Mr. Kenney said “they can fix this by bringing in provincial elections for senators.” Any candidate with a popular mandate would be appointed by the federal government, he said
Really, I think they're mocking us! To treat Senate appointments with such utter cynicism, and then suggest that they can be the ones to fix it... I cannot describe how disgusted I am!
Elected senators would be a good idea in theory, but in practice, problematic. For one thing, voter turn-out has been abysmal in recent elections of all levels. How does one get folks out to vote for senate appointees in their provinces?
The cons idea of reform is restricting to 8year terms, but really, after Harper (assuming he was really serious, that is) has finished stacking the senate with his friends, no doubt, those who have 10 years or more before they hit 75 years of age to go when they're appointed, how many of them will vote to cut the terms to 8 years; to seriously curtail their job security at a paychecque and perks they won't see again??
Too bad abolishing the senate altogether is a constitutional impossibility. That would be our best bet. Think of the savings to the tax payers and how many programs we can not only save, but improve.
I do not like the American way for our Senate. I think a round table of independant, noted people could ask questions , and pick whom they think should qualify. Each Province would have this round table
Why are people making it so complicated? Provincial elections would be easy...
Who gets to run? Whoever wants to run. Have a nomination process that requires nominees to get a set number of signatures, as well as validate their ownership of $4K+ property in the province. Perhaps have a registration fee as well to help cover the costs and deter 'joke' candidates. Provinces could also have regulations that exclude candidates with criminal convictions and such.
With 24 senators in Ontario, we'll need to create 'ridings' of sorts, just join together ridings in groups of 4, and add in a 5th where there are smaller ridings.
Then you just have two ballots on provincial election day, one for the MPP and one for the senate. Once the person is 'elected' to the senate, they remain in place until they take their place in the red chamber. If they aren't appointed to the senate before the next provincial election, then they run again.
To account for current senators, no 'election' for senators will happen in ridings where there is a senator who won't be retiring before the next election. If there are currently two senators from the same riding, assign one to an adjacent riding.
It's not rocket science. You'd think people would be in FAVOUR of democracy. Any kind of election is better than the PM stacking the senate with cronies from their party. Tories stack now, Liberals stacked when they were in power. So why not elect senators and put the power back in the hands of the people?
Senators are legislators of the federal parliament. They get to propose new laws, and they get to debate, amend and vote on new laws proposed in the commons. Why would they run for election during provincial elections? Would they discuss federal issues and legislations during provincial elections? Would they be members of the federal party system and promote their programs during provincial election campaigns, with their parties' funds, regulated by the provincial governments ? I just don't see the sense in the provinces spending good money on bringing in senatorial elections concurrent with provincial elections.
The matter pertains to the federal parliament and it's up to the federal body, Elections Canada, to organize senate elections. They could be held every four years, two years after a federal election. But he won't do that. They want to avoid an anti-government wave coming to the Senate from paralyzing the government mid-term. That's why they favour elections for federal senators held during provincial elections. Also, and most importantly, with Harper's plan the power of the PM to advise the GG on appointments to the Senate would remain intact. The 'elected' senators would only get their name on a list for potential appointment from which the PM could chose to appoint - or the PM could ignore those on the list and appoint whoever he wishes. The Harper proposal for the Senate is akin to the fixed elections date law in that it doesn't limit the powers of the PM. Why would the provinces want to spend good money to organize an election under these terms?
Remember that the Conservatives complained about the recent "unnecessary" $300 million dollar election. Who wilL pay for the Senate elections? The provinces.
Costs aside, I actually do support meaningful Senate reform. I just think that all Canadians should have an opportunity to contribut to shaping the structure of the Senate and its elections. I don't think we should accept Harper's provincial "selection" process of senators as the only solution. If we want meaningful Senate reform, let's do it right, or let's just abolish the undemocratic institution.
I will modify Loraine's comment by stating, "The Harper proposal for the Senate is akin to the fixed elections." Imagine running for a Senate seat and winning, only to find out that your recommendation for appointment has been delayed by the PM. Imagine if a perceived radical/racist/anti-Semite has won an election only to find out that the PM will not recommend you for appointment. What's the point of having Senate "s"elections under Harper's plan?
I think we should give this elections plan a go, if for no other reason than to see exactly how many seats would be up for re-election after the supposed term limit. Given that the constitution clearly states that you're in the Senate until 75 years of age (with a few minor caveats), how many people do you think would voluntarily step down from a do little job with awesome benefits and pay. You would literally have to be crazy to give that up.
I would love to see an elected, legitimate Senate. But unless you're willing to amend the constitution, any attempt to reform it is really nothing but a waste of time and energy.
The bigger provinces do not like the current set up and are not about to lend legitimacy to such a half baked plan by holding elections. If one province opts ought the whole plan comes to naught and the problems do not end there.
Another problem with proceeding thusly is that current senators are free to serve until the age of 75. As a result, even if all the provinces were on side such actions could either transform an unelected political body with no real power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power.
But the main problem with Harper’s piece meal senate Reform plan is not that it has no chance of working. No, the main problem with such an undertakiing is that it might work. An elected and effective senate is a stupid idea.
Indeed, giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while giving the 170, 422 residents of Brampton West one MP is bad enough as it is. Piling on and having one "effective" Senator for every 33,963 PEI residents and one senator for every 506,678 Ontario residents is beyond stupid and grossly undemocratic.
12 comments:
This sounds like a terrible idea... a provincial hodgepodge of ad hoc elections.
Really, I think they're mocking us! To treat Senate appointments with such utter cynicism, and then suggest that they can be the ones to fix it... I cannot describe how disgusted I am!
A terrible predicament.
Elected senators would be a good idea in theory, but in practice, problematic. For one thing, voter turn-out has been abysmal in recent elections of all levels. How does one get folks out to vote for senate appointees in their provinces?
The cons idea of reform is restricting to 8year terms, but really, after Harper (assuming he was really serious, that is) has finished stacking the senate with his friends, no doubt, those who have 10 years or more before they hit 75 years of age to go when they're appointed, how many of them will vote to cut the terms to 8 years; to seriously curtail their job security at a paychecque and perks they won't see again??
Too bad abolishing the senate altogether is a constitutional impossibility. That would be our best bet. Think of the savings to the tax payers and how many programs we can not only save, but improve.
I thought that the Conservatives complained of expensive unnecessary elections. There are some problems:
First, in a province like Ontario, how many positions would be available for election? Six, 12, 24, or some other number?
Next, which voting system would be used?
Once, the candidates are unofficialy elected, when would the PM recommend them for appointment by the GG?
Who pays for these elections?
Can Parliament impose term limits without a constitutional amendment?
We have not even addressed the lack of provincial/regional/population balance of the Senate seats.
I do not like the American way for our Senate. I think a round table of independant, noted people could ask questions , and pick whom they think should qualify.
Each Province would have this round table
Why are people making it so complicated? Provincial elections would be easy...
Who gets to run? Whoever wants to run. Have a nomination process that requires nominees to get a set number of signatures, as well as validate their ownership of $4K+ property in the province. Perhaps have a registration fee as well to help cover the costs and deter 'joke' candidates. Provinces could also have regulations that exclude candidates with criminal convictions and such.
With 24 senators in Ontario, we'll need to create 'ridings' of sorts, just join together ridings in groups of 4, and add in a 5th where there are smaller ridings.
Then you just have two ballots on provincial election day, one for the MPP and one for the senate. Once the person is 'elected' to the senate, they remain in place until they take their place in the red chamber. If they aren't appointed to the senate before the next provincial election, then they run again.
To account for current senators, no 'election' for senators will happen in ridings where there is a senator who won't be retiring before the next election. If there are currently two senators from the same riding, assign one to an adjacent riding.
It's not rocket science. You'd think people would be in FAVOUR of democracy. Any kind of election is better than the PM stacking the senate with cronies from their party. Tories stack now, Liberals stacked when they were in power. So why not elect senators and put the power back in the hands of the people?
How can that be a bad thing?
WE need some independence, away from Party politics
Senators are legislators of the federal parliament. They get to propose new laws, and they get to debate, amend and vote on new laws proposed in the commons. Why would they run for election during provincial elections? Would they discuss federal issues and legislations during provincial elections? Would they be members of the federal party system and promote their programs during provincial election campaigns, with their parties' funds, regulated by the provincial governments ? I just don't see the sense in the provinces spending good money on bringing in senatorial elections concurrent with provincial elections.
The matter pertains to the federal parliament and it's up to the federal body, Elections Canada, to organize senate elections. They could be held every four years, two years after a federal election. But he won't do that. They want to avoid an anti-government wave coming to the Senate from paralyzing the government mid-term. That's why they favour elections for federal senators held during provincial elections. Also, and most importantly, with Harper's plan the power of the PM to advise the GG on appointments to the Senate would remain intact. The 'elected' senators would only get their name on a list for potential appointment from which the PM could chose to appoint - or the PM could ignore those on the list and appoint whoever he wishes. The Harper proposal for the Senate is akin to the fixed elections date law in that it doesn't limit the powers of the PM. Why would the provinces want to spend good money to organize an election under these terms?
To Savant,
Remember that the Conservatives complained about the recent "unnecessary" $300 million dollar election. Who wilL pay for the Senate elections? The provinces.
Costs aside, I actually do support meaningful Senate reform. I just think that all Canadians should have an opportunity to contribut to shaping the structure of the Senate and its elections. I don't think we should accept Harper's provincial "selection" process of senators as the only solution. If we want meaningful Senate reform, let's do it right, or let's just abolish the undemocratic institution.
I will agree with Loraine's comments.
I will modify Loraine's comment by stating, "The Harper proposal for the Senate is akin to the fixed elections." Imagine running for a Senate seat and winning, only to find out that your recommendation for appointment has been delayed by the PM. Imagine if a perceived radical/racist/anti-Semite has won an election only to find out that the PM will not recommend you for appointment. What's the point of having Senate "s"elections under Harper's plan?
I think we should give this elections plan a go, if for no other reason than to see exactly how many seats would be up for re-election after the supposed term limit. Given that the constitution clearly states that you're in the Senate until 75 years of age (with a few minor caveats), how many people do you think would voluntarily step down from a do little job with awesome benefits and pay. You would literally have to be crazy to give that up.
I would love to see an elected, legitimate Senate. But unless you're willing to amend the constitution, any attempt to reform it is really nothing but a waste of time and energy.
Lee
The bigger provinces do not like the current set up and are not about to lend legitimacy to such a half baked plan by holding elections. If one province opts ought the whole plan comes to naught and the problems do not end there.
Another problem with proceeding thusly is that current senators are free to serve until the age of 75. As a result, even if all the provinces were on side such actions could either transform an unelected political body with no real power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power.
But the main problem with Harper’s piece meal senate Reform plan is not that it has no chance of working. No, the main problem with such an undertakiing is that it might work. An elected and effective senate is a stupid idea.
Indeed, giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while giving the 170, 422 residents of Brampton West one MP is bad enough as it is. Piling on and having one "effective" Senator for every 33,963 PEI residents and one senator for every 506,678 Ontario residents is beyond stupid and grossly undemocratic.
Post a Comment