Not having a real Senate and supporting the abolishing of the one we have, I find the powers and make-up of the US one pretty interesting. Consider this question raised in the NYT today:
Candidate Obama promised to “re-engage” and “work constructively within” the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Will the new president pass a new Kyoto climate accord through Congress by sidestepping the constitutional requirement to persuade two-thirds of the Senate? Draconian restrictions on energy use would follow. A majority of the Congress would be much easier for Mr. Obama to get than a supermajority of the Senate. A scholar at the Brookings Institution has already proposed that a new president overcome objections to this environmentalists’ holy grail by evading the Treaty Clause.
That is a really interesting idea - that the regions of a modern country could have the power to stop the national government from making deals with another national government or governments. The relationship and respect according to the balances of power it a bit of a dry subject but it goes a huge way to establishing the sort of government one can expect as well as the likelihood that such a government will actually be successful in achieving its goals.
And it should get one thinking. As Mr. Harper wakes and rubs the sleepy dust from his eyes, does he ponder this sort of thing? It is one thing to suggest making our Senate elected and another thing to stack the Senate with appointees, even those who give their boy scout salute and promising to quit if those elections ever do come. But it is entirely another to determine what the newly electable body would actually do? Changing the Senate is likely the most easily grasped of the fog of reforms that remain floating about the Conservative Party's governmental agenda. Yet even it is unclear. Would his new Senate actually be able to stop a treaty? Would it actually have powers that would normally be reserved to the cabinet and PMO or the House of Commons? That is the sort of asymmetrical trump card that is usually assigned to the legislative body that represents your betters. We never hear about those plans. What would they be? What would you accept.?
And if there are no jurisdictional reform plans... why bother?
Comments
Seanie - January 5, 2009 4:00 PM
I'm not a proponent of an elected senate because I have difficulty seeing its purpose if it IS elected by the masses as it really would just end up being a second parliament built on partisan foundations. An appointed senate is supposed to be filled with scholarly, wizened patriots for sober, elder review of the government's doings. Would an elected senate have age restrictions? Would those wishing to be elected to the senate have to show a history of service to the nation or at least social/economic/regional service/knowledge base to be nominated to run? If not, if every Tom Dick and Harriet can run, what is its purpose as the redundancy is pretty damn obvious.
Chris Taylor - January 5, 2009 5:29 PM
A potential purpose would be to balance representation by province, so that the uber-populated provinces will not constantly be imposing their will upon the less-populated provinces.
Alan - January 5, 2009 7:17 PM
That really is a how, not a what. It is one thing to accept the idea that the few should govern the many (your observation) but quite another to give it special powers like the US Senate's treaty veto.
Chris Taylor - January 5, 2009 9:37 PM
The few already govern the many, unless you are suggesting that every Canadian votes on everything before the House. =)
Alan - January 5, 2009 9:46 PM
There is a huge difference between a representative democracy and an oligarchy built on the fluke of historical boundary drawing.
And you, Shirley, are not suggesting that every 541,666 Ontario votes should equal 35,000 PEI votes on matters of real importance, are you?
Chris Taylor - January 6, 2009 1:46 AM
I am suggesting that there should be a place within the legislative branch for the provinces to duke it out on an equal footing. There is already a place where the majority can crush the minority.
Being a reactionary I am just fine with oligarchy; at this point in history the Crown and Privy Council arrogating their historical authority would probably yield better government than anyone currently sitting in the House.
Alan - January 6, 2009 8:37 AM
Would you be upset if the Senate answered to the House? I have no problem with provinces having a say in a forum - which would required the US system of state votes and appointments as opposed to the Harper system of unrepresentative representativeness. But the idea that Canada has actual regions which should have a say over population is a complete fantasy created by politicians for politicians. There is absolutely no difference between a New Brunswicker and a Manitoban and their needs and values.
Chris Taylor - January 6, 2009 1:08 PM
I don't know how I feel about the Senate answering to the House. In principle I don't think I object, but I haven't thought out all the permutations.
"There is absolutely no difference between a New Brunswicker and a Manitoban and their needs and values."
I can't say I agree. At a basic level, everyone has the same emotions and basic air/food/water requirements. Beyond that though, the infrastructure required to provide a foundation for economic growth varies widely according to geography. (i.e. Northern Ontario requires a hundreds of airports [and fuel for same], but gets by without any six-lane highways. Toronto requires a multitude of high speed, high-capacity arteries, but gets by with only five airports). The priorities and focus of policymakers have always and are going to continue to vary widely per jurisdiction.