Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

Serious about Senate reform, huh?

by kadyomalley on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:26pm - 124 Comments

But not serious – or politically suicidal – enough to reopen the Constitution, apparently. The PM may be “prepared to stack” the Senate, but the numbers are stacked against him — even if he were to follow in the footsteps of a previous prime minister, and invoke the infamous Section 26 to stuff a few more warm bodies into the currently unacceptably red Red Chamber:

From today’s Globe and Mail:

PM prepared to stack Senate so Tories can make changes

Newly re-elected Prime Minister Stephen Harper served notice Wednesday that he will stack the Senate with Tories if necessary to push through democratic reforms of the chamber.

Mr. Harper told reporters in Calgary that the Conservatives are serious about promised changes to the Senate – which include elections and eight-year fixed terms – and will fill it with new Tory appointments to push through reforms if the Liberal majority there opposes them.

“We don’t believe an unelected body should in anyway be blocking an elected body,” he told a news conference in Calgary.

There are 16 vacancies in the Senate because Mr. Harper has let retirements go unfilled, but the Liberals still dominate with 59 unelected senators in the 105-seat chamber.

“I have held off for a very long time in naming senators. That said, I do not believe it is justified that the Senate would continue to [be] dominated by a party that did not win two consecutive elections,” he said.

“We are looking for the opportunity to elect senators, but if at some point it becomes clear some senators are not going to be elected, the government will name senators to ensure that the elected will of the House of Commons and the people of Canada is reflected in the Senate.”

The Tories have complained about Liberals in the Senate obstructing their ideas.

By January of 2010, there will be 31 vacancies in the Senate and the Liberal caucus will be reduced by then to fewer than 50 seats in the chamber. Mr. Harper could theoretically appoint 31 senators to one-year terms and use that strength to push through whatever changes were deemed necessary.

Constitution Act, 1867:

Addition of Senators in certain cases 26. If at any Time on the Recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit to direct that Four or Eight Members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by Summons to Four or Eight qualified Persons (as the Case may be), representing equally the Four Divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly. (15)
Reduction of Senate to normal Number 27. In case of such Addition being at any Time made, the Governor General shall not summon any Person to the Senate, except on a further like Direction by the Queen on the like Recommendation, to represent one of the Four Divisions until such Division is represented by Twenty-four Senators and no more. (16)
Maximum Number of Senators 28. The Number of Senators shall not at any Time exceed One Hundred and thirteen. (17)

Current Senate standings:

Liberal Party 59
Conservative Party 21
Progressive Conservative 3 (Atkins, McCoy, Murray)
Independent 4 (Pitfield, Prud’homme, Rivest, Spivak)
Independent New Democratic Party 1 (Dyck)
—— 1 (Cools)
Vacant seats 16 Newfoundland and Labrador (1), New Brunswick (1)
Nova Scotia (3), Prince Edward Island (1)
Quebec (4), Ontario (2), Yukon (1)
British Columbia (3)
___
TOTAL 105

Should this minority government manage to survive until January 2010, when the Liberal ranks would have been sufficiently depleted to allow a restocked contingent of Conservatives to control the Chamber — that is, if each and every one of them was willing to carry out PMO-issued marching orders, which is, historically, a foolish – and politically dangerous – assumption for a government to make — any attempt to fundamentally change the nature and purpose of the Senate on a unilateral basis would put Stephen Harper on a collision course with the provinces – particularly Quebec. Which means that even his proposed changes made it through Parliament, the whole mess would end up in court, which could take years to decide whether a Prime Minister can do through backdoor legislation what he lacks the political courage to do through a constitutional amendment. In the meantime, the Senate would continue to exert its power, and fulfill its duty to examine, amend, and – if necessary – defeat legislation.

Is that really how Stephen Harper wants to spend what could be his last term as Prime Minister?  Wouldn’t it be easier – and more enjoyable – to govern the country, rather than pick a fight with parliamentary tradition just to indulge his nostalgia for Reform-era policy?

Tags: , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
← Older Comments
  • Mike T.

    Mr. Mitchell, the recourse against unconstitutional change is that it would be ineffective and could be ignored. If there was a question about constitutionality, it would be referred to court.

  • Darrell

    This isn’t a backdoor attempt to promote Senate reform, it’s a backdoor attempt to appoint Senators.

    That he is framing his plans to finally dole out Senate appointments to his people as a ‘threat’ is laughable – given that Liberal Senators have been asking him to appoint Senators from almost the moment he took office.

    Some even considered taking him to court to force him to do so.

  • Jack Mitchell

    Ah, right! Thanks, Darrell, I think you solved it.

  • bud

    Hilarious. Change the scenario so that the Conservatives had a stranglehold on the kazoo chamber and you folks would be making Senate change job one. Particularly certain members of our famously unbiased Liberal media.

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    Bud – Perhaps you have forgotten that Chretien was a Liberal prime minister, who found himself stonewalled by the Senate when he attempted to slide out of a signed contract to hand over the Pearson Airport to an independent authority without facing a lawsuit from the jilted parties.

    The Senate – including several Liberal senators – defeated the bill, and were – in my opinion – entirely justified in doing so. Ditto for that ridiculous private members’ bill that replicated the American “Son of Sam” law, which was subsequently struck down by US courts — which was introduced by a Liberal MP, and supported by the Liberal caucus. Again, the right thing to do, in my opinion – with which you are free to disagree, but which is not, as you suggest, inconsistent.

    I understand how much simpler your world would be if you could sort everyone – especially journalists – into neat little two dimensional boxes, but that’s just not how the world works.

  • Darrell

    Bud -

    Even Harper doesn’t think Senate reform is job one.

    He doesn’t want to give up that leverage any more than he wants to give up the power to call elections.

    Our Prime Minister’s ability to have his cake and eat it too is truly amazing.

  • bud

    “I understand how much simpler your world would be if you could sort everyone – especially journalists – into neat little two dimensional boxes, but that’s just not how the world works”

    Maybe not the world as a whole, but the Cdn media might get you an argument.

    The Cdn. media is saturated by the likes of the Julie Van Dusens of the world explaining Dion’s platform in a most helpful way. Or Chretin’s English. Let’s just say the other side’s treatment is somewhat different. Once again the media had the worst showing of any interested party in the past election. Once again, that’s one post mortem that won’t be discussed.

    You may want to believe you are non-partisan. A perusal of your output says otherwise. As do the creatures you attract. I’m sure the CBC and the Star etc.. all believe they are even handed. Maybe self delusion is an industry trait.

  • Jack Mitchell

    I think bud should be banned from this blog. Regardless of how immune ITQ may be, it irritates the f*ck out of some of her readers to see bud’s malevolence appearing out of the blue all the time. He gives all commenters a bad name.

  • Darrell

    You’re not my bud, guy!

  • bud

    Mitchell:

    You’re thinking of the past where the media spoke and everyone else just listened. Now I know different opinions are scary for Liberals( btw, Liberals and the left are the same in this country, just don’t tell the left about the Liberal’s rich friends) and small minds like yourself have extra difficulty, but please, you spout inane piffle here on a
    regular basis.

    I happen to believe Canada has a horrible, horrendous, hack like media with the vast majority loving all things Liberal. Needs pointing out.

    If I were in to banning as much as most Liberals appear to be, I think I’d start with the people who like to ban things. Liberals.

  • Elaine

    Hi Kady,

    You have a lot of fans and I often come to read here on their recommendations. It seems we have the same tendency — we like to research and find out the truth. I wish more Canadians had.

    I admire your handling of the insincere online thugs who attempt to muddy the waters, falsely plant “opinions” and… like the cowards they are, they tend to shoot the messenger with no real opinion of their own.

    And I just adore your sense of humour. :)

  • Elaine

    Mitchell,

    You sure have your parties screwed up. Oh, wait. That’s your intent.

  • stewacide

    I hope no Ontario MP – Conservative or otherwise – would stand for an empowered Senate.

    As I see things Ontario accepts an implicit bargain whereby we are under-represented in the House; but to doubly-under-represent Ontario in Ottawa by empowering the Senate would be totally unacceptable.

    A “EEE” Senate reform – like social conservatism – can only marginalize the new Conservative Party and keep it from ever winning a majority. I’d have hoped Harper had learned his lesson with this last election, but perhaps not. If he’s really going to stick by this issue then I hope the party has the sense to dump him.

  • http://skinnydips.blogspot.com Skinny Dipper

    Here’s a link to my thoughts about how a reformed Senate and House of Commons could work well together:

    http://skinnydips.blogspot.com/2008/10/could-reformed-house-of-commons-and.html

    Or just click my nickname above.

  • Pingback: Whoa! What are you doing? What the people want? | Toronto Metblogs

  • Elaine

    I certainly hope we never have elected Senate. It’s been proven over and over, if left to election, we end up with the same old white Conservative wealthy guys or Conservatives with rich corporations funding their elections.

    By appointment we end up with a mixture of people who look more like Canadians, including a better proportion of women. These folks can’t get the Corporate election funding, so they can’t win elections. Also, those who are mature are less likely to be voted for due to mature age or looks. In a shallow society like ours, appointment is the better option.

    Unfortunately, when you have a controller and paranoia-driven leader, he wildly accuses everyone of being on the “left” whether they are progressive tory, right liberal or whoever. People are getting a little tired of his hysterical and lame argument, as he tries to justify loading to the ultra right. Does he actually think Canadians are dumb enough?

  • Elaine

    Kady,

    I really HIGHLY recommend tonight’s Bill Moyer’s segments. One was Mark Crispin Miller about how to steal an election. One of the tactics of VOTE SUPPRESSION is to legislate new voter identification requirements. Stephen Harper’s Conservative government brought in the regulation change, and it was predicted the Conservatives were the most likely to benefit from that change. I wish every Canadian would watch this 15 minutes. Aside from a couple of items that are strictly U.S. it illustrates the spot we’re in:

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10172008/watch3.html

  • keith by the Bruce

    ” happen to believe Canada has a horrible, horrendous, hack like media with the vast majority loving all things Liberal. Needs pointing out. If I were in to banning as much as most Liberals appear to be, I think I’d start with the people who like to ban things. Liberals.”
    ———–
    Liberals like RM Nixon , GW , brian and now steve have always had to clean up the tory messes ? Who started regulating banks after bailing them out , deregulating then re regulating banks and bailing them again , created CBC / Wheatboard monopoly etc , etc , etc . ctv congomerate is my guiding north star of media !

  • keith by the Bruce

    steve & liberal party lost in space between their ears ? steve wants to fix senate while failed former libs want to fix an idea ?

    Lowly peons think you need a lotta new blood like Martha Hall Findlay and Greg McClinchey types .

    A blind Canadian could see you helped build the PMO into a powerhouse that harper is using to geld his mute M.P.s .

    Any unhealthy Canadian can see that by allowing steve to ignore 89 major violations of the Canada Health Act you are admitting defeat of public funded medicine like jack and steve .

    Get out of the way for new blood . Money and support will come naturally ?

  • Democrat

    A federation such as Canada comprised of divergent regions and a scattered population requires an upper house to protect the interests of the regions and in particular the smaller provinces that have very little clout in the Commons. The basic Constitutional puposes of the Senate as set out in 1867 are still relevant but the institution needs to be modernized and reflect the reality of Canada in the 21st century. Senators should be elected for fixed terms, perhaps six years with elections every 3 years for half of the senators so the entire body is not elected during one election, somewhat like the US Senate. The proportion of seats should better reflect the distribution of population but should still be weighted to the benefit of the smaller provinces. Essentially, the three Maritime Provinces must in all fairness lose some of their seats to BC and Alberta, each of which has a FAR larger population than the entire Maritime region. Here is a proposal:

    Ontario, Quebec – 24 Senators each (unchanged)
    *Ontario remains underrepresented, but it has huge clout in the Commons.

    British, Columbia – 12 Senators (up from 6)
    Alberta – 12 Senators (up from 6)
    *more proportional for BC and Alberta. Much like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are considered equal, so should these two provinces. Together these two provinces would have the same seat count as Ontario or Quebec.

    Manitoba, Saskatchewan – 6 Senators each (unch.)

    Maritimes – 14 Senators, allocated as 6 each for NS and NB and 2 for PEI, (down from 24).
    Newfoundland – 6 Senators (unch.)
    *the smaller provinces are all overrepresented to balance their smaller number of seats in the Commons.
    Territories – 1 senator each (unch.)
    TOTAL – 107 senators (up from 105)

  • Democrat

    I would also add that if the Senate is to have actual power the seats in the Commons should be distributed on a more purely rep by pop basis. As such: Ont 125 (+19), Que 75 (unch), BC 43 (+7), Alta 34 (+6), Man 12 (-2),
    Sask 10 (-4), NS 9 (-2), NB 7 (-3), PEI 2 (-2),
    Nfld 5 (-1), NWT 1, YT 1, NU 1 (all unch.).
    CANADA 325 (+17).

  • T. Thwim

    Because it makes a lot of sense for a person to have more of a say on national legislation because of where they live.

  • Gord

    Many very interesting and divergent opinions here. I agree with the comments posted above by Democrat.

    A point of clarification. The west loses big time with Harper’s “senate reform” proposals as they basically entrench the status quo where Alberta and BC are the most under-represented provinces in the Senate. All of the western provinces currently have about half the number of senators versus Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I hope Harper knows that a lot of BCers know they will be the big losers when he tries to force us to legitimize this imbalance by forcing us to elect senators.

    Given that there is no possibility of the EEE proposals ever being passed through the required changes in the senate, Canada could be stuck with an elected body that is primarily dominated by a semi-permanent Liberal majority from Ontario and Atlantic Canada. The balance made up with Conservatives from the west and BQ from Quebec. Thats the way to solve regional discontent in Canada. Put the Bloc into the senate. And punish BC and Alberta for their late entry into Canada. Way to go Harper!

  • Andrew

    Democrat: it’s refreshing to have someone speak rationally about Senate reform. I never understood why the West was so interested in EEE insanity. In it’s purest form, it would have cemented the overrepresentation of the Maritimes/Nfld while shortchanging Ontario and Quebec to an extent that might be dangerous. Most interestingly, it wouldn’t have made the Senate any more conservative-friendly (which is the goal of the whole exercise).

← Older Comments

Previous

Next

From Macleans