Why won't it occur? The whole point of the modern senate is regional representation (despite the fact that we lack that in Canada). Having a government represented purely by population in a country as large as Canada is undemocratic, in my opinion. The senate should put small (in terms of population) provinces on equal footing with larger ones. The larger provinces will retain their domination in the House of Commons.
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Harper to table bill on Senate reform
- Thread starter rotary
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2006
- Posts
- 4,238
- Reaction score
- 30
- Points
- 0
This is an interesting thead to me....
If you don't mind answering a few questions from someone that knows nothing about the politics of our friends in the North..... sorry of some of them sound very dumb.
1. Is the Canadian Senate something like the British House of Lords?
2. What actual powers does the Senate have?
3. Do all bills have to be approved by the Commons and the Senate, or only those pertaining to particular subjects (such as tax bills, treaties, etc.).
4. Is it true that the Senate is appointed, not subject to election, and if appointed does a new PM have the power to replace all Senators upon his election?
5. Do parties, other than the two main ones, have any representation in the Canadian Senate?
Thanks for any answers you guys can give me.
If you don't mind answering a few questions from someone that knows nothing about the politics of our friends in the North..... sorry of some of them sound very dumb.
1. Is the Canadian Senate something like the British House of Lords?
2. What actual powers does the Senate have?
3. Do all bills have to be approved by the Commons and the Senate, or only those pertaining to particular subjects (such as tax bills, treaties, etc.).
4. Is it true that the Senate is appointed, not subject to election, and if appointed does a new PM have the power to replace all Senators upon his election?
5. Do parties, other than the two main ones, have any representation in the Canadian Senate?
Thanks for any answers you guys can give me.
The_Reaper
Minister of Silly Walks
I'll do my best to help you out here:
1.) Yes and no. The Senate was modelled on it when it was first formed, but is slightly different. I forget how though.
2.) The Senate acts as John A. MacDonald put it, as a "sober second thought" to the House of Commons. It reviews the bills passed by the House, and votes on them again in smaller numbers (105 compaired to 308) to prevent a power hungry commons from passing harmful bills.
3.) Any bills that go through the House usually go through the Senate as well. Only a few are worth talking about though. If the Senate rejects it, it goes back to the House (usually with some ammendments) and they try to pass it again.
4.) The Senate is appointed for a term until they turn 75. There's no way to remove a Senator unless they really screw up (illegally speaking). A new PM can't replace current Senators, but he can appoint new ones to fill empty seats.
5.) Yes. The NDP has a few seats, as does the Bloc Quebecois. And due to the nature of the Senate, a few Progressive Conservatives still have seats, as some of them refused to join the new party.
That should cover your questions, and now onto Aaron.
The problem, which I must keep referring to, is the creation of provincial parties.
If every province has the same amount of representation in the Senate, lets say two seats like the USA, then there's a good chance of independent/provincial based party members being elected.
It's not hard to imagine a type of sitaution where only a few seats go to established Federal Parties, and the rest go to provincial based ones.
Who's sole goal is to ensure that the government starts pumping some money into their province.
This is detrimental to the workings of the Senate, as these provincial parties would slow down the progress of bills through the Senate and would essentially be self-serving.
The only way to prevent this, is to limit what type of party can run a Senate candidate.
But to ban provinically based candidates, means to ban the Bloc Quebecois. Which ever Prime Minister would try this, would see terrible results in the next Commons Election, because the Seperatists would use the example of blocking a strong Quebec voice from the Senate.
But you can't allow the Bloc to run candidates, and not allow other provinces to do the same. The Saskatchewan Party for example, could become a Senate Party in this circumstances.
So allowing direct election will never work in favour of good governance, rather in favour of who can bitch and moan enough to get the Feds to pump money into their province.
Equal represenation, without an elected Senate is a better idea. This would prevent this provincial parties from forming, but most of you would still compain that it is undemocratic, because the Prime Minister now has the power to appoint a large deal of Senators that still have a very long term limit.
A second option to this, is binding the Prime Minister to proportional representation within the Senate.
For example, in the last election the Conservatives go around 36.9% of the vote nationally. So break that down into province by province terms, to determine senate seats. With appointments made by the Prime Minister, to represent the provinces in which the votes came from.
So, if the Conservatives got 36.9% nationally...But only 21.5% in Ontario, then of the representation from Ontario, 21.5% rounded down should be the seats given to the Conservatives.
Let me try to make this a bit clearer, as it might come across as confusing.
Let's apply the example that each province is given 8 Senate Seats. (Why 8 you ask? Because it would give 104 Senate seats in total, so basically one less seat then we have now.)
For the purpose of this, the Senate is basically restricted to as long a term as the Commons.
Now, let's say the Liberals get re-elected in 2007, with 40% of the vote.
In Ontario, they received 39.5% of the vote, the Conservatives got 35.5%, the NDP got 20%, and the Greens got 5%.
As a result, the Liberals will get 4 Senate seats, the Conservatives will get 3, and the NDP will get 1.
While the Green did get 5% of the vote, they failed to garner half of the the NDP did, and as such are eliminated from getting a seat.
Since this can be a bit of a math headache, only parties that receive double-digit voter support should be considered for a Senate seat.
So, again, using this formula:
In Saskatchewan, the Conservatives get 52.5% of the vote, the NDP get 22.5%, the Liberals get 15.6%, and the Greens get 9.4%.
So, using the formula:
52.5% / 8 seats = 6.56 or 6 seats for the Conservatives
22.5% / 8 seats = 2.81 or 1 seat for the NDP
15.6% / 8 seats = 1.95 or 1 seat for the Liberals
9.4% / 8 seats = 1.75 or 0 seats for the Greens
Since we've established that only parties that garnish double-digit voter support are considered for seats, the Greens are again removed from a Senate seat.
Obivously, there's some flaws to this to be worked out, but it's the only way to prevent provincial based parties from locking down the Senate in exchange for patronage from the Commons.
i still say election kinda defeats the purpose of the senate.... it brings too much politics into the senate, making it exactly the same as the House..... what we need is a senate that doesn't constantly worry about reelection.... i still think that an all-party committee should be made to fill in seats....
To add to what Reaper said...
2. What actual powers does the Senate have?
Most of the Senate Powers are in the form of delaying legislation. I believe they can delay most legislation for a year, with the exception of tax/finance type bills, which have a limit of six months. They can amend legislation proposed in the House of Commons slightly, as well. Tax Bills or bills appropriating public funds must be first introduced in the House of Commons first. Any other legislation can be introduced in either of the two Houses.
5. Do parties, other than the two main ones, have any representation in the Canadian Senate?
Yes. It is rare, though, a Prime Minister will appoint Senators that do not share his part alignment. Generally, about 90% of Senators are aligned with the Prime Minister who appointed them.
2. What actual powers does the Senate have?
Most of the Senate Powers are in the form of delaying legislation. I believe they can delay most legislation for a year, with the exception of tax/finance type bills, which have a limit of six months. They can amend legislation proposed in the House of Commons slightly, as well. Tax Bills or bills appropriating public funds must be first introduced in the House of Commons first. Any other legislation can be introduced in either of the two Houses.
5. Do parties, other than the two main ones, have any representation in the Canadian Senate?
Yes. It is rare, though, a Prime Minister will appoint Senators that do not share his part alignment. Generally, about 90% of Senators are aligned with the Prime Minister who appointed them.
You keep repeating it, and I keep failing to see why it is a problem.
First of all, you need to consider the electoral system we would be using.
If we continue to live in the past, and use SMP like we do for the Commons now, those parties would have a hard time winning seats. Most voters aren't overly informed on the issues and parties. Don't get me wrong, many have enough information to cast an informed vote, but I don't believe that the vast majority does a large amount of research. Voters are comfortable with the mainstream parties. The Reform Party and the Bloc are both exceptions to the rules, in that they managed to win a large enough amount of local support to win seats. Mainstream parties would still win a good portion of the seats in the senate.
Even in a proportional system, these provincial parties would most likely not be successful. Election results (in terms of the popular vote) rarely shift that much. Since 1962, support for the Liberal Party was always somewhere between 30% and 46%, and most cases, the election to election shift was less then 10%. Most likely, we wouln't see these Provincial parties gain enough momentum to take a large enough portion of the vote away from the mainstream parties. The Bloc is unique in that is represents Quebec, and we all know why they are successful there. The Reform Party was the only real alternative to the remnants of a broken PC party, which is why they managed to be so successful. Those situations are rare. Mainstream parties would retain control of the Senate.
I'm going to assume that, since there are only 10 Provinces, we would have a larger senate than 2 per jurisdiction. Say 10 senators per province to make a Senate of 100. If provincial parties did manage to win enough senate seats in the upper house, they would still not make much of a difference. If they were one of only two or three provincial parties with control over their province's seats, they wouldn't carry much weight. Why would the other 8 or so other provinces pass any bill that was so favourable to the province in question? Why would the House of Commons pass it? They wouldn't. The provincial party wouldn't be able to stop legislation very effectively, either: a majority vote would still rule the Senate. 8 or 10 votes in opposition won't mean defeated legislation.
The Budget would come from the House of Commons, as all finance bills need to. A provincial party that tried to amend the budget to favour their province wouldn't be successful.
I'm not sure that made sense, but there it is anyway.
The_Reaper
Minister of Silly Walks
It sounds alright, until you look at systems with Proportional Representation.
Many of the European Countries have managed to get it right, but then take a look at Israel.
Anybody who wants a party, can form one.
From my studies in political science, we learnt that there was a party who was made of Taxi Cab Drivers, and who's sole purpose is to represent Taxi Drivers.
While this party won't form a government, it leads to the sort of coalition building that takes place.
So, while the House of Commons can still form a government without coalitions, the Senate would not be the same.
A proportional system would lead to this fringe parties being created, and even if only two or three get members elected, these members would hold a balance of power depending on the numbers within the Senate.
Then, once the rest of the country sees the exchange these fringe parties got in exchange for supporting the government, more fringe parties will be created to try and get the same results.
You'll see the creation of parties not only on a provincial scale, but broken down even further, like the Taxi Cab party in Israel.
So, the only option is to restrict parties. Which would be labelled as anti-democratic, not only by Canadian citizens but internationally.
Many of the European Countries have managed to get it right, but then take a look at Israel.
Anybody who wants a party, can form one.
From my studies in political science, we learnt that there was a party who was made of Taxi Cab Drivers, and who's sole purpose is to represent Taxi Drivers.
While this party won't form a government, it leads to the sort of coalition building that takes place.
So, while the House of Commons can still form a government without coalitions, the Senate would not be the same.
A proportional system would lead to this fringe parties being created, and even if only two or three get members elected, these members would hold a balance of power depending on the numbers within the Senate.
Then, once the rest of the country sees the exchange these fringe parties got in exchange for supporting the government, more fringe parties will be created to try and get the same results.
You'll see the creation of parties not only on a provincial scale, but broken down even further, like the Taxi Cab party in Israel.
So, the only option is to restrict parties. Which would be labelled as anti-democratic, not only by Canadian citizens but internationally.
Parties are already restricted all over the world. A proportional system would see a vote threshold imposed during an election, which would probably be about 5%. A party would have to win at least 5% of the vote to even be elegible for a seat.
There would be no need for coalition government in the Senate (is that what you were suggesting?). There is, in a sense, no government in the Senate at all (save the token Senator appointed to the Cabinet). For practical purposes, the Cabinet is the government. Since we have a fusion of powers in Canada, the Cabinet is drawn from the Lower House, and so there would be no coalition in the Upper House required.
Coalition in government in the House wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, either. Coalition Governments remain stable despite no one party holding a majority. Under our system now, a small shift in the popular vote, say 6%, can result in a large shift in the composition of the House. Thus, opposition parties have incentive to force elections - a small shift in the popular vote in favour of them opposition can mean huge election gains. Under PR, a small shift in the popular vote would equate with a small shift in the House. The mainstay parties would remain through several elections, with the smaller coalition members changing. There would also be little incentive for the opposition to force an election since the result would be only a small shift in House composition.
There would be no need for coalition government in the Senate (is that what you were suggesting?). There is, in a sense, no government in the Senate at all (save the token Senator appointed to the Cabinet). For practical purposes, the Cabinet is the government. Since we have a fusion of powers in Canada, the Cabinet is drawn from the Lower House, and so there would be no coalition in the Upper House required.
Coalition in government in the House wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, either. Coalition Governments remain stable despite no one party holding a majority. Under our system now, a small shift in the popular vote, say 6%, can result in a large shift in the composition of the House. Thus, opposition parties have incentive to force elections - a small shift in the popular vote in favour of them opposition can mean huge election gains. Under PR, a small shift in the popular vote would equate with a small shift in the House. The mainstay parties would remain through several elections, with the smaller coalition members changing. There would also be little incentive for the opposition to force an election since the result would be only a small shift in House composition.
halubtsi
Optimist Eternal
I think the big question is: Should Senators be accountable? I know this sounds a bit strange, but we need to look at how our Parliament was established. Our Parliament is based on the Westminster Parliament. When Canada was created we had to create a system that recognized Parliamentary Supremacy, yet was also compatible with a Federal system. Without going into the Constitutional Supremacy/Parliamentary Supremacy debate, Canada was able to fuse the two systems...that is: US Federalism and British Parliamentary Supremacy.
Our Senate was based on the House of Lords. Lords aren't "accountable." At the time, if you were a Lord, you were there for life. In Canada, our Senate was loosely based on both the British House of Lords and US Senate. However, at the time of the Conderation debates, the US civil war was raging. It was the belief in "Canada" that the reason for the US civil war was because individual states were given too much power. So, the Fathers of Confederation decided to create artificial "regions" which would give less populous provinces a greater vote in Federal matters. However, there was no precedent for an elected Senate, so it would be impossible to know just how Parliament would have functioned with an elected upper house. Even in the USA, the Senate of 1867 was not a popularly elected body. So, the Fathers of Confederation went with what they knew. We would have had our own "House of Lords" save for the fact that Canada had no "traditional" aristocracy. Our aristocracy were the rich. Hence the monetary requirements to be a Canadian Senator.
Our Senators need not worry about what is popular, because they serve until age 75. They cannot be removed, even if they consistenly vote against the government. I like the idea of an all-party committee that appoints Senators...Technically speaking, it's the Governor General who appoints Senators...not the PM. So, if a committee was formed under the auspices of Rideau Hall to choose Senators, they would definitely be "non-partisan" appointments. That said, I think that an "independent research branch" needs to be created for the Senate, much like what exists for each of the parties on the Hill.
Our Senate was based on the House of Lords. Lords aren't "accountable." At the time, if you were a Lord, you were there for life. In Canada, our Senate was loosely based on both the British House of Lords and US Senate. However, at the time of the Conderation debates, the US civil war was raging. It was the belief in "Canada" that the reason for the US civil war was because individual states were given too much power. So, the Fathers of Confederation decided to create artificial "regions" which would give less populous provinces a greater vote in Federal matters. However, there was no precedent for an elected Senate, so it would be impossible to know just how Parliament would have functioned with an elected upper house. Even in the USA, the Senate of 1867 was not a popularly elected body. So, the Fathers of Confederation went with what they knew. We would have had our own "House of Lords" save for the fact that Canada had no "traditional" aristocracy. Our aristocracy were the rich. Hence the monetary requirements to be a Canadian Senator.
Our Senators need not worry about what is popular, because they serve until age 75. They cannot be removed, even if they consistenly vote against the government. I like the idea of an all-party committee that appoints Senators...Technically speaking, it's the Governor General who appoints Senators...not the PM. So, if a committee was formed under the auspices of Rideau Hall to choose Senators, they would definitely be "non-partisan" appointments. That said, I think that an "independent research branch" needs to be created for the Senate, much like what exists for each of the parties on the Hill.
very well said... pretty much exactly what i was thinking... the whole point about the senate is for sober second thoughts, how would that be accomplished when senators are worried about doing something that may be political suicide, even if it is the right thing to do.,...
The_Reaper
Minister of Silly Walks
"For practical purposes, the Cabinet is the government. Since we have a fusion of powers in Canada, the Cabinet is drawn from the Lower House, and so there would be no coalition in the Upper House required."
There in lies the problem.
The Cabinet can make the bills and pass them on, but ultimatly the Senate gets the final word.
Also, the Senate is allowed to create bills that don't deal with overly important matters, AKA finance and such.
But the Senate gets the word.
And if provincial parties are formed in the Senate, coallition building would have to occur from the Government in the Commons, to ensure bills pass by the Senate.
An idea of a multi-party council who appoints senators is interesting, but party policies will revert back to the old:
Let's make sure we sneak the craziest mother-fuc*er pass the committee as we can, so make sure our ideologial lines are well represented.
And most parties will always suggest candidates who are in line with their party.
There in lies the problem.
The Cabinet can make the bills and pass them on, but ultimatly the Senate gets the final word.
Also, the Senate is allowed to create bills that don't deal with overly important matters, AKA finance and such.
But the Senate gets the word.
And if provincial parties are formed in the Senate, coallition building would have to occur from the Government in the Commons, to ensure bills pass by the Senate.
An idea of a multi-party council who appoints senators is interesting, but party policies will revert back to the old:
Let's make sure we sneak the craziest mother-fuc*er pass the committee as we can, so make sure our ideologial lines are well represented.
And most parties will always suggest candidates who are in line with their party.
I don't see the problem? The Senate would get a word, just as the House would get a word. Both would be, in theory, equal. I'm not sure where the problem is in that.
thats why i say senators should just be appointed by an all-party commmittee.... or even a committee made up of educated civilians.....
and if senators are elected, they yes, they should have a say.... after all, they are also "given" power from the people to represent them.... that would be trouble as the two house can conflict when they both claim a mandate to push a conflicting agenda....
and if senators are elected, they yes, they should have a say.... after all, they are also "given" power from the people to represent them.... that would be trouble as the two house can conflict when they both claim a mandate to push a conflicting agenda....
An all-party committee would have merit. I would oppose a panel of educated civilians, though. At least with an all-party committee, they are being appointed by an elected body. I would be uneasy about an appointed body making appointments to the Senate.
The Houses are supposed to conflict. Parliamentary systems are based on conflict, which is why we allow "Her Majesty's Loyal Oppostion" to help govern the country. The majority of the agenda pushing would come form the House of Commons, though. The Cabinet would still be drawn from the House (with the exception of the Leader of Government in the Senate), and so most of the government's agenda would originate from the Commons (read: Cabinet), or from the Senator appointed to Cabinet. Bills proposed by the average Senator would probably have about as much luck passing in the House as Private Members Bills, which isn't much. In the last Parliament under Paul Martin, only 4 of about 265 Private Members Bills passed in the House (which was during a minority government; a majority government could very likely defeat all of them). Unless a Senate Bill fell inline with the Government's agenda, it too would probably be defeated in the Commons.
The_Reaper
Minister of Silly Walks
The problem lies with this idea that our system is perfect and working well.
You say, that "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" is there to help govern the country.
But, the problem with ideologies comes back to bite us in the butt.
The Liberals and the Conservatives will NEVER agree on a point, especially if the bill is introduced by THE OTHER party.
A perfect example:
2004: Irwin Cotler introduces a bill to make tougher penalities for street racers and people who steal and joyride in other people's cars.
The Conservatives vote en masse against this bill.
2006: Vic Towes introduces the SAME bill, increasing penalities against street racers and so forth, with the Conservatives voting for it this time.
IF the Liberals introduce a bill, it's practically already dead to the Conservatives. The same goes vice versa.
The parties are there to make themselves look stronger, and the other party weak.
The only solution I can think of: :Let the Bloc be the opposition again. Then maybe at least the Conservatives and the Liberals will find some common ground.
You say, that "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" is there to help govern the country.
But, the problem with ideologies comes back to bite us in the butt.
The Liberals and the Conservatives will NEVER agree on a point, especially if the bill is introduced by THE OTHER party.
A perfect example:
2004: Irwin Cotler introduces a bill to make tougher penalities for street racers and people who steal and joyride in other people's cars.
The Conservatives vote en masse against this bill.
2006: Vic Towes introduces the SAME bill, increasing penalities against street racers and so forth, with the Conservatives voting for it this time.
IF the Liberals introduce a bill, it's practically already dead to the Conservatives. The same goes vice versa.
The parties are there to make themselves look stronger, and the other party weak.
The only solution I can think of: :Let the Bloc be the opposition again. Then maybe at least the Conservatives and the Liberals will find some common ground.
halubtsi
Optimist Eternal
But that's what Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is supposed to do. It must question the government and spark debate. All angles must be brought to light on legislation. It's called "Her Majesty LOYAL Opposition" because their role was to question the government (which represented the Crown). In other words, they weren't traitors for questioning the Crown, but loyal to it for giving us the full picture.
As for an elected Senate conflicting with the Commons, this is definitely a possibility. Both would have a "mandate from the people," but our constitution provides no basis as to how to overcome the impasse. Precedent is that Parliament is dissolved and the Commons goes to election.
As for an elected Senate conflicting with the Commons, this is definitely a possibility. Both would have a "mandate from the people," but our constitution provides no basis as to how to overcome the impasse. Precedent is that Parliament is dissolved and the Commons goes to election.
You shouldn't confuse ideology and politics.
Personally, I think ideology is a load of crap. Rarely can one word sum up a person's political beliefs. Conservatism and Liberalism are dispositions, not ideologies, in my opinion.
How do we encourage these votes en masse to stop? Free votes. Ideally, only Bills which are deemed absolutely essential to the Government's agenda (such as the budget) would be confidence votes. The rest would either require cabinet solidarity or be a free vote (such as the recent same-sex marriage vote). We've seen parties break before on the most controversial subjects. The vote to extend the afganistan mission divided the Liberal Party, narrowly giving the Conservative Motion victory. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but it would help.
Personally, I think ideology is a load of crap. Rarely can one word sum up a person's political beliefs. Conservatism and Liberalism are dispositions, not ideologies, in my opinion.
How do we encourage these votes en masse to stop? Free votes. Ideally, only Bills which are deemed absolutely essential to the Government's agenda (such as the budget) would be confidence votes. The rest would either require cabinet solidarity or be a free vote (such as the recent same-sex marriage vote). We've seen parties break before on the most controversial subjects. The vote to extend the afganistan mission divided the Liberal Party, narrowly giving the Conservative Motion victory. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but it would help.
the thing is that right now, the vast majority of the bills that comes to the senate from the Commons is passed with only minor changes for clarity. This is usually because the senate is not really meant to go into conflict with the Common, but to review bills before it is passed to make sure everything is clear and that it would not conflict with other laws. The senate are reluctant to vote against bills coming from the common as the senators are not elected, hoping to stop voters outrage at the unelected senate hindering the common elected by the people. With an elected senate, however, senators were feel much more justified in voting down bills, and it would occur much more often. At the same time, since they also have a mandate from the people, they will also be making more bills of their own. And senate bills would probably pass more often in the common too, since senators can withdraw support from common bills that arrive at the senate if the seante's bills do not pass in the common...
The Senate would be elected by the people to represent the regions of Canada (assuming we did actually achieve equal representation for all regions). The mandate to govern is, in practice, given to the Member of Parliament who can demonstrate to the Governor-General that he holds the confidence of a majority of the Members of the House of Commons, not to Parliament in its entirety. I still don't think that Senate Bills would enjoy a success rate at all close to that of Government Bills introduced in the Commons, or in the Senate for that matter, and I also think that Senators would recognize that they aren't governing the country, they are mearly still providing that sober second thought. As long as the Cabinet is drawn from the House of Commons, that House will remain the superior of the two, and Senate powers would be limited. (At least, that is my understanding of the implications of an elected Senate in a Parliamentary System.)
Someone please tell me I'm making sense.
yes, the senate should be representing the regions of canada.... but then how many times in history has the provincial government who represents the regions had conflicted bitterly with the federal government.... it is clear that many times, regional priorities do not agree with federal priorities.....
but then, you don't dispute that there is a possibility of conflict between the two houses, especially if they are controlled by two separate parties.... And if there is conflict, there isn't really much way of resolving it, such as a certain number of votes in the common would override the senate.....
well, i agree that senate bills are unlikely to have as high of a success rate, but it would be significantly higher than the current rate.... at the same time, the common bills must also appeal to the senators to have a chance of passing too....
there is no guarantee that the cabinet will be drawn from only the commons, this is only what is usually done.... however, there had been many exception in the past where senators were appointed to the cabinet to balance out regional representation in the cabinet.... in fact, one of Harper's cabinet minister is a newly appointed senator designed to represent Toronto .... a cabinet is chosen mostly from the commons only because they are elected, and therefore accountable to the public..... with an elected senate, there will be much pressure from the senate to have a significant representation on the cabinet, which i think will happen, as the elected senators will be accountable to the public....
but then, you don't dispute that there is a possibility of conflict between the two houses, especially if they are controlled by two separate parties.... And if there is conflict, there isn't really much way of resolving it, such as a certain number of votes in the common would override the senate.....
well, i agree that senate bills are unlikely to have as high of a success rate, but it would be significantly higher than the current rate.... at the same time, the common bills must also appeal to the senators to have a chance of passing too....
there is no guarantee that the cabinet will be drawn from only the commons, this is only what is usually done.... however, there had been many exception in the past where senators were appointed to the cabinet to balance out regional representation in the cabinet.... in fact, one of Harper's cabinet minister is a newly appointed senator designed to represent Toronto .... a cabinet is chosen mostly from the commons only because they are elected, and therefore accountable to the public..... with an elected senate, there will be much pressure from the senate to have a significant representation on the cabinet, which i think will happen, as the elected senators will be accountable to the public....
