Harper's Senate Reform

elevated from the diaries ~ Welsh is our Canadian election correspondent
Harper's Senate Reform

Harper has stated that he wants to see Senators elected.

If Senators are elected, Senators will have a mandate. If Senator's have a mandate they will stop rubber stamping bills from the House of Commons.

The powers of the Senate are rather significant - they can introduce all bills except those imposing taxes or appropriating public funds. Except when the Canadian Constitution is being amended, in which case the lower house can override them after six months, their approval is required for all bills to pass.

... More after the jump. (Current thread on Canadian Election here)

It has been the practice that the Senate rarely refuses to pass bills passed by the House of Commons, but that is because the Senators are all political appointees without mandates. Elected senators, with a mandate of their own, will feel (correctly) that as they were elected they have a right to stop bills and introduce their own bills.

If all that is done is changed about the Senate is that Senators are elected, then we will have two legislative bodies which are very close to co-equal. The result of that will be far more extensive than the bland "Harper wants Senators to be elected" would suggest.

As it stands right now, and as set in the Constitution, the makeup of the Senate is as follows:

Under the constitution, each province or territory is entitled to a specific number of senate seats. A senator must reside in the province or territory for which he or she is appointed. The constitution divides Canada into four "divisions," each with an equal number of senators: twenty-four for Ontario; twenty-four for Quebec; twenty-four for the Maritime provinces (ten for Nova Scotia, ten for New Brunswick, and four for Prince Edward Island); and twenty-four for the Western provinces (six each for Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta). Newfoundland and Labrador, which became a province only in 1949, is not assigned to any division, and is represented by six senators. Furthermore, the three territories (the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and Nunavut) are allocated one senator each.
As a result of this arrangement, Ontario and the Western provinces -- Canada's fastest growing provinces in terms of population -- are severely under-represented, while the Maritimes are greatly over-represented. For example, British Columbia, with a population of about four million, is entitled to six senators, while Nova Scotia, with a population of fewer than one million, is entitled to ten. Only Quebec is represented by a number of senators proportional to its share of the population.

So, without breaking open the Constitution we have a massively unrepresentative system which screws the West and Ontario and gives disproportionate influence to the Maritimes compared to their population.

The traditional Reform suggestion of a Triple E Senate was one with all Provinces having an equal number of Senators - so, say Ten per province. Think about that for a second - Prince Edward Island would have as many Senators as Ontario? That's merely the most absurd provision, in general a Triple E Senate would weaken the populous provinces compared to the less populous ones. In fact, in a Triple E Senate, Ontario would have 10% of the Senators, while having over a third of the population. This is fair?

Whose interests do you think would be served in a Triple E Senate? It certainly wouldn't be the provinces with the most people - Ontario and Quebec, who make up about 60% of the Canadian population, and would have 20% of the seats.

Now it's a fair thing to say "Harper hasn't proposed Triple E, he's only proposed electing Senators". But it's also fair for me to say that Harper's proposal really begs the question - he can't change the way the Senate really works without breaking open the Constitution, but he can change the way they're appointed. Quebec isn't likely to allow their number of reps to be reduced, and neither is Ontario, so that's two down right there.

Getting the constitutional approval to change the Senate is unlikely at best, withotu a full fledged referendum (and maybe not even then.) So Harper's proposal amounts to grafting elections onto the current system and creating elected Senators who will keep their seats till age 75, who have a mandate because they were elected, who can stop any government bill cold, can introduce their own bills and are subject neither to party discipline nor to the discipline of regular elections.

It's not unreasonable to ask Harper exactly what he means to do - does he just want to graft elections onto the current system? Does he have further "reform" in mind?

Why do we need this "reform"? In the current form proposed all it will do is give a massively unrepresentative body a mandate to interfere with governments who were recently elected and are subject to losing their jobs.

It will, in short, most likely eventually lead to a constitutional crisis pitting the two houses against each other. At that point an election or referendum will be fought over the issue of what to do with the Senate - over real reform rather than just trying to graft voting onto an institution which was never intended to be voted for, an insitution that is profoundly unrepresenative.

It's all very nice to want to be more "democratic" but it's not clear that this will increase democracy - it isn't democracy to elect people to offices for life with no accountability. And it isn't fair, or just, to make some Canadians worth so much more than other Canadians just based on where they happen to live.

Minorities, whether racial, religious, or geographical need protection. I am in great sympathy with many of the complaints of the West. But the solution is not to try and give a minority the right not only to veto the majority, but to impose its will on the majority. In the most extreme case, a Triple E Senate, where Ontario and Quebec had only ten seats each, Ontario and Quebec, with 60% of the population and 20% of the representation, would be completely justified in leaving Canada. And with the current division, both the West and Ontario would be underrepesented compared to their population. That doesn't seem to me to be something that Harper, or the Conservative party should want. So why are they proposing it?

Elected Senators look like a really bad idea to me. Elections may be good, but electing people for life to bodies meant to be appointed isn't. And setting Canada up for a Constitutional crisis down the line, which I'm sure Harper realizes is the most likely outcome, isn't wise either.

If Harper wants real Senate changes (let's stop calling every change someone wants to make 'reform", eh) then I want to know exactly what he wants to do and how he intends to do it. Because just making Senators elected sounds like a really really bad idea which will just cause a Constitutional crisis and which will actually make the West less represented. That doesn't seem real smart, real democratic, real equal or real fair.

Ian Welsh January 9, 2006 - 11:39pm

Ian Welsh's diary | printer friendly version |

Please tell me

what would you consider equitable representation for the province where you live. How can your provincial voice be heard?

Mine has the largest population and expect that will continue for a very long time, because as BC's grows so does Ontario's and usually at a faster pace. So representation by population won't be a solution--there has to be another mechanism that tempers population with the needs of individual provinces or areas.

canuck January 10, 2006 - 6:21am

This is an issue

that I'm concerned about, but it's not so much because Harper is campaigning on an elected Senate - that's been a central policy of these guys since the first days of Reform - but because Martin has said in this campaign that he wants to see an elected Senate. Now, I'm sure in Martin's case it's as empty a promise as his promise in the debate tonight to get rid of the notwithstanding clause, but it tells me that politicians think there's an apetite among the elctorate for an elected Senate. I too think it would be a step backwards for democracy. Harpers mag recently had a good piece on the roots and undemocratic nature of the US Senate that should be required reading for anyone wishing to elect senators in Canada. If we want to make Canada more democratic let's adopt some form of proportional representation.

lenny January 10, 2006 - 2:39am

Should have included

Ireland with Wales, Scotland and England. Apologies to agonists who are Irish! :)

canuck January 10, 2006 - 7:06am

Maybe we should rip the

BNA Act, and our present Constitution up and start over again? :)

I hope if that's every considered it's televised...it would be the best soap opera on the telly! :) :) :) Can you imagine the temper tantrums that would be thrown if our politicians tackled something as momentous as that???

canuck January 10, 2006 - 7:21am

Lenny

the problem I see with that is if the Senate is reflective of population, Ontario would have total control over the Senate as well as having the bulk of the seats of the House of Commons. The other provinces would never agree to a population based Senate.

I'm comfortable with area (regional) representation in the Senate.

A proportional voting system would be more reflective of the will of the people. The problem with proportional voting systems is they often don't lead to majority governments by one party. Proportional systems often lead to coalition governments which can work. But it spawns many, many parties and Italy who had a proportional system recently returned to a winner take all (which is our present system).

canuck January 10, 2006 - 4:19am

Historical background

of how the Senate was formed: History

-----

The present Senate's membership is about one-third that of the House of Commons and it operates at about one-fifth the cost. Total senators are 105.

"Quebec and the Maritimes insisted on an Upper House with equal representation from the three regions as a counterweight to Ontario's numerical advantage in the House of Commons. The Fathers of Confederation wanted to create a further check on the executive and its elected Commons majority. They decided this would best be accomplished by an appointed Senate whose members had life tenure."2

That has been enshrined in the 1867 BNA Act and the 1982 Canadian Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Here's a report from the Speaker of the Senate that gives insight into how the Canadian Senate works

-----

The Western provinces have equal representation to Quebec, Ontario, and the Maritimes.

The number of senators was never meant to match the populations in the provinces. It is based on area. The more familiar term to Canadians is `region'. They have equal representation as a balance for the House of Commons, the membership of which is by population.

-----

An elected senate is contra indicated - what would work is an appointed Senate. I'd be for an appointed Senate with the appointments coming from the provinces rather than the Office of the Prime Minister.

I highly doubt Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes will consent to reducing the number of their seats.

Why does the West insist they need more seats? Like you, I would want to know why they feel an elected senate would further the cause of democracy?

If the West wants reform, why don't they change the House of Commons to make it more reflective of the will of the people by adopting a proportional voting system? That to me would make more sense.

An elected Senate would compete with the House of Commons. Elected Senators are food for lobbyists!

canuck January 10, 2006 - 3:34am

Yeah...

... I was thinking today that I should write more on the Liberal platform, and I probably will put up a piece. The thing is that:

a) I don't believe half of what Martin says either, but unlike Harper;

b) Martin has a track record, and I'm reasonably sure that if he's elected I'll get mostly status quo. So to an extent I really don't care what his platform is.

The problem in this election is that the two parties most likely to form a government, the Liberals and the Conservatives, are parties I simply don't trust to tell me the truth about what they want to do. Of the two, since the Liberals are the status quo party, they're the least dangerous, but I still dont' like Martin's fundamental dishonesty in constantly making and then not meeting promises.

And as for Harper, I believe about half of what he says. The problem is figuring out which half. I really, really wanted the Conservative party to be something I could vote for - I was even a member of the old PC's and considered moving to the Conservatives, becasue it's so clear the Liberals need a spell in the opposition benches, they've simply been in power too long. But I find it hard to risk Harper, and Layton (who I have some problems with but can live with) isn't in the running to actually be the senior partner in a government. The best I can do is vote for him and hope it strengthens his hand in any bargaining down the road.

Ian Welsh January 10, 2006 - 2:54am

I always thought that PC

was an oxymoron until C.R.A.P. took up the torch. In a year we'll be wistfully reminiscing about Mulroney.

lenny January 10, 2006 - 3:32am

I'd be against even

the senators being appointed by provinces if it gave that the idea that they had a mandate to be Effective. I hope to hell that if senate reform moves ahead that there's a full debate in this country as to the implications. Leaving it the way it is or getting rid of it all together are two of the best options as far as I'm concerned. But, how about a third option? Keep senate seats tied to provinces but make the number of them proportional to the population of the province. Then elect them with a proportional representation voting system. One of the shortcomings of a proportional representation system is that ridings are larger and elected representatives are therefore less invested in local issues, but this would leave the current parliamentary system unchanged, would give us senate reform and proportional representation. All we'd have to do is change the constitution. No problem! But, other than that, why wouldn't it work? The US can have one party dominate Congress and another the Senate and it doesn't bring the country to a standstill.

lenny January 10, 2006 - 3:59am

I realize that the other provinces

would never agree to that. I was kidding when I said the constitutional change would be no problem. I live in the west and I'm committed to a one person one vote system even if Ontario and Quebec dominate. A system under which, for example, PEI has the same number of representatives as any other province is unacceptable to me. Your voting power would be diminished or enhanced based on where you live. It's like those rediculous red and blue maps that are supposed to show that most of the States voted Republican. If you voted Democrat the suggestion is your vote was worth less because you live in a city or densely populated state.

As it stands, under proportional representation we'd see the addition of just one party to Parliament - the Greens.

British Columbian voted overwhelmingly in favour of PR. But the provincial Libs(Republicans without Jesus) set an impossible bar for it to be approved - %60 across the province and 2/3 of ridings had to approve it. The results were almost 58% in favour province wide and only 2 of 79 ridings were under 50%(barely). The Libs said this wasn't a mandate for change yet they are happy to govern with 46% of the popular vote.

Sorry, that last bit might have been a bit of a rant, but maybe it illustrates the point that those benefiting from the current system aren't going to voluntarily change it without considerable pressure, and they don't best represent us under the current system.

lenny January 10, 2006 - 4:53am

Why

does there have to be something that tempers represenation by population that way?

The Provinces in Canada are fantastically strong. It is their job to represent regions. Not to mention the fact that the way the current system is set up already rewards federal parties which are regionally based - ask the Bloc, Conservatives and the NDP about that.

No, the last thing Canada needs is more regionalism. We already have, literally, more than enough, in my opinion. To the contrary, if it were up to me I would reduce regionalism and increase regional representation through some for Mixed Member proportional system, so that every region is represented in every government, and in the opposition. Fiddling with the Senate is unecessary and is only a good idea if you want to weaken federalism significantly, as Harper is on the record as wishing to do.

Ian Welsh January 10, 2006 - 6:32am

Ian,

I don't know about you, but if I lived in BC, I'm not sure I would bother to vote. The way it is now the election is decided before residents of western provinces cast their votes.

Provinces are very strong and that is the result of decentralized government. It sets up competition between them that 'politicians' from each province use to the max. That's not so much a function of the voting process as what it is about the division of powers.

The United States had a civil war because of the division of powers in their constitution. Is it futile to invision that Canada's fate will be different? Each state clamoured for more and more and less for the central government. The way it was solved in the United States was by the erosion of powers in the individual states. Each state forfeited their powers to the federal govenment, supposedly for the good of the good of the country. Yet, now that the federal government is very powerful in the United States, they yearn for powers that they previously had.

So is was Canada is now going through similar to what happened in the States before their civil war? I do believe it is and I'm not sure the solution that was found for the United States will be adopted by Canada. Perhaps we should look to the UK where Scotland, Wales and England came to a compromise.

canuck January 10, 2006 - 6:55am

By the way

the UK has no written constitution that divvied up powers. Smart move on their part--it all belonged to the monarchy where it was eventually eroded to the people.

canuck January 10, 2006 - 7:02am

Actually...

... I grew up in BC. And I know there's a great deal of alienation (though not nearly to the extent of Alberta.) But the solution, as you note, is not to encourage the provinces to compete against each other, but to give them reasons to work together.

Ian Welsh January 10, 2006 - 8:00am

You miss the point of Senate reform

at least in part.

That's the point of an elected Senate- equal representation for each province regardless of population. The number of seats each province receives in the Senate is not to be relative to its population. Using the US Congress as an example (because it is one of the best known examples), the lower chamber has seats divided by population, with each state having at lesat one seat. The greater the state's population, the more seats that state has in the House. In the Senate, every state has two seats period. As it stands now, the House of Commons is an elected body which has representation based on population, and the Senate is merely an appointed body with representation for geographic areas and not individual provinces with no basis on population and without being equal in any way. I simply do not see the point in continuing this. A Triple-E Senate, or at least an elected one, evens the playing field.

jam1979 August 31, 2006 - 11:46pm

First problem with an elected Senate

1) If the Senate is an elected body, it becomes competition for the House of Commons. Elected Senators would want their powers increased because they're now there with just as much authority as Members of Parliament. Presently the Members of Parliament are the only house that introduces money legislation and introduces bills about taxes. If they were equal, Senators would also want the power to introduce money bills and taxes. Lobbyists wouldn't be far behind introducing commercial interprise into our governance.

Why would elected Senators be content to rubber stamp legislation from the House of Commons when they would have a mandate from the public.

2) What works in the States, which is a Representative Republic, does not work for a Constitutional Monarchy. Canada's Senate was patterned after the House of Lords. It was always invisionaged that the upper house would be senior statesmen appointed by the sitting government as seats become available. On the basis of, "as seats become available," means that the sitting government doesn't appoint too many giving them undue influence about the number to appoint.

How often would their elections be? Given that the House of Commons can sit for up to 5 years before calling an election; eventually there would come a time when both houses would be up for election at the same time. There potentially could be no continuity within the combined houses.

3) Believe it or not, but there are very, very few political hacks that are appointed by the sitting government. Most of their work is done in committes where Senators conduct in-depth research for proposed legislation. They then give astute recommendations based on those studies. Very seldom is their advice rejected because of the scholarly manner in which they are conducted.

4) At the moment there are a total of 105 seats:

Ontario 24

Quebec 24

West 24

East 24

Territories 3 (for NWT, Yukon & Inuivit)

Newfoundland/Labrador 6 that isn't assigned to any of the other regions because they didn't become a province 'til 1949.

It is part of the Constitution that Quebec be given equal seats relative to the other provinces.

Total 105 Seats

According to the tripleE Senate, they would have 10 for each province.

Ontario, 10

Quebec, 10

West: Total 40
Alberta 10
Saskachewan 10
Manitoba 10
BC 10

East: Total 30
New Brunswick 10
Nova Scotia 10
PEI 10

Territories: Total 3
Remain at 1 each

Newfoundland/Labrador 10

Total: 103 seats

Ontario and Quebec are now grossly underrepresented and there is absolutely no way that would work. What's more those two provinces would never agree to a change to the Constitition that stripped their representation to both the East and the West. What's more it's absurd that the tiny island of PEI would have exactly the same number of seats as Ontario and Quebec.

What I believe would be acceptable is that Senators that are to be appointed is they no longer be appointed by the Prime Minister, but come only from the Province for whom they will represent. That takes any possibility they are appointed on the basis of favourtism to the Federal government (which IMHO, they currently aren't), but narrowing the basis of appointment that they come from the provinces rather than the being Federally appointed takes even the suggestion away.

------

The TripleE Canadian elected Senate is deeply flawed.

Like it or not, but the current method of proportioning seats is fairer because seats by region is much more representative.

-----

The United States appoints 2 senators for each State, but there isn't the division of regional interests in the United States as there is in Canada. Their system of government is based on checks and balances. Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Under the Canadian system there are two: Judicial and Legislative (with the upper appointed house being a balance for the lower house). The Judicial is the check and balance for the Legislative. The Prime Minister's Office has no powers over either the Legislative or the Judicial. The Governor General's position also has no power over anything that would act as a check over either the Judicial or the Legislative.

canuck September 1, 2006 - 3:47am

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

Harper's Senate Reform

Comment viewing options