By Roger Gibbins and Robert Roach
Published March 9th 2004 in The Ottawa Citizen
There is a growing possibility that Prime Minister Paul Martin's
democratic plan will be a victim of the shoot-out over the sponsorship
program. The prime minister has put all of his democratic reform eggs
into the House of Commons basket, but the partisan animosity
surrounding the sponsorship scandal, heightened further by the upcoming
election, makes it very unlikely that the culture of the House can be
transformed in the near future.
Understandably, the Liberals are likely to circle their wagons, and opposition attacks will be relentless.
Given this prognosis, there is an opportunity to move forward on a second reform front by creating a 21st-century Senate for Canada. Although House of Commons reform must also happen, there is nothing to stop Canadians from moving on the Senate front while reforms to the House are stalled. Indeed, there are compelling reasons to move, and significant dangers in putting off the inevitable.
A 21st-century Senate would provide a much-needed democratic check on the cabinet-dominated House of Commons. This check would reduce the harmful concentration of power in the hands of a few that currently characterizes Parliament, thus bringing some ventilation to decisions currently made behind closed doors. A new Senate would also provide a regional counterweight to representation by population in the House and, if designed properly, could satisfy a growing demand for electoral reform.
Indeed, because the Senate, unlike the House, can be scrapped altogether and re-built from scratch, there is more room to experiment with things such as innovative forms of proportional representation.
If we're clever, there is no reason why aboriginal and urban representation could not be incorporated. The Senate is a blank slate just waiting for creative ideas.
In the present environment, with cynicism running rampant, it is hard to imagine a better symbol of democratic reform than a 21st-century Senate that reflects the country's rich geographic, demographic and partisan diversity, and does so within a truly national institution.
Changes to the Senate are, moreover, inevitable, despite the intractability of the Senate issue over the past decades. If the sponsorship scandal signals nothing else, it signals that we cannot assume that Liberal governments in Ottawa will last forever. And now that the Conservatives are getting their act together, the government-in-waiting will be one committed to moving on Senate reform. It is time, then, to start thinking ahead, to plan now for the inevitable.
What would a 21st-century Senate look like? At the very least, we can identify the design principles that can be used to frame a vigorous national debate. In this regard, a 21st-century Senate should provide a meaningful, but not excessive, check on the activities and decisions of the House of Commons. A new Senate should also reflect the federal nature of Canada and provide for a greater degree of regional representation within Parliament, and it should reflect the diversity of interests present in Canada.
Indeed, the Senate should not replicate the existing basis and means of representation in the House; this would be pointless and counterproductive. What is needed is a form of proportional representation in a new Senate that would more effectively reflect the complex society that Canada has become than does the first-past-the- post system used for the House. A new Senate would allow us to have our first-past-the-post cake in the House and eat our proportional representation variety in the Senate, too.
If we draw from the experience of other countries, such as Australia, there is no reason why groups such as the Greens and feminists could not find an effective voice in the new Senate.
It is important to stress that creating a Senate for the 21st century must not be seen as a substitute for House of Commons reform. Moving on the Senate front should be seen as a spur to House reform rather than an alternative. We have to put both of our parliamentary houses in order, but that means neglecting neither.
Of course, none of this is easy, and some of the changes may have to be incremental. However, it is also an exciting chance to move boldly, and thus to satisfy the growing Canadian thirst for more democratic and more representative institutions. From the national angst of the sponsorship program springs a real opportunity for democratic reform.
Understandably, the Liberals are likely to circle their wagons, and opposition attacks will be relentless.
Given this prognosis, there is an opportunity to move forward on a second reform front by creating a 21st-century Senate for Canada. Although House of Commons reform must also happen, there is nothing to stop Canadians from moving on the Senate front while reforms to the House are stalled. Indeed, there are compelling reasons to move, and significant dangers in putting off the inevitable.
A 21st-century Senate would provide a much-needed democratic check on the cabinet-dominated House of Commons. This check would reduce the harmful concentration of power in the hands of a few that currently characterizes Parliament, thus bringing some ventilation to decisions currently made behind closed doors. A new Senate would also provide a regional counterweight to representation by population in the House and, if designed properly, could satisfy a growing demand for electoral reform.
Indeed, because the Senate, unlike the House, can be scrapped altogether and re-built from scratch, there is more room to experiment with things such as innovative forms of proportional representation.
If we're clever, there is no reason why aboriginal and urban representation could not be incorporated. The Senate is a blank slate just waiting for creative ideas.
In the present environment, with cynicism running rampant, it is hard to imagine a better symbol of democratic reform than a 21st-century Senate that reflects the country's rich geographic, demographic and partisan diversity, and does so within a truly national institution.
Changes to the Senate are, moreover, inevitable, despite the intractability of the Senate issue over the past decades. If the sponsorship scandal signals nothing else, it signals that we cannot assume that Liberal governments in Ottawa will last forever. And now that the Conservatives are getting their act together, the government-in-waiting will be one committed to moving on Senate reform. It is time, then, to start thinking ahead, to plan now for the inevitable.
What would a 21st-century Senate look like? At the very least, we can identify the design principles that can be used to frame a vigorous national debate. In this regard, a 21st-century Senate should provide a meaningful, but not excessive, check on the activities and decisions of the House of Commons. A new Senate should also reflect the federal nature of Canada and provide for a greater degree of regional representation within Parliament, and it should reflect the diversity of interests present in Canada.
Indeed, the Senate should not replicate the existing basis and means of representation in the House; this would be pointless and counterproductive. What is needed is a form of proportional representation in a new Senate that would more effectively reflect the complex society that Canada has become than does the first-past-the- post system used for the House. A new Senate would allow us to have our first-past-the-post cake in the House and eat our proportional representation variety in the Senate, too.
If we draw from the experience of other countries, such as Australia, there is no reason why groups such as the Greens and feminists could not find an effective voice in the new Senate.
It is important to stress that creating a Senate for the 21st century must not be seen as a substitute for House of Commons reform. Moving on the Senate front should be seen as a spur to House reform rather than an alternative. We have to put both of our parliamentary houses in order, but that means neglecting neither.
Of course, none of this is easy, and some of the changes may have to be incremental. However, it is also an exciting chance to move boldly, and thus to satisfy the growing Canadian thirst for more democratic and more representative institutions. From the national angst of the sponsorship program springs a real opportunity for democratic reform.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.