Changing the Senate (Outside of the Constitution)

[FiveParadox]

In recent weeks, all of the political parties have set out their positions on what should happen now with the embattled Senate of Canada.

For the Government under the Conservative Party, they have set a constitutionally-questionable policy of letting Senate vacancies build up until the provinces have reached a consensus on Senate constitutional reform moving forward. It remains to be seen to what extend the Conservatives can refuse to name senators before a challenge to the Supreme Court (as per the bench's previous ruling on the Senate Reference).

For the Official Opposition under the New Democrats, they have pledged to abolish the Senate. This would require a resolution supporting abolition from every provincial legislature, and the consent of both the Senate and the House of Commons (although the Commons could overrule the Senate's objections after a 6-month waiting period).

And for the Liberals, they have proposed senators that are separate from the House of Commons political caucuses, and an advisory panel that would provide advice on meritorious, less partisan appointments. While the New Democrats argue that this would also require a constitutional change, that position is dubious. This would be similar to the method used for appointing peers to the United Kingdom's House of Lords.

So, let's say that negotiations between the provinces for constitutional reform do not advance. What strategies can you think of to improve the way that the Senate operates, so that it is a more relevant and effective part of the Canadian judicial system, and that would not require constitutional change?

 

[tay]

Triple E or eliminate the Senate............






It’s safe to say the Senate scandal would never have happened if Harper had stuck to his roots as a Reform Party activist.

As a right-wing protest movement, and motivated by the belief Western Canada was getting shafted by the eastern political establishment, the Senate was among the Reform Party’s biggest grievances.


But as Boyer points out, “prime ministers find it very helpful to have this place down the hall where cabinet ministers who have become embarrassments or party organizers they want close at hand – they can take them and just put them in there… In theory, it's a public institution. In practice, it's being run like a private club for two political parties.”


Indeed, Liberal and Tory prime ministers since Confederation have found the Senate a convenient place to park their bagmen and functionaries on the public tab.


Warren Kinsella, a long-time Liberal election consultant, explains that senators even keep the parties operating when they’re periodically wiped out at the polls. “It's the Senate caucus that keeps you alive,” he notes. “In that context, it has value.”


The Senate also became notorious for its deadbeats. One of the most infamous was Andrew Thompson, a Liberal appointed in 1967 who stopped showing up to work altogether, having moved to Mexico— but who continued to collect his paycheque.


Thompson resigned, although his Senate pension immediately kicked in, which was almost as large as his former salary.


This sort of behavior ticked off the Reform Party, including Harper. In 1996, as a Reform MP, he railed in the House of Commons that “[Canadians] are ashamed the Prime Minister continues the disgraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Liberals to the undemocratic Senate to pass all-too-often undemocratic legislation."


In 2004, Harper said “Despite the fine work of many individual senators, the upper house remains a dumping ground for the favoured cronies of the Prime Minister."


And during the 2006 election, the Tories' website claimed “a Conservative government will not appoint to the Senate anyone who does not have a mandate from the people.”


Harper quickly broke that promise. Having won no seats in Quebec during that election, he appointed Montreal lawyer Michael Fortier to his cabinet and the Senate.


Harper was fearful that trying to abolish the Senate would embroil him in a constitutional quagmire. After he became prime minister in 2006, his approach was to refuse to fill vacant seats and introduced, on three occasions, legislation to reform it. But these bills all died on the order papers.


Duff Conacher, the founder of Democracy Watch, feels that Harper was never serious about reforming the Senate and introduced bills that he knew were unconstitutional. Says Conacher: “He wanted to use it as a wedge issue and send out numerous fund-raising letters saying Liberal senators were blocking efforts to make it equal, elected and effective.”

Indeed, Liberal Senator Percy Downe points out that Harper “had a majority in the Senate [by 2009] so he could have passed whatever bill he wanted. The fact he never passed one speaks volumes. They had a majority, where were the bills they passed? They blamed it all on everybody else.”

Harper clearly had no qualms about taxpayers footing the bill for the salaries of what were little more than Tory foot soldiers and party functionaries – in contrast to his complaints from earlier days about the Senate.


In total, since 2008, Harper has appointed nearly 60 senators. Along with Duffy, Wallin, Brazeau and Gerstein in 2008, Harper also added former Olympic skier Nancy Greene, and Linda Frum, daughter of former CBC star Barbara Frum and brother of David Frum.


More importantly, he appointed Doug Finley, his long-time “pit bull” election strategist and director of political operations, as well as his loyal press secretary, Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, and Don Plett, president of the Conservative Party of Canada.


The cynicism of such appointments is reflected in the cases of Finley and Gerstein, both of whom were fingered as key participants in the “in and out” scandal that occurred during the 2006 election.


Having reached their $18.3-million spending limit, the Conservatives transferred $1.3-million to 67 ridings, which then funneled it back to the national party to then spend on advertising – a method to circumvent the spending laws.


In 2011, Gerstein, Finley and two other members of the party were charged for their involvement in the scheme – and the party forced to repay $230,198 and $52,000 in fines.


During the investigation into this affair, it was revealed that Finley wrote to Gerstein asking for authorization to go ahead with the plan in order to “run a major slam dunk in the extra two campaign weeks” over their rivals, according to the agreed statement of facts in the case.


Meanwhile, Harper began using the Senate to reward failed candidates: in 2011, he reappointed Larry Smith and Fabian Manning to the Senate after both stepped down to run in the election that year but lost at the polls.


Nevertheless, to those who remain puzzled by why Harper never reformed or abolished the Senate – the answer lies in his realization of how it fit neatly into his ambitions to stay in office for a very long time.




much more.......




Why Harper corrupted the Senate | National Observer

 

[JamesBondo]

In the US, voters can vote strategically. They can elect a democrat president and gove , and then elect a republican senate.

In Canada, our senate is stacked by the government that is on their way out of power.

 

[cribone]

If Harper loses this election can he appoint Conservative Senators to fill the 20 or so empty seats before he leaves?

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

If Harper loses this election can he appoint Conservative Senators to fill the 20 or so empty seats before he leaves?

Perhaps he can seek legal advice on that matter from John Turner.

 

[taxslave]

If Harper loses this election can he appoint Conservative Senators to fill the 20 or so empty seats before he leaves?

Probably. After all he is still PM until the new government is sworn in. The optics are not too good but if you are leaving anyway who cares about optics?