Don't Let a Few Bad Apples Spoil the Senate - Opinion

[puckstopshere]

"The difference between a statesman and a politician," someone once said (I can't recall who), "is that the statesman thinks he belongs to the State, and the politician thinks the State belongs to him." There is more reality to this keen observation than we might suspect.

The kind of politics we have been experiencing for some time now sees you and me as mere supplicants to be manipulated through the offering of the odd morsel. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to note that our present political dysfunction finds its centre in the low regard with which parties views the average citizen -- a judgment which sees the reverse administered in equal measure. Mutual contempt. If things remain this way, we won't be able to negotiate our way out of our present predicament.

We often forget just how many great Senators have kept rampant politics at bay through reasoned and compelling arguments that often put the present House of Commons to shame. James Clarke once wrote that, "A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman of the next generation." The Canadian Senate has most often acted in ways more like the latter than the former. Despite its recent troubles, the Senate has often shown the valued propensity to rise above the squalor and partisanship of the House.

Surely Canadians can spot the difference between a Mike Duffy and a Romeo Dallaire, or between a Pamela Wallin and Muriel Ferguson! The quality of character and intelligence in Senator Hugh Segal simply dwarfs the rather sad record of Patrick Brazeau. The average citizen can sense the distinction a kilometre away.

Let's leave the Duffys et al to their fate and consider the others just mentioned.

I worked fairly extensively with Romeo Dallaire on a number of initiatives and simply came away dwarfed by his experience and commitment. The reception he receives while speaking in the Senate is no less profound than when he challenges university students to pick up the mantle and lead Canada into the next generation. He is a saddened heart always on the move, driven by memories of Rwanda and a Canadian global influence lost. Dallaire is one of the greatest individuals of his generation and he is a Senator.

Muriel McQueen Ferguson is a virtual unknown to most Canadians, yet the ripples stemming out from her courageous actions over the years continue to have effect today. In 1972, she was the first female Speaker of the Senate and the first female Speaker in Canada's Parliament. She opened up the Page program for the first time to female students. She was a true Canadian champion of the first order and to this day no one really knows what her political affiliation was.

Hugh Segal has been labelled the "Happy Warrior". He has served with distinction in the Senate and has developed a remarkable ability to cross party lines, and co-chaired a Senate committee that put out a major report on poverty and Canada's social safety net. A "Red Tory," he was appointed to the Senate by Paul Martin (one of three Conservatives). Past Conservative PMs have, on occasion, appointed Liberals or Independents.

Distinguished Senators like constitutional expert Eugene Forsey guided the partisan House of Commons through many rocky shoals and built legislative and research records that still serve useful purpose today. They lived as examples of James Clarke's lesson of those who think of the next generation instead of just the next election campaign.

Sadly, the record of the Senate in recent years has been a troubled one, with the quality Senators being eclipsed by those in the Senate who possessed lesser lights or overtly partisan intentions. Reform is clearly required and wholesome debate on the subject is necessary.

But I was elevated and informed by the likes of the Dallaires and the Segals -- so much so that I developed a sense of hope from the chamber down the hall from the Commons where I worked. I was reminded again of how often politicians come across as those with whom it can be easy to disagree, but how certain key Senators persuaded me and assisted in clearing my mind, embracing new research, and working with them for a better Canada.

They are the kind of people who couldn't function in the House because its partisan trappings would only undermine their spirits, as they did mine. With a reformed Senate in place, we can clearly do better.

[puckstopshere]

This piece was written by former MP Glen Pearson from London.  He is one of those people I have voted for, regardless of his party affiliation.  He has worked tirelessly for the poor in London and has spent much time in Africa working to resolve some of their poverty issues. 

When Glen ran for a seat in Parliament, I really felt that he was too honest a man for the job.  I still feel that way today. 

[toby_le_pue]

I doubt very much they could find very many past or present who didn't

pad their expenses to a certain degree.

[ilurkthereforiam]

I would like to see an elected senate.

Many countries do it with good fortune.

[pierrelebel]

"I would like to see an elected senate."

It is a great idea as long as the term of office of the elected senators is totally different from members of parliament (four years).  A system similar to the USA (one third of the senate seats face election every six years) may work. An eight year term for senators - on a rotating basis - would also be workable.

I would prefer a system where some senators are appointed by the provincial premiers (presumably they would appoint senators that actually live in their respective province - avoiding the Mike Duffy nonsense) and the rest are elected on a rotating basis.

Whichever way is chosen, it will not be easy to make the changes considering the constitutional requirements.

Section 38 of the Constitution Act (1982) is clear when it comes to changes to the Senate:

Most amendments can be passed only if identical resolutions are adopted by the House of Commons, the Senate, and a two-thirds majority of the provincial legislative assemblies representing at least 50% of the national population.

[stevephinn2012]

I would prefer a system where some senators are appointed by the provincial premiers (presumably they would appoint senators that actually live in their respective province - avoiding the Mike Duffy nonsense) and the rest are elected on a rotating basis

1 party has appointed Senators based on this. The other party refused!

[pierrelebel]

"1 party has appointed Senators based on this. The other party refused!"

This was irrelevant and meaningless - as Harper clearly demonstrated over the last five years with his patronage appointments - until the constitution is amended.

[stevephinn2012]

This was irrelevant and meaningless - as Harper clearly demonstrated over the last five years with his patronage appointments - until the constitution is amended

In fact, in the entire history of the Senate, there have only been two senators elected and appointed by the Prime Minister in this manner. In 1990, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appointed the first elected senator in Canada, Stan Waters of Alberta. Waters had previously won the Alberta Senate nominee election of 1989. In 2007, Prime Minis...

It should be noted that, since appointments to the Senate is the jurisdiction of the federal government, Senate nominee elections in Canada are non-binding. As such, the Prime Minister of Canada does not necessarily have to fill vacancies in the Senate with elected nominees. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin, for example, did not appoint any elected nominees, choosing instead to fill Senate vacancies by traditional appointment

there have only been so many elections-how can Mr. Harper appoint elected Senators when he has ALREADY appointed the only ones available?

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

[art-in-the-making]

I wouldn't be against an elected senate.

The problems of political gridlock in the U.S. aren't caused by the method of choosing senators.

Maybe a way to do it would be you are elected for life or until the age of 75 - BUT you can be removed by de-election (recall). Senate elections could be held every year - but only for vacant "seats", which would only be those seats where the senator retired or passed away.

It would take a lot of negotiation and creativity to figure out the seat allocations. Perhaps each province would be left to design their own system, within certain guidelines. As Pierre said, maybe an occasional provincial appointment could be a possibility.

Or. maybe the best way would be for each province (and territory, where applicable) to have a potential senate election each year, with each voter getting one vote. Then depending on how many vacancies there are, the candidates with the most votes would go in in order.

There would be a built-in check and balance by this system, as provinces with more senators would usually have a more diverse group of senators. i.e. - say Ontario had 7 senate vacancies in a given year. In all likelihood the election would result in a roughly even distribution of Libs, Cons and NDPs, with maybe a Green and possibly independents. Whereas a province with fewer senate seats that might have maximum one vacancy in the same year would be more likely to elect a senator who represented the "political flavour of the day".

The recall process would be something else entirely. I've never liked petitions. Susceptible to undue influence of political "machines". But an obvious solution for recall doesn't come to mind. Perhaps you forego your senate vote if you want to vote to recall someone(?). In that case the number of votes required to recall would have to be determined. Hm food for thought...

[pierrelebel]

Senate appointments over the years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_Senate_appointments_by_prime_minister 

Interesting to note that Harper has only appointed members of his own Party.

Trudeau who was Prime Minister for 15 years appointed 81 senators (less than 6 a year)

Mulroney who was Prime Minister for nearly 9 years appointed 57 senators (less than 7 a year)

Chretien who was Prime Minister for over 10 years appointed 75 senators (less than 8 a year)

Harper who has been Prime Minister for 7 years has already appointed 59 senators (more than 8 a year), all Conservatives, despite his repeated pledges to do something better!.

[stevephinn2012]

Great to PLAY with numbers!!! LOL

FACTS---number of empty seats when Chretien took over -ZERO, number of empty seats when he left-ZERO

number of empty seats when Harper took over-ZERO number of empty seats now--THREE

Mr. Harper has only done his job of filling VACANT seats!! WHILE also appointing those that their PROVINCE has ELECTED!

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

Was Mike Duffy elected?

OTTAWA— Mike Duffy sought a cabinet post — and the perks that went with it — soon after he was named to the Senate to compensate him for his “expanded” role in the Conservative party, new records show.

Duffy, a once valued Conservative fundraiser now at the centre of the Senate spending scandal, also raised the idea of the party hiring his private company, according to emails obtained by CBC News.

Just months after being named to the red chamber by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2009, Duffy, a former CTV journalist, was apparently agitating for even more.

“I suggested they make me a (minister) without portfolio, so I get a staff, car and more resources to deal with pr fallout,” he writes in a July, 2009 email to an unidentified Conservative.

His email continues, “what do I demand.“That the Cons hire my private company and I use the cash to hire additional staff to assist with these gigs?” writes Duffy, who gave speeches through his company Mike Duffy Media.

(So appropriate that he used the word "Cons")

[pierrelebel]

"also appointing those that their PROVINCE has ELECTED!"

That is funny! 🙂

Of the 59 senators appointed by Harper in the last seven years, how many were "elected"?

Can you name them?

[pierrelebel]

Quizz: 

Who said "we don't support any Senate appointments," called the Senate a "dumping ground for the favoured cronies of the prime minister" and said "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.""

That was too easy.  We all know the answer. 😉

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

He'll avoid answering ..unless....someone mentions it.

[pierrelebel]

In the Internet age, where old quotes are easily accessible by the masses, Harper might just be his own worst enemy.

[pierrelebel]

This is a "must read" for conservative supporters:

http://unseatharper.ca/senate-appointments.php 

"For decades, Stephen Harper lectured Canadians about all that was wrong with their Senate and promised, if elected, to fix it. Once in office, he made it all much worse."

[pierrelebel]

"To suit his own political purposes, Stephen Harper has stacked the unelected Senate to an unprecedented degree, in direct contradiction to his election platform; and he has politicized the Senate to an extent never seen before. 

Steven Harper’s promises to make the Senate more democratic are a charade, and his actions have greatly diminished the neutrality of our house of “sober second thought”.

[pierrelebel]

Stephen Harper in his own words

Over the years, Stephen Harper has said a number of things that a great many Canadians would be shocked, and even appalled, to learn that they were said by someone who is now our Prime Minister. The following is just a sampling of those quotes:

http://unseatharper.ca/harper-quotes.php