Harper to Reform the Senate
[Via The Globe and Mail]
It looks as though the debate on Senate reform has officially begun. And though I am very much in favour of this long overdue reform, I don't like the thought of reforming the Senate through an incremental approach. (appointing senators based on provincial advice) And I'll tell you why.
First, since the policy would be done on a voluntary basis by the sitting Prime Minister of the day, it leaves the policy very open to personal interpretation by whoever succeeds him. In other words, the policy may be negated by the next Prime Minister. For example, Brian Mulroney appointed "one" senator from Alberta when he was PM, but the practice wasn't followed by Prime Minister Chretien, nor was it adopted by Martin. So for those who argue in favour of incrementalism as a way to begin change to a fully operational Triple E senate, you should think again.
Secondly, a Prime Minister should not be at the mercy of taking advice from provincial bodies on federal matters. For example, if a sovereignist government in Quebec decided to chose a list of individuals who all were proponents of separation, would the incremental approach work in this case? I don't think so as it only allows for major problems to occur. Also, this incremantal approach places more power in the hands of the provinces, and given the enormous constitutional power of the senate, could lead to a weakened federalist state. In others words, accountability of the senate would become an impossible task as it would be primarily controlled by the provinces.
Thirdly, provincial legislatures change as does the philosophy of those who run them. With this in mind, it leaves the whole provincial senate appointment process open to attack by those premiers who do not share in its' piecemeal process (i.e. Premier Dalton McGuinty has suggested that the Senate be abolished). As well, over time, lack of accountability would become a major issue as a provincially appointed senate would most likely be an activist one and would be governed by different partisan faction from specific provincial sections. As well, there is no indication that if senators were "elected" and then appointed by the provinces, that they would be subject to any measure of re-election since they are able to sit until the age of 75. (Unless, as the Tories suggest, there are term limits) But since nothing has been moved, or more simply stated, these members would not have to face the electorate ever again. And as a result, they would not feel the same urgency to do the right thing and be accountable as those who were fixed in term positions and would have to be re-elected by the people.
I guess that is why I believe that the Senate should be reformed through a direct constitutional approach where amendments would steer the process and not through a messy and unstable piecemeal(incremental) process. Let's hope Harper choses the latter route as a model for change.
Cross-posted at the Sorry Centrist
It looks as though the debate on Senate reform has officially begun. And though I am very much in favour of this long overdue reform, I don't like the thought of reforming the Senate through an incremental approach. (appointing senators based on provincial advice) And I'll tell you why.
First, since the policy would be done on a voluntary basis by the sitting Prime Minister of the day, it leaves the policy very open to personal interpretation by whoever succeeds him. In other words, the policy may be negated by the next Prime Minister. For example, Brian Mulroney appointed "one" senator from Alberta when he was PM, but the practice wasn't followed by Prime Minister Chretien, nor was it adopted by Martin. So for those who argue in favour of incrementalism as a way to begin change to a fully operational Triple E senate, you should think again.
Secondly, a Prime Minister should not be at the mercy of taking advice from provincial bodies on federal matters. For example, if a sovereignist government in Quebec decided to chose a list of individuals who all were proponents of separation, would the incremental approach work in this case? I don't think so as it only allows for major problems to occur. Also, this incremantal approach places more power in the hands of the provinces, and given the enormous constitutional power of the senate, could lead to a weakened federalist state. In others words, accountability of the senate would become an impossible task as it would be primarily controlled by the provinces.
Thirdly, provincial legislatures change as does the philosophy of those who run them. With this in mind, it leaves the whole provincial senate appointment process open to attack by those premiers who do not share in its' piecemeal process (i.e. Premier Dalton McGuinty has suggested that the Senate be abolished). As well, over time, lack of accountability would become a major issue as a provincially appointed senate would most likely be an activist one and would be governed by different partisan faction from specific provincial sections. As well, there is no indication that if senators were "elected" and then appointed by the provinces, that they would be subject to any measure of re-election since they are able to sit until the age of 75. (Unless, as the Tories suggest, there are term limits) But since nothing has been moved, or more simply stated, these members would not have to face the electorate ever again. And as a result, they would not feel the same urgency to do the right thing and be accountable as those who were fixed in term positions and would have to be re-elected by the people.
I guess that is why I believe that the Senate should be reformed through a direct constitutional approach where amendments would steer the process and not through a messy and unstable piecemeal(incremental) process. Let's hope Harper choses the latter route as a model for change.
Cross-posted at the Sorry Centrist
