Senate Reform

[Semperfi_dani]

Steven Harper wants to introduce Senate Reform so that officials are elected, not appointed.

Do you agree or disagree? I realize this issue has been discussed before, but now that the Conservatives are in power and this might be a reality, i would like to revisit this thread to see what your opinion is now.

Frankly, i think that they should be elected. Because contrary to popular belief, it is NOT based on the British style. The British style is based on peers of the realm. That is, the positions were given to peers of the realm (ie/ dukes, earls, counts, etc)..and passed on to the eldest child of that family...so its a heriditary passage.

Canada is basically a patronage appointment whose appointments shift based on the rulings party at the times political views, and these people's contribution to society seems to be that they are rich and famous. Perhaps they have contributed to Canada in a small or large way...on the other hand, you won't see a blue collar worker who volunteers every week at an old age home...You will more likely to see someone selected from the elite in that city/town who btw, happens to be a prominant supporter of such party in power.

Than when they do get to power, they are not held to any rules on attendance, are paid quite hansomely. That is not to say that they are ineffective, as many a senate committe has been instrumental in shaping public policy.

But i just think that if they were elected and held accountable, you would in general have a more effective governing body.

I guess the only thing that i see as a big issue is how to divide seats..do you do it by region, popultion, equal representation??

 

[Kreskin]

I'm for senate elections if the elections are held during provincial election campaigns. That way it doesn't turn into a simple mirror of the federal election and the focus is on provincial representation at the federal level. As well, changes would not be sweeping during every federal election. IMO, if it is just an extension of the federal election it may well be just as easy to abolish it.

 

[Finder]

They should be elected. Of course I think the way the Commons and the Seante are elected are up for debate. I think the way Harper is doing this is somewhat...... at best extremely sloppy way of doing it.

I believe in a democratically elected Senate so the Senate has the legitimacy to do it's job right. Perhaps if we make changes to the Canadian constitution we could then give the Senate more powers as a check to the commons.

I know both myself and Fiveparadox has writen novels on this topic in the past. I think we both agreed that the Senate should be FPTP and that it should have longer terms. That the Commons should be MMP with magority of the seats being FPTP and a big minority 80-100 being direct PR, or PR by provinces.

I'd love to say thats my thoughts on this but I have so much more to say on this and so little time today.

 

[Semperfi_dani]

Kreskin..If Prime Minister Harpers proposal for term limits does go through (so an election every four years), Perhaps it would be a good idea to have Senate Elections two years after the Federal election for a term of four years?

Essentially every two years we will be going to the polls.

I guess the only problem that i would have with either tying it to the federal or provincial elections is that if you have a minority government in the House crumble, it should not effect the sentate..but at the same time, a provinical governement is not subject to term limits either so therefore, you could have a mismatch of elections and election fatigue.

 

[Kreskin]

Re: RE: Senate Reform

Kreskin..If Prime Minister Harpers proposal for term limits does go through (so an election every four years), Perhaps it would be a good idea to have Senate Elections two years after the Federal election for a term of four years?

Essentially every two years we will be going to the polls.

I guess the only problem that i would have with either tying it to the federal or provincial elections is that if you have a minority government in the House crumble, it should not effect the sentate..but at the same time, a provinical governement is not subject to term limits either so therefore, you could have a mismatch of elections and election fatigue.

I don't think political power should be that easy to get anyways. I'd rather the ebb and flow of the senate be something not so easy to predict or acquire.

 

[Finder]

I think Five and I were thinking that a Canadian Senate should last four 5-10 years. It is the international norm that the Senate being a "conservative" upper house of "elders" and "nobles" last longer the the lower house.

This is why I don't like Harpers plan of doing it, it is way too sloppy and there is not enough information on what he is actually doing. I'm very happy he may do it but not so happy by how.

However he has hinted this is only a temory solution until a better way can be found. (might be hinting at changing the con which is a long and... well hard thing to do.)

 

[Vicious]

If it is to be changed it needs to get all three E's, I'm happy to go on E at a time. Elected is a start. Equal by province would never ever happen because it would involve a constitutional change and Quebec and the Atlantic would never give up their disproportionate representation.

My goal would be 5 senate seats per province, regardless of population. Could you see Quebec or Ontario agreeing to that?

Because of the above fact (we could not make the senate equal without a constitution change), I would say either leave it alone or abolish it.

 

[Finder]

I think Ontario would. Though PM McGuinty doesn't like the idea and thinks it is unfare. However if you do this with enough education to educate the people about why we have a senate I think most people would agree on one not based on population as it is in the USA. Ontario would be hard to sell it to and Quebec... I think would scream bloody murder if you tried to change the numbers.


The 3 E's which the former Reform party came up with and pushed for and once a long time ago Harper supported would be the best for the Senate.

But I think Education of the House of Commons lower and upper house are needed to get this done right.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I think the thing to do with the senate, at least in the short term, is either abolish it or leave it alone, but don't reform it. Elected senators would give the senate a political legitimacy it doesn't currently have, with largely unpredictable consequences for the development and implementation of public policy. Nothing can become law without passing in the Senate, and if its elected, it'll want a larger role in that. There are deep issues here that go to the heart of our political and constitutional processes that have not been thought through carefully, same as there are for fixed election dates.

Besides, it's far from clear what problem senate reform fixes.

 

[Semperfi_dani]

Dex...what would you propose in its place of abolishing the Senate?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Senate Reform

Dex...what would you propose in its place of abolishing the Senate?

Nothing. Provincial legislatures seem to function alright without a senate, so I can't see that getting rid of the federal senate would require replacing it with anything else.

 

[Semperfi_dani]

Oh no, i don't mean in replacing the actual body..what i mean, is how would you transfer the roles that currently exist in the senate to the Commons?

 

[Colpy]

They should be elected. Of course I think the way the Commons and the Seante are elected are up for debate. I think the way Harper is doing this is somewhat...... at best extremely sloppy way of doing it.

I believe in a democratically elected Senate so the Senate has the legitimacy to do it's job right. Perhaps if we make changes to the Canadian constitution we could then give the Senate more powers as a check to the commons.

I know both myself and Fiveparadox has writen novels on this topic in the past. I think we both agreed that the Senate should be FPTP and that it should have longer terms. That the Commons should be MMP with magority of the seats being FPTP and a big minority 80-100 being direct PR, or PR by provinces.

I'd love to say thats my thoughts on this but I have so much more to say on this and so little time today.

The problem is that opening the Constitution to reform is EXACTLY equivalent to opening Pandora's Box. TROUBLE. Fully capitalized and bolded.

senators should be elected by the provinces during provincial elections. The PM would appoint those elected...........and hope subsequent PMs followed his good example.

This is, BTW, another example of Harper lessening The power of the PMO, thus weakening himself on principle.

HARDLY "Herr Harper", as I've heard him refered to on these threads.

 

[Finder]

I still think his plan is messed up compaired to what the Reform party and the Canadian Alliance wanted to do, which I agree with on the points of Senate reform.


Now on abolishing the Senate I believe this is a bad idea, I think there is nothing wrong in a society where we have checks and balances of power and authority. I highly doubt an elected Senate would be as powerful as the house of commons anyhow, and I doubt they would try to be. Perhaps they would prevent some bills from being passed but that might be a good thing.

Look down south they have a Congress a Senate an excutive and the courts. All of which have the power to do what they are supposed to do. Largely they get things done and if this means making laws which they know will be passed by both houses and not veto'd they do it. I think this is more democractic then our current system. But if we chose to keep it the same, I'd chose to abolish an undemocratic and usless senate which is a waste of tax payers money.

 

[Colpy]

Down South, interestingly enough, Senators used to be appointed by the State legislaure......until one state started electing them, and the practise spread.......

 

[Finder]

Colpy, I wouldn't mind if the prov parliments elected them it would be better then our current way of appointing them.

 

[FiveParadox]

I think that we need to consider many things when jumping into the business of changing an institution which, if you have read into the business of the Senate of Canada, has served this country with great integrity and honour. One thing that I think must be continued is the "memory" of the Senate — the idea that no matter whether or not the House of Commons is reversed in a matter of days due to an upset electorate, the Senate ensures that a "see-saw" effect doesn't compromise the effectiveness of both Houses of the Parliament of Canada.

To that end, we must remember that, at the moment, not even the representative of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada has the authority to force a Senator to resign from the Red Chamber; Senators can only be removed for poor attendance, for discontinuing to meet the requirements for being a Senator, or by a motion from the Chamber to remove that Senator. To force Senators to resign after a certain numbers of years (which would, in effect, give "term restrictions" for Senators) would require a change to the Constitution Act, 1867 — an effort which would be cumbersome, and would likely never pass.

Moreover, I want to defend the Senate from some of the comments being made above. There are perceptions that Senators are somehow lazy persons, who sit in the Senate only for the money and don't engage in any useful debate or research for the greater good of Canada. This is untrue. If one would read the debates from that Chamber, or watch coverage of the Senate Committees, then one would see that Senators work very hard, and are often more sincere and more trustworthy than their counterparts in the House of Commons. The likelihood of Senators towing the party line on controversial matters is quite lessened, since Senators don't have to worry about keeping their party nominations. This would change if they were elected by the population.

Nonetheless, if we do insist on making the Upper House elected, then I would only support such measures insofar as they are not elected through the direct population. If we must elect our Senators, then I think that they should be appointed by the Governor General on the advice of Their Honours the Lieutenant Governors of the Provinces (obviously, the advice of the Lieutenant Governors would be prompted by addresses from the Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces).

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Senate Reform

Oh no, i don't mean in replacing the actual body..what i mean, is how would you transfer the roles that currently exist in the senate to the Commons?

Yeah, it occurred to me afterwards that maybe that was what you meant, but I decided to see if you'd confirm it before I ran off on a perhaps unnecessary and pointless post.

Short answer: I wouldn't, I'd leave the Senate alone.

Longer answer: I think it provides a useful service as it's presently constituted and I see no compelling reason to change it much. It still provides what Sir John A. called "sober second thought," of which a good fairly recent example was the bill to create CSIS. A special committee of the Senate examined it carefully and recommended so many changes that the Commons withdrew the bill and redrafted it. That's exactly the kind of thing our first PM had in mind, and it's still a good idea. I'd also note that debates in the Senate generally show much less partisanship and greater focus on issues than debates in the commons, and part of the reason for that has to be because senators aren't elected. The Senate also provides a degree of parliamentary continuity and organizational memory the Commons by its nature can't provide because there's so much more turnover of membership in it. It also consists of older folks with a proven record of accomplishment and wide experience, which is exactly what's necessary for that "sober second thought" role.

My considered opinion is that people who advocate abolishing or reforming the Senate don't actually know what it does or why it exists in the first place.

 

[#juan]

I tend to agree with Dexter. Abolish the damn thing but don't give that "old folks home" legitimacy that it doesn't have now. Senate reform should start with a clean sheet. I see that Dexter has expanded his thoughts on this subject but I still feel that Senate reform is a good idea. I just don't think we should be reforming the Senate while it is in place and we should not abolish the Senate until we know exactly where we are going.

 

[FiveParadox]

I think that the Senate does, in fact, have quite a legitimate mandate to act as a check on the often-hasty decisions of the House of Commons. However, the nature of the Senate is such that our Senators do not overrule the Commons¹ except on the most serious or controversial matters. The legislation on abortion that the Senate defeated outright, instead of returning it to the Commons, for example.

If the Senate were elected, then it would just act as another partisan arena of grandstanders. As it stands now, the Senate is a calm and respectful Chamber, with the time and the resources to study things in-depth. This would change in an elected Chamber. Furthermore, the Prime Minister would be able to exert amazing influence over the Senate, because Government Senators would be afraid of losing their party nominations for future elections.²

:!: Revision : (1) Corrected a typing error. (2) Addendum added.