An alternative to the abolition of the Senate

I think there are a lot of more interesting potential uses for the Red Chamber of semi-sober second thought. Just abolish the damned thing.

Alternative use for the red chamber? How about firewood. How about the set of a horror movie.

 My comment was meant tongue in cheeky, a way of showing my distain for the antidemocractic instutution.

Jeezus: nice, reasonable proposal... but imho unworkable in the current political cesspool we all live in. 

lagatta: Sorry, aint gonna happen.....

Harper's various Senate reform plans, from the term limits and elections through abolition musings have always been talking points for voters, never serious intentions.  

The NDP abolition policy is similarly well designed to gain votes while still far away from holding power and having to actually act on the policy.

After Meech, Charlottetown and the never-endum-referendum, Canadian politicians know they can't gain the acquiescence of some provinces to reform and/or abolish the Senate. Quebec will not alter or give up the potential power it holds in the Senate without re-opening the full constitutional debate and the Atlantic provinces also have parochial reasons to resist abolition.

Only Justin Trudeau has shown leadership on this issue.  Trudeau's actions and future selection-proposals are the first realistic Senate reform ideas we've seen in this long and boring debate. (That has recently become more interesting. )

Support Justin in 2015.

Malcontent wrote:

<snip>   It would be different if the Senate was not political, all were non biased Independents who actually voted that way <snip>

Thank you for endorsing Justin's proposal and leadership on this isssue!

Brachina wrote:

 If you think Justin's attempt to pretend that his "expulsion" of Liberal senators makes them unbiased, not Liberals, or meaningful instead of a deception then you are gullible.

There is no deception. They are no longer part of the Liberal caucus so they don't attend meetings with the House Representatives or the cabinet should Trudeau be elected. They have no connection to the Liberal party beyond being normal members and will not be asked or permitted to campaign nationally although they can't be barred from volunteering for individual ridings.

There is no incentive to go along with the Liberal party on anything.

Details TBA but Trudeau has proposed a non-partisan advisory committee to put forth names.

It's not ideal but over time it could turn the chamber into a non-partisan one of eminent Canadians we could be proud of.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Senate costs almost a hundred million a year, and gives us precisely nothing in return. While some Canadians starve in the streets, it is appalling that this worthless pork barrel for a select number of well-connected citizens continues to shamble along. Anyone making excuses for this monstrosity is sadly deluded. It needs to go. The notion that it's impossible to bring all the provinces on board is just stupid. If it becomes enough of a political liability for them to defend it, they will give in. We shouldn't be shrugging our shoulders and talking about how helpless we are. We should be increasing the pressure to the point where it is impossible for any party to defend it and survive politically.

We can reduce the costs of the Senate. We already have just by publishing expenses.

You can't make it enough of a political liability in Quebec, or in some other provinces. Quebec will not sign the constitution if its demands are not met and the other provinces are not willing to give Quebec the special status that it demands.

There are many issues far more important than the Senate, like income inequality and our struggling medicare system among other topics. The NDP makes more noise about the Senate than practically anything else so apparently it is the NDP's number 1 priority or close to it.

I want the premiers focused on climate change not having endless meetings trying to renegotiate the Constitution.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Inequality and health care both need money. I know the Liberal party likes to think that making speeches is the same as taking action, but back in the real world the difference couldn't be clearer. Where will the money come from, Pondering? The NDP has a very modest proposal for raising taxes and closing tax loopholes. From the Libs, we get nothing. I think that 100 million could do a lot for inequality and healthcare. From your continued support of the Liberal party, one can only assume that you think more speeches will solve everything.

That has nothing to do with what the NDP priorizes. The NDP hasn't said where they will get the money to fund their ideas either. That will come with the platforms for both parties.

Trudeau voting for C 51 despite his opposition to avoid giving the Conservatives ammunition tells us something about his priorities does it not?

Likewise, NDP focus on Senate abolition tells me something about the NDP.

Jacob 2-2: "We should be increasing the pressure to the point where it is impossible for any party to defend it and survive politically."

Trite and naive.  Unfortunately your "we" does not include the parochial provincial interests that make your ploy impossible 

Thank you Pondering for your wise words.

Both the NDP and CONs play this issue up for votes knowing that the constitutional imbroglio on Senate reform is going nowhere.

Pure political manipulation regardless of the long term cost to the country.

Only Trudeau shows NATIONAL, rational leadership on this issue.

The Quebec Gov't may very well not resist abolishing the Senate. Its the quid pro quo that will be the sticking point. To imagine that the Senate can be reformed or abolished as a stand-alone issue without addressing a whole range of other constitutional issues is to dream in technicolor.  And to be woefully (willfully?) ignorant of history.

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Inequality and health care both need money. I know the Liberal party likes to think that making speeches is the same as taking action, but back in the real world the difference couldn't be clearer. Where will the money come from, Pondering? The NDP has a very modest proposal for raising taxes and closing tax loopholes. From the Libs, we get nothing. I think that 100 million could do a lot for inequality and healthcare. From your continued support of the Liberal party, one can only assume that you think more speeches will solve everything.

That has nothing to do with what the NDP priorizes. The NDP hasn't said where they will get the money to fund their ideas either. That will come with the platforms for both parties.

Obviously it has everything to do with priorities. You would have no trouble admitting this if you didn't have a deceitful agenda to push.

The NDP has pledged to raise corporate taxes, close tax loopholes, and end a hundred-million-dollar-a-year pork-barrel patronage sinkhole. These are clear commitments to raising revenue for social programs. What do we get from the Liberals? At best, nothing but empty words, but their record tells its own story that always runs counter to their vapid dishonest speechifying.

When I think of pork barrel patronage, the phrase is practically synonymous with "Liberal party". When I think of taxes I think of the massive Martin tax cuts. And when I think of tax loopholes, I think of the Bronfman family transferring billions of dollars out of the country illegally, escaping 800 million dollars in taxes, all with the blessing of the Liberal party. It was you and me that had to make up that huge tax shortfall while these billionaires got away with murder, and now a member of that self-same Bronfman family is the head fundraiser for Justin himself. I'm sure they expect to be getting more favours for their support in the future. The Liberal party hasn't changed a bit just because they put a new face on their posters. They are still the same corrupt elitist gang of criminals they've always been.

Quote:

Trudeau voting for C 51 despite his opposition to avoid giving the Conservatives ammunition tells us something about his priorities does it not?

Well, no, not really. It tells us more about his character than his priorities. It shows him up as a weak person who is easily bullied. I suppose if you consider cynical self-preservation a priority, then fine. But the only thing it tells us about what issues he considers important is that he'll always back down on those issues, whatever they may be.

Quote:

Likewise, NDP focus on Senate abolition tells me something about the NDP.

It certainly does. It tells us they are serious, practical people who want to end waste and corruption in government so that our tax money can do some good for the country instead of lining the pockets of Canada's well-connected elites.

Pondering won't answer, the sock puppet never does.

Northern PoV wrote:

Quebec will not alter or give up the potential power it holds in the Senate without re-opening the full constitutional debate

You have no reason to think this. Meech Lake was a very different kettle of fish, and I doubt there is much more appetite for long constitutional battles in Quebec than there is in the rest of the country. But given that senate abolition is more popular in Quebec than anywhere else, and they have the most experience with constitutional issues than any other province, it stands to reason that they understand the difficulties and are not daunted by them.

Quote:

and the Atlantic provinces also have <self-serving> reasons to resist abolition.

This is certainly true of the political old guard in those provinces. That doesn't make it true of the general population. My point is that if a lot of provinces get behind this, the hold-outs will have to crumble eventually or be seen by their voters to be propping up a system of corruption and patronage. Remember, the polls we've seen on this so far were people's general impression of Senate abolition. Expect those numbers to move when the full extent of expenses and waste are made clear. If these do end up being the last hold-outs, they won't be for long. The people will demand they get on board.

Quote:

And you don't like Pondering?? Or just voices that disagee with you?

Obviously if I didn't like being disagreed with and disagreeing right back, I wouldn't spend my time in a place like this.

As for Pondering, I don't know her, but strictly as an internet persona she is the worst person I have ever encountered. I far prefer honest hostility to her shifty, passive-agressive baiting and squirming. It's literally revolting the way she interacts here, but it's also a subtle act that she plays very well, so you need to follow her posts for a while to see it.

There are some small, scattered reasons I can see why some people still want the Senate around, but ultimately none of them outweigh the cost. Not worth the money, is the only conclusion I can come to.

My friend's mother had a property in Newfoundland that she hung on to for many years after she moved to Vancouver. It was a important sentimental touchstone for her, and though it cost her lots of money and trouble to keep it up, and it just lay empty for all those years, she couldn't bring herself to get rid of it. But she wasn't a wealthy woman and eventually reality intruded. She couldn't keep paying for it and had to sell. Something she should have done a decade earlier, at the very least.

When I think of the Senate, I always think of that property. A useless and expensive indulgence that people cling to for reasons of sentiment and tradition but has no practical purpose.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

When I think of the Senate, I always think of that property.

Not really a valid comparison. While there is definite need for serious reform, I think the fact the Senate has been driven into the ground clouds the fact that they do real work which will have to be done in some other way, probably more concentrated in the grip of the govenrment of the day.

Pondering wrote:

It tells me they are focusing on a side issue that would be extremely difficult to deliver for campaign reasons.

If someone was caught stealing a hundred million dollars a year from the public purse, would that be a side issue? This money isn't being stolen, but it is being wasted. Regaining that money would be no small matter.

And the difficulty of accomplishing this is being greatly overstated. Of course there would be some pushback from certain provinces but if the public got behind it strongly, that pushback would not last long. No government is going to risk pissing off their voters just to save the Senate. I think that when all the Seante's dirty secrets are finally out in the open, getting the public to support abolition will not be as hard as you people imagine. if we have the public's support, it's a done deal.

JKR wrote:

 Having a non-partisan or multi-partisan committee of the House of Commons select Senators could be a compromise solution that doesn't require provincial consent. Such a committee of the House of Commons could select Senators who are acceptable and approved by all of the majour parties in the House of Commons and by convention the prime minister would recommend that person to the Governor General.

This is close to Trudeau solution, thanks for the endorsement. (His proposal includes the establishment of an advisory body that would actually help the Senate fulfil its constitutional role by reducing partisanship in the selection process and would provide the prime minister with objective advice.)

JKR wrote:

I don't think people are all that concerned about the Senate.

Yeah, nobody's talking about Senator expenses at all. There are no stories in the media or high-profile court cases happening or anything. I'm surprised we're talking about it. How did this obscure arcane subject ever come up?

I think people are concerned about how their government conducts itself, and whether they exist for the people or for themselves. This is not a remedy for that larger problem, but it can be an emblem of the kind of pampered, elitist nonsense that Canadians don't want to put up with any longer. More than just the money, I think it's important for the public to see that they can take charge of how the country is run. Get rid of traditions when traditions are stupid, and make changes when changes make sense. Killing the Senate is a good springboard to other, substantive changes, psychologically speaking.

Pondering wrote:

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

A modest proposal for discussion:

Senators should be chosen only from within the elected federal and provincial members of the Houses of Parliament. They should be nominated and elected to senate by our elected representatives in their respective houses (each provincial house voting for the seats allocated to their province along with the federal Parliament members), with at least one nomination from each government federal and provincial, and the choice to nominate more resting with the federal government. Each senator elected should then be replaced in their ridings by by-election in a timely manner thereafter - thus "stacking" the senate risks weakening the government's hold on power. This should encourage non-partisan nominations of respected opposition members when the governing party cannot afford to weaken their own count in the house.

I do not believe that such a program would require constitutional change; only the agreement of the federal government and those of the provinces that choose to participate.

How would you get around the Supreme Court ruling?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

How do you see the Supreme Court ruling affecting this proposal? It calls for neither direct public election nor abolition.

The Supreme Court specified that senators cannot be elected representatives and that system would place defacto pressure on the PM to accept the choices of the provinces.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/five-quotes-from-the-suprem...

On the reason for the status quo:

“The framers [of the Constitution] sought to endow the Senate with independence from the electoral process to which members of the House of Commons were subject, to remove Senators from a partisan political arena that required unremitting consideration of short-term political objectives.”

On non-binding elections:

“The proposed consultative elections would … weaken the Senate’s role of sober second thought and would give it the democratic legitimacy to systematically block the House of Commons, contrary to its constitutional design.”

On Ottawa’s argument:

“… the purpose of the bills is clear: to bring about a Senate with a popular mandate. … legal analysis of the constitutional nature and effects of proposed legislation cannot be premised on the assumption that the legislation will fail to bring about the changes it seeks to achieve.”

On how to change the status quo:“… the provinces must have a say in constitutional changes that engage their interests. … The result is an amending formula designed … to protect Canada’s constitutional status quo until such time as reforms are agreed upon.”

“Abolition of the Senate would … fundamentally alter our constitutional architecture – by removing the bicameral form of government that gives shape to the Constitution Act, 1867. … [it] requires the unanimous consent of the Senate, the House of Commons, and the legislative assemblies of all Canadian provinces.”

The court only answered the questions put to it but I think their reasoning indicates that they would reject a proposal such as yours because you would still be putting elected representatives in the Senate and there would be enormous pressure on the PM to accept the choices of the provinces.

f I'll add.that people who support reform, would pick abolishing the Senate because the status quo.

SO this was your first post 5 years ago, then nothing till 2015. Yep seems like a progressive.

Quote:

Per Lovelock and others:  The die is cast and the globe will warm to the point that it threatens life as we know it, even if we were smart enough to cease carbon emmissions today. 

 

So I am going to enjoy life including flying and driving as we head for collective oblivian

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Northern PoV wrote:

"Killing the Senate is a good springboard to other, substantive changes, psychologically speaking." Maybe ... but at the moment any kind of Senate reform that includes

* Harper term limits and elections

*Harper threats and the NDP campaign to abolish

 is a simply a vote-grabbing, political football that will ultimately fail and increase voter apathy and hurt national unity.

Only Trudeau has shown national leadership with his dramatic explusion of the Liberal Senators and his bold plan for future selection.

That's crap.

The explulsion of the Senators is meaningless so long as they are still picked by the PM. All the expulsion means is that their loyalty would be to the PM that sent them there rather than his party. It does not change any of the issues related to corruption. Shorter term limits just means a PM can take personal control of the Senate faster with his toadies. It also means that there is not even a party structure to interfere with the PM's power of appointment and expected loyalty. Trudeau appointments would be see as the Trudeau party rather than the Liberal party.

BTW the former Liberal Senators are now official "liberal Senators" -- between you and me a capital L is not fooling anyone.

Glad you enjoyed his theatre-- someone had to.

OK, I get that you don't support Trudeau's Senate reform proposals but you never address there first part: playing  the Senate card to gain votes.

I  disagree with your criticism but at least I can defend Trudeaus's actions and plan as a)constitutional b)possible to implement quickly and cheaply - therefore worth an experimental try c)will not divide the country in a long drawn out constitutional battle.

You cannot defend Harper and Mulcair's shameless politicking on the Senate, on the same basis.

"The NDP position on Senate abolition, on the other hand, has been consistent and unequivocal for over fifty years."

It will be another 50 years to get there - what to do in the meantime? Let little Duffys run up their accounts?

 How about a 300% income tax for senators? They'd all resign to avoid the tax.