NDP call for referendum to abolish Senate

[Devils'Advocate]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/...on-senate.html

The NDP has called for a referendum so Canadians can vote on whether the Senate should be abolished."Let's give Canadians a chance to make that decision," party leader Jack Layton said in Winnipeg on Sunday. He said the Senate is outdated and undemocratic, but the NDP still wants Canadians to have a say on its future.

[Dan02]

Hasn't it been the conservatives schtick to try and reform the senate?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Hasn't it been the conservatives schtick to try and reform the senate?

No...it was those evil Canadian Alliance guys led by the anti-christ himself, Preston Manning.

This would be good news if the NDP were at all relevant. Maybe they get Harper and crew to take a good long look at it though.

Im all about it myself.

[Azure]

Good idea.

Why not have a vote in the House of Commons though?

[octothorp]

I give the NDP some credit for raising the issue (although I'm more in favour of overhauling the senate rather than abolishing it); but realistically, not only does the motion for a referendum to abolish the senate need to get approved by the house of commons, it also needs approval of the senate. And then it if passes the referendum, it still needs approval from all of the provinces including the maritimes and quebec, who are rather fond of their senate seats.

[KAI]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I give the NDP some credit for raising the issue (although I'm more in favour of overhauling the senate rather than abolishing it); but realistically, not only does the motion for a referendum to abolish the senate need to get approved by the house of commons, it also needs approval of the senate. And then it if passes the referendum, it still needs approval from all of the provinces including the maritimes and quebec, who are rather fond of their senate seats.

Ya it will never happen. It would take a constitutional amendment and that roas is never a nice one to take, never mind reforenmoms. The only possibliity of senate reform is through conventional reforms. If Governemnts start to appoint Senators that provinces vote for, over time federal governments will have a hard time putting in there people in the future. What we have to do is take away the political will to appoint senators.

[Cerebral]

I'm as anti-NDP as you can get but I really don't mind this move by the them. As others have mentioned though, there are far too many constitutional roadblocks in place for this to ever work out in the long-run.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I would never vote for the NDP and I disagree with a number of their policies as well as their leadership, however relative to the system that exists right now where it is not an elected position and turns into a patronage position for all intents and purposes, this has to be seen as a better option.

Personally however I support an elected senate that could act at least in some way as a check and balance without slowing down government business to a standstill.

[Devils'Advocate]

And how would you propose to do that? We've seen in the U.S. what happens when you have strong "checks and balances" - Clinton had to fight tooth and nail to get his budgets passed. On the other hand, when the Republicans had control of the Senate and Congress the budget, no matter how ridiculous passed with ease.

Having an elected Senate will either (A)bring government business to its knees or (B)make taxpayers pay hundreds of large salaries and pensions to pass laws that would pass anyway.

I'm for abolishing the Senate and allowing the reaction of the Canadian voter be the sole "check and balance" required. Which is pretty much what we have today...

[Resolute 14]

How about a referendum to abolish the NDP instead?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

And how would you propose to do that? We've seen in the U.S. what happens when you have strong "checks and balances" - Clinton had to fight tooth and nail to get his budgets passed. On the other hand, when the Republicans had control of the Senate and Congress the budget, no matter how ridiculous passed with ease.

Having an elected Senate will either (A)bring government business to its knees or (B)make taxpayers pay hundreds of large salaries and pensions to pass laws that would pass anyway.

I'm for abolishing the Senate and allowing the reaction of the Canadian voter be the sole "check and balance" required. Which is pretty much what we have today...

Because, of course, the only possible alternative is the American system.

[Devils'Advocate]

I prefaced that statement with a question. I'm all ears for alternatives. But if you want to give one sentence flippant remarks, by all means....

[Kjesse]

Something needs to be done to the Senate, personally I'd prefer an elected Senate but no Senate at all is better than what we have now.

There are many options to consider if it were going to be restructured. I don't see any danger of us becoming a US style presidential democracy where the president is elected separately. Some tweaks where Senators are elected and thus have a real mandate with respect to passing legislation would be a welcome change.

[Canada 02]

Harper would back plan for referendum on abolishing Senate

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

Harper would back plan for referendum on abolishing Senate

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

Interesting in the article that it suggests that Harper would actually prefer an Australian-style senate. After reading about it, I agree; that's the way I'd like to see our senate overhauled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Interesting in the article that it suggests that Harper would actually prefer an Australian-style senate. After reading about it, I agree; that's the way I'd like to see our senate overhauled.

Well, of course you would. From that reading it gives each state/province equal number of Senators. Therefore Albertans would have far, far more Senators/person than the people of Ontario. Much less PEI, which might have 1 Senator per constituant.

[Resolute 14]

Because Equal is bad?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Because Equal is bad?

(reading mind)

No.. because anything that makes Ontario have less of an influence on the country is bad

(end reading mind)

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Well, of course you would. From that reading it gives each state/province equal number of Senators. Therefore Albertans would have far, far more Senators/person than the people of Ontario. Much less PEI, which might have 1 Senator per constituant.

Um, you do realize that we already have a senate allotment that gives an equal number or senators to each region of the country, right? To implement a system similar to australia's, we wouldn't need to change the number of senators per region (although we could). Either way, I think that the exact number per region is far less important than how those senators are elected. I'd rather see a small number of elected Albertan senators than a large number of appointed senators.
The two things that I think are useful in the australian system are the allotment of power between the two houses, and the single transferrable vote system. Make those two changes to our system, and it instantly becomes a more useful political body.