Politic-O-Pinion

Harper isn’t interested in changing anything at this point. It’s all about selling the sizzle not the steak; make sure those votes are still lined up; “we have not forgotten our loyal followers”.
He wants his majority - then watch out!

There are a few problems with an equal Senate.

When the fathers of Confederation decided on the distribution of seats, one of the reasons for creating the three (now four) divisions was the desire for adequate representation of francophones. If every province has 6 elected senators, francophones are unlikely to hold more than 10% of the chamber’s seats. I believe this is unacceptable given the importance of the French language and the French Canadian community to Canada. The Senate must have a large contingent, ideally at least one quarter, of francophones to effectively defend the interests of French Canadians.

In the US, the most populous state, California, is home to about 11% of the country’s population. By contrast, Ontario has 39% of the Canadian population and accounts for 44% of GDP. I don’t think it is fair for a province which dwarfs the others in terms of popuplation and economic activity to have less than 10% of the seats in the Senate. From a demographic and economic point of view, Ontario could easily be four distinct provinces: northern Ontario, southwestern Ontario, southcentral Ontario and eastern Ontario. Therefore, I believe it is fair for the province to have as many Senators as the four western provinces combined.

Finally, I am one of the few Canadians who don’t want an elected Senate. I agree with you that we don’t need a second House of Commons, but I fear that an elected Senate would be almost identical to the House of Commons. While the House of Commons represents Canadians, it is hardly representative of the diversity which exists in Canada. An appointed Senate can truly reflect the diversity, in terms of language, ethnicity, occupation, etc of this country. In recent years, the percentage of Senate seats occupied by women and minorities has increased rapidly as PMs Chretien and Martin made a point of increasing the diversity of the Upper Chamber. Meanwhile, the number of women MPs is stagnant. Also, appointed Senators can be chosen for their qualifications as legislators, while MPs usually get their jobs because of their ability to win a nomination and get elected.

To cut down on the patronage which has undermined the Senate’s credibility, the PM could set up an informal system for choosing appointees which would be based on qualifications and the needs of the Senate instead of patronage. I believe two chambers, one elected which represents the voice of Canadians and the other appointed on merit to reflect the diversity of Canada, complementing each other would benefit Canadians more than two elected chambers competing for the attention of the media and the votes of Canadians.

Ed King,

Very good points. I almost agree with the unelected Senate based on your rationale.

But a proportional representative body in the Upper House makes the Senate the same as the Commons no matter how you slice it. Whether the faces and the names reflect a greater degree of diversity or not, proportional representation doesn’t make the Senate what it needs to be.

California, as you cite in your example, has 11% of the population but only 2% representation in their Senate. Francophones, representing approximately 20% of Canadians, having potentially 10% representation in the Senate, would be better represented than Californians.

I honestly don’t see why francophones need to have a round-about-way guaranteed representation within the Government. I think/hope that at this day in age there is no one in Parliament who is actively working to squash their rights. In 1876 I can see the purpose to ensuring representation of a then-highly-divided nation… but haven’t times changed? Can’t we say that, as Canadians, our nation has improved its intrarelations?

The more I write this, the more I do tend to see the merit in an appointed Senate with a change in representation. Combining our two theories. Keeping the appointed Senate but redefining its representation to an “equal” one (more or less) could be a better Senate in the long run.

I don’t know. You’ve given me something to think about. I am certain that I will be writing more on the subject in the future and I will definitely be taking a harder look at my opinions on election of the Senate.

Thank you for the comment, I appreciated it.

When you look at the bad side of every option for senate reform, it always sounds more plausible that the good side. An elected senate will yield another set of image-centric, self-serving politicans. An appointed senate is simply a dumping ground for patronage. A population-proportinate senate duplicates the House of Commons. A senate with equal representation from each province is accused of under-representating or over-representing interests.

Personally, I doubt anything will happen unless a Conservative majority government is elected. The only thing that I think could fly in a minority situation is abolition, which the Bloc and the NDP would support. (Note: I have no idea what exactly are the legislative requirements for Senate reform…)

Depending on the change to the Senate different levels of legislation would be required. A change in the membership qualification (election versus appointment) theoretically only requires the Prime Minister to appoint only those who have been elected (as Harper said he would do - though he didn’t keep that promise).

Changing the make-up and representation within the Senate requires the amendment of the Constitution. Which means both houses of Parliament as well as two thirds of the provincial legislatures (at least seven) representing at least 50% of the population (meaning that Ontario and Quebec could easily stymie any amendment).

Hi just wondered if you really want to allow the senate to continue in it’s present form. If so would you like to give me the job? I’ll attend every day the senate sits unlike most senators. I’ll also have the canadian people in mind rather than the political party that gave me the cushy job. Also I would like to be able to continue to work after I am 65, as when I reach 65 any and all government benifits I worked for all my life are cut off. I won’t get a dime. Unless you count cpp and old age pension. Pity I didn’t have the right connections to get the plush position these dolts have. Not one of the un-elected senators deserve the positions they have. As for supporting the government of P.M. Steven harper or anyone else that will not give us senate reform, I shall not. I shall also be voicing my opinion of a promise broken my Mr Harper. You may ask who cares. Perhaps at the next election more people than you think.

Reeformmmm!

Do we need to reform the Senate or should we just change the appointment procedure?

The Upper House is needed if its purpose is to serve as a House of “second sober thought” rather than as a House of patronage.

An elected Senate has several disadvantages; it would diminish the role of the House of Commons, and it would create another round of elections, which judging from the percentage of Canadians who now cast their votes would be little more than a sham. We could end up with an American-style political mess.

Believe it or not, many of the current senators are ideal choices. They have distinguished themselves in their life’s endeavor, and they work with other Senators and MPs collegially, and they view proposed legislation from a pan-Canadian perspective. To me these people are the caliber of persons who should seat in our Senate. Collectively, they would strengthen our representative-democracy.

With this in mind, we need a senate appointment system that would weight the selection process to choosing persons of merit, persons distinguished in their field. Francis William Mahovlich and Roméo A Dallaire are sterling examples.

As to geographical representation, we are stuck with the 25 percent rule for Québec. It’s neither prudent nor advisable to open that can of worms. It could lead to national disharmony and even the breakup of our country.

I believe, as a suggestion only, each Provincial government could form an all-party committee to draw up a list of candidates. This list would be submitted to the Prime Minister, and he would be obligated to make his appointments from these lists with an eye to both geographical and to occupational balance. (I would not wish to see a Senate overloaded with former lawyers and politicians.)

What we really need to look at is what elections would effectively do to what they will accomplish in theory. In theory it would make all senators compete for this position (what happens in lower house already) but all senators to get seats would have to play the public game of you vote I do. Saying this is that the theory is that they would do their job better but in reality it would cloud the judgment of this sober second thought on what the senate really is. It would lead to the scenario of truth vs. public opinion; election vs. appointment the choice on the greater is obvious.

What people on this page don’t seem to realize is that they have biased there theories and argument on practically that, theory. By electing senate we need to realize the ramifications this poses. One being the issue of the public agenda, and the second thing is that it will not increase diversity, note lower house. So it would not seem even plausible when you look into what the realistic effects would be.