No one can touch the senators - hasn't that point been made already?
I'm not arguing that point. But if the senate majority ever began a wholesale shutdown of commons bills I think senate reform would come off the backburner pretty quick. That's why I doubt they would do that - especially once Harper is gone.
Well, I hope you're right. I guess we'll see. I think Harper will win again in 2015, then retire before the next election after that, but his legacy will live on in the Senate. If Harper hangs on as PM for another four year term (2015 - 2019), he'll probably stack the Senate such that no other party will be able to compete against a senate Conservative majority probably in our lifetime.
Meaningful Senate reform might be Harper's only redeeming legacy, but he's running out of time, if he intends to do a proper job of it.
Maybe he's not interested iin senate reform after all - he just appointed five new Conservative senators. He's stacking the deck - just like the Liberals did. He now has something like a 60% majority in the Senate. If he keeps this up - likely - he may approach 70% - which will be just like the old Liberal Senate majorities - untouchable.
Meaningful Senate reform might be Harper's only redeeming legacy, but he's running out of time, if he intends to do a proper job of it.
What do you mean? He's already re-formed it.
Arrgh! I just had a vision of Preston Manning saying how much he loves that word refooorrrmmmm! 
So Harper created the Senate in his own image, in the image of Harper created he it; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:47
Meaningful Senate reform might be Harper's only redeeming legacy, but he's running out of time, if he intends to do a proper job of it.What do you mean? He's already re-formed it.
True enough: The Red Chamber is a plush as ever. Meaningful reconfiguration requires meaningful re-confederation, but that would necessitate meaningful national discussions, and honest, perhaps naive, debate.
I guess the NDP would just have to dust off that old senate policy they have had in their platform for decades. The only real senate reform is abolition.
...The only real senate reform is abolition.
Absolutely. But Harper has a substantial majority now in the Senate, and they will bow to his will, so it's clear that Harper has surrendered to the temptation of not only adding unelected members to it, but clearly has no plans to change it at all. Harper is likely looking and planning long range - stacking the Senate to do Conservative will far, far into the future, change of government or not.
Why would Harper want to introduce senate reform when he already controls the Senate? As a constitutional issue, he would have to consult the provinces and consulting anyone goes against his temperment. Since some provinces (the Atlantic ones) are way over-represented and others way under-represented (the West), to say nothing of Quebec's perspective on the Senate, it would be a nightmarish mess. He may make a token effort to appease the old Reform crowd, but I think he would quickly announce there were too many provincial roadblocks and halt the process. I have wanted the Senate abolished since I first learned about it in Social Studies at age 15 and I am now 64. A NDP government would have to spend enormous political capital fighting vested provincial and other interests if it decided to try to abolish it and would likely decide to focus on economic issues more likely to affect people's lives and possibly win them re-election. Unfortunately, I think the senate will still be around as a home for party hacks, even if I live until 104, unless Quebec becomes independent and we have to rewrite the entire constitution.
I think if the Senate began voting down a sitting governments legislation then they would hand it all the political capital required to have it abolished.
I think the Conservatives will be in power forever - they got a majority with only five seats in Quebec. With a Conservative dominated senate, they effectively have a right wing dictatorship.
I think the Conservatives will be in power forever - they got a majority with only five seats in Quebec. With a Conservative dominated senate, they effectively have a right wing dictatorship.
With a majority in both the Senate and the Commons, Harper has few excuses not to press forward with Triple-E reform, without further alienating his base.
With a majority in both the Senate and the Commons, Harper has few excuses not to press forward with Triple-E reform, without further alienating his base.
I haven't seen or heard any discussion of Triple E in a long, long time - I suspect it's at the bottom of their list, and that Harper's base is simply thrilled to have Harper as PM with a solid majority in both houses, and going gung-ho in an extreme right direction.
ETA: With the Cons at something in the area of 165 seats and the NDP at 102 or so, I think the very best we can hope for in 2015 is a Harper minority. The gap between Harper and Mulcair is simply too big to overcome - no? In other words, where is Mulcair going to pick up enough seats to beat Harper???
The main battleground will be Ontario. If the Liberals obtain some traction with a new leader, there may be substantial three-way vote-splitting, with outcomes similar to what just occurred in Quebec. I also think it depends on what the defining issue(s) will be. I don't believe Harper has a lock on the Ontario vote, any more than the NDP has it on Quebec's.
Double post
Oh - I just read elsewhere (did not save the link) that the NDP now have 6 seats in Atlantic Canada, and are going for 30 next time (in 2015). That kind of seat gains will make a difference.
As long as we have a fedration such as we do, complete rep by pop in a unicameral legislature will not work. Smaller regions and provinces need an adequate voice at the federal level. Without minimum seat guarantees for NB and NS, confederation would not have gotten off the ground in 1867.
As long as we have a fedration such as we do, complete rep by pop in a unicameral legislature will not work. Smaller regions and provinces need an adequate voice at the federal level. Without minimum seat guarantees for NB and NS, confederation would not have gotten off the ground in 1867.
Indeed. An elected and effective Senate could go a long way in addressing regional imbalances, while equally recognizing and affirming indigenous and linguistic cultural realities. A Royal Commission applied exclusively to Senate reform (with a deadline to report before the next federal election) could even provide a serious and reasonable examination/discussion of the future of Canadian federalism itself. If it helps provide direction toward future Constitutional negotiations, then so much the better.
Yes let us enshrine in our constitution a new Senate that under represents BC voters just like the H of C under represents BC voters.
I am glad our seats in the new dual Houses will help solve all the confederations problems. Anything else we can give you?
Senate reform in itself will not resolve representation problems in Parilament. Those issues need to be addressed within a comprehensive electoral reform mandate. I agree, the Commons is not truly representative; PR being my preference.
dp
@ Caissa
Re: representation. I don't get it, and more importantly I see far more problems in a senate with real power than I do with abolition.
I do take your argument that the commons is unbalanced; in fact, it is weighted TOWARD regions with lower population. But assuming that it has those flaws, why rebuild the other chanber to correct it and leavethose flaws in place? Why not just make those changes in the commons?
Plus, it is no longer 1867 (he said, from a part of canada which was not even given a choice to enter confederation in 1870, but was sold as a business deal, and invaded. And Manitobans who did get a choice saw their agreements torn up even before the Canadians arrived). Frankly, I think entrenching regionalism even more than it is already is a bad mistake. Notice that one of the strongest arguments against reform is that it would be so hard to get the provinces and the federal government to agree? Electing senators as regional representatives is going down that same divisive road.
And if you want even stronger arguments you only have to look to the federation south of us.
And as I've said a few times, how do you square holding the executive branch to account if you have a whole house that never gets to question the prime minister or certain ministers of the government?
Abolish it, or neuter it and turn it into a high-level committee. But let's not forget that the senate was a house built as an ersatz house of lords, and is undemocratic by design.
I was talking about the fact that the good voters of PEI when voting for MP's have almost triple the representation of the good voters of Burnaby. Who wins the seats is not the point, although I agree we need PR. The point is our current system gives the Maritime provinces and Sask and Man. more House seats than their population warrants in a one citizen one vote system. PEI is the most outrageous example of a ridiculous system that pretends PEI should be one of 10 provinces in a federation and it gets both disproportionate MP's and Senators. All that for a province that doesn't even have a major retail sector judging from the license plates in the malls in Moncton.
There are various ways to try and fix that in a confederation but seems to me that you can't have an imbalance in both Houses to offset the same problem. If we are to have an elected Senate, which I don't really think we need, then its electoral boundaries should be regional. Going from the West to the East. Then we should have a BC, a prairies, a Territories, an Ontario, a Quebec and a Maritimes region. Six regions of equal representation with three STV electoral districts of five Senators each for a total of 90 compared to our current 105. Of course that gives the Senate as many north of sixty Senators as Ontario Senators but that is the point.
The H of C needs to be elected by PR with all the existing constitutional seat guarantees ignored and as best possible ridings with close to equal representation implemented.
It is always interesting to hear that the smaller provinces shouldn't be worried from individuals from provinces with larger population. it just reinforces the concerns of those of us from small provinces.
Harper promises bill to elect senators
For 6 years now, I've been wondering: Who's "Bill" and why did Harper promise him senators??
That's my dad's name.
It is always interesting to hear that the smaller provinces shouldn't be worried from individuals from provinces with larger population. it just reinforces the concerns of those of us from small provinces.
Sure... but frankly, I am more concerned with Poundmaker and Red Pheasant getting a veto on things, and to a lesser degree, the point of Quebec as a nation. If we really want to ensure a voice for the least powerful, how about our northern territories? As for the rest of us, I think entrenching regionalism as some thing that will do nothing but fuck things up. We already have provincial goernments with strong powers when it comes to constitutional matters.
Sure everyone wants their piece of the pie, but to turn it around, how fair is it that a province with half the population of my city can hold the same veto power as 12 million people?
If we want to get regional about it, that is.
A bit of an aside, but speaking of unelected officials using their positions in ways that are out of line (though it is exactly what those positions were originally designed for).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/ron-paul-electoral-college_n_18...
The H of C needs to be elected by PR with all the existing constitutional seat guarantees ignored . . .
As to PR ending the seat guarantees, never going to happen. We want to introduce PR without amending the constitution. That's why the Law Commission of Canada recommended PR with the same number of MPs from each province as we have today.
If you want to try to cut the number of MPs from New Brunswick, feel free. But it has nothing to do with the NDP's plans to consult the voters and institute proportional representation. Nor Dion's, nor the Greens.
This is a thread about electing Senators. Putting in PR will do nothing to offset the Senate changes Harper is proposing. I think it is a good idea to go forward with that even if doesn't change the imbalance in vote strength that some citizens have over other citizens. PEI to Burnaby is over a 2 to 1 ratio and thus even with PR the voters in PEI will still have a disproportionate number of MP's. They might be distributed more evenly amongst the PEI parties but that does not change the fundamentals of over representation vis a vis other Canadians.
My offerings were premised on the basis of reopening the constitution and in that case then those ridiculous historic entitlements must be on the table.
reopening constitution = can o'worms
can o' worms = lotsa fish
Not necessarily a bad thing.
What exactly is so good about our constitution anyway?
The BNA Act was written to perpetuate the British imperial class system and to ensure that the colonial business leaders controlled the political realm. You have to admire the fact that the British Lords who drafted it did such a fine job of meeting their objectives over the course of 150 years.
@ k
Maybe. I think the reality is a bit more complex than that, especially when the actual history has seen unelected members of that Imperial system - like Lord Elgin - stand up on the side of real democracy. This has been an open debate since the 1600s, so I don't really buy the control argument. Winston Churchill was arguing for abolition of the House of Lords (and playing them politically) 100 years ago.
Besides, the real control isn't really being enforced in legislatures.
Sure its a problem, but it is also a very complicated one. I expect something will be done about it when the need outweighs the difficulty and great risk involved. Frankly some of the motives being put forward for change - like Mr. Harper's - concern me far more than the fact I agree with him about the inherent undemocratic nature of that house.
6078
I gave an opinion on a internet chat forum and in fact a somewhat flippant one at that. I do not write doctoral thesis on babble so yes everything I fucking write is a little less complex than an in depth academic paper.
So please if you have nothing positive to say about my posts would you please just ignore them. I find your constant confrontational nit picking very annoying and it makes my time here less than enjoyable.
Well if it was flippant, then why the reaction?
Look k, I was also just making conversation. And perhaps we disagree in part on this but I hardly think I was attacking you or your position.
You are also free to ignore me. It's a lot easier than me trying to second guess when someone is going to take offense.
thanks ^)&( for your consideration of my request. I am glad to know that if I find your posts insulting it is best that I ignore the insult. I'll keep that in mind since I would hate to disturb the enjoyment you get from nit picking my posts.
Have a nice day.
Frankly some of the motives being put forward for change - like Mr. Harper's - concern me far more than the fact I agree with him about the inherent undemocratic nature of that house.
Sorry to nitpick, but I don't think 6079 was nitpicking, but rather adding detail from another perspective. What's the point of having a discussion board if not to do exactly that?
Have a nice day.
Harper has appointed 58 senators so far - that's bush league according to this:
List of Canadian Senate appointments by prime minister
King: 103
Sir John A: 91
Laurier/Trudeau (each): 81
Chretien: 75
Harper 58
Remember this?
"On December 22, 2008, the Prime Minister filled all eighteen vacant Senate seats. It was earlier reported in the Toronto Star that this action was "to kill any chance of a Liberal-NDP coalition government filling the vacancies next year".[36][37] The new Senators include broadcasters Pamela Wallin (for Saskatchewan) and Mike Duffy (for PEI), and Olympic skier Nancy Greene Raine (for BC).[38]"
My offerings were premised on the basis of reopening the constitution and in that case then those ridiculous historic entitlements must be on the table.
reopening constitution = can o'worms
