acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (03/18/85)
So, the weak kneed ruling conservative party wants to reform the feeding
trough for old political hacks. (If you haven't guessed I am talking
about the Senate.) Unfortunately, they don't even want to reform this
house of ill-repute in a meaningful way. All they want to do is handcuff
it to make it more useless than it already is and turn it into an even
bigger political wasteland. As much as it pains me to do so, on this
one I basically have to agree with Ed Broadbent's desire to abolish the
Senate, given the direction the government seems headed.
I would prefer to see the current Senate replaced with an elected
one where the members serve for a fixed term along with giving it more
actual power to make it worth our money. One purpose of the Senate is
to provide a representation for regions as opposed to representation
based solely on population. Given the current power of the Senate and
attitude of the Senators this just isn't working. Earlier this year
a piece of legislation of great interest to British Columbia was
read in the Senate (It had something to do with the pacific salmon
fishery but I don't think it was the Canada-US treaty.) yet not one
Senator from British Columbia was present. To me, this indicates
that either they felt powerless to do something about this legislation
even if they though it was "bad" or were shirking their responsibilities
or both. In any case it indicates time for Senate reform.
Do you know who your Senators are? Do you know where they can
be found when they aren't sleeping in the Senate?
Donald Acton
For those of you who are still struggling with winter, just a reminder
that spring can't be too far away as the cherry trees are now in bloom
out here on the West Coast.manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) (03/18/85)
The reason I support the existing Senate is straightforward. It gives the govt in power somewhere to put old party hacks. Just think what would happen if a hack were given a job which required responsibility and competence (such as Ambassador to Portugal)! Admittedly, the Senate has some duties (notably the Bank Act), but these could easily be removed without harming anyone. I suggest a tricameral setup: a House of Commons (where the actual power resides); a House of Provinces (elected representatives of each province, a la the US Senate); and a House of Patronage, where the hacks go.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/20/85)
The trouble with the Senate is that they don't know what they CAN do
(the new Consitution notwithstanding). When they try do do something
constitutional and probably correct (like not passing a borrowing bill
until they see what is to be spent), they get tromped on. So their
best bet is often to stay quiet. But Senate committees often do a lot
of useful work.
I think that so long as we have a Senate appointed by the PM, it can
serve a useful purpose, in that it gives us a political system with
two very different time-constants. The current Liberal Senate reflects
a long period in which the country usually was satisfied with Liberal
policies (at least not sufficiently dissatisfied to vote them out).
Now we had a massive and probably anomalous surge in the other direction
that could give a single-chamber Parliament an immediate ability to
switch right around. If the Conservatives win two or three elections
more, the Senate will become dominated by Conservatives, and that's
OK because it will reflect the long-term mood of the country.
The main problem with seeing the Senate this way is that they have
no POLITICAL credibility, even though they have constitutional power.
In practice, they can't do what they are in theory permitted to do.
It would be said to be "against the will of the people" to deny
Commons bills passage, whereas in fact it just represent a balance
between the long-term will and the momentary impulse of the people.
Elections have too much peak-sampling error to be the sole reason
for having a party in power. Several elections the same can be trusted.
Relying on one is just a financial and political convenience.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmtgwhawkins@watrose.UUCP (gwhawkins) (03/20/85)
I have nothing against throwing the old politicians into the Senate, after all it is related to politics. What I do object to is the control the government has on the appointment of Judges. Do you want to be judged by a good toe kisser? larry fast (University of Waterloo) broadcasting from exile @ gwhawkins
dave@lsuc.UUCP (03/29/85)
In article <7364@watrose.UUCP> gwhawkins@watrose.UUCP (Larry Fast) writes: ||I have nothing against throwing the old politicians into the Senate, ||after all it is related to politics. What I do object to is the ||control the government has on the appointment of Judges. || ||Do you want to be judged by a good toe kisser? Since judges can't reply to this kind of cheap shot in public (quite apart from the fact that there are no judges on the net...), I'll reply. Judicial appointments are, on the whole, made very carefully. I've forgotten the exact procedure, but there are recommendations from and consultation with the Canadian Bar Association committee on judicial appointments. I can not think of a single high court judge in Canada who I would not consider well qualified. Yes, there have been appointments of former politicians, including those in last year's round of Trudeau-leaving appointments, but the judges in question are well qualified for their posts. (If someone served as an MP for many years, it certainly indicates that he had the confidence and respect of the public.) On top of that, don't forget that almost all lawyers who become judges take a substantial pay cut to do so, and must give up many of their social contacts and activities. David Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave