The Senate: Abolish or Tweak?

[erinmore3775]

Over the past few months many questions have been raised about the function of the Senate and whether it serves a useful purpose. Originally created and modelled after the British House of Lords and the American Senate, it was designed to be the chamber of “sober second thought.” It was to be the legislative chamber that carefully reviewed Parliamentary legislation to make sure that it benefited all Canadians and all provinces. However, today it has come to be seen as largely a chamber of patronage, a chamber that reviews little and rubber-stamps a lot, and has some members who strumpet, on the dime of the taxpayer, for the party who placed them there . In the 21st Century do we really need a Senate?

The British North America Act of 1867, passed by the British Parliament, was the document that created Canada. It fashioned a federal dominion and defined much of the governance of the country including its Federal structure, the House of Commons, the Senate, the justice system, and the taxation system. The Act has been amended numerous times including 1982. At that time the Act was renamed the Constitution Act, 1982, with the repatriation of the constitution and the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of the most important amendments took place in 1974 when the redistribution of the number of seats in Parliament occurred.

In 1974, Quebec was guaranteed the fixed minimum number of 75 seats, while other the number of seats allocated to each of the other provinces would always be determined based upon the sizes of their populations in comparison with that of Quebec. However, the Provinces continued to be guaranteed to have at least as many members of the House of Commons as they had Senators in the Senate. The number of Senators guaranteed, was the number in the original Act. In 1999, using section 44, the Parliament of Canada unilaterally created a senate seat for Nunavut.

Section 44 of the Constitution Act allows Parliament to exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons. This is the section the current government is attempting to use to significantly change or even abolish the Senate. The current government has appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling on Parliament’s ability, through Bill C-7, to unilaterally significantly change the Senate.

The Quebec Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that the federal government’s Senate reform legislation, Bill C-7, was unconstitutional. In essence, the court said proposed Senate changes under the bill — such as nine-year term limits and provinces holding elections for senators — could only be accomplished under the constitution’s amending formula. That means such reforms must have the consent of at least seven provinces, representing more than half the country’s population. According to Quebec’s highest court, they cannot be enacted by Parliament alone. The Maritime Provinces, Ontario, British Columbia and Nunavut have all provided formal statements indicating that they oppose bill C-7 and in principle agree with Quebec’s position.

The record of the current government on Senate reform has been limited. It has replaced vacant Senate seats with patronage appointments that appeased the Native community or were blatant Conservative Party fundraisers and electioneers. Bill C-7 is the eighth attempt to change the composition of the Senate that the Conservatives have introduced since they were first elected seven years ago. Previous attempts went nowhere. Yet the Prime Minister has held only one formal meeting with all his provincial counterparts that in November 2008, to discuss Senate reform, changes to EI, a National Energy Policy or any other inter-jurisdictional issues. It appears the current government was hoping to get things done get without having to listen to anyone else. This policy does not seem to have worked very well. The question now is “Where do we go from here?”

Perhaps there are four pathways.

1. Do absolutely nothing. Allow everything to remain as it is now and ride out the Senate controversy with attempts to expel Senators and a RCMP investigation. Let the chips fall where they may. The next election is over a year away, the voters have short memories, and most Canadians only care about the economy and not about government corruption and miss management.

2. Follow the recommendations of former Prime Minister Joe Clark and “…bring people into the facts...tell the real story and … seek some advice as to what's the most effective way to do that.” Put forward legislation that requires total transparency on the finances and expenses of our elected officials.

3. Arbitrarily push through legislation that would significantly reform or even abolish the Senate. Bill C-7 does this but if passed by Parliament would lead to an even greater constitution wrangle with the Provinces then was seen during the Official Languages debate or the repatriation of our Constitution.

4. Convene a Federal-Interprovincial conference to work out a basis for the creation of an Equal, Elected, and Effective Senate. Ensure that the recommendations are completed before the 2015 election, and then place the recommendations before all Canadians in a National Referendum, which would coincide with the election.

The question is which pathway would you recommend the present government take?

Remember every politician wants to be re-elected. Whatever position you recommend must be defensible both from a historical party platform position as well as what will appeal to voters across Canada. Perhaps there is even another alternative. I look forward to your positive contributions to the solution of a problem that I believe will be a central part of the next election.

[GordonH]

Since abolishing will most likely not happen, tweaking is all that can be done.

The tweaking I would be interested to see is maybe an elected Senate, were the people of Canada are able to choose. Not just the Party/PM's in office.

just my opinion

[Donald G]

I do not see where the amount of money being poured into supporting the senate can in any way be justified. What value are we getting for the dollars spent?

The odd "politically aligned" meeting.
The odd "politically aligned" inquiry.
The odd politically aligned speaker.
The odd politically aligned rubber stamp.

Personally I think the senate should be completely done away with. If the majority of people insist on keeping it, it should be limited to eleven representatives from across the country ELECTED to six year terms, with the opportunity to serve two terms. Conducting meetings and calling qualified, non politically aligned, witnesses to look into things like the further medicalization or legalization of various strains and quantities of marijuana should be the bread and butter of Senators earning their keep.

[flamingfingers]

Senate should be tweaked and NOT done away with. It is the only place to keep a rein on the PM and the PMO when they have a majority. The Senate has done a few good things, but the need their wings clipped.

[NAB]

Let the Constitution govern until such time as it is properly amended.

Edit: BTW, there appears to currently be 3 vacancies in the Senate, with seven more Senators due to retire by the summer of 2015. That's 10 holes PM Harper has to deal with in the next couple of years, or simply leave them as holes.

Nab

[Bsuds]

*removed/do not alter quotes/Jo*

[grammafreddy]

How many senators are there and is there any minimum number we can have? Seems there's no maximum since the PM keeps appointing more of them to support his "causes".

[GordonH]

How many senators are there and is there any minimum number we can have? Seems there's no maximum since the PM keeps appointing more of them to support his "causes".

[NAB]

How many senators are there and is there any minimum number we can have? Seems there's no maximum since the PM keeps appointing more of them to support his "causes".

snips>>>

Allocation of Senate Seats

In a federal system, regional representation is one of the second chamber's primary roles. Traditionally, less populated regional units are overrepresented in the second chamber, to compensate for the Lower House where representation is based on population.

Under the terms of the Confederation, Senate seat allocation was divided into the regions of Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes, with each region having twenty-four Senators. The total number of Maritime seats did not rise when Prince Edward Island (PEI) joined Confederation in 1873. Instead, both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia lost two of their twelve seats, which were given to PEI for a total a four.

In 1870, the Federal government created the Province of Manitoba and gave it two Senate seats.
In 1871, the Colony of British Columbia was given three Senate seats when it joined Canada.
In 1905, four seats each were allocated to the newly created provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
A 1915 amendment made the west a region with 24 seats divided equally between British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.
In 1949, Newfoundland received six Senate seats when it joined Canada.
In 1975, a further amendment gave the Northwest Territories and the Yukon one seat each.
In 1999, the newly created territory of Nunavut received one Senate seat.
Today, there are ordinarily 105 seats in the Canadian Senate.

The fact that they are appointed instead of elected makes Senators reluctant to exercise the considerable powers given to them in the Constitution Act, 1867. Specifically, Senators seldom reject or substantially change legislation submitted by elected House of Commons MPs.

There have been exceptions. In 1991, the Senate defeated the House of Common's abortion law in a close tie vote. Generally, Senators are more willing to vote against legislation that clearly lacks public support.

However, party politics often play a role, which makes the Senate's actions seem less legitimate. Major policy disagreements between the two chambers primarily occur when the majority of Senators are members of a different political party than the government. Furthermore, in some cases the Senate clearly isn't acting in the public's interest. For example, during the 1973 - 74 session of Parliament, the Senate removed a provision in the Conservative government's wiretap legislation requiring that persons under surveillance for ninety days be notified. At the time the Liberals formed a minority in the House of Commons, but a majority in the Senate.

Since 1982, the Prime Minister's ability to apply Section 26 of the Constitution Act, 1867, gives the process even less legitimacy. In 1990, Brian Mulroney became the first Prime Minister to apply this provision when he appointed eight Conservative Senators to force passage of the controversial GST bill, which was being blocked by a Liberal-dominated Senate. Party politics aside, in this case, Senate opposition to the bill clearly reflected the public's wishes. Nonetheless, Section 26 enabled the government to push it through.

http://www.rhondaparkinson.com/senatestructure.htm

So now we have 4 regions, each theoretically entitled to 24 Senators. Plus Mulroney's diddle to ram the GST down our throats, plus the territories and Nunavut.

Nab

[matai]

.

[Donald G]

Some good comments for people like me who lack an adequate, up to date knowledge regarding the Senate. Thanks to those responsible.

Hopefully the comments on this string will not become as politicized as the Senate has become where an ELECTED government has to appoint more "loyal" Senators in order having their bills arbitrarily changed or sent back to the House.

[grammafreddy]

Yeah, Donald. I don't like the "appointed" bit. If we keep 'em, they should be elected.

[Atomoa]

Doing the thing "that gets you votes from the crowd that votes" is different that "doing the right thing for Canada".

That's the problem with elected judges, and Senators. While I don't agree the appointments have become more bi-partisan, there should be a move to make the appointment system less biased.

The whole reason for the Senate is to keep from flavour-of-the-month governments from passing crazy laws without oversight.

Throw elections and (gobs of) money into the mix and your just appointing big business and corporation lackeys in the House.

...unless we are talking mandatory, fully federally funded and capped (very low) campaign budgets with strict "can only stand on your policy and not attack" rules...;)

[steven lloyd]

That's the problem with elected judges, and Senators. While I don't agree the appointments have become more bi-partisan, there should be a move to make the appointment system less biased.

Electing Judges would be a terrible idea. Electing Senators, on the other hand, makes complete sense - along with fixed terms. I think a Senate is purposeful, in theory. Sadly, it has become something else with patronage appointments.

[Atomoa]

Electing Senators, on the other hand, makes complete sense - along with fixed terms.

My faith in the election system we have going is non-existent.

Low voter turn out, first past the post, odd regional borders , very lacking security and investigative capabilities, money trumps all, ect. It is not about "electing the person the people want". Its about keeping rules and systems in place that allow numerical advantages. It's about fear, suppression, anger and propaganda. It's not a room full of people raising their hands to decide a majority. Get away with as much as you can because the ref is hardly ever looking your way.

We both recognize that elected judges would be a disaster due in part to a flawed system that does not represent "the populace" as well as actions taken by those looking to be elected wouldn't align with "what's right" but "what get votes". Giving shoplifters 25 years in jail in a area where being "insanely tough on crime" appeals to the lack-of-highschool graduate voters in your region, for example.

Why would this be any different with Senators rather than Judges? I don't want the people that have the most money to be able to buy their way into the House that gives second looks to possibly crazy legislation. You can easily buy your way into Sussex Drive and propose crazy legislation (look at our former environmental laws that were axed as per the "government from Calgary") - so we need people that can't be bought and are acting as patriots and not employees to counter that force.

I agree that it's become tit-for-tat now in appointments and is very partisan. I suggest a new system of appointment, rather than flawed and tainted elections. Fixed terms, yes please.