In , the selection process for Senators was opened to all Canadians. Candidate submissions are reviewed by the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments, which provides recommendations to the Prime Minister.
The Board is guided by public, transparent, non-partisan, and merit-based criteria to identify highly qualified candidates. Once appointed by the Governor General, new Senators join their peers to examine and revise legislation, investigate national issues, and represent regional, provincial, and minority interests — important functions in a modern democracy. If you were to ask my opinion, I would say that for historical and practical reasons, perhaps some modification of the present divisional system is best suited as the next step in Canada, where each province could elect its own senators.
In the case of Manitoba, for example, we would elect six on a provincial basis, and larger areas like Ontario might be divided into regions which would also elect six senators apiece. These are matters which could be reasoned and discussed as the matter proceeds. As I have said, the present divisional system could perhaps be modified to take into account recent developments, and this to me is a reasonable basis to start from.
When should the senator be elected and for what term of office? There are at least three possibilities that occur to me: elections could be held independently, for the Senate alone: elections could be held in conjunction with elections for the House of Commons: or, indeed, elections could be held in conjunction with each provincial election. If you are anxious to underline the regional character of the Senate, this last proposition has something to be said for it.
All these different proposals are ones which could be the subject of further study, if the Senate so chose.
The term could be six years. That seems to be a popular number. Possibly, the election could be arranged on a staggered basis, with one half elected at each election. There are several possibilities with respect to how the Senate should be elected and how the vote should be counted.
A question that is equally important and to which we ought to apply our minds is: How would such an elected Senate work in a parliamentary system such as ours, and what power should this Senate have to discharge these regional responsibilities to which I have referred? I say the Senate should have exactly the same powers when it is elective as it has today.
The House of Commons must remain the primary body. The government should only be responsible to the House of Commons. Only the House of Commons should have the authority to empower governments or prime ministers, and only the House of Commons should originate money bills. However, an elected Senate could retain the present powers of an appointed Senate. Indeed, as an elected body it is appropriate that it should do so. In fact, I would add to the duties.
I would say that when the federal government appoints officers to regional or national bodies and the like, a list of them could be compiled, and those appointments could be subject to ratification by an elected Senate. But if powers such as these are conferred upon an elected Senate, the question of harmonizing the work of the Senate and the House of Commons assumes capital importance.
It is a critical consideration for any elected Senate that we should not be automatically providing for a stalemate or for an unlimited legislative deadlock with the House of Commons itself. The federal system should not be stultified by an elected Senate, and the solution of differences between the two chambers must be regulated and workable, with the primacy of the House of Commons recognized.
A number of possible arrangements suggest themselves. Obviously, we would seek to strengthen the joint Senate-House of Commons system of consultation and management, the system of consultation and communication, and perhaps the establishment of a joint management committee would be in order.
This would enable us to seek mutually acceptable compromises which are clearly possible on many issues. If the House of Commons proposes a measure which does not meet with the approval of the Senate, it might be stipulated that the House must muster a two-thirds majority in order to firm up its views.
Another variation of the same idea is that if the Senate rejects a proposal from the House of Commons on the first occasion by a simple majority, and if it is represented by the House of Commons a second time, then at that stage the two-thirds majority might be required in order to deal with the matter.
Alternatively, differences could be settled by joint sittings of the Senate and the House of Commons when a simple majority would decide. As a last resort, the federal Prime Minister should perhaps be given the power of a double dissolution. Then both the House of Commons and the Senate would go back to the people and let the people, in a new Parliament, decide what course should be taken.
These are only a few ideas on the vital and critical question of reconciling the operation of an elected Senate with the parliamentary system as we know it. Both houses must ultimately recognize the sovereignty of the people.
I see merit in turning to an elected Senate as a significant improvement in harmonizing the interests of our regions within the central legislative apparatus and within the federal ambit and authority.
But I do not propose it as a sovereign remedy to all that ails Canadian federalism. There will always be a federal prime minister, provincial premiers and federal-provincial conferences with direct contact between the governments. In no way would an elected Senate do away with all the regional discomforts we experience. How could it? Its main role is to be played with respect to federal legislation within the federal constitutional ambit and within the federal power.
The federal-provincial division of powers remains undisturbed. This new Senate would not represent provinces; it would represent people in regions of Canada. In that respect, I think its role would be clear and unambiguous. I must warn this chamber that in Australia, a federal state much like ours, there is an elected Senate, whose performance has been criticized as being too heavily influenced by party manipulation and offering perhaps only a pale reflection of the political struggles in the House of Representatives.
The Journals do not record which senators were for or against the question. All items before the Senate that are not government business. In most situations, a question is a proposal made by a senator that requires the Senate to make a decision, for example, that a bill be adopted.
A question can be adopted or defeated. Senators may ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate Government Representative about matters relating to public affairs, or committee chairs about committee activities.
Federal government cabinet ministers can also be invited to answer questions related to their ministerial responsibilities — another way in which the Senate promotes accountability and transparency in Parliament.
At second reading, senators debate the principle of the bill, but no amendments can be proposed. If a bill passes second reading, it usually goes to committee for further study. Senators can introduce their own bills on subjects that are important to Canadians they represent.
Every item on the Order Paper and Notice Paper is called during a typical sitting of the Senate; any senator can generally engage in debate without notice when the item is called. If there is no objection, the next item of business is then called. In addition, Senators present petitions, table documents, discuss committee reports and make statements in the Chamber. The Governor General can and does enter the Senate Chamber, but by tradition he or she does not go into the House of Commons.
As Senate pages , we get to see the action up close. We are all university students. Only 15 of us are chosen every year.
0コメント