We need good governance in
Canada, we do okay, but we need to do better. I am a little tired of watching the
senate “scandal”, the “nitpicking” and then the “public debate”. The senator spending issue is the most colossal
of red herrings, we are screaming about senator spending – when the entire
senate expenditure is going toward a nebulous mandate, at best, individual senators have “their issue” that they
advocate for, or the senate becomes an undignified second to the commons, or
worse of all, the senate is just a rubber stamp. The senate, as it presently
stands, needs reform. I shudder at the thought
of constitutional reform, firstly, it is cumbersome in the extreme, secondly,
it is expensive in the extreme and thirdly, it is unnecessary. The senate is the only means by which to practically
reform the senate. The senate has the
structural clout to insist on reform from the commons, there only needs to be leadership
and a direction taken. Reform needs to define the function and alter functionality
from selection through to governance contribution.
There should be a multi-party
selection process introduced and made up of a cross-section of Canadians. The goal
is to person the senate with people unaffected by the highly partisan world of
politics. We need to mitigate the
reality that now exists, that has the senate more or less an extension of the
political process. What is particularly
pernicious about the present circumstance is that the senate often exercises
its obstructive capacities in opposition to the elected government – for the Senate to be democratic, the senate can be appointed it just should never be
exercising itself in breach of the Canadian Electorates desires.
While is at the leave of
the Prime Minister presently to select Senators, it is normally done with
considerable consultation. It is clear in the selection of the people that
partisanship is at play and the rationales for selection range from patronage
to recognition for one accomplishment or another. There are the means for the Prime Minister to
put in place a selection committee, and the means once this chosen course of
action is in place, for the senate to enforce the continuance of the
process. No constitutional change is
needed, only that, the selection process sees to the constitutional requirement
for regional representation.
In defining functionality the
senate must enter into an internal process, and define its function. Having
defined its function, the senate would need to institutionalize its perpetual
actuation in the context of the function. An ancillary codification of some
sort would be required; what form this might take would fall out of the internal
senate process. One imagines that a directive generated through the body
offering instruction as to actuation under the defined functionality would suffice.
Over time, tradition would take hold, as has been the case hitherto, whereby,
it is tradition to be consistent with the elected commons – or as termed – a rubber
stamp.
The senate has the power
to do this, the Prime Minister and the Commons are likely to want to co-operate
to facilitate change and, perhaps most importantly, the Senate can compel future
governments to be congruent with change by exercising their ability to approve
or disapprove legislation. What is required is Senate leadership, for people
there to break with the status quo and make the changes. The Senate as it now
stands is offering limited contribution relative potential. Recent events have
made a mockery of the institution – there should never be a point where the
most “senior” house in the country is being brought up on the carpet for discourse on expense accounts – change is
required.
For More on the Senate - Click Below
No comments:
Post a Comment