Harper to fill 18 Senate seats with Tory loyalists

[Thunderball]

This would require a Constitutional change, but bear with me...

A real senate could probably snuff out Western Discontent in one fell swoop... if its modelled somewhat like the American system.

The House of Commons would be the main governing body, with elected representatives by population. The seat total would be one per 110 000 (with one minimum per territory), and re-evaluated every four years. No more of that "guaranteed seat" and special clause BS. When the seat total exceeds the limits, then a new population number would be used, like 1 per 135 000. This means less representation for Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but more for Alberta, BC and Ontario. Right now, it would be something like this:

New (Current) Difference
ON: 117 (106) +11
QC: 70 (75) -5
BC: 40 (36) +4
AB: 32 (28) +4
MB: 11 (14) -3
SK: 10 (14) -4
NS: 9 (11) -2
NB: 7 (10) -3
NF: 5 (7) -2
PE: 1 (4) -3
NT: 1 (1)
YK: 1 (1)
NU: 1 (1)
Total: 305 (308) -3

The Senate would serve as a real sober second thought, and prevent unfair policy. To even the scale for the prairies and maritimes, the Senate would like the US. Every province gets the exact same representation, 5. Territories get 1 representative each, since they are grossly overrepresented in Parliament.

Total: 53 (105)

While furthering democracy, the government would also be shedding 48 Senate positions. Those 3 Lost MP positions would rematerialize in Ontario, BC and/or Alberta in the next count, most likely more.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I disagree. It is an institution, that if properly reformed, can be quite effective.

Not true.... particularly in government that has a majority.

Definitely a benefit. A place where sober second thought should take place, unencumbered by party politics.



Number of Ontario and Quebec MP's = 181
Rest of Canada = 127

Need I say more?

Population of Ontario and Quebec: 19.7 million.
Population of rest of Canada: 11.9 million.

Maybe I'm missing your point?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

The Senate would serve as a real sober second thought, and prevent unfair policy. To even the scale for the prairies and maritimes, the Senate would like the US. Every province gets the exact same representation, 5. Territories get 1 representative each, since they are grossly overrepresented in Parliament.
.

Is this really democratic? You end up with a ruralocracy, where small provinces (population-wise) have more power than larger provinces.

[Ronald Pagan]

Nobody has yet demonstrated why the original system (of a completely useless Senate) is broken.

That case needs to be clarified before you can make a compelling case for why it should be reformed.

[Rerun]

This is the current makeup of the Senate with regards to provincial representation. As you can see, some provinces are extremely over represented and some are severely under represented.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by troutman

Is this really democratic? You end up with a ruralocracy, where small provinces (population-wise) have more power than larger provinces.

Not really.

Look at the two houses in Thunderball's propoposal in unison.

Ontario: 124 representatives
Quebec: 75
British Columbia: 45
Alberta: 37
Manitoba: 16
Saskatchewan: 15
Nova Scotia: 14
New Brunswick: 12
Newfoundland: 10
PEI: 6
Territories: 2 each

Or:
Atlantic Canada: 42
Quebec: 75
Ontario: 124
Prairies: 68
British Columbia: 45

the largest provinces still have the majority of the representatives.

The difference is that policies that do not represent the majority of Canadians, both by population (House) and by region (Senate) don't get passed. This is the kind of system we should be moving to.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by troutman

Is this really democratic? You end up with a ruralocracy, where small provinces (population-wise) have more power than larger provinces.

Well, it is and isn't. Why does Rhode Island get the same amount of Senators as New York? Montana, Wyoming, Rhode Island, North Dakota and South Dakota combined don't even have a fraction of NY's population, but can easily vote against NY and null them in the Senate. Because they are all States... members of a greater union. That's what Canada would bring in. Every province is a member of a greater union, and are afforded an equal seat at the Senatorial table. However, that is balanced out by a rep-by-pop Parliament. Just like the US House of Representatives balances out the equal senate.

Right now in Canada, Ontario and either Quebec or BC/AB have the majority of the seats. Everyone else may as well stay home. Is that democratic? Not overly... so a real Senate would balance that out.

[Ronald Pagan]

I understand that.

The question is, how does the Senate's lack of legitimacy make our legislative process worse to the point where we would consider making a whole new legislative arm of the federal government?

[flip]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Nobody has yet demonstrated why the original system (of a completely useless Senate) is broken.

That case needs to be clarified before you can make a compelling case for why it should be reformed.

Look at it this way. The Senate costs taxpayers millions of dollars in operational costs, from salaries, pensions etc.

It is broken because it has absolutely ZERO reason for being in existence in its current form, it does nothing but give political appointees free money.

It was elected and there was equal representation from each province it would take away tyranny of the majority. Things like the NEP would never exist where one area of the country gets to screw over another.

Hopefully it would also avoid things like tiny ass towns in Quebec getting hundreds of thousands of dollars for Canada Day celebrations and the like when Calgary gets barely a cent.

[ikaris]

What is exactly is the purpose of the senate? To me it's existence is entirely undemocratic. Historically they just tend to follow the will of the House of Commons (as they rightfully should).

If the Conservatives were serious about getting rid of excess waste like they were trying with the public funding of parties, why don't they go at what seriously does not serve any useful purpose? Wouldn't this even benefit them too considering the current political makeup of the Senate?

Practically, it just seems to be ridiculous and wreaks of corruption based on "patronage" appointments.

While the argument may be made that somehow the senate allows for regional representation in the absence of population, troutman accurately stated the problem with having this sort of representation.

Perhaps one solution to ensure that certain regions do not try to exert control over the resources of another would be to have some sort of notwithstanding clause that applies to economic policy.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by flip

Look at it this way. The Senate costs taxpayers millions of dollars in operational costs, from salaries, pensions etc.

It is broken because it has absolutely ZERO reason for being in existence in its current form, it does nothing but give political appointees free money.

It was elected and there was equal representation from each province it would take away tyranny of the majority. Things like the NEP would never exist where one area of the country gets to screw over another.

Hopefully it would also avoid things like tiny ass towns in Quebec getting hundreds of thousands of dollars for Canada Day celebrations and the like when Calgary gets barely a cent.

Pretty much.

To sum up, there's two big reasons for a Senate:

1. Canadian Regionalism has a proven reputation of turning vicious. Nowhere else is there a free country so willing to screw one part to appease another. Of course, there are few other places with such defined regional lines. Alberta and, yes... Quebec, have probably felt this sting the worst. But still, most places have their own NEP-type smash-and-grab from another region.

2. Oversight. Checks and Balances are essential to good government, and a real Senate with electorally empowered members will be able to stand tall and shoot down bad acts of parliament, especially in a majority system. Say, there's a coalition NDP/Bloc/Liberal Government. Alberta, BC and Sask are screwed, right? Not if there's a powerful, accountable, and equal Senate.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by ikaris

What is exactly is the purpose of the senate? To me it's existence is entirely undemocratic. Historically they just tend to follow the will of the House of Commons (as they rightfully should).

.

In theory, it exists to ensure that the different interests of Canada's many ethnic, regional and interest groups can have input on legislation when many times, there voices aren't heard in the democratic process. For example, one of the last senators the Liberals appointed was a distinguished Inuit woman. The Inuit (and many aboriginal group in general) tend to be under represented due to the limitations of the democratic process. Let's face it, democracy is not perfect. The Senate is supposed to be a check and balance so that the rights and opinions of the minority groups are not overrun by the will of the majority (which would happen in a pure democracy). Electing the senate pretty much defeats the purpose. It would be preferrable to not have one at all imo.

In practice though, you are right... many, if not most, are patronage appointments and a power game that the major political parties play.

As for this move by the Conservatives, it's not really a big deal, but I do question the timing after all that happened in the past 2 weeks. It looks like another partisan move at a time when partisanship is not needed.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by ikaris

What is exactly is the purpose of the senate? To me it's existence is entirely undemocratic. Historically they just tend to follow the will of the House of Commons (as they rightfully should).

If the Conservatives were serious about getting rid of excess waste like they were trying with the public funding of parties, why don't they go at what seriously does not serve any useful purpose? Wouldn't this even benefit them too considering the current political makeup of the Senate?

Practically, it just seems to be ridiculous and wreaks of corruption based on "patronage" appointments.

While the argument may be made that somehow the senate allows for regional representation in the absence of population, troutman accurately stated the problem with having this sort of representation.

Perhaps one solution to ensure that certain regions do not try to exert control over the resources of another would be to have some sort of notwithstanding clause that applies to economic policy.

They are appointed for life, so that they are not beholden to any group.
They were initially aristocrats who, supposedly, had private fortunes and did the job as a public service.

And if you think about it, in our parliamentary system, we vote for local representatives. Theoretically, a party could win a majority and then elect a new leader who can then appoint any cabinet he so chooses. So the CPC or Liberals could get a majority, then suddenly find Jack Layton cross the floor, their party make him leader, then he is suddenly Prime Minister. He woudl set up the Cabinet of his choice, and it would be perfectly valid in our system. While I'm not sure the Senate could prevent that (and maybe Layton is too big of a stretch, just think of any backbencher repugnant to you, Stephan Dion, Rob Anders, etc), the Senate sure could prevent him from then bringing in any draconian measures.

But the Senate as it stands has become a political patronage trough. There needs to be reform, but I like the concept. But I do not want it politicised, with the same caterwauling like we see in the House of Commons. I would rather see it abolished before that.

Edit: and rerun earlier referred to Sir John A MacDonald's quote about the Senate - a place for "sober second thought"

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

As for this move by the Conservatives, it's not really a big deal, but I do question the timing after all that happened in the past 2 weeks. It looks like another partisan move at a time when partisanship is not needed.

That was why I kind of question this move. The optics of it are not good.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Abolishment would eliminate any hope of Canadians outside of Ontario and Quebec ever having a legitimate voice in federal politics.

RP is fine with that...in fact he would embrace it and then STILL pawn himself off as a guy that cares about everybody. So transparent.

EEE is absolutely the LAST thing either Ontario or Quebec would like to see.....which explains CLEARLY why it hasn't happened yet.

Hijacking governement or getting a majority is way easier for the lying Liberals and the Dippers to have a say about what happens.

Cant believe ANYONE questions that. The fact that posters here are OBVIOUSLY Liberal and are questioning the Senate is awesome.

if its modelled somewhat like the American system.

Blasphemy!!!

But the Senate as it stands has become a political patronage trough

Yup...but when a certain "Albertan" party ran a campaign to make it different, the typical fear-mongering BS came out and it has never left.

The truth is, why would Ontario and Quebec give up power? Because thats exactly what a triple E senate would do.

Unacceptable to the East? Not allowed to happen. period.

[Ronald Pagan]

Feel free to demonstrate to me that our legislative process is broken and that Senate reform is the way to fix it.

[Resolute 14]

The fact that Canada has become so heavily regionalized as a result of government actions might be your first clue.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Feel free to demonstrate to me that our legislative process is broken and that Senate reform is the way to fix it.

A Majority government is essentially a dictatorship with just about zero recourse aside from public pressure until the next election comes up? There are almost zero checks and balances in a majority.

That enough of an answer?

EEE senate probably isn't the best answer, but perhaps some regional skewing (I.E. Quebec/Ontario have 10 senators to AB's 5 or w/e) - but they need to be elected with fixed terms.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Watch now how many NDP and Liberal supporters start going on about how this is another of Harper's campaign promises that he's broken. Even though an un-elected senate is EXACTLY what they want.

I just wanted to point out that whether you agree or disagree its another one of Harpers broken promises. The legislation to have elected senators died with the end of parliament last time around for the election. That election was Harpers doing...and now of course he is appointing senators. One could assume that actions speak louder than words here!

A Triple E senate is a complete waste of time and energy. We already have an elected house of representatives and all the equality adds to this is more emphasis on regional differences.

The Senate is fine the way it is. It is supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought and that is the main purpose it now serves.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

If by overhaul you mean abolishment then yes, I would agree.

I cannot believe I am actually saying this. For this one point and this point only I 100% agree with R/P