Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Idea alert

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:52pm - 36 Comments

Jack Layton pitches Senate reforms.

“Unfortunately, today’s Senate is too often just partisans working for their parties while being paid with public money. No ‘sober second thought’ can come from unelected appointees with such an obvious conflict of interest,” said Layton. “Let’s take two small – but important – steps towards a more accountable Senate. First, remove all failed candidates and party insiders from the Senate. Secondly, let’s make sure all Senators stop fundraising for political parties.”

Tags: campaign fundraising, fundraising, idea alert, Jack Layton, Senate, Senate reform

More by Aaron Wherry

psiclone

make up your mind Jack !!! – you can't have it both ways either he wants to fix it or get rid of it – what is it exactly Jack? – because up to now he wanted to get rid of it? – hmmmm maybe he and Stevie have had a little tea and talk privately and are going to squeeze Iggy out of this – very interesting as Jack has NEVER before been open to fixing the Senate = Hold onto your hats Libbies this might get interesting hahahahahah!

bennji1977

Yes, it is a shame, the NDP had been the only party that had a consistent stance on the senate.
McC_

what you call having it both ways was the stated policy of this government back in 2007 (recognizing that's three years past the expiry date of a stated policy of this government)
"The Senate must change. And if that change cannot happen through reform, then we believe that the Senate should be abolished," he said, adding that abolition was not the government's "preferred route. We prefer to try to reform the Senate before resolving to abolish it."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/13/senate-…
hollinm

Can you actually believe that Latyon made the suggestions that he did? Where is this guy's head? Does he think either of the two major parties are going to stop the practice of appointing people who have worked for their parties. What Jack is saying is that none of these people have the smarts or ability to sit in the Senate because they worked for a particular party. How arrogant of the used car salesman (Layton). Most of his policies are simplistic and don't come with a lot of real thought of how they would work in the real work. This type of recommendation ads to that simplistic approach to policy. Harper tried a very simple change i.e. limit Senate terms to 8 years and Jack had no interest. At least Layton would get a new crop of appointments every 8 years.

psiclone

I don't know folks and assorted Harper haters … wouldn't it be fascinating if Harper appouinted a NDP'er to the Senate hahahahahaha!

bennji1977

Yes, it would be very positive sign that appointments were based on merit, rather than party affiliation.

It would be somewhat reminiscent of back in 2005 when then PM Martin appointed Hugh Segal to the upper chamber.

hollinm

With this kind of comment what you are saying is that these people who are appointed have no abilities and really are devoid of any capability to discuss the issues of the day because they are partisans. Its silly to suggest that people have partisan affiliations have nothing to contribute to the country. In my mind it is not who is appointed but rather the system.

Crit_Reasoning

Let me get this straight: the NDP leader is challenging the Prime Minister to somehow "remove" Senators who are party insiders…

First, aren't most Senators, Liberals and Conservatives alike, "party insiders"?

Second, what constitutional process does Layton expect the PM to use to "remove" Senators who don't meet Layton's criteria?

The NDP really needs to stop campaigning on Cloud Nine. This sort of nonsensical rhetorical posturing is embarrassing.

Mike T.

It's almost as bad as the fixed election law! (But not as bad as going back on the fixed election law!)

bennji1977

May be they could use the same constitutional process that will force all of Harper's appointed senators to step down after an 8 year mandate.

Anyone out there think that is actually going to happen?

hollinm

The only way to know it is to put the term limits n and see what happens.

Blue

So if the Conservatives attempt to pass a law in Parliament stating that the next Federal Election will be held on October, 2012, and the following one October 2016, etc. then one will expect to have the full support of all Liberals.

TimesArrow

Why on earth would they do that? That ship is already a distant dot on the horizon. Unless you believe a promise not o do it again is worth the paper it isn't written on?

Blue

—-Just a simple yes or no will suffice—If Harper proposes a law that elections will be held in October every 4 years, will you and all Liberals support this law, whether we have a minority or majority Parliament.
If the answer is no then stop using it as one of your talking points.
Mike T.

You are bad at this.
TimesArrow

What are you talking about? Why should i say yes or no when the architect of the law has already flouted it?
In any case my personal view is no, since i don't like fixed election dates, no matter who proposes them.
Blue

So your answer is no and I suppose Mikey`s answer is no.
Then, if you use this talking point again, I will assume you guys are being Liberal Hypocrites.
Mike T.

Do you really not grasp why your train of "thought" here is so idiotic?
Blue

A fixed election law will only work if all parties agree to abide by it .

Liberals will not agree to wait 4 years before forcing an election.

Therefore Liberals are being hypocritical for criticizing Harper on this issue.
Mike T.

Wrong.
Mike T.

Harper acted wrongly by creating a law he knew could not legally be enforced. Even so, it was reasonable to believe he would at least stick to the idea of his unenforceable law

He did not, acting wrongly AGAIN!

He then lied about the law to pretend that it didn't apply because of the situation he found himself in, not because it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on in the first place.

All in all, it was one of the most dishonest scummiest moments in a prime ministership chock full of them.
Blue

……………..another brilliant piece of logic from mikey
TimesArrow

A fixed election law will only work if all parties agree to abide by it .

Liberals will not agree to wait 4 years before forcing an election.

Therefore Liberals are being hypocritical for criticizing Harper on this issue

Wow! There's a logical statement!
First off why would anyone trust this PM again on this file?
Second: if it was proposed by someone other than this PM many libs might well sign on[ i wouldn't] if as SS says breaking the law had consequences.
Thirdly: non sequitur.

Your serve,
Stewart_Smith

Blue; the devil would be in the details. The Liberals are all about law&order, so if there is a crime… what would be the time?

Example: What if the Conservatives suggest a fixed election law with the penalty that any PM that violates it be barred from public office and subject to a public flogging. I am fairly certain they would have an easy time getting support from the opposition for such a law. Of course, if they wanted to completely cinch the deal, they would only have to make it retroactive.
Richard_S_Argent

I'll never understand why you conservative types have such a problem with Responsible Government.

Of course while the Reformers under Baldwin-Lafontaine were working to create it, the Tories were voting in favour of American annexation…so…you know…there's some precedence here ;)
Jenn_

This is what comes of soundbites and arguments using the short form. We all know that law as you propose it is unconstitutional. The law everyone already passed is as close as you can come and still be constitutionally onside. And that law as it was promoted was a good one–hence why it was passed so easily. But as with a lot of our parliamentary rules and laws, they are only as good as the goodwill that goes with them. And Harper used it all up on this one the first opportunity he had.

McC_

"what constitutional process does Layton expect the PM to use to "remove" Senators who don't meet Layton's criteria?"
indeed, considering we can't even get rid of Senators who don't meet anyone's criteria — even the Senate's! (I'm thinking here of Senator Raymond Lavigne)

Crit_Reasoning

Yeah, it's pretty sad that we can't kick Senator Lavigne out of the Senate. Even though he's barred from sitting in the Senate or taking part in any Senate committees, he still draws a salary and is entitled to his entitlements (expenses, etc.)

The final ruling in Senator Lavigne's criminal trial is on February 22, so maybe if he becomes a convicted criminal there is some mechanism to boot him from the Senate.

By the way, I'm surprised that no journalist has asked Jean Chretien if he still thinks it was a good idea to appoint his old crony Lavigne to the Senate.

Raymond Lavigne was a mediocre backbench Liberal MP from Montreal whose only qualification for the Upper House was a willingness to do Chretien's dirty work (such as publicly attacking Paul Martin on cue).

Richard_S_Argent

I'm all for getting rid of the Senate, but the only way to do that is open up the Constitution and provinces are going to want something in return for their support.

These half measures are ultimately pointless.

(If we get rid of the Senate though, we'll have to entrench yearly First Ministers Conferences. Regional representation is still an important concept)
Mike T.

Although the law was unenforceable under any circumstances because mere statute can't bind the governor general's authority to dissolve parilament, the text allowed for this occurrence: elections were to happen every four years UNLESS a confidence vote ocurred.

What the unenforceable bill purported to do was stop elections for no reason other than the prime minister wants one – WHICH HARPER THEN DID.
dave

My personal belief is that the proper use of proportional representation is to fill the Senate: ie: the PM must fill seats within a specific time frame based on the vote splits for the provinces in question from the prior election starting with the least represented first (to ensure we work towards the goal and no: "we'll get to them" shenanigans), and the parties in question suggesting the person he nominates.

Tack Jack's suggestions on that and you've got perfection.

Mike T.

But we do have regaional representation in the Senate.

Skinny Dipper

Let's just live with the Harper dictatorship and forget about democracy. Then again, we don't have democracy in Canada under our antiquated first-past-the-post voting system.
hollinm

Pot calling the kettle black. Lets talk about Tommy Banks or Frank Mahovlich(?) being appointed to the Senate or Jim Munson. So there is lots of blame to go around. So don't get too high and mighty.
Yes Harper said he would not appoint Senators but the Senate was increasingly unable to do its "work" and so he really had no choice. However, keep up with the talking points about he said he never would do it if it makes you feel better.
gar

Layton has backed himself into a corner with his always condemning a budget before it hits the floor.He now sees that Giles and Iffy are serious about defeating Harper with demands they know the Harper government will not meet.Now Wacky Jacky has no choice but to support the budget or watch his support go sideways.Usually a leader like him who likes to be in front of the camera eventually screw themselves with contradictory statements.Watch for Jack starting to find not too much wrong with the budget and try and get off the hook.The great saver of Canada's excuse.The Canadian people do not want an election.Wacky you have been outsmarted with your big ego and big mouth it is just about ETD time
McC_

at last, someone standing up for the party outsiders and for increasing *our* role in the political process!