NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, how about it? Is the Senate worth saving or is it an antiquated institution that should be done away with?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071113/senate_reform_071113/20071113?hub=Politics

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/13/harper-senators.html?ref=rss

I for one think that the purposes of the Senate are valid: to provide a chamber of sober second thought and to provide equal representation to each geographic region so that the more populous provinces cannot simply run roughshod over everyone else. HOwever, I do think that how we choose our Senators is in serious need of change.

But all of the parties' positions on this issue trouble me at least a little.

On the one hand, I think that Harper's proposal to appoint Senators based on the results of a popular vote makes sense. It would reform the selection process without requiring a constitutional amendment, which would be virtually impossible to get passed under the current amending formula. However, I have concerns about how you would actually make the popular vote binding on the PM. Also, I am not clear on what they mean by "the PM would then consider a list of nominees". They seem to be making some allowance for the PM to continue to make appointments of unelected Senators.

I actually agree with the Liberal Senators that a Constitutional Reference on the proposed legislation may be required. HOwever, I doubt that they are making this suggestion in good faith, and that it is more just a part of their obviously self-interested opposition to any reform. I wish the Liberal leadership would step up and either present a clear alternative to the Conservative proposal, or step aside.

I do not support the NDP's call for abolition, nor do I think the Conservatives should if they simply can't get their way. As I think has already been pointed out, I don't see how you can abolish the Senate without undoing the entire deal on which Confederation was based. The smaller provinces were willing to enter in part because they were promised equal representation in the Senate. I worry that Ontario and Quebec are opposing the proposed reforms merely because they want the NDP and Conservatives to go ahead and abolish the Senate, so they can throw their weight around even more in the House of Commons.

On an aside, I find Marjory LeBreton's comment that is's "unhealthy" to have a Senate unchanged since Confederation quite ironic. I wonder if she feels the same way about the House of Commons? Bring on electoral reform!

No Canadians? Or people just don't care?

Why not just elect it by proportional represention and have equal representation for each province, like in Australia?

It'll get Prince Edward Island's support, in any case...

Why not just elect it by proportional represention and have equal representation for each province, like in Australia?

It'll get Prince Edward Island's support, in any case...

I'd love to see STV in the Senate, although not the Australian version per se. I am not sure how exactly the Conservatives plan to elect Senators. They said some type of preferential ballot, but they weren't specific about what kind.

As for equal rep for the provinces, that would be a tough sell, I think. Especially if they don't change the rule whereby no province can have less seats in the House than they have in the Senate. PEI would end up with even more seats than they already have, and that sticks in some people's craw.

The German equivalent, the Bundesrat, consists of representatives of the individual state governments. Technically, they're elected by popular vote and represent their individual regions regardless of population.

If I recall, they are elected at the same time as the State election. How do they deal with the problem of shifting balances of power every time a different state has an election?

The German equivalent, the Bundesrat, consists of representatives of the individual state governments. Technically, they're elected by popular vote and represent their individual regions regardless of population.

Neither abolish nor reform. I like it the way it is.

Neither abolish nor reform. I like it the way it is.

What do you like about it?

Any Canadians today? Or are y'all too busy dwelling on how Kyoto is the "greatest mistake ever made." :rolleyes:

What do you like about it?

Because it's armed to the teeth with Liberals!!!

Honestly? I like the current system because it differentiates us from the Americans. If the Senate was reformed, it should be reformed so that the people appointed have served the nation and made it a better place, even if they never served in the House of Commons. I don't care if it's elected. If it was based on election results, we would be faced with increased voter apathy.

Because it's armed to the teeth with Liberals!!!

Honestly? I like the current system because it differentiates us from the Americans. If the Senate was reformed, it should be reformed so that the people appointed have served the nation and made it a better place, even if they never served in the House of Commons. I don't care if it's elected. If it was based on election results, we would be faced with increased voter apathy.

Surely there are other, better ways to honor people that have served the nation and made it a better place? Isn't that what the Order of Canada is for?

personally, i actually support the current senate. Though i understand that it is undemocratic and such, but i think that the government needs a body of officials that doesnt need to worry about reelection or making popular decisions. Because generally, those decisions can be horrifically wrong, misguided, and unbacked. what the current senate does is establish a level headed body of officials, much like the american supreme court, which can then debate on matters for the nation's benefit, as opposed to their personal popularity.

Surely there are other, better ways to honor people that have served the nation and made it a better place? Isn't that what the Order of Canada is for?

Oh boy! A medal! :rolleyes: A life's time work honoured with some hunk of medal and a ceremony that will soon be forgotten. There is a better way to leave a legacy and it's to have a chance to shape the nation at the national level.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/Xegar/kiwisbybeatsenator.png

Oh boy! A medal! :rolleyes: A life's time work honoured with some hunk of medal and a ceremony that will soon be forgotten. There is a better way to leave a legacy and it's to have a chance to shape the nation at the national level.

If they've made the nation a better place then they've already shaped the nation ...

Can someone explain how the Canadian system works?

I say just fold the whole Canadian government into the US government. It would make the whole thing alot simpler. *nods*

Can someone explain how the Canadian system works?

Our head of state is the Queen. She appoints a representative, the Governor General. This is done on the advice of the Prime Minister; for all intents and purposes the Queen appoints whoever the PM tells her to.

Parliament consists of the Queen, and two Houses: the House of Commons (the lower house) and the Senate (the upper house).

Members of Parliament are elected to the House of Commons based on a simple plurality (first past the post) in 308 ridings across the country.

Senators are appointed by the Governor General, again on the advice of the PM (and again, the PM pretty much tells the GG who to appoint). Senators are appointed to represent a province. The different regions of the country are supposed to have equality of representation.

The current debate is over whether Senators should be elected rather than appointed, or whether the Senate should just be abolished entirely. The current PM (who is a Conservative) wants to reform the selection process, so that the appointments would be generally determined by popular vote and there would be term limits (it's kind of a compromise because a directly elected Senate would require a constitutional amendment, which would require the support of the provicnes). The Senate (which is controlled by the Liberals) has been blocking the proposed changes, allegedly because they want a reference to the Supreme Court to determine if the changes are constitutional. The request for a reference is valid because the constitutionality is questionable, but it is probably more of a delaying tactic than anything else.

I say just fold the whole Canadian government into the US government. It would make the whole thing alot simpler. *nods*

OK. But you need to adopt our dollar. And you need to get your finances in shape.

*snip*

...all of which results in this http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=9mJAsgIIfNM

Should Canada itself be reformed or abolished?

...all of which results in this http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=9mJAsgIIfNM



I think I've been to that mall ...

And I wanted one of those Robots ...

I think that an elected senate would be a dumb thing. First, there is the whole issue about making bad but popular decisions. More importantly, you will have to get people to go out and vote for these people. This will likely confuse the hell out of people, and Elections Canada is going to be left bashing its head against a wall. Then you have to consider actually getting people out the door to vote. Most only have a vague idea of each parties platform, they'd then have to learn about the platform as of a bunch of specific people. That'll get people excited about politics. Every Canadian loves researching the empty lies of faceless douches.

I think the Senate is conceptually fine, but some changes need to be made. Stricter attendance policy quickly comes to mind. How seats are given out also needs changing. Whether regions are redrawn, abolished, or what ever, its current states currently isn't balanced. I'd be more willing to go with the former. The point is to have more equal regional representation, but nearly half the Senate represents Ontario or Quebec. Sure they are big Provinces, and they take advantage of their size in the House of Commons.

I think that an elected senate would be a dumb thing. First, there is the whole issue about making bad but popular decisions. More importantly, you will have to get people to go out and vote for these people. This will likely confuse the hell out of people, and Elections Canada is going to be left bashing its head against a wall. Then you have to consider actually getting people out the door to vote. Most only have a vague idea of each parties platform, they'd then have to learn about the platform as of a bunch of specific people. That'll get people excited about politics. Every Canadian loves researching the empty lies of faceless douches.

I think the suggestion is that they would be elected either during federal or provincial elections. So it wouldn't require an extra effort to "get out the vote" per se. I don't think the Senate provides an effective check on popular but bad decisions currently, although that is fairly subjective. Ideally, the Charter should provide a check on decisions that are popular but just plain wrong, but the notwithstanding clause kind of undermines that role.


I think the Senate is conceptually fine, but some changes need to be made. Stricter attendance policy quickly comes to mind. How seats are given out also needs changing. Whether regions are redrawn, abolished, or what ever, its current states currently isn't balanced. I'd be more willing to go with the former. The point is to have more equal regional representation, but nearly half the Senate represents Ontario or Quebec. Sure they are big Provinces, and they take advantage of their size in the House of Commons.

Point well taken. Why not equal representation by province as opposed to failry arbitrary "regions"?