[kEiThZ]

Please sketch out a scenario whereby a constitutional amendment on Senate reform passes the amendment formula. It just aint gonna happen. My money is on military coup as the likeliest path.

Find a way that the provinces can agree.

I guarantee you that every single premier would agree to having the power to appoint senators.

I should temper my proposal by saying that such appointments should come with term limits. I don't agree with 4 or even 7 year term limits. I'd like to see something like a 10 year term. No extensions. 10 years. And that's it.

The only way to get sober second thought is to place these senators outside of the vagaries of the election cycle. And to do that, imho, they have to be appointed and have long terms. The only way to keep a check on such a senate though...is to have a democratically elected office make the appointments (hence the Premiers).

Any reform in my books has to meet the purpose for which the senate exists: protection of regional interests, and a chamber of sombre and reasoned thinking not subject to the grandstanding that is a necessary part of electoral politics.

 

[afransen]

The provinces will never be able to agree to a redistribution of seats. No way. No how. I can't see Quebec going for it. I can't see Ontario going for it. Never mind the Atlantic. The last thing you want to do is legitimize the Senate as formed as a fully democratic body. Then you will be permanently sentencing the West to meaningful underrepresentation. I'm not convinced our federation would be able to take it.

 

[SimonP]

Just abolish it. You're never going to get fair representation through (look at what happened to the far more moderate attempted change to the commons).

 

[EnviroTO]

I think the Senate should fulfill the function it was supposed to fulfill in the first place: protection of regional interests and a chamber of sober second thought.

I don't believe an elected senate can achieve the latter. And I don't believe a senate appointed by prime ministers can achieve the former.

I agree completely. I'm not sure they should be appointed by premiers though.

I think that the senate should be elected to 10 year terms and run in a collection of ridings averaging 3-4 ridings per senate seat (would vary based on provincial minimum seats), not be party based, and have a requirement of having held political office (municipal, provincial/territorial, or federal). Obviously some would be party supporters and they would have leanings on certain issues but in the end parties should not fund their campaign, the ballot should not mention a party, and parties should have no say on who is on a ballot. The idea behind the requirement of having held political office is that in order for the senate to really be providing a sober second thought the people running should be known entities, not activists that became popular overnight and could be equally unpopular in a few weeks. The idea behind the politicians being "independents" is that we want it to be clear that they shouldn't be voting for whatever the house voted for on party lines. Also, I think that there should be some limits to senate power when a vote results in less than a two-thirds majority. A simple majority should be able to do most things but after being presented with a bill for the second time with no amendments from the house they should be required to have a two-thirds majority to kill the bill. The senate needs to be prevented from running the country but still needs to have the ability to prevent change in more extreme circumstances.

 

[Dan416]

I don't think the Liberals or the Conservatives would support the Senate being filled with "Independents". Elections? Yes I can see them supporting those. 10 year limits? Sure. But they'll continue with their party affiliations if the Prime Minister or House of Commons has anything to say about it.