Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[SeaKingTacco]

Another problem with PR-

Sure going with PR would get marginal parties, like the Greens some seats in our Parliament.  What people seem to forget is that it could also elect parties like (just making this up)- The Anti-abortion Party of Canada or the New Nazi Party of Canada or even the Anti-Immigration Party Of Canada.  In other words, single issue, not very nice parties that are currently held onto the sidelines because they cannot get a critacl mass in any one place.  In PR, these little guys can end up holding the balance of power and extracting some nasty concessions to get it.

Our current system may not be perfect, but it is not bad. It forces compromise and washes out some of the more radical ideas (witness the morphing of the Reform into the Conservatives). It could probably be improved safer and easier with an elected senate, based regionally or provincially that would act as a check/balance to Parliament.

 

[McG]

Sure going with PR would get marginal parties, like the Greens some seats in our Parliament.  What people seem to forget is that it could also elect parties like (just making this up)- The Anti-abortion Party of Canada or the New Nazi Party of Canada or even the Anti-Immigration Party Of Canada. 

This might come true if we are talking about national proportional representation.  However, the risk can be reduced through multi-member constituencies.

 

[McG]

PM demands Senate reform, 'not a report'
07/09/2006 5:07:59 PM 
CTV.ca News Staff

Harper wants new appointees limited to terms of eight years. Senators currently sit for as many as 45 years before being compelled to retire at 75.

The reform would eliminate Canadians' ability to refer to senators as "lifers," Harper told the Senate committee.

"The government is not looking for another report, we are seeking action," he said.

While the proposed reform calls for limiting senators' terms to eight years, the government is flexible and would consider six or even nine years, as some have proposed, Harper said -- as long as there is a limit.

"We are seeking limited, fixed terms of office," he said.

Canada needs an upper house with democratic legitimacy, the prime minister said.

Harper said it's become a convention for politicians to promise Senate reform during elections, but to date no one has followed through once elected.

"This has to end, because the Senate must change. "We will be the authors of that change," he vowed.

Liberal strategists suspect the prime minister's move is meant to be a warning to the Liberal-dominated Senate that Harper won't tolerate any attempt by unelected senators to derail legislation on issues he feels strongly for. That includes his Federal Accountability Act.

The act, aimed at cleaning up government in the wake of the Liberal-era sponsorship scandal, is currently under study by the Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee.

On Tuesday, Liberals on the committee blocked a Conservative effort to conclude hearings by Sept. 26.

Liberal senators are insisting the act needs significant revisions, an insistence that could lead to an impasse by the Harper government that would only be broken by an election.

Tory strategists, however, predict Liberals will back down rather than risk declining popularity in another election because the sponsorship scandal is still fresh on the minds of voters.

Liberal senators will also test the Senate reform, as some suggest the proposal is unconstitutional and should be heard before the Supreme Court of Canada first.

The government insists its proposal requires only the approval of both houses of Parliament, but Liberal Senator Jack Austin suggested a constitutional amendment with provincial consent would be needed.

Seeking to head off that argument, the prime minister reminded the Senate committee that the 1984 Molgat Cosgrove report on Senate reform made a similar recommendation regarding term length, and "confirmed that such a change was achievable without using the general constitutional amending formula."

Harper's appearance before the committee was the first of a sitting prime minister.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20060906%2fharper_senate_060906&showbyline=True

 

[McG]

Ontario: the first to whine for more power in the Senate.

Abolish Senate or give us more seats, says Ont.
Updated Wed. Sep. 20 2006 11:24 AM ET
Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Ontario wants Ottawa to abolish the Senate or give the province more seats in any plans to reform the upper chamber.

The Ontario government will present its official position to a federal Senate committee tomorrow.

Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Marie Bountrogianni says there are other more pressing concerns facing the federal government, like education and infrastructure.

But she says if the prime minister is determined to reform the Senate, the province thinks the upper chamber should either be scrapped or Ontario given a larger percentage of the total seats.

Since Ontario has 40 per cent of the country's population, Bountrogianni says the province should have more than 23 per cent of the senate seats.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said his government is working on a plan to elect senators but a Queen's Park source has told the Toronto Star that Harper would be reaching beyond his powers if he goes ahead without approval from the provinces.

 

[Infanteer]

What are these guys fumer-ing?  Give Ontario more seats?  They should have less.  The Senate shouldn't be a representation of population; that's what we have the House of Commons for.

 

[Kirkhill]

Les lecons are commencing to pay off are les?  ;D

You've got to know that Ontario knows a good thing when it sees it.  They're not going to give up their seat at the trough without a fight.

The only solution to the 7-50 formula (7 provinces & 50% of the population) is for all you young Westerners to have more kids.

Get at it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Someone remind Ontario that they already have rep-by-pop in the House of Commons.  They seem to have forgotten.

 

[GAP]

The senate should be elected and each province should have an equal amount of seats. (Does that mean PEI has 24 senators twiddling their multiple thumbs?)

Each province should also have an equal number of seats in the Commons. Then the issues get resolved geographically rather than thru population density.

 

[Kirkhill]

I wonder what would happen if Harper were just to say that he will accept as nominees those that the provinces put forwards.  Those provinces that choose to elect their senators could then go ahead.  Those opposed could either not appoint a senator or else explain to their provinces why other provinces do get to choose their representatives.

If they choose not to participate and offer nominations then the elected senators will have the floor to themselves.

 

[Edward Campbell]

As I read the Constitution (  http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#legislative ) (§21/36, §23 and §32 being all important) the Governor in Council (the PM, really) operates with nearly complete discretion; (s)he can appoint as many (up to the limits described in §22 and  §26/28) or as few senators as (s)he wishes.  I can see (and I checked Forsey a couple of years back) no restrictions on how the PM selects or fails to select.

If Harper decides that he will appoint only elected senators then the provinces have two choices (after the obligatory court challenges): elect senators or go unrepresented.  The former leads, inevitably, to an elected and effective Senate, the latter to abolition.

I repeat (see my comments from 18 months ago ff) that a federal state needs a bicameral legislature so abolition is the wrong answer.

 

[Old Guy]

So, if Canada had a Senate with two senators from each province, and a Commons with each province represented according to population, what does that do to the existing balance of power within the Federal government?  Your current arrangement guarantees a concentration of power.  A Senate set up as suggested would contribute to a separation of powers, like the US.  Allowing each province to determine how their senators are selected is a good idea, by the way.  That's how it started in the US.  State legislatures appointed senators for a long time before we turned to direct election of the Senate.

If the PM is a member of the majority party in the Commons and the Senate happens to have an opposite majority, either of a single opposing party or a coalition, doesn't that cause a separation in power structure?  I'm not sure it would make any difference, but it's worth considering.

Based on what I've seen of Canadian politics, an upper house is needed to offset the smothering effect the populous provinces have on national politics.  If an upper house is elected via proportional representation and/or according to population, the end result will be a further fracturing of east from west and probably along other lines I don't understand from where I sit.

James Madison, one of the prime movers behind the US Constitution, was convinced that the various branches of government had to be separate and that they would naturally serve different constituencies.  He felt that the natural result of such separation was that the branches would tend to collide.  In those collisions lay the safety of the people from their own government.  The necessity for compromise in such a situation tends to smooth out the truly radical initiatives and provide the most inclusiveness for any decision.  In practice, it's messy, but it works.  Mostly.  The Founding Fathers thought a lot about how dangerous a government could be to its own people and took stringent steps to limit that power.  Efficiency is not the name of the game in government, no matter what moron insists that it is.  Hitler created a fairly efficient bureaucracy.  They efficiently slaughtered millions in death camps and saw to the deaths of millions more from battle, starvations, and disease. 

Just thinking out loud. 

jim

jim 

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is from today’s (13 Dec 06) Ottawa Citizen; it is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=32f730ac-e1cf-49a3-bff9-8321db4df5f0&k=57929

Harper may consult electors on their Senate preferences

Tim Naumetz, CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, December 13, 2006

OTTAWA - The Conservative government has served notice it plans to bring in a bill to clear an impasse with key provinces over an elected Senate by consulting voters directly.

The surprise legislation, which could be tabled as early as today under House of Commons rules, would call on Elections Canada to poll electors to find their ``preferences'' among candidates for Senate vacancies.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's plan surfaced in a brief notice the government placed on the House order paper saying it intends to introduce: ``An act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate.''

Media aides to Harper and Government House Leader Rob Nicholson declined to comment on the legislation before it is tabled, and opposition parties were taken by surprise.

But the Ottawa Citizen has learned the bill proposes to establish a procedure where Elections Canada, which has the legal authority to conduct a federal referendum as well as federal elections, would conduct a form of plebiscite, likely only within provinces that have Senate vacancies.

The results would be presented as information to a prime minister to consider when filling a vacancy.

The consultation could not be legally binding on Harper or subsequent prime ministers because the Constitution stipulates only the Queen, on the advice of cabinet, can name people to the Senate. Unlike all other government appointments, where the Governor General's approval is enough, Senate appointments continue to receive direct approval from the Queen.

The government motion includes a recommendation to the House of Commons from Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean Jean to provide funding for the unprecedented ``consultations'' with electors.

Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale was unaware of the government's plan, saying ``they haven't talked about it.''

NDP Leader Jack Layton said he was unaware of the proposal, but reiterated the NDP position that the Senate should be abolished.

Harper's original plan to convince provincial governments to help find Senate candidates through their own electoral agencies has faltered.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty have objected, with McGuinty saying the Senate should be either abolished or reformed.

Alberta is the only province that has held elections to nominate candidates for Senate vacancies.

A total of 10 Senate seats are currently vacant _ three in Nova Scotia, two in each of Quebec and Ontario and one in each of Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.

Ottawa Citizen​

If consulted in any direct, meaningful way I will reiterate my position:

• No change, for now, to the equality of Senate representation – that would require reopening the Constitution, a prospect which, while welcome to me, personally, ought not to be on the agenda of level headed Canadian politicians;

• All currently serving senators to be invited to submit a letter of resignation to be effective on the date of the next (applicable) provincial general election; and

• Provinces to be advised that, in addition to respecting all the current senatorial qualifications, the PM will select only senators elected on a proportional basis during a provincial general election who, in advance, provide a letter of resignation to be effective on the date of the next provincial general election.

This would result in an elected Senate.  Imagine that, an elected legislature in Canada, in the 21st century!  Not overnight, of course: some serving senators would refuse to resign right away – but they would surely reconsider as soon as they (the (mostly Chrétien) appointees) were outnumbered and rendered toothless by the elected senators.  It took the US several years, starting just after the turn of the last century, to get from an appointed to a fully elected Senate.

The newly elected Senate would, soon, become effective, too – elected politicians tend to do that ort of thing.

This system would play havoc with the current caucusing system.  I did a very rough calculation over a year ago and I guesstimated that an elected (by my system) Senate of Canada, circa mid 2005, would look like this:

• Bloc Québecois – 8
• Conservatives – 30
• Green – 1
• Liberal - 40
• NDP – 18
• Other/Independent* - 8

Cleary the Liberals would be unable, on their own, to block government bills but the Liberals plus the NDP could form a majority coalition IF all the Liberals caucused together.  But, it is not clear to me that the BC Liberals, for example, would caucus with the federal Liberals.

My elected Senate becomes a ‘House of the Federation’ and, effectively, undercuts (but does not totally negate) the ongoing, interminable federal/provincial first ministers’ conferences.

Being, broadly, representative of provincial legislatures, the Senate (elected on my terms) could be expected to give the government-of-the-day real heartache on matters in which the federal government has intruded into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

--------
* Includes unaffiliated senators from the Territories (one each), one from Alberta and 4 (mostly Action Democratique) from Québec.

 

[warspite]

Well the bill has been tabled...
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/13/harper-senators.html

Dion calls bill "completely irresponsible"
Dion said changes to the Senate should address more pressing concerns.

He said the current system doesn't make sense because a province like Nova Scotia is represented by 10 senators, while a province like Alberta, with about five times the population, only has six senators.

"I think what the prime minister wants to do is completely, completely irresponsible," Dion said in French, speaking to reporters a few hours after Harper's caucus meeting.

"We would be electing senators with the current distribution and the current distribution does penalize provinces, particularly the western provinces."

Well I agree with Mr Dion. Lets go mess around with the constitution and redistribute the senate seats justly... and while we're at it lets redistribute the seats in Parliament too, more Parliament seats in the west... HOW WOULD YOU LIKE THAT MR DION?

 

[TCBF]

Parliamentary ridings are re-organized within ten years of the latest census.  Since Alberta/BC combined now have a greater population than Quebec, any forward thinking Eastern politician should be agreeing with the latest senate reform proposal, not fighting it.

 

[3rd Horseman]

I like the idea of Senate reform as proposed but I would not like the 8 year term. The full life of a Senator gives that person the ability to work according to best interrest since they don't need to be elected again or get the permission from the PM.

To ensure the fairness of representation we should have a change to the regional Senate representation with special interest at large positions to represent the first nations. I would suggest that the country have 6 regions based on the natural regional boundaries vice the current regions.

20 seats - Pacific - BC
20 seats - Western - Alberta/Manitoba/Sask
20 seats - Upper Canada - Ontario
20 seats - Lower Canada - Quebec
20 seats - Eastern - NB/NS/PEI/NF
3 seats - Northern - Yukon/NWT/Nunavut
2 seats - Indigenous peoples one from the west and one from the east

Just a thought. On that note hats already in the ring.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't mind the 8 year term, so long as it is a single term with no re-election.  I think that gets to the same place that you want to be - limiting the politicking.

 

[Infanteer]

He said the current system doesn't make sense because a province like Nova Scotia is represented by 10 senators, while a province like Alberta, with about five times the population, only has six senators.

The Senate need not be a body that represents population - we have the House of Commons to serve that purpose.  We don't need two houses doing the same thing.

As a regional body, the Senate is well constructed to counteract popular voice with regional voice (essential in large countries like Australia, Canada, or the US).  I would prefer a system like the Aussies or US, which assigns each state an equal amount of Senators.  Even the regional model (assigning equal Senators to each region) would be functional - we only need to retool the current regional model to one representative of the 21st century, as the current model is grounded in 19th century Canada with Upper and Lower Canada, the West, and the Maritimes.  Unfortunately, either of these distribution plans involve Constitutional amendment.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Having thought about it some more, I'm now unconvinced there needs to be any federal body that is rep-by-pop.  We just went through a lot of fuss over cultural ("nation") identities.  It's beyond dispute that there are distinct regions and peoples in Canada, each content to live life in different flavours.  It's unclear that there's any compelling reason for Toronto to have the power to make PEI live the way Torontonians like to live.  We'd be fine if each of the 10 provinces were represented equally in one federal house.

 

[Infanteer]

Having thought about it some more, I'm now unconvinced there needs to be any federal body that is rep-by-pop.  We just went through a lot of fuss over cultural ("nation") identities.  It's beyond dispute that there are distinct regions and peoples in Canada, each content to live life in different flavours.  It's unclear that there's any compelling reason for Toronto to have the power to make PEI live the way Torontonians like to live.  We'd be fine if each of the 10 provinces were represented equally in one federal house.

As a Canadian soldier, I'm not to sure I'm interested in moving to one of 10 different "nations" every few years and having to readjust.  Having some affinity from Vancouver to Halifax beyond a mere roundtable session in Ottawa is nice.

 

[TCBF]

"It's unclear that there's any compelling reason for Toronto to have the power to make PEI live the way Torontonians like to live.  We'd be fine if each of the 10 provinces were represented equally in one federal house."

- A sure recipe for civil war or the UDI of 'oppressed' majorities.  A bi-cameral system with one rep-by-pop and one regional rep works fine.  The devil will be in the details.