Senate Reform through mutual agreement

Everyone acknowledges that it will be tough to change the Constitution to achieve Senate Reform.  But why do we have to?  The office of the Governor General was completely changed through mutual agreement with The Crown.  Why can't we have people "run" for the Senate?  The government then agrees to abide by the wishes of the electorate and appoint the winners.  Perhaps there could be a few Honourary Senators appointed as well, but everyone would agree to a limited term with no pension.  Perhaps the Senators would resign and "run" again in every Federal Election, or resign to make way for new Honourary Appointees.  Granted, the arrangement would not have weight of law, but breaking the deal would bring down Public Outrage on the Government or Individual as surely as if the Queen decided to unilaterally appoint the next GG.


Showing 2 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2015-07-25 19:54:02 -0400
    Senate Reform should take the form of abolishment. If we create an elected senate what specific purpose will it serve? In my view if we have an elected senate it will confound our democratic process by having two elected houses, in competition with each other to represent the same electorate(s). That will lead to deadlock. It serves no real purpose to have two groups of elected representatives covering the same ground.

    The Senate is an anachronism created to mirroir, through the then significant property requirements, the Lords in the UK. Let us simply get rid of it.
  • published this page in Remedies • Canada 2015-07-10 16:12:09 -0400

Stay connected!

Subscribe for e-mail updates: