Senate Reform

[Pellaken]

here is some stuff on senate reform.

current seat distribution:

ON-24

PQ-24

NS-10

NB-10

BC-6

AB-6

MB-6

SK-6

NL-6

PE-4

TR-3 (TR refers to all the territories combined)

originial EEE suggestion:

ON-6

PQ-6

BC-6

AB-6

MB-6

SK-6

NS-6

NB-6

NL-6

PE-6

TR-2 (we had 2 at the time)

now, EEE has too many problems. Canadians like EE (elected and effective) but the biggest problem most provinces have is with the seat-distribution.

EEE means that Ontario, with 40% of the populaiton, has 10% of the seats (actually less, because of TR!)

and that PEI, with 0.1% of the population, also has 10% of the seats.

now, if atlantic canada was a single province, then EEE may work, but atlantic canada is not a single province, nor will it be pulling any shotgun weddings neither. We must work with what we have, and we must think of new ways to deal with the problems we have.

I beleive that I have come up with 2 soulitions to solve the problems.

one of them, is the 50-50 system. where we give out two different types of seats. "Equal" seats, and "Population" seats.

Ontario, would get 5 "equal" seats, but a whopping 19 "population" seats

BC would get 5 equals, and 7 populaiton seats

PEI would get 5 equals, but no population seats

result:

ON-24

PQ-17

BC-12

AB-10

MB-7

SK-7

NS-6

NB-6

NL-6

PE-5

TR-3 (one each)

now, this causes a problem. Quebec would not like this senate.

we can adjust the formula to give Ontario and Quebec the same number of seats, but then if BC were to surpass Quebec in population, we have a problem.

Hence, this idea:

Ontario is massive.

current population trends say that BC, AB, and PQ will have near the same population, and that these 4 provinces are pulling away from the other 6 in terms of population. the gulf between these two groups is growing.

Hence, this plan:

ON-24

PQ-24

BC-24

AB-24*

MB-9

SK-9

NS-8

NB-8

NL-7

PE-4

TR-3

*=Untill Alberta reaches a certain population, they will only have 18 seats.

This will give us 138* senators, to 308 MP's

Some countries have more senators then MP's and most states in the US have either a 1:2 ratio. It is only the US Federal Government that has so reletivley few senators, so these numbers are not way out there.

*=144 with AB at 24, but by that time we should have more MP's

This senate will be, for the most part, done by preferential ballot (note1) in ridings, but some of the seats would be proportional.

PEI would have 3 ridings, and 1 PR seat

NL would have 5 ridings, Labrador will have 1 riding for itself, and the province will have 1 PR seat

NS will have 5 ridings, Cape Breton will have 1, and the province will have 2 PR seats

NB will have 6 ridings, split as evenly between Anglo's and Acadians as possible, plus 2 PR seats

SK will have 6 ridings, 1 for the northern part of the province, and 2 PR seats

MB will have 6 ridings, 1 for the northern part of the province, and 2 PR seats. Winnipeg should never have more then 3 ridings.

BC, ON, and PQ will all have 18 ridings, and 6 PR seats

Alberta will eventually have that too, but for now they will have 14 ridings, and 4 PR seats

now, here's the kicker

each senatoral election will be run under the provincial election agency, using PROVINCIAL PARTIES!

yes you heard right, provincial parties. Ralph Klien can refuse to sign the nominaiton papers of any senators he dosent like!

This also means that provincial BC Liberals do not have to sit with the federal Liberal party.

There will be very good benifits for sitting in large caucuses, this will encourage at least some parties to sit togethor.

The senate would have all the powers that it currently has, but like in Australia, there will be provisions of what to do if the two chambers disagree.

Senatorial elections will take place at the same time as provicnial elections in each province. Senators will sit from the moment that a provincial government is sworn in, to the moment the next one is. This means that we will not go long stretches without senators from any province. The senate will also sit forever essentially. They may take breaks, of course, like the house does, but it can never be 'dissolved'

The leader of the senate (leader of the largest caucus) will be the Preimier of Canada, or in french "Preimier Ministere du Senate du Canada" (without the spelling and gramatical errors, if any)

One good idea for what to do when the two chambers disagree on a single issue multiple times is to put the issue to the people in the form of a referendum. This would encourage the side that know's they would lose to comrpomise summore.

And thustly, a reformed senate, and a reformed canada

--(Preferential balloting)

like what was used in the NDP leadership, and what will be used in the Conservative leadership, where you "rank" all candidates, first to last.

[udawg]

but atlantic canada is not a single province, nor will it be pulling any shotgun weddings neither.

Now, see, there's an idea. Damn historical borders, and colonial expansion, and all the crap that made the maritimes separate provinces in the first place. Unify all the maritime provinces into one. Perhaps two... Newfoundland might even be able to go it alone. And they never were totally sure about being Canadian anyway...

Maybe with a united PEI, NB, and NS, they could actually sustain an economy between them.

[Pellaken]

first of all, thank you for recogonizing that newfoundland is not part of the maritimes. most people either forget, or dont care enough to make proper posts.

secondly, I am strongly supportive of maritime union. We already have a preimier (Bernard Lord) waiting to take his office.

[Boydfish]

Pellaken, I'm not sure that there is much point to a Senate that is based even partly on population. The House of Commons is supposed to be based on the populations of the provinces. If both are going to be based on population, why bother having two of them?

Trying to reform "just" the Canadian Senate is kind of pointless, unless it's taken as part of an overall reform of the entire Parliament.

My suggestion would that the House of Commons would be based strictly on population, perhaps with an effective and unmodified ratio of 1 MP for every 150,000 people in that province? We'll be nice and round up, so that we end up with slightly more, than slightly less representation.

That would give us a House of Commons that looks like this:

NF&L: 4

PEI: 1

NS: 7

NB: 6(Almost 5, but rounding up gets the 6th seat)

QB: 51

ON: 81

MB: 8

SK: 7

AB: 22

BC: 28

YK: 1

NWT: 1

NV: 1

Total: 218 seats, down from over 300. Think of how much cash we'd save just in eliminating those seats.

The enabling legislation would also link the addition or subtraction of seats on a preset format. I'd suggest that every "zero" year(Thus once a decade), the population levels are compared to the seat totals and the required adjustments made.

The Senate would then be made up of 3 Senators from each province, regardless of size and one from each territory. This would make all of them equal, but with the overall population still having it's due say in the House of Commons. It would then total a Senate of 33 Senators.

As you noted, putting the selection of the senators as part of the provincial mandate makes sense, but I'd go one step further: Each province should have it's own method for selecting it's senators. This actually makes sense if you stop and consider it: Canadians are comfortable with appointed senators, but British Columbians and Albertans find it inappropriate. There is no reason that Ontario and Quebec could not continue having their 3 senators appointed by whatever mechanism they want, with other provinces holding their own elections in whatever format they choose.

The last area, that of an "effective" Senate is one that causes the most concern for Canadians. If it is there to create equality between the nations of the confederation, if it is then given actual "effective" powers, you'd see Ontario and Quebec no longer able to dictate to the rest of the confederation: They'd have to have policies supported by the majority of provinces rather than what works best for them. That scares the crap out of the Canadians. No longer would they simply say "It works in Toronto and Montreal, so we'll do it. It doesn't matter if the rest of the confederation hates it, as long as the Canadians are happy, screw the rest.".

[Michael Hardner]

We've never needed a senate before now, so why should we continue with one ?

[Lost in Manitoba]

It would seem to me that the provinces have a hard time getting along and communicating with each other. It is always made to be a big deal when a couple of premiers have a conversation. Thinking on this, how would a senate composed of provincial reps sound. Every premier elects x# of representatives to sit in the senate, the same # for each province of course. Perhaps instead of waiting for orders coming down from the Feds, the provinces can debate better at their level. Also, if the premier, who supposedly reflects the province, is the one who gives out senate seats, than logically he will choose senators who also reflect the province.

[Pellaken]

We've never needed a senate before now, so why should we continue with one ?

we need major changes to the government and the way we do things. the best way to do that is to reform the senate.

as for house reform, I think that PR is the best option, meaning that the seats per provinces are not important.

[Michael Hardner]

we need major changes to the government and the way we do things. the best way to do that is to reform the senate.

Why ?

Has the senate done much more than rubber stamp house decisions for the sitting government ?

[udawg]

Has the senate done much more than rubber stamp house decisions for the sitting government ?

No, which is why reform is needed. The senate can still serve a useful purpose, reviewing bills to ensure they represent the people's wishes, rather than the MP's, or the party in power's.

Whatever reform occurs, the Senate needs to maintain it's objectivity, and not become too affiliated with one party. Once objectivity is achieved, I see no reason why the Senate cannot take a more active role in decision making and law-passing. Senate reform should include a way to make a more active role both possible, and acceptable.

[maplesyrup]

Boydfish........Ontario and Quebec, and especially Quebec, would never, ever, agree to a Senate comprised of equal numbers of seats for each province. And I don't think you would have the votes without them for any constitutional change.

Eliminating the first-past-the-post voting system in the House of Commons would do wonders though. That way everyone would have at least some representation, and we could have a more fair system.

I agree with Michael, abolish the Senate. And that would save a lot of money.

www.fairvotecanada.org

Edited January 20, 2004 by maplesyrup

[Pellaken]

we need major changes to the government and the way we do things. the best way to do that is to reform the senate.

Why ?

Has the senate done much more than rubber stamp house decisions for the sitting government ?

exactly, thats what needs changing.

[Pellaken]

Boydfish........Ontario and Quebec, and especially Quebec, would never, ever, agree to a Senate comprised of equal numbers of seats for each province. And I don't think you would have the votes without them for any constitutional change.

Eliminating the first-past-the-post voting system in the House of Commons would do wonders though. That way everyone would have at least some representation, and we could have a more fair system.

I agree with Michael, abolish the Senate. And that would save a lot of money.

www.fairvotecanada.org

abolition is a dumb idea IMHO

as for how to elect senators, this caucus idea they have in Iowa seems rather interesting.

[Michael Hardner]

exactly, thats what needs changing.

But why ? And more importantly, how ?

No government is going to give away a chance at real power. No government is going to reform the upper house so that it sends legislation back to the commons.

And if we were to succeed in creating an effective senate, would we be happy with twice the red tape that we go through now to get laws through ?

The US system is so clogged that the president is pushing for a line-item veto. Is this what we want in Canada ?

[Pellaken]

exactly, thats what needs changing.

But why ? And more importantly, how ?

No government is going to give away a chance at real power. No government is going to reform the upper house so that it sends legislation back to the commons.

And if we were to succeed in creating an effective senate, would we be happy with twice the red tape that we go through now to get laws through ?

The US system is so clogged that the president is pushing for a line-item veto. Is this what we want in Canada ?

governments will have to. The only way to reform the senate is to get public support.

as for the checks and balances, I dont see it as "red tape". there shouldent be more government, just more democracy.

My senate, basacally, puts the hand-appointed nominee from provincial party leaders and premiers into the senate.

[Boydfish]

Maplesyrup, Ontario and Quebec will accept it when it's put to them in terms they can grasp:

EEE Senate or we walk from your dumbass confederation. We're either in as full partners all the way in your confederation or we're out of your confederation.

(We're far closer to this out in BC and Alberta than the Canadians care to imagine.)

[Michael Hardner]

EEE Senate or we walk from your dumbass confederation.

So Alberta, PEI and Ontario have the same number of senators ?

Uh... get your walking shoes on.

[Pellaken]

EEE will never work.

EEE senate, and Quebec will walk away from our "dumbass confederaiton"

to be blunt, BC-AB and PQ have about the same population, so I dont see the difference.