Harper Warns Senators He'll Get His Way

Harper shot back: "Don't give me the opportunity."

How about you give us Canadians the opportunity to say what kind of elected senate we want if any?

Maybe Canada doesn't NEED a US style senate like the one you want to inflict on
us.

That arrogant, self-serving pompous ass needs a political bitchslap...

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

I agree with the bitchslap treatment but I don't see an elected senate as a bad thing. The senate as it stands is open to a lot of abuse from senators as well as prime ministers.
That being said, I'm old now (nearly 45)and change can be a scary thing for an old-timer like me. Nothing scares me more than my country being handed to the Americans and any little move toward an American style political system certainly would make me nervous.

---
Canada for Canadians

And here is yet another major tool in the nationalist's toolkit. Shoot down proposed reforms by calling them "US style" or "American", as if those terms were synonymous with "bad" or "evil". Aren't there other countries that have a bicameral legislature with both houses being elected?

The senate, in its current incarnation, represents the worst aspects of the Canadian system - patronage, loyalty over merit, elitism, stagnancy, and entrenched single party rule. I'd rather just abolish the damned thing, but an elected senate is still preferable to the status quo.

Is asserting your distinctiveness as a country a good enough reason to hold onto a dysfunctional institution? It's like you're saying "This tumour's bad for me, but America doesn't have one, so I should keep mine to show I'm different."

I agree with the bitchslap treatment but I don't see an elected senate as a bad thing<

Hey if your old, I must be dead.
I agree it is time for an elected senate. "The old boys club" was just a tool that could be used by the reigning party. They (the senators) make the final decision on all acts in Canada. Even though they were not elected officals, the senate could and did over-ride the democratic process. Our elected representatives has to impress the "boys" in their favor. Unfortunatly we have a PM that gives us the impression he want's Canada to be a US twin. The senate in the US is a different value, however. The term "senate" has different definitions in the two countries. We have to realize that our "boys club" consists of the afluent who created a niche for themselves. We even had a senator who lived in Florida, attended little to his duties and yet collected great sums of money for doing nothing. This has to stop now. The senate will fight tooth and nail to lose their lucrative position and power. They are the ones who would be giving final say in the present situation. Harper is warning them that if they won't pass the law, he'll sidestep them. The one and only thing I can support Harper on.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

I don't think an elected Senate is going to make things better or the government more effective nor accountable. It could even make things more partisan and more dangerous in terms of the voter actually losing more power than we have now. And, yes I know that seems impossible but I could see it happening. If we could alter our electoral process so that the voter does have more of a true representation, that would be most democratic and naturally more accountable.

Right now I believe the Senate is the only body that actually has our best interests in mind anymore. Our elected officials are not filling that responsibily. REally the bottom line is if we are electing irresponsible, unethical, criminals into our government how is that going to improve anything? We need to find an electoral process that ATTRACTS naturally responsible, ethical individuals so that by the time policy and laws are being made we're starting from the best place possible. Our partisan governments are a breading place for criminals and corporate whores.



---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

Well I won't go as far as to "support" Harper on anything. I agree with an elected senate and I agree with abolishing the long gun registry but I can live without either or both if that's what it takes to keep Canada, CANADA!

---
Canada for Canadians

<p>><i>And here is yet another major tool in the nationalist's toolkit.</i><br> I don't see a problem with being a "nationalist"<br> ><i>Shoot down proposed reforms by calling them "US style" or "American", as if those terms were synonymous with "bad" or "evil". Aren't there other countries that have a bicameral legislature with both houses being elected?</i> <br> Canada is not in position to be merged with or absorbed by another country other than the US/Mexico, so that is irrelevant.<br> ><i>The senate, in its current incarnation, represents the worst aspects of the Canadian system - patronage, loyalty over merit, elitism, stagnancy, and entrenched single party rule.</i> <br> Agreed, my problem is not with going to an elected senate but the real reason behind it and who is pushing for it.<br> ><i>I'd rather just abolish the damned thing, but an elected senate is still preferable to the status quo.</i><br> I don't agree with abolishing it, that would really give us a governmental system ripe for abuse. <br> ><i>Is asserting your distinctiveness as a country a good enough reason to hold onto a dysfunctional institution? It's like you're saying "This tumour's bad for me, but America doesn't have one, so I should keep mine to show I'm different."</i><br> I don't see it as asserting my distinctiveness as a country so much as protecting my country. We all know what Harper's ultimate goal is and I think it's in Canada's best interest to not give this guy too much of a free reign. He isn't going to stand up and say "Okay everybody! Today I'm going to flush your country down the drain", he's going <strike>to go</strike> about it step by step in such a way that by the time you realize what is happening, it will be too late to do anything about it.</p><p>---<br>Canada for Canadians

4Canada,

Must say I enjoyed your analysis of the Canadian electoral process very much: If under the current process we already vote traitors, scoundrels, moral turptitude, into power, how will voting for senators change this????

Indeed it won't. We will have these types hanging around on our dime for what, 6,7,8 or more years?

I think perhaps a way to go is for the electorate to vote in a slate of senatorial candidates from which the prime minister gets to choose those who will sit in the senate.

This slate could be based on the popular votes collected by candidates #1, #2, #3, say, in each province. With very severe restrictions placed upon the financing of the election campaigns, plus NO political party affiliation! The idea being that this process/position would be open and attainable to any Canadian Citizen without dual citizenship nor a criminal record.

A tall order, perhaps.

But, this reverses the current electoral process whereby party hacks and their backers decide on the slate of candidates paraded before the electorate, who is now faced with the dilemma of "better the devil you know than the devil you don't". We all know the results of this process, don't we?

An alternative for picking senators would be to use the method of picking members of the jury, who, by and large don't do a bad job, certainly much better than the elected types.

Just my thoughts.

H.F. Wolff

The unelected Senate that we've had for decades is proof that there's no difference between rule by unelected decree or rule by elected decree - decree is still decree no matter how it's dressed up.

Therefore I could not care any less if the Senate is elected or not.

As was already pointed out, although it would not solve all of our problems, giving the individual voter true representation would make a world of difference.

The electoral system that we currently have in place is just as dysfunctional as the unelected Senate. Harper for example, won the election with only 23% of the eligible vote (23% takes into account the "none of the above" votes). With 77% of the vote going away from the ultimate winner, how can anyone argue that changing from an unelected system to an elected system will make any difference?

Harper must know that electing the Senate won't matter to Canadians in the long run. He's doing the dance as part of his acting role as PM.

If there's any doubt, just take a peek at the US system with an elected Senate and see for yourself that an elected Senate will not make any difference in our daily lives.

It seems to me that simply electing senators is not the answer. Initially, the purpose of the Senate reflected the distrust of the electorate by the political elite. That was then. Today the problem is that the electorate has lost trust in both the elected and the appointed bodies. The only real power the Senate holds today is one of delay. Simply electing a Senate through the same process is merely another means of creating "smoke and mirrors" and a pretence at democracy. The real power is not in the ballot box but in the bank account and the partisan back rooms.

Senate reform needs to take place within the context of a much larger debate on the state of our so-called democracy.

“Initially, the purpose of the Senate reflected the distrust of the electorate by the political elite. That was then. Today the problem is that the electorate has lost trust in both the elected and the appointed bodies. The only real power the Senate holds today is one of delay. Simply electing a Senate through the same process is merely another means of creating "smoke and mirrors" and a pretence at democracy. The real power is not in the ballot box but in the bank account and the partisan back rooms.”

Innes, you have it down succinctly as hell, best so far, but…I get to, dump them, from your logic.

There is no going forward on this. Status quo stinks. Democracy is elusive as hell and the Senate is irrelevant, except as a government tool (and smoke screen). No one knows which way is forward with the Senate as part of the equation. No one’s backroom will come up with a solution. Electing folks to give (sober second thought) ‘delay power’ to, is “pretend democracy” trappings. The Senate is costly, and big and “pretend powerful”, pretending to look out for the public’s interests against bad government; pretending to have a function; numbing the public mind into thinking that it doesn’t matter too, too much, who you vote for, or if you are inclined to hold your nose and vote for scoundrels… the Senate (and on other notes, the press and the opposition) will keep them in line.

Without this numbing, (and when you realize the Media and the opposition aren’t necessarily focussed right) it really does matter who you vote for. It’s really very serious. A Public perception of how serious it really is, could be good for our democracy.

Make the governing party truly accountable for every decision at every step. Even if it means bad decisions have a half life of some sort (that’s how some need to learn). Take away the smoke screen. Dump the Senate and all it’s traditions, it can’t be fixed or morphed or revitalized or enriched or… It’s buildings and office spaces would make excellent museum space.

We'll talk even more clearly about democratic reform without the foggy Senate being part of the debate.

There does not seem to be much use for a Senate either elected or appointed. I am not sure how we can change the system to make it work better for the general electorate. One suggestion might be to give more resources to our elected representatives and to give them more independence to make both informed and non-partisan decisions. Political parties gain power promising more free votes and then totally reverse themselves when in power or make sure that the do not run candidates that might even question the positions of the leaders. Much of our problems stem from political parties which are private clubs created to control government for certain special interests.