"Canadians from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia remain ashamed of Canada`s senior legislative body. They are ashamed the Prime Minister continues the disgraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Liberals to the undemocratic Senate to pass all too often undemocratic legislation."*
On the other hand, Stephen Harper has no problem with the digraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Conservatives to the undemocratic Senate...
Perhaps Stephen Harper said it best himself:
"As everyone in this room knows, it has become a right of passage for aspiring leaders and prime ministers to promise Senate reform - on their way to the top. But once they are elected, Senate reform quickly falls to the bottom of the Government's agenda. Nothing ever gets done."**
It seems Harper has learned the lesson learned by every previous Prime Minister: Senate reform doesn't go over well with Senators who like their jobs. Therefore, you might as well just appoint friendly Senators who can help you get things done.
And boy did Harper learn his lesson! He appointed 18 new Senators (Senate breakdown is now 58 Liberal-ish and 38 Conservative-ish, and some others).*** Looking at the Globe and Mail list of new appointees, I can see that at least 12 are Conservatives, at least one is a provincial Liberal (BC), and the other 5 seem to be overtly neutral politically.
I'm not going to be a Liberal without hindsight - I'm not going to decry Harper's partisan Senate appointments. Every Prime Minister in history, including every Liberal PM, has made overtly partisan appointments.
I am, however, going to duly note Harper's hypocricy on this issue. As shown by the above quotes, Harper has, over and over, spoke out against appointing Senators. He has, over and over, made it clear that he would reform the Senate and make Senators elected. But alas, like balanced budgets and fixed election dates, Stephen Harper has broken his promise.
*****
* Hansard (March 7, 1996)
** Speech on Senate Reform before Senate Committee, September 7, 2006
*** The "-ish" is thrown in because, technically, there are no party affiliations in the Senate.
I first must congratulate you on acknowledging that your party has also been involved in the Greatest Orgies of all patronage positions; I can vaguely recall Turner lamely arguing that he "didn't have a choice" when pressed to explain all the appointments he made immediately upon becoming PM.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I personally am disappointed that he had to resort to using the appointment process to fill the Senate. I would much rather have gone with the elected method, but alas, Liberals in the Senate didn't agree. While he is breaking his promise, some credit must be given to the fact that in three years (prior to today) he's appointed only two individuals, one of which did face the electorate.
While it's not perfect a perfect situation, I would much rather have more Conservatives in the Senate than NDPers and Separatists... (I am trying to imagine how the NDP would have reacted had the coalition formed government and Dion-Iggy wanted to appoint all Liberals to the Senate)...
One day, hopefully soon, the Tories will have the majority in the Senate and Harper will force all his detractors to "eat crow" and we'll finally have an elected Senate.
Sadly, while Martin advocated for one but failed to deliver, Harper realized that appointments were a necessary evil to get friendly senators inside. It's kind of like the reason for the Bloc's existence -- if you want to separate from Canada, you have to do it from inside Parliament rather than outside.