Senate Appointments

[Moonbox]

Which is why the advice of the Prime Minister should be again taken out of consideration. Senators should be picked in a similar way to Order of Canada recipients. It could then go for review by an all party committee or something. Electing them will only make it a more political place. Just look at the US Senate. I've been watching it through the auto bailout talks and such. The partisan posturing is something that we don't need in the upper chamber.

I actually agree with you somewhat. It doesn't make sense to have senators appointed by the parties they are watching over, but the American system isn't great either. I still think electing them is better than appointing them, because at least then it's OUR choice, but I like your idea as well.

[ToadBrother]

I actually agree with you somewhat. It doesn't make sense to have senators appointed by the parties they are watching over, but the American system isn't great either. I still think electing them is better than appointing them, because at least then it's OUR choice, but I like your idea as well.

Oh, I dunno. Yes there's partisan posturing, but in general, because a Senator only faces election every six years, he or she is a little more insulated than a Representative. Besides, the fixed two seats per state is a very nifty counterbalance to the pure rep-by-pop of the House of Representatives.

As it stands, the Senate is basically nothing more than the House of the Temporary Stall. It does some good, more than most Canadians know, but I'd dearly love to have more counterbalance to the Commons, but you cannot get that with an appointed body.

[Smallc]

As it stands, the Senate is basically nothing more than the House of the Temporary Stall.

It's not just that, because they make changes to almost every bill in order to protect what they see as the good of the country.

I don't necessarily support election, and I think the senate is already somewhat effective in its purpose (though it could be better) but I would like equalization. This could be achieved in one way by combining Newfoundland and Labrador in with the Maritimes to form the Atlantic area. Then, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick could each lose 4 seats, PEI could gain 2, and each area would have 24 (but the territories would still be separate. Alternatively, if we wanted to go by province, each province could be given 10, each territory either 1 or 2, and we woulds still have about the same number in total. Problem is, I doubt Quebec would agree to the second one. NB and NS may not like the first way, but I think it would be easier to implement.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Smallc

[jdobbin]

Is that a crime, to not be a Liberal and get appointed?

Nope. Appoint away.

I was just wondering how Harper knew that Duffy was going to sit as a Tory. You wouldn't ask if you thought he was going to sit as a Liberal.

And if Duffy was a Tory supporters in his time as a political reporter, was it reflected in his reporting?

I guess we're still wondering about Adrienne Clarkson and Micky-Jean.

Did they sit as Liberals before or afterwards? Do they have party membership like Duffy?

[jdobbin]

The first decision would have drawn respect. The second howls of laughter. Either would have been better than what he did.

You're right that he could have done something different. It was obvious that he couldn't drive reforms through when it requires actual Constitutional change. He can't wave his hands and make the Senate equal. Not can he expect every province is going to agree to elections. He can't do that unilaterally or he would have done so.

He had a choice of stacking the Senate as or doing something like you suggest. Now wouldn't have been interesting if 18 notable people were appointed? Some might choose to affiliate with a party while others might choose to be independent.

That would have shown reform from the traditional practices.

[Moonbox]

And if Duffy was a Tory supporters in his time as a political reporter, was it reflected in his reporting?

I would say yes. I never paid any attention to Duffy really, but he always seemed to be biased towards the CPC.

[Smallc]

I would say yes. I never paid any attention to Duffy really, but he always seemed to be biased towards the CPC.

I remember when he started giving Liberal Strategist Scott Reid (I think it was him anyway) hell on tv during the 2006 election. He said that Scott Reid had been threatening him off of the air. weather or not he did, I really don't know.

[Boydfish]

Barring reform of the Senate to adopt a EEE model, perhaps the easiest method would be to make a requirement to sit in the upper house to be the current holder of a provincial legislative seat? In other words, the PM via the GG could appoint literally anybody to the post, provided that they hold a seat in that province's legislature. It would give a form of democratic legitimacy to the chamber, as they would need to continue to hold their seat to continue to be Senators. An interesting side benefit could be that you could cut the Senate salaries by 75% and when combined with the salary already drawn provincially, they'd still be well compensated.

A watered down alternate method for that would be create a requirement/practice/tradition of the Senators to be holders of provincially elected office at some point. It would create a large pool of potential applicants from the legislatures that the provinces themselves found to be acceptable at one time at least.

The only down side would be that for the overrepresented provinces like Quebec and Ontario, they'd have a significant percentage of the legislature sitting in Ottawa rather than in Quebec or Queen's Park. Perhaps knock them down to 12 Senators each?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Five Senators each, ten year single term of office. Elections to be held provincially, appointments abandoned.

[jdobbin]

Five Senators each, ten year single term of office. Elections to be held provincially, appointments abandoned.

Which many provinces don't agree to.

The only way this might happen is be re-opening the Constitution but then the horsetrading begins and everything but the kitchen sink gets thrown in on all matters. It could be a drag on our economy and it could hurt unity.

Harper hopes to get some of this incrementally but I believe that he would face a challenge to the Supreme Court for that alone.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I truly think that the only "Provinces" that would be opposed to this would be Ontario and Quebec. Everyone else gains from this. This could fly with only 7 provinces and 50 percent of the population to support it, provided that it passed both the Commons and the Senate of course.

They could open the constitution with a limited focus on just senate reform, this is possible.

[punked]

They could open the constitution with a limited focus on just senate reform, this is possible.

Nope plus I don;t think you did your math right Canada 33 million people. Ontario about 12 million Quebec 7 million. There is not 50% of the people outside those provinces.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You are right, by the standard method. There is however the clarity act, where citizens can vote with a 51% majority question resolution. It is my hope that in terms of a limited debated that this formula could be applied.

[Smallc]

There is however the clarity act, where citizens can vote with a 51% majority question resolution.

The clarity act says there has to be a clear majority, not 51%, and there is a chance that the clarity act would be applied to any such vote, though I find it unlikely that it would.

[jdobbin]

I truly think that the only "Provinces" that would be opposed to this would be Ontario and Quebec. Everyone else gains from this. This could fly with only 7 provinces and 50 percent of the population to support it, provided that it passed both the Commons and the Senate of course.

You either need Ontario or Quebec to agree. It is the way our Constitution is set up. The remaining seven provinces don't have the population to do this.

They could open the constitution with a limited focus on just senate reform, this is possible.

Mulroney tried to limit the scope of the last constitutional talks. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is difficult to put it back in.