Should the Senate be abolished

[storm rider]

Personally I think the Senate ia a total fucking Joke.
Canada has it as a traditional tribute to the House
Of Lords in the UK since Canada's structure of
government was based on the UK's model of
govenment when the common man was allowed to vote.

In my mind the Senate is a total waste of tax-payers money
and they are all just a bunch of pigs at the trough being fed
by public funds who not only have dog fuck jobs but also
have an attitude of self entitlement.

 

[CJ Tylers]

I could see senate reform as an issue... rather than abolishing it. Peaceguy makes some good points as to why it should be kept, my only concern is the balance of power within due to appointments. Essentially, I would like to see equal representation from all major parties maintained at all times... rather than allowing senate "stacking" with people friendly to any one governments cause.

Other than that, it serves a good purpose. I highly question the motives of any government that seeks to eliminate the house of sober second thought. They are there to ensure good legislation is passed, catching overtly partisan or poorly thought out schemes.

As for senate elections, I'm on the fence about it.... on one hand, I'd love to see them accountable to the people. On the other, like Peaceguy said, they have to be able to see beyond the next election...

 

[badbadboy]

Have an elected Senate not appointed. Max term for each Senator should be 7 years. No absentee Senators in Phoenix for four months at a time. No more appointed Senators just to keep the house in favour of the Parliament.

Each Province gets seven Senators and its all equal. One Senator is appointed Speaker of the Senate with the hammer vote.

No more Senators for the Maritime and Quebec vs higher populace areas like BC and Alberta.

Only reason I say keep it is because of the old saying "sober second thought". Otherwise a government in the Green Seats could ram through legislation because they have more elected members of parliament. You could see some really crazy shit like abortion abolishment etc that most of the population disagree with yet could do nothing to stop it. Hence the need for the Red Chamber.

 

[blazejowski]

"I approve of this suggestion..." - Emperor Palpatine

 

[dojin]

Again, good logic, I’ve just been around too long to actually have any hope of any partisan organization doing what is best for the country.

I like your logical reply to CJ, and it does tend to keep knee-jerk policy in check, sometimes, but what about the recent Omnibus bills? Regardless of your ideology, they’re pretty much illegal. Yes, I know any good lawyer can make illegal legal if the other lawyer sucks, but really, changing environmental laws with a back door from budget? Where was the Senate, which of course is currently stacked with Conservatives? Perhaps I missed the mass Senators Hunger Strike, but I didn’t see them do a bloody thing about it.

I would say that our Senate is like Communism. Yeah, it looks great on paper, lots of good logic, lots of advantages and mutual assistance etc… Too bad it doesn’t work.

The senate is kind of the target that is visibly useless due to its delve long ago in partisan politics vs the check and balance it was supposed to be. At its current state, abolishment is the most satisfying.

IMHO, the root of the problem is our party system where representation gets lost. Destroy the parties or limit their influence.
Good read: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/12/01/elizabeth-may-political-parties_n_2224447.html

 

[vancity_cowboy]

i voted that the senate should be kept. however, i also believe that it should be seriously revised

i won't go so far as to say it should be elected, but there are many, many abuses that need to be corrected

being appointed to the senate should not be an appointment until death. regular reviews should be done, just as they are in any workplace, and non-performance should lead to dismissal

i do believe that the senate should review and rewrite laws that have been passed by the house of commons, for the fact that the house of commons is largely comprised of real estate brokers and other ne'er-do-wells who couldn't write a good piece of legislation if their lives depended on it. hell, they even make lawyers look good!

senators on the other hand, at least in theory, are seasoned legislators who have seen hundreds of pieces of legislation go completely west because of 'unintended consequences' and should know what to avoid

but to get there, the processes of senate appointments and tenure desperately need to be revised

 

[CJ Tylers]

Ah, but with the current process, where senators sit for 'life' only a few senate seats come open during the term of any one elected government. Thus the composition of the senate varies with the average sentiment of the electorate with a bit of time delay. thus in times where the the public is centered, flipping between left of center & right regularly, the senate will trend towards a balance of center-left & center-right members. An extended period of one side of center or the other & the senate composition will trend in that direction over time. Wholesale changes, or at least greater swings, would be more likely in the case of senators sitting for a fixed term because a larger number of senate seats would come available at one time, making the senate a fixed snapshot of the public mood at the moment of election rather than the trend over time.



Much (most) of the time, that is correct. But realistically, the senate must pick its battles. Generally the bills that come out of the House of Commons are not too egregious & many of those that are will get quashed by the courts. But like the courts, the senate must walk the line, not seen as being "too activist" for an appointed body. The places where they need to act, and sometimes do, are when the potential harm is greatest and the likelihood of a court being able to act is small. Matters of important policy, not legislation.

Like the fire department in a medium sized town (a town too big for a volunteer system, but still fairly quiet), they don't seem to be doing their core job most days, but you still want them there to act when a fire breaks out. You just hope that they have the skills to perform when it really matters.

You didn't quite get my meaning... essentially, the senators would still sit for life or until they are deemed unfit for service. The idea would be that the newly appointed senator would have to be placed to ensure that the senate was balanced, left to right. So, a liberal senator steps down... and it's determined that the senate is heavily left wing, ergo, a right wing senator would be appointed to replace him. (and vice versa)

At all times, the balance of senators would be kept... assuring that all points of view are considered and that no particular agenda or political view could dominate the senate. Instead, to get anything to pass, they must work together like adults (something the house of commons doesn't have to do!) to ensure the best possible solution.

There have been times in the past where several senate seats have come to term within a relatively short amount of time, and the gov't of the day stacked the senate with friendly faces (much to the dismay of the opposition at the time). It's something that also happens down in the states, which leads to the lame duck president.

IMHO, the Senate should be above petty politics anyways, there should be no partisan beliefs impressed upon them. All they are supposed to do is make sure legislation being passed is of benefit to all Canadians, is legally sound, and will not cause massive rifts in the space time continuum.

 

[InnocentBoy]

When the senate is just for show like the downfall of Rome, that is when we need to rewrite the laws.

 

[CJ Tylers]

Again, good logic, I’ve just been around too long to actually have any hope of any partisan organization doing what is best for the country.

I like your logical reply to CJ, and it does tend to keep knee-jerk policy in check, sometimes, but what about the recent Omnibus bills? Regardless of your ideology, they’re pretty much illegal. Yes, I know any good lawyer can make illegal legal if the other lawyer sucks, but really, changing environmental laws with a back door from budget? Where was the Senate, which of course is currently stacked with Conservatives? Perhaps I missed the mass Senators Hunger Strike, but I didn’t see them do a bloody thing about it.

I would say that our Senate is like Communism. Yeah, it looks great on paper, lots of good logic, lots of advantages and mutual assistance etc… Too bad it doesn’t work.

The senate isn't there to prevent distasteful legislation from passing. Also, there is a cursory rubber stamp applied to budget bills, which the omnibus is... as a matter of courtesy to the House of Commons.

The people you should be pissed at are those pushing the omnibus first (a truly horrific abuse of power) first, then at the people without the brass balls to call the idiot gov't on its bluff and go for the vote of no confidence on the budget, triggering an election. Now it just looks like they were more concerned about keeping their jobs than actually standing up for Canadians.

 

[CJ Tylers]

Peaceguy, Ideally you would be correct. However, belonging to a party has a tendency to make you lean in the direction of helping out any bills brought forth by that party. Senators are still party members, and political appointments are a nice.... perk... for toeing the party line for a long time. The PM does have influence on his party faithful, senator or no.

I think political ideology has been creeping in more and more, rather than being a true house of sober second thought. People decide to kill or stall a bill simply because of whom brought it forward. It should almost be that all senators hand in their party memberships, declare complete independence from political affiliations and then have a watchdog overlook their proceedings to ensure that they debate on the true merits of the bills before them.

I realize that these appointments are also handed out, often, in the waning years of a politicians life... but it seems our senate is mostly "out to lunch" more often than they sit (as a whole) in session.

One of the simple things to address, something that irks the average Canadian to no end... is their apparent exorbitant pay with minimal work (ie, they barely have to make any sessions to collect that pay and all benefits). I'm not knowledgeable on the details of what is really going on, but I do know that this is the perception that the public has with it.

Fix that and most people will stop griping about the senate.

 

[storm rider]

Well the poll results speak for themselves...75% would abolish the senate.

SR

 

[agentman]

I think it was back in the early 90's, correct me if i am wrong. A senator was showing up to parliament 15 to 20 times a year, the rest of the time he was at his vacation home in Mexico. As soon as that hit the news he got the boot. So yeah, the senate is in my opinion a WOT/WOM.

 

[Sonny]

essentially, the senators would still sit for life or until they are deemed unfit for service

Just a small notation to this discussion. Canadian Senators face a mandatory retirement at age 75.

 

[CJ Tylers]

So, "Sit for Life" means that they have no election worries until they reach retirement age, or are deemed incompetent or have managed to break what few laws seem to apply to senate members.

At least we can be content with knowing that there aren't any 90 years old patronage appointments in there...

 

[Trav]

WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY.

This is but a small sampling of why this country runs a deficit, all MP’s & Senators are so deep into the trough that they are unable to extricate themselves from it even should they attempt to do so.

Click on the individual senators name for more information:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/15/senate_finance_data.html

 

[storm rider]

WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY.

This is but a small sampling of why this country runs a deficit, all MP’s & Senators are so deep into the trough that they are unable to extricate themselves from it even should they attempt to do so.

Click on the individual senators name for more information:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/15/senate_finance_data.html

Thanks for the link it speaks volumes about how pretty much every sitting member of the senate
is just a pig at the trough stuffing themselves on taxpayer dollars.The travel and living allowances
are disgusting.....and to be honest the liberal senators are definatly the worst abusers of the un-vetted
spending.

The information provided is just the tip of the iceberg though as it does not bring senatorial
pay into the light not does it take into account many other costs such as upkeep of the senate chambers
which include heat and electricity as well as the peons who do the cleaning etc.Also not taken into
account is the cost of office supplies/furniture and the list goes on and on.

Axe the senate and make our elected MP's actually work and it would save Canadians
a BILLION dollars a year at least....and if those savings are applied to the national debt instead
of being spent on other things it would be money well saved.

SR