Nine new Canadian senators APPOINTED - none elected, lots of controversy

Canadian Press ^ | 03/24/05 | Alexander Panetta

[Heartofsong83]

Prime minister announces new senators; one is snubbed by NDP

1 hour, 11 minutes ago

ALEXANDER PANETTA

OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin announced nine new senators Thursday, but his attempt to appoint the first ever New Democrat was swiftly rebuffed by the NDP.

Martin's unusual step of nominating three opposition members only caused confusion as the party affiliation of each was immediately called into question.

The NDP refused to allow a Saskatchewan appointee to sit in its caucus and two other appointees rejected the new Conservative party, choosing to sit as Progressive Conservatives.

The partisan kerfuffle threatened to overshadow the appointment of retired military icon Romeo Dallaire - the general who led the star-crossed international peacekeeping force in Rwanda.

Dallaire will sit as a Liberal, along with five other senators named Thursday in Martin's first-ever batch of appointments to the upper chamber.

The list of Liberals includes Art Eggleton, a former Toronto mayor who was booted from cabinet for awarding a government contract to his former girlfriend. He did Martin a favour when he vacated his seat last year to allow Ken Dryden to run as a Liberal star candidate in the federal election.

The opposition nominations were muddier. The NDP would not recognize Saskatchewan's Lillian Dyck as a member and asked that she sit as an Independent.

And the two Tories named Thursday will call themselves Progressive Conservatives - a federal party that no longer exists but still lists five members in the Senate.

NDP spokesman Karl Belanger said the party won't recognize Dyck's appointment because it believes the Senate should be abolished.

"If she was a real New Democrat she would table a motion that calls for the abolition of the Senate," Belanger said.

"We're encouraging her to sit as an Independent. It would be more representative of her political affiliation."

Belanger noted the Saskatchewan scientist has not held a membership card with the federal party since 1994, and with the NDP provincial wing since 2003.

But he said the NDP stand is based on ideological opposition to the Senate.

Dyck said she was surprised at the NDP reaction. She said she was simply asked which party best reflected her views, and chose to sit as a New Democrat.

"It was my personal choice," she said.

Dyck added that she didn't have a chance to consult the party because she was asked to keep her appointment secret.

"That's interesting. I'm not even in the job yet and there already seems to be a bit of a controversy," Dyck said.

"The values that I stand for are basically those the NDP stands for, but if that doesn't match what the party line indicates with regards to the Senate then I guess we will have to make a choice."

Dyck's appointment did get some NDP support: Saskatchewan premier Lorne Calvert said he's pleased and that Dyck is highly qualified for the job.

The prime minister said his goal was to appoint the best people.

"I picked them because they're outstanding Canadians (with) a long record of accomplishment," Martin said. "These are people who will serve their country very well."

He did not appoint any of the three men unofficially elected by Alberta voters who want an elected Senate. Martin has dismissed the legitimacy of recognizing elections in only one province.

The opposition fumed at Martin for appointing instead two women - Alberta's Elaine McCoy and Nancy Ruth of Ontario - who will join the three last remaining Progressive Conservatives in Parliament.

"Why is this prime minister so arrogant that he feels he knows better than the people of Alberta who should represent them?" Conservative MP Jason Kenney said.

There are still seven vacancies in the upper chamber and Martin said he will announce more appointments "in the upcoming weeks."

Thursday's appointees:

-Dallaire, who promised to be an active senator on international issues like military intervention, Third World development, and child soldiers.

-Jim Cowan, a Martin backer in Nova Scotia, a lawyer, chair of Dalhousie University's board of governors.

-Elaine McCoy of Alberta, former provincial cabinet minister under Tory premier Don Getty. She will sit as a Progressive Conservative.

-Grant Mitchell, former Alberta Liberal leader, currently an investment adviser with CIBC Wood Gundy.

-Robert Peterson, a Saskatchewan Liberal and the party's campaign chairman in the last election, an engineer and business executive.

-Nancy Ruth of Ontario, social activist, feminist, two-time Ontario provincial candidate who will sit as a Progressive Conservative.

-Claudette Tardif, Alberta academic, promoter of bilingualism, former dean of the Faculte St-Jean at University of Alberta. She will sit as a Liberal.

The list refers to the two new Tories as "Progressive Conservatives" - the now-defunct federal party that merged with the Alliance to form the Conservative Party of Canada.

Mitchell, at 53, was the youngest senator named Thursday. Dallaire is among the youngest at 58.

Senators are eligible to sit until age 75; they earn $116,000 plus other benefits.

Perhaps no other batch of Senate appointments has been the subject of such drawn-out, protracted strategizing.

Martin aides have been besieged by scores of requests from people who helped the prime minister during his two-decade bid for the Liberal leadership.

While Martin delayed making nominations for over a year, 16 of the Senate's 105 seats opened up.

Martin has said the Senate should ultimately be overhauled to make it a more democratic institution, but that won't happen soon because it would require another wrenching round of constitutional negotiations.

Alberta's stop-gap solution of holding elections for senators won't fly, Martin says, because it would lead to a balkanized upper chamber where only a handful of appointees could claim democratic legitimacy.

Just one elected senator - Stan Waters - was ever appointed, in 1990 by then-prime minister Brian Mulroney.

[Heartofsong83]

So they added six Liberals, two "Progressive Conservatives" and one NDP-turned-Independent (they oppose the current senate makeup as well). None of the Alberta elected senators were chosen, and no other province was given a chance to choose democratically. Shame, shame on Mr. Dithers for continuing this dictatorship.

Interesting to see Martin try to appoint an NDP member, only for the party to turn around and reject the appointment...I have more respect for them on this issue than the Fiberals...

[rocksblues]

Sounds like Liberals are the same the whole world over.

If in danger of not winning an election, just appoint a rep that is supportive of your agenda.

[The Electrician]

Alberta's stop-gap solution of holding elections for senators won't fly, Martin says, because it would lead to a balkanized upper chamber where only a handful of appointees could claim democratic legitimacy.

So it's better to have a situation where none could claim legitimacy. Hmmm... I understand perfectly...

[JohnnyZ]

He did Martin a favour when he vacated his seat last year to allow Ken Dryden to run as a Liberal star candidate in the federal election.

Hmmmm .... Ken Dryden .... just another reminder that

[RetiredArmy]

Awwwww, socialism. Communism. Commissars. Politburo's. Party membership. The State in Charge! All for The State. Elite's leadings we smaller persons.

[Heartofsong83]

That's nothing short of a gift to his buddy...a corrupt one at that; what next, Alfonso Gagliano being appointed?

[BlueNgold]

Any of our Canuck buddies or Yanks in-the-know care to explain the appointment/election process for Senators in Canda and how it might correlate to US Politics?

[Heartofsong83]

Quite simple. The Prime Minister appoints Senators whenever a seat is open (actually the Governor-General does, but the PM makes the decision) and he or she sits until his or her 75th birthday. No elections.

The representation formula is very unfair too - New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (each 10) have more than any Western province (each has 6) despite having far fewer people. Newfoundland has 6 and each territory has 1.

There should be 6-10 Senators from each province and one from each territory. They should be elected to eight-year terms.

[BlueNgold]

OK, but where do Canadian Senators fall into the scheme of things?

Is it somewhat equivalent to our Senate?
The House of Lords?
Monty Python's Flying Circus?
(All of the above?)

[Heartofsong83]

Monty Python's Flying Circus. It is nothing more than a patronage club for friends of a sitting (or former) Prime Minister.

[usurper]

I have learned much about Canadian politics here on FR but what the heck is a Progressive Conservative?

[Heartofsong83]

It's a former party that was the old Conservative party until the early 1990s; the real Conservatives broke away into the Reform Party leaving it with nothing more than its Red Tory shell...those 5 Senators should be sitting as Liberals.

[llama hunter]

exactly, overpaid Monty Python Circus

the House of Lords, where the seats are hereditary, are they still? has more power

the Senate basically pretends to review any legislation coming from the House and votes on it but essentially the
Senate rubberstamps most legislation coming out of the House, I think the Senate only ever rejected a bill once in the history of Canada.........

bad Canadian, I didn't realize the seat allocation was that wack

Bravo to Ralph Klein and Alberta by electing 3 senators even if Mr Dithers won't appoint them.....

[Liberty Valance]

"Romeo Dallaire - the general who led the star-crossed international peacekeeping force in Rwanda."

I guess they haven't heard how that one turned out...

[Heartofsong83]

Now if other provinces could get on board, that would put a lot more pressure on Mr. Dithers...

I liked the response from the NDP on their rejection of their appointment...seems even they have more integrity than the corrupt dictators that are most of the Fiberals...

[rasblue]

Isn't it true that the US Senate at also an appointed member body until the states started to rebel against that about one hundred years ago? The states just started having elections for Senate and finally the Feds had to turn over the appointing of the Senators to the states.
At least thats how Wikipedia put it.

[Koblenz]

From the founding of the United States until about 1913, the Senate comprised two people from each state, and the Senators were elected by each state's legistlature. The theory was that the lower house, i.e., the House of Representatives, would represent the people, and the upper house, or the Senate, would represent the interests of the state. The Senators were supposed to be somewhat removed from the people. They'd affirm treaties, do judicial and cabinet confirmations, and also vote on all matters that the house did. I wasn't a bad method in my opinion.

An amendment to the Constitution in the early twentieth century switched the US to electing Senators directly.

The Washington Senators baseball team is now somewhere else: I think the Astros or the Rangers. And the NHL has the Ottawa Senators, who like all NHL teams are not playing now.

[NZerFromHK]

The way I understand was that up until 1913 state legislatures (which are in turn elected) sends two delegates for each state to the US Senate. It was exactly the same way Germany's Bundesrat is constituted.

[NZerFromHK]

The Senate of Canada is appointed (not elected directly like Australia or current US, or indirectly elected like Germany or pre-1913 US), and roughly speaking senators are distributed by regions that in light of current demographics, gives unequal distribution to senate seats to each province. So Ontario still has more seats than Alberta in the Canadian Senate, in contrast with Australia where New South Wales has the same number of seats as Tasmania or the US where Texas has two senators just as Wyoming does.

Unlike Australia or the US, the Senate is a formal affirmation chamber under Canadian constitutional convention - or to put it colloquially, it is a toothless device.

[NZerFromHK]

Found this on the official Australian Senate website:

---

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/odgers/chap0403.htm

Chapter 4 - Elections for the Senate
Bases of the constitutional arrangements

The constitutional foundations for composition of the Senate reflect the federal character of the Commonwealth. Arrangements for the Australian Senate correspond with those for the United States Senate in that each state is represented equally irrespective of geographical size or population; and senators are elected for terms of six years. Both Senates are essentially continuing Houses: in Australia half the Senate retires every three years; in the United States, a third of the Senate is elected at each biennial election. A major distinction is, however, that the United States Senate can never be dissolved whereas the Australian Senate may be dissolved in the course of seeking to settle disputes over legislation between the two Houses (Constitution, s. 57; see Chapter 21).

An important innovation in Australia was the requirement that senators should be “directly chosen by the people of the State”. Direct election of United States senators was provided in the constitution by an amendment which took effect in 1913, prior to which they were elected by state legislatures.

The innovatory character of Australia’s Senate is also illustrated by contrasting it with the Canadian Senate created by the British North America Act 1867. The provinces are not equally represented in the Canadian Senate; and senators are appointed by the national government, initially for life and now until age 75. Composition on this antiquated basis has deprived the Canadian Senate of the legitimacy deriving from popular choice and has meant, in practice, that the Canadian Senate has not contributed either to enhancing the representivity of the Canadian Parliament (the more desirable because of the first-past-the-post method of election used in the House of Commons) nor to assuaging the pressures of Canada’s culturally and geographically diverse federation. Prominent proposals for reform of Canada’s Senate in recent decades have included equality of representation for provinces and direct election of senators.

The principle of equal representation of the states is vital to the architecture of Australian federalism. It was a necessary inclusion at the time of federation in order to secure popular support for the new Commonwealth in each state especially the smaller states. It ensures that a legislative majority in the Senate is geographically distributed across the Commonwealth and prevents a parliamentary majority being formed from the representatives of the two largest cities alone. In contemporary Australia it acknowledges that the states continue to be the basis of activity in the nation whether for political, commercial, cultural or sporting purposes. Many organisations in Australia, at the national level, are constituted on the basis of equal state representation or with some modification thereof; this includes the two nation-wide political parties. By contrast, very few nation-wide bodies are organised on the principle of the election and composition of the House of Representatives. Indeed, in Australia’s national life, a body such as the House of Representatives is, if not an aberration, at least relatively unusual. This demonstrates that in Australia federalism is organic and not simply a nominal or contrived feature of government and politics.

...

---