Canadian Senate reform

[saxitoxin]

A: maintain the Senate as it currently is

B: Charlottetown Accord (elected Senators, equal number of Senators for each province)

C: Senate Reform Act (continue with appointed Senate but decrease terms from life to 9 years)

D: abolish Senate

E: other

[BigBallinStalin]

E. other (give them double life terms).

So, as they are about to die, put them in the freezer, and then revive them when we've got the tech to do so. At that point, they resume their service in the senate for the rest of their lives.

[Dukasaur]

E: Other

Get back to the original intent of the BNA Act, of setting up the Senate as a non-partisan Chamber of Sober Second Thought.

In order to to take office, Senators should be required to swear an oath of non-partisanship and objectivity. They may maintain basic membership in any political parties they are in, but must agree not to fundraise, strategise, or actively campaign for those parties, or to attend any secret or semi-secret caucuses or meetings, for the duration of their term. A screening committee of noted academics is to pre-screen candidates for depth and breadth of intellect. Candidates must actually live in the province they claim to represent, and must have a history of being actively involved in earning a living there through some non-political activity.

Return some teeth to the Senate, and allow them to actually repeal legislation, and not just hinder its passage.

[BigBallinStalin]

E: other

Put all politicians in freezers to let them serve out their terms until they are defrosted and dead.

[saxitoxin]

BBS: SUCK IT! SUCCCCCCK IT! SUCKITSUCKITSUCKIT

DUKASAUR: I agree with most of your ideas, except about giving the Senate teeth. I think the Senate should be an unpaid position with no expense account but that their workload should be lightened so they just need to meet for 1-2 weeks a year. Maybe they only are called to vote on bills that pass by a narrow margin in the Commons, or bills on which a minimum of X# of senators request a vote. That way they maintain their review authority on important matters without having to debate every little day-to-day bill. Perhaps they could even vote virtually from their home provinces, instead of actually assembling? Since they're only each allowed to speak once anyway, the "debate" on a bill could be submitted in writing and posted to their website. (RDS could even create a sub-forum here at ConquerClub called "Senate Debates" and Senators could each get a ConquerClub account and play a speeder on Holy Roman Empire between bills.)

[keiths31]

A reform is in order. Like Duk said or an elected Senate. But for any of these things to happen you need to have all the provinces agree...and that isn't likely to happen.

[notyou2]

BBS: SUCK IT! SUCCCCCCK IT! SUCKITSUCKITSUCKIT

DUKASAUR: I agree with most of your ideas, except about giving the Senate teeth. I think the Senate should be an unpaid position with no expense account but that their workload should be lightened so they just need to meet for 1-2 weeks a year. Maybe they only are called to vote on bills that pass by a narrow margin in the Commons, or bills on which a minimum of X# of senators request a vote. That way they maintain their review authority on important matters without having to debate every little day-to-day bill. Perhaps they could even vote virtually from their home provinces, instead of actually assembling? Since they're only each allowed to speak once anyway, the "debate" on a bill could be submitted in writing and posted to their website. (RDS could even create a sub-forum here at ConquerClub called "Senate Debates" and Senators could each get a ConquerClub account and play a speeder on Holy Roman Empire between bills.)

Golly Dr Sax. You sure do get excited about the Canadian senate. One would think that perhaps you are a Canadian.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS: SUCK IT! SUCCCCCCK IT! SUCKITSUCKITSUCKIT

Are you coming on to me?

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS: SUCK IT! SUCCCCCCK IT! SUCKITSUCKITSUCKIT

DUKASAUR: I agree with most of your ideas, except about giving the Senate teeth. I think the Senate should be an unpaid position with no expense account but that their workload should be lightened so they just need to meet for 1-2 weeks a year. Maybe they only are called to vote on bills that pass by a narrow margin in the Commons, or bills on which a minimum of X# of senators request a vote. That way they maintain their review authority on important matters without having to debate every little day-to-day bill. Perhaps they could even vote virtually from their home provinces, instead of actually assembling? Since they're only each allowed to speak once anyway, the "debate" on a bill could be submitted in writing and posted to their website. (RDS could even create a sub-forum here at ConquerClub called "Senate Debates" and Senators could each get a ConquerClub account and play a speeder on Holy Roman Empire between bills.)

Golly Dr Sax. You sure do get excited about the Canadian senate. One would think that perhaps you are a Canadian.

I heard that after he could no longer serve as a medical practitioner in East Germany for 20 years, he moved to Canada, where he was at once ordered to leave after trying to mount a Mountie's mount.

[saxitoxin]

BBS: SUCK IT! SUCCCCCCK IT! SUCKITSUCKITSUCKIT

Are you coming on to me?

remove the to

[Dukasaur]

BBS: SUCK IT! SUCCCCCCK IT! SUCKITSUCKITSUCKIT

DUKASAUR: I agree with most of your ideas, except about giving the Senate teeth. I think the Senate should be an unpaid position with no expense account but that their workload should be lightened so they just need to meet for 1-2 weeks a year. Maybe they only are called to vote on bills that pass by a narrow margin in the Commons, or bills on which a minimum of X# of senators request a vote. That way they maintain their review authority on important matters without having to debate every little day-to-day bill. Perhaps they could even vote virtually from their home provinces, instead of actually assembling? Since they're only each allowed to speak once anyway, the "debate" on a bill could be submitted in writing and posted to their website. (RDS could even create a sub-forum here at ConquerClub called "Senate Debates" and Senators could each get a ConquerClub account and play a speeder on Holy Roman Empire between bills.)

I could live with that.

Virtual assembly is going to happen sooner or later, why not be seen as trailblazers?

[notyou2]

BBS: SUCK IT! SUCCCCCCK IT! SUCKITSUCKITSUCKIT

DUKASAUR: I agree with most of your ideas, except about giving the Senate teeth. I think the Senate should be an unpaid position with no expense account but that their workload should be lightened so they just need to meet for 1-2 weeks a year. Maybe they only are called to vote on bills that pass by a narrow margin in the Commons, or bills on which a minimum of X# of senators request a vote. That way they maintain their review authority on important matters without having to debate every little day-to-day bill. Perhaps they could even vote virtually from their home provinces, instead of actually assembling? Since they're only each allowed to speak once anyway, the "debate" on a bill could be submitted in writing and posted to their website. (RDS could even create a sub-forum here at ConquerClub called "Senate Debates" and Senators could each get a ConquerClub account and play a speeder on Holy Roman Empire between bills.)

I could live with that.

Virtual assembly is going to happen sooner or later, why not be seen as trailblazers?

Why not take it a step further and we create virtual politicians that can't lie, steal, cheat, or procreate.

[Ray Rider]

B would be the best; if not B, then at least C.

I tend to think somewhat along these lines in regard to the senate:

More than 400 years ago, Guy Fawkes almost ignited a bonfire that would have exploded many kegs of gunpowder under the British Parliament, blowing it to smithereens.

Fawkes and his friends would have delighted in ridding the world of what they deemed to be an odious institution. Most of us, however, would agree that the British Parliament, notwithstanding its many weaknesses and scandals, is far better left standing than smouldering.

There is no real comparison, of course, between the global effects of policies emanating from the British Parliament and those which ripple from our own Senate. But the fact is, immolating that institution, even if it is in the flames of public contempt, would not necessarily make the nation a better place.

Keep in mind that no Parliament, no government, no prime minister, nor any court in the land can decree that the Senate be abolished. Its right to exist is embedded in our Constitution. Abolition requires opening the Constitution and securing the agreement of Parliament along with seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population.

There are also many ways in which somebody could put a proverbial spoke into the wheel of that type of Constitutional change. Think of the recent passing of Elijah Harper and his role in bringing the Meech Lake Accord to a grinding stop. I daresay my youngest grandchild would be well past the age of forced retirement for a Senator before we would have abolition successfully steered through the Constitutional process.
Guy Fawkes' approach to parliamentary reform - blowing it all up - is not necessary when it comes to Canada's Senate, Stockwell Day argues. (Google image)

That aside, the cries for abolition and demolition of the Senate will continue to rise as the current expense controversy winds on. I understand that. For that reason we need the debate.

Personally, I believe a properly-working Senate would be a good thing for Canada.

I want to touch on one significant risk to the strength of the Canadian fabric if the Senate was to be no more.

Around the world, many parliaments include a bicameral or "two house" approach. One of the reasons is to balance out an inherent flaw in any system that is, quite rightly, based on the principle of one person, one vote. That flaw has to do with the way populations are distributed.

In many countries, the majority of people are concentrated in the urban centres, with the remainder being in the geographically-larger, but less populated, rural areas.

Here's why that is a flaw: a House of Commons properly structured on the basis of one person, one vote means the Greater Toronto Area has 42 MPs assigned to it. At the same time, the entire province of British Columbia has only 36 MPs. Do the math. On any given day in the House of Commons, one urban area can wipe out all of the MP votes of an entire province.

At this point, some people (usually those living in large central-Canadian urban centres) will say MPs are in the Commons to represent the greater good of the country and not simply their constituents. On some issues that may be the case. But I can tell you without hesitation that any MP who consistently acts and votes as if she is in Ottawa to represent the entire nation and not her own constituents will probably be looking at mandatory retirement at the next election.

Recognizing that no electoral system is perfect and each will have its flaws, a properly constituted and provincially elected Senate would take some of the pressure off this regional imbalance.

All votes would still obviously go through the House of Commons. Then, when the bill is sent to the Senate for consideration, it would be looked at on a more regional basis by senators elected for that purpose.
Countering feelings of exclusion

The MP concentration in hyper-populated cities or provinces can create a sense of exclusion for others. I lived in a province that, with much support, elected an avowed separatist MLA. And I am not referring to Quebec. This may not have happened if senators had been elected, not appointed, to speak up for the provinces and regions they represent.

The Constitution did not have to change for the eventual arrival in Ottawa of elected senators from Alberta. Any province has the right to have names on a provincial ballot for people who want to run to represent that province in the Senate. Then all you need is agreement from the prime minister to name that elected person when the appropriate Senate seat comes open. No more patronage!

A prime minister who is truly respectful of the democratic process and who truly respects all parts of the nation will accept the will of the people in a province when it comes to their choice for senator.

When it came to Alberta, prime ministers Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper respected the will of the people. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien did not.

Yes, there are flaws and imperfections with any system. We as human beings are imperfect and therefore not capable of coming up with a perfect system. But we can always do better. Having a Senate that builds national cohesion by enhancing provincial interests is better than not having one at all.

Let's not burn it down. Let's build it up.

Tldr; I support shortening senator terms, giving the senate more power than just to rubber-stamp bills, and electing senators based on proportional representation by province/land area (which are then appointed by the PM according to the election results, similar to what Alberta has been doing).

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS: SUCK IT! SUCCCCCCK IT! SUCKITSUCKITSUCKIT

Are you coming on to me?

remove the to

Are you coming to me? Well, I'll see ya soon!

[Lootifer]

Who cares, its canada!

[saxitoxin]

I support shortening senator terms, giving the senate more power than just to rubber-stamp bills, and electing senators

That's just a second House of Commons!

[Ray Rider]

I support shortening senator terms, giving the senate more power than just to rubber-stamp bills, and electing senators

That's just a second House of Commons!

No, seats in the House of Commons are primarily divided up according to the population of provinces & territories which can create an imbalance of power depending on population distribution (as was mentioned in the article I posted, MPs from Toronto could wipe out the votes of all the MPs from the entire province of BC). The senate could be a check on that power.

[Baron Von PWN]

I like the idea of equal number of senators per province. I wonder what do we do for the territories? Do they get equal rep with the provinces? How many senators do we keep around? If we go american style and do two per province/ territory, it's going to be awful lonely in the senate. Do they get ridings like MPs? or do they represent the whole province/territory?

[saxitoxin]

I support shortening senator terms, giving the senate more power than just to rubber-stamp bills, and electing senators

That's just a second House of Commons!

No, seats in the House of Commons are primarily divided up according to the population of provinces & territories

But isn't that what you said you also wanted in the Senate?

[Ray Rider]

I support shortening senator terms, giving the senate more power than just to rubber-stamp bills, and electing senators

That's just a second House of Commons!

No, seats in the House of Commons are primarily divided up according to the population of provinces & territories

But isn't that what you said you also wanted in the Senate?

Tldr; I support shortening senator terms, giving the senate more power than just to rubber-stamp bills, and electing senators based on proportional representation by province/land area.

Sorry, I said "proportional" when I should've said "equal;" I can understand why I confused you. I don't mean proportional represenation by population like the house of commons. Rather as BVP mentioned, something along the lines of an equal number of senators per province. Triple E senate reform is what I'm talking about; Australia has had it since 1901.