second-level proxy.

Besides, I think that the Governor General should not be so scared to "wander into" the political arena every now and then. For example, with the recent defeat of the Government, I think that it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Governor General to have denied dissolution until the Prime Minister's previously proposed date. But the Governor General's authority to act is an entirely different topic, so I'll stop there. :lol:

Those are my thoughts. But I can see where you're coming from; I'm just very cautious about allowing Canada to have someone with real power in a high position, who could not be removed if the need arose.

Note Edited; again, minor revisions.

Well personally I'm for what I said above his post. But keeping the system basically the same I think isn't a way of fixing the problem.

Also I think what I ment about voting in a pres in responce the above election, it would be more like the French Parliment then the American where the Pres has limited power and would basicially have the same duties has the GG but could use the limited power since he/she would have a mandate.

I still think the PM should have the most power in the Canadian State and the lower house of Commons should also carry with it more power then the upper and the head of state. But there should be a limit to how much the Head of Government can do and the lower house can do. Currently nothing really stops them.

Again I state, Canadian is very lucky that we've mostly been governed by enlightend man/woman who have not used there despotic powers to evil ends. I can only think of a hand full of man who have used them to some extremes. Maurice Duplessis is one such person.

 

[FiveParadox]

I agree with the premise of what you're saying, Finder. In a Parliamentary Democracy, it wouldn't be too difficult to abuse the institution; we've been lucky to have people elected and appointed so far, as you've said, who are responsible enough to avoid abusing the system.

As for a Presidential mandate, okay, I thought you meant more like an American-style President than a French. And I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm just saying, why create an institution that would be, essentially, a mirror-image of the Governor General? If the Senate were required to ratify a Governor General's appointment before the Prime Minister could appoint him or her, then in my opinion, that would serve as an irrefutably legitimate mandate to exercise the reserved powers of the Crown.

Edit I suppose this is beginning to stray somewhat from the point of the discussion. In summary, my proposal regarding Senate reform, specifically, is that Senate appointments be required to be "ratified" by the House of Commons in order to be carried. Therefore, our elected representatives are electing, by proxy, our representatives in the Red Chamber.

 

[Finder]

I'd rather just have an elected GG or a President. But if monarchists are going to cry over it as I know they will one day when Canadians either push to have the GG elected or go republican, well we could always have two heads of State. It's not like we'd ever think of making a strong head of state like the USA. As you said our system with a strong PM works well enough and the American system with a strong Pres, well, just look down. lol

But the Head of State should have some power and should have a mandate. GG or President I could care less I'm a very nominal Democratic Republican and I'd be happy with an elected GG with a mandate. I think a government moduled somewhat off the French with Both English and American governments would best benfit our situation. With a PR or Mixed Lower House, a FPTP or Prov appointed Senate, and a elected GG with the PM being the party with the most seats in the lower house or the leader of the largist bloc of seats, to which the PM would have most of the common powers as he does now and the lower house would still have the power to make laws and what not. Pretty much stay the same but the GG.Pres and the Senate would have some abilities to block laws at least for an amount of time longer then it is now. Also perhaps allow the GG.Pres to use the Veto but make the veto for a time period of like 4 years or something. Like the First french republic with the King? Anyhow just an idea.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

I agree with the premise of what you're saying, Finder. In a Parliamentary Democracy, it wouldn't be too difficult to abuse the institution; we've been lucky to have people elected and appointed so far, as you've said, who are responsible enough to avoid abusing the system.

As for a Presidential mandate, okay, I thought you meant more like an American-style President than a French. And I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm just saying, why create an institution that would be, essentially, a mirror-image of the Governor General? If the Senate were required to ratify a Governor General's appointment before the Prime Minister could appoint him or her, then in my opinion, that would serve as an irrefutably legitimate mandate to exercise the reserved powers of the Crown.

Edit I suppose this is beginning to stray somewhat from the point of the discussion. In summary, my proposal regarding Senate reform, specifically, is that Senate appointments be required to be "ratified" by the House of Commons in order to be carried. Therefore, our elected representatives are electing, by proxy, our representatives in the Red Chamber.

responce to your edit

errrr, in a magority situation this would still give the PM too much power I think. The provinces or the people should have a say in it since these are people who the Senate are supposed to represent, right?

 

[FiveParadox]

Well, I actually really like that idea; although, just on a point of interest, the Governor General does theoretically have the power to block a bill from passing. He or she can withhold his or her consent for an indefinite amount of time.

Anyway, yeah, I like the idea; I am, I guess, a bit of a "monarchist," but more than that I'm a Canadian, and I want to make sure we don't end up with an unaccountable republic. That's my primary concern.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

responce to your edit

errrr, in a magority situation this would still give the PM too much power I think. The provinces or the people should have a say in it since these are people who the Senate are supposed to represent, right?

I do agree with you; on reviewing what I wrote, I think a majority situation would just end up with patronage appointments abound. Perhaps, then, an amendment to my proposed policy:

Any appointment by a Senator must be jointly recommended by the Prime Minister, and the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province which the Senator is to represent (obviously, the recommendation of the Lieutenant-Governor would be ceremonial, and would represent the ratification of the appointment by the provincial legislature).

Would that be a bit better?

Edit And for the territories, perhaps the Commissioner of the territory would perform the joint recommendation? Not quite sure where to go with that one; I don't think the territories actually have a Queen's representative. lol, I'm big on governmental ceremony, in case you didn't notice. =p

 

[jimmoyer]

Any appointment by a Senator must be jointly recommended by the Prime Minister, and the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province which the Senator is to represent (obviously, the recommendation of the Lieutenant-Governor would be ceremonial, and would represent the ratification of the appointment by the provincial legislature).
-----------------------------------FiveParadox------

That procedure is called Advise and Consent
in the States.

The President nominates and the Senate ratifies
or disapproves.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

responce to your edit

errrr, in a magority situation this would still give the PM too much power I think. The provinces or the people should have a say in it since these are people who the Senate are supposed to represent, right?

I do agree with you; on reviewing what I wrote, I think a majority situation would just end up with patronage appointments abound. Perhaps, then, an amendment to my proposed policy:

Any appointment by a Senator must be jointly recommended by the Prime Minister, and the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province which the Senator is to represent (obviously, the recommendation of the Lieutenant-Governor would be ceremonial, and would represent the ratification of the appointment by the provincial legislature).

Would that be a bit better?

Edit And for the territories, perhaps the Commissioner of the territory would perform the joint recommendation? Not quite sure where to go with that one; I don't think the territories actually have a Queen's representative. lol, I'm big on governmental ceremony, in case you didn't notice. =p

Again I state that currently both the LGG and GG are just rubber stamps because of the lack of mandate mostly. If they were to use there ability now it would most likely cause a constituntional crisis, which the GG and LGG's are aware of and thus 99.99% of the time just do there duty which is to look nice and fullfill there fake little role of head of state. They really do need a manadate by the people, or provinces. But I think we are on the same page mostly that the Senate and the GG/LGG at least need reforming.

As you pointed out some what it's not that they lake the power but they really do lake the mandate to use the power. Thats how the PM likes it too.

Again I use any of many communist governments which have been in power. Mostly they all had a democratic system in play, like in North Korea now. BUT, lets just say somehow these Duma's, or Peoples Assemblies and what not were to actually elect reformers with balls. You'd still have the Leader, President, Chairman, Pilot Buro or PM with the actual real power. Though the communist government is not the best representation of this since it is the opisit of what I'm saying since the Duma/parliments of the communist world were mostly elected by the people and had a manadate by the people in practice they had no manadate since the power was centrized in the PM/Chairman what not. In Canada the PM who is only elected by his riding has much the same power as any of these despots. The only thing controling him really is that he has a magority in parliment and he doesn't even need a magority in pop vote as the Liberals have never had while governing in the past 13 years.

Yes the Senate is nice how it is and doesn't do any damage, same with the GG and the LGG but I'm not saying for the now but these posistions should be used to safe guard all of Canada as a check to power at least limitedly a potential despot/Bush/(HAPRER)-(just kidding)

Man it feels like I'm beating a dead cow here. lol.

Anyhow, yeah I think Harpers solution is the most simple solution for the Senate which can be built on. It's not great, but it's not bad and it's better then Layton's and Martin's solution's. Still I don't think I'd vote for Harper on this single issue as I would vote for him if it was on election reform for the lower house, but I think he truly does deserve credit for sticking his head out on this issue which most Canadians are just too lazy to care about.

If we actually did have a despot come into power we'd only have ourselves to blame for not changing the system while we had a chance!

 

[FiveParadox]

lol, my mention of the Lieutenant-Governor was not meant to infer that he or she would have the final decision, it was meant to symbolize the consent of the Provincial Legislature. Obviously, the Legislature would conduct an appropriate period of debate, and ultimately adopt or reject a motion calling on the Lieutenant-Governor to either recommend or withhold his or her recommendation of a Senator's appointment.

And perhaps a Lieutenant-Governor could be elected by the Legislature in the same way that I proposed a Governor General's appointment be ratified by the Senate? In my compiled proposals, then, the appointment of both Governors General and Lieutenant-Governors would be done democratically, thereby granting a mandate to exercise the powers of the Crown at their discretion (only as last resorts, of course).

 

[the caracal kid]

thanks reverend (and others). I will post some of my ideas for a new framework for canada if you are interested. I have never put the whole thing down together to get any feedback on.

 

[Roy]

RE: Elected Senate Reform

lots of great ideas and its great to read and see everyones opinions, and i am just glad that this issue was actualy brought up in this election. while not an issue in ontario and quebec, it has much more support in my province and western canada.

I wish paul martin had lived up to his promise to confront the western ailienation issue but it seems he is completely out of touch with people outside of central canada. Sad part is that he believes he is serving western canada by appointing mclellan, goodale and others in his cabinet however i don't think this has really made a difference.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform

lots of great ideas and its great to read and see everyones opinions, and i am just glad that this issue was actualy brought up in this election. while not an issue in ontario and quebec, it has much more support in my province and western canada.

I wish paul martin had lived up to his promise to confront the western ailienation issue but it seems he is completely out of touch with people outside of central canada. Sad part is that he believes he is serving western canada by appointing mclellan, goodale and others in his cabinet however i don't think this has really made a difference.

If the Liberals actually ment what they said ever, and well if they ever did follow up with one of there election promises in the past 13 or so years we wouldn't need the NDP or PC's in this election. I think alot of what the Liberals promise sounds nice but they never, rarely ever produce anything but coruption and wasting Canadian tax payer dollars.

Martin once Championed such things as Electoral reform and Senate reform before he was PM... More Liberal Party lies all the time. Now this election for the 4th time we get to hear more lies which sound good. I wish Canadians in General would stop voting for them and vote for the NDP and the Conservatives. As in the UK I think the Liberal party should be punished and made the nominal party as it is in the UK. I'd love to see the NDP and the Tory's have there chances and fight it out. The Liberals are cocky, arrogent and lie and do not deserve to be as powerful as they are, but because of how they manipulate voters with both our system and putting fear into people they can almost always win in an election.

I hope one day we get a PR or Mixed system for the parliment, then the Liberals would have to show there true colours and I bet when they do they will be punished and nominalized.

Back to Senate reform. Even though Harper has talked about it now and though we seem to have some people interested in it here, I think too many Canadian's are just too lazy to actually care about this untill it becomes a problem.

FiveParadox, I like your train of thought. It at least brings us away from the current system. But again Magorities in the prov and fed parliments would still carry all the power. I think in a systems of checks and balances which we do have set up in Canada but two of those checks/balances are broken, we haveto make sure that even if the Lower house in the provs or fed can not just elect puppit.

I think we've both pretty much said that if the gg and the lgg were to get a manadate the PM's in the prov and the fed would still carry more authority and would look much more like the French government then that of the American.

I'm amazed that most people here or at least posting here arn't just saying we should get rid of the Senate. I'm happy that most people see a funtion for them in our government. I really do think the GG, courts, PM, Upper house and Lower house may one day save us from a tyranny. It will just take one PM losing his noddle to do this or one fanatic elected by a minority but witht he FPTP system recieves a magority in seats to have the power of a King.

 

[FiveParadox]

In terms of Senate reform, I'd like to say that even if we do begin to elect our Senators (either through a House of Commons ratification process as I've suggested, or through a more radical reformed approach such as direct election), I think that such should only be done for a Senator once that seat has become vacant.

I think, personally, that it's important to keep the "memory" of the Senate in tact; that is, even though the House of Commons could completely reverse itself in the course of only a few months, the Senate should evolve slowly, keeping decades of knowledge and experience in the Red Chamber for truly sober second thought.

Senators should still be able to serve until the age of seventy-five, but I will concede that the appointment process does need to be decentralized from the Prime Minister. But again, I think that the worst possible thing we can do is to end up with a mirror image of the Lower House in the Red Chamber, particularly in the event of a minority situation.

If we think that things are stressful in a Minority Parliament, imagine those problems being experienced in both Chambers on a frequent basis. That may serve to completely destabilize a particular session.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

In terms of Senate reform, I'd like to say that even if we do begin to elect our Senators (either through a House of Commons ratification process as I've suggested, or through a more radical reformed approach such as direct election), I think that such should only be done for a Senator once that seat has become vacant.

I think, personally, that it's important to keep the "memory" of the Senate in tact; that is, even though the House of Commons could completely reverse itself in the course of only a few months, the Senate should evolve slowly, keeping decades of knowledge and experience in the Red Chamber for truly sober second thought.

Senators should still be able to serve until the age of seventy-five, but I will concede that the appointment process does need to be decentralized from the Prime Minister. But again, I think that the worst possible thing we can do is to end up with a mirror image of the Lower House in the Red Chamber, particularly in the event of a minority situation.

If we think that things are stressful in a Minority Parliament, imagine those problems being experienced in both Chambers on a frequent basis. That may serve to completely destabilize a particular session.

Again I agree with you there in part. I think the current Senators should be allowed to serve for either the time they turn 75 or complete a 5 year or whatever term until the next election/appointment is held. I'd personally like to see the Senate with a long term. I don't like the for life thing, perhaps somewhere between 5-10 years. Again the Senate is supposed to be a more stable upper statesman house. So again we are on the same page just slightly different in thought. lol.

Though an elected appointment until 75 would be better then the currwent system *shrugs*

 

[FiveParadox]

Yeah, I wouldn't be comfortable with anything less than, perhaps, eight years or so in terms of a session of the Senate; but I suppose that could also become confusing in terms of how to create the "convention" for dissolving the Senate; would a dissolution of the Senate then become a separate process from the dissolution of the House of Commons? Would one House be able to sit while the other was dissolved? Minor issues though, I suppose.

And if the Senate were to be elected, would Canadians then be more comfortable accepting rulings and recommendations from the Senate? For example, would it be reasonable for the Senate to outright defeat a controversial piece of legislation were it to be an elected body, rather than appointment?

 

[Finder]

Well the realm we are getting into would need our constitution to be amended which would be hard to do (very). Harpers current idea wouldn't need this to be done. Anyhow I totally agree with your ideas and I'd have to say if we did change our constitution on the Senate, and had them elected in some matter and gave them some sort of term they would use the full power they currently have and I think since they would have a manadate by the people or provinces they would have some more powers ontop of that. Perhaps soem of the same the American Senate has. Perhaps to launch investigations too into coruptions or other things to do with the PMO and so on.

Again I do not think the Senate should have too much power. They should have just enough power to either check other levels of government and then be able to slow down the process of government enough to hinder any radical changes from happening too fast. Again I bring up the example I used for a GG change, like that of the King of France durning the revolution and the first republic had the power to veto the parliment and thus the bill/law would not pass for four years. in which time the king could lobby the government to change there mind or wait for level heads to prevail.

Sounds very conservative but could be a very good check to the power of the PMO and lower house without removing the ability of the lower house to have ultimate power.