P.E.I. might hold first Senate election, Tories say



The arguements for picking PEI as the first province seem ideal for the Harper and the Tories.
Although Senate elections must go through constitutional change, Harper can endorse the selection of the province because the PM picks the senators.
His first move was on limiting senators to a 8 year term this was the start reform he said he would do, Elections would be another major change for the way the Senate is run.
Can't say Harper is a do nothing PM.
He's doing what others before him didn't have the balls to do, and all in short order.

If he had the balls, he would abolish the Senate like many premiers want.

A bicameral legislature can be useful as a check on "tyranny of the majority". It should, in some sense, be elected, but elected in a different manner from the lower house so that it doesn't wind up as purely a rubber stamp.

In the US, State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Perhaps that would not be a bad approach.

I would also like the Senate to be abolished.
That wouldn't happen in your life time.
This is the next best choice, at least it would take the patronage appointment out of the hands of the PM and let the people of the provinces make the choice.

That is totally unsatisfactory for some provinces so this deal with Nova Scotia is going to show division across the country.

When in Canadian Politics was there ever a consensus on anything?
Harper's on the right track.....and the province is PEI,not Nova Scotia.

Sorry, you're correct. PEI.

I still think it is divisive. And the thought of having enough BQ in the Senate to block legislation sickens me.

Provinces should be picking their own Senators but until we have an upper house similar to the US model that gives equal representation to each province, the Senate shouldn't have any more power than it has now.

Don't quite see how it would *take balls* to cave in to what the majority of Liberal premiers want rather than attempting to implement a change that his party actually believes in and provides a balance to the excesses of a majority government.

Don't know if the legislatures *electing* Senators would make for much of a change. Hacks are hacks.

Good point. I forgot why the US changed over to popular election of Senators. "Senior moment" there.

It hasn't just been Liberal premiers. Over the years, it has been voiced by almost all parties federally and provincially.

Manitoba used to have an upper house.

It just isn't needed.

Our system wasn't built for checks and balances. If a prime minister wants to create that system, open it up to a constitutional conference. Don't go about things willy nilly. Elect a senator in PEI and appoint one in Quebec? Yikes.

Whether or not the senate should be abolished is different debate.

But if Harper had balls he would start the elections in Quebec. We have not forgotten about Mr. Fortier. If anyone should be the first it should be he.

Here's a brief rundown of the history of why the U.S. started to elect senators.

The movement to elect Senators began in the 1820s, but didn't gain much steam for quite a few years.

Most U.S. states have an upper and a lower house. Around the time of the Civil War (late 1860s) there started to be a lot of issues with deadlocks between the houses in given states which lead to some Senate seats going unfilled for a number of years.

Oregon became the first state to elect a Senator in 1906. It caught on and by 1912 a total of 29 states had elected at least one Senator.

In 1913 the 17th amendment to the Constitution required that all states elect their Senators, which began in 1914.





Yeah, it is. The Senate has the constitional power to act as a balance on the House of Commons, it just doesn't have the legitimacy.

That's the same thing as saying no checks and balances.

Uhhh, but once Senators are elected they will have the legitimacy to exercise their power. Thus they will be able to serve as a check on the house of commons.

So one senator has legitimacy while other senators who the prime minister will have to appoint because a province doesn't support an election will be illegitimate?

That's why it will take more than one elected Senator to get the ball rolling.

Unfortunately Stan Waters passed away before he had the chance to really get settled into the role of a Senator. So we will have to see what happens if we get a number of elected Senators who get the chance to serve for more than a few months.

It won't be an easy transition, but there will be steps in the right direction.

I don't see any of your complaints or objections being a better system then a gradual move to a fully elected Senate. Alberta is committed to electing Senators. If PEI joins the fray then another province or two would represent a crtical mass to electing Senators cross-country.

A constitutional amendment for electing senators would not require unanimous approval of the provinces. 7/50 would apply.

You would be correct from a legal perspective, however, from a political perspective Quebec would have a veto which means that any reform that addresses the aspirations of the west will never happen.

The only hope it to live with a partially elected senate for many years until the voters in provinces without elections demand changes. This is how the US got an elected senate.

As soon as you open the Constitution, everything is up for grabs then. Hello Charlottetown and Meech Lake. Blech.

Blech ... that pretty much sums up the contribution of the last post to the thread.

I hope our present day politicians have learned from the failures of Meech Lake and Charlottetown that sweeping changes to the consitution are recipes for disaster.

The Elections Act could be changed to allow for Senatorial elections.

We already elected Senators in Alberta. Harper appointed a Quebecois political friend instead. Not the most crediable man in the Senate reform chair.

Too bad, I had hopes in him on that issue. We'll see what he does if an Alberta seat opens up.

Alberta doesn't have a mandatory opening for another 5 1/2 years so we'll have to wait and see on that.

It wasn't an *either or* choice between the Alberta Senators-in-waiting and filling the Quebec seat.

If an Alberta seat does open up Harper will definitely appoint an elected senator. Whether or not another election is held on that matter is an interesitng question.