Paul Wells on Harper's Senate Plan
Macleans.ca | Inkless Wells
Paul Wells takes on Harper's plan in a succinct and clear manner.
See for yourself, below.
Harper's elected Senate planMost times I am proud of my felllow UWO alum... this is one of those most times.
It's a dog. I'm sorry, but electing senators, absent any other reform, will ensure that the composition of the Senate, with its wild regional disparities, will never change.
Once elected, senators will gain new democratic legitimacy and, therefore, prestige.
Provinces with extra senators will refuse to give them up (look at the mauling premiers took in 1992 when they offered to give senators up under the Charlottetown accord, which Stephen Harper opposed). Provinces with too few senators can never hope for more.
So this newly-'legitimate,' oldly-misconstructed senate will immediately begin competing with the Commons. Incidentally, are senators going to be elected for a single term that will last until they're 75? Guess we know who'll win fights with the Commons then.
There are fixes that make a problem worse. This is one of them
A.L.
posted by A.L. @ 11:28 PM
3 comments
Add The Indicator To Your Site
3 Comments:
Now that's just plain silly. As if anyone opposed to an elected Senate cares about any other Senate reform.
Wells and A.L., you guys sound smug trying to tell people that an elected won't work because it makes further reform more difficult, when neither of you want further reform.
I can't speak for Wells, but I can speak for myself.
I think an elected Senate is a very good idea, I just don't know yet how to reconcile the Westminster model with the French model.
And so far, Harper hasn't explained how to do it either.
I get hung up on the fact that we have a model that seems to need a strong PM, who is also part of the legislative branch as you (being the lawyer and political junkie you are) know. An elected and equal (to the Commons) Senate certainly poses challenges to the way our system works without other tweaks in the system.
Perhaps we need a stronger, more political Governor General to take on the role currently filled by the PM. With the PM really just being the Government House Leader? Or maybe the Senate should be restricted from creating legislation (isn't it already?) but could only ratify or defeat legislation.
Should it be rep by pop? Rep by province/territory?
Or, should the Senate seats be doled out based on the % of popular vote in each Province? This one might be a winner in my book, we could actually have a Liberal Senator from Alberta then! Or, at least 25-35% of Alberta's Senate seats that is.
So, that's what I think.
A.L.
Woo-hoo! Elected GG! I'm all for it.
I also reject criticism that is basically: "well, the short-term won't be easy." So stick with the status quo, because in the short-term any changes won't be easy?
That's why Liberals are classically conservatives: too afraid of change. Or maybe they don't want change because any change would remove a little or limit the power they've accumulated. Change will mean they won't be able to abuse said power.
Besides, baby-steps are the only way any change will happen. Ontario and Atlantic Canada crap their pants whenever the West tries to make this country better: women's suffrage and medicare, e.g.
But I digress...as to your question about whether the Senate should be be distributed by population, I don't think it's necessary: as long as one of the houses is, one does need to be. But then, the Commons sisn't equal, so that's a problem.
Ooo. Many constitutional changes. I thought Liberals didn't want constitutional change.
Post a Comment
<< Home