Conservative get ready for senate reform

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If it's a problem, then it's an unsolvable one. There's no way to craft laws that will deal with every possible scenario in the unforseen future.

We can't legislate that way, I agree completely. But we can change the system to enhance democracy. We can change the system to reduce bureaucracy. We can change the system to reduce expenses. We can do all this and more, all it takes is participation in the political process as already defined within the law.

[Smallc]

Changing from 6 regions to 4, and ending with 96 senators is probably the easiest.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Changing from 6 regions to 4, and ending with 96 senators is probably the easiest.

I will suggest that each province is a region, each a distinct society, each with its own government. If that is good enough for Quebec then its good enough for me.

[Smallc]

I will suggest that each province is a region, each a distinct society, each with its own government. If that is good enough for Quebec then its good enough for me.

That may be. Now convince Quebec and Ontario to give up their 24 seats each so that they and Alberta can each have 10.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That may be. Now convince Quebec and Ontario to give up their 24 seats each so that they and Alberta can each have 10.

That is the whole point is it not? Neither of those two provinces will side with changes that they believe will detract from their influence within the current system. In short they will not settle for less, only more. So they need to get more, its simple, it just needs to be negotiated. You realize of course as equal partners within confederation that the federal government is actually accountable to the provinces in a weird and sorta wonderful way. The First Ministers conferences have the ability to force an agenda upon the federal government. The rub is of course the feds need only minimal support to carry the day in terms of voting demographics at such a conference.

Canadians need only work together, the government can be held to account.

[Smallc]

[g_bambino]

I am not saying that there is or is not public support.

You spoke about a hypothetical situation in which the federal government sought public support with which the government could approach the Supere Court and urge it to find a way in which the Senate could be reformed without provincial input.

How is it possible to "reform the constitution unconstitutionally"? The key to our little problem here is that the high court supports the federal model defined such as it is within the terms and conditions of the constitution act of 1982. In that document you will find that it is possible to step outside of the box, and use a First Ministers meeting to place proposals from the provinces to the Federal Government. A proposal introduced there could be taken by the federal government and they could draft legislation around it then pass it in the Commons. At that point it would be up to the Senate, and that being controlled in partisan manner by the government at this time means enactment into law. The formal support of the provinces having already been obtained then it becomes a publicity stunt where all the smart politicians can hold hands and sing songs.

One amends the constitution constitutionally by following the constitutional amendment formula in the constitution. That formula states explicitly that changes to the constitution regarding how the Senate is arranged and how Senators are chosen must first have approving "resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces." Note: the approval of the premiers is not enough. This is quite in accordance with the federal nature of Canada, which has been established since 1867 and actually since strengthened by various rulings and amendments over the decades; the Supreme Court will not put that in second place behind the result of some federal government sponsored plebicite.

[c/e]

Edited June 7, 2011 by g_bambino

[Dave_ON]

That is the whole point is it not? Neither of those two provinces will side with changes that they believe will detract from their influence within the current system. In short they will not settle for less, only more. So they need to get more, its simple, it just needs to be negotiated. You realize of course as equal partners within confederation that the federal government is actually accountable to the provinces in a weird and sorta wonderful way. The First Ministers conferences have the ability to force an agenda upon the federal government. The rub is of course the feds need only minimal support to carry the day in terms of voting demographics at such a conference.

Canadians need only work together, the government can be held to account.

Agreed and this in essence is what we need to get to, abolishing the senate will only exacerbate the current situation. We need to fix the senate not eliminate it. It's easy for those in Ontario and Quebec to say get rid of it, as they have the most to gain. TROC will only lose out even more. The only real fix for the senate is to make it an equal body, appointed by regions/provinces they are supposed to represent. Barring equal representation, even just allowing the regions appoint the senators rather than the PM would do a great deal to fix the situation.

[Molly]

Here is the requirement based on that:

To qualify for full representation of 8 senators, a province must have at least 10% of the population of the country.

Between 3 and under 10%, a province receives 4 senators.

Under 3% with provincial status, 2 senators.

Territory status, 1 senator.

aka: rep by pop/ tyranny of the majority.

However you've arrived at the qualifiers, NL having 1/2 the senators as Manitoba or Sask, and only 1/4 as many as Quebec (the very Quebec that is perfectly willing to take unfair advantage re: hydroelectricity)... won't wash. The role of the senate is to balance and soften those population extremes, not to reinforce them.

I honestly have to wonder why (Sask/Man) would be bundled as a region with Alta as a set-aside/stand alone anyway, and why the territories, which require some major developement action -theefore in the way of becoming action central,and due for some serious consultation- would be shorted in the influence department...

[nittanylionstorm07]

aka: rep by pop/ tyranny of the majority.

However you've arrived at the qualifiers, NL having 1/2 the senators as Manitoba or Sask, and only 1/4 as many as Quebec (the very Quebec that is perfectly willing to take unfair advantage re: hydroelectricity)... won't wash. The role of the senate is to balance and soften those population extremes, not to reinforce them.

I honestly have to wonder why (Sask/Man) would be bundled as a region with Alta as a set-aside/stand alone anyway, and why the territories, which require some major developement action -theefore in the way of becoming action central,and due for some serious consultation- would be shorted in the influence department...

My biggest problem is giving Prince Edward Island the same amount of Senators as Ontario. It doesn't make sense.

This plan does soften the blow of the majority. My biggest suggestion on that front is that Atlantic Canada would have equal the amount of Senators as Quebec, in this case. The Atlantic Senators should caucus as a group to defend such actions.

Alberta has more population, combined, than Man/Sask. They deserve it since they have more than 10% of the population of Canada. Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta are the four major Canadian powers. Man/Sask together counts as a fifth. Atlantic Canada is the sixth, together. That's how things play out.

Re: the territories, they are not provinces... and compared internationally, they should count themselves lucky that the government of Canada would be willing to give them representation in the upper house individually.

Edited June 7, 2011 by nittanylionstorm07

[Smallc]

My biggest problem is giving Prince Edward Island the same amount of Senators as Ontario. It doesn't make sense.

Sure it does. They are both equal partners in Confederation. The territories on the other hand aren't.

[nittanylionstorm07]

Sure it does. They are both equal partners in Confederation. The territories on the other hand aren't.

True, yes, but the region as a whole more or less acts like an Ontario than the individual provinces in Atlantic Canada.

If we get closer to some of the more popular suggestions... for a total amount of senators around 103 (100 for the ten provinces and one for each territory)... that's 10 senators for PEI. At this rate, we might as well merge their Legislative Assembly with their Parliamentary delegation.

[Smallc]

If we get closer to some of the more popular suggestions... for a total amount of senators around 103 (100 for the ten provinces and one for each territory)... that's 10 senators for PEI.

Since the Senate has nothing to do with population, I still don't see the problem.

[nittanylionstorm07]

Since the Senate has nothing to do with population, I still don't see the problem.

For now it doesn't. Population should have at least a minor consideration. Not as much as Parliament, but enough so that one province isn't ridiculously overrepresented.

Why should Ontarians feel like they are so much less special than Islanders? They already get that in the House... why make it worse in the Senate?

[Smallc]

For now it doesn't. Population should have at least a minor consideration. Not as much as Parliament, but enough so that one province isn't ridiculously overrepresented.

Why should Ontarians feel like they are so much less special than Islanders? They already get that in the House... why make it worse in the Senate?

With 10 Senate seats, it's quite arguable that PEI should only have 1 HoC seat. Of course, that's a whole other constitutional amendment, with a much more difficult amendment formula

[Dave_ON]

For now it doesn't. Population should have at least a minor consideration. Not as much as Parliament, but enough so that one province isn't ridiculously overrepresented.

Why should Ontarians feel like they are so much less special than Islanders? They already get that in the House... why make it worse in the Senate?

HAH well speaking as someone who lives in Ontario and is from the Maritimes, I assure you that Ontarians in no way feel "less special". My question is why should the population powerhouses be able to overrule the concerns of individual regions? If all of us are equal partners in confederation why is it the combined might of Ontario and Quebec were able to dictate an energy policy to AB/SK? Why should any one region have the power to dictate anything to any other region? I guess I don't understand why this is a difficult concept for you. I mean your own system allows Rhode Island to have the same say in the senate that New York and California have.

How can our confederation be considered equal if we don't have equal representation in the upper house? This is the purpose of the senate, to reconsider legislation in light of regional, not popular, considerations. Having said that I don't think we can address the population representation shortfalls in provinces like ON, BC, PQ and BC until we fix the inequity in the senate.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Dave_ON

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Look folks, its all smoke and mirrors. The government really doesn't want Senate Reforms when they control both the upper and lower houses. The don't need it and certainly don't want their powers curtailed, which would be a net result of opening up the constitution. Its just political play, a distraction from current events and issues that is relevant to the government nothing more.

So much the sadder for Canadians, yet it is true.

The federal government has no limits to their powers and authorities not already defined within the constitution, and folks don't see anything wrong with this. It scares the hell out of me because of the governments near limitless power. For the sake of all citizens I hope we soon wake up and realize just exactly where we are going.

[nittanylionstorm07]

HAH well speaking as someone who lives in Ontario and is from the Maritimes, I assure you that Ontarians in no way feel "less special". My question is why should the population powerhouses be able to overrule the concerns of individual regions? If all of us are equal partners in confederation why is it the combined might of Ontario and Quebec were able to dictate an energy policy to AB/SK? Why should any one region have the power to dictate anything to any other region? I guess I don't understand why this is a difficult concept for you. I mean your own system allows Rhode Island to have the same say in the senate that New York and California have.

How can our confederation be considered equal if we don't have equal representation in the upper house? This is the purpose of the senate, to reconsider legislation in light of regional, not popular, considerations. Having said that I don't think we can address the population representation shortfalls in provinces like ON, BC, PQ and BC until we fix the inequity in the senate.

With respect to your first sentence... Senate reform hasn't happened yet, and I guarantee that Ontarians and Quebecois will be raising hell if PE gets the same amount of senators.

As I've said before, I support spreading power around regionally in the Senate, but not to the point of fault. Under my suggestion, the west would have 24 senators compared to ON/QC's 16 and AC's 8. Equal amounts in East and West Canada.

Using our Senate as an example is a bad idea. Our Senate is terrible, ineffectual, and is the root of all problems in terms of getting things done for America. This is mainly due to the filibuster abuse, as the wishes of the minority have trumped the wishes of the majority to a terrible fault. Rural states now have way too much power based on that alone.

Canada cannot be compared similarly as it has a smaller amount of regions and is less complex.

The only true "equalness" is one person=one vote and if the same amount of people had the same amount of representatives across the country. The Senate in the US is not equal, as it gives people in lesser populated areas more power than those in higher populated areas. Although the House has the common misconception of being the other way around... it's simply not true. Since representative constituencies are balanced population wise, everyone has an equal say.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

With respect to your first sentence... Senate reform hasn't happened yet, and I guarantee that Ontarians and Quebecois will be raising hell if PE gets the same amount of senators.

As I've said before, I support spreading power around regionally in the Senate, but not to the point of fault. Under my suggestion, the west would have 24 senators compared to ON/QC's 16 and AC's 8. Equal amounts in East and West Canada.

Using our Senate as an example is a bad idea. Our Senate is terrible, ineffectual, and is the root of all problems in terms of getting things done for America. This is mainly due to the filibuster abuse, as the wishes of the minority have trumped the wishes of the majority to a terrible fault. Rural states now have way too much power based on that alone.

Canada cannot be compared similarly as it has a smaller amount of regions and is less complex.

The only true "equalness" is one person=one vote and if the same amount of people had the same amount of representatives across the country. The Senate in the US is not equal, as it gives people in lesser populated areas more power than those in higher populated areas. Although the House has the common misconception of being the other way around... it's simply not true. Since representative constituencies are balanced population wise, everyone has an equal say.

The problem in Canada is that we are not looking at making everyone equal, the spin doctors say we already are, its about taking power AWAY from Quebec and Ontario. You would think that we had at least a few politicians capable of suggesting to the public that in the best interest of all citizens we need to do this, unfortunately not.

[Remiel]

Best model:

Atlantic Canada gets 8 senators (2 from each province)

Quebec gets 8 senators

Ontario gets 8 senators

Man/Sask gets 8 senators (4 from each province)

Alberta gets 8 senators

British Columbia gets 8 senators

Territories get 3 senators (1 from each territory)

Total: 51 senators

I am sorry, but this is just a horrible idea. This would give the West, which currently has a little under 1/4 of the seats, a little under 1/2. That is a FAR worse balance in many ways than each province having the exact same.

[Bonam]

I am sorry, but this is just a horrible idea. This would give the West, which currently has a little under 1/4 of the seats, a little under 1/2. That is a FAR worse balance in many ways than each province having the exact same.

Perhaps, but still less ridiculous than the current balance, where NS and NB each have 10 senators while BC and AB each only have 6. Currently, the Western provinces are direly under represented.

Personally, I think equal numbers for each province would be just fine. No reason we need 10 from each though, we could do just fine with 4 or 5 from each, and 1 per territory. You'd have to throw Ontario and Quebec a bone to get on board with any changes though. I'd say something like this:

ON: 8

QC: 8

BC: 4

AB: 4

MN: 4

Sask: 4

PEI: 4

Nflnd: 4

NS: 4

NB: 4

Yukon: 1

NWT: 1

Nunavut: 1

Total: 51

Edited June 7, 2011 by Bonam

[Remiel]

Perhaps, but still less ridiculous than the current balance, where NS and NB each have 10 senators while BC and AB each only have 6. Currently, the Western provinces are direly under represented.

Personally, I think equal numbers for each province would be just fine. No reason we need 10 from each though, we could do just fine with 4 or 5 from each, and 1 per territory. You'd have to throw Ontario and Quebec a bone to get on board with any changes though. I'd say something like this:

ON: 8

QC: 8

BC: 4

AB: 4

MN: 4

Sask: 4

PEI: 4

Nflnd: 4

NS: 4

NB: 4

Yukon: 1

NWT: 1

Nunavut: 1

Total: 51

I kind of like this, though I would rather double it and basically keep the same size Senate. Do you think it appropriate for the Senate that Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta, which constitute like 80% of the population, could be over-ruled by the other 20%? I mean, under the current system, 50% of the vote is more like 33% of the population.

[skyhall]

I think it is a great idea for the senate to be elected but does Canada really need a Senate? I mean the lower house has more power then the upper house and the lower house can deal with all the senate things I agree with Jack Layton, The senate is just a waste of money and should be gone and with people not agreeing on how the seats should be like we should get rid of the senate .

[Bonam]

I kind of like this, though I would rather double it and basically keep the same size Senate. Do you think it appropriate for the Senate that Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta, which constitute like 80% of the population, could be over-ruled by the other 20%?

If you are referring to my proposal, the opposition from the other provinces and territories would have to be almost unanimous to "overrule" them. ON/BC/QC/AB would have 24/51 seats. Anyway, they wouldn't really be overruled, since they still have much more than 50% of the seats in the house of commons. That's kind of the point of a bicameral parliament. Is it fair that the top 10 most populated US states, which together comprise a majority of the population, together only have 20% of the vote in their senate? The senate isn't intended to be rep-by-pop.

[Remiel]

That's kind of the point of a bicameral parliament. Is it fair that the top 10 most populated US states, which together comprise a majority of the population, together only have 20% of the vote in their senate? The senate isn't intended to be rep-by-pop.

Fair point, but I think the fact that the United States has fifty different states makes it significantly disanalagous to our own situation.

In any case, I kind of think one of the aims of an upper house should be to temper the power of the majority, not completely invalidate it. To borrow from our other conversation, would your breakdown be fair if Ontario had 99% of the population of the country?