Senate reform w/o a constitutional amendment?

[idealisttotheend]

Late last week it was reported that Bernard Lord stated that if Harper was elected his province would elect their next senators. The leader of the conservatives in Ontario is introducing a bill to do the same and there is talk that if Harper were to be elected then the next three senators from Quebec could be elected and possibly elevated directly to cabinet if conservative. Heady talk. Is senate reform really possible?

Senate reform has been a favourite cause in the West since the elected Mr. Waters was appointed by Mulroney to fill one of Alberta's vacant senate seats. Real reform has always been seen as impractical as no one in their right mind wants to open the constitutional Pandora's box. Consensus may not be that hard nationally on senate reform itself but as there is no way to restrict the discussion to only senate reform that 'discussion' may never ensue.

Alberta however is stubborn. In 1999 Alberta elected one Ted Morton and a Mr. Brown who are still "in waiting" to this day. Chretien wanted nothing to do with the scheme and always protected his right to appoint senators among all the other patronage appointments Chretien felt were valuable and sacranest. In 2003 Alberta again called for a triple E senate.

Despite the constitutional problems, simply having the PM appoint elected senators is possible without an amendment to the constitution. And the momentum for this is apparently building in conservative circles at least. It is seen as an easy and relatively inexpensive if the elections are combined with municipal elections.

Of course there are many questions. Do we need an amendment to rebalance the number of seats between the provinces, (I believe that Alberta has 6 seats to NBs 10 or Ontario's 24)? Will it make a real difference to the quality of governance in this country? Are the provinces (especially conservative ones) so keen on it only because an effective senate could make it harder for the federal government to pass any legislation, further reducing it's efficacy and improving provincial control of the national agenda? Will an effective and elected senate better represent the regions (and if so why are the Ontario Conservatives now pushing for it?)

In short is Lord doing the right thing by holding elections for senators, does it matter?

Sources:

Ontatio PC leader release

Lord vows to elect senators if Harper wins

mapleleaf's in-depth information

[August1991]

The Constitution only states how many senators will come from the different "regions": West 24, Ontario 24, Quebec 24, Atlantic 24. (There are also discretionary "senators" that a PM can also name as Mulroney did to get the GST through.) I think the Constitution even has ridings for Senators. In theory, a Senator born in Alberta could be named to a Quebec seat.

The Constitution is silent about selection method. Hence, Harper could easily do as he has said. Appoint a senator who was elected in a particular "riding". Harper could not change the numbers, however.

Incidentally, the US Senate has been elected by general suffrage only since 1924. Prior to that, the State governments named the federal Senators.

Two questions: Would elected Senators have more weight than appointed senators? Would Harper's change become a respected precedent?

[Michael Hardner]

The senate has been largely ineffectual and unnecessary in Canada.

Observers may notice that various parties come up with electoral reforms in order to "balance power" or make things "fairer".

But is it a coincidence that these reforms always help the parties that propose them ? Of course not.

Let's abolish the senate, rather than having each successive government try to stack it with its cronies by elections or otherwise.

[Reverend Blair]

Every province and territory needs to have an equal number of Senators. That is the only way to balance the population inequities between the provinces.

I wouldn't want them directly elected though. What Harper is suggesting is basically a copy of the US system. It isn't working there, so why the heck would we expect it to work here?

What I would suggest is that each provincial government put up several candidates for each Senate postion (however many that might be) and then let the House of Commons hold a free vote (maybe even a secret ballot) on who gets the appointment.

Instead of doing it all at once, do it on a rotating basis...either some from each province or a few provinces at a time. That would ensure continuity while allowing provinces some say in who is representing them.

Give the Senate the power to return, amend, and submit bills to the House of Commons but the House of Commons, as the elected body, gets final say. Limit the number of times a bill can go back and forth.

Can that be done without opening the Constitution? Probably not. I doubt any real changes to the Senate can be accomplished without opening the Constitution though.

[August1991]

Every province and territory needs to have an equal number of Senators. That is the only way to balance the population inequities between the provinces.

This would require a constitutional amendment hence it won't happen. There is no way Quebec would accept fewer Senate seats than it has now.

I wouldn't want them directly elected though. What Harper is suggesting is basically a copy of the US system. It isn't working there, so why the heck would we expect it to work here?

Not working? It has worked for over 200 years.

Harper's propsal has raised interest in Quebec - although it seems confusing. Several have already noted that it could lead to separatist Senators. Why not let the people decide? Why not have a check on the power of the PM?

[idealisttotheend]

There is no way Quebec would accept fewer Senate seats than it has now.

But maybe the would trade for some sort of special status provision in the constitution? I think you are right though, since Quebec has been quite lately we out west tend to fortget that Quebec would not relish having the same amount of seats as Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan.

Why not let the people decide? Why not have a check on the power of the PM?

One could easily argue that with the supreme court, the areas of provincial juristiction, NAFTA and the MAI and the practical realities of living next to the US there are already enough checks on the power of the prime minister.

[Michael Hardner]

The Senate has proven itself to be useless. Why reform it ? We don't need it.

They have provided the best case for their own dissolution.

[August1991]

The Senate has proven itself to be useless. Why reform it ? We don't need it.

One could easily argue that with the supreme court, the areas of provincial juristiction, NAFTA and the MAI and the practical realities of living next to the US there are already enough checks on the power of the prime minister.

Few leaders have the powers of Canada's PM. PM PM referred to the problem as the "democractic deficit". The only serious check on the federal PM's power comes from provincial governments.

We have never had an elected Senate with any legitimacy so we don't know what would happen. I think the proposal is interesting. I know that if Harper is elected and holds a Senate election in Quebec, it will draw much interest. The BQ will probably run a candidate.

Incidentally, Charest was asked about this and he wisely did not answer the question by saying he will not take sides in this federal election.

[Remus]

What I would suggest is that each provincial government put up several candidates for each Senate postion (however many that might be) and then let the House of Commons hold a free vote (maybe even a secret ballot) on who gets the appointment.

This sounds like patronage of one form or another. This is a combination of patronage from the provincial and federal governments.

The people of every province in this country deserve to be represented on the national stage by those who are elected to do so.

[Boydfish]

The Constitution only states how many senators will come from the different "regions": West 24, Ontario 24, Quebec 24, Atlantic 24.

This is part of the root problem: An Albertan can no more represent BC's interests than a Central Canadian can. As well, that may have made sense in the late 1800's, but the current population levels make that a silly set-up.

<snip>

The constitution being re-opened is not that tough of a problem. The problem is that people have been conditioned to think that the Westminster System is like a republic system in terms of changing the constituion. The franco-republicans like to think that Turd-o's update to the BNA, as well as his Charter of Repeated Rights means jack.

The reality is that in a Westminster System, Parliament is Supreme(This refers to both the confederal and the provincial governments). If the government passes and Act that cancels the 1982 amendments, there is nothing to stop it from doing so. The Supreme Court is no problem either, since they are created not via the constitution, but the Supreme Court Act.

The demands of the west are simple: EEE.

The first "E", elected, is actually the easiest to deal with. Just let each province select their own method. If Alberta and BC want to elect, they elect. If the Canadians want to appoint, they appoint. If the Atlantic provinces want to send the guy who catches the biggest fish every year, that's how they do it.

The second "E", equal, is a no-brainer. It's a confederation. That means each province must be held to be equal. No brainer.

The third "E", effective means that they do more than just rubber stamp.

[playfullfellow]

No matter what, the senate is a sore point with many Canadians. If we can't agree on a tri-e senate, then scrap the bloody thing and put that money somewhere else. From what I can find out, it costs us about 60 million dollars a year to run. How much would that help our healthcare? How about more police? How about more teachers since the Feds seem to want to take this over too.

[Michael Hardner]

No matter what, the senate is a sore point with many Canadians. If we can't agree on a tri-e senate, then scrap the bloody thing and put that money somewhere else.

Well, we can't agree. Does anyone really think that it makes sense for PEI to have the same power as Ontario in government.

A dialogue on triple-E would drag on, wasting government resources, and would, in the end, have a negative effect on national unity.

Let's just scrap it now.

[Reverend Blair]

The problem with the triple e Senate that Harper is proposing is that it will lead to deadlocks. We've seen that happen in the US...bills simply cannot be passed. Bills that do pass often have unrelated riders attached...government by stealth. That is not a working system, it is a failed system that people are finding ways around.

I do think a house of sober second thought is important though. It brings the debate out into the public sphere more often. If the Senate opposes a bill it makes the news, people talk about it more.

I have two problems with the Senate being elected...first of all it leads to the kind of electioneering we're seeing right now. Negative campaigns and pork-barreling are two things we already have plenty of, thanks.

If the elected provincial government of the day wants to put forth candidates (however they choose them and if Alberta wants to run elections out of their provincial purse they can) they will put forth candidates that represent their views. Manitoba would, right now, put forth left-leaning candidates. Alberta would put forth right-leaning candidates. No matter which candidates were chosen by the H of C (the representatives of Canada) those biases would still be present. The governments and people of the provinces would be represented with a minimum of cost.

[idealisttotheend]

I wonder if the easiest way to the Senate would be as a proportional representation excercise. Let the federal party leaders appoint a new senate every election from lists drawn up by party members in each province based on the popular vote in the H of C vote. Make the number of seats equal by region under the five region model.

But the question, as August reminds us is how to get Quebec on board to any Senate change?

[Michael Hardner]

I wonder if the easiest way to the Senate would be as a proportional representation excercise. Let the federal party leaders appoint a new senate every election from lists drawn up by party members in each province based on the popular vote in the H of C vote.

Actually, I like this idea the most of the one's I've heard.

Five regions: BC & the North, The Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic Canada. Each region receives proportional representation based on votes in that province.

I think this would guarantee a CPC majority in the Senate, so I don't see Martin going for it. But if he ends up being PM, he'll have to make more than a token gesture to the west so maybe he would go for it...

[Reverend Blair]

I think that model would have to have more than 5 regions. Separate each province and either one for the territories or seperate the territories, depending on their take on it. Maybe Northwest Ontario deserves their own representation too.

The thing is that the Senate should represent the provinces. I sure don't want Manitoba being lumped in with Alberta because some of our landscape is the same. They have a much higher population and tend to much further right than us. Being dominated by Alberta is no better than being dominated by Ontario from where I sit.

My other concern is that it would give the boys in Ottawa an excuse not to give us proportonal representation in the House of Commons. The H of C is much more party-driven, so I see it as where proportional representation would do the most good.

[August1991]

I think that model would have to have more than 5 regions.

You are welcome to have this debate but it belongs under the category "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". The Senate will not be reformed if this requires a constitutional amendment.

Electing new Senators does not require a constitutional change and that's why the proposal is interesting.

[idealisttotheend]

I see your concern RB but I don't think it would be reasonable for Manitoba to have the same number of votes as Ontario or Quebec. The latter would never stand for it. Manitoba and Saskatchewan together could counter balance Alberta I think (or at least I would hope).

[Michael Hardner]

Electing new Senators does not require a constitutional change and that's why the proposal is interesting.

I wonder what would happen if Martin won the election, and appointed those previously elected senators as a nod to Alberta.

What do you think the reaction would be ?

Are those gentlemen still alive ?

[Remus]

I wonder what would happen if Martin won the election, and appointed those previously elected senators as a nod to Alberta.

What do you think the reaction would be ?

Are those gentlemen still alive ?

There would have to be some indication that this would not be the only time that the people of any province get to decide their senators.

They are still alive.

[Reverend Blair]

The Senate will not be reformed if this requires a constitutional amendment.

Meaningful Senate reform without opening up the constitution is unlikely, August. In its present form it does not balance the concerns of the provinces against the actions of the House of Commons. Simply appointing people the electorate has chosen does not address that, merely drives up the cost. I don't favour abolishing the Senate, but that, combined with proportional representation in the House of Commons, would be preferable to what we have now or what we are likely to get if we start electing Senators into an only slightly changed system.