PUBLICATION:
Vancouver Sun
DATE:
2004.01.06
EDITION:
Final
SECTION:
Editorial
PAGE:
A6
COLUMN:
Lorne Gunter
BYLINE:
Lorne Gunter
SOURCE:
CanWest News Services
DATELINE:
EDMONTON
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why
Senate reform won't happen under Martin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDMONTON
- The original version of the United States Constitution, drafted in 1787, says
of the method for selecting senators only: "The Senate of the United States
shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature
thereof, for six Years," and "The Times, Places and Manner of holding
Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by
the Legislature thereof."
These
rules were twice modified, first in 1866 when the Congress standardized election
dates for senators in all states, and then again in 1913 when the states and the
U.S. Congress ratified the Seventeenth Amendment. It required senators be
"elected by the people," directly, rather than by state legislatures.
The
path of reform was anything but straight. It was accomplished first one state at
a time, then by handfuls of states, and finally by all the states and the U.S.
federal government.
Annually,
from 1893 to 1902, a law was introduced in the House of Representatives
requiring that senators be elected by the people, not by state politicians. But
the Senate resisted all such calls for reform. The pressure to make real change
had to come from the states rather than the federal government.
In
1900, the state of Oregon attempted to have voters direct the state legislature
whom to send to the Senate. It took three tries before a suitable method for
having the people elect their senators was found there. But once a
constitutional method was agreed upon, the dam burst. Oregon selected its first
senator by popular election in 1907. Nebraska followed the next year. And by
1912, when the Seventeenth Amendment was proposed, 20 states had held, or were
in the process of holding, direct elections of senators.
Two
things are crucial in this brief history: This key reform of the U.S. Senate
took place in bits and pieces, not in some planned, coordinated, all-or-nothing
constitutional negotiation. And, the pressure for reform came from the states,
not Washington.
I
doubt it would have occurred had the states been required to present a
comprehensive reform plan before the federal government would consider making
any changes.
So
when you hear Friend-of-the-West Prime Minister Paul Martin say that no good
reform of the Senate can be achieved "piecemeal," or when
Powerful-Western-Voice-in-Cabinet Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan claims
that Senate reform can be achieved only after the 10 provinces and three
territories are in complete agreement, understand that these assertions are a
crock.
Neither
Martin nor McLellan is dumb. They know their coordinated position on Senate
reform looks like support for the concept, but really isn't.
I
would bet both are aware of the American example, and also aware most Canadians
are not -- not even western Canadians. They also know that if they place the bar
for Senate reform at unanimous provincial and territorial consent, it will never
be achieved.
There
is nothing stopping Martin -- nothing -- from appointing whomever he wishes to
the Senate, including one of Alberta's two elected senators-in-waiting, Bert
Brown and Ted Morton.
McLellan
said that "Alberta, alone, electing senators is not going to solve that
problem." Oregon, alone, electing senators did, and she knows it.
She
also said that appointing elected senators from just one province, and not the
others, would create a problem of different types of senators with different
mandates. But between Oregon's first direct Senate election and the
constitutional amendment compelling all states to elect senators directly, the
only problem caused by different types of senators sitting simultaneously in the
U.S. Senate was a problem for those who opposed Senate reform. The political
pressure on them was intense.
No
doubt that kind of pressure on her Liberal government is precisely the problem
McLellan fears from having different types of senators sitting simultaneously in
our Senate. The problem would be the presence of senators not beholden to Paul
Martin; senators with independent mandates from the people, not the PMO.
McLellan
also contended that without the consent of all the territorial and provincial
leaders, "meaningful change in the Senate, it won't happen."
Frankly,
if we have to wait until there is such unanimity, Senate reform will never
happen.