The Senate

[dunkalunk]

What should we do with it?

I'd personally like to see some sort of reform occur in which provincial/territorial legislatures do the appointing/review after an election. This will ensure that senators remain accountable to the provinces which they represent.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Not sure why we should have an elected Senate when we already have an elected House. Perhaps it would be more accountable if Senators were selected randomly from the general population by lottery.

AoD

 

[Hank]

Why do we need a Senate at all? I get the argument that it provides a voice to the provinces, but the last thing I would want is the gridlock that characterizes the US system. I think we'd be better off with just the House. Provinces get a say based on how many MPs they elect (and, frankly, how much of a say does PEI really deserve?).

 

[BurlOak]

I would vote for Abolish in the long term. In the short term, I would accept some type of Reform. If they are elected, they may be more likely to wield their power. This would have to change the entire way government is run.

If Harper can make some type of changes in the short term without a major constitutional crisis, then I support Reform (unelected). If you have to open up that can of worms, then lets just Abolish it. I will wait before I actually make my vote.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Harper? He appointed Duffy and Wallin, remember - after talking up about how he needs to stack it with "reform minded" appointees - and his office is embroiled in buying the silence of the former. Why should anyone have any confidence in his ability to reform anything when his modus operandi is political expediency?

Don't appoint political hacks to the Senate as payback for past services - problem solved. Why do we need to abolish anything when the problem rests with whom we elected and not the office itself?

AoD

 

[BurlOak]

Harper? He appointed Duffy and Wallin, remember - after talking up about how he needs to stack it with "reform minded" appointees - and his office is embroiled in buying the silence of the former. Why should anyone have any confidence in his ability to reform anything when his modus operandi is political expediency?

Don't appoint political hacks to the Senate as payback for past services - problem solved. Why do we need to abolish anything when the problem rests with whom we elected and not the office itself?

AoD

Harper has asked the Supreme Court to rule on how much change can be made to the senate without re-opening the constitution. This is the biggest step to reform since Mulroney changed the rules to limit the maximum age to 75. The past 140+ years shows that political hacks will always be appointed.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Those who truly wanted to reform the system would have avoided appointing hacks in the first place, instead of engaging in the same while referencing the SCC as evidence of action. The practice is analogous to the wild claims of being the most transparent government by bringing forth the Accountability Act and acting in a matter completely contrary to such (CNSC, PBO, FOI, etc) in practice.

The biggest step to reform prefaced by a PMO that actually paid for the silence of offending Senators? Farcical.

AoD