Section 24 of the Canadian Constitution:

I wonder if the GG will accept the PM's recommendations.

Pretty bad when the press quotes Bennet.  A joke.

For the past two years the Senate has had a bill before it to reform and get elected senators.  The Liberal dominated senate won't.  The only way to get the Senate reformed is to get senators in ther wo don't care about job security and who will start the process of reform.

what is it that these current senators are afraid of

Hi Lastpointe,

Indeed. 

If memory serves.  It was within hours of winning the election that Harper made his first patronage appointment to the Senate in order to grant that same Senator a Cabinet position.

Now he intends to make more patronage appointments to the senate so that the senate can be reformed.

How is it that putting more pigs in the pen is going to keep them from rushing the trough?

This has brainwave written all over it.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Oh, I know  - I just about choked when I saw this yesterday.  Now, I can sympathize with various parties that the Liberals have an overrepresentation on the Senate.  That is not fair or appropriate, but in this time, where Harper is up on the hot seat, particularly for doing direspectful things that undercut everyone else, this action is unfathomable (except for him).

Totally inappropriate, and now I'm mad at the GG for letting him have free reign with no opposition. 

It isn't unconstitutional.  It is in his rights to do so, but given the current situation it is wrong.  I think he's disguising the economic failure of his government to handle things, he is covering up Michael Ignatieff's new position, he is showing his might & power (and arrogance) - this is done out of spite & ambition.

And where is Ignatieff with a statement????

Sigh, I knew it would only be a matter of time before the Senate would be dragged into this.  One more diversion from Harper?

Considering that some Canadians fail to understand how their elected House of Parliment works and for that matter are unwilling to make the effort to participate in that electoral process, the irony of demanding an elected Senate is glaring and begs the question, what will Harper's response be to a duly elected Bloc Senator?

LB

I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.      Isoroku Yamamoto

We cannot reform the senate. either you keep it as it is and keep it relatively weak. Or you get rid of it. Any reform is a threat to democracy.

We already have a legislative body that gives us, roughly, rep by pop - which is what democracy is supposed to do. Senate reform has usually been spoken of as giving more power to regions. But that, in giving more power to some people than others, in inerently undemocratic. It's like Rhode Island and California each have the same number of senators. Worse, if you give power to the senate, you can only do it by taking away power from the Commons - which is the only really democratic body we have.

Do regions need more power? They already have it. Alberta and quebec may gripe about their lack of power in Ottawa. but the fact is the power they have very accurately reflects their numbers  - which is how it should be in a democracy. Moreover, they do have absolute power in their provincial governments, and those governments have very large power, usually spending more altogether than Ottawa does.

Then there's the question of how responsible government would work with a reformed senate. Would the PM need majority support in both houses? If so, then say goodbye to majority governments forever.

Better, far better, to leave the senate alone. Or to get rid of it altogether.

graeme

It is ridiculous that a PM would make so many Senate appointments after proroguing parliment to avoid a confidence vote.

Think of the implications.

I agree whole-heartedly with graeme. The only Senate reform worth considering is its elimination... the Senate is not necessary with minority governments.

The Senate is a check to balance the House.  It's role is to scrutinize legislation and investigate House activities.  They return legislation that is deemed poorly written, counter to the Constitution or against the wishes of the Canadian people.

It is also the body of Government that is the most accessible for the introduction of a private bill

Virtually all private legislation, that is, bills which deal with private interests such as incorporating a company, extending a railway line, or providing legal status to religious or charitable bodies, originate in the Senate, namely because it is less expensive. Petitioners for private bills must pay all legal, printing and translation costs. While the minimum fee for the introduction of a private bill in the Senate is $200, the fee in the House of Commons has been, since 1934, $500.  

The investigative role of the Senate is another valuable function

A number of major investigations into social and economic issues have been undertaken by Senate Committees in recent years, prompting some commentators to observe that "its initiatives in this area have sometimes made unnecessary the appointing of royal commissions".23 Among the studies conducted in recent years, mention may be made of Science Policy (1970), The Mass Media (1970), Poverty in Canada (1971), the Agricultural Potential of Eastern New Brunswick (1976), Children (1980), Veterans (1981), Soil Erosion (1984), Canadian Financial Institutions (1990), the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (1990); the Goods and Services Tax (1990); Program Evaluation in the Government of Canada (1991); Truro-Sydney, N.S. Railway Line (1992); Peacekeeping (1993); Energy Emissions Crisis (1993); the Valour and the Horror (1993); Of Life and Death (1995); Post-Secondary Education in Canada (1997); Canadian Agriculture’s Priorities (1999); Social Cohesion (1999); Aboriginal Governance (2000); and, Air Safety and Security (2000).

(see Legislative Link below)

Their appointment, instead of election, implies that Senators can not be pressured by Party politics, they can not be threatened with removal of Party finances or support in a future election and therefore open to make decisions by conscience.  I suggest this theory is supported since all elected Parties to the House of Commons have desired the abolition of the Senate at one time or another - even the Liberals who have made the most appointments.

Here are a couple of good sites for information about composition and role of the Canadian Senate

The Canadian Senate: Role, Powers & Operation   Mapleleafweb

A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada  Parliament of Canada

The senate sometimes does the dirty work of the government. A good example was the abortion flap. The pro-life fanatics  took revenge on any politician who opposed laws restricting abortion. This included attacks from the pulpits from the largest churches in Canada, Thus, the Commons enacted laws on abortion and the Senate (at the secret behest of the major parties) defeated them. A bad practise but it worked.

I balieve Senators should be appointed by each party according to a proportional representation formula.

Sounds like Presbytery.... 

• they aren't elected or 'vetted' for skill & intent
• they can show up if they want to, or not
• they aren't particularly 'the experts' but get to make recommendations
• they aren't necessarily listened to
• it sounds good & important, and sometimes might be

but we don't get paid extra at Presbytery.... hmmmm

Stephen Harper loves whatever works for Stephen Harper:  fakirscanada.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!BCDFFB6F4CF5AAB!592.entry