The question – posed by CBC News chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge to New Democrat Leader Tom Mulcair as part of a series of one-on-one interviews with the four major party leaders – seemed like a straightforward one, at least on the surface.
Even so, it was clearly unlikely to elicit a similarly simple answer, given the NDP’s decades-long campaign to roll up the red carpet coupled with its current perch at the top of public opinion polls.
“Well, the Senate’s going to have to realize that there’s a government that’s just been elected, with, I hope, a majority, in the House of Commons,” Mulcair replied.
“When that legislation is enacted, or adopted by people who have been put there by Canadian voters, they’re going to be given the legislation, and asked to pass it so it can be promulgated into law in the country.”
As Mansbridge attempted to press him on the issue, Mulcair held firm — even to the point of telling Mansbridge that he doesn’t intend to appoint someone to serve as Leader of the Government in the Senate.
“I’m not going to name senators, the NDP is not going to name senators,” he said.
“We can’t go against that fundamental belief.”
Mulcair’s characterization of the NDP’s opposition to the Senate as “fundamental belief” is, of course, entirely correct: New Democrats have been agitating for an end to the upper house since the party’s inception.
But as admirable as such unwavering commitment to a core principle may be, it is fundamentally incompatible with both the constitution and administrative common sense.
In short, it just won’t work. Here’s why:
First and foremost, for the time being – and, most likely, at least, the short to medium-term political future – the Senate will continue to exist. As the Supreme Court has made supremely clear, changing that reality via abolition would require the unanimous consent of the provinces, which has thus far appeared elusive
That means it will continue to have a role in the legislative process, no matter how many baleful glances an incoming NDP government might aim in its general direction.
Contrary to Mulcair’s comments this week, that role is not, in fact, to simply sit quietly and wait for the House of Commons to send over a stack of bills for automatic approval, but to review – and, if it should see fit, amend, and in some instances, vote down – legislation, including, but not limited to, proposals put forward under the aegis of a duly elected government.
On the most basic level, that necessitates, at the very least, the designation by the government of a senator to do precisely that: introduce bills that have been passed by the House of Commons — a role traditionally undertaken by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the post that Mulcair has now pledged not to fill.
Without at least one sitting senator — newly appointed, or recruited from the current selection — to serve the emissary of the executive, bills duly passed by the House of Commons would simply pile up outside the Chamber like so much undeliverable mail.
Once those bills were added to the Senate to-do list, of course, it would be left to the occupants to decide how – and when – to proceed with government business, which is typically shepherded through the pipeline by the Senate government leader.
In the absence of such a taskmaster, it’s not clear who, precisely, would set the daily schedule.
Happily for those who prefer a parliament with at least a fighting chance of being functional, whoever is installed — or re-installed — in 24 Sussex later this fall will have 22 vacancies, with a 23rd slot slated to open up by next February.
(Barring, that is, a last-minute round of appointments by the current prime minister, who has also vowed to abstain from such indulgences due to prevailing public disapproval of the institution.)
So, despite not having a single seat in the current Chamber, the NDP would be able to assemble a modest outpost in the Other Place.
(Mulcair could also appeal to the governor general to ask the Queen to invoke a rarely used constitutional provision to temporarily expand the Senate itself by either four or eight seats – either one or two for each region – but that would likely be a bit outside the NDP comfort zone.)
By itself, that wouldn’t be enough seize control of the 105-seat Chamber, but it would at least serve as a starting point from which the New Democrats would likely be able to secure the support – at least on a probationary basis – from within the Chamber itself.
Currently, the Senate includes seven independents and 29 Independent Liberals, at least a few of whom might be willing to lend their support to a left-leaning ministry.
In any case, all of the above is, of course, process – meta-process, even; the process within the process of government, although if – or when – those wheels do stop turning, it’s only a matter of time before the parliamentary sausage-making machine sputters to a halt.
On a more fundamental level, though, Mulcair’s apparent refusal to recognize a key element of the parliamentary trinity of House, Senate and Crown makes one wonder which other elements of democracy he might see as similarly optional.
If you’re not reading this on The Ottawa Citizen’s mobile app, you can get it at the iTunes store or at the Google Play store.
Original Article
Source: ottawacitizen.com/
Author:
No comments:
Post a Comment