Harper names Canola Council president Buth to senate.

[FarmRanger]

The Feds can't change the constitution without the approval of the provinces. The PM being willing to change the senate doesn't mean the provinces will go along. If your province doesn't want to elect senators, then don't complain to Harper.

The only province to ever elect a senator is Alberta, but the PM still had the constitutional right to choose to appoint them to the senate (or not).

[TOM4CWB]

FarmRanger,

Cheers!

"Harper’s Senate reform plans may forever change how Canada is governed

Kathryn Blaze Carlson, nationalpost.com, Last Updated: Jan 6, 2012 8:46 PM ET



Bert Brown, an elected Senator from Alberta, was appointed to the Upper House by Stephen Harper in 2007.

Amid the red upholstery and white tablecloths at Caesar’s Steakhouse & Lounge in Calgary two years ago, Canada’s only sitting elected senator held the prime minister’s attention for a full four hours. Over a dinner meeting scheduled at Stephen Harper’s request, Bert Brown and the Prime Minister discussed Senate reform — an issue Mr. Brown had championed since the 1980s when he ploughed ‘Triple-E Senate or Else’ into a neighbour’s barley field, and which Mr. Harper, as a founding member of the Reform Party, has long espoused.

On Friday, the Prime Minister appointed seven senators to the upper chamber, all of whom “pledged to support the Government in its efforts to make the Senate more democratic and accountable, including legislation to limit the term lengths of senators and encouraging the provinces and territories to hold elections for Senate nominees,” according to a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office.

One of the appointments, Alberta’s Betty Unger — who was elected by the only province that currently holds senatorial elections — makes history twice by becoming the first-ever female elected senator and by joining Mr. Brown as one of two elected senators sitting at the same time. With other provinces planning senatorial elections, they likely will not be the last, and that could have implications that forever change how Canada is governed.

Mr. Brown recalls how he and Mr. Harper discussed at Caesar’s how a reformed, elected Senate and an unchanged House of Commons might interact: A Senate with newfound democratic legitimacy might rival the House in ways never before seen, and both men knew there was nothing in the Constitution preventing a deadlock or even a Senate-sparked government shut-down.

The prime minister asked Mr. Brown to come up with a mechanism that would protect the supremacy of the House of Commons. But that safeguard would require the sort of stand-alone constitutional amendment Mr. Harper knows would be a nightmare to attempt.

The Conservatives have tried four times legislatively to reform the Senate; its fifth attempt is in second reading in the House and is expected to pass under his majority government. It would set a non-renewable nine-year time limit and prescribe a process where provinces and territories could elect senators who would then be considered for appointment. If it is passed and survives the court challenge Quebec is promising to mount, Canada’s Senate will likely start to look and act very differently than it has for the past 145 years.

Some political analysts suggest the two-pronged legislation will create the very rivalry discussed at the steakhouse, with no override clause to prevent a legislative crisis. They say Canada could well be headed for an American-style system characterized by gridlock and an unprecedented competition between two bodies that could be controlled by different parties.

“I think there could be bloody battles between the two, much like there is in the United States,” said constitutional expert Ned Franks. “You’re going to have the House of Commons trying to affirm its position as the elected and truly representative house, and the Senate will say, ‘Nonsense. We basically have equal powers and we’re elected, too. We’ll do whatever we feel like, and if you don’t like it, get stuffed.’”

“The American system was intentionally designed to be slow and difficult, but would Canadians be delighted with that kind of gridlock?” echoed Matthew Harrington, a law professor at the University of Montreal. “Gridlock could come into the Canadian system without a lot of thought, and without anyone really predicting the real ramifications of that.”

Senators can today serve as long as 45 years — from the minimum age of 30 to a maximum age of 75. They have historically deferred to the House of Commons because they were appointed, not elected.

But if the reforms are adopted, the Red Chamber might learn to flex its legislative muscle, quashing its reputation as an echo chamber of sober second-thought. Elected senators might divide themselves along provincial and regional lines, rather than along federal party lines, and their stature might dilute the power of provincial legislatures — as is feared by Quebec. They might join MPs in Cabinet in equal numbers, too.

“No matter how well-conceived a system change is, it’s going to have unintended consequences,” said Bruce Hicks, who teaches political science at Concordia University. “What those will be 10 years down the road will depend on the political culture, the politics of the moment, and the various actors involved.”

Alberta, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick have said they are on board with senatorial elections, and Mr. Brown said at least two more provinces will make similar announcements over the next several months — one as early as a couple of weeks from now, although he would not say which. If half of Canada’s provinces start electing senators then the rest might feel pressured to follow suit, and Canada might inch toward a largely, if not fully, elected Senate.

Tim Uppal, the minister of state for democratic reform, told the National Post this week the government has “thought about” the ramifications of the proposed reforms, adding the process is “evolving” and that the relationship between the House and the 105-seat Senate will change for the better. “We support steps that can be taken within Parliament’s authority, right now,” he said, affirming the prime minister’s commitment to Senate reform amid speculation Mr. Harper is simply placating his base. “This does not have to be an all or nothing approach.”

When Mr. Harper appointed Mr. Brown in 2007, he asked the Alberta senator to fuel momentum for Senate reform by crisscrossing the country to speak with provincial governments. Gerald Baier, an associate professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, said Mr. Harper’s tactics amount to an incremental approach aimed at “getting the ball rolling.” “Making small changes might demonstrate that greater change is necessary,” he said. “I think [Mr. Harper] is a chess player. He really thinks a couple moves ahead … Perhaps this is meant to destabilize the institution enough in order to force people to consider more drastic reform.”

Proponents of a Triple-E Senate — equal, elected, and effective — hope the government will someday open the Constitution to tackle the composition of the Senate, whose seats were divided equally across four regions back in 1867. Despite massive population growth and shifts, the west still has a total of just 24 seats divided among British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, while the Atlantic provinces have a combined total of 30 seats. New Brunswick, with a population of 755,000, has 10 seats compared to B.C.’s six, despite the western province’s 4.5 million people. Ontario and Quebec have 24 senators each.

If the Senate becomes emboldened by a democratic mandate from its provincial electors, and if its members are mostly from have-not provinces that depend on wealthier provinces for equalization payments, what might that mean for a bill that seeks to decrease transfer payments to, say, the Maritime provinces?

That question is among those on the mind of Doreen Barrie, a University of Calgary political scientist who said the ripple effect of Mr. Harper’s proposed reforms will be “nightmarish” — and perhaps a little quirky, too. “Because this is being done [without a constitutional amendment], after nine years a senator could say, ‘I’m not going to step down because the Constitution says I can stay until I’m 75,’” she said. “That’s not likely, but there’s a possibility, particularly if that senator is of a different stripe than the prime minister at the time.” Beyond that, she said, the prospect of a non-renewable term could create an accountability issue. “How might someone behave in one term, knowing he or she doesn’t ever have to go back to the people?” she asked.

Mr. Brown, for his part, told the prime minister from the beginning he would sit in the Conservative caucus, but that the interests of Albertans would come first. He also racked up the highest expenses of any senator by fulfilling Mr. Harper’s request that he meet with provincial and territorial leaders.

Mr. Uppal has likewise encouraged provincial representatives to adopt a senatorial election process similar to Alberta’s, and said he is slated to travel in a couple of weeks to hold more meetings. When asked whether the latest reform bill might whet the appetite for broader reform in the future, the minister said: “Having this discussion does allow Canadians to talk more about their democracy, yes.”