BC Conservatives Propose Senate Reform
Prince George, B.C. – BC Conservative leader Dan Brooks has weighed in on the age old issue of reforming Canada’s Senate.
The Vanderhoof native has proposed the direct election of 13 Senators by and for British Columbia.
“Right now B.C. only has six Senate seats, but if we had rep-by-pop we would have 13 Senators,” said Brooks, noting B.C. now has more than 13% of Canada’s population.
The question of reforming the upper house arose recently when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau proposed a new Senate formula.
Under his plan, five citizens would be selected, including three appointees by the federal government and two by the province involved.
These appointees would develop a list of candidates meeting an improved set of qualifications to be a Senator from which the Prime Minister would select the eventual appointee.
(A proposal B.C. Premier Christy Clark was quick to dismiss).
Under Brooks plan though, the election of 13 Senators would coincide with the next provincial election set for May, 2017.
He says the means of Senate election, terms and age limits would be a matter of public input.
Comments
A far better proposal than what Trudeau has come up with, which still leaves the Prime Minister in charge of who will get appointed.
Ah come on cred . They are two very different proposals . Trudeau’s works within the parameters of our constitution . Brooks goes against the constitution . If he thinks that the maritimes provinces will give up their senators to satisfy the likes of Dan he must be delusional . Speaking of delusions . His wiki page tells the whole story . Ever notice that no random atheists ever show up on your door step unannounced to espouse the virtues of reality based thinking .
Isn’t that strange . You never herd from a P{C when they were in power but now all of a sudden they have all kinds of suggestions on what needs change.
Cheers
Exactly. They have no authority via the BC Legislature.
I have no authority by the BC Legislature either. But for discussion purposes I provide the following suggestions.
Too many are stuck with the notion that the senate should reflect the country by population? That is what the house of commons already does. Seats are distributed as best as possible to reflect the population of the country. We do not need a second chamber that reflects the population.
The senate should represent provinces and territories. That is what is done in the USA with 2 seats per state. That is what is done in Australia with 12 senators elected from each of state.
We have had 9 Constitution and modifying acts. The latest was in 1999 when Nunavut was created.
10 senators per province, no matter what the land or population size of the province. Two per territory for a total of 106 seats.
Each province/territory elects the senators whose names are presented to the Prime Minister as recommendations. The PM passes them on to the Governor General as recommendations to appoint.
That may be an even better suggestion than what Brooks has proposed, gopg2015. But what Trudeau is proposing is really no reform at all. He still gets to make the final choice, and three of the members of the committee that makes up the list of those recommended as potential Senators are from the Federal government, outnumbering the two that are appointed Provincially. If the Senate is going to be a body representative of a jurisdictional area rather than representative of that jurisdiction’s population numbers, then surely the Provincially chosen members of the nominating committee should at least be in the majority.
Ataloss:-“Dan he must be delusional . Speaking of delusions . His wiki page tells the whole story . Ever notice that no random atheists ever show up on your door step unannounced to espouse the virtues of reality based thinking . ”
=========================================================================
You’re referring to him being a Mormon, I take it? No, no “random atheists” have ever shown up unannounced on my door step to “…espouse the virtues of reality based thinking.” Which, I suppose, could raise a lot of questions. If one wanted to ponder ‘why?’, that is. I don’t really think I do, but some possibilities that come to mind immediately are that:- (a.) maybe there aren’t any ~ after all ‘reality’ to one person may be something different than perceived by another?, (b.) if there are some virtues, maybe they haven’t figured them all out yet?, (c.) they have, but have concluded there’s no money in it ~ no one’s apt to tithe 10% of their income to an organisation of atheists?, (d.) well, I suppose there are others, but I think I’ll wait til a “random atheist” shows up to tell me what they are.
@Retired02 there hasn’t been a Conservative party in power in BC since the 20s unless you count the coalition with the Liberals. To have heard from these guys when they were in power you must be 100 years old or more
Comments for this article are closed.