Canadian Senate

[billybob123]

After all the hubub yesterday about the Senate (all sides playing stupid political games) it got me thinking. I realize there are many options out there for Senate reform; is there anyone out there who actually supports the status quo? I suppose the debate is what to change it into.

*Elected?(currently I think the concept of the non-binding Senate elections that are held are absurd. Why vote [and waste money] on an election that isn't necessarily going to hold? Especially when the vast majority of Senators are still policitally-connected appointments!)

*Equal. I like the concept of the US Senate where no one State gets undue power - the House of Representatives is like our H of Commons -- representation by population. I can see the other side, though - why should, for example, PEI have as much voting power as Ontario when the population of the entire province is less than each of the top 15 cities alone in Ontario. I can go either way.

*Term limits. The simple way to remove this concept is to require election every 5 years, without debate. If the Senate is elected, then term limits should only hold if H of Commons term limits are imposed as well.

*Abolition. I am on board with this idea too - who needs yet another place for sensible bills to die?

I don't know where I stand; but I do believe that the current situation is a blight on democracy in Canada. Nothing about an unelected legislative chamber is democratic.

What are everyone's opinions?

[mikey_the_redneck]

I am happy that the Senate shot down the climate bill before it could get to the house, but I do support term limits.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I am happy that the Senate shot down the climate bill before it could get to the house, but I do support term limits.

Huh? The the climate change bill had already been passed by the house of commons and was in front of the senate for review before receiving royal assent.

Anyway, this week's events were pretty amusing if for no other reason than to see the blatant hypocrisy of Harper. For years when he was in opposition, he blasted the senate because it had the power to kill bills passed by the democratically-elected lower house (although this power was very rarely used -- only three times since 1947 according to an article I read yesterday). Now that he's PM and has been able to stack the senate with loyal Conservatives, he's engaging in the exact same behaviour he formerly attacked the opposition for.

Nothing he's done is against the rules of parliament, of course, but I find his hypocrisy pretty enlightening. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Matty81]

I just don't care about the senate. They have never been a factor in anything other than delaying stuff a bit. I don't understand why they would ever be an issue, they're a non factor I think only the real extreme right wingers care about.

[SebC]

IMHO:

The House needs reform almost as much as the Senate does. Go with Mixed Member Proportional or Single Transferrable Vote for the House, and scrap the Senate.

If the Senate is to be retained for sober second thought, it should also be fairly elected (i.e. MMP or STV, same as the House). The differentiating feature could be term limits, which would allow senators to vote their consciences rather than worry about re-election.

O/T: Harper being a hypocrite is nothing new (see: getting "in bed with the separatists").

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Huh? The the climate change bill had already been passed by the house of commons and was in front of the senate for review before receiving royal assent.

Hmm, I am sure yesterday's Calgary Sun had it written that the Senate shot down the climate bill. I will check it again.....

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Hmm, I am sure the Calgary Sun had it written that the Senate shot down the climate bill, just yesterday. I will check it again.....

The senate did shoot down the bill, but it had already been passed by the House.

The way legislation in Canada works is that the House of Commons must pass it first, then the Senate, then finally the GG.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by billybob123

After all the hubub yesterday about the Senate (all sides playing stupid political games) it got me thinking. I realize there are many options out there for Senate reform; is there anyone out there who actually supports the status quo? I suppose the debate is what to change it into.

*Elected?(currently I think the concept of the non-binding Senate elections that are held are absurd. Why vote [and waste money] on an election that isn't necessarily going to hold? Especially when the vast majority of Senators are still policitally-connected appointments!)

*Equal. I like the concept of the US Senate where no one State gets undue power - the House of Representatives is like our H of Commons -- representation by population. I can see the other side, though - why should, for example, PEI have as much voting power as Ontario when the population of the entire province is less than each of the top 15 cities alone in Ontario. I can go either way.

*Term limits. The simple way to remove this concept is to require election every 5 years, without debate. If the Senate is elected, then term limits should only hold if H of Commons term limits are imposed as well.

*Abolition. I am on board with this idea too - who needs yet another place for sensible bills to die?

I don't know where I stand; but I do believe that the current situation is a blight on democracy in Canada. Nothing about an unelected legislative chamber is democratic.

What are everyone's opinions?

Because the House of commons is based around Representation by population which means that Ontario and Quebec have an inordinate power in the house, you'd almost need to have the Senate with equal regional representation to balance that out. If the house and senate were seated the same then you basically reduce the voice in government of the smaller or less populated provinces.

I would like to see an elected senate, but voter's have enough trouble comprehending that they have to vote for a MP and not a prime minister in effect that most of these people show up on election night, look at their ballots and exclaim "Who the hell are these guys". If you add a senator to the list you'll see even more apathy.

Term limits are a great idea. I'm for sitting limits of the entire senate personally.

I don't know if I want to see the senate abolished, in its current form its become a hyperpolitical mess that has nothing to do with sober second thought. But a reformed senate would be effective.

[octothorp]

I do support the concept of an elected and effective senate. But those two things go hand-in-hand; when you have a body of individuals who have been appointed by present and past prime-ministers actually flexing their muscles and shooting down legislation that has been passed by the house, that's a pretty big circumvention of democracy.

I think you need to remove the party system from the senate as much as possible in order to make it effective. If it's just a bunch of Liberals and a bunch of Conservatives and a handful members of other parties, it's just going to be a parrot of the house. As much as I hate to admit it (because I was against it at the time), the original approach that Alberta PCs put forward where senators come out of the provincial election system actually makes a lot of sense. As well, in my ideal system, every candidate must operate their election as an independent, regardless of views or previous political affiliations.

[CaptainCrunch]

Except they should be shooting down bad legislation or at least sending it back to the house with recommendations.

I wasn't crazy about the bill that they just killed, it came across as grandstanding by the opposition parties and the wrong bill during a weak economy.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by SebC

Single Transferrable Vote for the House, and scrap the Senate.

The above pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

[Olao32]

As long as we can reduce the policical stronghold Quebec currently has over the rest of the population I will support it.

[Locke]

Governor Tarkin: The Canadian Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old system will have been swept away.
General Tagge: But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?
Governor Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of HST...

[CaptainCrunch]

Niiiicccce

[yads]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Because the House of commons is based around Representation by population which means that Ontario and Quebec have an inordinate power in the house, you'd almost need to have the Senate with equal regional representation to balance that out. If the house and senate were seated the same then you basically reduce the voice in government of the smaller or less populated provinces.

I would like to see an elected senate, but voter's have enough trouble comprehending that they have to vote for a MP and not a prime minister in effect that most of these people show up on election night, look at their ballots and exclaim "Who the hell are these guys". If you add a senator to the list you'll see even more apathy.

Term limits are a great idea. I'm for sitting limits of the entire senate personally.

I don't know if I want to see the senate abolished, in its current form its become a hyperpolitical mess that has nothing to do with sober second thought. But a reformed senate would be effective.

But the house of commons isn't based around proportional representation. If it were PEI wouldn't have 4 seats. Quebec wouldn't have a minimum number of seats either. You wouldn't have rural ridings having fewer people than urban ridings. It's a pretty convoluted system that only vaguely has something to do with proportional representation.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by yads

But the house of commons isn't based around proportional representation. If it were PEI wouldn't have 4 seats. Quebec wouldn't have a minimum number of seats either. You wouldn't have rural ridings having fewer people than urban ridings. It's a pretty convoluted system that only vaguely has something to do with proportional representation.

It's interesting to note that Quebec is the only province that has exactly the correct number of MPs if each province received an equal share based on population. The national average is 1 MP per 103k citizens; Quebec has 1 MP per 101k citizens. Ontario, Alberta, and BC are under-represented based on their current populations while all other provinces and territories are over-represented.

The following data is from wikipedia and is based off 2006 census data and current federal electoral districts:

Alberta = 117k citizens/MP
Ontario = 114k citizens/MP
British Columbia = 114k citizens/MP
National average = 103k citizens/MP
Quebec = 101k citizens/MP
Nova Scotia = 83k citizens/MP
Manitoba = 82k citizens/MP
New Brunswick = 73k citizens/MP
Newfoundland = 72k citizens/MP
Saskatchewan = 69k citizens/MP
NWT = 41k citizens/MP
PEI = 34k citizens/MP
Yukon = 30k citizens/MP
Nunavut = 29k citizens/MP

That's just something to keep in mind whenever you hear someone claiming how unfair it is that Quebec has so much power over federal politics. In fact, Quebec is the only province or territory that has precisely as much representation in parliament as their population should mandate.

[Ashartus]

I like the idea of the senate as "sober second thought", but in practice it doesn't work that way because the senators are part of the same party system as the house. I like the idea previously suggested of all senators running for election as independents on their own merits. They could be elected for something like an 8 year term, with a single term limit, so that (again as previously suggested) senators could vote for their conscience rather than based on what will get them re-elected or re-appointed.

[redforever]

The Conservative Senators didn't call for the vote or force the vote. The Liberals forced the vote and the Conservatives used the opportunity presented them to defeat the Bill.

The Conservatives tabled a motion to let this Bill “stand” for further debate. Liberal Senator Mitchell and others forced a vote by refusing to '"stand" the Bill (put the Bill over to a later date for discussion).

This forces a vote under the rules of the Senate. If the full compliment of Liberal Senators were present and had voted, the Bill likely would have passed.

Some are wondering why the Liberal Senators would do this, knowing full well they never had enough Liberal Senators in the Chamber to pass the bill? Was it a mistake on their part or intentional?

There is speculation that in all probability, Ignatieff and the the Liberals realized that the terms of this Bill could never be met, and that it had the potential to cause them major embarassment and problems in the future. They then chose this method to ensure the Bill did not pass.

The Liberals supported Layton and the NDP when it was originally introduced and passed in the House of commons, or at least they appeared to do so. However, Layton seems to be the only one very aggravated now, with little coming from Ignatieff.

http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/home/lebreton_liberals_forced_vote_that_killed_climate_ bill/e4a2a259