Elected Senate Reform?

[FiveParadox]

Yes, that's true; perhaps then, as just a random idea to throw out there, if a piece of legislation in the House of Commons were passed, then blocked or even defeated in the Senate, perhaps the House of Commons would not have the right to "overrule" the Senate until the next Parliament?

That is to say that two consecutive Houses of Commons, two separately elected Houses, would have to agree on that piece of legislation in its entirety in order to overrule the Senate, had it been blocked or defeated. Then again, this would require further Constitutional change (such as allowing a Government bill to remain in the Senate during and after a dissolution, which would be an entire debate unto itself), but at least it's an idea, eh? lol

But at least this would ensure that the people truly are comfortable with the passage of a piece of legislation, particularly if such a bill were to be extremely controversial. This would give the people a chance to "back out" of any piece of legislation seen as controversial enough to hold up in the Senate.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

Yes, that's true; perhaps then, as just a random idea to throw out there, if a piece of legislation in the House of Commons were passed, then blocked or even defeated in the Senate, perhaps the House of Commons would not have the right to "overrule" the Senate until the next Parliament?

That is to say that two consecutive Houses of Commons, two separately elected Houses, would have to agree on that piece of legislation in its entirety in order to overrule the Senate, had it been blocked or defeated. Then again, this would require further Constitutional change (such as allowing a Government bill to remain in the Senate during and after a dissolution, which would be an entire debate unto itself), but at least it's an idea, eh? lol

But at least this would ensure that the people truly are comfortable with the passage of a piece of legislation, particularly if such a bill were to be extremely controversial. This would give the people a chance to "back out" of any piece of legislation seen as controversial enough to hold up in the Senate.

Hmmm yup... I agree, though I think the word "defeat" could be too strong as it would be delayed or stalled by the Senate to a long enough time for the commons to properly reflect on the bills.

One of the main problems right now because of FPTP is that the commons doesn't reprent the commons as many sections of the commons are over represented and under represented and not represented at all. So if we did change our system for the commons which might happen soon to PR or Mixed a Senate as what we are talking about would help make sure the commons would be forced to keep a moderate approuch to government by the abilities of the Senate.

 

[FiveParadox]

I agree with the premise that, while the Senate should have the power to basically throw legislation back to the House of Commons and say, "What the bloody Hell are you thinking?", the final say should rest with the House of Commons, albeit with a healthy period of delay before such an overruling decision.

Granted, on matters of financial legislation, the power of the Senate would need to be seriously dulled down; the last thing we need is the Prime Minister running to the Governor General for a Special Warrant to pay the costs of running a country, because the Senate won't play nice.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

I agree with the premise that, while the Senate should have the power to basically throw legislation back to the House of Commons and say, "What the bloody Hell are you thinking?", the final say should rest with the House of Commons, albeit with a healthy period of delay before such an overruling decision.

Granted, on matters of financial legislation, the power of the Senate would need to be seriously dulled down; the last thing we need is the Prime Minister running to the Governor General for a Special Warrant to pay the costs of running a country, because the Senate won't play nice.

True, I think were the delaying and the healthy waiting period of a bill would come in handy would be changes to the social structure of Canada with Laws and policy, and to a very limited way to budgits.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

True, I think were the delaying and the healthy waiting period of a bill would come in handy would be changes to the social structure of Canada with Laws and policy, and to a very limited way to budgits.

Agreed; with budgets, the will of the House of Commons needs to be pretty much absolute (barring some sort of odd catastrophe; i.e., "Hey, let's spend $8.5b on muffins!") -- more or less. As for matters of social policy, it is extremely important that the Senate be able to force the House of Commons to choke down a second opinion.

And hey, if we had a Governor General with a mandate, and he or she knew that both the House of Commons and the Senate were acting against the will of the majority (hey, it's possible, at least under the current electoral system), then she could withhold her consent until the next Parliament for clarification.

Heh, I never thought I'd find myself so excited about Senate and Governor General reform. lol, remember earlier on here, I was about one hundred percent opposed. This is the first debate, I'd say, that's actually been compelling enough to realistically influence my opinion on something like this.

 

[Finder]

Yup that would work.

Wow it's been fun talking about Senate reform but I must be jetting.

BTW vote NDP lol

 

[iamcanadian]

Anything that makes government more responsible and accountable is a good thing.

Canada does not have enough elected representatives of the People.

We need to have elected Senators and Judges and probabally a few more government possitions to eliminate some of the bureacratism strangling the country.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

Anything that makes government more responsible and accountable is a good thing.

Canada does not have enough elected representatives of the People.

We need to have elected Senators and Judges and probabally a few more government possitions to eliminate some of the bureacratism strangling the country.

You really should be a NDP supporter because you really do sound like one. I agree with you in part. The Commons should be pretty much PR or Mixed. But also the rest of the system should be fixed with this so the Commons and government works right. As you said the Senate should be elected but really shouldn't be the same way as the Commons. The GG or head of state should also be elected by something other then the PMO. Judges, I'm totally against electing them by PR or any other pop vote even FPTP. We really don't want judges who are radical left or right in power just because they had populist views. I think appointment by the Senate, PMO and or GG or a comination of them. Such as the PMO choses who he thinks is pretty good and then the Senate or the GG votes on that person. Yes that sounds a little American but if the Americans had our system look at a lot of the judges who have been stoped by the American Senate who had no business being a sup-court judge. Policy both law making and judging should be moderate(centre left-right) to mildly conservative.

Even though this sounds pretty J Locke with a smack of machiavelli's discourses, I think there still room for a little bit of the governmental philosophy of Jean Rousseau and the political radical to dominate the commons.

So if you are a study of polly sci this is a classical look at government

Commons- would be the main body. More Liberal and radical then any other body. These are the people who try to change things. As they represent the People more then any other group and thus have a manadate right from the people. This group should be PR or FPTP in modern society.

Senate- The Elder statesman of Canada. These are older man and woman who have grown older in Canada and know the Commons very well. In theory this would be a more conservative body since they are older and "wiser". They would have the power to check laws passed by the commons and if the commons didn't change there bill they could delay the bills passing for 4 years or untill the next commons. (something like that) Would have to vote on Sup-court judges. Also would be elected by either FPTP by the populace or appointed/elected by the Provinces.

GG-(Or President) Would be the head of State. Would represent Canada internationally. Could have a veto on new bills of law which would delay there passing for a time just like the Senate. This posistion could be directly elected or elected by the Provinces, or by a collage of voters such as that in the states.

PMO- The same as today but would lose the power to appoint judges without ratifaction by the Senate (w/manadate). Would be the Head of Government.

Sup-court- Appointed by either the PMO or GG and would need to be ratified by the Senate. This way Radical judges on the Right or Left would not have an easy time getting in.


I think this system of Government which in the past has been called Republican but has been adopted by monarchist governments to represent the people in a constitutional monarchy. It's easy to see that this system represents EVERY facit of the nation. The people in the Commons, or as it would have been called in old, the MOB or at least the fully democratic aspect of society and thats why the commons would carry the most power. The Senate is here to represent the elders of Canada who basically are supposed to know best and force the Commons pretty much slow down and think things threw. In older times these would have been the lords or the upper class or in Roman times the patricians. The PM would be the head of government. Pretty much the Leader of the Commons, which would have been the Tribunate back in roman times for those who like history. The GG would be head of state pretty much like the Councils of Rome, and would/should have closer ties to the Senate (this can be seen in the American system with the Vice president being the president of the Senate).

So well here we would have the Canadian system mostly fixed. Currently it's completely broken and doesn't fuction how it is ment too. Right now the commons hold all the power and with FPTP the commons doesn't even represent the commons. So our system makes little to no sence.

Currently the only person elected in our system is the one MP in the riding you vote for. Yeah.

 

[iamcanadian]

I am a power to the people supporter. I am against any politician or party that puts govermnent interests ahead of their citizens.

 

[the caracal kid]

i am more in favour of a decentralized federalism.

the PM directly elected, as is the GG (the duty of the GG is to ensure that government does not violate the charters)

The senate is a smaller body, consisiting of around 26 persons. It is responsible for generation of policy and setting the direction of the commons. The PM sits with the senate.

The HOC. Here, through proportional representation, policy is debated and voted on. When approved in the HOC it is then passed as law. If not approved, it goes back to the senate. The PM also appears before the house.

Judges are not elected, but appointed. The selection process consists of the senate nominating judges and the house voting.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

i am more in favour of a decentralized federalism.

the PM directly elected, as is the GG (the duty of the GG is to ensure that government does not violate the charters)

The senate is a smaller body, consisiting of around 26 persons. It is responsible for generation of policy and setting the direction of the commons. The PM sits with the senate.

The HOC. Here, through proportional representation, policy is debated and voted on. When approved in the HOC it is then passed as law. If not approved, it goes back to the senate. The PM also appears before the house.

Judges are not elected, but appointed. The selection process consists of the senate nominating judges and the house voting.

decentrialization has little to do with Senate reform. Plus in a Republican or in a multi layered government you can still have a decentrialization of power. Thats a completely different debate. Though we can always say that the Provincial governments would then need some of balance to there power which would just make more government. In the USA alot of States have a State Senate just for this reason. I'm not sure if thats needed but I think devolution is not always a bad idea.

Anyhow back to the point. Giving the Senate and GG a manadate would not make a more centrized government. It would make a responcible government.

 

[the caracal kid]

i am in favour of mandating the Senate, PM (directly), and the GG (for the purpose of upholding the charters).

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

i am in favour of mandating the Senate, PM (directly), and the GG (for the purpose of upholding the charters).

I don't understand what you are saying?

"PM(directly) as in electing or powers he has? Nobody has said he should be elected.

So what are you trying to say? Who should have the power? Who should check these powers then?

 

[the caracal kid]

The PM directly elected. His/her powers are balanced by the senate which directs policy, the house which passes policy, and the GG who has overriding authority so far as to protect the charters.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

The PM directly elected. His/her powers are balanced by the senate which directs policy, the house which passes policy, and the GG who has overriding authority so far as to protect the charters.

If the PM was directly elected by the people he would no longer be head of government. He would be a defato head of State. Plus the Commons party which holds the power would still need a head of government from that party.

 

[the caracal kid]

there would be no parties in the house. the job of a person in house is to vote according to their constituancy.

the PM being directly elected by the people makes him a head of state but not "the" head of state in my proposal. He/she still needs approval of the senate to take action. he leads the senate and the house, making him the head of government.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

there would be no parties in the house. the job of a person in house is to vote according to their constituancy.

the PM being directly elected by the people makes him a head of state but not "the" head of state in my proposal. He/she still needs approval of the senate to take action. he leads the senate and the house, making him the head of government.

I don't think such a government as every exsisted.

I still don't understand how this is supposed to work!

So you are replacing the GG with the PM, your replacing the PM with nothing and you are making the commons no more then a city council for the second largest nation in the world. hmm sounds like some sorta anrachist dream, as I'm not sure what the hell would happen.


edit: my fathers idea back when he supported the National party and then the Canadian action party was much worse though He thought that the cabinet? I still don't understand how thats supposed to work in a parlimentary democracy

 

[the caracal kid]

it is closer to a union of independent nations than what we currently have. the role of the feds is more of a "standards", trade, military, and monetary body. It holds power over the porvinces/territories but is heavily directed by these juristictions.

 

[Finder]

Yeah for your prosal you miles while re draw the constitution of Canada and form a whole new government. Your's is a very right-ring libertarian module.

Your system could neither be Republican, Monarchist or Parlimentory. Would love to hear more of your idea. I just don't get where the checks and balances are and who controls what and where is the order in the system?

 

[the caracal kid]

it does indeed require rewriting the charters of the country.

as for balances,
the senate represents the provinces/territories. the premier of each province/territory would also be a member of the senate.
the house represents the people, with each house member representing (more or less) the same number of constituants.
now for something to pass, it must meet approval of the provincial governments as well as the people of the country. this way there can not be a maveric PM or senator pushing something through.
now the GG has a special role, as he/she can strike down anything that goes against the charters of the country (send back for revision, send to courts for interpretation, etc).

order, the senate through the direction of the PM defines general policy of the country. the people of the country have a say in this through the house. The provinces then enact passed federal policy.