Your piece today is well argued.
A significant fault of democratic systems is their inability to change themselves in a meaningful way. Those with skin in the game generally
embrace changes only if it improves their lot, so the big picture gets lost in the petty politics of power and influence. I appreciate Christy Clark’s concern, but meaningful participation would serve her better than public posturing.
I believe that putting objective reasonably nonpartisan Canadians in the Senate is preferred to an elected Senate. Many of the institutions
that affect every Canadian are populated by the unelected, and are historically accepted with little reservations. The belief is that a reasonable selection process puts good cops, doctors and judges in place to make important decisions about Canadians every day. Would we do better if they were elected?
Senate abolition has its shortcomings as well and I do not support doing away with a sober second thought. Reasonable checks and balances as well as time to consider, or perhaps reconsider, proposed legislation serve us well.
Lets not get too carried away with our Christmas cheer. We are relying on politicians!! Of course it will have “distinctly partisan bias”!!
Nothing short of a change that is approved by the citizens through a vote will ever improve or change the Senate.
I always thought the Senate had the power to challenge the legislation passed by the Commons, that was its reason for being, was it not? Has there not always been the risk of “creating an overreaching monster that challenges the will of our elected representatives” ? We either want to change the Senate so it can fulfill its mission or we do not. There is no point in changing if do not want , (and are prepared to accept the risk of overreaching), a Senate that represents the regions and challenges the legislation passed by the Commons.
A referendum is required.
It’s obvious to most Canadians that senate reform would be an improvement on much, much earlier regional balancing. Conservatives had a view of reform ten years ago. Now Liberals do. Seems like status quo shouldn’t continue.
By design, the provinces (of the Federation!) each need to recommend their candidates, period. Probably the constitutional amendment apparatus should proclaim something like 3 per province (and the territories?). Candidates should be sufficiently successful (“accomplishment”) that they wouldn’t be seen as wanting all the remunerative perks which seems to have brought on this storm (too bad the MPs, MLAs and municipal alderpersons couldn’t also) for theirs is less ‘work’ than responsibility. Tenure should be about ten years.
If parliament won’t deal with something Canadians know is need of reform, then let’s demand a referendum at the next balloting opportunity.
Your piece today is well argued.
A significant fault of democratic systems is their inability to change themselves in a meaningful way. Those with skin in the game generally
embrace changes only if it improves their lot, so the big picture gets lost in the petty politics of power and influence. I appreciate Christy Clark’s concern, but meaningful participation would serve her better than public posturing.
I believe that putting objective reasonably nonpartisan Canadians in the Senate is preferred to an elected Senate. Many of the institutions
that affect every Canadian are populated by the unelected, and are historically accepted with little reservations. The belief is that a reasonable selection process puts good cops, doctors and judges in place to make important decisions about Canadians every day. Would we do better if they were elected?
Senate abolition has its shortcomings as well and I do not support doing away with a sober second thought. Reasonable checks and balances as well as time to consider, or perhaps reconsider, proposed legislation serve us well.
David Wood | December 14, 2015 |
Lets not get too carried away with our Christmas cheer. We are relying on politicians!! Of course it will have “distinctly partisan bias”!!
Nothing short of a change that is approved by the citizens through a vote will ever improve or change the Senate.
I always thought the Senate had the power to challenge the legislation passed by the Commons, that was its reason for being, was it not? Has there not always been the risk of “creating an overreaching monster that challenges the will of our elected representatives” ? We either want to change the Senate so it can fulfill its mission or we do not. There is no point in changing if do not want , (and are prepared to accept the risk of overreaching), a Senate that represents the regions and challenges the legislation passed by the Commons.
A referendum is required.
barry h | December 13, 2015 |
It’s obvious to most Canadians that senate reform would be an improvement on much, much earlier regional balancing. Conservatives had a view of reform ten years ago. Now Liberals do. Seems like status quo shouldn’t continue.
By design, the provinces (of the Federation!) each need to recommend their candidates, period. Probably the constitutional amendment apparatus should proclaim something like 3 per province (and the territories?). Candidates should be sufficiently successful (“accomplishment”) that they wouldn’t be seen as wanting all the remunerative perks which seems to have brought on this storm (too bad the MPs, MLAs and municipal alderpersons couldn’t also) for theirs is less ‘work’ than responsibility. Tenure should be about ten years.
If parliament won’t deal with something Canadians know is need of reform, then let’s demand a referendum at the next balloting opportunity.
Gordon a.... | December 11, 2015 |