AnnaG. We are not represented by pop as far as the Senate is concerned. As I pointed out PEI with less pop than Richmond is almost equal to B.C. with over 4 million. I am afraid that will be made permanent. As far as rep by area as is the case in the U.S., simply not possible in this confounderation without changing the constitution. I can guarantee that PEI is not going to give up its six seats nor agree to B.C. aquiring a hundred to address the imbalance. I fully agree on the "fat asses". The best option is to abollish the useless thing entirely and save our taxes. As far as the "second look" theory is concerned, quoted by a poster above ,in my opinion that is straight out of Polyanna!
Canadian Senate Reform
- Thread starter Francis2004
- Start date
A senate amendment will require a constitutional change, and who in their right mind would open the constitutional debate. It should be pointed out that once you
open Pandora's box (the constitution) the provinces ie Quebec, front and centre
will be there with a shopping list of changes. Other Provincial governments will be
making demands as well. I say leave it alone until we has a slow year of two and
then just get rid of the red chamber, it is a waste of time elected or not.
I for one do not want a constitutional debate about anything right now.
open Pandora's box (the constitution) the provinces ie Quebec, front and centre
will be there with a shopping list of changes. Other Provincial governments will be
making demands as well. I say leave it alone until we has a slow year of two and
then just get rid of the red chamber, it is a waste of time elected or not.
I for one do not want a constitutional debate about anything right now.
Yup. There's also a bit of stupidity in leaving everything status quo when some things about it could obviously be improved upon.
The problem is once you open the constitution, you enter into a never ending debate
about all kinds of things and the senate reform issue would be well down the list as
both Ontario and Quebec, not to mention the Maritimes want things the way they are
to prevent the West from gaining anymore power. Its there but right now no one has
to talk about it. Constitutional issues would divide this country worse than ever before if we went there right now. Do not bring up the constitution in tough
economic times, it's really divisive and politically messy. As they say in politics
timing is everything
about all kinds of things and the senate reform issue would be well down the list as
both Ontario and Quebec, not to mention the Maritimes want things the way they are
to prevent the West from gaining anymore power. Its there but right now no one has
to talk about it. Constitutional issues would divide this country worse than ever before if we went there right now. Do not bring up the constitution in tough
economic times, it's really divisive and politically messy. As they say in politics
timing is everything
To abolish the Senate would require the opening of the constitution.. It would be the same process as modifying the Senate unfortunately..
Either is an adjustment of the present process no matter how you regard the issue..
It's BC's own fault, for being late to join the game we call Canada. The early bird catches the worm, as they say.
Good day SirJoseph, and that may very well be considered as one of Harpers pet projects amongst other potential wiled cards making his Secret Agenda complete.
Harper is not to be trusted with full political power.
To politically campaign during election telling people things he doesn’t believe in is fraud, like “we the Conservatives believe in small Government”, and this guy is stuffing the senate like a thanksgiving turkey with senators whose contribution to the people is far smaller than the wage they receive.
Why a journalist like Mike Duffy is worth $130.000 per year for contributing only in the propping up of the Government rather then protecting the people?
That is soooooooooooooooo partisan, that Harpers small campaigned Government has suddenly took a hypocritical turn.
Ye he deserves a Majority, Billions on operating debt $500.000Billion mark and counting on the federal debt oh my god how much more will it take to realize that Canada is at a fragile time because of bad leadership...........:angryfire:
Last edited:
Remember if Harper seriously wanted a majority in the senate he does have the ability to name up to 8 more senators over and above that number already designated. Harper could have a conservative majority in the senate today instead of making hay regarding the existing rules. Is it because the senate is such a hobby horse in Alberta.
That is exactly my attitude, weaselwords, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. There are people who would like to tinker around with Canadian polity willy nilly (just for the fun of it), whether it is abolishing the monarchy or reforming/abolishing the Senate. In my opinion, both institutions are working fairly well, leave well enough alone.
I am open to some kind of Senate reform, e.g. Senate could be elected. But there is a problem there. Currently Senate has fully as many powers as House does, but senate has chosen not to exercise those powers, mainly because it is not an elected body.
If Senate is elected, it is going to want to actively make use of those powers, introduce new legislation, reject the legislation approved by the House etc. It won’t be a chamber for sober second thought any more it will be coequal with the House. I am not sure how that would work out, it may just be one more layer of bureaucracy in the path of getting anything done.
Sorry countryboy, you may not like it, but that is exactly what all the talk of Senate reform was, a political ploy. What has Harper done about it in the past three years? Absolutely nothing. If he was serious about senate reform, he could have done a lot, acting on his own. PM has a lot of power in our country.
I did mention this a while ago, Harper could reform the Senate single-handedly, if he wants to (he just doesn’t want to). What Harper could do is to tell the Premiers of the provinces to have the provincial assemblies elect the senators, that he will appoint Senators only if they are elected by the provincial assemblies.
At a stroke of a pen, we will have an elected Senate. Sure, a future PM could reverse it, but then he will be picking a fight will all the Premiers, nobody likes to give up the power once they have achieved it. So a future PM will find it extremely difficult to snatch the power away from the Premiers, I don’t think he will even try. We will in effect have achieved elected Senate.
While this is not fully elected Senate, it comes close, and it can be done at the stroke of a pen by Harper.
But face it, Senate reform was a piecrust promise, easily broken, he never had any intention of reforming the Senate. This was on par with his promise to repeal gay marriage. He made the most half hearted attempt to repeal gay marriage and then gave up. Or similar to Chrétien’s promise to repeal the GST and renegotiate NAFTA, something to keep the rubes satisfied.
Gay marriage and Senate reform were the red meat issues thrown to his supporters, to energize them, nothing more. You have been had, my friend (I think you did mention that you are a Conservative) and you don’t even know it.
Quite so, damngrumpy. Senate reform is just a talk, an interesting subject to discuss, nothing more. I don’t’ think Harper has the slightest intention to reform the senate. And why should he, he is the PM now, he can appoint conservatives to the Senate, he doesn’t want to give that up. As I said in my previous post, nobody likes to give up power voluntarily.
As to constitutional debate, it is interesting that all the Harper acolytes who were claiming that Canada has more serious problems to worry about, we really should not look into whether Conservatives handed over prisoners to Afghan government to torture, the same crowd wants to open up the constitution and talk of Senate reform. Evidently Senate reform is important, but holding Conservatives accountable isn’t.
Oh, he will appoint Conservatives and will have Conservative majority in the Senate, weaselwords. It will be business a usual. He will however, keep talking about senate reform from time to time, just to keep the rubes happy. That is how a politician works.
That is true.. Harper could well have had the Majority in the senate a long time ago ( 1 year ) had he invoked the same part of the Constitution to grant him the additional Senators.. But then again he would not have had anyone to blame for failed legislation but his own party..
However I do not blame him ( Harper ) and when the Senate will be Conservative, if and when the Liberals regain power, they will probably do the same, unless push comes to shove as it did for Mulroney.. It really is an Ace in Hand you need not use..
Francis, are you referring to when Mulroney appointed seven extra Senators to get the GST passed? I thought that was a one time deal only, I didn’t think PM has the recurring power to appoint additional Senators whenever he wants.
I think that was a one time deal, I don’t think it can be repeated. I remember Mulroney had to get Queen’s approval to appoint the Senators. It was an obscure provision in BNA, which let the PM appoint seven extra Senators, once only. I don’t think it is a recurring power. So I doubt if Chrétien or Harper could have done it even if they wanted to.
Nope... The GG can increase ( at the request of the PM ) the Senate by up to 8 seats the Chamber.. the GG can also decrease the Chamber back down.
This is why I believe an Elected senate would be virtually impossible as these "floating" senate seats would have to be removed.. There would be no more flexibility in the Chamber for impasses..
Addition of Senators in certain cases
26. If at any Time on the Recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit to direct that Four or Eight Members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by Summons to Four or Eight qualified Persons (as the Case may be), representing equally the Four Divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly.(15)
Reduction of Senate to normal Number
27. In case of such Addition being at any Time made, the Governor General shall not summon any Person to the Senate, except on a further like Direction by the Queen on the like Recommendation, to represent one of the Four Divisions until such Division is represented by Twenty-four Senators and no more.(16)
Maximum Number of Senators
28. The Number of Senators shall not at any Time exceed One Hundred and thirteen.(17)
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/2.html#anchorbo-ga:s_17-gb:s_21
Op's was missing..
Summons of Senator
24. The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen's Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator.
OK, so there is a maximum number (113), a PM cannot just keep appointing Senator after Senate without limit. That was my problem with this power of appointing additional senators, that is why I thought it may have been a one time deal.
So basically a PM can increase the strength of the Senate to 113 any time he wants. And you are right, before we have an elected Senate, all these things will have to be straightened out, it is a formidable task, and will require a constitutional amendment. Even if Harper was serious about it, it would be virtually impossible, and I don’t’ think Harper is serious about it anyway.
However, I do stand by my suggestion. If Harper was serious about having an elected Senate, he could simply decree that he will only appoint a Senator if he has been elected by the provincial assembly. That way he can have an elected Senate, he doesn’t even need the approval of the Parliament.
So basically a PM can increase the strength of the Senate to 113 any time he wants. And you are right, before we have an elected Senate, all these things will have to be straightened out, it is a formidable task, and will require a constitutional amendment. Even if Harper was serious about it, it would be virtually impossible, and I don’t’ think Harper is serious about it anyway.
However, I do stand by my suggestion. If Harper was serious about having an elected Senate, he could simply decree that he will only appoint a Senator if he has been elected by the provincial assembly. That way he can have an elected Senate, he doesn’t even need the approval of the Parliament.
Sir Porter, that would be well and fine if all Provinces decided to have elected Senators, and several Provinces want nothing to do with that. In reality it would
split the parliament even further and in some cases damage Federal/Provincial
politics for a long time. The result would be opening the constitutional debate
to deal with the problem and that would not be a good thing at this point either.
Myself I think we should just get rid of the Red Chamber altogether and move on
split the parliament even further and in some cases damage Federal/Provincial
politics for a long time. The result would be opening the constitutional debate
to deal with the problem and that would not be a good thing at this point either.
Myself I think we should just get rid of the Red Chamber altogether and move on
There is no constitutional debate involved here Francis, the PM has absolute power to appoint anybody he wants. And I don’t see any Premier refusing the power Ottawa would be giving to the provinces.
We are not talking of direct elections here. What Harper should tell provinces is that provincial assemblies elect the Senator. This would be a quick process, only the Assembly votes, not the people. Even if one or two Premiers do not come on board in the beginning, when they see other provinces having a say in who is appointed to the senate they will quickly come on board.
I really don’t see any downside to this. And if any provincial assembly refuses to vote for Senators, why, Harper could go on as before as far as that province in concerned, he could appoint anybody he likes. But personally I don’t see that happening. This is not going to cost the provinces extra, and they are given new powers.
And where does the constitution come in here? As I said, I don’t see the downside.