Two scenarios for our consideration. First off, a "triple-E" senate is forced on an unfortunate Canadian public. If the votes break down by province the way they did in 2004, and each province was given 10 seats in the Senate, then the results would look something like this. (Note: I've given some pity votes to the Greens throughout my calculations, mainly to solve rounding errors.)With and without the territories each given equal representation:
| LP | CP | NDP | BQ | Green | |
| With Territories | 52 | 41 | 27 | 5 | 5 |
| Without Territories | 38 | 35 | 18 | 5 | 4 |
So we can see that in any case, the Liberals would probably be able to maintain a coalition in the Senate with the NDP, and maybe some Greens for good measure. With the Territories, they'd need 65 votes, and the NDP would give them 79. Without the Territories, they'd need 50 and the NDP would give them 56 - so they might want the extra 4 Greens, if they could all agree. Also, the BQ would be reduced to irrelevance - in the Senate, at least. They'd still have a strong voice in the house.
What about the other popular proposal, Proportional Representation? Again, assuming the votes broke down as they did in the 2004 General Election, we get a result something like this (assuming a round 100-person Senate with one national district):
| Party | LP | CP | NDP | BQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seats | 37 | 30 | 16 | 12 | 5 |
Note that the BQ actually does better in this scenario than under any Triple-E guess. However, compared to the 100-person Triple-E Senate, every other party does a bit worse - but not by much. Again, the Liberals would probably want the NDP and Greens alongside to keep a coalition in the Senate.
It's worth noting, however, that there's no law saying that the Government would have to have the confidence of the Senate in the sense we normally mean. Outside of money bills, the Senate could be confidence-free, if we wanted. That would make the PM's life easier, and would also allow the Senate to be a bit less stifled by party discipline.
The party that would have a really hard time in the Senate would be the Conservatives. There's no good options for them coalition partners, except for maybe the BQ - and those two parties are pretty antagonistic. Even if they got both the Greens and the BQ to join ranks, there's still not enough of them. From where I stand, however, having an elected Senate to keep a check on any future Conservative government is an unqualified bonus.
So short version: Even if they don't need to, the Liberals could keep the confidence of both houses of Parliament. Nobody else could, however. I'll write a bit later about the larger reasons I think an elected, PR Senate would be an excellent thing for Canada, but we have to remember one thing in all these discussions:
IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
1 comment:
Jeez, I didn't expect Senate reform to become this big an issue but I'll try and address all your points concisely.
-Constitutional reform will always be a disaster since Quebec will always insist on distinct nation status, which will rile up the west, etc. Repatriating the Constitution was relatively easy because there was no amendment formula then. Trudeau was bound by convention to consult with the Premiers but that's it.
-Triple E will absolutely never happen 'cause Ontario & Quebec wouldn't allow it.
-Without PR 3rd parties would have no power in the Senate. Senate ridings would be much larger and small parties with diffuse support (e.g. NDP, Greens) would be lucky to muster 10% of seats combined.
-The British system isn't a terribly good example for our purposes. Since Lords aren't elected they defer to the House of Commons. The mechanics of the Australian system caused what is frequently called the largest domestic crisis in their history. The Liberal coalition Senate majority forced "double dissolutions" (both houses are dissolved) in 1974 & 1975 until they could form the government. During this period they vetoed over thirty major pieces of legislation and made significant alterations to many more.
-By continually blocking the government's agenda, the Senate could create a de facto confidence situation.
-Btw., the BQ is already irrelevant in the Senate. No PM is gonna appoint a seperatist.
Post a Comment