The trial is about to start for Senator Mike Duffy. This raises the issue of the senate. Conservatives appear to have put political spin on senate scandals, an excuse to abolish the senate all together. I would like to propose shrinking the number of MPs instead of abolishing the senate.
We have a need for a second chamber. One example: in 2006 the Harper Conservatives passed a bill to restrict political donations. They tried to limit it to $1,000 per year, and make it retroactive to January 2006. Harper knew the Liberals were in the midst of a leadership campaign, and the delegate fee was $995. That means anyone who donated more than $5 during the 2006 election could not be a delegate. Furthermore, a Liberal party membership was between $10 and $25 per year, depending on province. Since then they made it standard across the country, but that's what it was then. This means even if an individual didn't donate anything during the election, just the party membership plus delegate fee would put him/her over the limit. The senate intervened, made it $1,100 per year, and made it effective January 1, 2007, instead of retroactive. Harper had a fit, but what the senate did was just sane. This is what a senate is for.
I have also pointed out MPs get paid more than senators. And MPs maintain an office in their riding in addition to an office in Ottawa. Senators just get one office: Ottawa. Every MP or senator is given a budget for 2 staff members per office, so MPs have twice as many staffers. So MPs cost more. Many voters pointed out the problem is expenses, such as those Duffy claimed, not the ones I listed. But I have pointed out that MPs are allowed all the same expenses. I could point out which MPs have posted their expenses online, and which haven't, but lets keep this non-partisan. My point is reducing the number of MPs in the house would save more money. And the number of MPs have become so large that the House of Commons is having difficulty getting anything done.
We could also argue for a triple-E senate: Equal, Elected, and Effective. That would be an equal number of senators per province, and all elected senators. Our constitution has a clause that lets the Prime Minister appoint either 4 or 8 senators to pass a bill that he wants. That's either 1 per region, or 2 per region. This was done by Brian Mulroney to pass the GST. For the senate to be effective, this would have to be repealed. But changing either the number of senators per province, or repealing that clause, requires a constitutional amendment. We've seen how difficult it is to pass any amendment. It would be easier to stick with the number of senators we have now, and just make them all elected. Don't know what to do about the "stuff the senate" clause.
But my main point is to reduce the number of MPs. Wikipedia has a good article on how this is calculated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Canada#Members_and_electoral_districtsOur constitution now has a formula based on 279 MPs for the 10 provinces, plus one for each territory. Number of MPs is based on population: take the population of a province, divide by total population of Canada, multiply by 279. The result is how many MPs per province. That is then adjusted. There's a clause that states no fewer than the number of senators for the province. Another clause states no fewer than the number that province had in 1985. Then "The Fair Representation Act" (Bill C-20) was passed in 2011, it added MPs for Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta.
Prince Edward Island calculates as 1, but has 4 senators.
Newfoundland and Labrador calculates as 5, but has 6 senators, and had 7 MPs in 1985.
Manitoba calculates as 10, but had 14 in 1985.
Saskatchewan calculates as 9, but had 14 in 1985.
Nova Scotia calculates as 8, but had 11 in 1985.
New Brunswick calculates as 7, but had 10 in 1985.
Quebec calculates as 68, but had 75 in 1985.