Posted on 09/08/2006 11:24:21 PM PDT by goldstategop
Prime Minister Steve Harper did it again last week. With little prior warning, he disclosed his intention of carrying out yet another promise he made during last winter's election campaign. He intends to launch a "step-by-step" reform of the Canadian Senate, arguably the most baffling and pointless legislative body extant in any Western democracy.
To Ottawa's seasoned skeptics his announcement was doubly shocking. First, unlike almost all his prime ministerial predecessors, Harper apparently takes seriously the promises he made back then.
One of those predecessors, Liberal Jean Chretien, announced at one point that he considered it unfair to demand that politicians fulfill election promises, made in the heat of the battle for votes. Any elector would be a fool to expect they'd be acted upon, Chretien declared. An election is not the time to discuss serious political issues, said another predecessor, Tory Kim Campbell. Harper obviously has a somewhat different view.
Second, and equally amazing, the particular promise he's chosen to act on is Senate reform. He actually plans to change that venerable museum piece, the fossil remains of the compromise that put Canada together 139 years ago. It didn't work at the time, and has never worked since – in both senses of the word.
Canada's "Fathers of Confederation," in negotiating a form of government for the four English colonies and one French one, which had refused to join the American union in the 18th century, assumed they needed an "upper house" in Parliament. They had two models to consider: the British House of Lords and the American Senate.
The prime objective of the two most powerful entities in the confederation, the future Ontario and Quebec, was to establish what were effectually "colony" provinces to east and west– hewers of wood and bearers of water to foster industrial and financial growth in the central regions. The American model, designed to prevent big states from exploiting the small ones by giving each state equal representation in the Senate, therefore became an object of horror in Canada.
So what Canada adopted instead was a farce. Canadian senators were appointed for life by the government in power (though now they are generously pensioned at 75). It became an extended care home for party loyalists. It has great powers to amend or veto legislation, but the tacit understanding is that it will never exercise them, and it hardly ever has. The cry for "Senate reform" is as old as the country itself, but has never happened, nor even been seriously attempted.
True to the original plan, Ontario and Quebec (especially Ontario) grew steadily stronger and wealthier, with the others lagging ever further behind. As the populations of the two big provinces grew, so did their hold on the all-important House of Commons, which is elected on a rep-by-pop basis. Canadian elections are often decided before any votes are counted west of Ontario.
But in the 1970s something changed. With the formation of the OPEC oil cartel, oil prices began a wild ascent. Oil-rich Alberta began growing bigger and wealthier in a most unbecoming and un-Canadian way. Although resources and the revenues derived from them were technically under provincial control, the Liberal Trudeau government of the day simply seized much of this revenue for the benefit of "all," meaning chiefly of Ontario and Quebec.
The resulting rage in Alberta engendered a political movement that eventually produced, among much else, Prime Minister Stephen Harper. One of the other results was a massive outcry in the West for an American-style second chamber. Known as "the Triple-E Senate," it would be Elected, would Equally represent each province, and would be Effective in that it could veto or amend legislation– that is, could exercise the powers the Senate already possesses.
But Harper, once elected, was generally expected to quietly forget all this. Thus the shock last week when he made an unprecedented appearance before a Senate committee studying (what else?) Senate reform. There he announced plans to appoint only elected senators, and for a fixed term: six to nine years.
Since the Senate itself could veto this legislation, he appended a warning. There are only three possibilities for the Senate, he said: Leave it as is; reform it in stages as he is suggesting; or abolish it. The first is no longer acceptable to the public. The second, though difficult, is not impossible. If it fails, the result would be the third. In short, no more lifetime job. This is the kind of language political appointees can be expected to understand.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Ping
I don't know about that. If they'd take one good look at ours, they're reconsider.
I don't know about that. If they'd take one good look at ours, they would reconsider.
I like this man tremendously. I have learned to be skeptical of WND though.
I've never understood how a Senate could even function in a Parliamentary system. To give it equal weight would require modelling the entire governing system more towards the American government set-up, leading to a direct or electoral college-style election of the PM, rather than electing them just from the Parliamentary body itself.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
I thought the Australian Senate wasn't terribly different in setup to Canada's.
The size of the Senate has changed over the years. The Australian Constitution requires that the number of Senators approximate as nearly as possible to half of the number of members of the House of Representatives, and it has therefore grown periodically. Currently, each of the six States of Australia has 12 Senators, while the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have two each. The Senators for the Northern Territory also represent voters from Australia's Indian Ocean Territories (Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands), while the Senators for the Australian Capital Territory also represent voters from the Jervis Bay Territory.
Normally, half of the Senate is contested at each election, for terms of up to six years, but during a double dissolution, every seat faces re-election. Senators from the territories only serve half-terms, and must stand for re-election every three years. Unlike the House of Representatives, Senators serve fixed terms which expire on the 30th of June every three years. Thus, while the voters elect Senators at the same time as lower house members, such Senators' term of office does not begin until the 1st of July following their election. As a result, the new Parliament will often sit for some time with the old, lame-duck Senate.
The House Of Representatives can be dissolved and elected at any time for three year terms, the Senate is elected for a fixed term and Senators from the States serve six years and Senators from the Territories serve the same term as House members do.
The reference to Canada is apposite, because the example of Canada demonstrates, by the effects of the absence of a federal structure, the effects of having such a structure in Australia. Canada has several problems, some of which, such as the problem of Quebec nationalism, do not provide comparisons with Australia. One of those problems in recent times, however, has been the extreme alienation of the outlying provinces, particularly the western provinces, caused by the domination of government by the centres of population. So fed up did the western provinces become with the domination of the federal government by Toronto and Montreal (cf Sydney and Melbourne), that they spawned a new political party, the Reform Party, which was able virtually to wipe out one of the established major parties in a general election. While this may be seen as a fresh breeze blowing, such a geographical division bodes ill for the unity of the country. Such serious alienation has not occurred in Australia, and a primary reason for this is that the federal structure of the legislature, unlike the non-federal structure of the legislature in Canada, has altered the representational system by forcing majorities to be geographically distributed. It is significant that one of the demands of reformers in Canada is for a Senate like Australia's, representing the provinces equally and with real legislative powers. They refer to it as a "triple-E Senate", elected, equal and effective. [7] A disgruntled would-be politician from the western provinces told me that he favoured those provinces seceding from Canada and joining the United States. When asked why they would do such a thing, his first response was that they would each have two senators in Washington and therefore would not be ignored as they were ignored by Ottawa.
Ping!
In terms of constitutional thinking, the American model stresses the written black and white letters fundamentally, while Canada is very British/Anglo in the sense that "evolution of the unwritten, but important, part of our constitution" is of paramount importance.
Like New Zealand or Britain itself but like the United STates or (to an extent) Australia, you can circumsvent the constitution by piecewisely enactment whatever "fixes/remedies", and when this becomes fait accomopanli, it forms the coutnry's constitutional arrangements.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
In Australia in contrast, such things would be deemed unconstitutional - it needs referendum by the people in additional to parliamentary approval as well.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
IMHO the country that resembles most the United States at micro level (living) is Canada, but at macro level (politics) it is Australia.
With the incumbency we have and their benefits..some parts of our senates are strikingly close.
I'd love to see some of those duly elected since oh say 1962! Gone, yes you teddy kennedy
The monarchist/"conservatives" (who tend to be Ontarians or Eastern/Atlantic Canadians) in the country of your birth are absolutely horrified by Harper's proposals:
http://members.boardhost.com/monarchist/msg/1157658989.html
The biggest problem with the U.S. Senate is that it was originally designed to be a body that would represent the interests of the several States. Unfortunately, in 1913, the Constitution was amended to have the Senate elected by the people, rather than appointed by the States.
This permanently broke our political process.
They are not conservatives anymore. Most of them support the Liberals or NDP nowadays.
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.