75% of Greens in favour of an Elected Senate

By Dan Grice on 8 February 2010 - 7:09pm

Harris Decima has a new poll and only 10% of Canadians support the Senate as is.

Green Party supporters are the highest group in favour of reforming is. 75% of Green favour electing Senators, 20% favour abolishing the Senate, and only 1 in 20 Greens like appointed Senators.

It is time that the Green Party take the progressive lead on promoting Senate Reform. If we can get a proportional senate, like they have in Australia, we may get a few Greens vetting bills before they become law.

It is probably an easier transition to get a proportional representation in the senate than the house, as the senate is already provincial at-large.

http://www.harrisdecima.ca/sites/default/files/releases/2010/02/08/hd-20...

Comments

I agree we should put senate

Submitted by Michael J Phillips on 10 February 2010 - 7:09pm.

I agree we should put senate reform to elected senate in our policy if its not already in there...

Checks and Balances

Submitted by David Barclay on 13 February 2010 - 9:46am.

Most people including myself, support an elected Senate without giving it much further thought – its democracy, right? However, a note of caution about just how it should work:

If candidates for the Senate are aligned to our existing political parties, they will be dependent on those parties for financial and moral support to be nominated, elected and re-elected once their term is up. If they vote on a bill, contrary to their party’s vote in the House of Commons, they risk being ejected from that party and losing all support needed for re-election. We've seen how ruthless the last few PM's have been when a member votes his or her conscience.

If you’re not careful, what you end up with is just doubling the number of sitting MP’s/Senators who are under strict control of one Party leader. They just sit in two buildings.

In this set-up, the PM now has even more power and there’s nothing to slow down or stop him or her. There’s no second sober thought, no checks, no balances. We’ve seen this year that the GG is totally useless as a check. The biggest constitutional problem we face right now is the increasing concentration of power in the position of Prime Minister.

I'm not defending the status-quo and I’m all for democratic Senate reform. But we need to be creative and come up with a system that de-couples Senators from the current parties and frees them to vote their conscience and provide a ‘sober second thought’ and a check on the alarming growth of the power of a PM.

Respectfully, D. Scott Barclay

Senators

Submitted by Michael Vaillancourt on 13 February 2010 - 4:18pm.

I share these concerns, but I don't feel knowledgable enough about the Senate as presently constituted to comment in detail. When I hear calls for "senate reform" I think "why, what's wrong with the Senate? ...then I lose interest :D ). Is there a Senate 101 site for us semi-aware folks to get up to speed? I know there are X Liberal Senators and Y Conservative Senators and some independents. Why are they associated with particular parties? Why aren't they all independent? Or are they, but they just tend to vote as a bloc?

I'm not an expert, but I

Submitted by David Barclay on 13 February 2010 - 6:57pm.

I'm not an expert, but I believe the senators are appointed by whoever the current PM is at the time that vacancies occur (normally due to death because they are appointed 'for life' - correction its been amended to age 75 - no matter how sick and infirm they become.)

Its mostly a pay-off for cronies and chums that have supported that particular PM's party over the years. The PM usually appoints a few celebrities at the same time; athletes and news commentators to take the spotlight off the fact that its basically cronyism. If you are a good servant of a party, you will be rewarded with a lifetime job where you can show up and sleep. A big salary, generous expense account for travel and entertainment, (susidized Ottawa residence? I'm not sure.) indexed pension if you ever bother to retire, and all the perks that come with being a senator. Some Senators have even lived in Mexico and just show up a few times.

Its supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought, a check on an overzealous party in power. They tend to crystallize around party lines. Former liberals usually vote to support liberal initiatives, and former Conservatives respectively, although some may vote their conscience.

When the Senate holds up or amends legislation, they are accused of thwarting the 'democratic will of the people', because they are an unelected body. When they just rubber stamp legislation, they are accused of being a useless undemocratic gang of old fogies at enormous taxpayer expense.

I'll let somebody else who is more knowledgeable correct the above, as its just my impressions, not researched.

Respectfully, D. Scott Barclay

Re: Senate

Submitted by Michael Vaillancourt on 13 February 2010 - 9:10pm.

That's my general understanding as well, though that understanding is based solely on what I've absorbed via our mainstream media. I hesitate though, as I wonder whether this is an exaggeration (cronyism; slacking; etc). Maybe the Senate actually functions fairly well? The simple fact that Harper wants to reform it (or claims to want to) gives me pause.

Shame on you!

Submitted by Don Rawls on 13 February 2010 - 9:26pm.

Not really, even some of us who have made an effort to understand these things are still learning. Trouble is, as in the HoC, that how it was designed to work, how it is mandated to work and how it actually works in practice are not necessarily the same!

Here is a good place to start

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/AboutParl_Process.asp?Language=E

This may help

http://democracyunderfire.blogspot.com/2009/05/how-parliament-works.html

In my view the problem is not with the Senate but the increasing partisan slant to it, we need to remove the nomination of senators as far from partisan politics as possible if it is to remain an effective body. Previous PMs have always appointed those open to their views but of late the choices have become so blatantly partisan as to bring the whole chamber into disrupute. But then perhaps that’s the plan, for without this body as an INDEPENDENT chamber a majority government (or a minority who “forces” bills through the HoC) can pretty well do as they please.

Elected yes, but not by the same method we elect MPs or we will simply get the same result, I favor election by the Provincial legislators (majority vote in those bodys, not by the party in power) to get a better more representative mix. As always the devil is in the details!

Democracy requires dialog, please join us at http://democracyunderfire.blogspot.com/

Re: Senate

Submitted by Michael Vaillancourt on 13 February 2010 - 10:56pm.

Thanks Don, I had a look at both links. I'll probably have to have a look at our Constitution and applicable laws to find the answer to why it is that the Senate adheres to a party structure (with some Senators on side of government and others opposition). While I understand the PM typically makes partisan appointments, it doesn't mean the Senate has to overtly operate with a party system as they appear to be doing:

Senators in the governing party are to the Speaker’s right, and those in opposition are to the left

Senators should be independent and represent the people rather than be affiliated with the political parties present in the HofC. In the grand scheme of things though, I'm not too fussed about the Senate. I think most of the noise is b/c Alberta doesn't like that Ontario has 24 Senators while they have 6. I'd rather we reformed the PMO.

Good Idea / Why Harper wants Senate Reform

Submitted by David Barclay on 14 February 2010 - 10:50am.

Good compromise; Senators elected by Provincial Legislatures, although once-removed from being directly elected by the populace, is still a democratic process. In order to reduce partisanship, perhaps a condition that a candidate would need a 70% majority of the vote in that house. So a candidate would need to be respected by most members, not just the Provincial party in power. And of course the vote should not be construed as a 'confidence motion'.

I left out the problem of absenteeism in the Senate, the attendance rate is disgraceful.

Why does Harper want to make an elected Senate? Its only speculation; but everything Harper says, does, promotes, is a mirror image of the U.S.:

Speeches, word-for-word copied from George Bush. Fixed terms for elections. He tried to remove public funding for parties. Glorifying war; encouraging new Canadians that serving in the military is the honourable thing they should do to be good Canadians. Shutting down safe injection clinics for drug addicts. Against gay marriage. Against public funding for the Arts. Supports leaving people in Guantanamo to be tortured. Criticizing Quebec's efforts to have better emission standards for GHG's than the U.S. He's copied the "President's Award" and invented the "Prime Minister's Award" for school children. Changing the theme of the Olympics to: "Own the podium" instead of 'participate' and 'come together' with the world. (Its already cost one life). In Edmonton, young elementary school children are being taught a new song, "Go for the Gold". (not sure if he's responsible for this shift in the Olympics, but it all fits together as a theme.) Its the creed: 'win at all costs' - If you're second, you're garbage. Its the Americanization of Canada. The list goes on.

He was really pushing for Senate reform when he was not in power; you don't hear much about it now that he can appoint Senators himself.

Respectfully, D. Scott Barclay