An alternative to the abolition of the Senate

Looks like the politics of the Senate are interesting given the timing: Harper may have blown it.

Likely Harper could have named Senators over the last while -- trying to avoid controversy. Instead he held off. Now he has a tactical problem: does he give up on the Senate and let the new PM name Senators wiping out the Conservative majority in the Senate in three months? Or does he create massive headlines with the biggest amount of Senate patronage in Canadian history right on the edge of the election with Duffy in the news? It is certain that Harper was not imagining the NDP could win when he stopped naming Senators. Was he really planning on giving the Chamber to Trudeau?

Trudeau could erase the Conservative majority by January.

If Mulcair gets the Senate, the Conservatives may think he is screwed but he isn't at all. For Mulcair the answer is very simple: convene an urgent First Ministers' conference on the Senate. Ask them if they would be willing to abolish (keeping the NDP promise). If they agree the Constitution is amended. If they don't he can sit with the Premiers and come up with a strategy to fill the Senate without PMO patronage using a new nomination program. He could continue the discussion and amend the Senate. He could name First Nations and Inuit Senators. In short he can try plan A: Abolish and Plan B reform in one single conference with the First Ministers. Once done the Conservative Senate would be gone replaced with something very different. Trudeau could do the same thing just skipping over the attempt to abolish and go right to amending it. Harper has blown the Senate file and lost the chance even to leave the opposition with his choice of Senate.

The senate discussion is one example of why I say we have to keep our heads and take a much more ordered attitude toward all things like this.

harper has poisoned our country and certainly earned a label such as "The Traitor Regime," among many others, but, it's our political/social/legal systems that allowed it. We have to look at a number of things before deciding what to do about the senate, from the perspective of, "once democracy is established, what will we need".

Naturally we "the people" have no power to change anything right now. That's not actually true of course, since we'll always have the power, but what we lack is the means to understand and co-ordinate that power.

A senate-like entity is necessary as independent secondary oversight, notwithstanding the vile perversion it is now, that'll be an essential part of our ability to maintain realistic public control between elections, without having to constantly run to vote.

A useful senate-like body in a democracy might (all with the goal of improving and increasing public information and oversight, to facilitate public control):

1) provide general oversight of gov't operations (according to a standard analysis as well as independent)
2) review and research laws proposed by technical gov't
3) co-ordinate with universities, etc. to meaningfully engage students/staff in front line work of evaluating laws and other research, both to give students valuable experience and allow moderation of the required size and composition of the senate body
4) have the ability to dely, to a point pending public review (another area requiring discussion), laws, etc. passed by the technical political authority
5) provide public oversight and information for foreign related aspects
6) have real independence from the technical gov't
7) appointment/election method to be determined
8) list, compare and inform about "partisan" positions
9) ensure real public advocacy
10) have proper, publically approved expense rules, etc.
11) etc.

Note that this senate-like body would have a specifically defined process to inform the public (to be determined), as well as flexibility to evaluate and inform beyond the standard framework, when necessary.

How to choose/elect the individuals is secondary to their role, although "democratically" primary, of course. It's already been pointed out that any sense of advantage by having more individuals for your area is just an illusion. As are so many other things.

What would you like a senate-like body to do?, not worrying about their current role, and assuming you could trust them and their loyalty was to us. We're talking about "democracy".

I'm not saying replace current discussions with such musings, just have it as an extra. Purely as a mental exercise, what would a trusted oversight body with total power to inform and limited power to disrupt look like.

Keep in mind that if we don't have a mechanism to act when informed, the senate is useless. So as I see it, it's worthless to worry about how to change the senate at this point, until we decide what we want to change it in to (first), along with a few other things regarding fundamental governance.

The essential problems with the senate aren't the expense rules, etc., which are purely pedantic. It's that a political body designed for a monarchy exists in a "democracy" relatively unchanged.

One question too, why is it that everyone seems to think we have to include politicians as overlords in these discussions. Just because chauffer's have the keys to a car, it doesn't mean they own the car. These are hired managers.

And, even if it is functionally that way now, it doesn't mean it has to be that way.

Ibid.

PS Just as a note, "term limits" have been mentioned, and although they may have a value in a dictatorship, they're an attack on a "legitimate" democracy and an attack on future generations that greatly weaken and threaten democracy. If you want to inject poison in to a real democracy, introduce term limits.

PPS Of the many, many attacks on our country committed by the traitor regime, perversion of the interpretation of the term "reasonable", which is a central concept in our "constitution", is a particularly threatening one.

Yup...

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/stephen-harpe...

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall are expected to appear together Friday to call for the abolition of the Senate, according to a source familiar with their plans."

Brilliant, as usual.

Harper can say:

"Canadians are overwhelmingly opposed to 'business as usual' for the Senate. We have always said, make it work, or abolish it. Despite our best efforts, the Supreme Court's decision makes reform virtually impossible. So, abolish it."

What will Mulcair say? What will Trudeau say?

Interesting, I think the media spin will have a more lasting impression than anything the PM might say.

Late-breaking: Ivison says he's sorry for the mistake.

And Stephen Harper announces a moratorium on any new Senate appointments.

(Rex Murphy, Andrew Coyne, and John Ivison wilt noticeably.)

Pondering wrote:

People on the prairies also seem to support Senate reform more than Senate abolition.

It does seem that people from the Atlantic provinces prefer reforming the Senate.

[/quote]

But it isn't up to them. It is up to the political class.

[/quote]

JKR wrote:

It seems to me that the "political class" takes into consideration the opinion of large segments of the population.

Quebec will use their veto if they don't get whatever they want out of the deal. I shudder to think what Mulcair would offer to get agreement on abolishing the Senate.

Many Quebecers would support making demands or no deal. Even if they didn't it wouldn't matter. Which party to vote for in Quebec is already a joke.  Couillard or PKP, pick one.

arielc wrote:

Is it time to talk about Senate reform again?

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has argued that his approach is the only practical way to achieve concrete change in the Senate without getting bogged down in divisive constitutional wrangling with the provinces. His objective is to eliminate the partisanship that he believes has eroded the Senate’s ability to fulfil its intended role as an independent chamber of sober second thought.

The Supreme Court has ruled that more dramatic reforms — such as altering the Senate’s regional representation, imposing term limits, or requiring the election of senators — would require a constitutional amendment approved by at least seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population. Abolition of the chamber would require unanimous consent."

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/justin-trudeaus-plan-to-reform-...

I have a question: How would 'merit' and 'nonpartisan' be defined and implemented?

Are there really any 'nonpartisan' Canadians of sufficient 'merit' to hold those responsibilities? Swing voters? Nonvoters? All typically do have some partisan opinions too. Who are these nonpartisans Trudeau is referring to?

I will disclose that I believe electoral reform of the House of Commons should precede Senate reform, and that I do believe in the value of a chamber of 'sober second thought'.

However, I'm aware of the pitfalls of both.

I think the distinction is between party preference and partisanship and there is one we can see although the exact borders of it are less clear.

A person who is a party worker and are activists are not the same as people who may have a preference but are not defined as such. A question of loyalty could be raised. Your preference must be loyal to you. We presume partisans will make their positions loyal to their parties.

We can ask that there be no party affiliations, no caucus, no presumed (enforced or not) political loyalty and that party activists -- those who do political work volunteer or not be excluded. The rest of the people who may have expressed a partisan opinion from time to time can be eligible but they would not be expected to be loyal and they would be barred from any political activity during their tenure.

The concept is somewhat similar to other public servants. Theya re allowed to vote. Recently they may even express themselves politcally but they may not be activists.

Not a clean line but certainly worthy and possible with some effort to determine. The distinction exists even if its interpretation is somewhat subjective. We should not dismiss all values that cannot be measured in a purely objective manner. These decisions would be made before the public and the public will be able to see the result.

by knowing their secrets?

 it should be a committee of the whole HoC who pick acceptable to all  persons to represent the province and a region of the province which needs replacement.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I still think the Commons is in more urgent need of reform than the Senate. Nothing actually happens there. There's a pretence, worthy of the Emperor's new clothes, that legislation is created, debated, and decided there - even though everyone knows that the votes are decided in secret party caucuses, and the laws are decided by secret majority-government cabinet meetings (or just the PMO, then delivered to cabinet and caucus by royal courier or something). It's actually incredible that [b]no one[/b] challenges this murky despotism.

At least in the Senate, there are occasional signs of dissent from the party line. And does anyone really believe the Senate expenses and spending scandals can possibly be worse than whatever goes on in the Commons?

 

I agree with you completely here.

I think the reform of the Senate might be something we contemplate in the context of what is wrong with the House.

I am unhappy with all three popular choices presently being proposed:

Elected Senate/abolished Senate/status quo

I think they are all disasters.

So Sean and I agree.

This means that Senate reform is meaningless without Commons reform. Yet no one talks about that. Why not?

i thought about this unionist and i think if the Senate was truely reflective of the provinces they represent and the societies within them, the HoC would have to be more co-operative and non-partisan in order to get Bills passed through the Senate.

the PMO and caucus would have very little personal agenda power and may have to actually follow the platform they were elected under.

i agree Sean the PMO's office needs to be dialed back. the backbenchers need to be their own force and stop knuckling to the leader of a party. or the MO.

if they're worried about pay and getting advanced positions or hut out by the party leader or their puppet masters then what do we do to get them to be more?