Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

Canadian Senate Reform (Part 2) - The Third Way

      -John Adams-                                                         -Thomas Jefferson-

My Proposal is to take a page from the United States Constitution and adopt their original formula for the Senate, the one they had before May 31, 1913. Before Woodrow Wilson convinced the American people to pass the Seventeenth Amendment, which made the Senate positions elected, as opposed to appointed.

More After the Break

Under this proposal Senators would be appointed, not by the Federal Government, but by the premiers of each province and territory. There would be two appointed senators from each province and one appointed senator from each territory. Moreover, under this system the Premiers would have the ability to remove and replace any senator that is not in agreement with the Premier. Lastly, once a bill has gone through both parliamentary houses (House of Commons and the Senate) and the necessary steps to become law, the Prime Minister would then decide to veto or sign the bill into law. This veto could only be overridden by a 70% vote in both the house and the Senate.
Click Here to Read Part 1 of This Series ->>>


Senator Kenny’s Objections that No Longer Apply

Under this proposal the Senator’s objection(s) in regards to the Senate being elected, as seen in Part 1 of this series, wouldn’t matter. Since no senator would be elected under my proposal. Moreover, the objection to term limits would also not be a problem, since under this system I would not propose any term limits. Lastly, under this proposal there would still be a Senate.
Senator Kenny’s Objections that Matter

Provincial Relations

Senator Kenny’s objection to the reduction of power of the premiers under Harper's proposal, is addressed undermine. In fact premiers, under my proposal, through their appointments to the Senate, would gain greater power over the federal Government, through their ability to appoint senators to the Senate. This is because if a premier were to raise an objection against the federal government the senators from the premier's province/territory, would have to take up the premier's cause in parliament or risk being removed by their premier. Moreover, this proposal allows for any legislation, proposed by parliament, to be stalled and contested fiercely by the Canadian population if they are in disagreement with the proposed legislation.

This is because people all over Canada would be able to directly put pressure on legislators in Ottawa, by simply going to their local provincial/territorial house(s) of government, and demanding that the Premier ensures his appointed Senators vote down or at least stall the legislation. Moreover, given the vast landscape of Canada this is crucial, for it means that people who live far away from Ottawa, such as those from B.C. or the territories, would have an officially equal say in laws passed by the federal government. Remember, this line of reasoning was also one of the major factors in the creation of the territory of Nunavut on April 1, 1999.

Running the Government out of the House

Another one of Kenny's objections that was not mentioned in Part 1 of this series on Senate reform, was that if the Senate were to be reformed it would no longer have to follow the tradition of allowing the house to have the final say on legislation. Meaning it would be difficult to run the federal government out of the House.

I agree with Kenny that this would indeed be the case, which is why I propose giving the Prime Minister the power to veto or sign any legislation that is passed by both houses of parliament. However, it should be noted that the Prime Minister would not become like the President of the United States, for he would only gain the power to sign or veto bills into law, not, for example, the power to declare war. Moreover, if the Prime Minister veto's a bill and both the Senate and the House need 70% to override the veto, this simply means that only bills that the entire population of Canada want will be passed. Thus, adding one more crucial roadblock, that government would need to overcome in order to grow. What about deadlock? Again, as I mentioned in Part 1 of this series, deadlock is not necessarily a bad thing and in fact is important to maintaining small government and freedom.

Other Benefits of this Proposal

Equal Representation for the Provinces and Territories
Besides the ability of premiers from each province/territory to have more power in the operations and decisions of the Federal Government, this plan would also ensure that all provinces/territories are equally represented in the Senate and the federal government.
The reason that territories would only have one representative in the Senate is the same reason that they are not provinces, because they have miniscule populations. Moreover, it should be noted that currently each territory only has one member in the Senate, so there would be no reduction in their current power. Furthermore, I think we can agree that these lone senators gain more power and influence under my proposal than under the current system. Since under my proposal they would need to convince 22 people of their position, not 104 like under the current system.

This equal representation is important, because one of the key issues that motivates the West’s desire to reform the Canadian Senate is because of the unequal representation of the West in comparison to the East that has always existed. This is clear for of the 105 senators currently in the Senate 78 (74.3%) of them are from the East (Ontario to Newfoundland and Labrador), whereas the West (Manitoba to British Columbia) is represented by a mere 24 senators making up 23% of the entire Senate; with the other 3% being made up of representatives from the 3 territories. All despite the fact, that the West contains 31% of the population. A population percentage that will continue to grow as world oil prices and thus oil revenues continue to rise in Alberta, and provinces such as Ontario have their credit ratings downgraded and their economies shrink. Furthermore, the House of Commons already represents the population distribution in Canada, meaning the issue has already been taken into account in Parliament. Furthermore, it should be the case that the federal government treats all provinces equally, meaning that they all deserve the same amount of representation.

Reduction in Corruption

One of the other benefits of my proposal is that it would keep corruption in the Senate low, since Senators would not have to campaign for their positions, and thus they remain just as free of special interests' and lobby groups’ influences on them, as under the current system. Moreover, they would be held accountable by the premiers of each province/territory, who in turn would be held accountable by the people. Something that as I pointed out above is a good thing, for this means that senators would have to pay attention to political shifts within their populations they represent in order to stay in power. Unlike under the current system where they can just make any decision they want free from political consequences.

Lower Costs

Under my proposal the cost of the Senate necessarily decreases, due to the fact that instead of 105 senators each being paid $132,300 not including other perks and benefits, there would only be 23 being paid that amount. Resulting in the Senate costing Canadians $96,307,668, not $107,156,268 as is the current price tag. Something, I believe all Canadians, no matter their political stripe, can agree is a good thing. Especially, in light of the fact that Canada's national debt currently sits at $551,380,000,000 or 35% of GDP, and growing. Thus, to be able to make the Senate more effective and more cost efficient at the same time is a win-win for everyone.

Therefore, my proposal, this Third Way, means reforming the Senate is not only possible, but also practical. Moreover, it ensures that reform can be done while avoiding the objections of the left and allowing the right to obtain their desired equality. All with the added benefit of such reform resulting in the Senate becoming more effective and less expensive.

As always let me know what you think by leaving your comments below.
-Corey S.
<THINK ABOOT IT>



This post first appeared on A Parallel Too High, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

Canadian Senate Reform (Part 2) - The Third Way

×

Subscribe to A Parallel Too High

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription

×