Conservative get ready for senate reform

[Oleg Bach]

You must have a tortured soul to be so cynical and suspicious; say, a Liberal who just can't deal with the reality of May 2.

If you do not have a tortured soul in this day and age you just might be a bit socio-pathetic...lol.

[Molly]

Indeed, which is precisely why I don't buy into the Triple E garbage. In order for the senate to be effective it by definition must NOT be elected. Simply moving the power of appointment from the PM to the provinces/regions they represent would go a long way to fix the current problems. Equal would be better, but at the very least give the power to the povinces/regions to appoint their own senators, this would offer somewhat more accountability to the regions they hail from.

Place that federal governance in the hands of the provinces... hmmm.

We would certainly have no Mike Duffy under those circumstances/no Lowell Murray. The prime minister would lose the capacity to temporarily expand the senate to end a deadlock (Mulroney GST gambit), and thus federal authourity would be very seriously weakened by the loss of those aces in the hole.... (IMO vigourous federal authourity is an okay thing. While I don't want central despotic rule, I don't want the national federation to be a bare clique either.)

What would happen, I wonder, to so many provinces tendency to vote one way federally and the opposite way provincially? What would be the implications of having Mr. McGuinty choosing senators for Mr.Harper?

[nittanylionstorm07]

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.

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.

You don't like mine, but you like his? Where is your grievance? Under his system, the west has 16 seats to eastern Canada's 32. You seem to complain that the west doesn't have enough seats now, but under his system, they only have less than a third of seats.

My system gives each major region an equal number of seats (BC, AB (yes I know AB can be considered prairie, but it is too populated now to be lumped in), Prairies (SK/MB), ON, QC, and Atlantic), and it gives eastern and western Canada an equal number of seats (24 to 24), with the balance of power in the territories.

[g_bambino]

The prime minister would lose the capacity to temporarily expand the senate to end a deadlock (Mulroney GST gambit), and thus federal authourity would be very seriously weakened by the loss of those aces in the hole....

Hmmm... That is true. And that's one way to help keep the Senate from fully stopping the will of the House of Commons, which is as it should be, I believe. Otherwise, even with an appointed Senate, we could still end up with the parliamentary deadlock that's used as an argument against a triple-E Senate.

[sp]

Edited June 8, 2011 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

Why would we have to take that power away from the PM? Give the normal appointments to either the premiers or the provincial parliaments/legislatures/assemblies/national assembly (did I get all of them?) and give the power to appoint extra senators to the PM.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

Why would we have to take that power away from the PM? Give the normal appointments to either the premiers or the provincial parliaments/legislatures/assemblies/national assembly (did I get all of them?) and give the power to appoint extra senators to the PM.

If another scenario were to arise where more Senate seats were created with the approval of the Queen, on the advice of the prime minister, wouldn't it be odd to have a chamber fillled with senators appointed by the provincial Crowns and four or eight appointed by the federal Crown? Would they represent a province or provinces? If so, which? And wouldn't that then mean some provinces would have some senators appointed on the advice of the premier but one or more appointed by the prime minister? And wouldn't some provinces then have more seats in the Senate than others? Right now, of course, the constitution directs that, in such a case, the four or eight new seats must be evenly distributed across the four regions.

[+]

Edited June 8, 2011 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

If another scenario were to arise where more Senate seats were created with the approval of the Queen, on the advice of the prime minister, wouldn't it be odd to have a chamber fillled with senators appointed by the provincial Crowns and four or eight appointed by the federal Crown? Would they represent a province or provinces? If so, which? And wouldn't that then mean some provinces would have some senators appointed on the advice of the premier but one or more appointed by the prime minister? And wouldn't some provinces then have more seats in the Senate than others? Right now, of course, the constitution directs that, in such a case, the four or eight new seats must be evenly distributed across the four regions.

[+]

Except that there is more than 4 regions right now. I thought all we were talking about was changing the appointments, and not the regional mix? They could be at large Senators for the region, and it could be made so their appointments would expire in a set amount of time, say, a year.

[Bonam]

You don't like mine, but you like his? Where is your grievance?

I'm just more awesome is all

[Dave_ON]

Place that federal governance in the hands of the provinces... hmmm.

What would happen, I wonder, to so many provinces tendency to vote one way federally and the opposite way provincially? What would be the implications of having Mr. McGuinty choosing senators for Mr.Harper?

An excellent point I hadn't considered. I suppose there truly is no way to avoid patronage appointments, its either on the provincial or federal level. I suppose we'd be trading one issue for another. I still don't like that the PM appoints the senators, perhaps it should be a parliamentary committee that makes the appointment?

[Dave_ON]

You don't like mine, but you like his? Where is your grievance? Under his system, the west has 16 seats to eastern Canada's 32. You seem to complain that the west doesn't have enough seats now, but under his system, they only have less than a third of seats.

My system gives each major region an equal number of seats (BC, AB (yes I know AB can be considered prairie, but it is too populated now to be lumped in), Prairies (SK/MB), ON, QC, and Atlantic), and it gives eastern and western Canada an equal number of seats (24 to 24), with the balance of power in the territories.

The problem with your system is you fail to account for the fact that it's not an east west dynamic. It's an Atlantic, Central Canada, West dynamic. The Atlantic provinces have little in common with Ontario and Quebec. The distribution is better in Bonam's suggestion, as it allows for 16 in the Atlantic, 16 in Central, and 16 in the west, that's a perfect balance imo.

[Smallc]

The distribution is better in Bonam's suggestion, as it allows for 16 in the Atlantic, 16 in Central, and 16 in the west, that's a perfect balance imo.

I doubt that Quebec would accept that. They, after all, don't have that much in common with Ontario.

[g_bambino]

Except that there is more than 4 regions right now. I thought all we were talking about was changing the appointments, and not the regional mix? They could be at large Senators for the region, and it could be made so their appointments would expire in a set amount of time, say, a year.

Actually, it is a little more convoluted than I made out. There are four regions represented in the Senate, each with 24 seats: the Maritimes (10 seats each for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and four for PEI), Quebec, Ontario, and the West (six each for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia). Newfoundland and Labrador (with six seats) and the territories (with one seat each) don't belong to any region.

I believe part of the discussion was about giving provinces an equal number of seats. I guess I was maybe conflating two separate streams of conversation.

But, your idea of a time limit for these "extra" senators isn't a bad one.

[Smallc]

Actually, it is a little more convoluted than I made out. There are four regions represented in the Senate, each with 24 seats: the Maritimes (10 seats each for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and four for PEI), Quebec, Ontario, and the West (six each for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia). Newfoundland and Labrador (with six seats) and the territories (with one seat each) don't belong to any region.

I think at least going back to the four region model would be a good idea. That would only mean changes in the seat numbers of 3 provinces. PEI would get 2 more seats, and NB and NS would each lose 4. That would mean that the West, Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic would all have the same number of Senators. Whether the north has it's 3 senators is neither here nor there, as far as I'm concerned.

[Dave_ON]

I think at least going back to the four region model would be a good idea. That would only mean changes in the seat numbers of 3 provinces. PEI would get 2 more seats, and NB and NS would each lose 4. That would mean that the West, Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic would all have the same number of Senators. Whether the north has it's 3 senators is neither here nor there, as far as I'm concerned.

Not too bad idea. Although I think Molly has a valid Point about the territories. We need to have provisions set in place that if/when they reach provincial status they will be afforded an equal share in the senate. It was this lack of planning in the beginning that created the power imbalance in East vs. West to start with. Keeping in mind that when Canada was formed, Manitoba and BC constituted the "West" and Manitoba was significantly smaller are and population wise back then. I think a standard assigned number of seats for each province is best really.

[Smallc]

I think a standard assigned number of seats for each province is best really.

So do I. I'm just not sure it's politically possible at this point.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That model...the "equal" one is at least easier to sell to the public at large. The problem with that is that the provinces are the ones to do all the ratifications, not the people.

Look folks in order to open the can of worms you need to have a plan. In order to have a plan to deal with the issues you need the agreement of the provinces. In order to have the agreement of the provinces you will need the support of the Premiers of each province. In order to gain the support of the Premiers, each and everyone must be able to say to their provincial citizens that they will benefit. In order to benefit the citizens must be convinced that the rewards will be worth their efforts. To draw this to close the question that I believe needs to be answered is; of what net benefit to the citizen is Senate Reform? Can any benefit be realized through constitutional reforms relevant to the individual citizen?

[ToadBrother]

Exactly. Exactly! But tyranny of the majority is not solved by creating a tyranny of the minority. That is why I am suggesting that there needs to be some kind of balance, just not one that conforms nicely to rep-by-pop, which is obviously the wrong way to go in the Senate. A number of Senate experts believe that an elected Senate especially would take for itself more power than the House of Commons has, and if that happened under a Senate in which a much smaller minority could over-rule the majority with ease, it would it a very poor outcome for our democracy.

Certainly my worry, and it's one that is troubling constitutional experts in the UK as well, as the Government over there seems to be leaning towards an elected House of Lords.

It's hard to sort out how risky this is or not. The 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis was in no small part due to the fact that Australia's Senate has both the prestige of an elected house and near-equal powers to the lower house. Mind you, it's only happened once in Australia's history that both houses got into a loggerhead, so we have to be careful to put the potential problems in perspective.

At the moment, the Canadian Senate is far more potent than the UK House of Lords (which had a good many powers wacked away in the 19th and 20th centuries). The only limit placed on the upper house in Canada's Parliament is that money bills must originate in the House of Commons. That's it. In every other way the two houses of Parliament are equal. The only thing suppressing the Senate, for the most part, has been the fact that the Commons, as in Britain, is the elected house and thus there is a democratic tradition that unelected Parliamentarians should not invoke their constitutional powers save in moments of crisis. This is one of those unwritten aspects of the constitution (much like the Queen's reserve powers).

The minute you give the upper house in either Britain or Canada the kind of legitimacy that goes along with being elected, you could create a situation in which the upper house begins to compete with the lower house. Neither Canada nor Britain has the constitutional checks and balances built in that the United States does. In essence, you're introducing one aspect of an American-style legislative structure into a Westminster Parliament, but not updating other aspects.

Honestly, there is no easy answer to this one. I can understand the desire to reform the Senate, though I think some of that desire comes from ignorance as to the role the Senate has played since Confederation. I just think we should think very carefully, and if we do decide reform is the path to take, then at least the Government should be good enough to hold a proper constitutional review to indicate the potential difficulties.

The problem here, and it has been the problem since Harper first floated this, is that he's trying to walk this tightrope in the hopes of avoiding a constitutional showdown, in particular with Quebec. He's clearly got some experts telling him that there is at least a chance his reforms won't trigger a constitutional crisis, but I think they're wrong. I think if Quebec does not accede to these changes, and does go to the Supreme Court to quash it, they will be successful, because the Constitution is at least very clear on tampering with the Senate, the 7/50 rule applies (2/3s of the provinces with 50% of the population). I understand Harper's desire to get drawn into the constitutional fray that Mulroney did, but you can't just wantonly ignore constitutional requirements. If you could, there wouldn't be much point to a constitution.