Why the NDP is Right to Want to Abolish the Senate

Former MP Carolyn Parrish just tweeted

"Only step left is to hold a national referendum. If healthy majority want Senate abolished, provinces will have to co-operate. No shortcuts."

Note the date. I agree with Harper. But just on this point.

However, I look forward to Tom Mulcair's next National Tour to Convince Canadians that Abolishing the Senate is Really Really Important. Should be a humdinger, like the last one.

If Harper is smart he will now choose Senators that the NDP and Liberals also support.

A simple solution to the dysfunctional Senate is for the Prime Minister to appoint senators that are supported by a majority of the opposition members of the House of Commons.

Its nice to be proved right even tho a lot of dippers kept saying here that provincial agreement wasnt needed for anything.

You cant leave the house vacant or not fund it since its a constitutional requirement and any court would rule they must use it until they get rid of it.

Which will never ever happen since it would mean PEI would go from 4 MPs to just 1 and have no upper chamber with equal rep. And QC has said they want no changes either since they get equal rep there

So its a dead issue, referendum or not

Three points;

1. I see no reason why the Commons cannot simply cut off money for the Senate. Members of the House of Lords are not paid salaries, only expenses. If this is accompanied by a rule that senators need to attend 90% of the sessions it could serve to weed out most of the Senators.

2. To answer Bacchus in post 509, I would assume that any amendemnet abolishing the Senate would also guarantee the "Senate floor" number of MPs.

3. The SCC has said that consultative Senate elections are an improper mechanism for the appointment of Senators. Even though the PM retains the final say this is merely a matter of "form over substance." Does this mean that those "elected" Senaators are illegitimate and can be challenged?  

Unionist wrote:

Could someone phone Mulcair (I only ever get assistants, if I'm lucky, even though he's my MP) and tell him to forget about the Senate, because nobody cares?

Thanks.

 

Are you kidding?  He's just getting started.

http://m.thestar.com/#!/news/redirect/6cde58544c9591a0e0435fd93b1f0bb0

 What's worse then requiring the approval of the provinces is it requires the approval of the Senate itself. This is one of the single most stunned and morally bankrupt desicions the Supreme Court has ever made, protecting corruption and cronism. They're arguements in favour of the senate are poor and illegalical. We'll see what the NDP's plan will be now.

The NDP was and is correct - the Senate should be abolished. The question though is how to go about it.

A Senate letdown for Quebec sovereignists

http://www.canada.com/news/Macpherson+Senate+letdown+Quebec+sovereignist...

When Harper is faced with other Senate problems, Duffy's upcoming trail anyone,  he will be able to just say - look I tried to fix the Senate but the Supreme Court ruled against me.

Did Harper lose, or is it a win in disguise?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/did-harper-lose-or-is-it-a-win-in...

Brachina wrote:

http://m.thestar.com/#!/news/redirect/6cde58544c9591a0e0435fd93b1f0bb0

 

 What's worse then requiring the approval of the provinces is it requires the approval of the Senate itself. This is one of the single most stunned and morally bankrupt desicions the Supreme Court has ever made, protecting corruption and cronism. They're arguements in favour of the senate are poor and illegalical. We'll see what the NDP's plan will be now.

PART V

PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION OF CANADA 

• 38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by

  • (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and

  • (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

    ****

Those sneaky Supreme Court justices!  They were able to insert the above provision into the Constitution of Canada all by themselves!

What a neat trick - I wonder how they did it???

cco wrote:

We can't amend the constitution because Québec might sneak in.

Heh?

That's far from the reason why I'm leery of opening it up. The far greater concern for me is what people like Mr. Harper would do with it, as well as like-minded premiers.

(though I have to say, that last worry is kind of out the barn door at this point since Harper has already gutted envirionemtal reviews.

Honestly, I don't think we need to do a damned thing here other than appoint more honourable senators, and use the house in the way it was intended - that means cut the politics, and let the last time they quashed legislation passed in the commons be THE last  time.

Is it possible? Of course it is.

No, cco.

As a  chamber of sober second thought. And I wouldn't call the refining process that can happen in the senate "no impact whatsoever".

If you think the unelected nature of the senate means anything, just look at how Harper has managed to concentrate power in the PMO in what is supposed to be the democratic House of Commons.

JKR wrote:

Like it or not, Senate reform will take the agreement of the federal government and 7 out of 10 provinces with at least 50% of the population and Senate abolition will require the agreement of the federal government and every province.

I haven't been following much this past week and so I don't know much about the recent decision.  Is this pretty much an accurate short summary?  With the qualification that there could be procedural hacks such as buying out current senators and not appointing more, I assume.

That is how it traditionally SHOULD be done. And if it was done that way there would really be nothing undemopcratic at all.

Then Harper's gang did this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tory-senato...

I don't know if it is the only time it has ever heppened (someone here may know that) but it is a step far beyond delays tactics which, although an expression of protest, don't go as far as to kill legislation that has been passed by the democratic house for purely partisan reasons.

So yes, I hope it is the last time. I don't know why people are so focused on expense accounts when that set a far more disturbing precedent.

And I'm not sure that is unclear about my first statement. In most cases legislation that goes through the senate comes out better than it goes in.

arielc wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

No, cco.

As a  chamber of sober second thought. And I wouldn't call the refining process that can happen in the senate "no impact whatsoever".

I'm not sure I understand this, since you also said:

Quote:

and let the last time they quashed legislation passed in the commons be THE last  time.

I may be wrong, but I think the Senate can only send stuff back to the HoC for 'refinement'.

If they don't have the power to "quash", then they have no power to effect refinements.

terrytowel wrote:

JKR wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Is there something in the Constitution that says the Senate must be full? Couldn't it be just left vacant, and Harper stop appointing senators. There are already several vacancies, and we are approaching the double digits.

If the Governor General stops appointing Senators today it will take 31 years before all the current Senators are retired. So the NDP will have to be in government for a very long time before they can take the Senate out of the legislative process. If the NDP were to lose office during this 31 year period another party, likely the Conservatives or Liberals, could fill up the Senate again with their supporters and it would take another 30 or so years at the earliest before the Senate could be taken out of the equation by simply ending Senate appointments.

Like it or not, Senate reform will take the agreement of the federal government and 7 out of 10 provinces with at least 50% of the population and Senate abolition will require the agreement of the federal government and every province.

But some have suggested offering current senators buy-out packages in exchange for their resignations.

That would only work if every senator agreed to a buy-out-package. At least a few senators would likely never go along with such an inderect plan to abolish the Senate since most senators are opposed to senate abolition.

Buying out senators would also be very expensive. Many people could even see a very lucrative buyout as being a type of bribe. It would only be affordable if every senator accepted a buy-out and if the senate was not subsequently repopulated. Buying out all senators would not prevent future governments from restocking the Senate.

The way to abolish the Senate is to have every province agree to it. If the NDP gets into power they could negotiate with all the provinces. Some provinces would likely require compensation for agreeing to abolition.

In the meantime, appointing Senators that are respected by most Canadians is likely the simplest way to deal with the inherent problems of the Senate. If Harper was smart he would appoint some people like Ed Broadbent, Stephen Lewis, Joe Clark, Peter Lougheed, Wayne Gretzky, Chris Hadfield, Bryan Adams, Leonard Cohen, etc....

JKR wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

JKR wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Is there something in the Constitution that says the Senate must be full? Couldn't it be just left vacant, and Harper stop appointing senators. There are already several vacancies, and we are approaching the double digits.

If the Governor General stops appointing Senators today it will take 31 years before all the current Senators are retired. So the NDP will have to be in government for a very long time before they can take the Senate out of the legislative process. If the NDP were to lose office during this 31 year period another party, likely the Conservatives or Liberals, could fill up the Senate again with their supporters and it would take another 30 or so years at the earliest before the Senate could be taken out of the equation by simply ending Senate appointments.

Like it or not, Senate reform will take the agreement of the federal government and 7 out of 10 provinces with at least 50% of the population and Senate abolition will require the agreement of the federal government and every province.

But some have suggested offering current senators buy-out packages in exchange for their resignations.

That would only work if every senator agreed to a buy-out-package. At least a few senators would likely never go along with such an inderect plan to abolish the Senate since most senators are opposed to senate abolition.

Buying out senators would also be very expensive. Many people could even see a very lucrative buyout as being a type of bribe. It would only be affordable if every senator accepted a buy-out and if the senate was not subsequently repopulated. Buying out all senators would not prevent future governments from restocking the Senate.

The way to abolish the Senate is to have every province agree to it. If the NDP gets into power they could negotiate with all the provinces. Some provinces would likely require compensation for agreeing to abolition.

In the meantime, appointing Senators that are respected by most Canadians is likely the simplest way to deal with the inherent problems of the Senate. If Harper was smart he would appoint some people like Ed Broadbent, Stephen Lewis, Joe Clark, Peter Lougheed, Wayne Gretzky, Chris Hadfield, Bryan Adams, Leonard Cohen, etc....

I think it would be hard to appoint Peter Lougheed, although Ed is still alive.

What a pile of revisionist history nonsense.

And I, like the vast majority of Canadians, including Quebecers, kinda like the Charter.

cco wrote:

All the pundits and politicians have either been dancing around or (occasionally) explicitly saying what's become Canada's de facto law: We can't amend the constitution because Québec might sneak in. This, despite the fact that not three weeks ago Québec voted for a guy who doesn't even believe in Law 101 and wants to sign the 1982 constitution by 2017 without any concessions whatsoever.

So there you have it, Canada: A document passed by the British legislature 32 years ago and written by Pierre Trudeau to stick his finger in René Lévesque's eye is unamendable in perpetuity because of those damn dirty French and their laughable desire for self-determination. Kind of like how Lebanon hasn't had a census since 1932 because they're afraid of knowing the results.

Democracy. It's a marvellous thing.

@ Policywonk

You are right, and II was being unclear, and refering more to how things traditionally are done (since I was aware Harper used the senate to kill the Climate bill).

But are you aware of other cases in recent history where the Senate has stopped legislation passed in the house?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-senate-overturns-oppos...

Quote:

Although the Liberals used the majority they enjoyed in the Senate during the first years of the Harper government to suggest changes to some legislation, and delayed one or two bills, they never killed bills that had been passed by a majority of the Commons.

In fact, since 1961, the Senate has only twice killed a bill that had been passed by elected MPs.

JKR wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

JKR wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Is there something in the Constitution that says the Senate must be full? Couldn't it be just left vacant, and Harper stop appointing senators. There are already several vacancies, and we are approaching the double digits.

If the Governor General stops appointing Senators today it will take 31 years before all the current Senators are retired. So the NDP will have to be in government for a very long time before they can take the Senate out of the legislative process. If the NDP were to lose office during this 31 year period another party, likely the Conservatives or Liberals, could fill up the Senate again with their supporters and it would take another 30 or so years at the earliest before the Senate could be taken out of the equation by simply ending Senate appointments.

Like it or not, Senate reform will take the agreement of the federal government and 7 out of 10 provinces with at least 50% of the population and Senate abolition will require the agreement of the federal government and every province.

But some have suggested offering current senators buy-out packages in exchange for their resignations.

That would only work if every senator agreed to a buy-out-package. At least a few senators would likely never go along with such an inderect plan to abolish the Senate since most senators are opposed to senate abolition.

Buying out senators would also be very expensive. Many people could even see a very lucrative buyout as being a type of bribe. It would only be affordable if every senator accepted a buy-out and if the senate was not subsequently repopulated. Buying out all senators would not prevent future governments from restocking the Senate.

The way to abolish the Senate is to have every province agree to it. If the NDP gets into power they could negotiate with all the provinces. Some provinces would likely require compensation for agreeing to abolition.

In the meantime, appointing Senators that are respected by most Canadians is likely the simplest way to deal with the inherent problems of the Senate. If Harper was smart he would appoint some people like Ed Broadbent, Stephen Lewis, Joe Clark, Peter Lougheed, Wayne Gretzky, Chris Hadfield, Bryan Adams, Leonard Cohen, etc....

Companies offer early retirement packages all the time to employees. I don't see the Senate any different. In terms of expense, the Senate has a budget of 91 million. Use those funds to start the process. Sure there might be some senators still kicking around. But everyone has a price (which would remain confidential). At the very least it would pare down the numbers of senators in the chamber.

Brachina wrote:

 A sane perpective, which more then our corruption protecting supreme court can say.

I don't see how refusing to hand even more absolute power to a prime minister who has already shown himself willing to abuse that power is protecting corruption.

He's the one who appointed most otf the ones being held up as bad examples, and you have no idea what he might actually do with that power if it was taken away from the provinces and given entirely to him.

But given the accusations of corruption that are already being levelled against him I'm breathing a sigh of relief.

terrytowel wrote:

JKR wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

JKR wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Is there something in the Constitution that says the Senate must be full? Couldn't it be just left vacant, and Harper stop appointing senators. There are already several vacancies, and we are approaching the double digits.

If the Governor General stops appointing Senators today it will take 31 years before all the current Senators are retired. So the NDP will have to be in government for a very long time before they can take the Senate out of the legislative process. If the NDP were to lose office during this 31 year period another party, likely the Conservatives or Liberals, could fill up the Senate again with their supporters and it would take another 30 or so years at the earliest before the Senate could be taken out of the equation by simply ending Senate appointments.

Like it or not, Senate reform will take the agreement of the federal government and 7 out of 10 provinces with at least 50% of the population and Senate abolition will require the agreement of the federal government and every province.

But some have suggested offering current senators buy-out packages in exchange for their resignations.

That would only work if every senator agreed to a buy-out-package. At least a few senators would likely never go along with such an inderect plan to abolish the Senate since most senators are opposed to senate abolition.

Buying out senators would also be very expensive. Many people could even see a very lucrative buyout as being a type of bribe. It would only be affordable if every senator accepted a buy-out and if the senate was not subsequently repopulated. Buying out all senators would not prevent future governments from restocking the Senate.

The way to abolish the Senate is to have every province agree to it. If the NDP gets into power they could negotiate with all the provinces. Some provinces would likely require compensation for agreeing to abolition.

In the meantime, appointing Senators that are respected by most Canadians is likely the simplest way to deal with the inherent problems of the Senate. If Harper was smart he would appoint some people like Ed Broadbent, Stephen Lewis, Joe Clark, Peter Lougheed, Wayne Gretzky, Chris Hadfield, Bryan Adams, Leonard Cohen, etc....

Companies offer early retirement packages all the time to employees. I don't see the Senate any different. In terms of expense, the Senate has a budget of 91 million. Use those funds to start the process. Sure there might be some senators still kicking around. But everyone has a price (which would remain confidential). At the very least it would pare down the numbers of senators in the chamber.

How much would these senators have to be given in order for them to agree to forego their salaries and benefits including pension benefits?

Ideally, straight out abolishing the Senate as antidemocractic. Realistically the 7 out of 10 formula.

Policywonk wrote:

The never used their power for the same reason they didn't use their power as opposition in a minority; they were afraid of an election. Or they didn't feel strongly enougn about any particular piece of legislation. Take your pick.

Considering the number of times over many decades when senators and parties did not use the senate in that way, although they have the power, I don't see any basis for that claim.

Traditionally the senate has been used to refine legislation and recommend improvements. Sometimes they have made those recommendations in a strong way, Going the further step of killing legislation without consideration is a step that has been taken only rarely.

Personally I think there is a more reasonable motive - that using the unelected senate as a partisan tool to overrule the house isn't just anti-democratic, it goes against its very design - and that politicians know that is a line which should not be crossed lightly.

Sad thing is, most of the outrage is completely ignoring that, and the actual good work many senators are doing, and focusing on something which plays into the prime minister's agenda: scandal.