Senate reform

[redmos]

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen,

I'm new to this website. Happened across it as I was researching a paper on Senate reform! Exciting, no?

In any case, I know this has come up in the past under general government reforms, but right now I'm looking for some opinions. So, if you could state your province of origin and some views, that would be handy. So as not to be prejudicial, I'll throw in my own later.

Thanks, and let's get the ball rolling!

[Newfie Canadian]

The name tells you where I'm from.

I'd like a Senate that would be an effectice counter balance to , (and I guess some of you are thinking I'm going to say the House), the PM, as the power evidently rests in the PMO.

Whether it is EEE, or something like it I haven't really thought about.

[JWayne625]

For the Senate to be anything other than a home for defeated politicians and Party hacks, it has to be a triple E Senate. Alberta has already taken steps to elect member's to this body, but the problem is that it is the PM who decides who sit's in this supposed "place of Sober Second Thought," something it has not been for a very long time. It has become nothing but a rubber stamp for whatever Party is forming the government when a Bill comes before them.

This was never made clearer then when Mulroney named extra PC's to the Senate to ensure the passage of both the FTA, and the hated GST. How democratic was that? One of those appointed was a defeated MLA from New Brunswick who finished in last place in her riding. Unfortunately she was killed in a car accident shortly after being appointed and did not get the chance to serve. She left small children, and a husband, and for them I am truly sorry! The point is that Mulroney should never have appointed a person who was recently defeated in a Provincial Election to the Senate in the first place, that is like saying to the voter's that regardless of what people think he will reward Party loyalty regardless.

I say, we either have a Triple E Senate or abolish it altogether, and while they're at it they might want to write a job description for our Judiciary so that it again becomes our elected Members of Parliament and their Provincial counterparts who make laws in this country instread of a bunch of out-of-touch, pie-in-the-sky lawyers who suddenly find themselves appointed to the Bench, with no idea what the real world is all about.

[Slavik44]

Well, B.C

3 senators per province

1 senator per territory

Voted for every other election

[August1991]

So, if you could state your province of origin and some views, that would be handy.

I live in Quebec. Senate reform is a possible way to establish a "Canadian" (northern North America?) peace.

[redmos]

I promised I'd throw my two cents in.

I'm from Ontario.

And I just finished my paper (more or less). It's too long to include in its entirety, but here are the main points.

The Senate should be elected. Because any method of appointment (even provincially) will make it seem like a corrupt, and therefore illegitimate, institution.

The idea of provincial equality is unfeasible. If you do the counting, then you find out that the six poorest and least-populated provinces can outvote the four big ones. While that seems like a reasonable check on the majoritarian nature of the Commons, it means you get 15% of Canadians who get to call the shots, essentially. So the Senate should be based regionally, similarly to now.

However: the West is currently underrepresented vastly, so my solution was to add another 24 seats to the West, 8 each to Alberta and BC, and 4 each to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The territories would get two each.

I was also thinking some aboriginal representation would also be a good idea, as a basis for some measure of aboriginal autonomy within the federation, perhaps 1 or 2 seats per province.

Elections in time with the elections to the Commons, to avoid problems with cohabitation (Liberal Commons, Conservative Senate, etc.). But the Senate should be semi-proportionally elected, accomplished by four member districts. This gives everybody a rep they'd like, plus distances Senators from the party machinery (opposite effect of a pr-list).

Other added bonus is that if territory is already represented, then it wouldn't be that hard to justify putting the Commons on a pr-list system, which would make sense since they already all vote by party anyway. And it would break a Liberal stranglehold on power in this country.

Powers would stay as is, since the Senate would have legitimacy, plus veto over legislation of linguistic or regional significance, and the ability to ratify PMO's appointments.

That covers more or less everything I threw in there.

Abolition? Not a good idea. The Senate apparently does a lovely job of legislative review, although you could argue that it could be done by bureaucrats. However, regional representation would still be a great problem.

Harper's suggestion? (I know it's not really his) I like it. It's a start. Only thing that I'd worry about is that it undermines efforts to make more meaningful reform. But if no one else is going to do anything, electing Senators-in-waiting is better than nothing. There is still the issue of elected Senators for life, though. But they're still better than appointed Senators for life.

My own critiques of my plan? I have trouble seeing a Liberal government ever trying to pass a plan that would severely limit its own authority in certain areas. I don't envision Ontario or Quebec objecting too strenuously, since they have both proposed Senates with similar seat distributions in the past, and the protection of a Senate against federal encroachment probably doesn't hurt them.

So there's the whole thing. Obviously I've omitted some of the detail in some of my arguments, but I'd love to know what you think I got right and what I got wrong.

Thanks for playing along!

[Guest eureka]

I hope you have not yet handed in your paper, Redmos. You may have argued it well. I don't know that but you have neglected all the arguments that are contrary to your ideas.

To start with, Ontario is the most underrepresented region, not the West. And, if you think that Quebec would not object to its weight being trimmed, then you do not knoe Quebec.

The EEE Senate is, in my opinion, about the worst idea dor Constitutional reform that has ever been brought forward. It has no support at all amongst federalist thinkers. It is the dream only of the Provincialists who have persuaded an awul lot of lazy thinkers that there is something magical about elections for everything that furthers the destruction of national powers.

We can go into this further if you wish. I would like to see some argument that does show some benefit to the forms of change proposed.

Harper has none - only slogans - and Manning had less.

[redmos]

To start with, Ontario is the most underrepresented region, not the West.

Nope. By my count, and I'm using StatsCan's numbers for 2001, Ontario has a Senator for every 513 000 people.

Both Alberta and B.C. are more underrepresented (in the Senate, anyway) at 533 000 and 699 000 per Senator.

And in any case, the Senate was designed that way. Even initially, Ontario was underrepresented in the Senate vs. Quebec as a trade off for getting representation by population in the Commons. The idea in having the second House is to underrepresent Ontario and Quebec and to make sure that the two of them can't force through a bill that the rest of the country is hostile to.

And, if you think that Quebec would not object to its weight being trimmed, then you do not knoe Quebec.

Well. Sort of. Around 1980, Quebec proposed what's known as the Beige Paper, which was their idea for Senate reform. To be honest, I don't know that much about it. I can tell you that the distribution would have reduced Quebec's current weight by a slight amount.

The guess was that Quebec could be enticed by allowing (and I seem to have neglected this, I think) a double-majority of anglo- and francophones on any bills about language/culture. It's a little optimistic, I know, but then increasing Quebec's weight in the Senate was in Ontario's plan. And Ontario didn't decide to increase its own.

The EEE Senate is, in my opinion, about the worst idea dor Constitutional reform that has ever been brought forward. It has no support at all amongst federalist thinkers. It is the dream only of the Provincialists who have persuaded an awul lot of lazy thinkers that there is something magical about elections for everything that furthers the destruction of national powers.

I concur, absolutely.

So, would Quebec accept a lower proportion in the Senate if they've already been guaranteed 25 % in the Commons in perpetuity, the get the federal government off their backs, plus language protection? It'd be hard to turn down, I think.

But then, they don't like anyone's ideas but their own...

[Guest eureka]

To start with, the Senate is regionally balanced in four regions. The West; Ontario; Quebec; the Maritimes. Each has 24 Senators with now two more for Newfoundland. It is not a Provincial balance but a regional one. Newfoundland is odd man out due to the necessity of allowance for its entry into Confederation.

The purpose of the Senate is to represent both regional and national interests and it was carefully constructed to perform both these functions. The "sober Second Thoughts" was its third concern.

The Senate has been emasculated, to serve the immediate political interests of several Prime Ministers. It still can perform the third function fairly adequately but not the first two where its powers have been usurped by the Cabinet.

Election of Senators would serve no purpose other than to make them prisoners of Provincial parties and Premiers. Election would bring political motivation and paralysis to the Senate as a part of the legislative process and to the Commons when legislation is held up for no purpose other than some province does not like it.. It would become, if its powers were to be restored also, a body like the American Senate which is no more than a "deal making" institution for sale to the highest or most powerful bidder.

As it stands, the Senate can represent regional, not provincial interest. Should any region really have an axe to grind, it need only persuade one other region to agree - with appropriate trade-offs that would be of benefit to all and not to the electoral interest of a Province or locality.

When Tip O'Neill said that all politics are local, he was referring to the American Senate not to any reality of poitical philosophy. He was talking of the need for Senators to address the narrow interests of their constituency; not to region or nation.

Similar objections apply to the idea of time limitations for elections and service. The Senate should not be a body with its eye on the next election and its ear to the political winds. Its function is to consider the future and to act so as to stand any test of time, not to be slave to it.

The trade-off you mention for Quebec is a non-starter and has nevr been aserious consideration. It is one that, perhaps, should be applied to the Quebec legislature to reflect the true nature of that province; its Constitutional standing; and its history. The rest of Canad would not tolerate such a regime, and rightly so, in my opinion. It would not facilitate the Parliamentary process in Canad and would lend itself to many abuses in the name of one Provinces truculence.

The Senate certainly needs reform but it needs some of its powers to be restored and it needs a less political appointment method.

However, I think appointment should remain in the hands of the Prime Minister with, perhaps, some similar process to that of the appointment of Judges. Consultation and reference are essential, but that process most certainly must remain completely independent of Provincial Premiers if it is to be of any value in any of its functions.

The "Senators in waiting" of Alberta are a mischief equal in the probable effect on national unity to the Quebec separatists. And, like Wolfe with reference to the Scots in his attack on Quebec, I think it would be "No great mischief" if they were to be the first casualties in the battle to protect Canada from its would be destroyers.

[Cartman]

Province = Alberta.

Well, having just paid for a useless Senate election that could very well be meaningless to a political body that is really just a place of political patronage, I would like the Senate to be abolished.

I have never understood why the right has been opposed to this idea when they constantly say that government should be smaller. What better way than to eliminate an entire (useless) layer? I am in favour of paying taxes for services that I receive (i.e. health care), but I see no value in a political body that does little, or if reformed, will simply duplicate services already received or possibly stall decisions already made by the elected government. Less than half of Alberta voted in this last prov. election so I do not accept the notion that people are in need of better or more representation when they do not even bother to vote. This is pure waste and if reformed will probably be even more wasteful by delaying decisions and fostering more useless discussion.

[Bakunin]

Im from quebec, well my point of view is quite radical but here it is:

First, well its the federal system that we should change, and the senator would take the deputy's job.

Here is what it could looks like.

people vote for a party team first than vote for a senator, so people vote for an individual person torepresent them and a party team to govern the country.

There are senator that get elected proportionally to the province pop, with maybe some sort of system to give more power to less populate provinces.

And when the government take a decision, then the senator vote... since they are not part of any party, their is no party's line and less strategic vote. Then this mean if the government want to do something he have to convince the senate first.

And something would be great too is that the country, money, and budget should be regulate by the senate so if the party want to spend money on something then he need to ask the senate so this mean no hidden money for sponsorship and etc.. and this mean no more hidden surplus like the liberal always do.... we would know our finance budget from a balanced and impartial organisation.

I think we should do this to reduce the federal abusif power, for transparency and because the population doesn't trust the government anymore...

[redmos]

The Senate has been emasculated, to serve the immediate political interests of several Prime Ministers. It still can perform the third function fairly adequately but not the first two where its powers have been usurped by the Cabinet.

Election of Senators would serve no purpose other than to make them prisoners of Provincial parties and Premiers. Election would bring political motivation and paralysis to the Senate as a part of the legislative process and to the Commons when legislation is held up for no purpose other than some province does not like it.. ...

The Senate has not been emasculated by the PMO or cabinet or anyone else. What has happened is that the political culture of Canada has changed since Confederation. People are unwilling to have an unelected body wield as much power as this one has. The Senators have realised this and ceased to challenge the Commons. Consquently, they don't do much anymore. While having an elected Senate would lead to gridlock and a diversity of opinion and some messy democracy, that should be an upside, rather than the overarching control of the PMO that we have now.

I also fail to see how an elected Senate (and I do mean directly elected by the same people who are voting for MPs, not by legislatures) would place any more power in the hands of provincial parties and premiers at all. Suddenly you would have another body in Ottawa with its own political mandate, specifically one that's separate from that of the Cabinet as well as the premiers.

When Tip O'Neill said that all politics are local, he was referring to the American Senate not to any reality of poitical philosophy. He was talking of the need for Senators to address the narrow interests of their constituency; not to region or nation.

Yes, and the idea here is that we should have one body that represents the opinion of the nation, which would be in this proposal the Commons, and one to represent local/provincial/regional issues, the Senate. The current system, not that it's disadvantageous to me, has been set up so that anyone who can pander to the whims of Ontario can form a national government without opposition.

It's possible that the legislative oversight that I'm looking for - ie. real debate - could be achieved simply by adopting some form of pr in the Commons, but again there is the possibility that elections would only come down to attracting votes in the largest segments of society and igoring the rest.

The Senate certainly needs reform but it needs some of its powers to be restored and it needs a less political appointment method.

I disagree. The fundamental problem with the Senate is its lack of democratic accountability. As much as I like the idea that we should have a body that is more insulated against the political "thought of the day", the problem is that any body that won't react to said thought is going to be seen as unresponsive, not stable. Until recently (and possibly still, I don't know), Conservatives had been trying to make government even more accountable through referenda and recall votes. The trend is towards more democracy, not less and any reform that doesn't reflect that ideal will fail.

I would like the Senate to be abolished.

And I thought Albertans were supposed to be out for more say in Ottawa. The idea behind reforming the Senate is that it's supposed to give the west a stronger say. But then that's why I ask these questions. I haven't been out of Ontario in a while, and never west of here.

And as for Bakunin, I generally agree with you. More or less on all of it.

[Guest eureka]

How is the Senate not emasculated if the PMO has "overarching control." It has been stacked, mostly since the days of King, and threatened with abolition if it should not meekly follow the Commons line. Its powers, never great, have dwindled away to a delaying ability for certain legislation. Its chief function now, and a very valuable one, lies in its committees. There, it does work that the House does not have time for.

The political culture has not changed and the idea of lack of accountability - a meaningless buzzword - and the mistaken idea that election would lead to greater democracy, is simply the sloganeering of the Provincialists. As with the Judiciary, it is far more important to have a membership of the Senate that is beholden to no party or political jurisdiction. Only that way can it be the check on the Commons that it must be and that every democratic system must have; again, that is analogous to the role of the Judiciary.

Direct elections, as Alberta with its "elected" senators clearly shows, would create a body of people with the same agendas as the individual provinces and, since the parties are a reflection of the Premiers - or vice versa - Senators who are puppets of the Premiers and Provincial parties.

It would certainly be a Senate with its own mandate, separate from the Cabinet but not one that is separate from the Premiers.

The belief that "anyone who can pander to the whims of Ontario can form a national government without opposition does not stand up to scrutiny or analysis. Ontario has rarely been the power base of government. Before Chretien, not since Bennett has it had a controlling bloc of members. Ontario, too, has almost always been divided in its representation. In fact, it may produce the only representation that is truly diverse and reflective of all Canada since the other large provinces have, for a long time now, sent xenophobes or narrow provincialists to Ottawa often.

The Senate, in a Parliamentary system is there to represent not Provincial interests, which, unfortunately, are only too well protected in the most decentralized nation in the world, but to raise regional interests that also fit into the National interest. We don't need the corruption of the American system.

PR is an issue that is entirely separate from this so I will not comment on that at this time. We can do it elsewhere,though.

The Senate in its proper construction is entirely "democratically accountable." It is accountable to the elected body whose will it cannot thwart. It can only delay and advise. As I said, "accountability", as trumpeted today, is merely sloganeering. It is the emotive call of those who would make our democracy accountable only to their narrow vision of Canada.

The Conservatives have not been trying to make government more "accountable" through referenda and recall votes. Those again are ideas that would make the people subject to manipulation and money. They are anti-democratic initiatives as has been well demonstrated in the US for any who care to look at the sources of these and the consequences. The Conservatives have assumed the role, since Diefenbaker - for all his faults a Canadian - of dividers in Canada and of the rweduction of a Central Government to a position of near impotence in the life of the nation. They have striven, not for diversity but for provincial exclusiveness and national weakness.

The Senate is balanced now in terms of regional representation. It needs no tinkering with that. It needs only an appointment method that reduces its dependence on the Prime Minister of the day and, most importantly, it needs to be completely free of provincialism and provincial control. Leave the premiers to the role that the Constitutionoriginally assigned to them. That is of small fish in small ponds.

our major problem is that the Constitution has been misinterpreted to make the Premiers Big fish trapped in small ponds and they want to draw of more water from the fountain of real democracy.

[Cartman]

QUOTE (Cartman @ Nov 24 2004, 02:01 PM)

I would like the Senate to be abolished.

And I thought Albertans were supposed to be out for more say in Ottawa. The idea behind reforming the Senate is that it's supposed to give the west a stronger say. But then that's why I ask these questions. I haven't been out of Ontario in a while, and never west of here.

Sorry I missed the homogenous Alberta meeting.

[caesar]

The senate should not be just a rewards ground for the Prime minister's friends. We need more than senate reform. I would like to see a more powerful federal government but AI would like some of the power removed from the Prime Minister. There is too much power in that office.