Second Thoughts on Senate Elections

[Jay]

Well if it can pass the house but can't pass the senate...back to the house it goes. Sometimes it's just a matter of one issue or the lot of them.

It may slow things down a bit (assuming the senate is ineffective now) but Democracy isn't a race track.

 

[In Between Man]

Don't second guess yourself! The people want an elected Senate! The more elected representation the better it is for us. An elected Senate DOES NOT go far enough. We want an elected Supreme Court!!!

 

[weaselwords]

Don't second guess yourself! The people want an elected Senate! The more elected representation the better it is for us. An elected Senate DOES NOT go far enough. We want an elected Supreme Court!!!

There is no need for an elected senate. The whole purpose of the senate, whether it is outlined in any legislation or proclaimation is to watch of the Commons to ensure Canada's "law, order & good government". It was originally constituted as a watch dog for the aforementioned purpose. In appointing Senators to life terms (or now 75) the Fathers of Confederation were considering history & expierence by that I mean a senator appointed at 50 could sit for 25 years today & sit thru 6 majority governments. He or she would be able to balance what Canada was, is & will be by observance of those governments. He or she should be able to recognize the hstorical starting from their appointment to navigate the true course of Canada to the future using the years of their experience. The fact of the matter is Senate cannot stop legisation it can only delay it.. Hence the inclusion of the 3 time presenation policy.
As for an elected Supreme court what's in the coffee you've been drinking?

 

[earth_as_one]

Layton proposes referendum on Senate
NDP pushes electoral reform

OTTAWA -- Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton believes Canadian indifference to the democratic process can be fixed by abolishing the Senate and overhauling how we elect MPs.

The NDP will table an opposition motion today calling for a referendum to be held during the next federal election seeking Canadians' views on the idea of abolishing the Senate. At the same time the NDP wants a special committee appointed to consult with Canadians about how best to reform our electoral system.

The Senate has for decades been stacked with party operatives and failed candidates from whichever party is in power and has long since passed its best-before date, said Layton.

He also said some hybrid of the first-past-the-post system we have now with a proportional representation system would work best. The latter would see a number of MPs based on a party's share of the popular vote.

"Surely to goodness in Canada the days of getting 40 per cent of the vote and 100 per cent of the power are over."

Only four times since the First World War has a government in Canada been elected with more than 50 per cent of the popular vote. The current Conservative government won 46 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons with less than 39 per cent of the vote. If proportional representation was used as the only format for electing MPs by province, the Conservatives would still have won the most seats. But the Tories would be at a greatly diminished 117 seats compared to the 143 seats they earned in 2008. The Liberals would have increased their seat count from 77 to 81 and the NDP would have won 58 seats instead of 37.

The Bloc Québécois, which earned 65 per cent of the seats in Quebec with less than 40 per cent of the vote, would be reduced from 49 to 29 seats. The Green Party, which failed to secure a single seat, would have 22 MPs in the House of Commons.

Layton proposes referendum on Senate - Winnipeg Free Press

I'm against the first past the poll system. People should need at least 50% +1 of the vote. I like the idea where if the first round doesn't give a clear winner, then we go to round 2 with the top 2 candidates...

 

[Trotz]

Of course Layton wants to abolish the senate,
it means him, the NDP and the Liberal Party will have an easier time in screwing Canadians.

I don't want an elected senate as that means more campaign expenses and bureaucracy. Our population; especially the Babyboomers, aren't even responsible enough to take democracy seriously.

 

[In Between Man]

As for an elected Supreme court what's in the coffee you've been drinking?

A desire for more representation is what's in my coffee these days. Realize that the Supreme Court is most powerful institution in Canada because they have powers to strike down laws. Let's say the government approves "Castle Doctrine" laws like they do in the states. If challenged, the Supreme Court justices, who are not elected by the people, can declare the law void.

If they're going to have that kind of power, the ultimate say, then I want to elect them.

 

[weaselwords]

Sorry, to turn the Supreme Court into a popularity contest which is exactly what will happen with elected judges is not conducive to fair and reasonable jurisprudence. I don't want populists making constitutional decisions, I want reasoned thought whether it goes against the public's grain or not.
A huge can of worms opens with your proposal not the least of which is ill qualified candidates being elected to the court. What we have now with Harper's method while leaving something to be desired is a very workable system of appointment. Some will be pleased by the appointments & some won't but in the end it should be the PM making the decision no matter what his politics are.

 

[FiveParadox]

I am entirely opposed to the idea of electing our honourable justices of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide on what is legal, and not on what is popular or democratic. The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be popular--it's supposed to make decisions that are academically and constitutionally sound.

 

[SLM]

I don't want an elected Senate and I definitely do not want an elected Supreme Court. The absolute last thing I want supreme court justices thinking of is how the decision before them will play out in the upcoming election. The court is to make rulings on basis of law only.

I do think we need more proportional representation in this country. That will never happen on a federal level until it happens on the provincial level.

I think more limited Senate terms is the best way to go in terms of senate reform.

 

[The Old Medic]

The Prime Minister appoints members of his/her own party to the Senate. They are beholden to their party, and they tend to be party stalwarts first and foremost.

It is LONG past the time that the Senate be elected. BUT, unlike Parliament, they should be elected at large, each Province being allotted exactly the same number. And, they should be elected to a single 8 year term in office.

They would be a counter weight to Parliament. A place where bills could sit for a while, and actually be thought about. A place where emotion, and strict Party discipline have no place at all.

so long as the PM can control entry, the Senate WILL be biased. And only party hacks really support such a system.

 

[taxslave]

I have long been an advocate for a Senate of Canada that should never be elected by the citizens of Canada — this would create another House of Commons, and would threaten the use of the institution as a balance to the Lower House. However, this article, from the National Post, articulates my opinion far better than I could.

I apologize profusely, in advance, for the length of the article.


Thoughts?

The National Post is an Ontario rag. Says it all. All provinces must have equal representation in the Senate and they must be elected by provincial voters to be legitimate.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

The Senators Suck!

Oops sorry, I thought this was a hockey thread.

 

[Bar Sinister]

An elected Senate? Let's hope that it works better than that obstructionist monstrosity in the USA which has done very little to advance democracy. So far as I can see an elected Senate would be more expensive to run and would not in any way make Canada more democratic. Get rid of it; by attrition if necessary.

 

[wulfie68]

I'm in the middle, but more towards a "triple E" model, as has been espoused by conservatives out West for years.

I think that the senate needs more accountability, and the only real way to achieve this is through an electoral process. Currently, the PMO can stack as they feel they need to, as all our PMs in memory have done. If there is some other way to achieve a measure of accountability, outside elections, I'd love to hear/read about it, because I am also not really fond of more election campaigns. The length of term is (to me) negotiable, but I do favour a shorter term than the 8 years proposed by many: it seems just too long without having to answer to anyone.

I also think that the most pressing issue facing the nation is the regional divides that are constantly aggravated by the concentration of power in Ontario and (to a decreasing degree) Quebec. People claim thats the way democracy works, but its only a short hop from from there to a tyranny of the majority, which has been even closer during Liberal gov'ts because they are usually more beholden to the two largest provinces. A senate with equal representation for each province decreases that ability for the more populated regions to constantly impose (or inflict, depending on your perspective) their will on the rest of the nation.

Also in keeping with the theory of the Upper House being that chamber of "sober second thought", I would also suggest that the Senate's ability to propose new bills be severely limited (and of course any bills would still have to be passed in both Houses to become law).

I really don't think though, that this will ever amount to any more than mental maturbation by those of us who care to devote any thought to it: I am a firm pessimist in any constitutional changes being brought about in my lifetime, save perhaps those dealing with the dissolution of the country as regions become more dissatisfied and break away. No one region is willing to sacrifice their own influence to make it happen, even those with the most and especially those with the least.

 

[pegger]

I don't mind having an appointed senate - I just disagree with who appoints them.

IMHO - the Senators should be appointed by the Premier - not the Prime Minister. The Senate could then serve as the provincial voice in our Federal system. Senators can be recalled at will by the Premier - so essentially, what would happen (outside of Alberta) is when a Provincial government changes, they can re-appoint all the senators....

 

[taxslave]

The Senators Suck!

Oops sorry, I thought this was a hockey thread.

No but you are right on either.

I don't mind having an appointed senate - I just disagree with who appoints them.

IMHO - the Senators should be appointed by the Premier - not the Prime Minister. The Senate could then serve as the provincial voice in our Federal system. Senators can be recalled at will by the Premier - so essentially, what would happen (outside of Alberta) is when a Provincial government changes, they can re-appoint all the senators....

But then you have a senate that performs at favor so any change of provincial government would mean a change of senators as well. I was hoping for something a little more independent and answerable to the electorate not the reigning premier.

 

[pegger]

But then you have a senate that performs at favor so any change of provincial government would mean a change of senators as well. I was hoping for something a little more independent and answerable to the electorate not the reigning premier.

I get where you are coming from - my worry is that if they become too worried about re-election - then you get the gridlock mess that exists south of the border.

 

[weaselwords]

Funny you should mention gridlock. As it stands today Canada has as close to a truly hung parliment as there can be. The reason I say this is non monetary bills (eg crime bills) tend to hang in the Commons while sailing thru the Senate (eg S-10/C15 Marijuana grow ops). While bills approved by the majority (the opposition) in the Commons hang up in the Senate & the 180 day rule is effectively ignored by the minority government Conservatives. This game can go on and on until a money comes up in the Commons & thats where & when it should end with a confidence vote. Hopefully things will come to a head after March 22 so that government can get working again.

 

[tay]

Mr. Harper has indicated, quite clearly, that he is going to reform the Senate; however, I doubt that he is going to convince one hundred five senators to resign by their own hand at the end of each Parliament — which is the only way it can happen without a constitutional amendment.

So much for that reform promised so many years ago.

If anyone is fooled by Wallin and Duffy 'stepping down' from the CONS division of the club but not quitting as Senate members, shame on you.

They are just hanging in for the pension....................


Petition

Members of Parliament: Abolish The Senate








What is a senator’s salary?

A senator makes $132,300 a year in salary plus expenses. They also receive more money for holding different positions like a committee chair or speaker.

(Source)

How much does the senate cost taxpayers?

$106,264,111 a year, not including contributions to the pension plan

(Source)

What are the senate expenses?

Senate expenses can go as high as $300,000, but there is no documentation that the public is allowed to see that will tell you what the spending limits and regulations are. It is unavailable to the public. The senate is allowed to operate in secret with your money.

What do senators do?

The senate is designed to give “sober, second thought” on all House of Commons legislation representing different regions around the country.
105 Senators work three days a week for 29 weeks a year.

(Source)


more

Facts | Abolish The Senate

 

[Liberalman]

Costs too much money for an elected Senate and in America their elected Senate kills a lot of important bills