Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The red shift

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:41pm - 0 Comments

Liberal senator Grant Mitchell contemplates the potential possibilities and pitfalls of senate reform.

Electing Senators will cause a massive shift of power from the Prime Minister, from the House of Commons and from provincial Premiers to the Senate. As elected Senators they can (and they will) hold up legislation and budgets which will diminish the power of the House of Commons. Since there are, for example, only 6 Senators in Alberta compared to 28 MPs, they will have more prominence and the power that goes with it. When elected, Senators will more aggressively exercise their role in representing regional rights and will take the power to do that from where it resides now, with the Premiers. I often ask people to name 5 members of the US House of Representatives, 5 Governors and then 5 US Senators. For most, it is way easier to name Senators than either Governors or a Congress Person. That’s because the US Senate, elected as it is, is the most powerful institution in US government.

Tags: Grant Mitchell, Senate, Senate reform, senators

More by Aaron Wherry

Style

Maybe it's easy to name five sitting American senators because so many have contested Presidential elections? Lieberman, Kerry, McCain…But the governors usually quit – e.g. former half-term governor Sarah Palin. Also, there seem to be term limits for governors, while senators sit for decades. Also, America has a presidential system so why are we comparing how a reformed Canadian Senate might operate to any institution of the US government? Couldn't we look at Australia instead?

s_c_f

Yes, those are all good reasons why senators are remembered more. I think the fact that senators have longer terms actually attracts more influential politicians.

However, I think that the numbers make a big difference. With 100 senators, their vote and their influence on legislation has a lot more weight, compared to 435 members of the house. I think this also attracts more influential politicians.

tedbetts

"Beware what you ask for, you may get it."

I've always had no problem with a triple E senate for precisely the reason Mitchell identifies: Canada is already the most decentralized nation in the world and this move, far from making provinces more powerful, will make the federal central government stronger and more significant.

LynnTO

There's a difference between a strong central government and a central government that ignores 300 elected representatives in favour of 50.

Dave

Why would that government ignore the 300?

LynnTO

With an elected Senate, the idea is that your Senators are just as legitimate as your MPs. In a roomful of bickering MPs, whose reach is finite, compared to a handful of bickering Senators, whose powers would arguably more final, given that they're the last legislative sign-off before the GG gets to put his/her rubber stamp on the whole thing – who do you go to, to consult on policy that you're about to make?

Even though the Senate isn't supposed to be a legislating body, but rather a legislative review body (in its initial construct, and senate reform doesn't usually try to alter the purpose of the senate but rather its construction), it becomes a de facto legislating body, as it would be a) theoretically more easy to get fewer people to agree and b) it has the "upper house" designation in parliamentary process, so it has greater veto ability. And, once it becomes a legislating body, the purpose of the House becomes, well, moot.

Style

In its original construction, it's a co-equal legislative body with the House of Commons. It's become a proof-reading review body because it lacks democratic legitimacy.
Emily

Some of you need to read up on the Senate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada#Leg…
Style

Why do you post these wikipedia links? It says clearly that "the power of the two Houses of Parliament is theoretically equal; the approval of each is necessary for a bill's passage." with the exception of originating money bills and (sort of) amending the Constitution. How is this significantly different from the point I made?['
Emily

Because most people read them instead of haring off to prove their own misconceptions again.

In conformity with the British model, the upper house is not permitted to originate bills imposing taxes or appropriating public funds. Unlike in Britain but similar to the United States, this restriction on the power of the Senate is not merely a matter of convention, but is explicitly stated in the Constitution Act, 1867. In addition, the House of Commons may, in effect, override the Senate's refusal to approve an amendment to the Canadian Constitution; however they must wait at least 180 days before exercising this override. Other than these two exceptions, the power of the two Houses of Parliament is theoretically equal; the approval of each is necessary for a bill's passage. In practice, however, the House of Commons is the dominant chamber of Parliament, with the Senate very rarely exercising its powers in a manner that opposes the will of the democratically elected chamber
Style

Yes, Emily. That's the bit I quoted too. How is it materially different from my original statement?
Emily

It was never co-equal in legislation, and it's never been a 'proof-reading body'

Nor has it ever lacked legitimacy because it's appointed.

It was a second House of Lords…meant to keep the mob in check…and goodness knows it's been needed.
Dave

I'm pretty sure, as are others above, that the Senate is a legislating body. It can do wacky things like initiate legislation at first reading, which is why some bills are numbered S-XXX instead of C-XXX.

Anyway, in a Westminster Parliamentary democracy, with responsible government and all that, you are simply not going to see the focus of the central government suddenly shift from to non-confidence Senate chamber no matter how robust you make it as an institution of legislation and government.
Andrew (not PorC)

I think you're forgetting the potential for utter deadlock. If, say, we had a Conservative majority in the HoC and a Liberal majority in the Senate, no matter how many times you dissolve the Commons, you still have the deadlock. The Senate majority trumps the HoC majority because Senators serve their full term, and when there is deadlock, the HoC must go.

Olaf

Canada is already the most decentralized nation in the world and this move

I've always been a bit skeptical of this claim, although I've heard it so much I think I must be missing something.

Just as a limited example, in the US, their states have jurisdiction over most US law (including criminal), and Obama's health reform act is being challenged in Court on federalism grounds (where as our even more intrusive federal CHA is in the clear). And aren't Belgium and Switzerland basically confederations? Anyway, if anyone wanted to show off and save me the time of trying to figure out how we're more 'decentralized' than the US or certain bi/tri-cultural European jurisdictions, that would be awesome.

tedbetts

"I've heard it so much"

Really? The pendulum had swung so far back toward the provinces that I thought I was pretty much on my own on this. Good to know.

It is a matter of interpretation, a bit. But let's start with the easy stuff: pretty much every country in the world, including countries as large as India, China and Russia, permit the central/federal government from making pretty much any law it wants. They delegate responsibilities down for mostly administrative reasons and can always take back that authority.

There are only a few federal states akin to Canada's where power is distributed directly to a more regional body: US, Australia, Switzerland for example. You could put forward a strong argument that the Swiss and the Americans have a more decentralized government but I don't think I hear anyone say the same about Australia or other federal states.

tedbetts

[cont]

The Swiss is a unique case with its direct democracy and 26 cantons/provinces. The constitution seems to give each canton full "sovereignty" but only where the federal government has not limited this by law. Like I said, you could certainly make a strong argument that it is less centralized than Canada, but my sense is that the reality is that it is not.

The US seems to be the flip side of us with state paramountcy. The reality though is that the federal government has used its jurisdicition over commerce and anything that goes interstate to such an extent that Trudeau's dream looks like a firewall. Certainly, you could argue that the state control over criminal law is so huge that there is no comparison to Canada, but with the ever growing interconnectivity on such matters as trade, commerce, labour, the US federal government has and exercises far greater powers than Canada.

But if you don't take my position on those two countries, we're still one of the three most decentralized nations among 200 plus.

Olaf

Thanks, Ted. That was way easier than doing my own research.

I think i would have been less disturbed by the phrase 'Canada already has one of the most decentralized federations in the world', which I would have had no problem with.
tedbetts

But that would be so much more compromising.

How about Canada is one of the three most decentralized countries in the entire universe!!!

(Though perhaps the third exclamation mark is a tad overkill.)
Emily

Canada isn't one country, it's ten.
Crit_Reasoning

You should probably limit your scope to the solar system. There may be alien "federations" that are extremely decentralized, particularly if their "provinces" are separated by vast distances. ;-)
Orson Bean

There's also a point in these comparisons where you get into apples vs. oranges. Canada vs. the United States, to take one example: on the one hand, the Canadian provinces currently have sole regulatory jurisdiction over securities regulation. But on the other hand, in the US, a huge amount of their criminal law is legislated at the state level (whereas in Canada, criminal law is a federal responsibility). So who's the more decentralized federation? Arguably, it depends on what specific subject area you're talking about.
LynnTO

The intergalactic superhighway is scheduled for 2012, by the way. So long, and thanks for all the fish.
tedbetts

Prove that I'm wrong!!

kevina

On Australia's constitutional order, well, it's confused. Here in the US, it's a pure presidential/federalist system; in Canada and the UK, it's pure Westminster. Unfortunately, at the time of it's confederation, the Australian founders created a compromise of BOTH. The House is like any Westminster lower house, from where the gov't comes, but the Senate is like the US Senate (minus filibusters) with 99% of the power of the House.

Which can be very problematic. The Aussies, in 1901, KNEW it was a paradox, but without it, no Australia. So, it remains

Andrew (not PorC)

I think the only thing keeping the provinces on board with the CHA is political reality and the carrot of federal health transfers. Nothing requires they adhere to CHA.

Blacktop

What Mitchell is dreaming of is a temporary how-to-get-around-Harper move. Apart from the minor fact that the constitution woold have to be opened up . . . .

If someone were to get serious about it I think they would have to depart from the numbers allocation – it is just another but poor rep by pop. I'd rather see a fixed number of senators per province – like the US – two. or whatever the minimum is now (PEI) Then they would tend to represent the province as a political entity, neither historically a pain in the buttlike Quebec. The next question is what powers. Stalling powers only except for changes to the constitution where the Senate could have the last word on a majority of provinces. The Commons (elected by majority) actually would run the country – get rid of the political hack present Senate seats. ALL attempts to date have tried to bring in some vers of rep by pop in the Senate and that is just a duplicatgion. What is required is a Senate that can prevent radical swings. Probably should require both hoouses to go to war. Senate seats would have to be elected in the provinc they represent. How is that for dreaming like PolySci 1010.

Andrew (not PorC)

You're never going to get an amendment approved that drastically reduces the power of Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic in the new Senate. You make it elected, and you better get used to the West getting the short end of the stick.

Blacktop

That is just the problem. You guys have to wither on the vine as the West grows. And it is growing – ask Stats Canada.
And tghe country owes BC several seats in the commons for growing population – pay up, Easterner!

Seriously, someone said here that Canada's constitution is organic. Well it is more like it is constipated now.

Be_rad

"ALL attempts to date have tried to bring in some vers of rep by pop in the Senate and that is just a duplicatgion."

To my knowledge, none of the serious proposals have had this feature. The best-known proposal, Triple-E, was a fixed number per province. The current proposals, term limits and provincially sanctioned pools of elected candidates don't look at numbers at all.

"Stalling powers only"

This sounds appealing, but would render the newly democratically legitimate Senate powerless. I think a dispute resolution system is a better approach.

"Senate seats would have to be elected in the provinc they represent."

Province-wide constituencies or local? If province-wide, then only the rich and party-backed candidates will succeed. If local, then where does their allegiance lie – at the province level, where it is meant to be, or at the local level, where their votes are?

Blacktop

Don't think so. The Commons must have the right to govern. What disputes do you foresee? The right way to resolve that is and election, disputes that are not over the constitution, that is. I think constitutional disputes should be resolved by a constitutional assembly drawn for the question. Rep by pop 1/2 the votes, rep by province 1/2 the votes. Need a majority in both sections. So Ontario and PEI are somewhat equalized . Keep current politicos (any sitting member of any national or provincial house, including the senate). out of it.

Whatever course, constitutional questionsare the ball-buster no matter wjhat you do.

Andrew (not PorC)

"Rep by pop 1/2 the votes, rep by province 1/2 the votes. Need a majority in both sections. "

You realize that makes a joint assembly pointless, right? This is exactly how things normally work.

Chris B

I think we can look at Australia for how electing the Senate changes the dynamic (not that I know anything about Australia, but somebody out here must)

Be_rad

I think the states send representatives from proportional representation lists based on state elections. They rarely have majorities in their federal senate.
Colin

My limited knowledge is that it has definitely gummed up the works a few times but otherwise been fairly smooth. There is an odd dispute resolution mechanism they have which involves triggering an election in the case of a disagreement though – so it may act as a strong deterrent. I'm sorry I'm short on details – Wikipedia is likely your friend here.

Charles

I am not an expert on Australia by any means, but there are a couple of provisions in the Australian constitution to help resolve disputes between the Senate and House:

1) Typically only half of the Senate is elected at any given election for the House. However, where the Senate will not vote on the government's bill, the PM can ask the governor general to call a "double dissolution" in which the entire Senate is dissolved (along with the House).

2) There is also a provision where the GG can call for a joint sitting of the House and Senate, where everyone gets a single vote. The theory is that the numerical advantage of the House (about twice as large as the Senate) will overpower the Senate's opposition. In practice, it is has only been used once (in 1974), as I believe a joint sitting can only be called after the Senate rejects a House bill *after* a double dissolution election.

Greg

Anybody who wants a U.S. style upper house needs to have their head examined (either that or they are Republican and are beyond help).

Emily

I'll agree with that!

Out There

My nightmare scenario is that, somehow, the Senate becomes controlled by Conservative appointees who – like Conservative MPs now – do anything that the Prime Minister tells them to do. This would serve to increase, rather than decrease, the Prime Minister's power.

If the Senate becomes filled with Conservative partisans who put party before governance, it would serve as a rubber stamp for Conservative governments and a roadblock for governments of other parties.

tedbetts

That is the rationale behind lifetime/until 75 appointments. But I think that can still be attained from elections every 10/12 years on a rotating basis. That way they are not as beholden to the PM/leader of the day.

Blacktop

Don't want lifetime. Max 5 years or so. How about Fliberal partisans, that's OK, eh?

Come on if they were telected they deserve to sit even if they belong to the Tamil Party.

http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

As I understand it, the Australian Parliament has a unique setup for resolving disputes between the two chambers. If the two legislative chambers in the Parliament can't agree on legislation (either the original legislation or any proposed amendments) after a period of a couple of time of back and forth, the governor-in-general can order a double dissolution of both houses of Parliament and an election (not sure if its at the request of the Prime Minister or an automatic thing; I think the former). After that election, the 2 combined legislative branches vote on the bill and the amendments. The vote – whether it be Yea or Nay – is final.

I'd propose a variation to that here, if the Senate was elected. I'd keep everything but the G-G ordering double dissolutions and an election. Rather, if there was an impasse after a couple of tries of resolving the legislation between the 2 elected bodies, simply have the G-G call for a joint sitting of Parliament (Senators and MP's) and have a final combined vote on legislation and any proposed amendments. The Bill and amendments prevail or falls on that basis.

DBM

The rules of procedure already allow for a conference between both houses – though it hasn't happened since well before the Maple Leafs last won the Stanley Cup. I know a few Senators have suggested the process in the past on Bills that have gone back and forth between the houses.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/Docum…

These conferences aren't binding, though, and there is no 'joint vote'.

http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

That could be incorporated more into a voting situation I've described, as an attempted dispute-settling mechanism between the 2 legislative bodies when conflict or disagreement arises over bills or their amendment(s), in order to avoid a joint sitting, and to get agreement so that each legislative chamber can pass the legislation in question.

kevina

But then, in the end, the Senate loses every time, so what's the point?

http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

I wouldn't view it as "the Senate losing" or the House losing. Remember, we still have a Parliamentary system with political parties in it, and it is those who can get the numbers to pass legislation (or to stop it) in both chambers of Parliament who will prevail.

Regardless, if the situation arose where a joint vote needed to happen, It would depend on the make up of both chambers obviously. It is very possible that a minority government in the H of C which had a parliamentary majority in the Senate could still pass legislation. It is equally plausible that opposition parties would have enough numbers in one chamber or the other to stop government legislation.

The Constitution has the House of Commons as the dominant legislative body, and I'd rather keep that. If the Senate has more power and the legitimacy of being elected, great.. but.. I dont want gridlock like they have in the US.

kevina

Believe me, as an American, I certainly understand your last point. You are correct in pointing out the possibility of a minority Commons and majority Senate, but I'm struggling to envision majority Senates IFFF the Bloc is allowed to compete for seats.

Not to mention, what if you somehow, say, have a narrow Tory majority in the HoC, but a narrow, Liberal-led, opposition majority in the Senate. That raises the prospect of a joint sitting accomplishing nothing. So, again, a duly-elected government in the House could be defeated, via supply or just accomplishing nothing, in the Senate.

Charles

It all depends on how you elect the Senators. If you use a single transferable vote system with five or six seat districts, the Bloc's power in Quebec would be significantly reduced. With 40% of the vote, the Bloc would get two of five seats and two or three of six seats. The other three seats would probably end up being split between the Libs and Cons or Libs and NDP, depending on the area. Because you can transfer your vote to another candidate when yours fails to reach the cutoff, the federalist parties could effectively work together to compete against the Bloc.

For a quick comparison, imagine how much easier it would be to form a majority in the Commons with a Bloc that had 30-35 seats instead of a Bloc with 45-55 seats. Those 15-20 seats can make a huge difference in a 308 seat legislative body.
Charles

As for the question of what happens where there is a narrow majority in each house, in all likelihood, one majority will outweigh the other when both houses sit together. This is especially true if different electoral systems are used for the two houses: if the Senate uses STV, for instance, it is probably unlikely than any single party would have a majority, while smaller parties would have a bigger presence. (This has been the situation in Australia, where Senate majorities have traditionally been pretty rare, at least until the recent collapse of the Australian Democrats.)
kevina

Yes, AV or STV, or even pure PR, for an elected Senate would change the dynamics, but, as you point out, in more ways than one.

Assuming you're right, and Senate majorities are unlikely, then this is a problem, unless Senate coalitions (I know, touchy issue in Canada) become the norm. If not, then a narrow Tory majority in the Commons could be particularly thorny, UNLESS western voters vote in almost exclusively Con. and/or right-wing senators. If there's no working "conservative," not Conservative, majority in the Senate, then other major/semi-major Canadian parties are center(sorry, centre)-left and would likely not be helpful to a Tory House gov't (with, say, a 3-5 seat majority).

Such a gov't would be held hostage to the whims of the Senate, even though it's mandate comes ONLY from the House. Early on, I think the Senate would give a newly-elected gov't a honeymoon, if only b/c the public would demand it. But if it's polling fortunes ever nose-dived, why wouldn't an opposition Senate block it's programs, inc. supply, in the hopes of forcing an election (nevermind the House majority)?

Andrew (not PorC)

This is all fantasyland. No matter how we try meddle, our constitution is not going to change. We can dream about systems we might like to have, like Triple E, but they are not going to happen–not with our current constitutional amendment mechanism. The best we can get is faux elections with the PM choosing to appoint or not. I fully expect a future 'Stephen Harper' to ignore the results of Senate 'elections' (call them plebiscites, maybe). Just like the fixed election date law. None of these things are provided for in the constitution, and thus it's all just pretend. As soon as it is not politically expedient, it all goes out the window.

Olaf

Frankly, since you asked Aaron, I think that we should turn the Senate into a non-partisan think tank of sorts, whose guiding purpose is the betterment of Canadian institutions. Appoint individuals from the relevant jurisdictions who have a substantial amount of expertise in governance, law, economics, health care, finance, industry, etc. on the basis of merit, similar to the Supreme Court appointment process.

Then they can put together reports and vet legislation, giving them power to think twice soberly (as they are wont to do) and influence the government without having any real power to thwart the democratically elected House.

Pay them $250,000 and offer them reduced (flexible!) hours in order to lure experts from their chosen fields, and have it be a prestigious dumping ground for geniuses. Not only that, but if we put together enough intellectual heft, we could create a world renowned institution that international bodies (Supreme Courts, legislatures, academia, etc.) would rely on for useful information.

c_9

If only we had a world-renowned institution that international bodies relied on for useful information. Hmmm. I can't think of one. Certainly not one that starts with S and ends with tatCan. :-)

But that's off-topic. My actual concern is this: it's become very popular to ignore the opinions of "individuals from the relevant jurisdictions who have a substantial amount of expertise in governance, law, economics, health care, finance, industry, etc." What incentive would they have to join this Canada's New Senate?

Gaunilon

Love of country, hopefully. That should be sufficient. If it isn't then we don't want them anyway.
Olaf

Off-topic, but I also decry the fact that international dialogue over the world's most important questions will no longer be informed by five year old knowledge of the precise number of Hindus in lower Scarborough, how long the average person in Sackville spends on gardening, the average number of rooms per house in Calgary's Inglewood, and how many people speak Gaidhlig in Trois Riviere. 'S e, a'caoidh.

As to your on topic point, I thought I had that covered with the massive salary, the prestige (which would build over time the more people were appointed based on merit instead of party loyalty, lands of forefathers, and sex organs), and the flexible work environment (for the snowbirds).
s_c_f

power

Emily

Why would you want to put geniuses in a 'dumping ground'?
Blacktop

Supposing Olaf's idea got turned around and they'got f what they have now – a non-thinking partisan sort of tink thank. Sounds like an academic's proposal. My gosh, we have enough academics now with their cottage industry of writing books, sitting on useless inquiries that take forever and cost a bundle — and then pay them $250,000? No, we need politicians to do political job and if it isn't political we shouldn't have it in the politica sector. And I wouldn't want to model our system on Australia either. Let's at least grow our own on the basis of what we need to solve our problems. If there is a real question that needs eggheads then you can always have Royal Commission but for gosh sakes let's not put them on a salary!!

Emily

Goodness yes, we wouldn't want any more academics writing books and thinking and making a decent wage.

'Eggheads' should be seen and not heard.

What this country needs is more ditch-diggers.

Blacktop

My point is really that the results are seldom really used to the degree that they are worth the money. Emily must be an egghead. Set up a special study when needed but not a permanent staff think-tank style.

Emily

It's called sarcasm, Blacktop.

madeyoulook

Could we also grab some random folks on the electoral list, kind of like jury duty, if only to get a little common sense into your august body, as well? Or at least to force these eggheads to speak in a language real people would understand?

Emily

Who are these 'real people' that don't understand ordinary language?
Olaf

Could we also grab some random folks on the electoral list, kind of like jury duty, if only to get a little common sense into your august body, as well?

In a word, no. First of all, Senate procedings will be in Latin and proclaimations will be issued via scroll. Second of all, I don't want my precious philosopher kings to spend half their time explaining concepts they all grasp perfectly well to the Emilys of this world – that would be infuriating and highly inefficient. Finally, if my reformed Senate can't speak in a language people can understand, they'll have no power – persuasion would be their only means of influencing the House, Supreme Court, the media, or whoever.

Commoners have the House of Commons already, which is why a good portion of our MPs are dimwitted and vulgar. They don't need the Senate too.

Emily

LOL in other words, neither of you know.
madeyoulook

Shame. So much for the Timmy's franchise I was hoping to install in a nook just outside the Red Chamber.

Blacktop

Good suggestion. Emily's so-called ditch diggers also have brains, but not the egghead variety. Why? Obviously because they are closer to reality..

Emily

No, it's because they have less education and knowledge of the world, and only see simple solutions.

Stewart_Smith

It is a bit of a pay cut, but I think I am in. However, will there be dancing? Will sessions be properly catered?
Sine cerere et Baccho friget Venus.

Olaf

Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.

Emily

Quisque comoedum est.

Crit_Reasoning

LOL, Olaf and Emily!
Stewart_Smith

cachinno
Emily

Cachinnate

But actually I was asking madeyoulook.
Stewart_Smith

Stercus!
Blacktop

Nil carborundum bastardum

Gayle

I agree with Olaf. In fact, I have been saying that for a while now. I think he stole that idea from me! :D
Gayle

"Since there are, for example, only 6 Senators in Alberta compared to 28 MPs, they will have more prominence and the power that goes with it. When elected, Senators will more aggressively exercise their role in representing regional rights and will take the power to do that from where it resides now, with the Premiers."

The other problem is that other provinces have more Senators, and are disproportionately represented in the Senate. When you make it elected without first addressing the numbers, you skew things in favour of those provinces. Which really makes me wonder why so many Albertans seem to support Harper on this…

Robin

Imagine a debate on equalization in a Triple E Senate. For added fun, imagine this is taking place during the hay day of calls for a Triple E Senate. Ontario and Alberta were the only provinces paying equalization. This was not thought out very well. Of course giving four and a half million people a majority in a body willing, through its newfound democratic legitimacy, to veto all legislation is a great way to govern a democracy of thirty three million and some people simply cannot be convinced otherwise.
Andrew (not PorC)

Because they aren't very bright. These guys aren't chessplayers who look 10 moves ahead. They're just wanna take that bishop, never mind that it mates them in 3.

Mike T.

There's a good chance this article is right and is the single best argument against an elected senate. that "Canada works in practice but not in theory" thing
Blacktop

There is no question but that we need a better constitution than one we have because:
a. the original was dreamed up by the Foreign Office with no real understanding of what would evolve

b,. The one time it was opened up with anything imposrtant was because it was patriated and a lot of it was in the image of Trudeau who was really only concerned with bedrooms and a correction of the French-English imbalance (in his eyes). That is really what the Charter was for.

The next attempt was again to appease Quebec (the infamous Meech Lake Accord) or non accord if you wish. As it happened it wasn't required because PMs since have given them most of what they wanted, as if they knew what they wanted. Axctually what they wanted was was to make ROC so scared they would be given anything they wanted.

Maybe we should think about this some more!

Emily

Where do you get this stuff from, anyway?

Blacktop

Not just from a book. Particularly not from the Red Book. Nor from some history book by a slanted author. Some of us actually were studying that stuff as current events.

Emily

Then you weren't paying attention back in your youth in 1867.

Blacktop

No I have to admit that was even before my father was born. If you read the book you should know that the constitution of 1867 was very experimental – after all we were the firtst then. Even then foreign policy was still the bailiwick of the Brit parliament, as was Defence. . The decision regarding who had what rights was bound up in seeing the then colonies as such. Also that constitution grew on the fact that the principal parties were Canada East and Canada West. Newfie didn't want in and some of the other Maritime colonies wern't so sure either, in fact it was an issue in NS. "You can read all about it, and probably have in Glazebrook, "The Development of Dominion Status."

And as a sidebar, the question of Provincial Education was really a religious issue. Separate schols in Ontario – on the behalf of the Irish in Canada West, not the French. Healtgh then was a far cry from today and was considered a local matter. I doubt if they had ever heard the term 'human capital'.'- or cared for that matter.

And I always thought the attitude of the Brit Parliament was "go ahead, we are glad to get you and your pesky problems with the French off our hands." Murray would have to go and give them such latitudinous terfms.

http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

What exactly would you like to change that is in the current Constitution.

Emily

I dunno what Blacktop would want, but I'd make health and education federal, not provincial.

Charles

There are a number of oddities in what powers are given exclusively to the provinces rather than the federal government (health being a pretty good example), but I seriously doubt we'll see that change ever. It is almost impossible to get the provinces to agree to lessen their powers and it is extremely easy for provincial poltiicians to scare voters with threats of Ottawa trying to adopt a one-size-fits-all solution, etc.

So, we're probably stuck with the exact sorts of issues that blew up in everyone's faces at Meech Lake.

Blacktop

I actually agree with Emily here. Health and Education are human capital objects that should have national dominance. Efforts to deal with both through Federal dollars through the Provinces only partly work. And to emily, both Diefenbaker and Trudeau saw the need for a Bill of Rights . Diefenbaker's was ineffective while Trudeau aimed to imitate the US model somewhat. I wonder if he vizualized what the Supreme Court would do with it? Just a ditch-digger's view, of course.
Emily

Our constitution and rights, like the US one, come from the UK.

Everyone is aware that the law is a living thing, and views on it change over time. Since Trudeau was a law professor he certainly knew.
Blacktop

He was also (in my humble opinion0 a draft evader, poseur, dilletante and single finger artist – I am sure he wpould have given the fingerwhen he was alive. . I read all his writings in Cite Libre. It is a wonder he didnt go into the NDP or was it CCF then. Among his good qualitys that he saw the problems with Meech. You have to admire him for standing up for the workers at Asbestos.

Iccyh

While Senator Mitchell asks some good questions about the specific issues with the reforms posed by the Conservatives, the quoted section bothers me. It seems it could be summarized as "oh no, things might change!" Well, yes. That's the whole point, isn't it?

I suspect the "massive shift" envisioned by Senator Mitchell is really overstated. Right now, it isn't the House of Commons that has power quite so much as it is the party leaders who have power. Individual MPs have extremely little power, its only through their collective votes as a party that they really get to do much of anything. While the power of the party leaders may be somewhat diminished as leaders emerge in the Senate, I don't honestly know if there will be any difference at all. If the parties treat nominations for Senate seats the same way they treat nominations for ridings in the HoC and still elect only one party leader (who will probably be required to be in the HoC by the parties), then we'll see very little change as the party leaders will still be the ones who really run things. Individual members in the HoC will remain just as irrelevant as they are now.

Similarly, I don't see the clout of the PM diminished much, if at all. Stephen Harper is doing a fine job of proving what a PM can do without the full support of even the House, so while an elected Senate may create situations similar to our current minority government more frequently, it isn't like there should be much question about the power of the Prime Minister.

And really, the bit about Premiers losing power is laughable. It isn't like the Premiers have much power federally as they can't vote on federal issues; they only show up in the national media if there are some federal/provincial negotiations happening or if a Premier says something outrageous. Besides, I'm not convinced that Senators would be any more willing or able to take up provincial causes than MPs, especially if party discipline holds. While Senator Mitchell talks about Albertan expectations for our Senators, it seems he's somehow forgotten exactly which party our MPs are in and how little they've done to advance an Albertan agenda while they've been in government.

Loraine Lamontagne

Would the elected Senators run strictly as independent or would they be members of parties and financed by parties? If they are part of the party system, the party leaders will still have the power, but it will be greater.

The senators that we now have should not be part of the caucuses – neither should members of the government.

Stewart_Smith

Completely correct. Elected senators can only make a (positive) difference in Canada if there are somehow financially disentangled from party financing. If we move to fixed term, elected senators tightly tied to their parties, the centralization of power would be even worse than it is today.

Blacktop

Right on. Actually, if one couldn't achieve that kind of independence we might as well scrap the Senate and while we are at it the idea of the Crown being our head of state and the GG while we are at it. An almost powerless, appointed Presidente would suit just as well and make Quebec happy. Vive la Republique!

Style

I think we pretty much agree. The Senate has equal status (with the exception of money bills) but can't exercise it because of its (perceived?) lack of democratic legitimacy. I'm not sure if bi-cameralism reduces the need for MPs though. Grant Mitchell makes the point well that the Senate was originally supposed to protect regional interests, since provinces were initially seen as very junior partners, and strengthening its legitimacy now will have an impact on premiers. That said, do the US or Australian senates really reduce the influence of governors and premiers in those countries?

Be_rad

If you folow this link, you will see that legislation is introduced frequently in the Senate by the Government and by individual senators. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/sites/lop/legisinfo/index….

I have had to follow bills of interest to my business and find the information on the parliamentary site very interesting, if difficult to find.

PeteTong

I suppose if we elected Senators they could theoretically be appointed to Cabinet. I suppose party leaders could be Senators and potentially be appointed by the GG as PM. Am I crazy for thinking this is possible? Has this been discussed in the political debate?

Charles

Already true, at least as far as appointment to cabinet is concerned. I think there's been a strong move in all Westminster syle systems to require (de facto) that the PM come from the Commons. There have been a few isolated instances where someone temporarily governed or led a party from an upper house, but usually it's only a brief time until they stand for a by-election.

PeteTong

But Cabinet appointments from the Senate are usually frowned down upon because the minister is "unelected" "unaccountable" but this ceases to be the case if they are in fact elected. Thus, would Cabinet appointments from the Senate become more common.

With regards to the PM coming from the senate, I understand that this is possible, but again frowned down upon for the same reasons as above. But would it be acceptable to the Canadian public if the Senate was elected?

kevina

Charles is right here. It's understood in the UK that the PM is party leader in the Commons, not the Lords. But peers, as they're called, most definitely are in cabinets (Lord Mandelson during Labour's tenure).

To have the PM come from the Senate would mean blowing up your constitution, since a fundamental tenet is that governnent is derived by the House mandate. Would that now mean a Senate majority could determine the gov't?
http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

Did you "frown" when Harper elevated Michael Fortier to the Senate in order to be able to bring a Quebecois into his cabinet?

Andrew (not PorC)

Absolutely nothing requires the PM to hold any elected office. The PM is just the leader of the party that commands the most seats.

Blacktop

After thinking of it a bit, if there were to be a change I would prefer as I posted above. Quebec is inimical to the connection to the Crown (unless in some matter it suits their purposes) . Actually, while I am pipe dreaming, I would prefer to see a constituent assembly open up the constitution, keep the present actors out of it, and then decide on a national referendum. Treat the nay and yea as was done in theQuebec referendum.

Now how's that for dreaming? I think it would almost take a revolution for the constitution to be seriously opened up. Someone said it is a living institution but the ongoing inter-provincial power struggle makes it impossiible until for some reason all provinces are moved to see alike.

Look at Danny Williams with a little bit of oil.
CMG

I think that the points that Senator Mitchell brings up are very interesting. The longer blog also brings up some good points. The biggest problem with Senate reform is that the Harper government is trying to do it in a peicemeal fashion. If you want Senate reform do it, but in an appropriate manner with the right amount of consultation and thought. Let’s get some experts talking about it on a national stage, perhaps a royal commission. This could be a constitutional battleground. We shouldn’t take it lightly. Also I’d like to know that they know the potential consequences before they pull the trigger. I don’t want to have to revisit this in 30 years to fix the problems it has created.
Blacktop

Encouraged and steered by the Brit govt who said, something like, "Come and talk to us when you have something workable." The mood was that they really wanted to get rid of us.

Be_rad

Your interpretation of our history differs from mine. You pointed out above that Canada was an "experiment" because we created our federation first. You were right. We initiated the process. Canada agitated for responsible government. Our fathers of confederation designed its institutions based on careful consideration of the political philosophers of the day; on the mistakes they observed in the federation to the south of us; and of the differences between us and Britain. To imply, as I believe you have, that the whole exercise was first, a "Foreign Office" design, and now that it was a "run along little children and play" paternalism sells our history short.