Canadian Senate Reform

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC
Is true Senate reform on its way ( Jan 2010 )?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper may only have a minority in the House of Commons but he'll soon have a majority in the Senate, a change that could hasten Conservative plans for Senate reform.

Harper is expected to appoint five new Senators next month, said Senator Marjory LeBreton, the Conservative leader of the government in the Senate and one of Harper's close advisers.

"We're committed to Senate reform and so is the prime minister," Lebreton said during an interview in her Parliament Hill office Friday. "But (Harper) has also made the point that we couldn't continue on as a government having our whole agenda and all of our policies driven by a group of unelected people from two governments ago!"

It will be the first time since Brian Mulroney was prime minister that the Liberals will not be the leading party in the Senate.

"We're clearly in a transition phase and that will change the dynamics in the chamber," said Senator James Cowan, who leads the Liberals in the upper house. "In a way, it will take some of the uncertainty out of the situation because they will clearly have the majority in the chamber and they will be expected to win all the votes, just as we were expected to win all the votes."

The Conservatives -- and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson in particular -- are fond of blaming the so-called unelected, unaccountable Liberal-dominated Senate for "gutting" bills that have made it out of the House of Commons. But come next month, they won't have that bogeyman to kick around any more.

"It will be the unelected, unaccountable Conservative-dominated Senate and the expectations, particularly beyond Mr. Harper's office, will be that all he has to do is snap his fingers and the unelected, unaccountable majority in the Senate will do what he says when he wants it done," Cowan said with a wry smile. "Well, that isn't going to happen."

Cowan said he believes most senators, be they Liberal or Conservative, subscribe to the idea that their role is to provide advice back to the House of Commons on any piece of legislation. And he expects that, despite the soon-to-be new numbers in the Senate which favour the government, the Senate will continue to provide its own input on government legislation.

"That's the history of this place and I think it will continue," said Cowan.

There are three Senate vacancies now and there will be two more by the first week of January.

Liberal Senator Lorna Milne is set to retire Sunday upon reaching her 75th birthday and Liberal Senator Jerry Grafstein will do the same when he turns 75 on Jan. 2.

When those two senators retire, the Liberals will be down to 49 senators, compared to 46 Conservatives. Harper, though, would almost certainly fill the five vacancies that will exist after Grafstein's retirement with Conservatives, giving the Tories a 51-49 edge over the Liberals.

(One Liberal senator, Raymond Lavigne, is currently suspended from the Liberal caucus while he faces a fraud trial so, technically, the Liberals would have just 48 votes to count on.)

Harper has already appointed 29 senators and the next batch will boost his total to 34, still a long way from the 75 senators Jean Chretien appointed or the 103 senators William Lyon Mackenzie King appointed. That said, Harper once swore he would appoint no senators until a system was in place to elect them.

"So we have to fill the Senate vacancies in order to implement the agenda that we were elected to implement," LeBreton said.

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Tories+majority/2332622/story.html

Senate of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Beekeeper

New Member
Dec 10, 2009
16
0
1
The way the Senate is presently set up elected or not can only be cured by abolition. PEI with a pop slightly less than Richmond has six Senators, New Brunswick with a pop of aprox 700,000 has 8. B.C. with a pop well over 4 million has 8. I dont believe those numbers can be rectified without a constitutional amendment. Which would require agreement by every province.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Senate Reform was a scam cooked up by Harper to fire up the Conservative Party base, to energize his gullible but ardent followers, his acolytes. I don’t think he had the slightest intention of reforming the senate. Besides, any significant senate Reform will need constitutional amendment anyway.

Now, if Harper can find some way to make the Conservative majority in the senate permanent, he will do it. That is the only kind of reform I can see Harper doing, if any.
 

Beekeeper

New Member
Dec 10, 2009
16
0
1
Certainly parliament can make the Senate elective. That wont change its make up. Those seats are allotted to each province and are imbedded in the constitution. I dont want a Senate where PEI can elect six members while B.C. has eight.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Certainly parliament can make the Senate elective. That wont change its make up. Those seats are allotted to each province and are imbedded in the constitution. I dont want a Senate where PEI can elect six members while B.C. has eight.

I think that will require a constitutional amendment, Beekeeper.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
An Elected Senate? Serious Mistake.

The Honourable the Senate of Canada, as an appointed body, performs functions that complement the democratically-elected House of Commons. Honourable senators comprehensively review legislation and launch thorough studies, in a depth that an elected chamber does not have the time nor the resources to dedicate. Honourable senators also give Canadians the tremendous advantage of institutional memory, which ensures that we do not experience the ‘see-saw effect’ of rapid and uncontrolled change when transitioning between governments.

The Senate has powers entirely equal to those of the House of Commons, with one exception: The Senate cannot initiate money bills, or amend bills such that they would increase an appropriation or substantively alter an appropriation. As the Senate is unelected, however, it very rarely exercises its powers to oppose the democratic will of the House of Commons except under very unique circumstances (for example, when Her Majesty’s Government for Canada in the Senate attempted to defeat its own prime minister’s Goods and Services Tax). Were the Senate to become an elected chamber, it would habitually flex its democratic weight and regularly defeat Government legislation (the Senate even has the power to reject the Government’s budget, and would likely do so, on occasion, under an elected mandate).

There are countless constitutional crises that could happen as a result of an elected Senate, including the Government being unable to access its funds when the Senate repeatedly defeats a budget, with no mechanism available to appropriate emergency monies. Now, of course, the fact remains that notwithstanding the Government’s current position, the reforms that have been proposed would change the fundamental characteristics of the Senate and, therefore, would require the approval of the Senate, Commons, and seven of the Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces representing at least one-half of the population, with each of the individual provinces of Ontario, Québec and British Columbia holding absolute vetoes over Senate reform.

Yes, the Senate is appointed, rather than elected — and this ensures that we benefit from the more thorough and comprehensive reviews of an appointed body, while vesting the majority of decision-making in our elected House of Commons representatives. Anyone who believes that major legislative policy decisions are decided by the Senate without the participation of the Commons obviously does not properly understand our parliamentary system. Our Senate performs the function that the constitution intended the Upper House to perform, and we should not tinker with the advantages that it gives us.
 

Beekeeper

New Member
Dec 10, 2009
16
0
1
Wrong! The formula you quote [ I believe it was called the Vancouver formula] was over ridden by Cretien. To change the constitution now requires the consent of every province. The federal govt is legally required to use its veto to uphold that of any objecting province.
 

Beekeeper

New Member
Dec 10, 2009
16
0
1
The legislation made law by Cretien requires the federal govt to use its veto for any province objecting. Under the formula for changing the constitution the federal govt also has a veto. Harper could of course repeal Cretiens legislation previous to legislating an elective senate. My fear is that he wont. I would agree to an elected Senate if it were elected by proportional rep.
 

countryboy

Traditionally Progressive
Nov 30, 2009
3,686
39
48
BC
Senate Reform was a scam cooked up by Harper to fire up the Conservative Party base, to energize his gullible but ardent followers, his acolytes. I don’t think he had the slightest intention of reforming the senate. Besides, any significant senate Reform will need constitutional amendment anyway.

Now, if Harper can find some way to make the Conservative majority in the senate permanent, he will do it. That is the only kind of reform I can see Harper doing, if any.

...and it's that kind of extreme attitude that builds incredible splits in this country. Spending all one's time finding fault with "the other side" is a strength, carried to an extreme, which becomes a weakness.

It seems that the typical Canadian's vision becomes so clouded with partisan thinking that important issues (for the common good) get swept away by many who have trouble being objective and controlling their emotions. They make it worse by attaching silly and insulting labels to their "opponents", which is how a misbehaving child might act.

An ability to see the other side's point of view is becoming a rarity these days, and it's a negative thing for the country, in my view.

The old and supposedly outdated expression "Many hands make light work" still has meaning to me. So does "teamwork." After all, we are all on the same team - Canada.

Lastly, and on topic, I think an elected Senate would be a great thing for Canada...my Grade 9 class (back in the dinosaur days!) got together and wrote a paper (class project) on it. Wish I still had a copy. Our teacher was a great guy for bringing out the best thinking, and he encouraged us to "stay on track" and think objectively about how it could be set up to benefit the entire country. Nice piece of work, it was.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
What I see wrong with the senate as it is is that it is populated by rich, fat, old asses that have not an inkling of a clue what life is like for Charlie Regular Canuck. Same with the other half of gov't.
We are represented by population proportion now, sort of, and if there was any change, I'd prefer a regional representation to counterbalance the population thing. Why? Because Stanley Salmonfisher in BC has bugger all in common with Peter Prairiefarmer and Iyaroak Inuit yet each has at least an equal say in each others business. IMO, that's just another epitomy of stupidity.

(Pompass's extreme prejudice is blatant for all to see in almost all his posts. We should be used to it by now. It's good to point out his mistakes, though. Otherwise noobs might actually think he knows everything about everything he has an opinion about. lol)
 

countryboy

Traditionally Progressive
Nov 30, 2009
3,686
39
48
BC
What I see wrong with the senate as it is is that it is populated by rich, fat, old asses that have not an inkling of a clue what life is like for Charlie Regular Canuck. Same with the other half of gov't.
We are represented by population proportion now, sort of, and if there was any change, I'd prefer a regional representation to counterbalance the population thing. Why? Because Stanley Salmonfisher in BC has bugger all in common with Peter Prairiefarmer and Iyaroak Inuit yet each has at least an equal say in each others business. IMO, that's just another epitomy of stupidity.

I'm with you AnnaG...I seem recall our high school paper recommended regional representation with an equal number of Senators from each area. I can't remember if we said "by province" or if we created new regions to overlay the provincial setup. At any rate, I think removing the population issue and using geography for elected Senators might go a long way toward addressing some of our "regional disparities."

How about 3 regions as one simple idea? Eastern (Atlantic provinces), Central (Quebec and Ontario, plus northern share of Territories), and Western 4 Western provinces plus northern share of Territories)? With perhaps around 10 Senators for each one? 30 senators should be able to get it done. I'm sure that proposal would stimulate some interesting discussion... :cool:
 

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC
All this sounds fantastic but one must remember that any Government must work within the framework of the Canadian Parliament System to make any changes to the Senate or House or Commons.

Hence to change the Senate it will require the change of the Canadian Constitution

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982

A document that I will remind you had the approval of 9 Provinces. The only province that did not sign this document was Quebec but still falls with the BNA Act of 1867.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
All this sounds fantastic but one must remember that any Government must work within the framework of the Canadian Parliament System to make any changes to the Senate or House or Commons.

Hence to change the Senate it will require the change of the Canadian Constitution

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982

A document that I will remind you had the approval of 9 Provinces. The only province that did not sign this document was Quebec but still falls with the BNA Act of 1867.
Nah. It just had the approval of the politicians in the 9 provinces. And what the rich, fat-assed politicians want and what Charlie Canuck wants aren't always the same thing. Charlie Canuck almost always has to swallow what those arrogant, clueless, fat asses want, though.
 

weaselwords

Electoral Member
Nov 10, 2009
518
4
18
salisbury's tavern
Why reform the senate, its worked since 1867, to have an elected senate is just a popularity contest, to have an "equal" senate won't change anything other than underrepresenting Quebes & continuing to overpresent the maritime (based on the US model) or if pop by there is no need for the senate as long as you got the commons, as far as efffective what we have now is not a rubber stamp for the commons a house for sober second thought & looks at whats best for Canada not just the "governing party".
 

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC
Why not, he superceded Bill C-16.

Bill C-16 is in place to Amend the Canada Election Act..

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Le...ang=E&ls=c16&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1


Canada's Election Act refers to Canada's House of Commons and not the Senate..

An Act respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other Acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments to other Acts

Canada Elections Act

The Senate, along with the basics of the House of Commons, are entrenched into the Constitution..

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Why reform the senate, its worked since 1867,
Well, as well as has the rest of gov't anyway, which isn't great.
to have an elected senate is just a popularity contest, to have an "equal" senate won't change anything other than underrepresenting Quebes & continuing to overpresent the maritime (based on the US model) or if pop by there is no need for the senate as long as you got the commons, as far as efffective what we have now is not a rubber stamp for the commons a house for sober second thought & looks at whats best for Canada not just the "governing party".
What's best for Canada means basically what's best for the people of Canada and politicians really don't have a clue about that very frequently.
 

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC
Why reform the senate, its worked since 1867, to have an elected senate is just a popularity contest, to have an "equal" senate won't change anything other than underrepresenting Quebes & continuing to overpresent the maritime (based on the US model) or if pop by there is no need for the senate as long as you got the commons, as far as efffective what we have now is not a rubber stamp for the commons a house for sober second thought & looks at whats best for Canada not just the "governing party".

Well that has been one view.. Why is any Senate Reform required?

If any is done it needs to be done properly.. I was reading about how if made Elected as is the Senate could be a big problem..

Simply because the Senate would hold up the House of Commons bills.. The Senate does not operate as the House of Commons does and changing it so that when ever a member retires it is replaced by a new "elected" member could be a problem if there is a deadlock in that chamber and we are waiting for a new member to get "elected" which could take months.

Also that Chamber does not Fall or end after 4-5 years, and could become a big problem with people who have "issues" and refuse to leave.. These issues could be legal, medical or personal..

There are many problems with tinkering with a system and not considering the overall consequences..