Saturday, May 22, 2010
Senate appointments
The trouble with Senate appointments is they are, by definition, political. So whoever is appointed will be criticised by the opposition -- whoever they may be. The quotation of Louis XIV, "every time I fill a vacant office, I make ten malcontents and one ingrate," springs to mind. Of course, some appointments are more egregious than others but the only way to fix the situation is to change the process -- if we are not moving to elections to the Senate then maybe appointment panels like with have for judges?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Electing a Senate will politicize the body, and make it think it would be legitimate to use its power to block legislation permanently.
This would be bad. The Senate is never going to be as representative as the house of commons.
When I look at Canada's constitutional documents, the Senate usually comes before the House of Commons. It is the "Upper" house.
In so much as the Senate (elected or not) can block legislation initiated in the House of Commons, the House of Commons can permanently block non-monetary legislation initiated in the Senate.
In my opinion, the current unelected Senate contributes nothing to the democratic legitimacy of Parliament as not one single senator is elected by Canadians.
One can debate the legitimacy of an elected senate. Does legitimacy mean equal/equitable representation by population or by province/region?
In the United States, is its Senate illegitimate because there are two senators for each state? Very few people complain about the US Senate.
We can abolish the Canadian Senate. However, don't expect any of the smaller or richer provinces transfer any of its powers in future constitutional negotiations to a central government where representatives from the smaller provinces would have no power. Yes, each MP would still have 1/308 of authority. However, power is the use of authority by one group or leader. Ontario and Quebec would have most of the power.
Post a Comment