Electing Senators

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Looger

but what does that have to do with the pm appointing people from an elected list?

It has to do with the fact that there is zero desire from the left to radically change a system that favours them, even it if it is for the betterment of the nation.

It is, however, a step forward.

[Kerplunk]

As it is right now the Senate is a waste of money. Each government tries to stack it with as many party faithful as possible, as both a reward and to help push party legislation thru with the least amount of delay. How is this "sober second thought"? Sounds more like stacking your team before you start the game.

If you make it so that Senators are 1) elected by the people they are to represent (even if they have to be appointed after they won) and 2) make it so they can't stay until retirement, the Senate would start to be reformed in such a way that the review of legislation is helping Canada and not the party.

[Looger]

oh yeah, i keep forgetting...

the left is SO much different than the right on the key issues like selling canada to global interests while they squabble publicly aboot perimeter issues.

oh wait, they're not!

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It's a start.

it's a step in the wrong direction, why bother.

this system will be broken until we take a step in the correct direction, and ANY pandering to cronyism is not a move i can possibly support and not flinch when i see my reflection.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Looger

oh yeah, i keep forgetting...

the left is SO much different than the right on the key issues like selling canada to global interests while they squabble publicly aboot perimeter issues.

oh wait, they're not!

We are not talking about other issues. We are talking about the Senate.

The NDP wants it abolished, while the Liberals dont want anything that could erode their power base in Ontario.

And yes, the Conservatives want something that gives them more power from their traditionally strong areas.

[Looger]

my point is, Snakeeye, that 'the right' would be doing exactly as 'the left' does in the same position.

the very idea that people think one or the other party is so much better, IS THE PROBLEM.

i guess people have short memories. good for them i guess.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Wouldn't it take some sort of constitutional amendment to change the structure and government functions of the Senate? Or can they just amend it however they want through legislation?

Technically, yes I think. Harper though is trying to avoid constitutional federalism, however, and making changes that he purports do not technically require the constitution to be opened up.

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Real change would require a radical change in thought on the left - specifically the Liberals. Baby steps is all Harper can do, atm.

Get people used to the idea of having a say in who represents them (Democracy, what a concept!), then hopefully a little more can be added (true elected senators), then hopefully the other two E's fall into place.

Snakeye, I know you don't like the political left, and that is fine - that's your point of view. I think, however, your "real change would require radical change of thought on the left" is a bit misguided. There is a lot of new movement on the left that has "radical change in thought from the old left". As a matter of fact, you could say it is similar to the right - the new right and the old right.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

From what I understand they would need to re-open the constitution for a radical change to the government structure, I don't think it can be amended through the house.

Besides if it could be amended the Senate would have final oversight and would probably vote it down.

AS I mentioned at the start, an argument about this can be made either way. Technically I believe it would require a constitutional opening up, but....I think most parties are fatigued from constitutional politics and (other than the Bloc for obvious reasons) wouldn't want to re-open it.

Originally Posted by octothorp

Actually it won't, at least along the current proposal. The idea is to have provinces elect senators in waiting, who are then appointed by the PM. So even though it is for all intents an elected senate, it is still technically appointed by the PM. Assuming it withstands any legal challenges, it's a pretty clever solution.

How is it a step forward if really its the same thing at the momment? Its still ultimately his (i.e. the PM's) decision. It will be elected as long as the choices are what the PM in power agrees with....

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

It has to do with the fact that there is zero desire from the left to radically change a system that favours them, even it if it is for the betterment of the nation.

It is, however, a step forward.

Well 2 things - if by left you mean centre, then it is the liberals you are talking about. And if things had been in reverse - the Conservatives in power longer to put more senators in place - would you being say this? I.e. what if it was the Conservatives who controlled the Senate, with its current set up....

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Looger

it's a step in the wrong direction, why bother.

this system will be broken until we take a step in the correct direction, and ANY pandering to cronyism is not a move i can possibly support and not flinch when i see my reflection.

How is making a government institution more accountable to the people of it's country a step in the wrong direction????

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Looger

my point is, Snakeeye, that 'the right' would be doing exactly as 'the left' does in the same position.

the very idea that people think one or the other party is so much better, IS THE PROBLEM.

i guess people have short memories. good for them i guess.

How can that be when the CPC and the reform party have been demanding Senate reform for years?

They have always wanted Senate reform and where demanding it when the Libs were in power. If the Libs had brought forward a motion similar to this....the Reform/CPC would be all on board.

So I think you are wrong this this statment.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

How is making a government institution more accountable to the people of it's country a step in the wrong direction????

wow, nice emoticon. sure showed me, hyuuk!

i just don't think that's a step towards actual accountability, that's it.

still appointed, still A JOKE.

what makes anyone think that the guys appointed under this system to the senate wouldn't be appointed under this current system?

this just doesn't do anything for me. still smells bad.

show me something worth supporting, not a sham joke like this.

[Thunderball]

Until Canada does the right thing, bites the bullet, and sits down and renegotiates the Constitution, this is the best we can do.

Canada needs a US-style Triple-E Senate. Elected, Equal and Effective. Every province gets 2 representatives, and maybe 1 per territory or one for the entire North... whatever.

In the meantime, this actually puts a clamp on cronyism, moreso than encouraging it. If Ontario decides to elect a full slate of NDP senators, PM Harper/Dion would have to appoint them under fear of backlash. Sure it helps the traditional conservative base, but really, Harper could just as easily appoint all his buddies to fill all the vacancies if he wants. I think this is acknowledging that Fortier is something PMs shouldn't be able to do.

Anyone who says granting power to the people is irresponsible clearly doesn't understand democracy, don't respect it, or don't seem to agree with it. Appointments to "protect minorities" is not democracy, its authoritarianism, and a typically convenient excuse for cronyism. One needs to trust the people to recognize the need to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority... not have that thrust upon people... that's not the way its supposed to work.

As mentioned, Reform/CA/CPC have always advocated Senate Reform... this is not something unexpected and being done cause they want to promote cronyism. This is binding consultation for appointment... a step up from whimscial appointment.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

How can that be when the CPC and the reform party have been demanding Senate reform for years?

They have always wanted Senate reform and where demanding it when the Libs were in power. If the Libs had brought forward a motion similar to this....the Reform/CPC would be all on board.

So I think you are wrong this this statment.

what i'm saying is that whoever happens to be in opposition is against the selling of canada's soveriegnty and resources until they're in.

senate reform i see as a perimeter, ridiculous joke of an issue.

if canadians truly think that the future of the country hinges on a senate that's blocked - what, like one bill in my lifetime - then i guess we'll keep getting tossed stupid little bones like this, that the papers tell us are important.

this isn't even close to being an issue. not even close in my world.

the amero, the SPP, the nasco corridor, the destruction of our nation's sovereignty so trump this crap.

but whatever.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

How is it a step forward if really its the same thing at the momment? Its still ultimately his (i.e. the PM's) decision. It will be elected as long as the choices are what the PM in power agrees with....

Although it is still the PM's decision....if he does not appoint the people picked by the province....he has to answer for that in the next election.

Atleast it is an attempt to get the discussion going and on the right path....but I guess it is better to do nothing at all, rather than make baby steps according to some posters on this thread.

All or nothing right!

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Looger

what i'm saying is that whoever happens to be in opposition is against the selling of canada's soveriegnty and resources until they're in.

senate reform i see as a perimeter, ridiculous joke of an issue.

if canadians truly think that the future of the country hinges on a senate that's blocked - what, like one bill in my lifetime - then i guess we'll keep getting tossed stupid little bones like this, that the papers tell us are important.

this isn't even close to being an issue. not even close in my world.

the amero, the SPP, the nasco corridor, the destruction of our nation's sovereignty so trump this crap.

but whatever.

It may not be an issue for you....but it IS an issue for many Canadians....especially Western Canadians. Currently it is nothing more than a money pit and it is not any kind of sobber second thought organization....as like you said, nothing ever really gets held up in the senate.

So that alone should be enough to make changes....but I guess more liberal thinking of....lets through tax payers money into a big pit to make our supporters happy....is how we should proceed.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Looger

senate reform i see as a perimeter, ridiculous joke of an issue.

if canadians truly think that the future of the country hinges on a senate that's blocked - what, like one bill in my lifetime - then i guess we'll keep getting tossed stupid little bones like this, that the papers tell us are important.

The Senate isn't blocking much cause they don't want to attract attention to themselves. Its a glorified vacation home for veteran partisans and nothing more. They don't have the authority to challenge the House of Commons (despite having the ability to), and they know it. Now, if it was a Triple-E senate, it would be an important house of sober second thought. You'd see situations like the US, where the Liberals could control the Commons, but the Conservatives control the Senate. This would mean that intelligent policy for the betterment of all Canadians would be churned out, rather than the all too common partisan legislation.

Are a North American Dollar, SPP, NASCO corridor, and the perceived destruction of national sovereignty top priorities? Sure. But having a properly functioning second house would ensure that these issues are handled right.

[MarchHare]

Every province gets 2 representatives

I'm always baffled why people in Western Canada think giving the Atlantic Provinces 40% of the senate seats when they make up less than 8% of the country's population is a good idea. I'm further baffled why people think this will give the West more power in Ottawa; on the vast majority of issues, Atlantic Canada is far more likely to vote with Quebec and Ontario than they are with the West.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm always baffled why people in Western Canada think giving the Atlantic Provinces 40% of the senate seats when they make up less than 8% of the country's population is a good idea. I'm further baffled why people think this will give the West more power in Ottawa; on the vast majority of issues, Atlantic Canada is far more likely to vote with Quebec and Ontario than they are with the West.

Parliament is already Rep-by-Pop (or is supposed to be, in theory). So the idea with the Senate is that it would be equal to all provinces. Why give Rhode Island the same amount of Senate seats as New York state? The reason is obvious. Rhode Island doesn't matter in the House of Representatives... but their 2 Senators could make a huge difference. Nova Scotia, Alberta, and Quebec are all supposed to be equal partners in Confederation with everyone else... if that means the Atlantic provinces suddenly matter, that's equality. They're a part of the country too.

Its shortsighted to assume that provinces would all vote together. In fact, its highly likely that provinces like Ontario would have 1 Liberal and 1 Conservative. It would still be party based, but like I said, now every voice matters rather than two.

Frankly, to cater to the provincial argument, Atlantic Canada would likely be split between the CPC, LPC and NDP. Each Senator would vote with their party. Even if they didn't... you'd be surprised with who would ally with whom... especially noting that the Western desire for more provincial autonomy would resonate with places like Quebec and Newfoundland.

[MarchHare]

Parliament is already Rep-by-Pop (or is supposed to be, in theory). So the idea with the Senate is that it would be equal to all provinces. Why give Rhode Island the same amount of Senate seats as New York state? The reason is obvious. Rhode Island doesn't matter in the House of Representatives... but their 2 Senators could make a huge difference.

It's interesting that you mentioned Rhode Island. Let's contrast that state with our smallest province, PEI.

Rhode Island has a population of just over 1 million, or roughly 0.3% of the national population. PEI has a population of about 140,000, about 0.4% of the total national population. Yet in the US senate, Rhode island has only 2% of the total seats, whereas PEI, under your "two senators per province" proposal, would have 10% of the total representation. How can you justify that?

[Edit]
In other words, Rhode Island gets about five times the representation in the senate that they would have gotten if senate seats were divided based on population rather than by state. They're certainly over-represented, but it's not that bad considering that each state only controls 2% of the senate. If PEI were to be given 10% of the senate seats, though, they would have twenty-five times as much representation as their population would dictate. That doesn't sit right with me.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It's interesting that you mentioned Rhode Island. Let's contrast that state with our smallest province, PEI.

Rhode Island has a population of just over 1 million, or roughly 0.3% of the national population. PEI has a population of about 140,000, about 0.4% of the total national population. Yet in the US senate, Rhode island has only 2% of the total seats, whereas PEI, under your "two senators per province" proposal, would have 10% of the total representation. How can you justify that?

To use another US example... California has 33,871,648 people, or roughly 12% of the national population. Yet, in the US senate, California has only 2% of the total seats. How do they justify that? Simple. Each State is a member of the Union. As a member of the union, you are entitled to 2 senators, and 1 representative, plus additional representatives proportional to population relative to the rest of the country.

Canada has 10 full members of its union. That means there's 20 senators. If Canada had 50 full members, then it would be 100.

Its called equal suffage. Its the same principle behind why rich people don't have more votes than poor people, since they do technically put a lot more into the country's coffers. Just because PEI is population poor relative to Ontario, doesn't mean it shouldn't get the same basic Senatorial vote.

PEI is already 4 times more represented than they should be in Parliament, if the country switched to the US method, they would have one MP, and 2 senators... much more egalitarian to the rest of the country, and their trade off would be in the senate. Ontario's tradeoff would be greater sway in Parliament, despite being a bit player in Senate. They would have 126 out of 326 seats, and 2 senators. Alberta's tradeoff would be to have an average and equal factor in both houses... 34/326, and 2/20 senators... effectively 10% of each.

[MarchHare]

The real problem is that you can't compare the US and Canada directly when trying to devise a system for allocating senate seats. While there are states that are over- and under-represented in the senate (Rhode Island and California being the two greatest examples at either end of the spectrum), each state is only limited to 2% control, so individual states still don't have that much of a say, even if they might have more seats than their population would dictate.

On the other hand, you get situations in Canada where PEI would have 10% control of the senate despite only having 0.4% of the population, and the situation becomes that much more extreme.

I think the senate allocation could use some reform, but equal representation by province is not the way to do it. Equal representation by region (tweaking the formula we currently use) would work much better. Assuming a 100 seat senate, I could see something like this working, where each region (Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, West) gets 20 seats:

Atlantic Provinces: 5 seats each
Quebec: 20 seats
Ontario: 20 seats
Manitoba: 5 seats
Saskatchewan: 5 seats
Alberta: 10 seats
BC: 10 seats