Harper to table bill on Senate reform

[rotary]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the government will introduce legislation today calling for plebiscites on the choice of Senate candidates.
Harper said the bill will bring in a new era in Canadian democracy and that it will make the Senate "more accountable, more credible and more democratic."

"For the first time it will let the prime minister give Canadians the decision on who represents them in the upper house," Harper said in a campaign-style address to his caucus on Wednesday morning.

The bill is entitled an act to provide for consultation with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate.

The legislation falls short of actually electing senators. But it will provide the prime minister with a gauge of public feeling in making appointments to the upper chamber.

His move would amount to essentially a referendum in the next general election. There are 10 senate vacancies right now across the country, so under the proposed bill voters would be asked who they would like to see fill those spots in their provinces and territories.

"Elections Canada will oversee the vote," said Harper. "If need be we'll use a plurality voting system at first and then move to a preferential system of proportional representation."

Harper has been pushing for reform of the 105-seat Senate for years. But a complete overhaul of Senate powers and way in which its members are appointed would require a constitutional amendment.

Neither the governor general nor future prime ministers would be bound to the proposed bill since it has no bearing on the constitution.

The big question is whether the bill will pass. Harper already has legislation in the works to limit Senators' terms to eight years, but like many other government bills, it's still stuck in Senate.

Harper noted that the bill was being introduced the day after the government's Federal Accountability Act received royal assent. But he acknowledged getting this bill through won't be easy, saying the Liberals like the senate "just the way it is."

"A democratically elected and democratic Senate may not serve the interests of the Liberal party, but it will serve the Canadian people, and their interests come first to this government," he said.

"Just as the Liberals opposed the accountability act, the federal budget, the GST cut, child-care allowance, softwood lumber deal, the tax fairness plan -- do you see a theme here?"

"I don't expect them to embrace senate elections without a fight."

CTV news

I think this is long overdue. Apparently Martin was in favour of an elected senate as well, but he said it needed to be reformed before proceeding because some smaller provinces have more senators than more populated ones.

 

[Homoaffectional]

CTV news

I think this is long overdue.

I disagree and think it should stay the way it is for now. Frankly, this seems like yet another Harper power grab.

 

[rotary]

I disagree and think it should stay the way it is for now. Frankly, this seems like yet another Harper power grab.

Why should our senate be hand picked by the Prime Minister? That's too much responsibility for one single person.

 

[screwnutty]

Well no offense to our American friends but this seems like yet another step to turn Canada into following the United States way of doing things. I can see the benefits of choosing our senators yet here in Canada, It's been said many times that we don't vote in Governments....we vote out Governments. The same could happen to the Senate.

 

[jp1000]

hmm... if Harper is going to table such a bill, he should go all the way and have the senate elected, not have essentially an opinon poll - having plebiscites every time a new senator is nominated is a waste of money since plebiscites aren't binding!!

 

[MizuRyuu]

while i don't think the senate should be handpicked by the prime minsters, i really don't think it should be up for election.... the whole point of the second chamber is for sober second thoughts.... where the senators won't be pressure to do what is "right" to the public for reelection......

i personally would prefer if an all-parties committee select the senators.... this would ensure a fairly neutral political wise person who would probably be more qualified than what the public may pick.....

 

[Aaron]

I'm all for senate reform... it's discouraging that a Constitutional Amendment would be needed to really make some changes...

PS, rotary, you are totally cute.

 

[MizuRyuu]

well constitutional amendment is only required depending on what changes you want to make..... an actual full election would require an amendment.... thats why harper is trying to get around it by making the election to be a "recommendation" instead...

 

[VICTORIADON]

The legislation falls short of actually electing senators. But it will provide the prime minister with a gauge of public feeling in making appointments to the upper chamber.

======================================
​

This is just Harper blowing smoke up our asses...again.​

 

[Homoaffectional]

PS, rotary, you are totally cute.

Thanks for saying what the rest of us have been thinking for some time now.

 

[MizuRyuu]

thats only because he knows that to actually elect senator, he need to go through constitutional changes.... and we all know that attempts at constitutional changes had never do well to the popularity of prime ministers....

 

[wastingmymind]

At first it sounds good, but then it also means a powerful Alberta and issues like the environment and alleviating poverty get ignored because of this "reform." I'm stuck.

 

[The_Reaper]

I'm mostly in favour of how the Senate currently operates.

Essentially, the Senate is more of a sort of ceremonial position than anything else. It's rare that the Senate will vote against something the House of Commons has passed by a strong yea vote.

The problem with electing the Senate, is you're going to run into questions of:

1.) How many Senators should each province get? If we limit it to a set number for each province, how will that affect the working of the Senate?

If you have 2 Senators from each province and territory: That's 13 areas with 26 Senators. Which does give leeway for a potential tie should the numbers be split that way.

And if my memory how how the Speaker of the Senate works, he/she votes on all bills already, so who would get the deciding vote in the event of a tie?


2.) Think of the problem for political parties. The Liberals and the Conservatives would dominate the Senate. Since people know the NDP would never form a government, it would be foolish to vote in or suggest NDP candidates for Senators, as they would clash against party policy to the two most likely governments.

This would lead to the destruction of the check and balance, or "sober second thought" that the Senate is supposed to act as. Instead, it would become completely ideologized into party lines. As parties not likely to form the Government, would be almost non-existant within the Senate.


3.) Depending on how the reform occurs, if a set number came from each province, the Senate will either shrink or expand.

If the plan is by representation of population, this further complicates matters. Take for instance, the question of Quebec.

No doubt, the Bloc Quebecois would be running pro-seperatist canadidates for a fully elected Senate. And since the Bloc enjoys a majority of support in Quebec, they would become a powerful force in the Senate if elected.

This would grind the government again, as matters that are seen as detrimental to Quebec, or lacking in benefits for Quebec, would be seen as a reason to vote against. Which in turn, would force the government in power to ensure a sense of patronage towards Quebec in order to ensure their support in the Senate.


4.) Regionalism at it's finest would occur. Not only would Quebec, mostly the Bloc and Parti Quebecois, would push for strong pro-Quebec voices in the Senate...But other provinces, Alberta comes to mind, would do the same.

A potential opposite to the problem posed in point 1, could be the formation of provinically based parties. Imagine the Saskatchewan Party expanding on a Federal level to the Senate.

It would not be hard to imagine only a few seats going to established political parties, and the rest going to provinically based parties.

Suddenly, you have all 10 provinces and 3 territories clamouring for bills in the House of Commons to have something for their represented territory, in exchange for their support of the bill.

And since you couldn't please them all, larger areas [Like Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta] would be the ones pleased the most often, while the other provinces are snubbed out because their support isn't needed.

Does anyone else remember the old Western Seperation Party? This sort of shenannigans would probably bring them back in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and probably push a similiar movement in the Maritimes.


In the long run, a fully elected Senate would never work in Canada due to our divide loyalies:

National loyalies run a back seat to Provincial ones.

Ask a Canadian where they come from, chances are they'll list their province first and then Canada if asked where that is.

Granted, there are certain exceptions to this like myself, I'm Canadian first and foremost.


Instead of pushing for an elected Senate, restricted Senate terms would be a better alternative. Restrict the terms of current Senators from anywhere between eight or ten years, at which point they are subject to review by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

This would allow not only the Prime Minister to have a say, but also allow outside voices in the form of the Cabinet to have input into whether or not a Senator is appointed.

A full House review is not advised, as political lines (especially in a minority), would be drawn.

The Liberals would want a Liberal, Conservatives a Conservative, the NDP a NDPer, and so forth....

You wouldn't find a good consensus within the House.

Well, I've rambled enough, so I shall stop here. And should further clarification be needed, I'll chime in again.

 

[atswimtwoboys]

If our chucklehead of a PM was so concerned about democracy, he might be more effective making our House of Commons more proportionately representative. As it is, a party that picked up a third of the seats in the last election, and whatever minority of the popular vote, gets to call the shots right now.

Of course, if Chucklehead was so keen on a truly representative Senate, maybe he shouldn't have named a Senator as one of his first actions as PM. Oh, never mind.

 

[MizuRyuu]

only thing i see good coming out of harper attempt to change the senate would be that BC might get more seats since it is severely underrepresented...

 

[Aaron]

I'm mostly in favour of how the Senate currently operates.

Essentially, the Senate is more of a sort of ceremonial position than anything else. It's rare that the Senate will vote against something the House of Commons has passed by a strong yea vote.

Rare, but not unheard of. In the 1990s the Senate rejected four seperate House of Commons bills. They also opposed a free trade bill and GST in the 1980s. Also, while the Senate doesn't often reject proposed legislation, it often makes small changes that are generally accepted by the House.

The problem with electing the Senate, is you're going to run into questions of:

1.) How many Senators should each province get? If we limit it to a set number for each province, how will that affect the working of the Senate?

If you have 2 Senators from each province and territory: That's 13 areas with 26 Senators. Which does give leeway for a potential tie should the numbers be split that way.

And if my memory how how the Speaker of the Senate works, he/she votes on all bills already, so who would get the deciding vote in the event of a tie?

I would assume that if the Senate were elected, it would change to work the same way the House of Commons does in that respect.

2.) Think of the problem for political parties. The Liberals and the Conservatives would dominate the Senate. Since people know the NDP would never form a government, it would be foolish to vote in or suggest NDP candidates for Senators, as they would clash against party policy to the two most likely governments.

This would lead to the destruction of the check and balance, or "sober second thought" that the Senate is supposed to act as. Instead, it would become completely ideologized into party lines. As parties not likely to form the Government, would be almost non-existant within the Senate.

I would hope that if we moved to an elected Senate, we would use some sort of proportional representation. Australia, for example, uses Single Transferable Vote (which, while it isn't proportional in terms of parties, it seeks to elect representatives according to popular electoral support). This would ensure a variety of perspectives in the Upper House.

3.) Depending on how the reform occurs, if a set number came from each province, the Senate will either shrink or expand.

If the plan is by representation of population, this further complicates matters. Take for instance, the question of Quebec.

No doubt, the Bloc Quebecois would be running pro-seperatist canadidates for a fully elected Senate. And since the Bloc enjoys a majority of support in Quebec, they would become a powerful force in the Senate if elected.

This would grind the government again, as matters that are seen as detrimental to Quebec, or lacking in benefits for Quebec, would be seen as a reason to vote against. Which in turn, would force the government in power to ensure a sense of patronage towards Quebec in order to ensure their support in the Senate.

As I understand it, the Senate is not supposed to be represented by population. While the original purpose of the upper house in a bicameral system may have been to protect the interests of the upper class, it has changed to protect the interests of underpopulated regions. Take the United States for example. While the states have different amounts of seats in the House if Representatives, each state has two seats in the Senate. This means that, regardless of geographical size or population, each state has, in some way, an equal standing to the others in government. The senate provides a regional check on a popular system.

Instead of pushing for an elected Senate, restricted Senate terms would be a better alternative. Restrict the terms of current Senators from anywhere between eight or ten years, at which point they are subject to review by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

I don't see an advantage to that. That would only make it easier for the Cabinet to replace Senators aligned with opposition parties ore easily. Typically, about 90% of the Senators appointed by the PM are aligned with the governing party. A shorter term won't change that.

 

[The_Reaper]

Rare, but not unheard of. In the 1990s the Senate rejected four seperate House of Commons bills. They also opposed a free trade bill and GST in the 1980s. Also, while the Senate doesn't often reject proposed legislation, it often makes small changes that are generally accepted by the House.

Granted, but remember the Senate is supposed to act in favour of making sure the legislation is acceptable.

Look at the Accountability Act, it took time for the Senate to sort out the mess that it was when the House passed it and send it back with some suggested ammendments to make the thing work better.

If the Conservatives had it their way, the flawed first version would be the one we'd be stuck with.

They also had a lot of the ammendments shot down by Harper and his government.

As I understand it, the Senate is not supposed to be represented by population. While the original purpose of the upper house in a bicameral system may have been to protect the interests of the upper class, it has changed to protect the interests of underpopulated regions. Take the United States for example. While the states have different amounts of seats in the House if Representatives, each state has two seats in the Senate. This means that, regardless of geographical size or population, each state has, in some way, an equal standing to the others in government. The senate provides a regional check on a popular system.

The problem with this is 50 states: 50 X 2 = 100 Senators, which isn't bad.

But in Canada, 13 X 2 = 26.

We'd go from a Senate with 105 members, down to 26 if we adopted the two from each province and territory method.

And with provincial loyalities as they are, this would most likely be the out come: (Using rough election outcomes from the last 2 elections)

BC: 1 Liberal, 1 Conservative
Alberta: 2 Conservatives
Saskatchewan: 2 Conservatives, possibly 1 Liberal and 1 Conservative
Manitoba: 2 Conservatives
Ontario: 2 Liberals
Quebec: 2 Bloc, if allowed to run Senators, if not: 2 Liberals
Nova Scotia: 1 Liberal, 1 Conservative
New Brunswick: 1 Liberal, 1 Conservative
Newfoundland: 2 Liberals
Prince Edward Island: 2 Liberals
Nunavut: 2 Liberals
Northwest Territories: 1 Liberal, 1 NDP
Yukon: 1 Liberal, 1 NDP

Best Case Scenario Final: 16 Liberals, 8 Conservatives, 2 NDP
Worst Case: 9 Liberals, 8 Conservatives, 2 Bloc, 2 NDP

Judging by the election results, the Liberals would still have a majority of the seats in this system if results in Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and the Territories continue for them.

The problem, and I've said it before, about elected Senators is the potential for provincial political parties become Senate statures.

A "from __________" party would stand a better chance of electoral success, as they would be provinicially or territorial placed.

The current parties would only be able to run on the issue of a strong government process if their party was elected in both chambers.

So the Senate could become flooded by political provinical parties who are their only to ensure their province's best interest. And from there, comes the appeasement to get the votes the government needs to get a bill through the Senate.

While the Senate now rarely sends back legislation, or flat out rejects it, it would become come place in this kind of system.

I don't see an advantage to that. That would only make it easier for the Cabinet to replace Senators aligned with opposition parties ore easily. Typically, about 90% of the Senators appointed by the PM are aligned with the governing party. A shorter term won't change that.

I'll admit, Senate Reform is not one of my stronger political views...As I've said I agree mostly with how the Senate currently functions.

But making voters write down names of Senators when they go to the polls, as suggestion for Senate is just as silly...Considering it wouldn't be binding and ultimately would prove useless. But we can' t have a flat out directly elected Senate either, as regional loyalities would prevent the damned thing from working at all.

 

[MizuRyuu]

aaron: you said that the current "senate provides a regional check on a popular system." but the problem with our senate is that small provinces are given too large of a voice.... i am fine with them being provided equal voice, but not when they are given too much... especially when other provinces have too little voice....

 

[Aaron]

Aah, yes. I should have said 'in theory'. The Senate won't even come close to being an effective regional check until each province has equal represenation within the Upper House.

 

[The_Reaper]

^Which will never occur.

Quebec will piss and moan about having the same seats as some of the smaller provinces, so will Alberta and Ontario.

Then you'll get the complaints from the people:

"It's not democratic, because it's not represented by population."

Which makes it that much harder for people to get a voice as to which Senator is elected.

In my old riding back in Saskatchewan, only 4,000 and some votes were "wasted" because the Conservative Candidate was re-elected.

Imagine the situation, and the shitstorm that will arise, when 100,000+ votes are "wasted" in Ontario or Quebec because their candidate wasn't elected.

Just dolling out 2 - 4 seats per province isn't going to work.

The smaller provinces won't complain, I know Saskatchewan wouldn't, but the larger provinces would resist this type of change. And Harper, with his dreams of a majority, will never do anything to risk pissing off the larger provinces.