Harper lays out his vision for the Senate

OTTAWA — As the Conservative government tries to pass one bill limiting the terms of senators to eight years, it also plans to introduce another one to have them elected rather than appointed to the upper chamber.

“The government, hopefully this fall, will introduce a bill in the House to create a process to choose elected Senators,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Thursday told a Senate committee.

The committee is reviewing bill s-4, which would reduce a senator's term from mandatory retirement at age 75, to eight years.

"The government isn't looking for another report. We are seeking action," Harper said. "The Senate must change and we intend to make it happen."

Harper laid out his vision for the Senate, saying it must be a more accountable and more legitimate upper house. He said passing bill S-4 would only be a first step on the path to Senate reform — a promise made by the Conservatives during the election.

“Passage of S-4 would not achieve the kind of accountability I think the Senate and other legislative bodies require,” said Harper. “I think anything short of an electoral process, a democratic process, would fall short of what we ultimately need on accountability.”

Harper said his government is taking a step-by-step approach to Senate reform because a comprehensive overhaul would simply not be achievable. He urged senators to approve the bill and warned if they did not there could be “political consequences.”

“Some senators have said it goes too far; some have said it does not go far enough,” said Harper. “But we can all agree on one thing — it does go somewhere. Somewhere reasonable and somewhere achievable.”

Harper said he has no intention of appointing any senators in the near future to fill its nine vacancies unless it is absolutely necessary.

However, he defended his appointment of Michael Fortier to the senate by saying the compelling reason in that case was to ensure representation from the greater Montreal area in the cabinet.

Harper said the government is flexible on the details of bill S-4, as long as the terms are fixed so Senators will no longer be referred to as “lifers.”

Harper made the request last week to appear before the committee examining reforms to the upper chamber. His appearance is the first time that a sitting prime minister has appeared to answer questions before such a committee.

Yes, this would be a significant change. Preston Manning (who was the leader of a predecessor party to Harper's) had proposed what he called a Triple E Senate. Essentially, what the Harper government would like to do is introduce this concept.

The following is a section of a speech where Preston Manning outlined the objectives of the change.

Recently, I reintroduced my Senate Selection Act in the House of Commons. This bill would force the Prime Minister to seek the opinion of the electors in a province before naming a Senate seat in that province. Many people have approached me and said the Senate should simply be abolished—that it is a waste of money. I agree that the current Senate arrangement is not serving Canadians. But, if we abolish the Senate, Canadians outside of Ontario and Quebec will continue to be at the mercy of Central Canadian influence. The Senate has the potential to provide a more balanced regional representation to protect less populous areas of the country. In addition, the Senate should act as a chamber of sober second thought on government legislation. While an elected Senate is the first step to achieving true representation, it is only one-third of what is needed to ensure Canadians are truly equal. The answer is a Triple-E-Senate:

Effective: Under current legislation the Senate has the power to be effective in representing regional interests and sober second thought. However, because the Senate is not elected and represents the worst of partisan, political patronage, it lacks all legitimacy. It is unaccountable to Canadian taxpayers.

Equal: Although Senators frequently say that they will take on regional interests, when push comes to shove they invariably vote along party lines. If they were elected they would be accountable to the regions they represent.

Elected: The starting point of Senate reform so that Canadians will have a lawmaking system that reflects the needs of this great country is with the election of Senators. The Senate and its important functions will never be a legitimate part of the lawmaking body, unless its members are accountable to the people of Canada through a democratic election process.

Harper has picked a good way to put the issue front and centre.

He has used this issue as the issue upon which a prime minister has set a new precedent by appearing to testify before a committee of the Senate.

This is a step in the evolution of the unwritten, but important, part of our constitution.

Our unwritten constitution has evolved since confederation by acts just such as this.

Other steps have included inter alia:

-- Canada directly signing a fisheries treaty with the US instead of waiting for a representative of the Empire to arrive from the UK. (When he arrived, he was thanked by Canada and the US and was told that his services were not needed).

-- The King-Byng Wing Ding which materially limited the actions that a Governor General dare take with respect to dropping an election writ or refusing to do so, without any legislative body putting pen to paper to alter a single sentence in the British North America Act.

Now if this works, we perhaps will have an elected Senate without having to attempt the almost impossible task of altering any written constitutional enactment;

And as a prelude, giving the Senate a precedent for hearing testimony by a Prime Minister in Committee possibly a small step toward giving power back to Parliament and taking some away from the Prime Minister's Office.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.