The Next Canadian Government

[Edward Campbell]

I am starting this new thread because of today’s announcement that the NDP has cancelled the Confidence and Supply Agreement; that means that we may have an election well before Oct 25.

I am assuming, based on recent polling, that the next government will be a Conservative majority regime.

I am also assuming that the Conservative Party will begin, soon, to make some concrete policy announcements that will be based on its Sep 23 Policy Declaration.

My opening shot is: Democratic Reform.

My starting point is an interesting article by John Ibbitson in today’s Globe and Mail in which he mentions the importance of the Salisbury Convention - another act by a member of the great family of my avatar. The key point of the Salisbury Convention is that the unelected Senate of Canada may NOT overrule the government on any matter that was part of its election platform.

In its Policy Declaration the Conservative Party said (page 5) “The Conservative Party supports the election of senators … [and] … The Conservative Party believes in an equal Senate to address the uneven distribution of Canada’s population and to provide a balance to safeguard regional interests.”

I believe, very firmly, that an elected Senate is important. Canada is one of the very few modern nations that still has an unelected legislative body. I also believe that a federal state needs a bicameral legislature where one chamber represents each community (constituency) (Chambre des Communes/House of Commons) while the other represents the provinces which are the “partners” in the federation.

I am far less persuaded that an equal Senate is important. I know that it works for the USA and I know that the ratio of California:Wyoming (39M:0.6M) is not too much different from the ratio of Ontario-PEI (14M:0.14M). I think Canada should have a regionally balanced Senate. The six regions are BC, the Prairies, Ontario, Québec, Atlantic Canada and The North and First Nations communities.

I think the Senate of Canada MUST consist, only, of elected members. I also think that there is an ironclad rule of Canadian politics which says that Québec never loses. I believe that Québec would, rightfully, says that it lost ground if it had the same number of senators as, say, New Brunswick or Saskatchewan. I neither know nor care what the optimum mix of elected senators is - lets say that Atlantic Canada keeps 30 and Québec and Ontario also get 30 senators each. Should the the Prairies provinces get 30 senators between them? I neither know nor do I care a great deal … BUT, in the 21st century, Canada should NOT have an unelected legislative chamber.

I believe that the Conservative Party must state, in its 2024/25 election platform, that it will press for an elected and effective Senate of Canada.

I believe that senators should be elected during each provincial general election using a proportional representation system. Individual senators may then caucus with like minded senators from other provinces. This will make the politics of the federal legislature more complex and it may, eventually, negate the need for the Salisbury Doctrine.

 

[captloadie]

While the argument is sound, would the outcome be what is best for the nation? I assume you would put forward that after reforming the senate so it is made up of elected members, the next step would be to give them greater say in the process of bringing bills into law. This then handcuffs the ruling party to once again need to pander to another group to get their bills passed into law, especially if the makeup of the senate is not aligned with the politics of the ruling party. Why would any party who has a strong potential to form the government campaign on this? Why would you potentially hand over crown prerogative?

While we may not like the decisions put in place at any given time by a ruling party, at least business gets done. Follow on governments can almost always go back and change/repeal laws they don't like.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think Senate reform should also include the way they do business. When they receive a bill from government they should have a strict, reasonable but short time to take it up and send back their recommendations. No months down the road. They should have no power to scuttle a bill put forward by the people. Just non binding recommendations.

I don't know what we can do about the poison pill Red Chamber trudeau is leaving for PP.

 

[Edward Campbell]

While the argument is sound, would the outcome be what is best for the nation? I assume you would put forward that after reforming the senate so it is made up of elected members, the next step would be to give them greater say in the process of bringing bills into law. This then handcuffs the ruling party to once again need to pander to another group to get their bills passed into law, especially if the makeup of the senate is not aligned with the politics of the ruling party. Why would any party who has a strong potential to form the government campaign on this? Why would you potentially hand over crown prerogative?

While we may not like the decisions put in place at any given time by a ruling party, at least business gets done. Follow on governments can almost always go back and change/repeal laws they don't like.

I said it would make politics more complex - at times a lot more complex. But I believe that complicated politics by elected senators is better than unelected senators and the need for the Salisbury Convention.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I also believe that a federal state needs a bicameral legislature where ... the other represents the provinces which are the “partners” in the federation.

I think Canada should have a regionally balanced Senate. The six regions are BC, the Prairies, Ontario, Québec, Atlantic Canada and The North and First Nations communities.

Those two objectives are inconsistent. Either the provinces are pre-eminent co-equal partners in a federation and thus entitled to equality among themselves in all respects, or they are not.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Those two objectives are inconsistent. Either the provinces are pre-eminent co-equal partners in a federation and thus entitled to equality among themselves in all respects, or they are not.

Very fair critique. Maybe EEE is the way to go. But, 250+ senators? Can PEI produce 21 more legislators worthy of a seat in a national chamber? If that's not on, if we want, say, a 100ish seat Senate then do we persuade Québec to agree?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Very fair critique. Maybe EEE is the way to go. But, 250+ senators? Can PEI produce 21 more legislators worthy of a seat in a national chamber? If that's not on, if we want, say, a 100ish seat Senate then do we persuade Québec to agree?

It's such a big lift that swinging for the fences on everything is in order.

 

[brihard]

I am starting this new thread because of today’s announcement that the NDP has cancelled the Confidence and Supply Agreement; that means that we may have an election well before Oct 25.

I am assuming, based on recent polling, that the next government will be a Conservative majority regime.

I am also assuming that the Conservative Party will begin, soon, to make some concrete policy announcements that will be based on its Sep 23 Policy Declaration.

My opening shot is: Democratic Reform.

My starting point is an interesting article by John Ibbitson in today’s Globe and Mail in which he mentions the importance of the Salisbury Convention - another act by a member of the great family of my avatar. The key point of the Salisbury Convention is that the unelected Senate of Canada may NOT overrule the government on any matter that was part of its election platform.

In its Policy Declaration the Conservative Party said (page 5) “The Conservative Party supports the election of senators … [and] … The Conservative Party believes in an equal Senate to address the uneven distribution of Canada’s population and to provide a balance to safeguard regional interests.”

I believe, very firmly, that an elected Senate is important. Canada is one of the very few modern nations that still has an unelected legislative body. I also believe that a federal state needs a bicameral legislature where one chamber represents each community (constituency) (Chambre des Communes/House of Commons) while the other represents the provinces which are the “partners” in the federation.

I am far less persuaded that an equal Senate is important. I know that it works for the USA and I know that the ratio of California:Wyoming (39M:0.6M) is not too much different from the ratio of Ontario-PEI (14M:0.14M). I think Canada should have a regionally balanced Senate. The six regions are BC, the Prairies, Ontario, Québec, Atlantic Canada and The North and First Nations communities.

I think the Senate of Canada MUST consist, only, of elected members. I also think that there is an ironclad rule of Canadian politics which says that Québec never loses. I believe that Québec would, rightfully, says that it lost ground if it had the same number of senators as, say, New Brunswick or Saskatchewan. I neither know nor care what the optimum mix of elected senators is - lets say that Atlantic Canada keeps 30 and Québec and Ontario also get 30 senators each. Should the the Prairies provinces get 30 senators between them? I neither know nor do I care a great deal … BUT, in the 21st century, Canada should NOT have an unelected legislative chamber.

I believe that the Conservative Party must state, in its 2024/25 election platform, that it will press for an elected and effective Senate of Canada.

I believe that senators should be elected during each provincial general election using a proportional representation system. Individual senators may then caucus with like minded senators from other provinces. This will make the politics of the federal legislature more complex and it may, eventually, negate the need for the Salisbury Doctrine.

Amending the Senate as you suggest would be a 7/50 amendment under s.38. While that’s the ‘easiest’ constitutional amending formula, do you have it gamed out which 7 provinces representing half the population you think would vote to fundamentally change the Senate in that way? It’s a heavy lift.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is, indeed a "heavy lift," but I think having a democratically elected legislature is worth it in the 21st century.

There are a whole host of problems I want the next government to tackle but I think reforming our 19th century institutions, when our "betters" believed that we, the people, could not be trusted to govern ourselves without a chamber of sober second thought, should be top of the list.

 

[RangerRay]

Fully agree, but I am more dogmatic about equal senators for each province. Either the provinces are equal or they are not. Territories could have less senators than provinces. If they did this, I would favour making the Commons truly representative, with no more special deals for certain places, making them over represented in Parliament, with a minimum of one MP per province/territory. Sorry, PEI, Quebec and rural ridings.

 

[Furniture]

Fully agree, but I am more dogmatic about equal senators for each province. Either the provinces are equal or they are not. Territories could have less senators than provinces. If they did this, I would favour making the Commons truly representative, with no more special deals for certain places, making them over represented in Parliament, with a minimum of one MP per province/territory. Sorry, PEI, Quebec and rural ridings.

Yeah, making the urban/rural divide stronger is always a key to success...

 

[markppcli]

Yeah, making the urban/rural divide stronger is always a key to success...

Alternatively a key factor of our democracy is that all Canadians are equal - if rural Canadians have smaller ridings doesn’t that mean their votes are proportionally more that anyone else ? The overwhelming majority (80 percent) of Canadians live in cities, so why should rural Canada have an equal voice if it accounts for 20 percent?

 

[Furniture]

Alternatively a key factor of our democracy is that all Canadians are equal - if rural Canadians have smaller ridings doesn’t that mean their votes are proportionally more that anyone else ? The overwhelming majority (80 percent) of Canadians live in cities, so why should rural Canada have an equal voice if it accounts for 20 percent?

Because that 20% does a lot of work essential for the cities/nation to function, and keeping them reasonably happy means that the work gets done with little fuss, while not inconveniencing the slightly underrepresented 80% too much.

Sometimes equal isn't fair, and fair isn't equal...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Get the next government to cap appointments and institute a election process for replacements of the existing members. It will be a slow transition, but will allow time to tweak and negotiate with the Provinces.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Alternatively a key factor of our democracy is that all Canadians are equal - if rural Canadians have smaller ridings doesn’t that mean their votes are proportionally more that anyone else ? The overwhelming majority (80 percent) of Canadians live in cities, so why should rural Canada have an equal voice if it accounts for 20 percent?

80% of the wealth, resources, fuel, electricity and water comes from the rural areas, do you really want to make them anymore of a 2nd class citizens than they are?

 

[markppcli]

Because that 20% does a lot of work essential for the cities/nation to function, and keeping them reasonably happy means that the work gets done with little fuss, while not inconveniencing the slightly underrepresented 80% too much.

Sometimes equal isn't fair, and fair isn't equal...

And those 80 percent also do essential work for the whole country to function.

What we actually see in, for example, Alberta is policies that are designed to appeal to the politically important rural voters while the majority of the population living in the cities deals with issues like not having had a hospital built since the early 1980s and school over crowding.

 

[markppcli]

80% of the wealth, resources, fuel, electricity and water comes from the rural areas, do you really want to make them anymore of a 2nd class citizens than they are?

How is an equal vote making them a second class citizen? Source for 80 percent of the GDP being generated in rural areas / by those residing in rural ridings? Because according the Ministry Respnsible its 30% Rural opportunity, national prosperity: An Economic Development Strategy for rural Canada

 

[RangerRay]

Because that 20% does a lot of work essential for the cities/nation to function, and keeping them reasonably happy means that the work gets done with little fuss, while not inconveniencing the slightly underrepresented 80% too much.

Sometimes equal isn't fair, and fair isn't equal...

Having spent much of life in rural Canada, I agree they have gotten the short end of the stick. But they have consistently gotten more representation in Parliament than their population would merit. Its like giving Wyoming 10 congressmen instead of 1 because “well they’re rural so their more than one citizen”.

If we are to have a truly equal senate, that would have to be offset by true rep by pop in the commons.

If we’re going to keep our abomination senate, then by all means keep the abomination commons.

 

[YZT580]

Alternatively a key factor of our democracy is that all Canadians are equal - if rural Canadians have smaller ridings doesn’t that mean their votes are proportionally more that anyone else ? The overwhelming majority (80 percent) of Canadians live in cities, so why should rural Canada have an equal voice if it accounts for 20 percent?

pragmatically, to defend the resources necessary to feed the 80%. City folks have a tendency to run roughshod over their rural neighbours; often as not without understanding the ramifications of their actions. For example, cattle farmers near to Oakville were taken to court over the smell of the manure they were spreading because the city had permitted medium density housing to occupy what had been orchards next door.

 

[brihard]

pragmatically, to defend the resources necessary to feed the 80%. City folks have a tendency to run roughshod over their rural neighbours; often as not without understanding the ramifications of their actions. For example, cattle farmers near to Oakville were taken to court over the smell of the manure they were spreading because the city had permitted medium density housing to occupy what had been orchards next door.

Got a link to a story on that one? I’m curious to find the case and how it played out.