The Canadian Press and Harris-Decima released a poll last week suggesting that a majority of Canadians would be willing to open up the Constitution for certain purposes, including Senate reform, electoral reform, and finally getting Québec's signature on it. However, as we have seen many times in the past, constitutional changes can be messy, as it requires the approval of at least 7 provinces representing 50% of the population, and there will certainly be disagreements.
So if we were to open up the Constitution, here are five things I'd want to see:
1. Alternate Vote for House of Commons and Provincial Legislatures
Thanks to First Past The Post, a majority government can be elected with as little as 40% of the vote, and unpopular MPs can get elected thanks to vote splitting between opponents. Alternate Vote would essentially require a candidate to be preferred by a majority over each of the other candidates in a one-on-one matchup.
Alternate Vote has been used in Australia for nearly a century, and according to the CP poll, a majority of Canadians are open to some change in the electoral system (34% status quo, 32% proportional representation, 24% preferential ballot). However, the recent failure of the AV referendum in the UK gives me doubts as to whether or not passing this would be feasible.
2. Senate Elected By Proportional Representation
The Senate is supposed to be the chamber of sober second thought. An elected Senate would ensure that they are always accountable to the people, and an election by Proportional Representation would make it difficult for any party to get a majority in that chamber. My preference would be Single Transferable Vote (STV), as it is (to the best of my knowledge) the only PR system that allows for independents to be elected.
My thought is that each province will elect approximately one-third of the Senate every time there is a general election (and in the case of the territories, one of the three would hold an election), so a Senator would serve over three parliaments, or approximately 12 years, before going up for re-election.
3. Reform Distribution of MPs/Senators
At the moment, each province is guaranteed to have no fewer MPs than they had in 1986. This means that, at the moment, Prince Edward Island has four times as many MPs per capita as many other provinces. Each province and territory should be guaranteed at least one MP, and then beyond that, the representation should be proportional to the provincial populations. Unfortunately, as 7 out of the 10 provinces would lose MPs by doing this, it hasn't a hope in getting anywhere (Ontario, Alberta and BC are the only provinces that would gain).
As for the Senate, I'd be open to suggestions. I'm not sure if representation by population or equal representation by province would be most appropriate. I'm going to have to play around with some numbers to see how that would turn out, but I don't suspect too much difference in the final outcome. However, this would require the Senate to still exist, and many provincial Premiers have expressed opposition to that.
4. Truly Fixed Election Dates
Fixed election dates are currently only useful in the case of a majority government. When there is a hung parliament, a motion of no confidence can force an election. Seriously, we've had twice as many as we should have in the past decade.
Unless there is some extraordinary circumstance (namely war), a parliament should last for four years. Full stop. A motion of non-confidence that leads to an immediate election does not promote non-partisanship in a hung parliament situation. If a minority government does not have the confidence of the House, then perhaps it's time to let another party govern. Because not a single MP would lose their job, it would not be overturning the result of the election; in fact, it would better honour this result as we would have a government that has the confidence of the Commons, the representatives of the people.
5. Federal Appointments Require Parliamentary Approval
The Prime Minister should not have the authority to make any appointment that goes beyond his term in office without approval from the Senate (and possibly the House as well). He should also have no authority to appoint the head of any government watchdog (without the same approval), since it almost defeats the purpose. I suggest asking the Senate for approval on the basis of it being elected by Proportional Representation, as the low probability of a majority in that chamber would ensure at least some level of bipartisanship.
No comments:
Post a Comment