Anything that happens to the Senate is a good thing. Whether its abolished or elected, let's just see some progress on this issue for a change.

I agree Frank, concerning changes that do need to be made. But here's the problem. The Conservatives want to move on to an elected/appointed (which elected means nothing because in the end, they will be appointed anyways) senate to get rid of the majority Liberal senate we now have. So, what we have is a Conserative government who wants to replace the Liberal Senate with their own majority Conservative Senate and this is how they intend to do it.

The current Liberal majority senate, on the other hand, as pathetically undemocratic as it is, is still currently functional. The most that this senate can do with stall bills and/or tweek them and if they go to far, the commons and the taxpayer will end up asking why. So what we have, is better than what is being proposed, as what is being proposed is a move towards a U.S. system of government that is known for its gridlock. A change in the senate could mean a radical change in the power of which the senate currently holds in the future and that would not be good for this government or country.

Presently, at the worst, with our current senate, a bill can be stalled for 2 years and they will take huge heat over it. As well, they could make amendments and changes to the bill that are unsatifactory to the commons and to the people.

But the worst case senario with the proposed Harper has planed is increased senate powers over the house which has the potential to gridlock government powers, as well as ram through legislation in inept fashion by having Senators that might appeal to the public, but won't appeal to the job duties a senator needs to fill. Above all, Harper can veto any elected senators to begin with, while appointing senators of his own, so it means that he can quite literally replace the Liberal Senate with a Conservative one that might be inept in terms of how they can fulfill the duties of their job. Backgrounds way huge with this. To not have a background in law, for example, of which this is what our government does, is make and pass laws... what this means, is that there is no real democracy here, with the spectre of the possiblity of increased Senate powers that would create gridlock as we have in the U.S., and the worst part of his proposal?

We have a huge problem with where these Senators are coming from. It won't just be their potentially illsuited backgrounds. The proportional representation of Senators to Populations is out to lunch.

So all this is, is to replace the Liberal dominated senate with a Conservative one and if the people or the media can't tell it like it is, then anyone who knows whats really happening will be left to shake their heads at the failure of media, parliment and the public not to catch on.

Perhaps we should replace our senate with a House of Lords and bring back Adrianne Clarkson as the Queen.

We need an elected senate, good gad what would happen to Canada if a political party won all but two seats! Look what happened in BC!

Senate reform is not a panacea.

Ask yourself this question: is the U.S. any better off having two elected houses? Are they any better off having even *more* politicization of every single issue?

Electing the senate means they will no longer be unwilling to use the power they have under our constitution. Currently the senate restrains itself precisely because they were not elected. They are seen, and see themselves, as a revising chamber. There is plenty of merit to having a "safety brake" there.

The Westminster model of government largely works and has been working for hundreds of years. Thanks to that model, we have such modern luxuries such as habeus corpus (helped on by a Lord in England's upper house). Thanks to that model we are not forever embroiled in elections of both houses.

Electing a portion of senators just is wrong, as many will agree, but its entirely likely that electing all of them is equally wrong but for different reasons.

There is far too much emotion on this subject and precious little actual thinking.

Ask yourself if the US would be worst off without a 2nd house.

The last few years have been an anomaly in that all three chambers were Republican but the Senate in the States can slow down legislation when it has been detrimental:

1) The US Senate Blocked a national ban on Gay Marriage
2) US Senate Pushed Stemcell Reform
3) US Senate Pushed Electoral Financing REform
4) US Senate blocks ban on oil drilling in Alaska
5) USS blocks Government Data Mining

Our senate does squat because they have no authority. Countries like Australia, Ireland, many European countries actually have effective second houses, but the key is:

1) Senate Elected by different means than the house.
2) Different responibilties.. ie no funding bills initiatied.

Without the Senate, there would be no checks at all (as opposed to the weak check) we have now.

-Dan

Good points, Dangrice. But how much power should we give the senate? How much is too much? We are talking about 8 year suggested elected terms, for an example. We are also talking about, I believe, less than 110 senate seats, of which it is far easier to bribe 55 politicians that it is to bribe 155 MP's in the commons.

And for all that the Senate blocked from congress in the U.S., look at what they've passed in the last 6 years. That record isn't exactly stellar either.

The thing about elections that are meaningless, (BC and Alta have been having meaningless elections for senators already for years now like Tom Barret suggests) is that its a farce of democracy. We either go full on with porportional representation and elections that count, or we don't. And will it be a Liberal government that pushes for senate reform? Not when they have majority Liberal senators, they won't. So who will? Well, Harper. And we've seen his version of what he wants. Conservative control of the senate through undemocratic means, and more senate powers once he's got his wish. So in this undemocratic light, are the Cons the ones to bring forth senate reform? Hardly. It should rest on the Liberals to do so. And once again, is there a Liberal need to make changes? Is the current senate really all that disfunctional?

And the big question will be, once the Constitution is reopened, I believe to change porportional representation based on population over region, is "what kind of powers will we grant an elected senate, and for how many years should each term last, and will these elections be staggered as it is in the U.S.?

And when it comes down to increasing the powers of the senate, it can only mean a decrease in powers in the commons as a result. Is this what we want? Is it even needed? At some point, the electorate will have to take credit, both good and bad for their choices. If we decide to elect a majority of separatists in the house of commons for example, or a majority of U.S. sellout MP's, then we should deserve what we've got coming. Responsibility should be shared, after all.

brain - 'we' won't give them anything. Don't you get it? This is just another program designed by an elitist group to impose on the 99.99% of the population that is not in any legislature.

Without some kind of representative, truly representative constitutional assembly this is not even 'representative' democracy.

I deny any federal politician the right to make these kinds of changes on MY behalf and you should too.

One wonders where Steve gets thes ideas from? To do much of anyhting around senate reform would require a constitutional change. Oh he can putter around the edges. But he won't be around long enough to prove much. he is playing to his right wing folks who don't see the broader view on anyhting. hang them stop abortion and vote right and they figure all will be well. oh I missed the gun control issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/reforming-senate.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/senate.html

These links really should be required reading for us commentors. Its to bad Harper wants to do away with the CBC... I guess free mainstream information like this doesn't help his own vision of Canada.

have to admit I am a little surprised most of you don't support the PM. Let me address a few issues:

Firstly the one of gridlock and efficient government. This alone is an entire debate. Rafe Mair has written eloquently that we don't really need legislation passed speedily and quickly. When it comes to the law of the land (for 30 million people), I am not convinced that gridlock is always bad. Sometimes, to be sure. Always? I am not certain of this.

Secondly, a conspiracy to stock the senate with conservatives. Not relevant. Why? Simply beacuse I don't feel like debating a conspiracy theory. Period. Let's move on.

Again -baffled that you have no problem with Atlantic Canada's 27 appointed senators to Western Canada's 18. Last I checked, the combined population of Atlantic Canada's four provinces is 2.5 million. Western Canada's is roughly 10 million. Great. Why don't I just surrender my wallet to the federal government right now and hand over all my belongings? Don't the rugged individuals of PEI need my support, that bustling province teeming with activity?

brain,
another point. Is an eight year term limit unreasonable? Currently a senator can be appointed for 15, 30 and 45 years. I know I've harped on this already, but I am absolutely dumbstruck as to how an eight year term limit seems unreasonable. I know these people are fine individuals (senators). Nonetheless they are human, and they are public servants. We pay them. They are our employees. I expect them to receive a decent salary. But for 45 years? C'mon -be reasonable! I don't expect our senators to have chocolate mousse and champagne every night.

I will also add that I do understand how an elected senate makes people think of americanization. I must admit I have some issues myself with that. Nonetheless, as someone from BC, the current system really chafes me. I get the feeling I'm carrying Atlantic Canada on my back. Am I deluded? To me, I am the one acting in good faith! I am the one offering an olive branch! All I want is a few more senators in the west -that's all! Not a revolution, just gimme some of those damn atlantic senators. share that shit, man.

i guess it's obvious I'm passionate about this. How about:

1. 8 year term limits
2. western canada gets 23 senators, atlantic canada 22.

Now I ask one last time, and then I gotta' take a break. Is this so unreasonable it offends you? Does this push us off the cliff of canadiana and send us spiralling into an abyss of americana? Do we keep the present system because, as Canadians, we believe it preserves the 'common good'?

works for me acadian, any change is a positive

Don't need the Senate at all. Turn it into an old folks home for baby boomers.

I think we do need a second body to check the initiatives of the HofC. The Senate should be elected, should represent the various regions equally and should be effective..

Checks and balances in my view are necessary to achieve that 'second sobre thought on whatever legislation the House proposes. I also think that perhaps with some minor acceptions, the current powers of the Senate are adequate.

The major issue here is to get the appointment process out of the hands of the Prime Minister and the governing political party. That is paramount objective.

If this means Constitutional change, then so be it.

I also believe that any political party running for office of our federal government, MUST run candidates national. But that is another subject.

sdgreen
Why? Lots of civilized places do just fine without a 2nd house. Bring in proportional representation and you won't just have 2 parties dominating everything.

G West

I think there is a need for checks and balances; even perhaps strengthened investigative powers and the Senate would be good for that.

I do not support PR as the process pollutes the governance system. I like majority governments as opposed to minmorities. I do not like govenance where every day one wonders who is running the process. In this day an age things move very fast and one needs decisive actions to respond to these changes. PR also spawns a very fractured system where decisions are way to complex to achieve. PR might be good at the local level, but certainly not at the Federal/Provincial levels.

sdgreen
I dislike governments that only represent the tiny proportion of the voting public that happens to pick which of the 2 OLD LINE (and I do mean OLD) parties happens to get say 38% of the 'voting' public. ( In effective terms no more than probably 19% of registered voters and likely fewer than that given the way tiny elites run the political parties and set their agenda in this country and province.

People who want nothing but the two party system and FPP elections don’t want broad representation. They prefer to keep things in the hands of a compromised and criminal plutonomy.

I want more voices and more people involved in governing this place because the idiots who are, and have been, doing it since confederation have screwed up royally.
Your idea that our system reacts quickly is an affront to the evidence and a rejigged Senate would just make things worse. In my view.

Apparently you don't like democracy. That's too bad because I and most people I know are sick of the dictatorship we live under now. 60% of the people (give or take a part of one percentage point) in the last provincial election appear to agree with me.
Why are you so selfish? And why don't you trust your fellow citizens more?

Hmmm...
I don't know if I believe the senate is useful or not, but the whole idea of senators being elected is nonsense. We would just create two levels of the same thing.

My only defense for the necessity of senate is: by appointing people into a position that they've already performed their political favor for, they no longer owe anything to anyone (NGO's/politicians) and so they are able to vote however they like. If it becomes an elected position this freedom is not an option and we have more politicians that only care about getting re-elected.

Also the liberals own the senate, so clearly Harper would want them out!
Lastly, please don't tear me down too bad haha, this Is like my second time on~
Thanks*

makes sense to me Malcolm - I'd just say get rid of 'em entirely and find a way to make the 'other' place more truly representative.

More gimmickry masquerading as thoughtful policy on the part of the Harper Government. When the Brits. created life peers in 1958, the House of Lords had already lost its absolute veto power as a result of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. So it was not as if the new peers, having a greater measure of legitimacy than their hereditary colleagues, were suddenly in a position to run amok with the constitution, had they got it into their heads to do so. The formal powers of the Canadian Senate, in contrast, are ample and fully intact. So far, the Senate has refrained from using its sweeping powers precisely because its members lack an electoral mandate. If Harper suddenly gives them such a mandate--or some of them, in any case--who knows what mischief the upper house may cause?

This is Senate reform on the back of an envelope. It's not an idea that deserves to be taken seriously.

ok ok, got it- no elected senators. How about my other request? 8 year term limits and an equal amount of senators in western canada as there are in atlantic canada...will you at least throw me that bone?

The average age for a senator is 65.
You get the boot at 75.
man that 2 years hurts canada.

And as far as east-west goes, it's always the same story. We're not getting more and we probably don't deserve it.

Without checks and balances democracy is a very short lived system. Humans don't handle power well as a rule. A second house to ratify things allows a check on misbehaviour of all ordinary types.

I don't think those who designed our system ever comtemplated the pervasively widespread corruption we have experienced in recent years.

Recently, government has redesigned the party system as a channelling mechanism for directing and laundering money from wealthy special interests. it comes to the parties, through campaign 'contributions', through lobbyists.

I point out that if Senators must be elected, they must run campaigns. To run they need party support. Party machines receive money from anybody they want, and spend it however they please.

Just think, 110 whole new opportunities to collect donations to influence the processes of the government, in ways that have no relationship to the best interests of the people of Canada.

The whole strength of the Senate is that they aren't elected, so they can vote as they really wish, especially in extreme circumstances such as coups and takeovers.

It's why they have such limited powers, so they won't impose too much on democratically elected members, but still can raise a stink if they think they must.

If they have to be elected, they become worse than useless. They become another grave danger to us.

The confrontational style of politics we indulge in now, means that the main business of the House is election planning, not governing. Governing is almost an after thought, and is mainly useful in securing the support of specialinterest groups which help swell the coffers of the political parties. An elecected senate will only aggrevate this.
Having said that. senators should be representative of Canada's cities, and Canada's hinterland. And they need the same power as the ouse of Commons. No point in duplicating what the House of Commons purports to represent.

Bailey,

Your argument for an appointed senate is precisely why I am for an elected one.

"the whole strength of the senate is they aren't elected, so they can vote as they really wish..."

excactly. They can vote as they wish. I don't share your view that senators are always wise. I do not share your deference to authority. Let me give you an instance which I believe illustrates well the effectiveness of an elected senate. In Washington state, democratic senator Maria Cantwell successfully blocked the expansion of any further oil drilling in Alaska's national wildlife refuge.

Democratic sens. Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi of California have successfully blocked congress' continued attempt to scrap the nation's cabotage laws, and in so doing saved an entire industry from outsourcing.

Bailey,

grave danger to the people? I think not.

I have offered solid examples of the effectiveness of an elected senate. You have given no solid examples of the effectiveness of an appointed senate.

Would you rather have the people asleep? Let me assure you, if I were a senator, I'd much rather have a 15, 30, or 45 year appointment than be elected. An election means your accountable, an appointment does not.

Peter C Newman has written a fine novel on the death of red toryism in canada. You should read it.

Bailey, you offer theorems from poli sci 101:

"If they have to be elected, they become worse than useless. They become another grave danger to us".

How so, sir? You must flesh out your argument for me to understand you.

Bailey,

Finally I will address the issue of party politics. I agree with you, it's a nasty business. Money talks and people walk. Campaign finance reform is needed. However, I do not agree as you suggest that an unelected senate is the solution to this problem. You presume that the mainstream of canadians still defer to authority, as they did in the good old days. Those days are over, as is red toryism. Are they so sage and wise that they can receive an appointment for 15, 30 and 45 years?

- Acadian Driftwood

Depends on how you define gridlock. Currenly, the way the senate functions, there really isn't that much in terms of gridlock. The senate simply doesn't have equal powers relative to the lower house of commons. This could change, however, if we move to a triple E senate, which is where this is really going. Harper is an old reformer after all. And keep in mind, that this will take a reopening of the constitution and lets not forget the goal. Americanize Canada, and break the Liberal stronghold that the senate currently has.

Regardless of what you do or do not feel like doing, the motive of the current PM is to increase his own powers. No conspiracy motive here at all. Every PM wants more power and his sneaks through the back door. What is being proposed, if you really think about it, is 105 elections for a new senate of which Harper has the right to violate the public trust and appoint his own people. Would he do it? He did it with Fortier as a cabinet minister... it wouldn't be beyond him if it is to be used as an example. As it is, what he is proposing is undemocratic.

I'm baffled that you believe I disagree with the lack of proportional representation by population that we now have. I do feel that regions do need to be represented in the senate as well as populations so I'm for a hybrid of the two, with room for changes ever 20 years or so to reflect signifigant changes in populations where they exist. Currently, there is a need for reform in this regard. As far as senate terms go, the major need to reduce senate terms lies with the degrees of powers the senate in contrast to the house of commons.

If, for example, a triple E senate occurs (of which I'm against equality in the houses, that would most certainly lead to gridlock as it does in the U.S.) then a senate term should, in my opinion should be no more than 4 years. If, however, the powers are unequal with the lower commons having more power, the senate terms should be longer. Currently, long periods of service isn't out to lunch considering the unequal powers they have in comparison to the house of commons as it is now.

And one last thing, which other commentators have eluded to effectively already, but anyways... elected senators lead to elections which lead to lobbiests and when all it take is 53 senators to bribe instead of 155 MP's, and the senate becomes equal in terms of power to the lower house, then what we will have is the greater likelyhood for more corruption in our parliment. The links I provided lay out what their current powers or lack thereof really are. To give the senate equal powers with a third less elected seats, and a suggested 8 year terms, leads to a much greater likelyhood of corruption and gridlock no matter how you look at it... and what, because Harper wants an identical parlimentary system as his beloved U.S.? I can think of far better quality PM's to mess with changing the structure of our government than the likes of a western separartist Reformer who gets his party cheques from the likes of the National Citizens Coalition, a group of U.S. born multinationals who want full access to every market with the goal to create monopolies. As it is, this group is heavily influenced and likely financed by the Republican party itself.

Brain,

as I've said before, party politics is, regrettably, nasty and corrupt. Campaign finance reform is needed, which, incidentally, was spearheaded by the former Reform party.

I draw no link, though, between an appointed senate and an increased safeguard to our national interests and identity as a people. What can be more empowering than walking into a voting booth and filling out a ballot of your choice, and sending a representative to Ottawa? I have offered substance to my argument, and examples. You have not. You have used fear of the unknown to sway readers, and intelligent readers will see this.

SO WHAT?

Out of how many readily available corrupt and self-serving examples of exactly the opposite? You sound like an American.

And from a completely different political configuration and power structure - the American one – which is totally irrelevant to a parliamentary model.

Please be to God we never adopt a system capable of being so totally ruined by money, special interests and corrupt lobbyists as the American model.

Get rid of the Red Chamber, it is an anachronism; make the house of commons truly representative of the people's democratic wishes. Do it now. Harper of course hasn’t the courage to do either.

Anything that allows Canada to move closer to the coercive nightmare of two single parties pitching wildly for the money of a corrupt business class is fatal to real democracy and dangerous for the future on an independent country.

You argument is without pith, and substance.

should be 'your' argument.

Let me see if I can recast my argument from a different direction.

There are strong indications all over the western democracies that organized crime has taken a strong position and excersizes inordinate influence over governments of all stripes and parties.

Please don't imagine 1930s bootleggers with tommyguns and bad grammar or Hells Angels on wheels. I'm talking about hugely wealthy interests that have assumed positions of control over corporations, banks, over whole industries as a way of laundering the profits of crime. That would be drugs, human trafficing, arms sales, smuggling and the like.

In doing so they found many ways of corrupting the institutions they target. Political parties were made for them.

Huge incomes for no costs, amoral people in control, the final product? An elected group of people who control everybody's money. And as a bonus, make or unmake the laws that have been so inconvenient to criminals everywhere.

Perfect for them. Don't you think?

So now here's the new deal. The parties will run the campaigns, they will accept donations of any size, and guarantee influence to the giver. The more you give, the bigger the guarantee. Whadda you want? Contracts? $10,000 will buy you 10 million worth, or so. Laws? 50 grand will get you a nice one. Industrial regulations and safety rules too expensive, workers demanding living wage? Not allowed to leave your pollution laying around anymore?

Make us an offer.

Even though the Senate does come from the ranks of the faithful, at least they don't have to go to the party anymore for a nomination and a campaign fund. That does give them at least some theoretical independence. They might come up with a conscience. They might make a difference at some point.

As long as they remain independent.

Bailey,

thank you for your earnest attempt to persuade me, without resorting to personal smears. I am used to having insults hurled at me from those I disagree with.

You have stated that political parties have been/will be taken over by powerful interests. This is undisputed. Let me give you an example: Paul Martin owns a shipping company, Canadian Steamship Lines. It is flagged in the Bahamas, to take advantage of cheap labor, low taxes and lax environmental standards. Now, Mr. Martin is a good man, I believe. I thought he was an excellent finance minister. We are in agreement, then, that political parties are controlled by powerful interests.

Is the crux of your argument that an appointed senate is 'above' this? Here is where i think we disagree:

the trade union that I belong to is an affiliate of the much larger AFL-CIO. We contribute to the campaigns of several democratic senators. Why do we do this? To improve the working conditions of our members. democracy in action, isn't it? I have provided examples of how an elected senate has improved the lives of ordinary working people.

Bailey,

"they might come up with a conscience. they might make a difference at some point".

perhaps my view of human nature is not as noble as yours. that they 'might' come up with a conscience isn't good enough for me. I'd rather the people stood on their own two feet and send a representative to Ottawa. This might mitigate Canadians' tendency to have 'them' take care of 'us'. 'We' should take care of 'ourselves', shouldn't we?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your argument is with capitalism.

just so there is no confusion: I am Canadian but have been working in the states for several years now.

Bailey,

I have reviewed your posts and I have what I think is your theme, and where we digress. With an appointed senate, you presume that 'we' (the people) will be protected from 'them' (powerful special interests).

This sir, is what is known as deference to authority. I would suggest, as Peter C Newman has, that deference to authority, otherwise known as red toryism, was crushed in Canada when Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives were defeated in 1993.

I will simply say again that I have provided solid examples of how an elected senate has improved the lives of ordinary working people.

sez acadian driftwood.

In whose definition?

You haven't provided a single example of anything positive that ever came out of the Canadian Senate. And, if you think that's what Peter Newman said ‘red toryism’ amounted to I don't think there's much hope that we'll get any insight into conservative politics from you either.

Please don't take this personally, but I think you're profoundly mistaken on both accounts.

Would bizarre be too strong a term?

Dear acadian driftwood; I find your language suggestive of a bias toward a doctrine that needs close examination.

"I'd rather the people stood on their own two feet and send a representative to Ottawa. This might mitigate Canadians' tendency to have 'them' take care of 'us'. 'We' should take care of 'ourselves'"

Democracy is how we do that, not how we avoid doing that. The checks and balances built into democratic institutions are a nod to what we know about human nature. We're a greedy untrustworthy lot, when money and power are around.

An appointed senate is a deliberate check on the power of the elected house for occasions just like this one, when enormous amounts of money have corrupted the elected house. All the parties as far as anybody can see.

Maybe they won't help, maybe they are also pre-empted, but the only reason I can see for anybody to wish to disassemble checks and balances are suspicious ones. Mr. Harper really wants to remove checks and balances. That makes me very suspicious.

When his boyfriend George succeeded in dismantling the checks and balances on the American system, the money REALLY started to flow, didn't it? To some, anyway.

And he got to wipe out all those pesky constitutional rights that prevented him from disappearing his critics. You gotta like that, when you plan to betray every principle that has informed the last two centuries of western civilization.

Your use of terms like 'stand on our own feet', when referring to removing safeguards, your recharacterization of a structural argument in economic terms, as capitalist, these things point to an Objectivist point of view.

I recommend you have a close look at your premises, and try to expunge the influences of propagandas that come from sources that do not have your best interests at heart.

Bailey,

your assertion that the PM wants to do away with checks and balances is shaky. There is no proof that an appointed senate is a superior check and balance to an elected on. You have offered a hypothetical situation, but you have not drawn from history to prove this. I can find no author, historian or professor to prove that which you assert.

Do the people not know what is good for them? Are the people not to be trusted? Can they not be trusted to govern themselves?

In addition, you alluded in your previous post to George Bush doing away with constitutional rights. You are absolutely correct. You must be aware, however, that power is much more centralised in Canada. As you know, there is no separation in Canada between the executive and legislative branch. The PM in Canada has the power of a King, much more than a president has in the republic south of the border.

In conclusion, it seems to me what we're talking about is, can the people be trusted to govern themselves? Currently the PM appoints senators. They are usually friends or party hacks. Their terms are 15, 30 and 45 years. Do you assert that appointment equals independence? In other words:

appointment = independence

This seems to be your premise, and I reject it.

Bailey,

your other premise, I believe, is that an appointed senate is also an impartial senate. Are we to believe that they are free-spirited polymaths, hovering objectively over the course of history?

I suggest you sir check your premises.

There you go again.

You're talking about restructuring a basic relationship that's designed to function only under circumstances that seem to be currently active.

You're language is very loaded. Very misleading.

If you had a sure fire way of fixing elections so that you could be sure that your own nominees would unfailingly hold power, (money, lots and lots of money) and there was a body that might operate against you but never had to stand for election, What would you want to do?

Suppose that body contained people who were appointed decades ago, before you got your fix in, by people who you never fixed. What would you want to do?

Would you want to force them into your system? Make them stand for a nice, secure election, so you could get your fix in everywhere?

Mr. Harper is the one proposing this "reform". Mr. Harper is the one who is pining for a nice majority. Why?

Could it be that Mr. Harper knows that to carry out the agenda he no longer admits he has, he will have to eliminate the last people who might oppose him?

Absolute balderdash. Could only be written by an American - and an ignorant one at that.

I think proportional representation in parliament is a more immediate need.

A proper basis for elections is needed before modifying the structure of government.

And term limits. 2 Terms Max, even if they are short minority terms.

Bailey,

we seem to be talking past one another. I admit I have a bias: I want an elected senate. You want an appointed senate. So I've tried to draw you out so I can discern why you think this way. I find your language also quite loaded, and I expect this. How else does one convince and persuade?

"If you had a sure-fire way of fixing elections so that you could be sure that your own nominees would unfailingly hold power, (money, lots and lots of money) and there was a body that might operate against you but never had to stand for election, What would you want to do"?

There you go again. You are presuming that which has not been proven true. That an appointed senate acts in the best interests of the people.

Bailey,

you also continue to use hypothetical situations and presume them to be true. Are our elections that we hold for our MP's corrupt? Of course not. Then why aren't you advocating and appointed house of commons? The reason I say this is because you suggest all elections are always corrupt.

You also suggest money leads to corruption and greed. Nobody disagrees with this! You continue to state the obvious, when no one disputes this! As you know, the system we have now, (western democracy) though far from perfect, is the best one going, it's the only game in town. Nobody knows of a better system. Until we come up with another, we're stuck. So alluding to money as the wellspring of corruption is stating the obvious. Let's move on.

Yeh, move on. Get rid of the damn senate and adopt some real electoral reform.

Never emulate anything the Americans have done. For proof, look where it's gotten them - the most hated nation in the world.

Bailey,

Let me just end now as I've said about all I can say. Thank you for your ideas and the debate, it was worthwhile.

Where we digress is on our worldview and vision of the future. A senate appointment now is compensation for party loyalty. They can ride the gravy train for potentially 45 years, and they do. They slurp up the best benefits money can buy, and they do. I don't see them as disengaged from the party machine, impartial and aloof, as you suggest. An election would get Canadians up and out of the house, and into the voting booth to send a candidate of their choice to Ottawa. Democracy in action. Appointments wrest power from the people, and into the hands of a PM. One must suspend belief to think an appointed senate is sage and wise, neutral and non-partisan.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Please.

Examine the contributors list for the last twenty years for all parties, paying special attention to duplications on your list. Make notes of the amounts donated.

Then examine the list of recipients of all benefits. Contracts. Deregulations. Buyers of public assets at low prices.

Compare the lists, correlate the amounts, both in and out. Where the lists are kept unaccountably secret, speculate as to why.

Elections are not always corrupt. I think the west has had a fairly honest system, thank you very much to the designers of the checks and balances that have protected the system. Most abuses when exposed have been punished and the abusers shamed.

Until recently anyway. If you do these comparisons election by election, for each nation-state and each corporation in the western block, you will see the pattern, and when it changed.

As long as you're making lists, make this one.

Correlate the amount spent on media, advertizing, spin, PR, faceplanting, branding, phony issues, purchase price for presses and broadcasting outlets, and compare the amounts you uncover with the successful candidates.

How often is the candidate backed by the largest expenditure on media elected, expressed as a percentage? How much does it cost to be elected, expressed as a dollar amount? What is the mechanism for spending this amount, and who are the mechanics?

While I'm still following your practice of multiple entries, forget the twenty year limit.

Make your correlations for several elections before the deregulation of media ownership occurred in each jurisdiction.

Some of that happened longer than twenty years ago, and to really see the pattern jump out at you, you have to go back to when there was still a free press operating, and compare from there. The free press was probably our greatest check against corruption, while it was permitted to exist.

Bailey,

for some reason my computer logs me out when I make a long entry, hence the short ones. Since you already know where I stand, I'll be brief.

Respectfully, your case is for campaign finance reform, not an appointed senate. Everything you wrote in your previous post points to this. You have asserted that an appointed senate is a check on the lower house. This is not true. In fact, it is a fallicy. It is the chamber of sober second thought, but not a check. There is no textbook, nor any course of studies in Canadian political science that would assert the senate is a check on the lower house. Without being impertinent, I suggest you look this up.

There is no separation of powers in Canada, no checks and balances as there is in the USA. In Canada, power is centralised. The PM is head of both the executive and legislative branches. He can also appoint senators. No president has this kind of power.

Like I say, you make an excellent case for campaign finance reform, but not an appointed senate.

Peace,
AD

Well, what does that mean, then, sober second thought?

You claiming they're just sitting there thinking without drinking?

The senate has the power to delay or display a bill publically creating debate, if they so choose. The 'second thought' is a chance to reconsider, to expose hidden consequences of bills, to prevent draconian action in secret, if they will.

Granted, a strong majority can impose a bill anyway, mostly, but what the people know, they can influence.

I maintain my claim; the senate is a check on the power of the upper house.

Strong words, Driftwood. Are you always this beligerant with people who don't agree with you?

Perhaps, Acadian Driftwood, you should read the story just one more time. I'm not alone with my opinions, and for what its worth, Harpers proposal truly is bizarre. It doesn't adress proportional representation and the elections turned into appointments of the PM's choosing says it all about how democratic it truly is. How much more evidence do you require? (shaking my head)

acadian driftwood is an American, brain. His ideas about the Senate are formed in a different fire. And you're absolutely right about his attitude.

nope -bc born n raised.

But a dual citizen none the less. Therefore an American. A sort of anti-intellectual David Frum if you prefer.

yes, but born n raised in bc. the point being: 'formed in a canadian fire'.

by the way,

I'm beginning to think you've never been to the united states. do you think all 300 million americans think the same way?

And if you have never travelled to the u.s., what does that say about you?

Well, enough of them did to elect an idiot twice.

What else would you like to tell me about America?

And yes, I have 'lived' there.

Dear G West; That may not be true. Seems to be some evidence that they didn't even elect him once.

The difficulties in counting votes in Florida and Ohio in 2001 were to be examined by an independent enquiry scheduled to start on September 12. The attack in New York by Saudi nationals connected to the Bin Laden family, long time allies of the Bush family pre-empted that enquiry.

However, apparently the counting continued, unofficially, even though the election had been arbitrarily awarded to Bush by the Supreme court.

There is a lot of talk about that count, to the effect that when they were all finally counted, after the Parties had stopped interfering in the process, Bush lost big.

No mandate from the people for any of this.

You may be right Bailey, certainly lots of suspicion abt the Florida nonsense and Gore did win the popular vote so you clearly have a point. But, the GOP also has dominated the house and senate since Clinton's time (until 2006) so I'd have to say that too doesn't reflect all that positively on the American judgment.

But, anyway, how Bush could even have been close seems bizarre to me...of course we have Harper here so ....??

I guess we have to draw some conclusions from that as well.

Have a wonderful hols!