I support the idea of a reformed and elected Senate. My preference would be for a body with equal representation from the regions and sitting for a fixed term of six years. But as it is right now, things are not equal. Not only is it an appointed body making it little more than an elder debating society, but Atlantic Canada is overrepresented with 30 Senators (4 from PE, 6 from NL and 10 each from NS and NB) whilst the Western provinces only have 24 (6 each).
However, PMS' decision to appoint the so-called elected "Senator in waiting" Bert Brown is perplexing to say the least. It has nothing to do with Senate reform but an attempt to make sure the Conservatives keep a lock on all 28 districts in the province in the next election; because the Cons have absolutely no intention of dealing with the immoral first past the post system and having PR instead of FPTP would ensure the Liberals, NDP and Greens get seats in Wild Rose Country. More important, this decision does nothing to satisfy the demands Canadians have everywhere either to eliminate the Senate or to reform it.
It also makes no sense to appoint "elected" Senators to an inherently defective body. Regional imbalance is just one aspect. The fact the Senate only has a six month hoist on constitutional amendments is another. But the real problem is that the Senate as currently constituted carries only an advisory sense of the nation. It has long had a real read on national security issues even before 9/11 and made concrete proposals to fix the problem, but successive Liberal and Conservative governments have refused to listen to it. It's made common sense suggestions on how to reform health care but they too have been ignored by Prime Ministers who think the best way is just to throw money at the problem. The only time the Senate seems to make a real splash is when it tries to stifle free speech, when legitimate questions are asked about our war history.
I do wish Mr. Brown well, provided he signs an iron-clad contract that he will resign in six years and stand for "election" again. Otherwise, his appointment is a total sham.
And it's worth reminding PMS that an amendment regarding the method of selecting Senators requires not just the consent of both Houses of Parliament as he thinks, but also seven provinces with at least 50 percent of the population -- with no opt outs. Moreover, the issue of whether Prime Edward Island and Newfoundland-Labrador gets more seats in the House as a consequence of Article 51A of the 1867 Constitution must also be dealt with -- getting rid of that rule would require unanimity of all 10 provinces. (51A stipulates a province must have at least as many members in the House as it has Senators -- which is why PE has four when it really should only have one, while NL has six when it should have five or even four.)
Unless there's a huge sea shift, such an amendment is not going to happen for at least ten years; unless the Western provinces agree to regional as opposed to provincial equality (and BC wants to be treated as its own region to begin with); and one of Ontario and Québec sees the wisdom of having an elected Senate rather than getting rid of it all together.
It also has to come with reform of the House of Commons. Whether it's some form of proportional representation or a preferential ballot as exists in Australia, that has to be taken care of as well. No half measures. For now, this move if it's what PMS truly believes in runs totally counter to what he publicly stood for. Earth to PM: Read Matthew 6:2.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
4 comments:
Mr. Brown will be at retirement age in six years.
I wish Harper would just push his actual vision, you know re-opening the constitution to change the things he wants. Now that would b ereal leadership.
Thanks for that clarification, Kyle. And I totally agree with you -- it's time for PMS to stop hiding behind token measures.
As Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. However, for most of the supporters of a second house in the States of such an idea that was precisely the point. As the name of Britain’s two houses, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, indicate the purpose of having a second House was to check the will of common people. The purpose of the Canadian senate was to do the same.
Unfortunately for the US, political necessity gave US supporters of the Second House, modeled on the British parliamentary system, the upper hand over true democrats, such as Franklin. Agreement was not possible unless the smaller states were given the power to override, or at the very least temper the will of the majority of Americans. The slave owning south, for one, wanted to insure that the institution of slavery was maintained.
Worse still for Americans, the power of US senate did not atrophy, a la the Canadian Senate. The US senate was reformed. Today, it is “equal”, “effective” and “elected” and the lack of any sort of party discipline together with a bicameral house is a potent brew indeed. Regional interests make out like bandits, the lobbyist’s play divide and conquer and the need to water down legislation that has the support of the majority of Americans would have warmed the heart of anti democratic plutocrats, such as Adams. Alaska, for example, has a 1000 times the political clout of, say, PEI, even though Alaska makes up a smaller portion of the US population than PEI Canada’s. To top things off, a lack of any sort effective caps on corporate campaign contributions means that only the richest of the rich have the economic wherewithal to run for the Senate. Indeed, one could make a pretty good case that the original Senate, with its land ownership requirements, was open to greater percentage of the population than the current one is.
Naturally the Conservatives are committed emulating the American system and as bad as that is, things have the potential of getting a whole lot worse. Being unable to “reform” the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing effective Senators piece meal. It is hard to image a dumber idea. In the long term, the effect of such a process would be to transform an unelected political body with no power into a largely unelected political body with real political power. In the short term, it would commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power. If that was bad enough and as you have pointed out it would give, for example, New Brunswick more senators (10) and for all intensive purposes more power than BC (6).
That's an excellent observation, Koby. I can't understand why we have to emulate the Americans on everything. We need to look further afield and see how other countries have fared or deal with regional representation to overcome strict rep by pop.
And as you pointed out, we do need real lobbying reform here as well; more so than in the States. It especially makes no sense here when Senators also sit on corporate boards -- it's really putting the fox in the henhouse, something PMS or any PM for that matter can't even seem to acknowledge.
Post a Comment