The Senate - Abolish - Reform - Leave it alone?

[Jacks]

Lot of talk about the Senate these days, it seems almost certain that it will be a major election issue. There are many viewpoints as to what we should do with the Senate and the major parties will be putting forward options in the next few months.

Abolition:
This is the position of a lot of Canadians. The Supreme Court has ruled that abolishing the Senate would require the unanimous consent of all 10 provinces. Since several provinces don't want it abolished this seems destined to fail and would probably just become another Meech Lake mess of constitutional talks. Personally I don't agree with abolition except as a last resort.

Reform:
There are many sorts of reform that have been proposed.
- Elected Senators.
- Term limits of 8-12 years.
- Having appointments made by a board of prominent Canadians or by the provinces.
- Regional balancing.

I personally think senators need to be elected during fixed federal elections. I would like a term of 8 years with no term limits. 1/2 of the senators could be elected each time so that the current will of the people is reflected in the Senate but we still have long term stability and the Senate isn't beholden to the current incumbent party. I would also like to see the Senate regionally balanced with each province getting 10 senators and the Territories getting 5 senators each.

I don't agree with shifting the appointments to some sort of board or to the provinces. No matter who is appointing senators that still leaves the entire process open to partisan games, cronyism and patronage. Taking the power from the PM and giving it to the Premiers makes no sense to me.

Leave it as is:
Some people don't think it is worth the effort to reopen the constitution, I can see their point since any reform is likely to fail miserably.

IMO we need a strong, legitimate Senate serving as a check on power for a majority government.

What's your preference?

It would be nice if we could have a referendum in October.

[HOWITZER]

I would be all for an elected senate that bans partisanship. All senators must sit as independents. Else, senators get appointed at the municipal/regional level (outside the grasp of partisan provincial politics). Hell even let the supreme court make the appointment.

I firmly believe in sober second thought in the upper house and would love to see more regional representation provide feedback to the house of commons rather than just an assembly of paper pushers.

[dissentowner]

Abolish it. The most useless position in Canada.

[killer_carlson]

gonzo
balonzo

i've been on the Elected/Effective bandwagon before, but I'm at the point where i'm ready for it to go away. Forever.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I used to be a proponent of a triple E senate, but I honestly think the best thing would be to abolish it. I don't see it as a chamber of sober second thought; I don't see it as in any way representing the regions.
Agreed that it would be difficult to change constitutionally, but no more so than instituting the reform ideas, IMO.

[Tron_fdc]

Wow. Grade 10 Social Studies, haven't seen that in a while. I remember when the EEE senate was a big deal to us Westerners to get some kind of representation in Parliament.

At least I think it was.

What does the senate even DO....? Toe the governing party line, essentially?

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by HOWITZER

I would be all for an elected senate that bans partisanship. All senators must sit as independents. Else, senators get appointed at the municipal/regional level (outside the grasp of partisan provincial politics). Hell even let the supreme court make the appointment.

I firmly believe in sober second thought in the upper house and would love to see more regional representation provide feedback to the house of commons rather than just an assembly of paper pushers.

I mostly agree. I'm actually not totally sold on elected unless there are a lot of other accompanying reforms - I think it should be limited to "sober second thought" and not trying to govern, which elected senators may feel they have the legitimacy to do. If they are appointed, I don't think they should be appointed by the sitting government though since that just makes it a plum appointment for party supporters. I don't think it will be easy to reform the senate into an effective and useful body but I like the idea of some sort of check on parliament.

[kermitology]

I would imagine that the ideal scenario is independently elected senators that provide a level of oversight that prevents ramming unjust bills through parliament due to a majority as has been seen recently with Bill C-51 and C-24 which both seem to be pretty draconian and likely do not have the support of the majority of Canadians.

Both seemingly related to preventing domestic terrorism, but which seems to be based on fearmongering and exclusion.

[#-3]

I think the idea of a secondary body that doesn't have to pander to public opinions for election purposes is probably a good idea in principal.

But the Senate needs;

A Term of service, about 10 years.

Independent over sight.

All compensation approved by the house of commons

Someone other than the prime minister appointing them.
My thought is someone the Lt Gov & Gov Gen. could agree on. For each provinces seats
Give those useless positions something to do, and steer away from 10 straight years of only Lib hard liners getting in, followed by 10 straight years of only Conservative hard liners getting.

[FlamesAddiction]

Leave it be or abolish it, but nothing in between.

Sometimes I do feel that it is an obsolete relic of the past, but the last thing we need is another elected level of government that would be subject to the same weaknesses as the current one. Decisions for the greater good aren't always marketable. Elected politicians are basically in a big popularity contest who more often than not just make decisions to further their careers. If you want a check and balance, it can't be elected. It can't be too powerful either of course.

I would like to see them held to a higher standard though and be subject to removal for misconduct or just not showing up for work.

[Finger Cookin]

Expand it.

[Huntingwhale]

Abolish it. But does anyone honestly think that the highest ranking form of Government in the country would willingly let go of that many high salaried positions with all the perks it comes with? Not to mention all the staff members it employs? People in power are afraid of losing that power.

Abolishing the Senate is wishful thinking.

[GGG]

I would love to see it abolished but the constitutional crap probably isn't worth it. So leave it as is. An ineffective senate is better than a 2 house system

Essentially you create a situation where you can't govern without compromise. People might say compromise is good but comprise usually means just means spending more without taxation to cover the costs or inaction. It also leads to regional pandering to secure votes in bills. You could buy the maritimes plus the three territories to pass everything.

With local elections delivering pork to your province becomes how senators get measured.

The elected dictatorship model is much better then compromise that screws Canadians.

[Resolute 14]

If you abolish the Senate, then every province not named Ontario and Quebec might as well just stop wasting the time and money voting on MPs as well.

The Senate needs reform. Elected, fixed terms, and with a sufficient number of Senators to balance Canada's disparate regions against the population-focused House of Commons. I used to be fully in support of the EEE senate idea, but the challenge to the equap part would always be the risk of gridlock if the Senate was led by a party different than the leaders in the House.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If you abolish the Senate, then every province not named Ontario and Quebec might as well just stop wasting the time and money voting on MPs as well.

The Senate needs reform. Elected, fixed terms, and with a sufficient number of Senators to balance Canada's disparate regions against the population-focused House of Commons. I used to be fully in support of the EEE senate idea, but the challenge to the equap part would always be the risk of gridlock if the Senate was led by a party different than the leaders in the House.

Canada's senate is already balanced regionally,

Upper, Lower, Maratimes, and West with 24 each.

[FlameOn]

I like a reformed senate with an 8-12 year term that requires senators to be NOT affiliated to political parties. This would be the most ideal thing and would at least prevent the whole C-51 ramroding of legislation through the lower house.

Abolishing the Senate would not prevent any unpopular bills from getting through and would not provide the sober second though that is required.

[Resolute 14]

^ The problem with preventing Senators from representing parties is that it only forces partisanship behind closed doors. It doesn't eliminate it, but rather masks it from the public. For all that the public would understand what each Senator represents, and for how disinterested it would be in finding out, you might as well just pull 105 names out of the phone book at random and name them Senators.

Originally Posted by GGG

Canada's senate is already balanced regionally,

Upper, Lower, Maratimes, and West with 24 each.

The Maritimes actually has 30, not 24. And New Brunswick having nearly the same representation as BC and Alberta combined makes no sense from either a regional perspective or a population perspective. Ideally, each province should have similar representation. As it stands, Ontario and Quebec still dominate the Senate the same way they do Commons, though they don't have majority control.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

^ The problem with preventing Senators from representing parties is that it only forces partisanship behind closed doors. It doesn't eliminate it, but rather masks it from the public. For all that the public would understand what each Senator represents, and for how disinterested it would be in finding out, you might as well just pull 105 names out of the phone book at random and name them Senators.



The Maritimes actually has 30, not 24. And New Brunswick having nearly the same representation as BC and Alberta combined makes no sense from either a regional perspective or a population perspective. Ideally, each province should have similar representation. As it stands, Ontario and Quebec still dominate the Senate the same way they do Commons, though they don't have majority control.

Newfoundlanders might object with you lumping them in the maratimes but I do understand your point.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GGG

Newfoundlanders might object with you lumping them in the maratimes but I do understand your point.

Newfoundlanders object to almost everything.

The problem, of course, is that the constitution prohibits reducing the number of representatives to a figure below what the province was granted when entering the union. It can only go up. That's why PEI has 4 MPs in the HoC, and it is partially why New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, as founding provinces, have 10 senators while the 'lesser provinces' that came later were given only 6.

The simplest solution in this regard would be to bump BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland (and even PEI) up to 10 each. That could be done without referendum and would significantly balance the Red Chamber in terms of regional representation. Anything else - especially reducing seats, would require a constitutional amendment that has no hope in hell of ever passing.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The simplest solution in this regard would be to bump BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland (and even PEI) up to 10 each. That could be done without referendum and would significantly balance the Red Chamber in terms of regional representation. Anything else - especially reducing seats, would require a constitutional amendment that has no hope in hell of ever passing.

Any change will require a constitutional amendment. If you try to bump up the number of senators in the west there will surely be court challenges. The way that judges have become so activist these days I can't see it being allowed.