Politics -   

1

Fact Check: Can Harper really reform the Senate?

(Adrian Wyld/THE CANADIAN PRESS) Stephen Harper delivers his campaign speech as he stops in a factory that makes hockey arena boards during a stop in Waterloo, Ont., Wednesday, April 27, 2011. (Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS) Stephen Harper speaks at a rally in Vancouver on Saturday, April 16, 2011.
(Adrian Wyld/THE CANADIAN PRESS)

View Larger Image

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (57) Facebook   

Date: Thursday Apr. 28, 2011 10:53 PM ET

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is pledging to continue his efforts to reform the Senate, an ambitious feat that experience has taught him is much easier said than done.

For years, the Conservative leader has been pushing for several key changes to the red chamber, which he reiterated on the campaign trail this past week. He wants to:

  • implement an eight-year term limit for senators
  • give Canadians the chance to elect their senators themselves
  • make the Senate subject to the same ethics code as the House of Commons

As prime minister, Harper has made several attempts to bring in legislation to change the Senate, but has so far failed to get his reform bills through Parliament.

But is it really possible? Can the top Tory make these changes happen? And can he do so without raising the ire of the provinces and plunging himself into a nasty fight?

When speaking with reporters in Ontario on Monday, Harper said the Conservatives remain committed to reforming the Senate while avoiding any thorny constitutional issues that "we're not prepared to undertake right now."

The modern Constitution Act of 1982 stipulates that any constitutional amendment to "the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators" requires the consent of both Houses of Parliament, as well as the support of two-thirds of the provinces across Canada that contain at least 50 per cent of the national population.

Harper is insistent that he hasn't seen "a serious opinion suggesting that anything we're trying to do with the Senate is unconstitutional."

But there is no formal roadmap to revamping the way the Senate works and it is unclear how successful Harper could be in convincing his opponents to come on board with his plans.

With so many parties holding an interest in the Senate, it makes it difficult to come to any agreement on reform, said David Smith, a professor and senior policy fellow at the Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy.

And any leader that tries to push through reform without consensus is setting himself up for failure by placing "the cart before the horse," Smith said in a telephone interview from his Regina office.

Not unless the courts say so

In pitching his overhaul plans to Canadians, Harper has argued that calls for Senate reform have been heard for more than a century and the time is ripe for change.

"I think it's overdue," he said, when speaking to reporters in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.

"The first proposals on Senate reform were in the 1870s, so I think it's about time we begin."

But no matter how popular Harper believes the changes would be, he is going to face opposition from the provinces and quite possibly the courts in his quest to reform the Senate.

Ned Franks, a professor emeritus in the department of political studies at Queen's University, says Harper's likely game plan would be to bring in reform bills, to get them passed and then to do the same in the Senate.

Provinces that oppose his reforms will go to the courts "saying that they are unconstitutional because they are substantial changes in the Senate. That can only happen with the consent of the provinces," Franks told CTV.ca in a recent telephone interview from his Kingston, Ont., home.

"And Harper will argue that having advisory elections and term limits are not substantial changes. And so it will be up to the courts to decide," Franks said.

Under the current Senate set-up, the prime minister is able to appoint the candidate of his choice to fill any vacancies that come up. Harper, on the other hand, would prefer to see provinces choose their own senators through elections, whom the prime minister could then formally appoint.

While the election concept may appeal to some citizens, Smith said it prompts many practical questions. What kind of election expenses would be allowed under such a system? How would elected provincial senators affect the sway that premiers hold in Ottawa? Would voters follow federal or provincial election laws?

"I think there are a number of questions with regard to the proposal about elections, or advisory elections," Smith said.

Harper also wants to limit the amount of time that a person can serve in the Senate. At present, senators can work up until their 75th birthday, meaning that many end up spending decades as unelected parliamentarians.

But the view of the Conservatives, as Harper said in Sault Ste. Marie, is that it is "not appropriate and healthy in the modern age" for senators to serve for so many years in the Upper Chamber.

Smith said introducing a term for senators would likely not require an amendment to the constitution, though it would require the approval of the Senate itself.

Same Senate, same seat distribution

The plan for the Senate was first laid out in the British North America Act of 1867 (now called the Constitution Act, 1867), to create what Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, called a place of "sober second thought."

The Senate started out with only 72 seats, though it expanded over time and has 105 seats today. At present, Ontario, Quebec, the collective Maritime provinces and Western provinces each hold 24 seats, while the Upper House also has six senators from Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as a single senator from each of Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

But as time has marched on, the Senate seat distributions have stayed static, while populations in some provinces have grown significantly. Prince Edward Island, for instance, has two-thirds the number of Senate seats as British Columbia, despite having just three per cent of the population of the latter province. In a similar type of discrepancy, Ontario has the same number of seats as Quebec, a province that is half its population.

Franks said that Harper's proposed changes would do little to reshape this unequal distribution of the seats within the Senate, leaving it as "one of the least representative chambers in the world."

Ian Greene, a professor at York University's School of Public Policy and Administration, believes a Senate reform that takes place with the current distribution of seats will only make Parliament less functional.

"If his idea becomes law, we will end up with two similar elected houses of Parliament, except that the Senate will over-represent the Atlantic provinces, and under-represent Ontario and the West," Greene said in a recent letter he sent out to several newspapers.

"Having two chambers, both elected by the "first-past-the-post" system, will double the current dysfunction of Parliament."

Harper has also used his power to stack the Upper Chamber with Conservative representatives.

During his two terms as prime minister, Harper has appointed more than 30 Conservative senators, which has given his party control of Senate.

Harper's most recent attempt to reform the Senate occurred in November, when the Conservative government introduced a bill that sought to enact fixed term limits of eight years for senators.

The party asked for the unanimous consent of the House of Commons, but the opposition parties failed to support the measure and the bill died.

Comments are now closed for this story

Mike
said

Senate reform is a waste of time and money. Better to get rid of it. Canadian government has worked effectively without an elected senate. An elected senate would risk paralysis as happens in the US.


KPR in S.t John's
said

George, I did read the article. Did you read the part where province are threatening to take Mr. Harper to court on constitutional grounds? Why would they do that if Mr. Harper is respecting the constitution exactly? Let me guess, "liberal conspiracy," or something along that line, yes?


George in Fredericton
said

KPR in St. John's said L, I suggest you actually read the article before you comment on it in the future. Bringing in real Senate reform requires an amendment to the constitution of Canada. Stephen Harper pretends this isn't the case ------------------------------------------------------------------------------KPR ... before you go spouting off about people not reading the article I suggest you go mback and read it yourself. It is people like you who just go to prove how rediculous the anti Harper crowd is Harper has clearly said the reforms require either constitutional change or an arrangment with the provinces to allow each province to elect their proposed Senators which can then be recommended for the PM to appoint the choice of the people to the senate.


KPR in St. Johns
said

Will, I suggest you pay closer attention to the issue. Mr. Harper attempted to force his Senate reform on the country without consulting any of the provinces, which prompted Jean Charest to threaten to take the issue to court. That's why Mr. Harper backed off. He realized he couldn't win. The fact is that Mr. Harper knows that his proposed Senate Reforms do not have any widespread support among the provinces. Ontario and Quebec do not support Mr. Harper's proposed reforms, nor do many of the other provinces. That means Mr. Harper's proposals can not constitutionally pass. Why hasn't Mr. Harper told his supporters that he doesn't have the provincial support needed to pass such an amendment? Why is it than whenever Mr. Harper talks about Senate reform he never talks about a constitutional amendment? It's because he's pathologically dishonest, like I said. Senate Reform is an important issue to a lot of people, and Stephen Harper is leading them along knowing he'll never be able to deliver regardless of how many seats he has in the House of Commons.


Rick Mahoney
said

Leave well enough alone. No political system is perfect and I have yet to see any evidence that our democracy is any poorer because of an unelected upper chamber. The last thing I want to do as a taxpayer is pay for even more elections. We already have enough politicians in Canada. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Dave in Que.
said

It is a constitutional amendment issue. Must re-open the constitution and get approval of a percentage of the provinces representing a percentage of the people. really think Ont.and Que. are going to give up their numbers.


Will
said

KPR: PM Harper has NEVER said that to reform the senate does not require a constitutional ammendment. What he has said, clearly and often is that the reform the senate requires legislation to pass through both the House of Commons and the Senate and then be approved by the Provinces IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION. You are spouting untruths. Again.


Senate - Ottawa
said

One would like to believe it would be great for the Provinces to select a Senator from their own Province with a term limit .. but to open this debate one would think that Quebec would give the rest of the country a hard time if it went that route. I believe there are more Quebecers in the Senate than any other province. One would think an age limit should be set. I believe that 75 is way too old to sit..time for a change in that way....


KPR in St. John's
said

L, I suggest you actually read the article before you comment on it in the future. Bringing in real Senate reform requires an amendment to the constitution of Canada. Stephen Harper pretends this isn't the case because he is pathologically dishonest. The same thing goes for his fixed election date law which means absolutely nothing because the power to dissolve parliament is vested in the crown, and changing the powers of the crown also requires a constitutional amendment. It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant Conservative apologists are when it comes to issues like Senate reform. If you want to change something in the constitution (like the Senate), you have to amend the constitution. This isn't optional, it's mandatory.


Zee
said

Is our Senate not based on England's House of Lords, a priveledge gathering. Sure whatever party gets in fills the Senate seats, that's how it works and you can betcha that when a 'reinging' PM wants to put one of his "old boys" in it one of the "old boys" steps down. Heck you all think (I agree) that Iggy's attendance in the House of Commons (get it >>> Lords and Commons) was a shocker, what about the Senators who don't even live in this Country and who haven't attended in sometimes 5 to 10 years but still draw a hefty salary, expense accounts and then a pension which is sometimes more than one person can make in 3 or 4 years. Yes the Senate needs reforms but not by anybody in the House of Commons or the Senate. It's a pretty darn good job if you can get appointed or is that annointed. Just saying if there were 100 Senators only 25 to 30 are there at any given time all of the time.


snowbird
said

That is another area in government where Liberals Senator Raymond Lavigne charged with fraud, obstruction of justice and breach of trust.


L
said

Conductor274: Its the opposition parties that have blocked reform of the senate, not Harper. He has filled empty seats, as is his role as PM, do you think he should have left them empty? What good would that do for senate reform? If the other parties had allowed him to reform the senate he couldn't appoint senators. So put the blame where it really lies. Its not Harper "lying" about reform, it is that the other parties won't allow it. Reform of the senate would be great, but its never going to happen as long as there are minority governments.


Shawn in Ontario
said

An elected senate isn't a good idea. Ironically, we need un-elected senators to be a check against mob rule majority. Even if it is stacked with the same party in power in the House. They can't be pressured by the government to vote in any which way. Too much democracy can be dangerous too.


Matt
said

Harper and Layton both don't like the Senate situation. After this election, both parties will be so strong that hopefully they can work together to change it. I'd be fine with abolishing it (we still have the Gov Gen and Queen to stop something totally psychotic), though I'd be fine with reform too. Elected Senators with terms would be better and more democratic than what we have now.


Tim
said

DCI - you don't seem to realize abolishing the Senate (as you suggest) would give Harper and any successive PM more power, not less. Kinda shows a hole in your logic that Harper is on a power grab.


scott
said

Lets be honest with ourselves people, Steven Harper has no intention of ever reforming the senate. But it sounds nice and most importantly, it bought him some votes. Sometimes I wonder if canadians can really be that stupid and still be able to walk upright.


Jack - AB
said

The Senate is made up of Liberals and Tories. If the changes for Senate reform were fair then Layton would have supported them because no NDP is in there right now. Maybe these changes favoured Tories to be rejected by the NDP & Bloc? I looked at the Senators appointed only by Harper and some that really make me wonder what is going on. He has appointed an olympic skier, news broadcasters, David Braley - the owner of the B.C. Lions and Toronto Argonauts teams, Nicole Marie Eaton - member of Eaton family, Jacques Demers - former head coach in the World Hockey Association and the National Hockey League, Bert Brown - retired farmer and development consultant, Patrick Brazeau - a Canadian aboriginal activist & the youngest current Senator at age 36. The rest are a mix of former civil servants, lawyers, business people and teachers. Some are chosen because of their previous expertise and others due to their general popularity.


Brian
said

I think no party leader can make any meaningful change to the senate unless he is the PM with a majority government. The issue is such that, in a minority situation, the other parties will defeat attempted changes every time.


Stephen
said

Abolish the Senates. It is a complete waste of taxpayer money. There are just too many levels of governments and too much government $wastage.


Bob,Calgary,Alberta
said

While I am a Conservative voter I do think Harper's efforts to reform the Senate are totally wrong. Electing Senators while not changing the powers of the body are a total waste of time. The only useful apprpoach would be to : have an equal number of members from each region of Canada, say the West, Ontario,Quebec and the Maritimes each having an equal number of members. : allow the Senate to block legislation passed by the Federal government that intrudes on the constitutionally allocated powers of the Provinces. This kind of change is crucial for Western Canada whose progress is constantly hampered by the more populous Eastern provinces represented in Parliament who often pass legislation not helpful for the West. Of course Ontario , Quebec and the Maritimes will never allow these changes because they like the unfair status quo. In my opinion the only route left, because we cannot have change, is to abolish the body altogether.


Gord
said

Abolish the senate. Conservative proposals are stupidest conservative platform ever. BC has 6 senators and New Brunswick has 10 senators. In what sort of fantasyland can this in any way be described as "democratic"? It just shows the conservatives have no principles.


peter in mb
said

@conductor274… Sir you are all wet. The opposition coalition has opposed senate reform for the last 5 years. The only way to reform the senate is for the conservative to have a majority in both the house and the senate. The liberals (the natural governing party) are not going to support anything that will level the playing field and take away their power base. If the people could elect senators they could elect people from the NDP or Greens Think about it!!!


Margaret, Medicine Hat
said

I welcome this article! I think it's time Canadians were truly educated about what is in the Canadian Constitution, what powers are where, where authority for any change lies, and even a history course on the contents of the Constitution itself! But now is not the time to be spouting this stuff off. Trudeau managed to divert the publics attention from the rotten financial mess the country was in, during the 80's, and we wound up with a huge national debt that "no one saw coming". Same with now. Layton's attempt to appeal to the Separatist faction in Quebec, purely to get political votes is sick!


Justin Observer
said

So an unethical leader wants to make Senators subject to the same ethics code that he and his party has breached on multiple occasions?Yeah, we'll see that when we see a balanced neo-con budget. For you harpies, that translates as "never".


Raymond2000
said

People do not understand what the Senate does. even if its stack currently in the favour of the Tories, the Senate is there to review the laws passed by the house to find out, how much it will cost, how it will affect people, what will the law look like in 20 years from now and does this law really work for canada and its people.The Senate is there to make sure the Laws that are passed by the House of Commons work for the people of canada. So to abolish it means you need to revamp the whole system. If you have a better system, we are all waiting for you to advise us. Otherwise, let the Senate do its job, even if its stacked by Tories at this time. This just means that any government that is not Tory will have a hard time to get their laws approved. Normally the Senate opposition parties delay and delay and delay...I guess Jack will just have to appoint a few NDP Senators to balance things out. I could not think of a better way to balance the Senate than having 10 or 15 NDP senators appointed. that way neither the Liberals or the Tories will be able to ram through legislature that will not be good for canada and its people. Go Jack Go


JD, Smiths Falls
said

I'm not sure if all you Senate bashers have ever seen all the good work that comes out of the Senate committees and debates. You should check it out.


Linda in Vancouver
said

How sad for our country when the same people who accuse Harper of being a dictator and undemocratic,are the same ones who are refusing to consider democracy in the Senate. Yes.Reforming it would take a lot of help from the provinces.Even opposition parties would have to be involved. But get this straight.There will be no unity in Canada until the Senate is either abolished or reformed..In BC,both the NDP and the current Liberals governments favour abolising it. I find reforming it a more pragmaitc suggestion.But it can only be done if we stop pitting one region against the other,and provinces stop fighting to gain the upper had over the others. You cannot defend that institution in it's current form,and still tell me that all Canadians,in all regions,have equal rights. Assuming that western Canada is still being encouraged to stay in a united Canada,then Senate reform is not an option.It is a necessity.


Ont
said

I find it really scary that so many people have no clue that the senate has to be stacked in order to vote itself out. People, please for all our sakes do not vote if you are so uninformed.


Greg
said

We need Senate reform but also election reform on a whole. How about a new holiday on the first Monday in June that would be called Election Day. One Year we vote Federal, the next Municipal, the Next Senate, then the Provincial. Everyone gets an election card with their voter number on it, and everyone has to vote, make it possible to vote over the phone, online in person, what ever it takes to get people to the polls. Those whose voter number is not used will get a $50 charge on their year end income tax return.


Zee
said

Senate appointments are political appointments. NO POLITICIAN can reform the Senate!. Do what the States do, elected 4 year term, 1/2 every second year UP FOR ELECTION!!! Clean it out, start with elected members.


JoeMc
said

Man, will someone stop this guy...His senate reform is to abolish the institution, have his cronies elected? hahaha, right, fixed more like it. The Senate is there for a reason, Parliament must look at eliminating the cronyism for this, since Harper appointed 35 people that worked on his campaign,,, Stop the madness, elected means those Harper can pay off to elect his friends into the Senate....


Dustin Ellis
said

The senate will have to vote to remove itself. Its like asking your boss if he can fire you!Come one get real!Everybody just get out and Vote for what is best for you!Stop attacking each other. All party have there Positives And Negatives


conductor274
said

Harper reform the senate??? That's been his promise for 5 years but he's lying. Proof is in the pudding. He stacked the senate with Conservatives since coming into office. How much proof do you need that he's a liar with a hidden agenda?


PEI Gal
said

The senate is costly, but how costly and fractional (given the ads and speeches during this election) would senate elections be like? The American system seems to be what Mr Harper is aiming towards but a Parliamentary Democracy ultimately gives him more power as PM should he ever procure a majority. Maybe he should quit while he is ahead. Changes in the Senate could be a real Pandora's box once opened!


Fred N Ont
said

Some of you folks have no sense of how parliament works talking about senate reform.. In order to get anything done in parliament you need to control the senate in order to reform the senate you need to control the senate and parliament to make that happen.Steven Harper getting control of the senate was to get things done and eventualy reform the senate.


ontario Taxpayer
said

All of those whining about Harper stacking the Senate, yet remained silent when the Liberals did the same are showing how truely hypocritical they are. They also pout on display for all to see their complete and total lack of understanding of how our political system works. Senate reform is the only way to stop this, not whining when the other guys do it!


al
said

Funny how Layton promises Senate reform, but didnt support this?LAYTON is more charismatic, but is still lying politician, that is so far to the left it would it destroy our economy. But on the bright side, we could all be poor people with good social programs. Layton would be a disaster as PM. I wish people would just think of Canada and vote for HARPER for a stable 4 yr majority so we can get some work done. Imagine what could be done if the house actually would be able to pass some bills. For any party to not support a bill to limit the terms to 8yrs in the senate?? Just because it was a conservative idea, everyone opposes it blindly. az


Mattman in Ottawa
said

I have to say that until recently I'd have supported an elected Senate. But I've heard arguments that have made me think twice.Consider this: What sorts of people are Senators right now? Politicians certainly, but also scientists, journalists, engineers, artists, academics, astronauts, nurses and more. They bring a wide range of views and experience to the position. What sorts of people, do you think, will be Senators once they have to be elected? It will be politicians across the board.So much for our "sober second thought". THEN we'd have a Senate that was useless ladies and gentlemen! A second body that would be bogged down in the same political nonsense that goes on in Parliament right now.Yes it might seem a bit undemocratic that they aren't elected, but you must also consider that the Senate, no matter which party controls it, will not thwart the will of the Canadian people as expressed by Parliament. In other words, they don't rock the boat and our collective democratic will is not jeopardised by unelected Senators.If you want to know how our system will look when they are elected, look south. The Senate will block legislation passed by the House of Commons, which rarely (if ever) happens now and nothing will get done unless a party has control of both houses.I fully agree with limiting terms or at least having to renew appointments after a set number of years. But I don't think we really WANT an elected Senate, once we see what it will mean.


M.M.B. Ont
said

I thought that the senators that Harper has appointed to the senate now have a term of 8 years and the newly appointed senators agreed to this term while the other senators will be there until they are 80. A term position is a start until reform.


Tim - Calgary
said

Harper is loading the Senate with Conservative senators exactly because the Liberals, who controlled the Senate, were against reforming the Senate period. When Chretien and Martin stacked the Senate, people didn't complain. When Harper started doing the same after the Liberals rejected reform, the leftie whiners started complaining. The hypocrisy of the left is unbelievable.


Gerry L
said

The Senate is a big waste of taxpayers money. It should be reduced to about 30 members with a term. Their expenses should be cut as well fringe benefits and pension. They are always well off people so why add to their wealth.


Dinsdale Pirahna - Oshawa
said

What? You mean Harper wants to force another unneeded election on us?? Lets see, he cost us $300 million for this election and now he wants us to vote on the senate? How much is this going to cost us? This guy is just reckless with our money, all to satisfy his big ego. We need to vote for change. This guy is stuck in the past. Go Jack, go!!!


Paul
said

Of course Harper is loading the Senate with like-minded individuals. In order to make changes there needs to be consensus from both houses! Before the 2006 election there was a majority of Liberal Senators - they certainly weren't going to pass any legislation that would interfere with their comfy positions. Change in Senate membeship has to come first.


Trouble coming.
said

The acrimony created by the Liberals towards the Prime Minister has so divided the country we may have to tear apart the country making any Senate changes redundant. The west will not like this NDP shift by the French in Quebec and the sheep in Ontario. I dont see how this is going to go down without a real political fight AFTER the election.


Hunter
said

Too many think living in Canada is a RIGHT. Our seniors were raised with the attitude "give to". This generation with todays politicians has the attitude "give me" and listening to there promises there feeding that attitude. The Senate is a "thank you" for Priministers and once put in, were stuck with them. I remember the one senator that was getting full pay and benifits but was rarely there?!? If Canada is to lead the world, it must use good idea's and be responsible at all levels to the people. Just as the people must be responsible to Canada. Agree or disagree, all eligible Canadians "MUST" vote.


DCI
said

Stephen Harper won't reform the senate one little bit. Once again hey is telling us lies.... Stop believing anything this guy tells you. SH wants absolute power in Canada. That is very scary!!! that is all he wants. The senate should be abolished totally. It is a waste of time and our tax dollars. It is just a place to put old buddies that helped someone get elected. Half the time these people are not even there.They are just wasted space. And money for nothing. They get over $ 80,000.00 per year. Plus perks and benifits and a nice pension. For doing nothing... Must be nice!We have never needed a senate and we sure don't need one now. Don't believe SH when he says he is going to reform the senate. It's not going to happen. In fact, SH will probably appoint more people there. ( some of his buddies need a job ) after this election.


TheOtherLowellInBC
said

as far as the senate goes, it is same old with harper. we have seen him stacking it with his supporters just like all the prime ministers before him. I haven't heard any talk of senate reform originally proposed by Preston Manning if I am correct. It is a good idea but the culture has to change in Ottawa first. That is not likely to happen anytime soon.


sandra
said

i am not a tory, but if harper ever reformed the senate i would vote for him. having people appointed to the senate instead of been elected should be abolished. people who are not elected should not be making decisions about how this country is run. the way the senate is run now is a total waste of the tax payers money.


Kevin P, Alberta
said

We've seen these guys being completely unaccountable for too long. They make consistent trouble, or just not bother to show up for work and we can't fire them! Something has to change soon. Otherwise, the Senate is a massive waste of tax dollars.


George M
said

Yesterday's Nanos leadership index has Harper down 23 points to fall to second behind Layton. Are Canadians finally realizing that the emperor has no clothes?


Steve in Fredericton
said

We'll never know unless the PM gets a clear majority. Then watch all the Liberal-appointed trough-suckers in the Senate run for cover.


Steve O
said

Harper did the opposite, he stacked the senate, he has no plans of reforming the senate. His only plan is to keep forcing elections till he gets a majority, then he would rule like the dictator in North Korea. If Harper gets a minority the opposition parties still won't have confidence in him. Finally Canada will get the government they want, a left wing coalition, the liberals & NDP are over 52% of the vote, Harper who? Oh yea Harper the American should go down south & join the tea party he loves so much.


glenn
said

if cdn's want the senate gone, it's gone


George V.
said

It isn't going to happen unless he receives support from the opposition and the provinces. It is the right thing to do, if a senate member is absent living in Mexico, abuses his expense account or senate privileges he/she can be voted out of office. When voted in he will become resposible to the electorate in general not as it is presently resposible only to the political party who gave him/her this cushy well paying job for life (age 75). This should be changed.


Anon
said

The only thing Harper has done for senate reform is load it up with his buddies instead of the liberals. He's not gonna reform it now that he has control of it.


Will
said

Nobody ever claimed reforming the Senate would be easy but it is possible. It will just take time and the agreement of a lot of people.


Paul ~ Kitchener
said

The "Senate" must at some junc ture be "REFORMED" . OUr Prime Minister with a "Majority Government" can take the steps it will take to make these reforms needed. It is as easy as it sounds, but, it is possible with a HoC dedicated, unanimously to making change. The format of the "New Government", will be a drastic change from years past, & with this, there is hope for a productive, postive session. Canadians must get out and vote, this isn't a right ,its a priviledge - (fought & died for). Canada needs every vote, and the results can truly be ~ "theVoice of the People". Canada's tomorrows, are ensured to be successful, with a "Majority Conservative Government".


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Election 2011

CTV Election Central

Election Cental

Click here for latest news, blogs, polls, issues and more.

Election Results

Election Results

Extensive election results. Click here to find out who won in your riding.

Campaign Blog

Campaign Blog

Latest reports, photos and videos straight from the campaign trail.

Election 2011 at CTV News

Election 2011 at CTV News

In Pictures: CTV News team prepares for Monday's election special

Poll Tracker - Final

Poll Tracker

Follow the dots on our nightly poll, plus analysis by Nik Nanos.

the party, promo

The Party

How hard can it be to create a political party? Watch the episodes.

Leader Profiles

Leader Profiles

What's their strategy, and how have things changed since the last election?

CTV's Question Period

CTV's Question Period

Politicians under the gun. Newsmakers on the hotseat.

Power Play

Power Play

Don Martin with a fresh look at politics, politicians and plays.

Today's Politics Stories

Quebec student strikes, tuition fees, Montreal, Quebec

Quebec students, government to resume talks Monday

More   27 Comments 27    4 Video(s) 4

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Kathy Dunderdale receives applause from party members as the House of Assembly opens in St. John's on Monday, March 5, 2012. (Paul Daly /  THE CANADIAN PRESS)

EI changes unfair to N.L., Dunderdale says

More   20 Comments 20    1 Video(s) 1

In this Monday, Sept. 19, 2011 file photo, Fereidoun Abbasi Davani speaks during a news conference at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria. (AP Photo/Ronald Zak)

Iran says no reason to halt 20 per cent enrichment

More   8 Comments 8  

Most Talked about Stories

It is about time - as a grandparent I have watched our kids (who were allowed to fail although I do remember some nagging on our part) learn, I have watched our children now micro-manage their children. A big part of it is the fact that there are predators out there and an extreme reluctance on the parents part to alllow freedom that might result in the children becoming victims.

Harvey

Parents must learn to stop meddling, author urges