The Shotgun Blog
« The antidote to Trudeaupia | Main | "I'll give it a 84, because it has a good beat and it's easy to dance to." »
Friday, June 18, 2004
Senator doesn't want elected colleagues
An elected Senate was supposed to be the easy of part of Triple E but there is increasing skepticism about the idea, first with an editorial from the Globe and Mail and then from a Conservative senator. Senator John Lynch-Staunton said:
"The Senate now has the same powers as the House of Commons, and not being elected, we're a little respectful of the decisions of the House of Commons. But if you have elected senators of a different party than the majority in the House, then you might have a rivalry between the two that might not be very positive for the legislative process of this country."
I think it would be great -- Canada needs a little gridlock. Governments should have to produce legislation that can get over several hurdles, including, possibly, an upper chamber composed of a majority from another party. My guess is that many of the people who say Canada might now benefit from a minority government -- a situation that requires deft leadership and compromise -- criticize a Triple E Senate, even a Single E Senate, despite the fact that such leadership and compromise would become entrenched within the system.
Posted by Paul Tuns on June 18, 2004 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83461ce7569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Senator doesn't want elected colleagues:
Comments
Why do Canadians worship compromise? Is it because they rarely win outright?
Posted by: alan | 2004-06-18 9:59:45 PM
down here in Australia we have an elected senate. The lowers house has single member electoratas...the upper proportional representation...it has its pros and cons. The government which is determined in the lower house hardly ever controls the upper (a party effectively needs to score 50% plus to do that).The lower house is still much more important than the upper and it does depend on the convention that the senate doesnt block supply. On the pro side if adscam happned in Australia you wouldnt have to wait for thre government to establish an enquiry into it...a Senate Committee of Inquiry would be set up as fast you culd say...well "Senate Committee of Inquir".
Posted by: mike A | 2004-06-19 3:15:09 AM
As the Abbe de Sieyes said about upper houses, "they are superfluous if they confirm, and obnoxious if they override."
Given Canadian practice, the most likely outcome of deadlock between the House of Commons and the Senate is more power going to the PMO. We would have rule by regulation, rather than rule by law.
If we do have some sort of senate reform, giving the senate some degree of democratic legitimacy, we will also need to put in new rules to address the balance of power between the houses. Perhaps we should have a law similar to the British Parliament Act of 1911, which reduced the power of the H of L to delaying legislation for several years, rather than rejecting it absolutely.
Posted by: Marc | 2004-06-19 9:24:09 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.