Supreme Court sets framework for Senate reform

[Resolute 14]

...in short, it's going to be completely impossible.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sena...lone-1.2621712

Much of the interpretation is reasonable. The court believes that setting term limits and the like represents a change significant enough to require the cooperation of at least seven provinces representing half of the population. Abolishing it entirely would require unanimous support for such a constitutional amendment. And, as Stephane Dion notes in the story above, would fall apart as a result of the provinces all diluting the debate with self-serving changes unrelated to the Senate itself.

What is really interesting to me though is the court's view on elected senators. It basically mooted the entire concept, which I don't really agree with at all. It is hard to see how recommending someone for senator on the basis of a province's wish - including by vote - could be worse than the current model.

Also of note, the Liberals continue to pretend that their senators are independent.

[Slava]

So I suppose Harper will open the constitution now and press for meaningful senate reform? Surely he intends to accomplish one of the things he was elected on?

[CaptainCrunch]

I very much doubt that he's going to want to push to open the constitution in this term at all. That's a whole nest of hornets in terms of what the provinces are going to want.

While I agree with a lot of what the supreme court says, I'm onboard that their interpretation of election vs appointment seems fundamentally wrong.

Its doubtful that your going to get 7 provinces to agree with anything, you might get 4.

[Resolute 14]

The 50 percent of the population clause is what fubars the entire thing. You're left with exactly two choices: kowtow to Ontario or pander to Quebec. Neither is particularly desirable. The SCC basically rendered any attempt at reforming the senate into a giant waste of time. The only thing opening the constitution could hope to accomplish is increased division.

[CaptainCrunch]

Agreed, we saw what happened the last time the constitution was opened. It becomes a mishmash of personal provincial and groups demanding other ammendments be incorporated. You will never get unanimous support in the various provincial legislatures.

Guess we're going to be living with the Senate forever.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It is hard to see how recommending someone for senator on the basis of a province's wish - including by vote - could be worse than the current model.

It's not about better or worse, It's about the intended function of the senate as set out during confederation (and in the constitution). The senate wasn't intended to be an elected (consultative or otherwise) body, to use the words of the court...

"They would weaken the Senate's role of sober second thought and would give it the democratic legitimacy to systematically block the House of Commons, contrary to its constitutional design."

Contrary to your preamble it's not going to be completely impossible... just difficult. This whole thing was just Stephan Harper wanting to change the constitution practically by fiat and that by right should be completely impossible. The constitution shouldn't be easy to change.... If Stephan Harper want's constitutional change (be it for the Senate or anything else) he'll have to roll up his sleaves and get to work via the existing amending formula.

Ultimately all this shows is that despite the bluster Senate reform isn't really important to Harper and his government. If it was he'd be signalling his intention to start a round of constitutional talks with the provinces not effectevely saying "Oh wells".

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The 50 percent of the population clause is what fubars the entire thing. You're left with exactly two choices: kowtow to Ontario or pander to Quebec. Neither is particularly desirable. The SCC basically rendered any attempt at reforming the senate into a giant waste of time. The only thing opening the constitution could hope to accomplish is increased division.

If only someone had seen this kind of thing coming....

[Bobblehead]

It was a unanimous decision, and since half the court was appointed by PM Harper it is a pretty clear ruling.

[FlamesAddiction]

I agree with the court on elected vs. appointed. Having an elected senate basically defeats the purpose and just makes it redundant.

I think there is validity to whether or not the Senate is obsolete and should be disbanded, but if you were going to go with elected senators, then I'd rather just see it abolished completely.

If the senate is ever abolished, it should come with a complete overhaul of the government structure. Abolish the whole constitutional monarchy along with it.

I know it won't happen in my life time, but that is the dream.

[rubecube]

Yeah, I'm probably in the minority, but I don't mind the Senate acting as a sober second thought. I'm more interested in making the body that's supposed to be democratically appointed actually democratic.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I agree with the court on elected vs. appointed. Having an elected senate basically defeats the purpose and just makes it redundant.

Basically. The way I see it an elected senate only does one of two things... it follows the prevailing political winds (and thus does nothing that the HoC couldn't do in it's absence) or it doesn't and results in legislative gridlock. Neither of which is good.

Ultimately all I'd like to see done with the senate is improving it as the house of sobar second thought by improving the quality of appointee's by making it more difficult for assorted party supporters (hacks or otherwise) to get handed the post as a patronage plum (an arms-length recommendation committee whose recommendation lists are made publically ought to do). It'll be harder to appoint fundraisers and partisan supporters if the public knows that you could have appointed someone of accomplishment, merit, and distinction in his/her place.

[Fuzzy14]

Well played by Harper. Gives the illusion of attempting senate reform while knowing full well it would get shot down by the SC. Now he gets to play the "we tried but others stood in our way" card in the next election knowing full well he really didn't try that hard in the end.

Agree with the Supreme Court's decision however. The constitution and Federalism as a whole back up their decision... hard to see this issue ever getting farther than this.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Parallex

It's not about better or worse, It's about the intended function of the senate as set out during confederation (and in the constitution). The senate wasn't intended to be an elected (consultative or otherwise) body, to use the words of the court...

"They would weaken the Senate's role of sober second thought and would give it the democratic legitimacy to systematically block the House of Commons, contrary to its constitutional design."

Some would say that the Senate was origionally meant as a way for the aristocracy to retain power in a democratic house. If I remember correctly it's based on the House of Lords in England that was made up of men who were given their seats by birthright. Regardless of the past, today it is mostly made up of party cronies, bagmen and other political friends who the government in power owed favors to.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Some would say that the Senate was origionally meant as a way for the aristocracy to retain power in a democratic house. If I remember correctly it's based on the House of Lords in England that was made up of men who were given their seats by birthright. Regardless of the past, today it is mostly made up of party cronies, bagmen and other political friends who the government in power owed favors to.

This is wrong. In Canada, when discussing how the upper and lower house was to be constructed in Canada, Edmund Burke was the only real person of power that argued for the creation of a landed and titled class for the colonies (British North America). Charles Fox convinced Britain that hereditary titles and aristocratic class was ubsurd in the equalitarian conditions that Canada was in, and the argument that it be filled like the House of Lords was completely rejected.

When Confederation talks occured, John A. Macdonald argued and was adopted that "the members of the upper house will be like those of the lower, men of the people and from the people."

The Upper house from day one was to be filled with Senators that did not and should not sit for class, estate, or corporate interests, to let them be free to speak on any issue that comes before Parliament, allowing them to be able to act collectively as a check to the lower house and Cabinet.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

The Upper house from day one was to be filled with Senators that did not and should not sit for class, estate, or corporate interests, to let them be free to speak on any issue that comes before Parliament, allowing them to be able to act collectively as a check to the lower house and Cabinet.

Maybe that's what some people wanted but when you give the power to fill the house solely to the PM and the people appointed are pretty much there for life you end up with the mess we currently have.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Maybe that's what some people wanted but when you give the power to fill the house solely to the PM and the people appointed are pretty much there for life you end up with the mess we currently have.

Thing is that we have a PM now putting on some nice theatre about reforms, but not taking any real action. Most high school students could tell you that the SCC was going to do this. There is almost no possible way Harper didn't see this coming. Now he says that almost anyone would support what he is doing... But still declares it as off the table. Why would he do that if basically everyone supports it? Why not get the province's on board if it's that easy?

It's pure smoke and mirrors. Meanwhile, he appoints people like Wallin, Duffy, Brazeau and in total more senators than any other PM, while still pretending he has made efforts to reform the house. Just a complete mockery of ethics and morality.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Maybe that's what some people wanted but when you give the power to fill the house solely to the PM and the people appointed are pretty much there for life you end up with the mess we currently have.

For "life" is a pretty relative term though, for the past 100 years the average tenure for a Senator has been right around 10 years, which is exactly the same average as the elected members of the Senate in the USA. I agree though that it is a bit of a catch 22 where the biggest obstacle or challenge the executive has to total domination in Parliament is chosen by the executive. Reform in that aspect would definitely help the legitimacy of the Senate.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

Now he says that almost anyone would support what he is doing... But still declares it as off the table. Why would he do that if basically everyone supports it? Why not get the province's on board if it's that easy?

Because it's almost impossible to get provinces to agree to anything. Can you really see the Liberal government in Ontario doing anything to support a Harper initiative? No chance unless they were getting some other concession. If you ask the average person if the Senate needs to be reformed I'm sure the majority would say yes, introduce partisan political parties and it's almost impossible to get a consensus.

Originally Posted by Slava

It's pure smoke and mirrors. Meanwhile, he appoints people like Wallin, Duffy, Brazeau and in total more senators than any other PM, while still pretending he has made efforts to reform the house. Just a complete mockery of ethics and morality.

Don't even get started with that crap, your Liberals are just as guilty as anyone else. Trudeau appointed hundreds of cronies in his final days to plum positions. Chretien appointed a Liberal to represent Alberta when we had an elected senator in waiting, that was a giant F-you to us.

Originally Posted by Slava

and in total more senators than any other PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...prime_minister

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

This is wrong. In Canada, when discussing how the upper and lower house was to be constructed in Canada, Edmund Burke was the only real person of power that argued for the creation of a landed and titled class for the colonies (British North America). Charles Fox convinced Britain that hereditary titles and aristocratic class was ubsurd in the equalitarian conditions that Canada was in, and the argument that it be filled like the House of Lords was completely rejected.

When Confederation talks occured, John A. Macdonald argued and was adopted that "the members of the upper house will be like those of the lower, men of the people and from the people."

The Upper house from day one was to be filled with Senators that did not and should not sit for class, estate, or corporate interests, to let them be free to speak on any issue that comes before Parliament, allowing them to be able to act collectively as a check to the lower house and Cabinet.

Why aren't there any garbagemen in the senate?

Landscapers?

Line cooks?

If the senate was 'for the people', why is being a landowner a requirement?

[octothorp]

If any government actually wanted to enact some useful senate reform, it should be pretty easy to get concensus from the provinces on the idea that each province is responsible for choosing their own senate candidates, using whatever method each province wants to use for themselves (election, premier's appointment, legislature's appointment, even prime-minister's appointment).

That would be a solid step toward having a senate that represents regional concerns rather than parties.

But if you were doing that, you'd need to set the ground rule that you are opening up that one element of senate reform only, so that it doesn't become a place for every province to gripe about their wants and hold the resolution hostage.