Prime Minister Stephen Harper will introduce a bill calling for a plebiscite on the choice of Senate candidates on Wednesday.
He announced the plan at that morning’s Conservative caucus meeting, and said it will form the next plank in his bid to introduce more accountability to Parliament hill.
“This way the Senate will be more accountable, more credible and more democratic,” Mr. Harper said.
“After a century and-a-half, democracy will finally come to the Senate of Canada.”
Update – Someone please check on Jason Cherniak. I think he’s he’s having a stroke.
This is a good start. Personally I would prefer to see this entire arm of our legislative process severed altogether, but this is a good start.
Interesting proposal. I realize Harper’s been dropping in the polls nationally but I had no idea the same thing was happening in Alberts. SSM, now an almost, kind of, elected Senate. Man this guy likes to pander to his base!
You mean Stephen Harper accomplished something without touching the constitution? heh
Strange the way the Liberals and elites in this country are so against a move that would so obviously strengthen our democracy.
One might come to the conclusion that their opposition betrays a hidden desire to impose their will upon the people and protect their own power.
nah that would never happen in Canada, right?
Er, asking the citizens of Canada if they would like its Upper House to become a democratically-elected body is seen as ‘pandering to the base’? Don, I’m seeing more now than ever why there’s such a great divide between Canada’s regions.
May I ask what particular value you see in the current arrangement? Do you more trust the judgement of our Prime Minister (someone not directly elected to that role by all Canadians, only as the leader of the party that wins the most seats) more than Canada’s electorate to choose its own Senators? If so, does that endorsement apply to whoever the PM happens to be, or only those of the liberal/left variety?
A clear choice is forming for those who like democracy.
Stephen “the People can be trusted” Harper
or
Stephane “Democratic Deficit I won’t even let Riding Associations choose men” Dion
What’s a poor citizen of France to do?
Gee, government reports have suggested a democratic Senate since 1926 and its now 2006. Only 80 years to blow the dust off the report and make it a reality.
PM Stephen Harper actually believes in real democracy rather than the financial and electoral fraud that most recently tried to pass itself off as part of democratic civilization.
Well at least we didn’t have to wait so long that the demagogues who stood on the Bema at the Pynx Acropolis, Athens had to turn in their graves.
Amen, and Allelujah a substantive step towards a real democracy.
the senate is just another example of the nanny state. maybe Moe Strong , Papa Stronach, and such can throw their chapeau in the ring. A lot of things have happened with the Libs on graveyard shift.
Hey, we are just the Beer and popcorn crowd they can’t let us determine how we are governed. That must be left to the Liberals who know what is best for us.
As for dropping in the polls I suspect that is nothing more than the country is being well run by Harper so nobody is paying attention or interested in doing polls.
So what they are left with is the whinners to take the polls. ergo down he would go although I understand his personal approval is still very high.
It amuses me as to how eager most of the people here are to quaff Harper kool-aid. For the more dim witted among you (and your number is legion) this is vintage Harper. It is a replay of the recent SSM debate. Much smoke and thunder, much base pandering but with no discerable change in the stus quo. Harper will loudly procliam he has kept his promises and you minions will answer, “Yes, Oh Lord.”
The mental lightweights and the political kooks went beserk in the U.S. after the ratification of the 17th ammendment allowing the governor of a state to TEMPORARILY appoint a senator to a vacant seat. Otherwise, there are elections as usual.
Expect the same foaming at the mouth over this issue.
What I still don’t get is why cabinet ministers are taken from elected represenatives in Canada. How are they supposed to spend an appropriate amount of time representing their constituency when the majority of their time is spent as minister? Why does no one see this as a conflict of interest? I would be livid if my elected representative was spending all his/her time on issues realted to only one specific area. In the US I’m sure you are all aware that the cabinet is by appointment of the POTUS with ratification by Congress. I guess the Americans are more interested in the results and not the process.
It is not so much a replay of the SSM debate as it is a replay of the SCC appointment process.
Whether it is entrenched in the constitution or not, it will be entrenched in the mind of Canadians. Small step for Harper, giant leap for Canada.
Don:
The only kool – aid we’ve seen around here lately is the LIEberal variety.
I guess you forgot about Karen Redman’s infamous “the government is considering not observing future losses in confidence votes,…” statement.
Not to mention the rampant theft of taxpayers dollars via Adscam.
That was about as good as Mussolini suggesting “men are tired of liberty”.
The sheer arrogance and defiance of common democratic prinicples of the LIEberals should ensure they remain on the sidelines for some thorough going soul searching.
Yep, I sure do trust those LIEberals, Her Majesty’s demonstrably disloyal Opposition.
Thus far, we’ve seen the LIEberals haven’t met a democratic principle they wouldn’t VIOLATE.
If you want a medieval fiefdom, vote LIEberal where ministers can simply do what they want.
Yep, Maher Arar can be handed over to torture, my son can be told to go away and die by Rev Can, people can fall off the apple cart in the medical system, votes can be stolen, and Parliament can go to hell in a hand cart. Vote LIEberal, the face of fraudulent humanity.
Truth isn’t objective, but rather like Pontius Pilate of old the LIEberals ask: “What is truth?”
Of course the answer according to the relativists is whatever we decide it to be.
I’m just curious as to which of the opposition parties would support it.
Note that this is not the final word on Senate reform. From what I’ve read and heard today this proposed bill is the “next plank” in making Parliament more accountable to the people. So to be somewhat excited about it is hardly drinking “Harper Kool-Aid”. This bill basically ties the hands of future PMs. What is a PM to do when faced with people’s choice as to who should be their senator? Completely ignore it and appoint who he/she pleases? That wouldn’t be smart politically.
I imagine that in a couple of years we’ll see another bill to fully elect senators. Of course, if the Senate really wanted to be seen as taking the high ground, they’d return the bill to the House with the suggestion that Senators be elected directly, but for somehow I don’t see them doing that.
“What I still don’t get is why cabinet ministers are taken from elected represenatives in Canada. How are they supposed to spend an appropriate amount of time representing their constituency when the majority of their time is spent as minister? Why does no one see this as a conflict of interest? I would be livid if my elected representative was spending all his/her time on issues realted to only one specific area. In the US I’m sure you are all aware that the cabinet is by appointment of the POTUS with ratification by Congress. I guess the Americans are more interested in the results and not the process.”
Well Doug, it’s tradition. There is nothing in the constitution that bars a Prime Minister from appointing a private citizen to the cabinet. Witness Mr. Fortier who then was immeadiately elevated (as in appointed not elected)to the Senate. The advantage of having M.P.’s as cabinet minister is that they can be grilled as to the operation and conduct of their department via question period. In an executive system such as in the U.S. cabunet ministers are no where near as accessible.
It’s the Don of the lib/mafia crime family.
Eh Don, Whatsa matta fayou!?
Donny Don’t!
Donny Don’t!
Donny don’t you worry!
It will be an “elected” senate , you can still vote for the usual lib/mafia cappos, loot-tenants , enforcers and crew members.
Next up, Harper majority. With Deon lamed at the starting gate it will be smooth sailing indeed.
The NDP has been rendered redundant thanks to the ‘progressives’ who went over to Dion to join the liberal party, the real left now.
Even the environmental base that sustained the NDP has found a better vehicle to ride in, the Green Party.
The only coalition left for the NDP is the communists and labor, or death. RIP Jack..
I quite enjoy the elevated level of debate someone like richfisher brings to the table. Quite ashtonishing. And infantile.
Michael Campbell, radio host, has often quoted a UN report that shows that the most democratic countries are the most prosperous. In most of my working life in Canada, friends, aquaintences and I were constantly looking for jobs or worried about loosing the one they had. Our usual unemployment rate was in the double digits. Graduates in high-tech professions were working for free to get experience on resume’s. This was accepted as the norm. We didn’t know any better. Until a workmate announced he was moving “down south”. How backward we were. Guess why the elite in this country attack the Americans.
Any step to make this country more democratic is a big plus.
“I quite enjoy the elevated level of debate someone like richfisher brings to the table. Quite astonishing. And infantile.”
I agree Don….I mean,”Yes Oh Lord”
Don
You call other commenters on this post dim witted. Someone shakes your tree a little and you call the debate infantile. You sir are the typical Liberal Jackass.
Does anyone think Craig Oliver or Peter Mandsbridge would ever get to the Senate without being appointed. The opening gauntlet was laid down by Harper today. It will be how the liberals have been against justice reform, and particularly accountability. How many months did the liberal senate hold this act up. Everything not accomplished by Harper will be blamed on the liberal senate and their refusal to act in the benefit of Cdns. Then there will be there expense accounts. With whistleblower legislation in place, what will come out of the closet. Then add in Dions frenchcitizenship, and his dictator action of naming female candidates. As a woman I object to this as it means that the only way women can get to the ballot is if daddydear appoints them. I take that to mean dion has no faith in the ability of women to do it on their own. I take it to mean that he can control women MPs better than men, as they will owe their so called success to him. How does he plan to get cdn men and women who oppose this to vote for them. His kyoto god is being dismissed by the UN, and many others are getting skeptical about it. He has not answered the question, how will sending millions of our dollars to china to buy credits help clean our air in Canada. It is nothing but a paper transfer, thru the pockets of Strong and other corrupt liberals. Why shouldn’t the citizens of a province have a say in who represents their interests in the Senate. Who knows, maybe they would vote for ex hockey players and muscicians or cbc and other media types.
Let’s see, Don throws out a few shotgun blasts at the readership, Don gets spanked, Don reacts and calls it infantile. Conclusion, Don is a Liberal.
Can’t get much more infantile than a guy who prattles on about his invitation to Stornaway, and about the “aura” of Liberal leaders.
Talk about “Yes, Oh Lord!”
Great blogging by Don.
There are problems with a senate which all NEW senators are elected. The current set are almost all Liberals. This will take a long time to work through even without a good portion of new senators being elected as liberals.
The other issue is that I don’t really want to see a bunch of BQ senators. It’s annoying enough having my tax dollars used to pay the traitors in the lower house much less adding more of the bloody pricks to the federal payrole…
I’d like to see the damn thing abolished. It’s a waste of money.
Who is Don? Not another senator in hiding I hope.
Letting the people have a say in choosing a senator, in Canada, in a democracy? What a concept.
I bet Don’s not gettin any traffic at his website so he’s come to Kate’s to scare up some. A few of us will wander over curious to see what truck he is peddling then we will ignore him.
Don you want to have a site that has the power of Kate’s, then it would be helpful if you watched, listened, and learned. You are in the presence of Greatness, don’t exagerrate your ignorance by touching the letters on the keyboard.
Its time Don had his ass handed to him by a girl.
Don Said:
“Interesting proposal. I realize Harper’s been dropping in the polls nationally but I had no idea the same thing was happening in Alberts. SSM, now an almost, kind of, elected Senate. Man this guy likes to pander to his base!”
I am still cleaning the coffee off of my computer screen and keyboard! But you are right Don, Harper is pandering to his base. Those of us who would rather live in a free democracy where we get to make our own choices other than those forced upon us in a Liberal Nanny State!
Your buddy Dion is already forcing his willy nilly will on the party by appointing candidates in ridings……in this case women. Funny how the MSM is all behind this. I recall when the Conservative party did this, it was a huge affront to democracy. I for one am sick and tired of Liberal hypocracy and very content we actually have a leader as PM…..it’s been wayyyy to long.
Those damn Conservatives did it again eh Don…..they went and kept another damn promise….(Accountibility Act became law yesterday)Just who the heck do they think they are….eh Don???
RE: What I still don’t get is why cabinet ministers are taken from elected representatives in Canada.
I think it is because there is no executive branch of government in a parliamentary system.
In the Republic of the United States of America, the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the federal government are a triad that is the basis for the system of checks and balances. The President leads the executive branch and can appont his cabinet from the best qualified (but only with Congressional oversight and approval).
What I still don’t get is why cabinet ministers are taken from elected represenatives in Canada. How are they supposed to spend an appropriate amount of time representing their constituency when the majority of their time is spent as minister? Why does no one see this as a conflict of interest?
Interestingly enough, the US Constitution bars any member of Congress from serving in the Cabinet (they are appointed with some frequency, but must resign their congressional offices upon taking office in the Cabinet).
Key Liberal quotes on this issue:
“If [senators] are elected, they will play the same role as MP’s, which would be unfair,” Mr. Dion said.
A: BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire said he has no problem with moving toward a Republican-style Senate, but he added that if senators are to have real powers, that should be outlined with a constitutional change.
A: – That’s funny, because Australia is not yet a Republic.
Dion: “The current distribution does penalize certain provinces, particularly western provinces, Alberta and B.C., that only have six senators at this time …Many will share my view that it’s not good for the province to have an elected Senate as long as we don’t have a change of the number of senators per province.”
– Westerners don’t vote for you and they never will…
Do yourselves a favour and go to the CTV video servlet for Dion’s reaction to the plan.
It’s irresponsible!
It’s not fair to the provinces because it doesn’t address the imbalance in the numbers.
It’s not good because it has no dispute mechanism in place for when the Upper and Lower houses disagree.
Then he says
“Don’t you have questions for me about women in the ridings?”
First off,
a small incremental step in the right direction is better than his plan of doing nothing unless it can be done in whole. Harper’s idea is inertia. Dion’s idea is inert.
Secondly,
we don’t have disputes between the Houses now?
And I wish someone would have asked him this question when he tried to change the topic to his grand plan for women in Parliament…
“Mr. Dion, do you find it odd that Mr. Harper is trying to make the Senate more democratic at the same time that you are trying to make Parliament less democratic?”
IMO this is another shrewd political move on Stephen Harper’s part.
Not that he isn’t serious about an elected senate..he is.
But Parliament is just about ready to pack it in until Feb/07 so this won’t become an issue until there is a likely election campaign,at which time Harper will be able to call the Liberanos and the Dippers “undemocratic” for being against an elected Senate.
He seems to be always a step ahead of the fools in the opposition parties.
Could this announcement BE more meaningless?
So we’ll hold non-binding votes for vacant Senate positions and the PM will slowly replace an unelected appointed Senate with no democratic legitimacy with an “elected” appointed Senate with democratic legitimacy in theory, but not in reality. (“reality” being the place in which the Prime Minister will continue to appoint Senators as per the Constitution – “fantasy” being the place where the fact that those he appoints also won local plebiscites has any meaning in law whatsoever, and where the constitution is more a “nuisance” than the founding document upon which the country was created).
I don’t know what’s going to be more fun to watch; seeing the Senate implode as appointed members who weren’t put to a ceremonial non-binding vote prior to their appointment battle for legitimacy with their appointed colleagues who were; or, watching a regionally (though not ACCURATELY) divided Senate with the appearance of democratic legitimacy (as ad hoc as it all may be) battle for power with the elected members of the House (and their ACTUAL democratic legitimacy)! Soon, instead of having one House of Parliament obsessed with polls, and partisanship and pandering and electoral mudslinging we’ll have TWO! I suspect the real fun will come further down the road however, when someone finally questions whether or not it was a good idea to give (some small degree of) democratic legitimacy to a system that gives a Senate seat to every 33,000 residents of PEI, and a Senate seat to every 500,000 residents of Alberta (of course, by that time, the veneer of democtratic accountability will be all we can see, and if you think reforming a Senate with no democratic legitimacy is hard, just wait…)
What’s better, we’ll have given a veneer of “accountability” to a region-based anachronism of our system of governance, without actualy fundamentally changing anything about how our democracy works on paper. It’s like we’re writing down the parts of the constitution we’ll choose to ignore on a piece of paper, and handing a copy to each Canadian so they’ll all be clear on the differences between how our nation works on paper, and how it works in this new, ad hoc reality.
Why change the nature of our government fundamentally, when you can make it look like you’ve done so without all of the complexities of actually doing it? Why amend the constitution when you can just side-step it? If there’s one thing Canada’s new government has taught me it’s that anything written on the back of a cocktail napkin is good. Why think, when you can act?
I used to think the Tories were throwing caution to the wind so much (shooting first, asking questions later) because they figured they had to move fast and get a lot done in their minority, for fear of losing the next election, and that they’d deal with the many consequences of their shoot from the hip style after winning a majority (based upon the appearance that they had done so much – the wisdom of what they had actually done notwithstanding). Now I’m starting to wonder if the Tories just don’t CARE about consequences. Have the Tories been in opposition so long that they’ve forgotten that the actions of governments can actually MEAN something? Has anyone told them their actions (and even their rhetoric to some extent) actually MATTER now that they’re in government?
Someone should write a memo.
ReginaCon:
I agree. It’s going to be tough sledding arguing against this proposal.
Saying “it doesn’t go far enough” doesn’t wash, since taking it further would probably require consititutional reform, and nobody much wants to open that can of worms. And saying “our system of unelected and unresponsible patronage works quite well enough, thank you very much” speaks for itself.
Bit of a dilemma for Stephane. Perhaps the best thing is just support it, except he’s already criticized the proposal.
One thing Stephen can say next election — he didn’t just sit on his hands while he was in office
Molarmauler, can you tell me anything about Dianne Haskett or Rob Anders?
Lord Kitchener’s Own, good points. The only thing I would suggest is that we make a point of not calling this party “Tories”. They’re certainly not Tories, but they’re very comfortable having that label hung on them, rather lazily (or worse) I would suggest, as it gives Canadians, especially those not particularly engaged, a false sense of comfort and familiarity with the party.
It was Brian M that refused, until very late in his term, to appoint an elected senator from Alberta when he had the chance. That was his downfall, (or one of them) in the west. He double crossed us. We never forgave him for that, just like Trudeau and the NEP. Dion should pay attention to those events. We may not have the most seats or senators, but we have a population that can and does turn on a dime. What is the problem with each party putting up candidates for the senate, maybe with a pq or ndp senator those parties would get an education on how to work together instead of always attacking. See how mad dion was in question period today. Good thing the session is over before he really shows his true colors. Every time he speaks in his foreign english, and Harper replies in flawless english, it shows the difference in these men and their ability to communicate with canadians and be understood. Will the dictator mandate those 103 women have to be bilingual.
Why do we allow ourselves to fall into the trap of “we don’t want to open the constitutional worm can”? I steadfastly maintain that if you don’t have the guts, brains, and ambition to deal with constitutional issues, don’t run for office. It is absolutely that simple. A constitution that cannot eveolve with the society that it is designed to protect, will ultimately fail.
Of course this doesn’t go far enough, especially given the disgraceful inequity in assigning Senate seats to the respective provinces. But it is something, as opposed the the nothing we had previously experienced.
It’s often a mistake to discard the good in favour of seeking the perfect.
And watching that blowhard Art Eggleton huffing and puffing in indignation over the proposal was a treat…
“Every time he speaks in his foreign english, and Harper replies in flawless english”
Thank God one never finds bigotry, racism, intolerance or just plain ignorance on this blog!
Strange how that great beacon of Canadian Conservatism, Brian Mulrony, chose not to do anything about the senate when he was in power.
Perhaps he benefitted from appointing senators as much as the Liberal’s did.
As much as I would like to see an elected senate, this move does not move me one iota towards supporting the CCRAP party.
The Senate was always supposed to be the house of ‘sober second thought’; not a place for hangers on who could best toady up to the holder of the PMO.
Well holding elections is a step in the right direction. The proposition that the current format, in place since 1867, is good for a democracy in 2006 simply isn’t a tenable position. Regardless of the current Senators abilities, any objective assessment
would suggest that the concentration of power in the PMO is currently excessive. Having Senate elections would ameliorate this obvious fact.
Given the Adscam election chicanery this would act as a balance to the untrammeled power of the PMO.
If you want people to believe they are not completely divorced from events and institutions in Ottawa; then let people at least have some say rather than none.
Better baby steps towards democracy, than outright mockery.
This I submit is the evolution, rather than revolution, towards a substantive democracy.
In regard the proposed senate reforms more is needed to be done, but there is only so much PM Harper can do with a minority gov’t that may fall in the next 6 months. I’d like to see (as I believe PM Harper does) the Canadian senate modeled more after the Australian senate. However, in order to do this it would require opening the constitution. I see this current move more as symbolic; not in a pandering sort of way but rather as a precident setting motion.
MaryT, when you say that the population of Alberta “can and does turn on a dime”, are you suggesting that the 28 CPC seats in that province are pretty much up for grabs each time a federal election takes place?
Don said: “Thank God one never finds bigotry, racism, intolerance or just plain ignorance on this blog!”
*ahem*
A couple of selected comments from Don, posted on his blog:
“Reno’s like a brother. Albeit the retarded one you keep in the attic.)”
“I love it when some right wing douche bag calls me a leftist and somehow figures it’ll get my knickers in a twist.”
“God, if you had to give me a troll why did it have to be this ignorant dipshit.”
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.
Murray Rennie and maryT,
Mulroney did try to reform the Senate, but the concept of ‘Triple-E'(6 senators per provinces) combined with double majority for Quebec didn’t work for many reasons in the Charlottetown Accord. Special interests just kept piling on making it more and more difficult to limit constitutional change to line items like Senate reform or restricting federal spending power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottetown_Accord
Harper is taking great pains to show that his is a line item approach to the constitution rather than the Big Bang that failed spectacularly under Mulroney.
I don’t think we’ll get an Australian senate but the chamber of second thought will increase the oversight of current spending and its increase no matter who is elected in the future(as in the US system).
Don,
You’re aware that you’re not even that bright by the lowest-low standards of trolls, right?