Ahead of the Curve: Ignatieff lays out Senate ideas first
It's a good thing that QP is on CTV, or else I wouldn't (be able) to link this story and blog my thoughts.Reforms that Ignatieff could get behind:
- Twelve-year term limits
- Limits on a Prime Minister's power to appoint
Senate elections are not on the table for Ignatieff for one of two reasons (or both) that I can imagine: first, an elected Senate would be an explicitly partisan Senate and would not serve as the purpose of sober-second thought that it is designed to do.
Now, everyone might yap about how partisan the system already is with the PM appointing persons of his own political party, but I remind you, that the MOST partisan PM regarding the Senate is Stephen Harper, with 33 appointments - all CPC - over four years.
Martin, on the other hand, appointed 16 in his 3 years - twelve Liberal, three Conservative and one Progressive-Conservative. But, that is not to deter the obvious appointments of Chretien, 32 over 13 years - all Liberal.
Secondly, Senate elections would be a constitutional nightmare. It would effectively change our electoral system and changes to our electoral system would mean a nation-wide referendum with all the bells and whistles, just like Meech Lake and Charlottetown.
Now, a limit to the Prime Minister's prerogative to appoint could be, say, making it the mandate of the PM to choose Senators-in-Waiting from provinces where fair elections are held.
However, Ignatieff suggests that we ought to set up an independent public service appointment commission so that the Senate gets the best possible candidates instead of ideologues.
The question remains: what is the point of the Senate and what are we to do about it if we are unhappy? Changing the function of the Senate is a huge mess that no PM wants to get into and I don't think the electorate wants to get into.
Therefore, trying to remove the partisanship of the Senate ought to be the goal of any reform package. I think Igantieff's idea of a public service commission is right on the money, yet, I'd also instruct the committee to look at Senators-in-Waiting first from provinces who elect them over other PM candidates.
The rest of the interview with Craig Oliver details the Canadian plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2011, the environment (on which Ignatieff backs a cap-and-trade plan over a tax...), and international economics and the state of the domestic economy.
It is refreshing to hear Oliver ask Ignatieff questions that are framed with him as being the leader of the Government-in-Waiting -- which he is!
Ignatieff is proving to be more of a leader every day and is getting the Liberal message out. While they might be a little shadowy on where they're plans actually lie...but that is another story. Remember, Harper went 3/4 of the way in the last election without a platform and look where that got him. Maybe that's not such a bad idea...
Now, everyone might yap about how partisan the system already is with the PM appointing persons of his own political party, but I remind you, that the MOST partisan PM regarding the Senate is Stephen Harper, with 33 appointments - all CPC - over four years.
Martin, on the other hand, appointed 16 in his 3 years - twelve Liberal, three Conservative and one Progressive-Conservative. But, that is not to deter the obvious appointments of Chretien, 32 over 13 years - all Liberal.
Secondly, Senate elections would be a constitutional nightmare. It would effectively change our electoral system and changes to our electoral system would mean a nation-wide referendum with all the bells and whistles, just like Meech Lake and Charlottetown.
Now, a limit to the Prime Minister's prerogative to appoint could be, say, making it the mandate of the PM to choose Senators-in-Waiting from provinces where fair elections are held.
However, Ignatieff suggests that we ought to set up an independent public service appointment commission so that the Senate gets the best possible candidates instead of ideologues.
The question remains: what is the point of the Senate and what are we to do about it if we are unhappy? Changing the function of the Senate is a huge mess that no PM wants to get into and I don't think the electorate wants to get into.
Therefore, trying to remove the partisanship of the Senate ought to be the goal of any reform package. I think Igantieff's idea of a public service commission is right on the money, yet, I'd also instruct the committee to look at Senators-in-Waiting first from provinces who elect them over other PM candidates.
The rest of the interview with Craig Oliver details the Canadian plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2011, the environment (on which Ignatieff backs a cap-and-trade plan over a tax...), and international economics and the state of the domestic economy.
It is refreshing to hear Oliver ask Ignatieff questions that are framed with him as being the leader of the Government-in-Waiting -- which he is!
Ignatieff is proving to be more of a leader every day and is getting the Liberal message out. While they might be a little shadowy on where they're plans actually lie...but that is another story. Remember, Harper went 3/4 of the way in the last election without a platform and look where that got him. Maybe that's not such a bad idea...
Labels: Constitution, CPC, CTV, LPC, Michael Ignatieff, Senate, Senate Reform, Stephen Harper
posted by Dylan at 1/31/2010
11 Comments:
Interesting idea on an "appointment commission." However, as I commented on another blog, I think I am quite capable and intelligent enough to vote for a senator or two.
I watched Craig Oliver with Iggy too. Yes, he did well...for the most part, but I can't help but wonder if he might have thrown Gerard Kennedy under the bus.
We saw the clip of Kennedy saying taxes would have to be increased in order to tackle the deficit. A realistic assessment, if as Oliver says the only way out of this is increased taxes.
Both iggy and McCallum, while covered with the same story, both claimed that other than perhaps a 1% or so increase on GST.
Higher taxes or no (I think the former is more realistic than the latter before further gutting services); they showed that party unity still needs a bit of work.
Over all, he has improved.
I am anxious to see what Stevie's poison pill will be in his March 3 budget and will Iggy cave & prop up this gov't?
I've noticed with Canadians as of late, those spoonfed by Harpercon cheerleaders of talk radio and their newspapers: the Liberals are damned if they do; damned they don't: they get tough and vote against the gov't, they're forcing an election nobody wants; if they do prop them up; they're lambasted for being too weak.
Quite the balancing act there. I honestly hope he can unseat Stevie, even if it is a minority, as a loss or even another Stevie minority could prove the end of his tenure as leader of the Cons.
A Harpercon majority is frightening indeed.
Dipper - I'm sure you are! Which is why you ought to go to your provincial government and demand them to hold Senate elections.
CK - I think Iggy did throw Kennedy under the bus a little bit. Well, maybe not, but he did try to remould Kennedy's words to fit the Liberal party message. In truth, we do need a 1% hike, as much as I dislike consumption taxes.
Steve's poison pill, that'll be interesting. And you're right, the Liberals are damned if they do and damned if they don't. But the way the LPC's numbers took a nosedive one year ago, they're in no position to start rattling the election saber.
The difference now is that Ignatieff presents the Liberals as a more stable, confident, and policy-headed party than Dion; which will bode well for him in Ontario, QC and BC if he is going to go into an election against Harper within the next 6 months.
Furthermore, this is the perfect time for Iggy go to out and get as many soundbites as possible - with the Olympics, the budget, and then the G20 meetings; I doubt the CPC is going to produce any election-style attack ads. Ignatieff is free to show Canada who he is and what the LPC will do in parliament, as parliamentarians. And in doing so, the electorate will imagine him as PM.
The "appointment commission" isn't a bad idea, but it's only a stop-gap measure.
I think we should have some kind of confirmation procedure for a great number of public appointments -- especially judges (I think judges on provincial circuits should be confirmed by the provinces, and that judges on federal circuits should be confirmed by Parliamentary committee).
But elected Senators wouldn't require Constitutional amendment. It can just as easily be accomplished (at least to some extent) by each province passing Senate election legislation, then federal Parliament passing legislation that would require the Prime Minister to honour these nominations in any Province holding such elections.
Such an accord between provincial governments and the federal government represents a form of Constitutional convention anyhow.
Patrick - While I generally agree with you assessment of the possibilities for Senate reform without constitutional changes, the problem what you are proposing faces is the reluctance of many provinces to elect their senators.
Manitoba is one of these provinces, whose ruling NDP would rather see the Senate abolished than waste their own money electing Senators-in-Waiting. Futhermore, establishing a constitutional convention does not mean that a PM MUST nominate Senators-in-Waiting from a province, therefore, what would the be point of elections if a PM is not bound to put forth elected names to the GG for appointment?
Now, I do agree that conventions over time do become practice that any PM would be hesitant to circumvent; that said, to what extent should the provincial governments care whether or not they are represented through an appointed Senator or an "elected" one.
Consider this, when Bert Brown (Alberta) was selected for candidacy by the PM and appointed by the GG, he is designated as a Conservative - even though his provincial party designation is PC. To whom does he take orders? The Prime Minister? Or the Premier? His constituents are Albertans, but his direction comes from the CPC federal caucus.
Given the Canadian political context, it could be the case that having a province elect their senators would not ensure that the province is who the Senators will represent.
That is why it OUGHT to be an all or nothing deal with Senate reform: either you change the constitution and put the power of the Senate into the hands of the provinces, or, you don't and keep the discretionary power of the PM to nominate candidates and the GG to appoint them, with, perhaps screening measure like Ignatieff's appointee committee to ensure the BEST candidate gets the job rather than the most loyal to the PM and his/her federal party.
Dylan,
I know full well that many provinces are reluctant to elect their own Senators -- some, as is the case with Manitoba -- for no good reason.
I'm well aware that the NDP favours abolishing the Senate over reforming it. It's one of the things that suggests that, if anyone, it's the NDP who has a "hidden agenda".
But I digress.
I'm glad that you spoke to the matter of provincial affiliations -- provinces that hold Senate elections only allow provincially-registered parties to run.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that Senators ought to be considered more formally representatives of the provinces, and not of federal parties.
I think Senators ought to retain their provincial party affiliations, and instead form Senatorial coalitions among one another.
I think this would make for a much more vibrant Senate.
"I think Senators ought to retain their provincial party affiliations, and instead form Senatorial coalitions among one another.
I think this would make for a much more vibrant Senate."
Agreed!
So we agree on that, but then the question is this:
Would we also have to abolish a Senator's ability to serve as a minister in the federal government?
(I really don't think so, but it's a thought that occurs to me.)
Of course we would have to abolish the ability for a Senator to serve in the federal cabinet!
In my opinion, a Senator should never be allowed to jump to parliamentary cabinet, since it seems to me that he/she would be in direct opposition to their duty as "sober second thought" to the actions of the House.
I would say that only in exceptional circumstances a Senator should be allowed to serve in cabinet, but I cannot imagine a situation so "exceptional" that would allow a Senator to step out of the Upper House and serve as an unelected member of cabinet.
(And no, the Fortier example does not fit as an "exceptional" circumstance. If the CPC/LPC does not win a seat in a certain area that they believe needs cabinet representation, they should reach across the aisle and ask a member of the opposition to serve in cabinet before calling up a Senator.)
"And no, the Fortier example does not fit as an "exceptional" circumstance. If the CPC/LPC does not win a seat in a certain area that they believe needs cabinet representation, they should reach across the aisle and ask a member of the opposition to serve in cabinet before calling up a Senator."
I've always considered this to be an interesting kind of idea, one I've personally toyed with in the past -- inviting the opposition more directly within the halls of government.
One could raise a question as to whether or not this would be politically expedient for a Prime Minister within their own party.
As much as we may not like it, political expedience often dictates policy in Canada -- although this isn't restricted to Canada by any means.
What would you say, then, about the Senate's ability to legislate? Senators are allowed to propose bills on nearly any topic except fiscal matters. (Although this legislation must then pass in the House of Commons as well.)
What do you think? Yea or nay?
(Personally, I say, "nay", but that's my own opinion.)
I think that reaching across the aisle could be politically expedient should the Opposition cabinet member be miscalculated.
Concerning Senator's ability to legislate, I'm a little hesitant to restrict them. To be sure, having the Senate review legislation that comes from the House allows Senators to make amendments/suggestions which is an indirect form of legislating.
How about a compromise, Senators should not be allowed to legislate, however, Senate Committees should have the power to put forward legislation to the House (given that the nature of these committees are issue based and their work is multi-partisan).
Post a Comment
<< Home