In light of Mr. Harper once again appointing a list of cronies and toadies to the Red Chamber, I thought it might be a good time to quickly revisit the topic of Senate Reform.
Stephen Harper has been promising Senate reform for more than four years. To refresh our memories, Mr. Harper wants to have Senators elected for 8 year terms. He has insisted that this does not require a constitutional amendment, and can be handled by some alchemical mix of federal and provincial legislation. The Liberals, and the provinces, all agree that it does require a constitutional amendment, but Mr. Harper has never been on to care about formalities, like, you know, the law.
There are two major problems with Mr Harper's proposals on Senate reform. Well, three actually, but I just dealt with the constitutional issue. The other two issues are: eight year terms and elected Senators.
The Senate is supposed to bring an element of stability to our government, which can find itself turfed on a fairly regular basis in our parliamentary system. The whole idea of having distinguished Canadians appointed for long terms of service to the Senate is to ensure that the constant change of governments don't destabilize the country. Eight year terms just aren't long enough to create this kind of stability. Twelve years would be the absolute minimum term limit, if not fifteen.
The problems with elected Senators are numerous. Perhaps the most significant is that elected senators relegate the Premiers to second class political citizens. Why should the Prime Minister or Cabinet care about Premiers and Provincial Governments when they have elected Provincial representatives just down the hall? Who cares if Danny Williams is against something if elected Senator What's-her-name supports you?
As an aside, does anyone really think that all those Senators Mr. Harper has appointed will step aside after eight years if there isn't a Conservative Government in power at the time? Yep, me neither.
Last year, I posted an entry on my views of Senate reform. I'm not going to rehash my suggestions for change, I don't think my view has changed all that much. But what I find interesting is that Michael Ignatieff talked about his ideas of Senate reform this morning on CTV, and his ideas aren't all that different than mine.
Mr. Ignatieff is suggesting 12 year term limits and an appointments commission (not too dissimilar from the appointments commission Mr. Harper promised for Government agencies and never implemented). The article doesn't say anything about equal Provincial representation, however, and I do think that this is important in any discussion of Senate reform.
Perhaps the most important part of Michael Ignatieff talking about Senate reform this morning is that this is yet another indication that the Liberal Party is serious about presenting a coherent policy platform over the next few months.
About Bgrice
- Brian G. Rice
- Mission, BC, Canada
- I am a political blogger and active member of the Liberal Party of Canada. I am President of the Pitt Meadows--Maple Ridge--Mission Federal Liberal Association, and I am Chair of the BC Federal Liberal Council. I live in Mission, BC with my wife and two children. The opinions expressed on this blog are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Liberal Party of Canada, the BC Federal Liberal Council, or my FLA.
Labels
- #mygovtblocks (2)
- Budget 2010 (1)
- Canada (1)
- Crime (1)
- Degree (1)
- Elxn41 (2)
- General (14)
- Jack Layton (1)
- LPCBC (4)
- Michael Ignatieff (3)
- National Child Care (1)
- NDP (1)
- Policy (5)
- Prorogation (5)
- Senate Reform (2)
- Twitter (2)
In Search of a Reformed Senate
Posted by
Brian G. Rice
on 31 January 2010
Labels:
Policy,
Senate Reform
Blogs I Like
-
-
Playlist: We need to talk5 weeks ago
-
-
Harper, the translated version9 hours ago
-
Dismiss...Deny...Deflect1 week ago
-
Muddy Friday6 minutes ago
-
-
-
Reboot 2.0, or herding cats.1 week ago
-
Rise Against8 hours ago
-
Treaty Rights1 day ago
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(23)
-
▼
January
(18)
- In Search of a Reformed Senate
- Is Stephen Harper Too Arrogant For His (And Canada...
- Hold Your Electoral Horses!
- As I Was Researching My Next Blog Entry...
- Is Partisanship a Bad Thing?
- The NDP's Version of Non-Partisan... Isn't
- 25 Days
- Conservatives Selling Their Crime Agenda After Pro...
- Let Ignatieff Be Ignatieff
- Michael Ignatieff at UBC
- On Economic Recoveries
- I Took the Political Compass Test
- What the Conservatives Don't Understand...
- And the NDP Further Slips Into Irrelevance...
- My First Protest Rally
- Net Neutrality
- OMG! Michael Ignatieff took a Vacation over the Ho...
- And they're off... Work
-
▼
January
(18)
-
►
2009
(66)
-
►
July
(16)
- In Which I Publicly Break With An Anonymous Ignati...
- Antonia Z. And Kathy E. And The Toronto Star And W...
- Beyond The 140, The bgrice.com Edition - Conservat...
- Update -- Jason Kenney
- Jason Kenney is a Dick, Part 2
- Senate Reform
- University Admissions
- Visa Requirements for the Czech Republic, or, Why ...
- On a Personal Note: What the hell am I going to do...
- An Interview with Ujjal Dosanjh: Transcript
- An Interview with Ujjal Dosanjh, Part 6: Election ...
- Another example of CPC Argument Technique #2
- An Interview with Ujjal Dosanjh, Part 5: Electoral...
- An Interview with Ujjal Dosanjh, Part 4: Question ...
-
►
July
(16)



5 comments:
I want to thank you for your thoughts about the Senate. However, I do have differing views. I do agree that a truly elected Senate (not the Harper version) would relegate the premiers to second place status. That's how it should be. Mind you, the premiers will still be able to claim that they represent all the people in their provinces while elected senators may only represent a portion (depending on which voting system is used). The premiers will still play a strong roll in trying to influence the federal government and parliament. I can't see this stopping or declining.
I do not like Michael Ignatieff's idea of an appointments commission. The reason why is because I think I am an intelligent Canadian who is capable of casting a ballot for a democratically elected senator. Remember that in 1867, only men who held a certain amount of property were eligible to cast a ballot for their member of parliament in the House of Commons. We have gone beyond that limited eligibility to include all Canadian men and women. I think we can included all Canadian men and women to cast ballots for senators.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
I think that the idea of one elected chamber and one appointed chamber is exactly as it should be. While I think that there needs to be a check list of eligibility far longer than Party Toady, Check, I don't think Parliament needs any more politicians. I understand that there are certain types of people who run for, and who are elected to parliament, I don't believe that they are the best "all round" people. I want some people in Ottawa who wouldn't be so full of themselves that they actually would run for office. I want people who have in other ways shown themselves to be valuable to society at large, received accolades in their field, are without scandal (thus Mike Duffy is out) and bring that value to our parliament. Perhaps a physician, someone who has shone at the United Way, a kick-ass city planner, a family lawyer, a player in the Credit Union circle, a geologist, a agricultural representative, a writer, being careful to balance the mix with gender, ethnicity, urban and rural, that sort of a collection of wisdom. That kind of reform I would get behind. We have an elected house, and look at house they behave. We want more of that? No thank you!!!
S
Thanks Anon, you gave pretty much the same answer to Skinny Dipper as I would have, but with far more elegance.
Mr. Dipper (may I call you Skinny?), the issue with an elected senate is not one of not trusting the voter(though I seriously don't think the average voter is actually educated and informed on most issues), it is a matter of balancing the elected house with a more stable and less political body. The issue in my mind is not whether or not the senate should be elected, but rather which body (or individual) of elected politicians gets to make the choice.
As to your first point, Skinny, I think it would weaken our country far too much to relegate the Premiers to the same status as US State Governors, which is to say larger powerless and irrelevant. I think a good balance between provincial and federal governments is required in a country as culturally and regionally diversified as Canada. This is one of the reasons why in my original post about senate reform (link above in the article), I strongly advocated for it being a Provincial responsibility not only to appoint Senators, but choose the manner in which those appointments are made. This actually increases the relevance of the First Ministers and their governments, which I think is a good thing.
Thanks for the comments. I really do appreciate them.
I am happy there can not be an elected senate without constitutional reform, because it is necessary for there to be a full and frank public discussion of what this all means before we change anything.
Right now Harper proposes we democratize the upper house without first addressing the issue of representation. Electing senators will naturally legitimize them and empower them to oppose more legislation. While Harper complains about his bills being held up, in reality they are not being held up. The Senate blocked only 2 of Mulroney's bills and 3 of Chretien. Obviously they pass the vast majority of them.
Will that continue if they are elected? What if the majority in the Senate is different than in the House?
Aren't we simply giving the easter provinces even more power, and weakening the western provinces?
If you are going to reform the Senate then do it, but do it right.
Gayle
Gayle: All very valid and important questions. This is one of the reasons why I do not support changing our existing political system piecemeal. We need some kind of commission, Royal, Judicial (unlikely), or Citizen (like BC had for electoral reform) based to examine our system as a whole, investigate how other countries have modified their parliamentary systems, consult with all the stake holders, and then recommend the required constitutional changes. This process should also include a look at our electoral system. This process would have to be done in stages, over many years. Perhaps yearly (or biennial, or whatever) constitutional referendums could help increase Canadian voter engagement?
Post a Comment