Senate Reform - How To Do It Wrong

[Wilber]

The problem is shortening the term limits will not even begin to address the concerns you, and those who share your view, have over the current state of the senate. As Small C pointed out this would only serve to further concentrate power in the PMO as he could stack it sooner rather than later. Term limits in the form suggested are useless and anyone who favours senate reform should be upset by this move rather than happy with it. It's little more than window dressing and its sole purpose is to make it appear as though the CPC is doing "something" to make good on their reform promises.

I agree, it won't address my concerns. I don't really think it will change much of anything. Which way the Senate is stacked in relation to the government in power has a lot to do with chance anyway. Every government wants the Senate stacked in their favour. Sometimes they get it (usually Liberal governments historically) and sometimes they don't.

[Dave_ON]

The news keeps saying that the Tories can do it because their lawyers say they can without amending the Constitution. Are you guys against 8 year limits or for them? So far the only thing I can tell is that you're against PM Harper but that is beyond the scope of this topic.

This is utterly immaterial. Of course they can pass the legislation that is after all the prerogative and mandate of parliament. Now as to their legitimacy or their constitutional compliance, well that is out of their sphere of influence. We need look no further than Mr Harper's own "fixed election law"; he in all technicality broke that law. A citizens group actually brought him to court for it, which the court dismissed as of course the law ran counterman to the constitution, and was utterly ineffectual. This law would be no different, and whether we are for or against a term limit on senators the fact remains this law will not be able to achieve that which it was created for. There’s no “easy button” when it comes to fundamental constitutional changes, and thankfully so.

[Smallc]

It wouldn't be a matter of the provinces standing in the way. The amending formula calls for approval by two thirds of the provinces comprising of over 50% of the population.

I think somewhere between A and C you're missing B. I know the amending formula. I also no that if you want something done, you have to make it happen. Put a finalized question to the people and force the provinces to go along with you. If the people want to make the change that you propose, then the provinces will go along with it.

[Smallc]

the French styles of governance,

I think if we ever switched systems, I would like it to be semi presidential, like the one used in France or Russia.

[ToadBrother]

I agree, it won't address my concerns. I don't really think it will change much of anything. Which way the Senate is stacked in relation to the government in power has a lot to do with chance anyway. Every government wants the Senate stacked in their favour. Sometimes they get it (usually Liberal governments historically) and sometimes they don't.

The entire purpose of the long Senate terms was to at least partially protect Senators from party machinations (it's a lot harder to make tossing someone out of caucus whose going to be their long after the current party leadership is gone a serious branding like being thrown out of a Commons caucus). One of the features that I did not like about Triple-E, or any of the proposed reforms, is that it essentially allows what little there is that holds back party domination in the Senate caucuses to be wiped out. This is what is happening with the House of Lords in the UK, and it's why many felt that Blair's reforms took an unelected, unaccountable branch of the legislature and made it even worse by allowing the PM of the day to simply turn into an unelected, unaccountable and servile branch of the legislature.

I'm of the opinion that one possible solution is to give senators a twelve year term (to retain at least some of the resilience to Commons domination) and not have them directly elected, but rather by the individual Provincial legislatures as vacancies come up. Like the US Senate, it should be made into a continuous body, that is, every say, four years, a third of the Senate seats come up for grabs, which would fit well with twelve year terms.

At that point, if the provinces want to put out their Senate seats to a general election, or whatever scheme they choose, that's their business. The key here is the removal of Ottawa as the ingredient in choosing Senators. In fact, it might even mean that Senate party affiliations might more closely match the Provincial party affiliations, since one way or the other, the Provinces are responsible for who ends up in the Senate. The Upper House then becomes much less attached to the Commons party lines.

Edited March 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Wilber]

I think somewhere between A and C you're missing B. I know the amending formula. I also no that if you want something done, you have to make it happen. Put a finalized question to the people and force the provinces to go along with you. If the people want to make the change that you propose, then the provinces will go along with it.

I have no idea what you mean by "forcing the provinces" No matter what you do, you will have to convince enough people in enough provinces to effect change whether that is through a direct vote or through their elected provincial representatives. Your proposal brings up a bigger question. Do you think a federal government should be able to go over the head of provincial governments by the use of a referendum any time it suites them for any reason?

[Smallc]

I have no idea what you mean by "forcing the provinces" No matter what you do, you will have to convince enough people in enough provinces to effect change whether that is through a direct vote or through their elected provincial representatives. Your proposal brings up a bigger question. Do you think a federal government should be able to go over the head of provincial governments by the use of a referendum any time it suites them for any reason?

I really think you are missing my point. If the polls are right, and people really do support the change the Conservatives want to make, then a referendum will show that. When the provincial governments see that the people who vote for them support the change, they are far more likely to agree with it. I don't think it's that complicated.

[Wilber]

I really think you are missing my point. If the polls are right, and people really do support the change the Conservatives want to make, then a referendum will show that. When the provincial governments see that the people who vote for them support the change, they are far more likely to agree with it. I don't think it's that complicated.

I get your point and you may be right but you don't answer my question. You also assume that a minority government will be able to get Parliament to go for a referendum.

[Smallc]

I get your point and you may be right but you don't answer my question. You also assume that a minority government will be able to get Parliament to go for a referendum.

The government hasn't even tried to get anything done. That's my real point.

[Wilber]

Perhaps because they know better. If someone thinks they can achieve constitutional reform by holding a non binding referendum without the approval of Parliament (which I don't even think would be legal), they are on something. If they think Parliament will swallow one party's idea of reform, they are on something even stronger.

[ToadBrother]

I really think you are missing my point. If the polls are right, and people really do support the change the Conservatives want to make, then a referendum will show that. When the provincial governments see that the people who vote for them support the change, they are far more likely to agree with it. I don't think it's that complicated.

I think opening the constitutional can of worms simply because a poll shows some support for a very weak reform to the Senate is highly unadvised, anyways. But they're not even doing that. They're apparently going to table legislation which clearly infringes upon the constitutional right of the Provinces to have a say in in alterations to the Senate. Now maybe it will never survive, or maybe Harper is planning on a spring election, and wants to use his "plan" for Senate Reform as a hammer to beat over the head of the Opposition during the election.

[Wilber]

Call me a pessimist but realistically I think the only thing that might get enough support across the country would be to abolish it. There are probably better alternatives but I don't see them happening. Hope someone can prove me wrong some day.

[Smallc]

Call me a pessimist but realistically I think the only thing that might get enough support across the country would be to abolish it.

Polls don't show that people support that at all, and there's no way Quebec, Alberta, And Saskatchewan would support that.

[Smallc]

I think opening the constitutional can of worms simply because a poll shows some support for a very weak reform to the Senate is highly unadvised, anyways. But they're not even doing that.

That's my point. They're not doing anything. If they want to do something, then they should do it right. They need the provinces, and if they really want to do it, they need a way to get the support of the provinces without having to tackle everything else in the constitution. That really would be the purpose of the pre emptive referendum.

[wyly]

Polls don't show that people support that at all, and there's no way Quebec, Alberta, And Saskatchewan would support that.

and those provinces are all deluding themselves that the Senate is of any use...abolish the poiltical hacks they're as useless as tits on a bull and costing us millions for doing bugger all... but then that's just my opinion

[ToadBrother]

That's my point. They're not doing anything. If they want to do something, then they should do it right. They need the provinces, and if they really want to do it, they need a way to get the support of the provinces without having to tackle everything else in the constitution. That really would be the purpose of the pre emptive referendum.

But, as I've stated, such a referendum might end up with even worse results, disastrous ones even. Do we really want to return to the wranglings of the 1980s? It might only alienate certain provinces further.

If it's that important to reform the Senate, then I think two things are key. First, don't be in a hurry. The Senate has existed in its current form for nearly 150 years, so it's not like we have to do the changes by the end of this year. The second thing is simply get Ottawa and the provinces together to gage political support. You know, that thing we call negotiations.

If you think a referendum on whether Senators should be given the boot after eight years isn't going to raise the specter of Quebec or the West wanting to reopen all the questions, then your delusional.

To my mind this bill and everything surrounding it is cheap posturing. Only a simpering illiterate moron would accept the Government's position that somehow Parliament alone could modify the functioning of a body whose constitutional role is, in part, to represent regional interests.

[ToadBrother]

and those provinces are all deluding themselves that the Senate is of any use...abolish the poiltical hacks they're as useless as tits on a bull and costing us millions for doing bugger all... but then that's just my opinion

I've never understood this hostility towards the upper house. Most democracies have bicameral legislatures, and the theory that one should essentially be a representative of the populace, the other regional in representation, at least dates back to the formulation of the US Senate. I won't defend the current way the Senate is constituted. It may have made sense in 1867 when it essentially attempted to duplicate the House of Lords as it stood at a period when the British Parliament's functioning was being heavily reformed (the Commons had long before essentially usurped most of the legislative roles and the trend was towards diminishing the Lords powers, but it was still considerably in flux until the turn of the 20th century).

I think some sort of Triple-E Senate is a damned good idea, and one that would answer some of the problems some of us have long had about the imbalance in Parliament. Further, taking the original US model (prior to the 17th Amendment) as a guide, I think allowing the provinces to determine individually how senators are chosen is a damned good idea too. This might be a bone to throw to Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes in return for reducing their presence in the Senate. Then the provinces could determine on their own whether they wanted Senators elected by general election, by vote in the legislature, or however they would want to do it. In essence, the Prime Minister would relinquish any role in selecting Senators, thus ending at least one power imbalance.

[Wilber]

Polls don't show that people support that at all, and there's no way Quebec, Alberta, And Saskatchewan would support that.

And I don't think there is any way that the present distribution of seats would be acceptable to the western provinces. If BC can only have the same number of seats as Newfoundland with nine times the population, why can't it have the same number as Quebec and Ontario?

[Smallc]

And I don't think there is any way that the present distribution of seats would be acceptable to the western provinces. If BC can only have the same number of seats as Newfoundland with nine times the population, why can't it have the same number as Quebec and Ontario?

That's the point of EEE, is it not? That's the system I'm talking about (though I don't think that regional distribution is as bad as you do), and that's the system the government is talking about.

[Wilber]

That's the point of EEE, is it not? That's the system I'm talking about (though I don't think that regional distribution is as bad as you do), and that's the system the government is talking about.

Of course you don't think the present distribution system is that bad, you province has the same number of seats as BC with a quarter of the population.

EEE will be even worse unless the method of distribution is changed. Freezing the distribution of seats according to a 100 year old demographic with a EEE Senate will be even more divisive that the present system. Either make the distribution more representative of the population or make all provinces equal. I would prefer the latter but either way will work for me.

[Wild Bill]

Of course you don't think the present distribution system is that bad, you province has the same number of seats as BC with a quarter of the population.

EEE will be even worse unless the method of distribution is changed. Freezing the distribution of seats according to a 100 year old demographic with a EEE Senate will be even more divisive that the present system. Either make the distribution more representative of the population or make all provinces equal. I would prefer the latter but either way will work for me.

e have a House based on population. It's called the House of Commons.

The problem is that with only one effective house there is no protection for a small province or region from the wishes of a larger one. If Ottawa decided to institute another National Energy Program to screw Alberta, or to take all the oil profits away from Newfoundland, the large provinces can successfully pass such legislation, because of their higher number of seats based on their population.

The very purpose of having a Senate, or Upper House, is to have one that gives equal power to each province. This would give PEI the same power as Ontario to be a check on any unfair legislation.

This is the reason that tiny Rhode Island has the same number of Senators as California. A two House system is one with checks and balances between regions and populations.

So it would appear that your second option of giving all provinces the same number of seats is the better one. To have unequal numbers of Senators for different regions, based on their population, would make any new Senate as useless and unfair as what we have now.

[wyly]

I've never understood this hostility towards the upper house. Most democracies have bicameral legislatures, and the theory that one should essentially be a representative of the populace, the other regional in representation, at least dates back to the formulation of the US Senate. I won't defend the current way the Senate is constituted. It may have made sense in 1867 when it essentially attempted to duplicate the House of Lords as it stood at a period when the British Parliament's functioning was being heavily reformed (the Commons had long before essentially usurped most of the legislative roles and the trend was towards diminishing the Lords powers, but it was still considerably in flux until the turn of the 20th century).

I think some sort of Triple-E Senate is a damned good idea, and one that would answer some of the problems some of us have long had about the imbalance in Parliament. Further, taking the original US model (prior to the 17th Amendment) as a guide, I think allowing the provinces to determine individually how senators are chosen is a damned good idea too. This might be a bone to throw to Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes in return for reducing their presence in the Senate. Then the provinces could determine on their own whether they wanted Senators elected by general election, by vote in the legislature, or however they would want to do it. In essence, the Prime Minister would relinquish any role in selecting Senators, thus ending at least one power imbalance.

they do nothing now so our government is effectively a one house government and for the most part runs fine, proof they are not needed...

they do nothing, they have no power, they are a waste of money, the ultimate elitist welfare recipients...how can anyone with any self respect accept appointment to this pigs at the trough club...

[ToadBrother]

they do nothing now so our government is effectively a one house government and for the most part runs fine, proof they are not needed...

they do nothing, they have no power, they are a waste of money, the ultimate elitist welfare recipients...how can anyone with any self respect accept appointment to this pigs at the trough club...

This is an oft-repeated claim, and an utterly unjustified one. I may not like how the Senators are chosen, and there certainly have been some notoriously bad or lazy Senators, but the Senate does do a job, and there are a number of extraordinarily talented people there.

[Smallc]

make all provinces equal.

Perhaps you should look up EEE.

[Wilber]

Senators come in all varieties ranging from useless tits to very concientious and hard working.