Harper pushes for an elected Senate and term limits?

Question

What is he thinking .....I mean long term?

Is this a good thing ? Is this just a push to make our syestem look more American .............or is he just trying to get the Liberal majority to shut up and put up?

If we kee things as they are for another 100 years what is the good/bad.

If we refrom the Uper Chamber what is the potential good/bad in the next 100 years?

Jamil Ahmad G
Level 2


Yes yes we know that bit ...the question wasn't please find the article

Answer 1

Harper plans unprecedented Senate appearance
Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Stephen Harper is about to become the first prime minister to appear before a Senate committee.

Mr. Harper is scheduled to speak to the special Senate committee on Senate reform Thursday to push for passage of a Conservative bill that would limit senators to eight-year terms.

Senators, who are appointed by the prime minister, can currently serve until age 75.

The bill, which was introduced in the Senate last spring, is a key part of Mr. Harper's reform package.

Answer 2

I like your question. Here are my opinions to attempt to deal with it point by point:

1- What Harper is thinking, long term: this is a big problem because there may be no long term thinking. He may just be pandering to his Reform Party roots that had a populist fixation on the Senate. If there is any other long term thinking involved (increasing the number of Senate seats, or any number of other possibilities), there is no way of knowing. This is secret agenda time at its worst.

2- To consider if it is a good thing, I think we have to consider if Senate reform will actually accomplish anything. Does the Senate have a function that is "reformable," and will changing the Senate have other effects (good or bad) on other institutions. This is one of the few items that I am not entirely in accord with the NDP. They would like to abolish the upper house completely. I think that the Senate's function as a house "of sober second thought" is not completely without merit. Bills are debated, changes are proposed and committees do consider matters in the Senate. For the most part, the work that the Senate does is fairly non-partisan, also. It also is, like the Governor General, a safeguard against the excesses of government which could happen. It's better if it's never used, but it's good to have. Unfortunately, term limits and especially an elected Senate would severely undermine that function. It's possible that Commons committees can examine issues, but it is difficult to separate the partisanship and this could/can cause a paralysis in government. An elected Senate would then have the same limitations. Term limits, even without the election aspect, could also have some negative effects. Senators who would be looking for employment after the Senate who be more subject to influencing their decisions to either impress possible future employers/partners or would feel the need to "make a mark" while they were in the Senate. Overall, it could have a less than desirable effect on the function of the Senate as a chamber of "of sober second thought." An elected Senate would also put into question the legitimacy of the Commons as the elected voice of Canadians. This would be especially true if the two chambers were controlled by different parties that had respective majorities.

3- I think that there is good reason to believe that this Senate reform proposal is an attempt to make our system look more like the US. This is unfortunate since we are a parliamentary democracy and we don't really need the US model, nor is it appropriate. Mr Harper also followed the US model in choosing an unelected minister to fill the cabinet post of the Supply and Services department. Although it is not unheard of to have a Senator as a cabinet minister, it has happened in the past, but it is always suspect because it undermines the entire principle of parliamentary responsible government. The US does not have a cabinet that is responsible to the legislature in the US republic. Their system was established in the 18th century and the president and executive branch of government has retained a kind of quasi-royal flavour of the founding times. In Canada, the Crown retains its prerogatives and the democracy that emerged as a result of the British North America Act was very much concerned with the whole concept of responsible government. I think we should be willing to change, but we should be careful not to import inappropriate models.

4- It is also an attempt to get people "to shut up and put up" as you put it. It is not just the Liberals that he is treating in this manner; this is Mr Harper's way of dealing with everyone. He is a real one-man show kind of person who obviously micro-manages and does not tolerate any dissension, even among his own Conservative ranks.

5- It's very difficult to predict what would happen if we were to keep the Senate as it is now for another 100 years. If there is no other meaningful institutional reforms to the democratic institutions there would almost certainly be a rise of what has been termed "western alienation." From where I am in Québec, this term has never been fully understood or explained. It always seemed to be a dissatisfaction that was fed by a succession of western-based populous parties (Reform, Alliance). The substance seems to be that the western provinces are not adequately represented in the power structures. With the Conservatives, that are largely the successors of the Reformers despite their attempt to incorporate the Progressive conservatives, this rhetoric has subsided. The west is represented in that the dominant party out west is now in power, albeit in a minority government. It's not clear that the types of Senate reforms proposed by the Harper government would really address the feelings of alienation if the dominant party in the west (and really for all intents and purposes in this context, this means Alberta), was not elected to power in two elected houses. It seems to me that it there are other better ways of reforming the democratic institutions that would have a better outcome for improving regional representation. I will mention a few of these things at the end in a section of possible suggestions.

6- If we reform the Senate, in the way proposed by Mr Harper, it will be very difficult keep a stable government. I think that the end result would be either the elimination of the Senate or the removal of the executive branch (PM and cabinet) from the legislature - in other words a type of presidential prime-ministership with the PM directly elected. It's hard to say if there would actually be any benefit from this in the long run and the potential good that the present system has would be altered and possibly lost.

Possible Suggestions:
Here are some of the possibilities that I think would be worthwhile looking at in our quest for greater democracy.
a- proportional representation - there are too many people who have their voice, their vote rendered invalid by the present system, for example those who voted for the Conservatives in Ontario, those who did not vote for the Conservatives in Alberta, federalist voters in many Québec ridings, and so on;
b- including bodies such as the Council of the Federation and the Assembly of first Nations into the formal governing structures. The first Nations and the Provincial Authorities could be given representation either on the Senate or on a new body. This would paradoxically both centralising and decentralising - a true Canadian style compromise.
c- I think we should seriously question whether it is a good idea or not, but if we are to be involved in things such as the FTA and NAFTA, then we should examine the possibilities of developing a representative body akin to the European parliament so that democracy and social concerns can be reintroduced along with trade and commercial interests, and so that Canada will not have to be pressured into abhorrent deals like the present softwood lumber fiasco. It would also give a voice to Canada's social allies in the other North American partner countries.

In general Canada has developed through evolution rather than revolution. The institution of the Crown remains although it no longer has any day-to-day effective power. The positive aspects of the Crown are maintained and the theoretical power remains in case it is ever needed. It is a part of our version of checks and balances. It would be best if the Senate was left to continue with its theoretical power unencumbered also. It would also be interesting to explore the possibility of allowing the emerging technologies to come into play. It might be interesting to see if something like an internet e-parliament could enable citizens to propose, debate and vote on legislative proposals. Although such direct democracy in the form of a virtual chamber would not have binding powers in its decisions, it could be very interesting. Who knows what might develop in the future, after all the Commons were originally an advisory body with no legislative power at the time of its beginnings in Britain. Any power it now has came as a result of evolutionary struggle.

Thanks for letting me answer this interesting question.