Conservative get ready for senate reform

[punked]

This statement is self-contradictory. You say we've had a good government and that Canada is in very good shape. Well, the Senate has been part of that good government. You can't avoid that historical fact. If the government has been good, why change it?

No the Senate has been a nice rubber stamp. We have done well not because the Senate. A 2 dollar rubber stamp will do the Senates job just fine. That is my point we don't need to fundamentally change the way things are done which is the House passes laws and represents the people. We just could save 100 million dollars a year by investing in a rubber stamp and firing the Senators who do that job now.

The government has been good and I don't want to change it. I just want to save us 100 million dollars a year. That is my argument.

Edited June 1, 2011 by punked

[Smallc]

No the Senate has been a nice rubber stamp. We have done well not because the Senate.

The Senate is a check on the power of the House. The fact that it rarely has to use it's full power is a good thing, but it doesn't mean that the power of a house unconcerned with political polls isn't necessary. The NDP doesn't yet get governance at the federal level, that much is certain.

[Remiel]

An argument revolving around the fact that the Senate costs X is incomplete. The cost of the not-Senate, Y, must also be provided. And I guarantee you Y is not 0.

[August1991]

It doesn't really make a lot of sense to have two houses, that are essentially voted in the same way. In the US, one house represents the population as a whole, and one represents the states equally.

KeyStone, consider your post more carefully.

Why do most federations have two federal houses? What would be the effect of Harper's change?

Trudeu instigated that change before the amending formula came into effect.

Canada had an amending formula in 1970. It just happens that the federal parliament and the GG can change the term limits of Senators. Trudeau restricted the term to age 75. Harper intends to restrict the term to 8 years (or 10, 12) after appointment.

Regardless, I was clearly speaking specifically about the bill that deals with senatorial elections. It can do nothing to require either a province to hold elections for senators or a prime minister recommend persons elected by the majority of a province. To do otherwise, either way, without the approval of 2/3 of the provinces with more than 50% of the population, would be entirely unconstitutional.

I am surprised, Bambino, that you and other Anglo-Saxons who follow the common law are so quick to adopt a Civil Code approach to legal questions.

The British constitution, such as it is, is based on a series of precedents and established practice. There is no formal statement or single document. Over time, certain practices became standard. Harper is adopting this common law approach to constitutional change.

Edited June 1, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

The law still isn't necessary to set any precedent. In fact, the precedent has already been set, in 1990. Subsequent prime ministers ignored it to little detriment. This Act of Parliament is useless.

You speak like a notary schooled in the Civil Code.

Honestly I'm not convinced that senate reform is a truly resonating factor for most Canadians. In the west perhaps, but certainly not in Ontario or the Atlantic. My guess is most people wouldn't even notice if a PM ignored a senate "election". Much like people won't care if Mr. Harper chooses to ignore his own "fixed election" law.

Dave, central Canadians have said the same of Harper for several years now. And yet Harper seems to win, and make his agenda central. Whatever the Toronto/Montreal MSM think.

One inhibiting factor is that the election should be combined with a Federal election - or maybe even a Provincial one - otherwise, the Provincial Government would bear an extra cost for an election - which is sizable. Perhaps the Senators' terms might be adjusted to be 8 years plus a variable term. The variable would be that they remain Senators until the following Provincial or Federal election.

KISS, I have thought about this too.

In Quebec, we now have fixed dates for municipal elections. They are held on the first Sunday in November every 4 years. The next election will be held in 2013. I don't see why senators could not hold office for a minimum of 8 years or until the next municipal election date arrives. The cost would be minimal. Each province could decide how to do this.

Heck, if Harper were truly revolutionary, he could leave the choice of federal senators (with a term of 8 years) in the hands of the provincial legislatures.

----

Returning to KeyStone's point above, IMHO, Harper's a reformer/progressive, but not in the way leftists think of reformers/progressives. Harper was a computer programmer in the 1970s.

Edited June 1, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

Almost every other nation that runs a representative democracy has a two chamber national parliament/congress, not just Canada. Two chambers inherently limits the power of government, because the two chambers can disagree or delay each other. Conservatives (real ones) are interested in limiting the power of government. $103 million a year is chump change for the government and is a bargain price for making sure that the bologna that comes out of the house is checked by another body.

Bonam, every federation has two central houses: One to represent people, and another to represent "political regions". The writers of the US constitution understood this well but they restricted the regions to states.

I have always admired the BNA because it gave the federal PM the right to appoint federal senators outside of the prescribed number. Maybe certain groups across Canada - not provinces - should have the right to select federal senators.

24. The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen's Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator.

...

26. If at any Time on the Recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit to direct that Four or Eight Members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by Summons to Four or Eight qualified Persons (as the Case may be), representing equally the Four Divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly.

Link

Mulroney used this provision to pass the GST legislation.

----

But Bonam, I agree with your basic premise. It is better to restrict the powers of the State. Our constitution, written in the aftermath of the US Civil War, gives too much power to the central government and overall, too much power to the State.

Edited June 1, 2011 by August1991

[Keepitsimple]

I'm not an expert on the Senate - by far. But our founding fathers main goal seemed to be to give sober second thought to how any legislation affected the regions of Canada - East, West, Atlantic, and now North....and they distributed Senate seats accordingly. This helped to offset the sometimes concentrated makeup of the House of Commons - for example - Jean Chretien and Trudeau had majority governments by sweeping Ontario and/or Quebec. If the Senate was elected and thus was mostly non-partisan and working to truly represent their region - perhaps the National Energy Program would not have passed - or would have been watered down to protect the West. Can any posters think of other legislation that had a large effect on regions that the Senate could have/should have refused to pass - or at least influenced the final outcome?

Province or Territory/Number of Senators/Population per Senator

British Columbia 6 685,581

Alberta 6 548,391

Ontario 24 506,678

Quebec 24 314,422

Manitoba 6 191,400

Saskatchewan 6 161,359

Nova Scotia 10 91,346

Newfoundland and Labrador 6 84,244

New Brunswick 10 72,999

Northwest Territories 1 41,464

Prince Edward Island 4 33,962

Yukon 1 30,372

Nunavut 1 29,474

Total/Average 105 301,075

Edited June 1, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Smallc]

If the Senate was elected and thus was mostly non-partisan

Now how do those two things follow?

[Remiel]

I'm not an expert on the Senate - by far. But our founding fathers main goal seemed to be to give sober second thought to how any legislation affected the regions of Canada - East, West, Atlantic, and now North....and they distributed Senate seats accordingly.

Well, more or less perhaps. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (and I presume PEI, which was party to the original negotiations, though it did not join until a couple of years later) would never have joined without having an upper chamber to protect them to some degree from the provinces of Canada, which even then were much greater in size. I am not sure how much this aspect had to do with sober second thought rather than just legislative checking.

[Smallc]

If they could get PEI, NS, NB, and N + L to agree to each have 6 Senators, that would make things far more balanced. I still prefer senatore selection by some kind of committee (non political, and either federal or provincial) to elections. Under those circumstances, I'm not opposed to 12 year, non renewable tearms.

[g_bambino]

The British constitution, such as it is, is based on a series of precedents and established practice. There is no formal statement or single document. Over time, certain practices became standard. Harper is adopting this common law approach to constitutional change.

How does this relate to what I said? Without changing the Constitution Act 1867, no future prime minister will have to recommend elected persons for appointment to the Senate. That's already been demonstrated in the fact that Mulroney advised that Stanley Waters - someone elected in Alberta for Senate appointment - be appointed and then Chretien and Martin never did the same.

Conventions take decades or centuries of consistent practice to become conventions. Harper could be starting a convention, but he can't be sure he is doing so.

[g_bambino]

Right now we operate all the provinces with 1

The provinces aren't federations.

[Dave_ON]

Dave, central Canadians have said the same of Harper for several years now. And yet Harper seems to win, and make his agenda central. Whatever the Toronto/Montreal MSM think.

I think you miss my point. It's not about whether Harper gets elected or not, its about whether people would care or not if his own election law or senate term law was ignored. I posit most people wouldn't even notice much less care about it. Given the rather low level of political knowledge the general public have, how many are even aware of a second house? A shocking majority aren't aware of our head of state. I'm just not confident it's as big a deal to most Canadians as many people here are making it out to be.

[Dave_ON]

Historically, since our Senate has been essentially nothing more than a delay chamber it has poorly served as a defender of regional interests. Electing Senators is not going to change that, either. However, it is a step towards "Equal" and "Effective", the other two "E's" championed by Reform years ago.

I agree with 2/3 E's namely Equal and Effective. I think Regional representation is essential in a federation, to balance the power of Ontario/Quebec and to a lesser degree BC. Honestly these goals could be achieved without the need to politicize the role. If the senators were appointed by each province, or at least if we maintain the 4 divisions philosophy provinces in each region, this would solve the patronage appointment issue, while still maintaining the non partisan/political nature of the senate. Senators would truly be beholden and accountable to their region, rather than the PM who appointed them.

Punked is right, the Senate once stacked doesn't go against the sitting PM often. I disagree with his assessment that it should be abolished though, the senate is not functioning as intended but it certainly is essential. If we can fix the senate, I think things will go far more smoothly for Canada, and a great deal less smoothly for the lower house.

Honestly though for the Senate to truly be effective it must be an equal number from each province, not each "region". Once upon a time that may have worked, but now it's somewhat of an outdated philosophy based on population shifts and varying provincial interests. Why exactly if all 10 provinces are truly "equal" partners in Confederation do they not all have "equal" say on the federal level. As it stands now, Ontario/Quebec effectively rule both houses, which isn't fair in the least.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Dave_ON

[Keepitsimple]

Now how do those two things follow?

Call me naive......but if Senators are elected with a prime goal of serving the region that they represent, it would seem to me that would reduce partisanship. I'm not sure of the "process" but each candidate vying for Senator should make it clear that they are not beholding to any party - only to the effective representation of their regional constituents. I'm sure it would more "partisan free" than the current system. Perhaps an independent committee system at the Provincial level to "vet" candidates before they are cleared to run would further ensure the proper caliber and allegiance.

[Dave_ON]

Call me naive......but if Senators are elected with a prime goal of serving the region that they represent, it would seem to me that would reduce partisanship. I'm not sure of the "process" but each candidate vying for Senator should make it clear that they are not beholding to any party - only to the effective representation of their regional constituents. I'm sure it would more "partisan free" than the current system. Perhaps an independent committee system at the Provincial level to "vet" candidates before they are cleared to run would further ensure the proper caliber and allegiance.

I don't think that's realistic, if they are elected they must campaign, campaigns cost money. Where precisely will that money come from? A party, do you honestly think a senator is not going to tow the party line of someone who's paying their election bills? We'd be turning the senate into a second commons, and it would be just a partisan.

[Remiel]

Honestly though for the Senate to truly be effective it must be an equal number from each province, not each "region". Once upon a time that may have worked, but now it's somewhat of an outdated philosophy based on population shifts and varying provincial interests. Why exactly if all 10 provinces are truly "equal" partners in Confederation do they not all have "equal" say on the federal level. As it stands now, Ontario/Quebec effectively rule both houses, which isn't fair in the least.

Quebec and Ontario do not rule the Senate. They only have fourty-eight of one hundred and five seats. Were it changed, Ontario and Quebec would have less than 20% of the seats and more than 50% of the population. And while it is certainly not the case that rep-by-pop is an enormously important principle to the Senate, given the dynamics of Canada I would not be surprised to see Ontario and Quebec intentionally hosed often enough.

Equal representation only works well in the United Stats Senate, despite the inordinate size discrepancies, because there are fifty states with their own interests, most of which are not easily grouped together. Our ten provinces and three territories would have a vastly different dynamic. Even in Australia, which has six states, the biggest and smallest states are about seven million and five hundred thousand respectively, as opposed to our thirteen million and one hunded fifty thousand. And I doubt they have a similar regional dynamic to us.

[Dave_ON]

Quebec and Ontario do not rule the Senate. They only have fourty-eight of one hundred and five seats. Were it changed, Ontario and Quebec would have less than 20% of the seats and more than 50% of the population. And while it is certainly not the case that rep-by-pop is an enormously important principle to the Senate, given the dynamics of Canada I would not be surprised to see Ontario and Quebec intentionally hosed often enough.

I don't think we should have a senate that is based on population truly, that is the function of the commons. Regional representation was truly intended to prevent the tyranny of the majority, ie. Ontario/Quebec. Ontario and Quebec getting hosed, really? So it's ok for Ontario/Quebec to hose the TROC but not the other way round? I don't think that's the intent of the senate, it's designed to balance the population representation with regional considerations. What check is currently in place to prevent the clear majority of pop rep which resides in Ontario/Quebec from imposing their will on TROC?

The Oft cited NEP is a prime example of Ontario/Quebec hosing the west btw and one that the senate could have prevented had it been comprised in such a way. The west could have potentially opposed it. Why should PEI be overruled by Ontario in the upper house simply because there is a high population in Ontario? What if the issue is quite important to PEI and doesn't even affect Ontario? Confederation is supposed to be a partnership between Equals under the crown, how can we say this when all partners are not equally represented in the upper house? Population representation is a very important part of democracy, but we also must try and prevent the tyranny of the majority whenever possible. Why should Ontario be able to decide the fate of Westerners, simply because more people happen to live here?

I'm not sure if you live in Ontario or Quebec, I currently do, but I'm from NB originally. There is very much a sense in TROC that Ontarians are out of touch with reality. They have this sense that they speak for all of Canada and that in fact all Canadians are like them.

[Molly]

Call me naive......but if Senators are elected with a prime goal of serving the region that they represent, it would seem to me that would reduce partisanship.

Yep. You are definitely naive.

Dunno... have you ever had any doings with any senators? Certainly they pretty much all got there through some partisan service, but they are not frighteningly different in outlook from any Joe Voter... Anybody here over the age of 22 who has voted for the candidate from one particular party at every election in which they have voted?

They have the great advantage of being out of reach of the partisan flavour du jour. No need for secret ballots there.

To be elected means that they must be a first-class, long-term party suckup and not just a handy sycophant Hand in hand with shortened terms, it means that they have to stay that way. (unlike now, where once in, they are bound bytheir own concience)

[punked]

Now that the greedy Senators have gotten a taste they no longer support Senate reform.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Conservative+senators+balking+Senate+reform+agenda+sources/4876722/story.html

Well just kick them out I say. That will show them, forget term limits, here is the Limit tomorrow you are gone. FIRED!

[Smallc]

Or maybe they've come to realize that there isn't nearly so much wrong with the senate as they first thought.

[punked]

Or maybe they've come to realize that there isn't nearly so much wrong with the senate as they first thought.

Yah you pay me 130,000 dollars a year give me a staff of 4 which I can use to clear my summer cottage, pay for 110,000 dollars a year for my fights, give me a place that will translate my book for free, not to mention office space. I will come to realize pretty fast there is nothing wrong with the Senate for me it is just wrong for the other 33,800,000 Canadians who don't have the cushiest job in Canada.

[Dave_ON]

Yah you pay me 130,000 dollars a year give me a staff of 4 which I can use to clear my summer cottage, pay for 110,000 dollars a year for my fights, give me a place that will translate my book for free, not to mention office space. I will come to realize pretty fast there is nothing wrong with the Senate for me it is just wrong for the other 33,800,000 Canadians who don't have the cushiest job in Canada.

MP's have a similar gig, let's be honest here. Cabinet ministers have it even better AND if you're lucky enough to be elected speaker of the house you have it even cushier. Government work is cushy no matter where you sit that's hardly an argument against having a specific house. We need to fix the senate not abolish it. We need a regional non-partisan check on the pop-rep house. If we moved the appointments of the senate to the premieres of the respective regions, it would go a long way indeed toward resolving the inherent problems.

[punked]

MP's have a similar gig, let's be honest here. Cabinet ministers have it even better AND if you're lucky enough to be elected speaker of the house you have it even cushier. Government work is cushy no matter where you sit that's hardly an argument against having a specific house. We need to fix the senate not abolish it. We need a regional non-partisan check on the pop-rep house. If we moved the appointments of the senate to the premieres of the respective regions, it would go a long way indeed toward resolving the inherent problems.

We don't have it now we have a bunch of yes men and the parliament works just fine we do not need a house like in the states that leads all legislation to a grinding halt. I promise you if we do this in a number of years you will be crying because no one will be able to get anything done.

[RNG]

We don't have it now we have a bunch of yes men and the parliament works just fine we do not need a house like in the states that leads all legislation to a grinding halt. I promise you if we do this in a number of years you will be crying because no one will be able to get anything done.

So you agree that Harper having a majority, finally, will be able to accomplish things now? Good on you!