Senate Reform

[Finder]

Well it's funny how Five-Paradox and I when we agree on something still disagree somehow. I believe in the need of a legitimate Senate but one which has a manadate from another level of government or by the populace. Yes perhaps the Senate shouldn't have as much power as the lower house, but it should still be a real check to the power of the Lower house. I'd agree with many other people, right now it is a waste of money but that should change, not by abolishing it, but by giving it a real purpose and a manadate by the people and the provinces these people serve.

I think it is the Senates duty to make sure that the lower house truely thinks about the laws it tries to pass and has the ability to slow down or... dare I say.... stop bills from passing.

Losing the Senate would be losing a piece of our history, a piece of our Republican/Westminster style of government and tradition. Reforming it would make it work and keep tradition and have a legit check of power to the overwelming power the Lower house currently has. I think this is the best way to do this as the only other check we could reform is the GG and I think it would be more wise and democratic to reform the Senate, which already has the airs of modern politics, political parties and so on. The GG is supposed to be above that (though I do not think this is the case, but as it is does not really matter.)

 

[FiveParadox]

I think that, in order to avoid having the Senate become nothing more than an Upper House mirror of the House of Commons, the Senate should be made up of members appointed to the Chamber through decisions of the Parliaments of the Provinces, rather than through the population. This would ensure that appointments to the Senate could undergo a review process before their appointments by the people whom that person would be charged to represent, if that person was indeed summoned as a Senator.

To do this, I would propose that the appointment of Senators be deemed to no longer be a prerogative of the head of government of Canada, and rather that it be a prerogative of the Provinces and Territories of Canada. When a seat in the Senate is vacant, the Lieutenant Governor of the Province which that seat represents should cause one of his or her Ministers of the Crown to introduce a motion, to the effect "that it be the advice of this House to Her [or His] Honour the Lieutenant Governor that she [or he] should make it known that it is the wish of the Province of [the Province's name] that [name] be appointed to the Senate of Canada."

The name in the motion could be decided by the Government of the Province in which the motion is introduced; however, the motion should have the capacity to be amended if the House so decides, and that would be a mechanism whereby the House could ensure that the Senator they propose for appointment would not be one appointed on the exclusive prerogative of the Premier of the Province. (It should be obvious that free votes on such a motion would be preferred for my suggestion.)

Once the House passes a motion for the appointment of a Senator, in keeping with the pomp and circumstance that is such a beautiful part of our democratic institutions, it would be the Lieutenant Governor of that Province who would advise the Governor General of Canada to summon that person to the Senate. The Governor General would, by an agreed convention, never vary from such advice from a Lieutenant Governor, nor would a Lieutenant Governor ever vary from the advice of his or her Province, except perhaps in the case of some utmost emergency in some unforeseen circumstance (hey, you never know).

In this way, we could engage in a practice of Senators elected-by-proxy. This would not require a change to the Constitution Act, 1867, or its later manifestations, which is something that we must keep in mind when considering a change to the method by which Senators are selected. In this way the Senate could have more of a mandate to exercise its powers as an effective check on the Commons, and it could be more "representative" of the people of Canada.

 

[Finder]

Paradox, though you bring up many good points. The fact that most likely the members would not be drawn up the same way as the Lower house would solve the problem of duplication of the Senate and the Lower house.

The Americans have done this by having only two senators being elected from each state nomatter what the size is. I think this sounds pretty good to me. A Canadian version of this might be 4-6 Senators from each province and 1-2 for each terr. Both Ontario and Quebec will be pissed off but there is no reason why the Senate must be with porpotion of population, that is what the lower house is for.

However I still think in our modern age that the people, the citizens of Canada should vote for there Senate. I've stated before I would not mind if the Provinces appointed them, but I think in this day and age it should be the people by the provinces.

I hope with Harpers plan even though it is extremely weak and ill prepaired I hope this will bring the Senate back into the lives of the average Canadian.

 

[bluealberta]

Personally, I am in agreement with those who suggest either reform it, or abolish it. Under the present situation, political cronies from both the main parties are given a senate seat without any credentials in some cases. (Tommy Banks comes to mind). In other cases, a senate seat is given to some who were defeated in an election, which to me is the height of hypocrisy. The electorate will not elect somebody to make laws, but this same person can be appointed to review laws made by the elected. Seems a bit ass backwards to me.

I tend to agree with a certain number from each province, with these people to be selected during the provincial elections. We did this in Alberta, and certain people were elected to be basically senators in waiting. Of course in that election, no Libs or Knee Dippers ran, so of course those parties decried the validity of the election. Tough shit, you don't run, don't bitch about the results.

The fact that a politically appointed senate, currently mostly Liberal appointees, can overturn the decisions of an elected group of MP's goes against the values of democracy, IMO. Only twice have I heard the senate say they were going to review and probably reject legislation, and both times it was a liberal controlled senate with a Conservative government in power. For that reason alone, and with the full acknowledgement that the same thing could happen in reverse, it needs to be reformed or abolished. If Quebec, the Maritimes (who are hopelessly overrepresented) and Ontario don't want to give up this power, then abolish it.

 

[Finder]

bluealberta
Here, HERE!!!!

 

[FiveParadox]

One must remember in reforming the way in which our Senators are appointed to the Senate of Canada, this requires the consent of at least seven of the Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces, representing at least one-half of the population of Canada (excluding the populations of the Territories of Canada).

If we were to attempt to compromise the representation of the Provinces of Ontario and Québec in the Senate, then they would likely not consent to the change to the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore the Governor General of Canada would not have the authority to enact the amendment.

 

[JonB2004]

I want the Senate abolished. There is no need for it. Canadians elect members to the House of Commons to make the decisions.

 

[FiveParadox]

And we have a Senate, JonB2004, to ensure that the decisions out of the House of Commons are not enacted with undue haste or without due consideration. Besides, the Senate conducts research and hearings that the schedule of the Commons would never have the capacity to accomodate. Very complicated legislation is often introduced by the Government of Canada in the Senate, since they have so much more time and resources to engage in the in-depth study of their provisions.

 

[JonB2004]

Re: RE: Senate Reform

And we have a Senate, JonB2004, to ensure that the decisions out of the House of Commons are not enacted with undue haste or without due consideration. Besides, the Senate conducts research and hearings that the schedule of the Commons would never have the capacity to accomodate. Very complicated legislation is often introduced by the Government of Canada in the Senate, since they have so much more time and resources to engage in the in-depth study of their provisions.

How come the House of Commons can't allocate time in its schedule to study and debate the issue by itself? I've watched what goes on and the House of Commons on CPAC, and it seem to me that they have lots of time on their hands. Most of the time all that seems to go on is that a couple of backbencher MPs give one of these huge speeches that nobody cares about.

 

[FiveParadox]

JonB2004, your comments never cease to astound me.

You now seem to be suggesting that backbencher Members of Parliament should not have the right to address the House of Commons, because you "don't care" about what they are saying? I would remind you that you don't represent everyone, and I would bet that a vast majority of the members here would agree that Members of Parliament should[/] be speaking on these questions.

 

[JonB2004]

Re: RE: Senate Reform

JonB2004, your comments never cease to astound me.

You now seem to be suggesting that backbencher Members of Parliament should not have the right to address the House of Commons, because you "don't care" about what they are saying? I would remind you that you don't represent everyone, and I would bet that a vast majority of the members here would agree that Members of Parliament should be speaking on these questions.

I think that members should have the right to address the House of Commons, but not if they are going on for 20+ minutes with some speech that nobody cares about. They should be keeping their speeches nice and short and to the point. I bet most members would agree that they have short attention spans.

 

[FiveParadox]

I have listened to hundreds of speeches in my time watching CPAC, and a vast majority of those are quite engaging. If you don't have the attention span to listen to the entire speech, or to consider everything that the Member is saying, then that is your own issue, and not one of Canada. And besides that, very few members are ever given the chance to speak for more than twenty minutes on any one question; I would urge you to review the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

 

[Finder]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe.../tories_senate_060529/20060529?hub=TopStories

some more news on Senate reform. There is now talk on term limits. Which I am for of course, but like Paradox has said they should last longer then MPs.

 

[FiveParadox]

I came across an interesting read some time tonight (I don't have a link at the moment, but I could search for the report again if anyone is interested), that suggested that it could be the Province of Québec, if push comes to shove, that could decide whether or not major reforms to the Senate of Canada would indeed go through.

Since there are provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982, in terms of the Senate which relate exclusively to Québec (the latter paragraph of Section 22), then the amendment formula described in Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, could be in effect — this would mean that Québec could exercise a veto over a change to their representation in the Senate; whether or not the rest of the Provinces were to agree, so long as Québec would oppose a change to this Section, then no change could be enacted.

As for the term limits that you mentioned, Finder, I am even cautious of the proposed eight years restriction. I would prefer something higher, such as ten years. My support for reforms of the Senate are on the condition that the continuity and memory of the Senate, which are necessary for a Chamber of sobre second thought to function as intended.

 

[Finder]

there's not much of a difference between 8-10 years. But I do think 10 years is sorta long

 

[bluealberta]

During every conversation on this topic over the last several years, the issue of opening up the constitution has always come up, with the typical response: "No one wants to open that can of worms.".

Why not? Are we so secure in our knowledge that the original drafters of the Constitution were absolutely and irrevocably correct in everything they wrote down? Hell, even the Americans have a number of amendments to their Constitution, so why are we so afraid of amending ours? And just out of curiousity, when exactly was the last time changing the Constitution was done? Was it Charlottetown? I am sure FiveParadox will know, but my point is, this is not exactly something that happens every other week, and if we need to on occasion, lets have honest and open discussions about legitimate amendments. Surely this country will never change a document that gets outdated on a daily basis?

 

[Finder]

During every conversation on this topic over the last several years, the issue of opening up the constitution has always come up, with the typical response: "No one wants to open that can of worms.".

Why not? Are we so secure in our knowledge that the original drafters of the Constitution were absolutely and irrevocably correct in everything they wrote down? Hell, even the Americans have a number of amendments to their Constitution, so why are we so afraid of amending ours? And just out of curiousity, when exactly was the last time changing the Constitution was done? Was it Charlottetown? I am sure FiveParadox will know, but my point is, this is not exactly something that happens every other week, and if we need to on occasion, lets have honest and open discussions about legitimate amendments. Surely this country will never change a document that gets outdated on a daily basis?

You might be shocked... but I agree with you.

 

[bluealberta]

During every conversation on this topic over the last several years, the issue of opening up the constitution has always come up, with the typical response: "No one wants to open that can of worms.".

Why not? Are we so secure in our knowledge that the original drafters of the Constitution were absolutely and irrevocably correct in everything they wrote down? Hell, even the Americans have a number of amendments to their Constitution, so why are we so afraid of amending ours? And just out of curiousity, when exactly was the last time changing the Constitution was done? Was it Charlottetown? I am sure FiveParadox will know, but my point is, this is not exactly something that happens every other week, and if we need to on occasion, lets have honest and open discussions about legitimate amendments. Surely this country will never change a document that gets outdated on a daily basis?

You might be shocked... but I agree with you.

WE do seem to agree on this issue. Thats scarey, no?? :wink: