In a meandering address sprinkled with historical pomp, Mr. Poilievre (Nepean-Carleton, Ont.) managed to reference the Wright Brothers, Nazism, the invention of the telephone, the Magna Carta, and the Gettysburg address, before using his final moments to lace into Mr. Trudeau’s (Papineau, Que.) “elitist” proposal to have a Senate of appointed, non-partisan Canadians chosen by an independent commission.
“It is hard to think of a worse process for naming Senators than we have now, but amazingly Justin Trudeau has found one. He’s recycled an old idea whereby a committee of well-connected elites would pick Senators. Not only would Senators be unelected, those who pick Senators would be unelected. An unelected, unaccountable body would pick an unelected, unaccountable body which will become two steps removed from democracy instead of just one,” Mr. Poilievre told attendees of this year’s conference of Canada’s conservative movement.
Mr. Poilievre appeared at the event, dubbed, “The Senate: Reform or Abolish?,” to debate former Conservative MP Jeremy Harrison, now government House leader in the Saskatchewan Legislature. Mr. Harrison began the session by laying out his own province’s case for the Senate of Canada to be abolished—a move he described as “necessary and justified.”
“This was not an easy decision. I joined the Reform Party as an 18 -year-old, in part, because I believed in Senate reform, and believed that it could be done with a triple-E Senate,” Mr. Harrison told attendees. “The conclusion that I’ve come to, that [Saskatchewan premier Brad] Wall and our government has come to, is that it simply can’t.”
Many conservatives have long supported a Triple-E, or equal, elected, and effective, Senate. It was a founding principle for the Reform Party, but there’s been increasing disillusionment with the process of Senate reform following the expense scandal that has led to the expulsion of three Conservative Senators and one Liberal and exposed questionable efforts by the Prime Minister’s own office to minimize the political damage of the scandal.
The Conservative government introduced its latest efforts to reform the Upper Chamber in 2011 with Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act, which would establish a framework for the provinces to elect Senators and would limit members to non-renewable, nine-year terms. The government has asked the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the proposal, as well as a number of alternatives, including abolition.
According to online polling by the Manning Foundation, more than 40 per cent of respondents support abolishing the Senate, while 28 per cent support a Triple-E Senate, and nearly 11 per cent support the federal government’s current efforts to reform the Senate. The results are non-scientific and based on about 10,500 responses.
“Prime Minister Harper has unequivocally demonstrated his commitment to Senate reform,” Mr. Harrison claimed. “He’s appointed Senators who support term limits, he’s appointed Senators who have been elected.… He’s genuinely tried to pass legislation that would reform the institution in small but important ways, but the ball hasn’t moved.”
Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall’s conservative government supports abolishing the Upper Chamber and holds the position that the 7/50 rule—the consent of seven provinces making up 50 per cent of the national population—is sufficient.
In his rebuttal, Mr. Poilievre offered platitudes to the Saskatchewan government’s position before making his own case for democratic bicameralism, saying that a Senate reformed by Bill C-7 would “speak for the regions.”
“A democratic Senate would also be entirely separate from the executive, whereas the House necessarily blends members of the executive and legislative branches,” he said.
While Mr. Poilievre was cordial in his debate with Mr. Harrison, his final remarks were directed squarely at the Liberal leader, who he accused of promoting “bureaucratic cronyism that would be done in the dark instead of where Canadians can see and judge it.”
Mr. Poilievre went on to dismiss Mr. Trudeau’s calls for an independent, arm’s-length, Senate appointment committee “an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian people.”
“It would be government of the elites, by the elites, for the elites—not exactly the stuff of the Gettysburg address,” Mr. Poilievre told a group of a few hundred attendees. “If there’s one thing Liberal elites hate more than the idea of a Conservative Prime Minister who’s appointing elected Senators, it is the thought that everyday Canadians will have a say.”
No comments:
Post a Comment