Then there's the little (big) matter of being unelected. The Prime Minister has invited Premiers to come up with a way of getting their own citizens to elect the person of their choice within their own province. Then the Prime Minister will promise to put them in the Senate.
However, the suggested mechanisms by which a province would put forward its choice for a vacant Senate seat are joke-worthy at best. In all of proposals put forward by the Harper Tories, for example, winning a senate election would not necessarily result in assuming a senate seat. Their first crack at reform took place back at the end of 2006. At that time, The Ottawa Citizen reported:
... the [Conservative] bill proposes to establish a procedure where Elections Canada, which has the legal authority to conduct a federal referendum as well as federal elections, would conduct a form of plebiscite, likely only within provinces that have Senate vacancies.
The results would be presented as information to a prime minister to consider when filling a vacancy.
The consultation could not be legally binding on Harper or subsequent prime ministers because the Constitution stipulates only the Queen, on the advice of cabinet, can name people to the Senate. Unlike all other government appointments, where the Governor General's approval is enough, Senate appointments continue to receive direct approval from the Queen.
Even in the case of Bert Brown, who Albertans chose as their upper chamber representative in 2007, the actual appointment was, in the end, a result of a Prime Ministerial whim:
So far only Alberta has responded by coming up with their own Senate election. They allow for the names of Senate candidates to be added to the ballots during their municipal elections. The province picks up the administration costs and the people decide who their Senator will be.
The last time they did this the winner was Bert Brown. The Prime Minister kept his word and appointed him to the Senate. He sits today in that Chamber, quite proud to be the only elected Senator in that place of over 100 appointees.
Had the Prime Minister chosen to break his word, something he has been occasionally occasionally to do, the people of Alberta would have come up with bupkis.
This problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is no mechanizsm to determine who can offer themselves as a Senate candidate. So, with most reform proposals under consideration, I could put myself forward. And if I won, the Prime Minister could ignore the result. A good outcome, I suppose, but achieved only via an absurd process.
Mr. Day also considers the PM's most recent attempts at reform:
To deal with the problem of it being a life-long position the Prime Minister takes an innovative approach. Whomever the Prime Minister appoints must vow to step down after 8 years, no exceptions, no excuses. So each person he recently appointed, along with the ones he appointed earlier, will be done in 8 years. That's a major change.
No, it is a reform technique that is only as good as the vows of the appointees. Not to be too cynical, but the odds of a Conservative government still being in power federally in 8 years is low, the odds of Stephen Harper heading up that government are infinitesimal. And, either way, if any of his Senate appointees wish to remain in the upper chamber past that date, there is not a thing he or anyone else can do about it.
Mr. Day concludes
One more thing about the latest round of Senate appointees, each one has agreed to work hard from inside the Senate to push for reform. That means when the next federal election is called we may see senators stepping down from the Red Chamber and running for office.
That's progress.
Yeah, or we may not see anything like that, in which case we have the status quo passed off as progress.
9 comments:
I have posted on my blog an example of Ontario having At-Large Senate elections. Imagine if up to 24 people were elected--22 of them Liberals. Do you think PM Harper would immediately recommend to the Queen the appointment of these people to the Senate? I'm sure he would drag his feet.
The problem with Harper's Senate proposal is that he is trying to pass the buck to the provinces. He doesn't need to initiate any serious negotiations if the provinces are not interested in his toy-proposal. Meaningful Senate reform won't happen under Harper's watch.
BCL, your other points are great!
One has to appreciate the dishonesty of so much of this. Step down in 8 years? Not very likely. Work for senate reform? What difference could that make unless the PM raises this issue with the provinces? But I'm quite surprised by the boneheadedness of his suggestion that "when the next federal election is called we may see senators stepping down from the Red Chamber and running for office". Not only is this extremely unlikely, but it could be exposed as false within a few months.
Not much risk of Senate elections though in Ontario is there ND.
And there is pride in that?
It doesn't seem, Rob, that there is much risk of senate elections anywhere except Alberta, and I'm not entirely sure that the example there suggests this path -- going ahead with elections without having a full constitutional deal about what the senate is and how it should work -- has much value.
And, as I've said before buckets - I tend to agree.. rather than nibble around the edges, put it to a national referendum to solicit the input of the electorate, and then table the reform package.
If the people support it, press forward, and let parties denying the will of the people pay the price.. if they don't, same difference.. let it go.
This is, in theory, a democracy after all (except, of course, when it comes to the Senate).
This is, in theory, a democracy after all.
It's not a direct democracy, Rob.
Before we have any referendums, how about we set up workshops to re-acquaint Canadians, particularly Conservatives and especially Albertans (who mostly don't vote anymore), with the basics of Westminster parliamentary government?
Ti-Guy is absolutely correct - in fact, if workshops are too much for the Tory supporters - Rick Mercer does a wonderful lesson on the Westminster (our) parliamentary system.
Even a kid can understand Mercer's lesson.
Brown was elected most recently in 2004 and appointed in 2007; see his wiki entry. As for him being the choice of Albertans, that is like saying the election in Afghanistan shows that Karzai is the choice of the Afghanis.
The 2004 senator election was run with Klein's usual ineptitude and laziness. It was a last minute add-on to the provincial election, a poorly prepared event with only a few right wingers running. Brown was the best of a bad lot, but I've heard him discussing the latest appointments and he sounds like any other lying Harper Conservative hack repeating the party line.
In the 2004 election I refused the senate ballot, and I believe a large number of Albertans also did so; I don't know if the corrupt
Conservatives ever published the numbers of refused ballots or of spoiled ballots.
"In the 2004 election I refused the senate ballot, and I believe a large number of Albertans also did so"
I believe you would be correct. There was no point in voting for something so meaningless - and most of us knew it.
Post a Comment