On the other hand...
Harper puts Senate reform plan in action: "Prime Minister Stephen Harper put his Senate reform plan into action Wednesday, announcing that he will appoint Bert Brown as his first elected senator.
Harper told the House of Commons that he will name Alberta's 'senator in waiting' to the upper chamber."
4/19/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
34 Comments
oh boy...
If Harper ends up being a happy medium between Reformer Preston Manning and the PC (blue Liberal) Mulroney, then everybody wins.
Except the Liberals.
This is a "Reform Party" farmer who has what credentials? Oh yes, he ploughed a field outlining EEE....or else...
Now, isn't that impressive.
Please, Mr. Anonymous, name the credentials of, say, senator Tommy Banks, whose claim to fame before being appointed to the upper chamber, was playing a musical instrument.
Bert Brown is as qualified as anyone. And because he's 69, he won't even be in the Senate very long before he hits the mandatory age of 75.
This is a brilliant strategic move on Harper's part, as it now gives a precedent of two "elected" senators (the late Stan Waters and now Brown) and every little bit counts.
On Politics yesterday, Rahim Jaffer argued that this man has credibility because he, as an individual, received more votes than any of the 4 MPs on the panel.
That sums up to me why an elected Senate without rep by pop is a very bad idea.
"Senate without rep by pop..."
Now, THAT would bite, big time. The senate should balance regional interests. If it is going to be rep by pop, then it is pointless and should be abolished. I assume you are from Ontario if you are recommending this!
by province, by landmass, by region (atlantic, pacific, west, etc.) any of these would be better than rep by pop for the senate.
He has all the credentials required. He was chosen by the citizens.
Cherniak, you're out to lunch on what should be a regional balance to rep by pop (which is still out of kilter).
Technetium - you're on the money!
So aren't you just admitting that the intention of an elected Senate is to give more power to less people???
Seems to me they're saying that if we make the Senate into a clone of the House, why have the Senate in the first place?
The Senate can have a use and actual legitimate power if it's reformed along different lines - provincially or regionally, as suggested, would be my preference, but no doubt there are others that I can be convinced would work.
I declined to vote for a Senator in the last Alta election because it was a farce, and I continue to think it a bad idea to have elections for Senators without gaining support from most, if not all, major political parties, as what level of legitimacy can I impart on that effort if my preferred party refused to endorse the effort at electing a Senator, and offered no candidate in the race? I cannot doubt that those who chose to vote made their feelings known, and Harper's act is an expression of that will, but I continue to believe that until the major parties all participate, all we're going to see is 4-5 Alta Tories putting their name up for the next Senator-in-Waiting. Not worth my time. Talk to me when it's time to open the Constitution and re-distribute seats, that'll have my attention.
Relatively speaking, the Senate has done and continues to do SQUAT! The exorbitant amount of money spent on the Senate could be easily spent in much better ways (or better yet, leave it in our pockets). I'd also support a major reform of Parliament. Fewer MPs, less salary, staff, and pensions! Good luck any of this ever happening...
Cherniak - rep by pop? The House of Commons isn't rep by pop and I don't see you fighting to change that.
The first thing that Mr. Brown should do when he gets in the Senate is make the case for allowing the audio from the Senate proceedings to be put on the Internet, along with video from web cameras. This would be cheap and easy to do, and because the web cameras are so small they would not make the chamber look ugly or cluttered as some Senators have suggested in the past.
"So aren't you just admitting that the intention of an elected Senate is to give more power to less people???"
No, he's saying that the intention of Senate reform is to provide representation by region. This would be to protect less populated regions from mob-rule in the House, which is to a certain extent, representation by population.
Giving more power to less people is a bit misleading since legislation would require both popular support (the House) and regional support (the Senate).
I really don't understand why we should have any national legislature with representation by anything but by population (and I am from one of the sparsely populated parts of the country). Last time I checked it was people that matters, not the amount of square miles they occupy.
This whole appointing elected Senators thing is a farce anyways. Until we figure out how to redistribute seats in a way that makes even a semblance of sense (10 seats to NS with 6 to Alberta!!! Whats up with that??) I would rather leave the Senate toothless and electing members doesnt achieve that end.
By that time Alberta, with the way its population is growing, might regret having ever asking for a Triple E Senate as the only real benefactor would be Atlantic Canada. Imagine having a legislative body, with actual power, where Atlantic Canada has ~40% of the seats!!! Harper probably wouldn't be breaking his promises to NFLD and NS then!
Going way back to one of the first posts, what is it about a farmer that automatically means he's unqualified?
Don't confuse a farmer with a farmhand; a farm is a business. It's incredibly complex with health regulations, expenses and investments, the tax system, marketing your product, etc.
The only thing I see that makes a farmer unqualified to be a senator is that he actually works for a living.
the seat count in the Senate need to be redone. but hey no constitutional shenanigans for now.
I thought the most complicated thing about farming was protesting the government for subsidy.
I tried to find out about his educational background, etc.
Not much there other than he's a farmer, reformer.
I watched him interviews on Mike Duffy - I guess a smile is out of the question and he wasn't very impressive.
Tommy Banks (I'll have to check it out) may have gone to university for all you know.
This Brown guy has ONLY ONE mission - to change the senate but he will have to review things on other matters - security, etc.
Sorry for changing the subject but here's a weird thing:
The Liberals are proposing a bill to withdraw our soldiers from Afghanistan but it likely won't pass because the NDP wants them out now.
So now both parties are likely to get neither although they both want essentially the same thing.
A prisoner's dilemma almost. Funny, huh?
Sorry, forgot to add that the Liberals want them out in 2009
The problem with Senate reform is as Paul Martin said...first we need to study it (which means we aren't doing crap about it). No is going to agree to constituitional debate, so that's out. This leaves the government with only one alternative, to pick away at it and shame the other parties into turning that useless body of party hacks into a democratic elected instituition. Way to go Prime Minister, its not much but at least its a start. And so unlike a Liberal approach, which is talk, talk, and talk some more and then do nothing!
to "Someguyinottawa" - I'll take the serious, useful and devliberative work of some of the very good senators (Kirby, Meighen, Fairburn etc...) over the juvenile, pointless and embarrassing histrionics of careerless infants like Pierre Poilievre and his ilk any day of the week.
OT, AC, but it must be a bit annoying to waste time advancing a reasoned opinion on the day's issues, only to be lumped in with the stupid and shallow perspective as advanced by Dan Leger.
Anonymous:
This is a "Reform Party" farmer who has what credentials? Oh yes, he ploughed a field outlining EEE....or else...
Now, isn't that impressive.
I presume you think CTV liberal-media hacks who used to lick Chretien's shoes are more qualified? Or any of the other Liberal hacks currently blocking Harper's 8-year term limit bill, not to mention watering down the Accountability Act to find loopholes for future Liberal governments (yes, I'm consigned to the fact that somewhere down the road we'll have another Lie-beral government) to carry on their criminal ways?
You Rosedale Liberals just hate the fact that you can't dictate your elitism to the rest of the country. You used to be able to, but the times they are-a-changin...
EC:
Imagine having a legislative body, with actual power, where Atlantic Canada has ~40% of the seats!!!
This most certainly will never happen.
Much more likely is a representative breakdown by region. I, as an Ontarian, am perfectly fine having my "region" represented by an equal number of senators at the whole of Atlantic Canada, even though the latter's population is less than a quarter that of the former. But I would certainly protest Ontario being on par with tiny PEI on its own.
The regional breakdown could be: Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Eastern Prairies, Alberta, BC, North. 10 senators each region, except the North, which should have 5 (I mean come on, regional balance is fine, but the three territories have, combined, fewer than 100,000 people). Total: 55 senators. A nice, small, relatively inexpensive senate for sober second thought.
In return for the decreased clout of the larger provinces in the Senate, the HoC should be reformed for a purer form of rep-by-pop. That means the Liberals have to give up 3 of their 4 landslide seats in PEI and the Conservatives will have to take some hits as rural seats are redistributed into urban areas.
I think Harper is pointing out once again that if the province of Alberta wants an elected senator to represent them, he is very happy to recognize that. To the bleating soul who protested that the Libreals or NDP didn't run candidates in that election, I say this: They didn't run candidates because they didn't think there was a point to the exercise, which says volumes about how much they REALLY respect democracy. Besides, it is Alberta, they have enough losing causes trying to beat the Tories there without spending money to get their tails whipped in the land of the Triple E senate.
Good on Harper for allowing a province to have a say in who represents it in the Senate. As for his qualifications, hey Frank Mahovlich has done what since he left hockey?? Someone want to clue me in? I bet putting money into the Libreal Party's coffers is the only concrete thing we do know. He is no more capable of representing my provinces than anyone else, and I didn't have a say in it.
Cherniak, you may not like it but you better learn to. If we are going to get PR some day, an elected Senate is a MUST....
Hey!!! We got em and we're keeping em!!! Keep yer filthy Upper Canadian hands off our senators.
Cornelius Howatt
If Canada were a republic, we could dispense with the unelected Senate, and bring in an elected one or get rid of it altogether. Also if Canada were a republic, the aboriginal claims would vanish because there will be no Queen to uphold treaties.
Yup, the Republic of Canada (and Quebec) ..!!!
AC, your beloved STV would fit quite well in a hypothetical Nova Scotia Senate Elections alongside N.S. municipal elections set for October 2008.
There are currently THREE Senate vacancies in Nova Scotia, and another due to come up by the end of March, 2009.
No doubt, N.S. is one of the provinces that has more than its fair share of Senate seats, so Harper may not really want to fill them with elected Senators, etc.
But then again, there's something to the "we gotta good thing goin' here" effect ...
As an Ontarian I second that the HoC is not yet rep/pop due to the bizarre distribution method.
An STV or list election to the Senate using at-large (in smaller provinces) or multimember riding systems (in larger ones) would elect Liberals in Alta. and Tories in Atlantic Canada, Toronto and Vancouver, enfranchising currently disenfranchised voters.
Steve-O: "The regional breakdown could be: Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Eastern Prairies, Alberta, BC, North. 10 senators each region, except the North, which should have 5 (I mean come on, regional balance is fine, but the three territories have, combined, fewer than 100,000 people). Total: 55 senators. A nice, small, relatively inexpensive senate for sober second thought."
The problem with regional lumping is that the provinces are still not treated equally.
We have to keep in mind too that we need officials that don't just focus on people issues, but on the land, economics, and infrastructure. MPs spend a lot of time dealing with people whereas senators could be effective in looking at the bigger picture of the province.
6 senators per province to serve 9 years, 2 elected every 3 years in conjunction with civic elections. Provinces can decide whether each or a pair of senators share a particular region of the province or not.
If we had term limits set to 4 years, then senators would serve 8 years--3 elected every four years or 2 elected every four years in a 12 year term.
Redistributing the seats in the H of C would yield PEI with 1 less seat, but they would be on equal footing in the senate.
hatrock, I like some of your ideas. I do like the simplicity of equal representation for each constituent part of the federation (ie. each province). But then I look at a city like Toronto, which has a bigger annual budget than 6 of 10 Canadian provinces, and it seems odd that they aren't at the table as an equal member. The Greater Montreal area, and the GVRD should qualify as well.
Certainly in Germany, their major cities are represented in the Bundesrat. Yes, it's different because they are each their own distinct administrative unit. The three biggest cities of Berlin, Hamburg, and Bremen are city-states, or city-provinces, while there are 13 other area-provinces, the kind we are more familiar with in Canada.
There was some talk about one of the territories being granted provincial status. What terms would they come in under? Certainly it would have to be better than what they have now.
Landmass, population, big cities, economic performance, etc., are all factors we could use in the makeup of a better functioning Senate.
And, off-topic, I don't know where you get your "PEI will go down 1 seat" idea. Without the removal of the Senatorial clause in the Constitution, PEI will remain at 4 HoC's seats. If it were straight rep-by-pop, PEI would get 1 seat, 2 max.