Senate reform? Let's do it.
It is the habit of journalism to render the meanings of great events and accomplishments in generalities. This is for obvious reason; almost everything in life is too complicated to explain and most people are not interested in detail. Furthermore, explaining everything in generalities allows everyone to achieve their own level of understanding.
In New Brunswick, for example, many citizens believe that there is no urgent need for senate reform because their provincial Liberal premier is opposed to the notion. Also, as was made abundantly clear in today's Telegraph Journal, entertaining the idea of Senate reform "is not worth aggravating regional differences and distracting attention from more pressing issues. Also, it is important to note that the current Senate does a lot of valuable work."
One must assume, in both cases, that they made these generalities despite public support for senate reform, at least insofar as it would apply to Harper's incrementalism. Otherwise, the debate should end on the premise that re-opening the constitution is as popular as a skunk at a picnic.
IMHO, such are the thoughts of a spokesperson whose most serious responsibility in life for at least the first twenty some odd years of it had been to show up for dinner. I, on the other hand, believe senate reform is not only doable, but absolutely necessary. And I'll give you five quick reasons why it would benefit Canadians to have an elected bicameral system. (Note to readers: I will not be emphasizing the third "E" of equal since that particular side of the debate must be hashed out by all provinces and territories)
1. The senate --- despite the undeniable qualities of some senators --- is an affront to federalism and democracy. The appointment system, as it stands right now, not only expands the prime minister's stockpile of political patronage possibilities, it leaves a giant regional and ideological schism between citizens and their senatorial representatives. How else can you explain the lack of NDP or Block representatives in the upper chamber? Moreover, how does one explain the fact that four of the six senators are Liberal in Alberta where there are exactly zero elected members of parliament? Obviously the red chamber lacks credibility and effectiveness by virtue of the fact that many of its members are not elected. Plain and simple.
2. If the senate were democratically elected (via proportional representation), we could avoid unecessary political obstructionism and obsessive government control like we have seen lately or during the GST debate in 1990. For instance, one system that immediately comes to mind is the Australian bicameral system where the senate has been elected on proportional representation since 1949. The reason I jumped on the Australian bandwagon is because our system has a lot in common with theirs as it shares constitutional origins, size, federal organization and so on. Plus, using proportional representation would allow the senate to have more voices wherein it would avoid one party (or in the case of our system now) government dominance in a winner-takes-all forum. Not to mention, having senators which represent a certain regional constituency through direct democracy will result in better overall representation. At the moment, I find it hard to even identify with any of the local senators in my province as none have ever knocked on my door or asked what issues are important to me. Furthermore, in New Brunswick, senators are rarely an outlet where citizens go to express their grievances on important matters. Not ony that, if they are actually productive, much of their studies are done with little or no public participation whatsoever (see senate study on media concentration as an example).
3. As has already been suggested by Harper's tories, senators should be subject to term limits. Although, I suggest that half the senate be elected for each period. The six year term in the US with elections every two years for one-third of the senators tends to produce way to many elections. I prefer an eight-year term with elections every four years for each half. Also, the senate elections should be simultaneous with the election for the House of Commons (where only half would be up for re-election). This, IMO, would produce a set election time (either in the fall or spring) that would become tradition with Canadian voters. And in some way, by doing this, you would hope to engage more citizens into the process due to the consistency of the forum from coast-to-coast-to-coast.
4. The senate (if elected) could take the burden off members of parliament on such issues and debates as same-sex marriage, regional economic disparity, language rights, human rights, aboriginal affairs, land claims, etc. At the moment, with the obsession of whipped votes by party whips in the commons, there is very little debate or discussion on serious issues as partisanship and party line trump the voice and sentiments of citizens in the local riding the member is supposed to be there to represent. This was quite evident when Churchill, Manitoba MP Bev Desjarlais was expelled from the NDP caucus and relieved of her parliamentary critic responsibilities for voting her conscence socially and against same-sex marriage. As well, during the vote on Bill C-38, the Liberal cabinet was instructed (or dictated) to vote according to the party line and not their conscience. Not only that, many important social, economic and demographic issues end up on the laps of MPs after the fact because parliament failed to keep up with the debate. In other words, this failure sent groups searching outside government for redress, and the courts (i.e. the Charter) provided an important avenue, through court challenges, to government sins of ommission or commission. An effective, elected senate would do much in addressing regional gripes and offering an outlet (other than the courts) to voice specific grievances instead of relying on the commons to push through important legislation via highly partisan, whipped votes.
5. Since the upper house will be designed to address important social, economic and demographic issues, it should not have the power to refuse supply bills (the money the government needs to operate) or directly defeat the government. In other words, to refuse supply is the same as defeating the government because it cannot operate without money. An example of this, was when Rodney MacDonald went to Ottawa to lobby the senate in order to convince them to refuse a supply bill which had the changes in the equalization formula and offshore resources contained within it. The senate did not block the will of parliament in this case and refused to veto the bill. So in retrospect, the senate should have a limited veto on supply, maybe two or three months, but an absolute veto on all other bills (both private member and government) including tax legislation. Essentially, the big change here will be on all other bills where the senate usually rubber stamps them with very little hold up. Also, in the case of legislative deadlock (House and Senate), there could be conferences or joint sessions, a device used in Australia to prevent a double dissolution on the same manner.
As one entiled to speak with some authority on senate reform policy under the leadership of Harper, I can say Harper's motives are genuine and done with the intention of making Canada a more effective and efficient democracy whereby more voices and regions will ultimately be heard.
Arif goes on to say this: " With pressing issues such as global warming, the war in Afghanistan, and child poverty on the agenda, this is not the time to divert time and resources by engaging in constitutional squabbling over Senate reform. After all, the Senate plays an important - if under-appreciated - role in the Canadian legislative process." In other words, he sees no correlation between good democratic institutions and how they deal with serious issues? Essentially, keeping poor and ineffective democratic institutions as they are is much more important than tweaking them so that they respond better to the public in general. An interesting take indeed.
So, what does it matter? Arif is entitled to his opinion. Right? The Telegraph is entitled to publish it. Okay? But there is one fact to ponder in all this: Arif is not your average, everyday, opinionated columist. He is, it says at the bottom, "a graduate of UNB Law school and Masters in Political Science from Carleton University."
I suppose that doesn't matter either, but it does make one wonder if anyone studies constitutional politics at Carleton University? Maybe they all take journalism as an elective.
In New Brunswick, for example, many citizens believe that there is no urgent need for senate reform because their provincial Liberal premier is opposed to the notion. Also, as was made abundantly clear in today's Telegraph Journal, entertaining the idea of Senate reform "is not worth aggravating regional differences and distracting attention from more pressing issues. Also, it is important to note that the current Senate does a lot of valuable work."
One must assume, in both cases, that they made these generalities despite public support for senate reform, at least insofar as it would apply to Harper's incrementalism. Otherwise, the debate should end on the premise that re-opening the constitution is as popular as a skunk at a picnic.
IMHO, such are the thoughts of a spokesperson whose most serious responsibility in life for at least the first twenty some odd years of it had been to show up for dinner. I, on the other hand, believe senate reform is not only doable, but absolutely necessary. And I'll give you five quick reasons why it would benefit Canadians to have an elected bicameral system. (Note to readers: I will not be emphasizing the third "E" of equal since that particular side of the debate must be hashed out by all provinces and territories)
1. The senate --- despite the undeniable qualities of some senators --- is an affront to federalism and democracy. The appointment system, as it stands right now, not only expands the prime minister's stockpile of political patronage possibilities, it leaves a giant regional and ideological schism between citizens and their senatorial representatives. How else can you explain the lack of NDP or Block representatives in the upper chamber? Moreover, how does one explain the fact that four of the six senators are Liberal in Alberta where there are exactly zero elected members of parliament? Obviously the red chamber lacks credibility and effectiveness by virtue of the fact that many of its members are not elected. Plain and simple.
2. If the senate were democratically elected (via proportional representation), we could avoid unecessary political obstructionism and obsessive government control like we have seen lately or during the GST debate in 1990. For instance, one system that immediately comes to mind is the Australian bicameral system where the senate has been elected on proportional representation since 1949. The reason I jumped on the Australian bandwagon is because our system has a lot in common with theirs as it shares constitutional origins, size, federal organization and so on. Plus, using proportional representation would allow the senate to have more voices wherein it would avoid one party (or in the case of our system now) government dominance in a winner-takes-all forum. Not to mention, having senators which represent a certain regional constituency through direct democracy will result in better overall representation. At the moment, I find it hard to even identify with any of the local senators in my province as none have ever knocked on my door or asked what issues are important to me. Furthermore, in New Brunswick, senators are rarely an outlet where citizens go to express their grievances on important matters. Not ony that, if they are actually productive, much of their studies are done with little or no public participation whatsoever (see senate study on media concentration as an example).
3. As has already been suggested by Harper's tories, senators should be subject to term limits. Although, I suggest that half the senate be elected for each period. The six year term in the US with elections every two years for one-third of the senators tends to produce way to many elections. I prefer an eight-year term with elections every four years for each half. Also, the senate elections should be simultaneous with the election for the House of Commons (where only half would be up for re-election). This, IMO, would produce a set election time (either in the fall or spring) that would become tradition with Canadian voters. And in some way, by doing this, you would hope to engage more citizens into the process due to the consistency of the forum from coast-to-coast-to-coast.
4. The senate (if elected) could take the burden off members of parliament on such issues and debates as same-sex marriage, regional economic disparity, language rights, human rights, aboriginal affairs, land claims, etc. At the moment, with the obsession of whipped votes by party whips in the commons, there is very little debate or discussion on serious issues as partisanship and party line trump the voice and sentiments of citizens in the local riding the member is supposed to be there to represent. This was quite evident when Churchill, Manitoba MP Bev Desjarlais was expelled from the NDP caucus and relieved of her parliamentary critic responsibilities for voting her conscence socially and against same-sex marriage. As well, during the vote on Bill C-38, the Liberal cabinet was instructed (or dictated) to vote according to the party line and not their conscience. Not only that, many important social, economic and demographic issues end up on the laps of MPs after the fact because parliament failed to keep up with the debate. In other words, this failure sent groups searching outside government for redress, and the courts (i.e. the Charter) provided an important avenue, through court challenges, to government sins of ommission or commission. An effective, elected senate would do much in addressing regional gripes and offering an outlet (other than the courts) to voice specific grievances instead of relying on the commons to push through important legislation via highly partisan, whipped votes.
5. Since the upper house will be designed to address important social, economic and demographic issues, it should not have the power to refuse supply bills (the money the government needs to operate) or directly defeat the government. In other words, to refuse supply is the same as defeating the government because it cannot operate without money. An example of this, was when Rodney MacDonald went to Ottawa to lobby the senate in order to convince them to refuse a supply bill which had the changes in the equalization formula and offshore resources contained within it. The senate did not block the will of parliament in this case and refused to veto the bill. So in retrospect, the senate should have a limited veto on supply, maybe two or three months, but an absolute veto on all other bills (both private member and government) including tax legislation. Essentially, the big change here will be on all other bills where the senate usually rubber stamps them with very little hold up. Also, in the case of legislative deadlock (House and Senate), there could be conferences or joint sessions, a device used in Australia to prevent a double dissolution on the same manner.
As one entiled to speak with some authority on senate reform policy under the leadership of Harper, I can say Harper's motives are genuine and done with the intention of making Canada a more effective and efficient democracy whereby more voices and regions will ultimately be heard.
Arif goes on to say this: " With pressing issues such as global warming, the war in Afghanistan, and child poverty on the agenda, this is not the time to divert time and resources by engaging in constitutional squabbling over Senate reform. After all, the Senate plays an important - if under-appreciated - role in the Canadian legislative process." In other words, he sees no correlation between good democratic institutions and how they deal with serious issues? Essentially, keeping poor and ineffective democratic institutions as they are is much more important than tweaking them so that they respond better to the public in general. An interesting take indeed.
So, what does it matter? Arif is entitled to his opinion. Right? The Telegraph is entitled to publish it. Okay? But there is one fact to ponder in all this: Arif is not your average, everyday, opinionated columist. He is, it says at the bottom, "a graduate of UNB Law school and Masters in Political Science from Carleton University."
I suppose that doesn't matter either, but it does make one wonder if anyone studies constitutional politics at Carleton University? Maybe they all take journalism as an elective.
7 Comments:
Interesting post, however, I have to disagree with your partisan appraisal of Harper. He could very easily resolve the issue by a simple proclamation-that all provinces hold elections for Senators. Alberta has done it for over a decade.
Since they have the money they can even offer to pay any extra costs. If, in a strange case, it is true what you say that people believe there shouldn't be an elected Senate just because Shawn Graham says so (which would be odd since the majority of NBers didn't even vote for him), then the feds could offer up cash to grassroots communities to do it.
There is virtually no way that a provincial government could refuse-not if it were proposed at a national level.
However, if you look at the massive recent dysfunction of Parliament, its a tough sell to say "we should do it like Parliament". Its fine to say 'it would be good to do it like Proportional Representation', however, when voters have rejected PR so soundly, its tough to sell that particular model-you basically have to say you are going against the wishes of the majority.
But Harper hasn't been beyond playing the Senate game the same as others before him. IF Harper wanted an elected Senate-he could do it tomorrow.
However, its a hard sell nowadays because its not so clear what canadians want. Just look at what happens in the states when one party controls both houses. Those who have that control may like it, but those are always in the minority.
An interesting remark was recently made about holding a referendum on whether to maintain the status quo, have an elected Senate, or dismantle it altogether. Personally, I like the idea of all unemployed people putting their names in for a draw and holding the position for two years. It would give them valuable business and political experience, they are more representative of working people, gives them some cash and makes them 'work for their money'.
I have to agree about the Irving article, those guys really are just dumber than a bag of hammers. I'm doing a blog on the editor of the Times Transcripts editorial on language-man, the paper literally is a cartoon. I really wish all the bloggers could have gotten together with some students and put out a website to challenge Canadaeast, as far as quality goes, it really wouldn't be a hard sell.
Fourthly, the senate (if elected) could take the burden off members of parliament on such issues and debates as same-sex marriage, regional economic disparity, language rights, human rights, aboriginal affairs, land claims, etc.
What make you think the senate would be any less partisan than the US senate?
mikel said: "He could very easily resolve the issue by a simple proclamation-that all provinces hold elections for Senators. Alberta has done it for over a decade."
I agree completely, but again I think there is a certain political dynamic in our province which may hold up such an initiative, in that, the status quo in the senate has benefitted the Liberal party more than it has its political competitiors.
anon: I fail to see where I compared this to the upper chamber in the US? I used Australia's bicameral system as it mirrors ours in many ways, especially in its constitutional origin. But if you want to talk about the benefits of the US senate, one does not have to go any further than the most contentious issue of all there: slavery or women's right to vote. In other words, the senate has been the venue for some of America's most divisive debates. If you don't believe, just google the "President Andrew Johnson + slavery debate", you will see the role it played on strengthening the social fabric of that country.
It's the very same role I think elected senators can play in language, culture and ethnic debates. For instance, instead of Quebec simply relaying the discussion of reasonable accommodation to a commission, the senate could be debating this issue hard on behalf of all Canadians.
I think having the provinces decide how senators are elected may ultimately coincide with how relations are with the PMO.
Just take my province of Nova Scotia as an example. Premier Rodney MacDonals backed Harper when he ripped into the unelected senators, accusing them of defying the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by stalling his government's criminal justice and Senate reform agendas.
But in a quick change of fate, and just weeks after the second budget was dropped and the Atlantic accord dispute ensued, Rodney was seen ordering all unelected senator to reject the will of parliament and veto the supply bill which would ultimately deny the money the government needs to operate. All in the name of a regional dispute on offshore oil.
Federal-provincial relations can be very strange at the best of times.
There may be a group that would want to hold it up, thats true of virtually every political decision about anything. Liberals have an advantage for one reason only, they have governed longer. I'm sure you remember Mulroney's going to the Queen to get more Senators so he could stock it with conservatives to pass the FTA and GST.
But like I said, if it was a NATIONAL movement, in other words if the most powerful group in Canada, namely the federal government, were spearheading it and paying for it, it would be virtually impossible for a small group of liberals in NB to tell New Brunswickers "yes, everybody else is doing it but we aren't".
Particularly since Graham doesn't even have the popular vote, it would be political suicide to say that. It's one thing to ignore and brush aside a referendum that nobody knew about, but this would be national news, talked about constantly, and I guarantee a grassroots community would spring up to hold an 'unofficial' referendum if the government refused (hell, I'd run it!).
Remember, the PM can choose ANYBODY, which means when it came time to choose a New Brunswicker, even if only 10% voted then he could still say "well, it was your vote, you could have voted if you wanted, and it would have been official if your government had let it".
And that of course doesn't even get into the plain fact that the feds literally have the provincial government on a stick. The province has practically been BEGGING for help in its self sufficiency plan, I can't even imagine a situation where Graham would have the stones to say no to it.
And of course Harper KNOWS all that, this isn't my opinion. By doing that he'd be getting huge amounts of support since canadians have supported an elected senate at least in polls for decades, in fact it was raised 'as a problem' for the first time the year after it was created.
In politics it is FAR more effective to be appearing to fight for canadians than to actually do it, which is why Harper does the macho man stuff and comes in and threatens the Senate.
Plus, if he wanted to, he could call that referendum mentioned above, either of those options are open to him, but in politics it pays to say a lot, but it doesn't pay to DO a lot.
The problem with Harper just "doing" senate reform is that once PM Harper is no longer the PM the next guy will (if he's a Liberal) most likely just undo it.
I don't know about you but I do not want to be having this same conversation in another year, four years or forty years.
The referendum is a good idea but to limit the question to "all for" or "all opposed" answers negates the one course of action that most Canadians want to see, that is honest to goodness reform.
The problem is although our constitution is a living document we as a nation have become so terrified of awakening the constitutional boogey-man that we have chained ourselves to the best work of men who have been dead for over 100 years.
Modern democracy is not something I'd use to describe Canadians slavish attitudes toward the constitution.
It has been tried or mused about at least 13 times since confederation.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home