News   Mar 28, 2024
 478     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 320     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 332     0 

Senate Reform

What should be done with the Senate?


  • Total voters
    19

Dan416

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
8,177
Reaction score
976
In light of the unelected Senate putting to bed a recent environmental bill that was passed by the House of Commons, what is your view of the future of the Canadian Senate?
 
I think the Senate should fulfill the function it was supposed to fulfill in the first place: protection of regional interests and a chamber of sober second thought.

I don't believe an elected senate can achieve the latter. And I don't believe a senate appointed by prime ministers can achieve the former.

I believe the best way to pull this off is to let provincial premiers appoint senators. They would provide a serious check on the power of the federal government...all while taking out the federally partisan nature of the senate.

The only reason people keep pushing for an elected senate, in my most humble opinion is because the common understanding of Canada's political institution is so insufficient that most Canadians would not pass a high school civics test. Combine that with our familiarity with an elected US senate and the old Reform party push for a triple E senate, and you have a recipe for Americanization of our political institutions.

I do believe there's a way to improve our senate without adopting the ways of our southern neighbours while respecting and taking advantage of our Westminster parliamentary heritage.

On this issue specifically...CC do you really believe that an elected senate might have acted differently? What if that elected Senate were to come in at a time when the Conservatives were riding high in the polls?
 
Last edited:
I'm not a huge fan of an elected senate, but I think provincial appointment might be a good idea so long as it was coupled with term-limits. Somewhere in the six to ten year ballpark.
 
I for one would NOT want senators appointed by provincial premiers - as if we need to compromise the Federal government's ability to make national decisions even more - the provinces should not be able to interfere with the legislative branches of the national government in this manner.

AoD
 
I'd be fine for abolition, but if a stronger committee system was established in its place - one that would give individual MPs more say on bills. The committees are usually fairly good at being civil forums of discussion (as compared to the House or Legislative Assembly), as long as opposition parties are given a proper role. Committees of MPs then could be given more control of the agenda and have more legislation originate at that level.

I concur with Alvin, I don't support provincial appointment of the Senate. I am not either a fan of an elected senate, triple E or otherwise.

If we keep it, it should then be a regional appointment (instead of by province, for the smaller ones) selected not just by the Prime Minister but also the opposition leaders (or how about party caucus or even memberships) based upon that region's popular vote as vacancies open, with 10 year max limits. For example, the Atlantic Provinces have 30 seats. If there are 6 vacancies, they are allocated to the parties based on their support in that region. So the Conservatives might get to pick 3, the Liberals 2, and the NDP 1. Currently many Senators are old party bagmen or political favours (Mike Duffy, for example) or for defeated MPs or those who gave up their seat for a star candidate or a leader, though the last Liberal government put some decent people in there, like Romeo Dalaire. It might mean though that people will be selected for better reasons if they are scrutinized. We might also be able to get a Green Party senator before we get a Green MP. Parties could select potential senators in advance at their conventions, or by popular vote of the members.
 
Last edited:
I think the Senate should fulfill the function it was supposed to fulfill in the first place: protection of regional interests and a chamber of sober second thought.

-snip-

On this issue specifically...CC do you really believe that an elected senate might have acted differently? What if that elected Senate were to come in at a time when the Conservatives were riding high in the polls?
Oh dear, I just chose "elected" senate and now I read this! Definitely the best solution to this problem I've seen yet.

Even an elected senate would at least be more indicative of what the people want at the time, rather than years of buildup of different political views. But provincially appointed is definitely the best idea.
 
Ultimate lair of patronage appointments depending on the Government of the day. My view is that they should be elected (and accountable), no longer appointed.
 
Asking how we should change the Senate is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's moot, because change is not possible.
 
Ultimate lair of patronage appointments depending on the Government of the day. My view is that they should be elected (and accountable), no longer appointed.

Actually I would take holding MPs accountable in a meaningful way instead of settling for yet another symbolic interpretation that elected = accountable. Recent experiences have proven that to be a fantasy.

As an institution that is (supposedly) dedicated to sober second thought shouldn't a high premium be placed on merit of its' members in such regards? Shouldn't the minds chosen for such purposes be the most thoughtful, measured and wise from Canadian society? In fact shouldn't overt political affiliation be a disqualifying factor? In order to serve this important role shouldn't the senate be a non-partisan body? Shouldn't this body be the foil against the increasingly jingoist and anti-rational discourse in Canadian politics?

AoD
 
Last edited:
If I may lapse into the vernacular, if these potential senators are so god damn smart and eager to serve let them get off their asses and run for parliament let's face it the competition ain't that tough.

An elected senate dominated by a party in opposition to the party in power in the other house is a vindicative waste of time and of no value as we can readily see. Put them out to pasture on their own dime.
 
Actually I would take holding MPs accountable in a meaningful way instead of settling for yet another symbolic interpretation that elected = accountable. Recent experiences have proven that to be a fantasy.

As an institution that is (supposedly) dedicated to sober second thought shouldn't a high premium be placed on merit of its' members in such regards? Shouldn't the minds chosen for such purposes be the most thoughtful, measured and wise from Canadian society? In fact shouldn't overt political affiliation be a disqualifying factor? In order to serve this important role shouldn't the senate be a non-partisan body? Shouldn't this body be the foil against the increasingly jingoist and anti-rational discourse in Canadian politics?

AoD

AoD, my point was simply that currently these are lifetime appointments and at least if elected they would be accountable to the extent that the electorate can remove them. I didn't say that they should be partisan and agree that they should not be. I also agree that they should be the most thoughtful, measured and wise men and women from Canadian society, but if not elected, they will be "chosen" by someone who will almost invariably have an agenda. Which is worse, reliance on someone else to select these or the choice of an electorate? Don't get me wrong, I'm not the biggest fan of democracy considering the number of idiots in the world, but what do your propose as an alternative? I don't foresee a meritocracy in anybody's lifetime.
 
Don't mean to be contrarian, but change is always possible...

Please sketch out a scenario whereby a constitutional amendment on Senate reform passes the amendment formula. It just aint gonna happen. My money is on military coup as the likeliest path.
 

Back
Top