People have been
asking me since Alberta's election on November 22, "Well, what
about this Senate business? Are you going to push for appointment, or
was it all just a $3-million waste of time?"
Good question, but
it won't be answered by me. It will be answered by Ralph Klein.
If the premier
decides to make democratizing Parliament a high priority, much good
may come of this election.
If Albertans can
persuade even two or three other provinces to start electing
replacement candidates for the Senate, as we do in Alberta when
incumbents retire, we could see reform almost immediately.
Most Canadians
support this change, and the power of democracy should not be
underestimated, even in Canada.
Our pitch to the
other provinces will be that if they take the initiative and start
holding elections, they will be able to claim permanent ownership of
the election process. Thereafter, senators will be answerable to
provincial political parties, not national ones.
That would give
the premiers considerable influence over the future Senate -- more,
in fact, than the Prime Minister.
Meanwhile, the
pitch to Martin will be that if he appoints only elected
replacements, he'll get all the credit for Senate reform without
losing personal control of Parliament's upper house during his own
term of office.
The transition
from appointed to elected senators would take a decade to complete,
long after Martin is gone.
During that
transition, Canadians can decide if elected senators are better than
the old patronage appointees. If they aren't, the policy can be reversed.
The idea of
electing federal members to the upper chamber of Parliament seems
radical in Canada, but is a matter of course everywhere else. Even
hidebound Britain is moving towards democratizing the House of Lords.
Here in Canada we
should at least try to keep up with the Ukraine on democratic reform.
The problem there is that one man has far too much power. The same
problem exists here.
In Canada, the
prime minister has the final say over selection of all senators,
cabinet ministers, government caucus MPs, superior court judges, the
governor-general, and heads of national boards, agencies,
corporations and commissions.
We should not be
the only modern country with no democratic input into the selection
of appellate court judges, with power over issues like homosexual
marriage. In other federal systems, judicial nominees are screened by
an independent Senate with the power of veto.
Martin can easily
brush off Albertans. Liberals always do. But if Albertans are joined
by, say, British Columbians, Manitobans, Nova Scotians and
Newfoundlanders, what then?
How many Canadians
can Martin--or any other prime minister--afford to offend?
So the challenge
in the New Year will be to spread Senate reform to other provinces.
To this end, our
little caucus of four Senate-electees met with Premier Klein last
week. Somewhat to my surprise and much to my delight, the premier
exhibited real interest in the cause, and the more he listened, the
more enthused he became.
He said it makes
little long-term difference whether Martin follows through on his
threat to fill Alberta's three vacant Senate seats with patronage
appointees right away. The premier said he would "vigorously
pursue" the issue anyway.
I hope he does,
because he's in a position to do this country a lot of good.
- Link Byfield
Link Byfield is
chairman of the Edmonton-based Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy.
"Just
Between Us" is a feature service of the Citizens Centre for
Freedom and Democracy. The purpose of the Citizens Centre is to
enhance freedom and democracy by enabling ordinary citizens to become
active and effective on important issues outside the normal processes
of party politics.

www.citizenscentre.com