Abolish the Senate

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The New Democratic Party has proposed to abolish the Senate of Canada, and the Prime Minister seems to be in favor.  This has been widely reported in the last couple of days on the Canadian networks and in the press.

The general consensus of the punditry around here is that it can never happen.  To do anything to the Senate, including getting the triple E senate originally proposed by the Conservative Party takes a constitutional amendment ratified by at least 7 provinces representing at least 50% of the population.

Nevertheless, Jack Layton (leader of the NDP) as proposed a referendum question on the next federal ballot.  This would be non-binding, but better, perhaps, than an Ipsos-Reid poll.

[KingTitan 6]

I think right now it would be a HUGE mistake, and a hastly action....Right now in the states, as I am sure you are aware. We have a horrible Horrible government. Since Pakastan is basically crumbling and has declaired Marshall Law, it might be in the best interest of the Canadian government to "sit back". After all, the USA and Canada are the on the same contenant, including Mexico. We are crumbling as a human race. Definitely something needs to happen...but wheather or not it is the right avenue to take....I think we are so deep in politics, even official politicians are up in arms and are reaching from every dark corner to come to an agreement. In my opinion....the politically correct movement has destroyed our human nature.

[Haljackey 17,241]

I don't like this idea. It is part of the Canadian Identity. A bill that passes in the Lower House Of Commons needs to be passed by the senate (the upper House), and then sometimes referred to the Governor General and then Her Majesty. Thats how it has always worked, and it has worked well.

Let me explain why I think it is a bad idea:

Lets say a political party wins a huge majority in a election, pretty much allowing them to pass any bill they want. Say they do something drastic like raise taxes 50% make laws that really enforce the people. Of course the people in the Senate have the power to stop these ridiculed bills to be passed, so they act like a safety net. Without the Senate, who's goona stop them?

What needs to change is the way the Senate works. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister and the Governor General, not elected by the general population or the Caucus. Also, Senators don't have a term to serve, so once they are appointed, they can stay Senators until they decide to leave, thats why most of them are really old and out of touch with the country.

I think we could improve the Senate if they were elected by the Cacus, and had to serve a... Say 5 year term or are interchanged each time an election is called. Something like that would work to the Country's benefit, instead of simply eliminating them.

Just my thoughts on the issue. Feel free to quote me about anything that I'm wrong about because I am not really  that well-informed about the situation.

Best,

-Haljackey

[HOOK21 10]

i have a topic- christian childrens fund : the amazing grace... go to youtube and type : christian children's fund ( amazing grace) and you will see it. i have seen the color version , the company name in orange, opening ruins, some versions feature a photo of a family after " call now " i need all the info i can get.

[manman99 2]

KingTitan: the united states government is not horrible. Its just a matter of who is in it and how its handeled. Its not the government ways, its the government officials. George Bush is quite the dumb one, he took our government and now ppl think its the government ways that need to be changed. Not I, said the Manman!! How bout we just kill the president! (im kidding) but it seems that every time we have a horrible president hes not even worried about a gun in his house, but when a good president arrives, they always get shot. But neways, to me we either make amendments to the constitution, a revolution, or a civil war!!!!

[KingTitan 6]

Originally posted by: manman99 KingTitan: the united states government is not horrible. Its just a matter of who is in it and how its handeled. Its not the government ways, its the government officials. George Bush is quite the dumb one, he took our government and now ppl think its the government ways that need to be changed. Not I, said the Manman!! How bout we just kill the president! (im kidding) but it seems that every time we have a horrible president hes not even worried about a gun in his house, but when a good president arrives, they always get shot. But neways, to me we either make amendments to the constitution, a revolution, or a civil war!!!!

quote>

 

That makes no sense friend...can you be clear?  I mean, who is in it and how it is handled has no barring whatsoever.  A government is not ONE person.....A government is a VOICE of the occupying geographical race.  So I don't undertand that quote "Its not the government ways, its the government officials."  

Not being, or trying to be rude.

[Micah 16]

Can we please get back to the topic of "Abolish the Canadian Senate"?

[toxicpiano 125]

How similar is the senate to the house of lords? Assuming the roles of most upper houses are similar, then it's to scrutinize the lower house (to an extent anyway). The upper house is usually there (in the westminster system anyway) to keep the lower house from running riot. That's why I oppose any reform to the house of lords in the UK. I imagine you guys have the same concerns?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

An appointment to the Canadian Senate is for life or age 75 whichever is reached first.  Appointments are made by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

Currently it is packed with Liberal old boys because the Liberals were in power for many, many years.

The current PM's idea is to elect Senators to a limited term of  8 years, and allow one re-election.  If this should happen, we are back at the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire scenario, similar to that in the United States.

The senate is supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought.  Well, maybe.  Put there needs to be a brake put on to appointing party fund raisers and other party cronies or defeated members from the house of commons.

I don't think election is the right way to go.  Maybe some other means of appointment than by the current political machine is a possibility.

[KingTitan 6]

Originally posted by: Micah Can we please get back to the topic of "Abolish the Canadian Senate"? quote>

 

Politics is politics....Canadian or American. 

Discussions like this are catalyst to human nature. Let's not discourage human nature.

[confused04 14]

I agree with manman99. What he's saying is that the system of government is not horrible, its just the TYPE of people (or the party in control). But thats another whole can a beans. I support the US constitution, just not how its interpreted (and the whole campaign finance thing).

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Yes, but what has this to do with the Canadian Constitution?  Please stick to the subject.

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body ^ Yes, but what has this to do with the Canadian Constitution?  Please stick to the subject.quote>

 

Thank you.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: haljackey

Lets say a political party wins a huge majority in a election, pretty much allowing them to pass any bill they want. Say they do something drastic like raise taxes 50% make laws that really enforce the people. Of course the people in the Senate have the power to stop these ridiculed bills to be passed, so they act like a safety net. Without the Senate, who's goona stop them?

quote>

At the moment, not the Senate. If the Senate tries to stop, the PM will just appoint a few new senators that agree with him so the bill can go through. It's happened before, iirc. The senate and the GG are pretty much just formalities now.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There is, however, the ultimate power of the Governor General.  She is allowed, under direst circumstances, to drop the writ dissolving Parliament without consultation with the Prime Minister.  This is called "firing the prime minister". 

  I believe this is true in all Commonwealth countries that still have ties to the mother of Parliaments.

In my lifetime, it has happened once, to my knowledge, in Australia.

[Jasoncw 11,839]

From everything I've seen, Canadian politics are really screwed up.  It's amazing how nice the country is.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body There is, however, the ultimate power of the Governor General.  She is allowed, under direst circumstances, to drop the writ dissolving Parliament without consultation with the Prime Minister.  This is called "firing the prime minister". 

  I believe this is true in all Commonwealth countries that still have ties to the mother of Parliaments.

In my lifetime, it has happened once, to my knowledge, in Australia.quote>

But, much like how the Queen of England will never throw around orders, the GG isn't going to dissolve parliament on a whim.

Jason: Hey! It works for us!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: beebs

Originally posted by: N_O_Body There is, however, the ultimate power of the Governor General.  She is allowed, under direst circumstances, to drop the writ dissolving Parliament without consultation with the Prime Minister.  This is called "firing the prime minister". 

  I believe this is true in all Commonwealth countries that still have ties to the mother of Parliaments.

In my lifetime, it has happened once, to my knowledge, in Australia.quote>

But, much like how the Queen of England will never throw around orders, the GG isn't going to dissolve parliament on a whim.

Jason: Hey! It works for us! quote>

Very true.  Only the the case of blatant moral turpitude like having the PMs fingers in the till.

[DOXXP29 5]

Please enlighten me...what are the reasons behind wanting to abolish the senate? Is this something that reflects the desire of a large portion of the populace?

The PM's idea noted by N_O_Body sounds like a realistic idea. (Well, to me as a U.S. citizen without much knowledge of current Canadian politics, it makes sense.) I would ASSume that a major reason for having a bicameral system would be to provide a sort of balance and a check system as we (supposedly) do here in the states. I can't think of any reason why it would make sense to abolish the senate unless things are just so out of touch with reality up there that it seems the only solution, but even then reform, to me, would seem more sensible. An elected senate with an 8 year term for senator and at least one shot at re-election would seem to be a way that would reflect the wants of the general public.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The New Democratic Party (Jack Layton & Co.) put up the motion to get a referendum on the next ballot to see if the electorate wants to abolish the Senate.  Don't know why the NDP are against the Senate other than the cronyism that causes people to get appointed there.

The PM wants an elected Senate with short terms rather than life sentences.  I am against electing senators but would like a different appointive process.  I also like the idea of shorter terms, say 10 years, no reappointment.  An all-party committee of the house could do the selection followed by some kind of ratification by the house.  It should cut down the number of political hacks in the upper chamber.

[beebs 129]

I don't think it would be a bad idea if they were still appointed either. The lifetime appointments, however, need to go. It's just a nice retirement present for those faithful to the PM at the time, right now.

[DOXXP29 5]

Another question for you, N_O_Body & Beebs. Why would you rather have the senators be appointed as opposed to elected? It seems a bit strange to me coming from a democratic country's intelligent citizens, so there has got to be a good rational behind your views. I would think having them elected would be taking away the people's power to an extent.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Quite simply, elections are a popularity contest.  The same old political hacks can run.

In an appointive situation, qualifications can be examined carefully.  This process must be completely transparent.

[beebs 129]

What N_O_Body said. Elections aren't always the best if the voters don't care.

[crazyyaya 4]

I suppose abolishing the senate could in theory, speed up the political process, of course the braanches of government act as balancong acts for each other. At the same time Canada is a country fairly free of corruption. I always saw the Senate as a room of senile old men who contributed little to the system. I'll be wathcing to see if this goes anywhere.

[spa 968]

Jason's right, politically Canada's a very funny place. Like most federal systems, Canada's upper house (the senate) was suppose to serve as a foil to the lower house (house of commons). While the Commons is roughly based on population the Senate emphasizes regional representation. Not all provinces are equal in the Senate, but the numbers for the West, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada are comparable. The Senate however has never really worked. Without election there is no legitimacy and without legitimacy Senators have no power. The result is that the provincial premiers have taken up the role as regional spokesperson which has made for a much more conflict ridden country. Rather than giving regional grievenaces a forum within the federal government they're voiced by premiers who use them to beat up the federal government whenever it suits them. This is also why fixing the Senate through constitutional change will never happen; few premiers are going to want to give up the power they get from being the regional voice.

The Senate, however, can be changed without constitutional amendment. Constitutional conventions  can be a powerful things once they're established. If the government wants to make the Senate elected, the prime minister simply has to only appoint senators that have been elected. They've been doing that in Alberta, but Harper has undercut himself on that one with his cabinet appointments (he appointed Michael Fortier to the Senate so that he could serve as Public Works minister). If it became firmly established that the Prime Minister only appoints senators that have been elected it would be a brave future PM to defy the convention.

As for the NDP, no wonder they want to dump the Senate. The Senate is an appointed body picked by those in power. As a perpetual opposition party with no hope of forming government anytime soon, the NDP has no hope of ever holding sway in the Senate. It does nothing for them so it's not too surprising they want to ditch it.

[Palpatine001 57]

So Canada (more to the point the Prime Minister) wants to abolish the Upper House aka The Senate.

Interesting for a Federal States Nation to do such a thing.

Here are a few points.

You appoint your senate? Whoa ok a time limited Democratic Elected Senate would be of better choice but you guys will need to change your Electoral System from the archaic First Past the Post to the model Germany and New Zealand successfully uses Mix Member Proportionate of MMP. More on MMP later but first your senate

Chucking the senate would have no dramatic effect, New Zealand chucked out their Upper House in the 50s that was appointed and we have being running on a single house ever since. You have worries about your House of Representatives running riot well look no further than New Zealand for some history on Westminster Democracy.

In 1996 we the NZ Public voted in MMP chucking out FPP. We did it as the Executive (The Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet) were running riot with all sorts of legislation as all you needed was the most votes on election day to govern. So even if you got 40%, you had the control of the Executive and away you go passing what ever law you wanted.

Thus the public got sick of this and brought in MMP, MMP means we get two votes each central election, one for the local electorate MP for our local area and one for the Party. When the 120 seats in parliament are to be filled from the election results any party that got over 5% of the total votes or fail that an electorate seat gets to sit in Parliament. So then if National got the predicted 52% it gets 52% of all the 120 seats, Labour with 29% getting 29 until the Parliament is full. Now when selecting MPs into Parliament things get interesting, you see it is the Party Vote that dictates the number of seats, there for National has 52% thus it will get around 61 seats. Now when filling those seats, those who won electorate seats for their party enter parliament first and then any spare seats entitlted to the party are filled by what we call List MPs, non electoral elected members.

So then if National got 61 seats and she won 35 electoral seats, those 35 seats would be used first then the 26 seats left would be filled by List MPs.

Now with MMP you often need to form colliations with smaller parties, the major party (either National or Labour) that can form a stable colliation with minor parties to obtain the biggest voting block in Parliament becomes the next government, and yes we are often led by Miniority Governments (less that 51% of the controlling seats) but they still govern as they have a bigger voting block than the opposition does due to someone abstaining on Confidence and Supply (Budget) Votes.

Therefore forming colliations means a shared multi party executive and working with abstaining parties in order to continue government otherwise the opposition will role you. This in turn has deminished power from the Executive back down to the Legisture (Parliament or Congress) and henceforth stops Parties going willy nilly with legislation.

Case example was the Anti Smacking Bill that eventually passed after the opposition won a major amendment to the Bill then backed it to become law other wise it would of failed in its former form, and being passed in its former form willy nilly under FPP

Another case example www.nzherald.co.nz (See Electoral Finance Bill, you can't damn miss the coverage) is testing our MMP system to the absolute limits as I witness democracy in her finest hour as the most passionate debate and mobilisation of political capital is happening right before my eyes, something that we would never see under the old system.

The Select Committee that has all parties in parliament represented is being hammered by public submissions and as the nation gets ready to thump Labour<

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, they held a referendum in Ontario on MMP for the provincial legislater, which is unicameral.  The result was a resounding no.

I wouldn't mind seeing the PM's original triple-E senate proposal go on to win the day:

Equal:  Same number of seats per Province or Territory.

Elected:  Need one say more?

Effective:  Only time would tell.

My only objection is to the election.  I would prefer a fully transparent appointive process from persons who were nominated in some way by the electorate.  This means that there would have to be at least two candidates for each seat.  If only one person were "selected", there would have to be another go around with the people to exclude acclamations.

As far as MMP goes, I really don't want the Communist Party of Canada to have any seats in Parliament.  (Yes, they still exist and still run candidates.)  Nor do I want a Knesset type of house. 

I think experiments with MMP in commonwealth countries are interesting and more power to them, but I like the bicameral nature of our Parliament.  It just needs a little tweaking.