Senate Reform? Where?
Dec. 22nd, 2008 01:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
velvetpageHarper fills eighteen vacant Senate seats
I'm of several minds about this.
First, I think those seats needed to be filled, and they needed very badly NOT to be filled with Liberal party hacks. Those guys have been forestalling needed reform for a very long time. Some balance is a good thing - even if I, as a small-l liberal, don't really like their policies.
Second, I can see why Harper feels his hand was forced in this. With the coalition breathing down his neck, he had nothing else he could do to ensure more balance to the Senate before the end of January, which may still spell the end of his government. I can sympathize with that.
Third, I'm very disappointed that he didn't open talks with the provinces almost three years ago to get some elected Senate nominees from the provinces, so that he could have started to keep that promise. That was a broken election promise on his part, and it would have staved off the biggest (and most valid) complaint being levelled at him now - the fact that he promised not to stack the Senate with unelected party hacks, and here he is, stacking the Senate with unelected party hacks, even if they all support the idea of reform. If he'd started that process, he'd have been able to point to the nominees whose names were given to him in provincial elections as proof that he's moving towards it. It's his own fault that he didn't push forward with that, and that's where my biggest criticism lies.
Fourth, it really is rich hearing all the criticism from Liberal party members/MPs about this. Chrétien stacked the Senate, not just with cronies, but with cronies who don't do anything. That was not exactly his finest moment, there. If the new Conservative appointees are more willing to listen to even their own party and work for change in the Senate, that will be an improvement over the seat-warmers we had before. We wouldn't be in this mess if any of those dinosaurs were in tune with Canadians at all - because there are plenty of non-Conservatives who see Senate reform as one route to electoral reform, and therefore, potentially a very good thing.
Fifth, it's important to note that the Conservatives still don't have control of the Senate, and can't until 2010. That's not very long, and if this government doesn't fall (either to a Coalition or to another election) in fairly short order, it'll be worrisome. At the moment, what we've got is a Senate that is still dominated by Chrétien-era appointees, at least for a little while longer. I think the debate about how to fill the seats that are about to come open needs stepping up - and we need to hold provincial elections for the next Senate nominee to come from each province. We need to forestall future appointments the way Alberta did a few years ago - by only offering one, elected name to the Prime Minister. Then we'll see how committed Harper is to Senate reform. I'd like to see if he'd respect a nomination from a provincial election that fell outside his own party lines. If he didn't, we'd be seeing him for the political schemer I believe he is; if he did, well, we'd know that he took Senate reform seriously enough to respect it when it happens.
I'm of several minds about this.
First, I think those seats needed to be filled, and they needed very badly NOT to be filled with Liberal party hacks. Those guys have been forestalling needed reform for a very long time. Some balance is a good thing - even if I, as a small-l liberal, don't really like their policies.
Second, I can see why Harper feels his hand was forced in this. With the coalition breathing down his neck, he had nothing else he could do to ensure more balance to the Senate before the end of January, which may still spell the end of his government. I can sympathize with that.
Third, I'm very disappointed that he didn't open talks with the provinces almost three years ago to get some elected Senate nominees from the provinces, so that he could have started to keep that promise. That was a broken election promise on his part, and it would have staved off the biggest (and most valid) complaint being levelled at him now - the fact that he promised not to stack the Senate with unelected party hacks, and here he is, stacking the Senate with unelected party hacks, even if they all support the idea of reform. If he'd started that process, he'd have been able to point to the nominees whose names were given to him in provincial elections as proof that he's moving towards it. It's his own fault that he didn't push forward with that, and that's where my biggest criticism lies.
Fourth, it really is rich hearing all the criticism from Liberal party members/MPs about this. Chrétien stacked the Senate, not just with cronies, but with cronies who don't do anything. That was not exactly his finest moment, there. If the new Conservative appointees are more willing to listen to even their own party and work for change in the Senate, that will be an improvement over the seat-warmers we had before. We wouldn't be in this mess if any of those dinosaurs were in tune with Canadians at all - because there are plenty of non-Conservatives who see Senate reform as one route to electoral reform, and therefore, potentially a very good thing.
Fifth, it's important to note that the Conservatives still don't have control of the Senate, and can't until 2010. That's not very long, and if this government doesn't fall (either to a Coalition or to another election) in fairly short order, it'll be worrisome. At the moment, what we've got is a Senate that is still dominated by Chrétien-era appointees, at least for a little while longer. I think the debate about how to fill the seats that are about to come open needs stepping up - and we need to hold provincial elections for the next Senate nominee to come from each province. We need to forestall future appointments the way Alberta did a few years ago - by only offering one, elected name to the Prime Minister. Then we'll see how committed Harper is to Senate reform. I'd like to see if he'd respect a nomination from a provincial election that fell outside his own party lines. If he didn't, we'd be seeing him for the political schemer I believe he is; if he did, well, we'd know that he took Senate reform seriously enough to respect it when it happens.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 07:29 pm (UTC)Stalling reform of what, the senate? Not really. The problem is that a few of the provinces have objected very strongly to Harper's unilateral approach to senate reform, saying he can't do it without consulting them. The Senate held hearings during which these provinces - most notably New Brunswick - explained the constitutional side of things. The Senate asked Harper to ask the Supreme Court if his approach was indeed constitutional. Harper has refused. Hence the stalemate. Can't really blame the Senate, liberal or otherwise.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 07:52 pm (UTC)In the long run, Senate reform has to involve constitutional change, and I think the provinces are perfectly right in asking that Harper start with that. The election of nominees is a route for those provinces who want it, without forcing anything on the provinces that don't want it, but it's not a permanent solution.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-23 03:25 am (UTC)Wow, and they say U.S. Americans are fat!