Electoral Selection of Senators
With the election of a Conservative government, Senate reform has come to the fore again. Gordon Gibson, has warned us in his 10 FEB 06 Globe article that an elected Senate is dangerous. The actual proposal will be a selected Senate, far from an "elected" Senate.
Gibson's concern, and his subsequent arguments, are based on the dubious assertion that the "Harper plan would fairly quiclky lead to a fully elected Senate with all of the democratic legitimacy that implies."
This would not come to pass. In a 14 DEC 06 speech while campaigning, Harper promised "to establish a federal process for electing senators. Alberta has already held provincial elections for individuals aspiring to the Senate. A national Conservative government will establish a national process for senatorial elections in each province and territory on an interim basis." This vague "process" will implement the Alberta model, and require the Prime Minister to advise Her Excellency to appoint senators who have received the most votes in their respective regional electoral contests.
With no constitutional change, senators will be elected once and appointed by the normal process for life to age 75. Senators will be "selected" and not "elected". They will have no claim to a political mandate. Why? A political mandate is by definition subject to expiry and renewal. Governments can last up to 5 years, and no member of parliament has an electoral mandate beyond 5 years. Senators will have to campaign once, to win the confidence of their electors, and will never again be subject to such democratic ignomy. No general elections will be held, because vacancies will occur at random on a rotating basis. This will ensure that electors have a say in who represents them in Ottawa. It will not, however, confer mandates as general elections are seen to do.
Furthermore, senators will never feel the direct pressure of seeking reelection and will thus be just as disinterested as they are now. No senator, elected 1 or 25 years ago, will ever have the claim to democratic legitimacy that a Government that is responsible to the House of Commons and elected by general election will have. The claim that they would collectively overpower the rich provinces to extort their resources is simply too wild for me to tame. The senator's claim to democratic legitimacy will always be limited by the fact that senatorial candidates must be 35 and own $4000 worth of real property. This qualification excludes much of the Canadian population.
The Senate will have no right to initiate money bills, and its power to amend and reject money legislation in favour of regional concerns and pork will be tempered by the more disinterested and longer term nature of its political dynamic. Major differences will remain between a US Senate and a Canadian Senate, and the excesses of the American Senate will be avoided by our life members.
Finally, let us remember that the constitutional principle of responsible government will be unaffected. The Government of the day will always answer to the House, and must maintain the confidence of that chamber. The House will always be the chamber of the commoners, the chamber that is primus inter pares, and the chamber that Canadians will hold responsible for the laws and the government of the nation.
Gibson objects to Harper's reform because it is not a "total review" and because it will implement piecemeal reform. He is right. However, constitutional reform is political dynamite that some political hero may one day be able to manipulate. Some day, a dark haired maiden riding a white unicorn, wearing underpants of steel will come and slay the constitutional dragon by wielding death defying amendments forged in eternal bliss. Until that day, legislative reform can go a long way to reducing the arbitrary, monarchic prerogative of the Crown to call senators indiscriminately. It will require that prerogative to defer to the choice of the constituents.
This will not be a democratic Chamber. In fact, our political institutions are aristocratic structures that have been fitted with democratic paint over the years. British parliamentary history, and Canadian parliamentary history, is a story of the increasing subjection of the prerogatives of the Crown to the rule of law. This will simply transfer the right of selecting the temporary aristocracy from the Prime Minister's Office to the people who are ostensibly represented by the senatorial class. So, if the change is so small, why is it worth doing? British parliamentary tradition is an evolutionary story of increasing accountability, openness, representation and popular government through gradual reform. Is this reform piecemeal? Yes. It is not radical, it is not enough and it is not ideal. However, it is plausible, pragmatic progress that just may change Canadian politics for the better. Stand aside, reformers. Make way for the incrementalists.
Gibson's concern, and his subsequent arguments, are based on the dubious assertion that the "Harper plan would fairly quiclky lead to a fully elected Senate with all of the democratic legitimacy that implies."
This would not come to pass. In a 14 DEC 06 speech while campaigning, Harper promised "to establish a federal process for electing senators. Alberta has already held provincial elections for individuals aspiring to the Senate. A national Conservative government will establish a national process for senatorial elections in each province and territory on an interim basis." This vague "process" will implement the Alberta model, and require the Prime Minister to advise Her Excellency to appoint senators who have received the most votes in their respective regional electoral contests.
With no constitutional change, senators will be elected once and appointed by the normal process for life to age 75. Senators will be "selected" and not "elected". They will have no claim to a political mandate. Why? A political mandate is by definition subject to expiry and renewal. Governments can last up to 5 years, and no member of parliament has an electoral mandate beyond 5 years. Senators will have to campaign once, to win the confidence of their electors, and will never again be subject to such democratic ignomy. No general elections will be held, because vacancies will occur at random on a rotating basis. This will ensure that electors have a say in who represents them in Ottawa. It will not, however, confer mandates as general elections are seen to do.
Furthermore, senators will never feel the direct pressure of seeking reelection and will thus be just as disinterested as they are now. No senator, elected 1 or 25 years ago, will ever have the claim to democratic legitimacy that a Government that is responsible to the House of Commons and elected by general election will have. The claim that they would collectively overpower the rich provinces to extort their resources is simply too wild for me to tame. The senator's claim to democratic legitimacy will always be limited by the fact that senatorial candidates must be 35 and own $4000 worth of real property. This qualification excludes much of the Canadian population.
The Senate will have no right to initiate money bills, and its power to amend and reject money legislation in favour of regional concerns and pork will be tempered by the more disinterested and longer term nature of its political dynamic. Major differences will remain between a US Senate and a Canadian Senate, and the excesses of the American Senate will be avoided by our life members.
Finally, let us remember that the constitutional principle of responsible government will be unaffected. The Government of the day will always answer to the House, and must maintain the confidence of that chamber. The House will always be the chamber of the commoners, the chamber that is primus inter pares, and the chamber that Canadians will hold responsible for the laws and the government of the nation.
Gibson objects to Harper's reform because it is not a "total review" and because it will implement piecemeal reform. He is right. However, constitutional reform is political dynamite that some political hero may one day be able to manipulate. Some day, a dark haired maiden riding a white unicorn, wearing underpants of steel will come and slay the constitutional dragon by wielding death defying amendments forged in eternal bliss. Until that day, legislative reform can go a long way to reducing the arbitrary, monarchic prerogative of the Crown to call senators indiscriminately. It will require that prerogative to defer to the choice of the constituents.
This will not be a democratic Chamber. In fact, our political institutions are aristocratic structures that have been fitted with democratic paint over the years. British parliamentary history, and Canadian parliamentary history, is a story of the increasing subjection of the prerogatives of the Crown to the rule of law. This will simply transfer the right of selecting the temporary aristocracy from the Prime Minister's Office to the people who are ostensibly represented by the senatorial class. So, if the change is so small, why is it worth doing? British parliamentary tradition is an evolutionary story of increasing accountability, openness, representation and popular government through gradual reform. Is this reform piecemeal? Yes. It is not radical, it is not enough and it is not ideal. However, it is plausible, pragmatic progress that just may change Canadian politics for the better. Stand aside, reformers. Make way for the incrementalists.
posted by Lt Smash at 10:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home