British House of Lords to be elected; Canada's Senate next?

[icarus]

British MPs voted on Wednesday to radically reform the House of Lords, demanding that all members be elected, instead of appointed.
MPs voted 337-224 in favour of the change. It calls for the end of the centuries-old practice of having unelected dukes, earls and other elites in the House of Lords, an upper chamber that has the power to revise and delay laws proposed by MPs in the House of Commons.

...

The bill must clear several hurdles, including another vote in the House of Commons and scrutiny by the Lords themselves, before becoming law. It potentially could make Britain's House of Lords similar to the U.S. Senate, and upper chambers in Brazil, Japan and Australia.

...

In December, Prime Minister Stephen Harper introduced a bill that, if made law, would allow Canadians to choose preferred candidates to represent their provinces and territories in the Senate.

Once the British House of Lords is no longer to be appointed, Canada will be one of the few modern bicameral countries left with an unelected upper house. With the Conservative government introducing a bill to elect the Senate, are we next?

I am sure most on here would be in support, and really it seems hard to argue with.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/0...ds-reform.html

[Vulcan]

I never heard this was happening in the UK. I'm surprised Canada's democracy is so behind the times.

[Agamemnon]

Wouldn't it just be easier to abolish the Senate than to try to effectively incorporate it into a bicameral system? How much power does the Senate currently have, and would electing its members actually increase its power/influence to the point where it could stop legislation by itself? Seems easier just to let the House run everything (just like it does now) and eliminate the layer of red tape/bureaucracy. I suppose the other choice is to reform the whole system to include a more powerful Senate... sounds like a lot of work to me I guess.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Wouldn't it just be easier to abolish the Senate than to try to effectively incorporate it into a bicameral system? How much power does the Senate currently have, and would electing its members actually increase its power/influence to the point where it could stop legislation by itself? Seems easier just to let the House run everything (just like it does now) and eliminate the layer of red tape/bureaucracy. I suppose the other choice is to reform the whole system to include a more powerful Senate... sounds like a lot of work to me I guess.

Easier? Maybe. Better? Definitely not. If you ever had a majority government they could then do whatever they wanted with no checks. (Very similar to what we have now.)

THE reason the upper house is ineffective now is because they are not elected. How can people who are not elected represent a democracy? They can't. So you make them elected and you allow them to utilize their rights to stop legislation. They have the legal right to now, just not the moral right. Electing them gives them not only a moral right, but a moral obligation to use their powers.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Easier? Maybe. Better? Definitely not. If you ever had a majority government they could then do whatever they wanted with no checks. (Very similar to what we have now.)

Whats so bad about the way it works right now? I don't see the obvious need for us to introduce a bicameral system into what is currently (effectively) a unicameral system. That would revolutionize Canadian politics for the worse (imo), adding another layer of legislative red tape. Seems a lot easier to me just to abolish an already useless/ineffective chunk of bureaucracy and keep things more or less the same as they are now when it comes to the structure of government.

We've pretty much had one House making all the rules for over a century... why do we need to (effectively) add another? Do Canadians genuinely feel like the House of Commons rules the country like a dictatorship with no oversight/checks and balances? News to me I guess...

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Whats so bad about the way it works right now? I don't see the obvious need for us to introduce a bicameral system into what is currently (effectively) a unicameral system. That would revolutionize Canadian politics for the worse (imo), adding another layer of legislative red tape. Seems a lot easier to me just to abolish an already useless/ineffective chunk of bureaucracy and keep things more or less the same as they are now when it comes to the structure of government.

We've pretty much had one House making all the rules for over a century... why do we need to (effectively) add another? Do Canadians genuinely feel like the House of Commons rules the country like a dictatorship with no oversight/checks and balances? News to me I guess...

A number of reasons. You're right in that we've been run this way for 100 years, why change it?

Let me ask you this: Do you think there's room for improvement? Do you think the governing parties could be better? Do you see a huge negative effect from bi-cameral parliaments in other countries? What's so great about the way it's run now?

It's not like the Senate will interfere with everything. Most likely they'll leave most stuff alone. However, it's nice to have a few impartial eyes going over everything to ensure fairness for all Canadians.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

A number of reasons. You're right in that we've been run this way for 100 years, why change it?

Let me ask you this: Do you think there's room for improvement? Do you think the governing parties could be better? Do you see a huge negative effect from bi-cameral parliaments in other countries? What's so great about the way it's run now?

Sure. Do I think that introducing a second house to the legislature is the automatic answer to these issues? No, obviously not. I don't see how my seeing other countries bicameral systems working means I should want Canada to have one. The unicameral one we have now is probably (imo) more efficient, and probably ultimately ends up making the same decisions that a bicameral one would.

It's not like the Senate will interfere with everything. Most likely they'll leave most stuff alone. However, it's nice to have a few impartial eyes going over everything to ensure fairness for all Canadians.

Well... obviously they wouldn't be impartial, they'd be elected. Elected politicians aren't impartial. Actually what the Senate does right now is leave most stuff alone. What it will do if we empower it with elected Senators given the right to block and introduce legislation is be an active player in the process, not a 'sober second thought'. The Senate in the US is not just a 'sober second thought' house, it is extremely active in changing/approving/denying legislation. We'd be adding another huge (imo) layer of government where I'm not sure one is required. Better to improve the way the current (effective) unicameral system works as far as I'm concernd.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... obviously they wouldn't be impartial, they'd be elected. Elected politicians aren't impartial. Actually what the Senate does right now is leave most stuff alone. What it will do if we empower it with elected Senators given the right to block and introduce legislation is be an active player in the process, not a 'sober second thought'. The Senate in the US is not just a 'sober second thought' house, it is extremely active in changing/approving/denying legislation. We'd be adding another huge (imo) layer of government where I'm not sure one is required. Better to improve the way the current (effective) unicameral system works as far as I'm concernd.

You cannot compare Canadian politics with US politics. Well you can, but it's full of holes. US politics is based around lobby groups unlike Canadian politics which based around the party system. Sure there are parties in the US, but no vote is along party lines, etc. There are different rules governing the different houses in Canada and the US and they are not designed to be the same. In the US they are supposed to work just like they do. In Canada, they would have a different role.

There are a few questions we'd have to have answered to see whether or not the Upper House would be effective. First, is it also based on the party system? If it is, you'd likely end up with a split Upper House in Canada a lot. If it isn't, (and it's not supposed to be,) you do have independant Senators who can think freely. Also, how long are their terms? If you give a Senator a seat for 10 years, they're going to be there through a number of governments. Who is going to watch the interactions between the Houses to ensure that there is no 'buying' of the Senate? Is every province going to have an equal voice in the Senate?

IMO, anything is better than the lack of checks and balances we have now. Even if the role of the Senate is just to report to Canadians on what is actually included in the bills, they're doing their jobs. How much do we really know about all the ins and outs of each bill that goes through? Not a heck of a lot. It would be nice to hear an outside source interpret the bills. (Keeping in mind that right now while we have a rare minority government communication is much more open.)

I just don't see that there are any negatives to electing a Senate. I know I'd rather pay the Senators to do something rather than the nothing they're doing right now. It's much easier to elect them than it would be to abolish them. Abolishing them would require a constitutional change and we don't really want to open that can of worms again...

[mykalberta]

It will take a Conservative majority along with a good showing of NDP and Bloc. I believe to change the Senate requires a 75% approval. Dont take that as gospel but I believe its something like that.

I have mixed feelings on this one.

In the past I thought we needed a counterbalancing Senate for the House but that mimics the US system without the President.

Also, in the past few months the Senate has actually been doing things that dont seem backwards.

I would prefer a mimic of the US system with the exception of in Canada, the president would only handle foreign affairs. I dont like how in the US, the presidents job hinges on domestic policy. That should be a job for the house and Senate with the President adding a few caveats.

The PM power in the Parlimentry system dwarfs the political power a president in a Presidential system.

MYK

[Agamemnon]

I don't know that I'm comparing Canada to the US so much as pointing out that an elected Senate can, and I believe in most cases does, have a very significant role in the creation/passing of legislation. I'm not sure what the point would be to create an empowered Senate with elected officials, and then encourage them to play a very limited role in government. May as well stick with what we've got if that's the goal.

If the Senators are elected, I don't see how they'd be independent. I'm sure they'd all hook up with the existing parties and exist as a secondary House of Commons, complete with the 5 major parties... and why not? Canadians are well represented by the 5 parties. Honestly to create independent, impartial authorities to sit in the Senate you'd have to appoint them. Election politics creates election-oriented politicians no matter how you slice it. I just see it as way more politics than Canada needs... our population/economy is not growing at such a staggering rate that our political insititutions are outdated, especially when compared to other liberal-democracies.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Easier? Maybe. Better? Definitely not. If you ever had a majority government they could then do whatever they wanted with no checks. (Very similar to what we have now.)

THE reason the upper house is ineffective now is because they are not elected. How can people who are not elected represent a democracy? They can't. So you make them elected and you allow them to utilize their rights to stop legislation. They have the legal right to now, just not the moral right. Electing them gives them not only a moral right, but a moral obligation to use their powers.

Maybe they are a check to democracy? The Last Wall of Sanity to protect law making process against politicians who pass tons of bad bills just to look good in from of the masses (last case in point, Tony Blair turning green....)

My 2 cents.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Maybe they are a check to democracy? The Last Wall of Sanity to protect law making process against politicians who pass tons of bad bills just to look good in from of the masses (last case in point, Tony Blair turning green....)

My 2 cents.

Exactly, the judicial system already provides checks and balances to the Legislature. A judge, an unelected appointed official, has the power (depending on the type of judge) to overturn/check legislation that is against the Charter/Constitutional Acts.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by FireFly

A number of reasons. You're right in that we've been run this way for 100 years, why change it?

Let me ask you this: Do you think there's room for improvement? Do you think the governing parties could be better? Do you see a huge negative effect from bi-cameral parliaments in other countries? What's so great about the way it's run now?

It's not like the Senate will interfere with everything. Most likely they'll leave most stuff alone. However, it's nice to have a few impartial eyes going over everything to ensure fairness for all Canadians.

I agree with the line 100%, but if they are elected I don't think they will be impartial. They will be political. They will be pandering to try and get elected next time.

I would rather just dump it.

Or, what about making it a long term (6 or 8 years), and make it so that you can only serve ONCE. That way you are serving the country and not trying to get yourself elected. Stagger it so only a percentage of the senate is overturned each time (so you don't have 100% rookie senators at any time). I could support that.

I would just like to remove the political opportunism from the Senate, and making it elected (similar to MPs) will only tend to worsen this aspect, IMO, and include additional elections.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Exactly, the judicial system already provides checks and balances to the Legislature. A judge, an unelected appointed official, has the power (depending on the type of judge) to overturn/check legislation that is against the Charter/Constitutional Acts.

Well, house of lords can directly influence law making process, so I would say in a "long running" system (ie UK) it has its place.