Sorting The Canadian Senate

If I had my choice I would simply abolish the Canadian Senate but that would require a constitutional amendment and open a whole new Canadian proverbial can of worms.

However as far as the selection of Senators other than set regional distribution the only requirement is that they be summoned by the Governor General.

Summons of Senator

24 The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator. (Constitution Act, 1867 )

This means that Parliament is free to legislate the process of the selection of Senators by the Governor General however they wish.

Many would suggest an elected Senate, but besides the issues with constitutional wording that strongly implies the Senate must be appointed, the Constitution also provides a regional representation that does not reflect representation by population. An elected Senate might try to claim legitimacy it does not have to overrule or thwart the will of the House of Commons leading to a potential constitutional crises. There is no need for two elected Houses though there may be a need to make the House of Commons more representative through a system of proportional representation.

So how do we make the Senate more effective.

The Senate’s traditional role has been as a place of sober second thought in regards to ensuring the soundness of legislation originating in the House of Commons. Senatecommittees have also taken on the role of studying the issues of the day and issuing reports.

These roles do overlap with the House of Commons functions so how can we make the Senate better complement the role of the House of Commons. The current government has attempted, and succeeded to a degree, to make the Senate a less partisan body than the House of Commons but it is still by virtue of the type of people appointed a political body with appointment until retirement at age 75 (or earlier at the Senator’s choice).

What if we made the Senate representative of the Canadian public in a different way than election or appointment by the government of the day, with shorter terms.

What if we selected Senators randomly in a similar manner to selecting jurors taking into account the regional representation requirements. This is not a new concept, it even has a name.

Sortition

In governance, sortition is the selection of public officials or jurors at random, i.e. by lottery, in order to obtain a representative sample.[1][2][3][4] (Wikipedia)

Implementing sortition for the Canadian Senate will not be completely random and representative because of the geographic requirements and because many people will not accept the post for various legitimate reasons but it will still provide a different perspective than the House of Commons because the membership will mostly consist of non-politically active citizens.

I would propose appointment for a four year term with half of the Senate changing every two years so there is always fifty percent membership with some experience. Unlike a few weeks commitment for jury duty this would be too long a commitment to make it mandatory.

There would need to be some mandatory exclusions such as anyone holding public office and probably also judges and I would also exclude lawyers. Others might request exclusion because it might affect their career prospects negatively or they might have other obligations.

Fortunately the one group that most lacks representation now, the unemployed and underemployed or those with precarious employment would likely welcome a guaranteed four years of employment, with the bonus of being able to serve their fellow citizens.

A sorted Senate might be the unique Canadian solution we are looking for.

Can Proportional Representation Save Our Parliamentary Democracy

           Parliament - Etymology

The English term is derived from Anglo-Norman and dates to the 14th century, coming from the 11th century Old French parlement, "discussion, discourse", from parler, meaning "to talk".[2] The meaning evolved over time, originally referring to any discussion, conversation, or negotiation through various kinds of deliberative or judicial groups, often summoned by a monarch. By the 15th century, in Britain, it had come to specifically mean the legislature.[3]   Source:Wikipedia

The very essence of our Parliamentary system is talking, and more importantly listening, and debating and elected representatives actually changing their opinions. Parliament and the provincial legislatures is where policy and laws are supposed to be made.

We have let our system become one where policies are made by political spin doctors designed not for the good of the people but for the purpose of winning the most votes. Individual Members (MPs and MPPs) have become meaningless with all the emphasis on the parties and particularly the leaders.

We have this situation because we have a system where a party can win a majority of seats with a minority of votes and where party leaders, particularly leaders of the governing party, have almost absolute control of their parties making individual Members nearly irrelevant.

Supporters of our current system like to claim a Proportionate Representation electoral system would give fringe parties excessive power, But what it would really do is give individual MPs or MPPs power. One party and one leader would no longer have absolute power but the elected Members would have to work together to build consensus, meaning individual Members would actually matter.

The one benefit of the current First Past The Post/Single Member Plurality (FPTP/SMP) system is that we elect local constituency representatives. We can still have that with a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system with the addition of extra Members to align the membership of the legislature with the votes by party overall. Everybody’s vote would count even if you lived in a constituency were the party you support has no chance of winning. Your vote would still count and you would still be represented., Indeed you would actually have a reason to vote.

We could actually have a system where the elected Members govern and we do not simply elect a dictator (usually with a minority of votes) every four years.

For a more comprehensive look at our parliamentary democracy and how to improve it see On Democracy.

Does Canada Need a Head of State

        From Twitter
        Adrian Harewood
        @CBCAdrianH
        23 Jan
        Why in 2021 is a Canadian Prime Minister, the leader of a #G7 nation, still reporting to a #Queen who                doesn't live in his country and has never lived in his country? #JuliePayette #JustinTrudeau #Canada

This is just one response to the latest “scandal” involving the monarchy. In this case it was the Governor General. In others it has been members of the Royal Family. In each instance we seem to see a flurry of criticism of the monarchy. Although the misbehaviour of individuals is not necessarily a good reason to question an institution such behaviour always acts as a catalyst for questioning the role of the monarchy in Canada.

The usual response is a “debate” over whether we should get rid of the monarchy and replace it with something else, presumably a republic with a president rather than a monarch. That of course is not the only option.

One option I have never seen discussed is whether or not we actually need a Head of State.

Could we essentially retain our system of government without a Head of State, in effect a constitutional monarchy without a monarch.

Is this not the ultimate evolution of democracy. While governments need leaders should a nation state not be led by the people, not by a designated privileged individual. Would this not be the ultimate expression of the rule of law rather than the rule of man.

How would this work in practice.

The constitutional parliamentary duties now performed by the Governor General, granting royal assent, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament, etc. would be performed by a body that actually has constitutional expertise, a panel of Supreme Court justices. When it is necessary to canvas the House of Commons to determine who has the confidence of the House that function could be carried out by the Speaker and confirmed by a confidence vote.

The Prime Minister would continue to speak for the government and the Speaker of the House of Commons could speak for Parliament and when appropriate on behalf of the country as a whole.

Our system of a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary government reflects our history and it works. If we are tempted to change it we should be bold.

The Two Issues in the Chalk River Nuclear Safety/Radioisotopes Affair

Stephen Harper is starting to remind me of Larry O’Brien. They both seem to have no concept of the role of government and public policy beyond the Do What I Say I’m the Boss School of Leadership.

There are two issues involved in the Chalk River nuclear safety/radioisotopes affair.

The second issue is whether Parliament should have passed legislation requiring restarting of the reactor. What Parliament essentially said was that the shortage of radioisotopes justified lowering the normal safety standards for the reactor. It is Parliament’s role to balance competing interests. While many of us disagreed with the legislation, it was within Parliaments role.

The first issue is whether the government should have attempted to influence and intimidate Linda Keen and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission into not doing their job and then fire her for doing her job.

The government claims she was fired for lack of leadership. If Linda Keen has demonstrated anything it is leadership. The government may not have like the leadership she provided but it is ludicrous to suggest she did not provide leadership.

It is the role of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to set and enforce safety standards in the nuclear industry. That is what they did in the case of the Chalk River reactor. When Atomic Energy of Canada Limited failed to do required safety upgrades the Commission it did it’s job and ordered the reactor shut down. It is not the role of the Commission to let outside factors or interests influence it’s decisions. Indeed it would be derelict in it’s duty if it let outside interests, or political intimidation, influence it’s decision-making.

If anyone lacks leadership it is Stephen Harper who does not understand the difference between leadership and intimidation.

From Opportunism to Abstinence - Stéphane Dion and the Liberal Party

The Liberal Party has long been known to have no original ideas of it’s own, simply stealing policies from the Conservatives or New Democrats depending on the public mood.

When Stéphane Dion was elected party leader many thought he would be a leader that would not be remembered for anything. Little did they know he would take the party to new heights of opportunism as Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Abstainers.

The Liberal Party has apparently decided that since it does not agree with the policies of the Conservatives who form the government, nor with the policies of the New Democrats who oppose it, that their only option is to abstain from voting on all matters of confidence.

But they take their role as official abstainers seriously, these are not simple abstentions but ”whipped” abstentions on the government’s overall policy, as well as it’s financial policy.

Perhaps someone should remind Stéphane Dion and the Liberals that the role of the official opposition is to oppose the government and provide an alternative government in waiting. The Liberals have made it clear they are not ready to form an alternative government because they believe that they would not receive a mandate from the people to govern if an election was held at this time.

Perhaps they would have a better chance of winning an election and forming a government if they actually did their job as the official opposition by voting against the government’s policies that they claim to disagree with and putting forth alternative policies of their own, rather than being official abstainers.

If they are not prepared to do this the should call on the Speaker of the House to request Jack Layton and the New Democrats to take on the role of official opposition, in addition to that of effective opposition that they have already undertaken.