Rule Number One When Fiddling With an 800 Year Old System of Government: Dont.
Harper seems to have decided to bring about democratic reform in a piecemeal manner, one small step at a time.
The problem is that the steps appear haphazard, and ill advised.
Two major bills have been proposed to this end, one, a term limit for the house of commons, the other, a term limit for senators.
Both have serious constitutional considerations that need to be adressed.
A copy of the House bill setting the term limit for the commons can be found here
What the bill does is rather simple, it reduces the term limit of a Prime Minister from fice years to four.
Yes, it actually is that pathetic.
It states that, "subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament," an election must be held 4 years after the general election, and it sets the date as being the third monday of October.
Who has the power to dissolve parliament at will? The Governor General.
Presently there is no law stipulating that the Governor General cannot dissolve Parliament, nor has one been put to the house.
Specifically, the Governor General may still dissolve parliament at her discretion.
The process of dissolving parliament is a bit of a complicated one, it goes back 800 years, of course its complicated. Effectively, it is the Prime Ministers duty to go to Rideau Hall when he or she wishes to dissolve parliament and request dissolution of parliament. It is at that moment that the Governor General has a number of options, she can send him back and say no (which is almost never done), she can call up the leader of the opposition to attempt to form government (which hasnt been done in a long time, and so is effectively no longer doable thanks to the way our system works), or she can dissolve parliament.
And thus, is this proposed new law useless for all intents and purposes other than to attempt to limit the 5 year term to 4, which I am unsure if that is even constitutional (though I assume it is).
As for Senate Reform...
We have all been hoping for this for a long time, I must admit, when Harper appointed Fortier, I started to believe he wasnt serious about senate reform, but this is a step in the right direction.
A copy of the Senate bill limiting the term of senators to 8 years can be found here
I must say, I dearly do enjoy the whereas statements in this bill, definitely a step in the right direction.
A small step.
A tiny step.
A miniscule step.
But it is a step.
All that this bill does is ensure that all newly appointed senators (as of the passing of this bill) will have an 8 year term.
This does precisely what the whereas statements outline, it maintains the sober second thought while reducing the term of office.
If this is enacted, then you will see a somewhat greater turnover in the senate, which is probably good, get some fresh blood, and the ability to re-appoint. So for example, if a particularly excellent senator is forced to leave the senate after his or her 8 years is over, the PM of the day can choose to re-appoint that person, or, if they spend most of their time in Mexico, they can choose to not re-appoint.
It sort of allows for a sober second thought of the sober second thought.
This bill will also serve as a prelude to an elected senate, though no mention of that is made in the bill (for obvious and understandable reasons).
On the note of my title...
I dont like this seemingly willy-nilly style of change. What I want to see is a comprehensive reform package. If you fiddle here, and fiddle there, you could see an unbalancing affect. As was pointed out by a friend, the longevity of a system does not determine whether or not it should continue unmodified.
What it DOES lead to is a very complicated system, filled with intricacies that virtually no one could ever fully understand. To tinker and toy with it is to invite trouble and an unbalancing situation, as well as to further complicate an already extremely complicated system.
I dont want to see another band-aid slapped on to the system, I dont want a duct tape solution, I want a well thought out and debated plan which brings all of the elements of change that the tories want together in one package.
Harper seems to have decided to bring about democratic reform in a piecemeal manner, one small step at a time.
The problem is that the steps appear haphazard, and ill advised.
Two major bills have been proposed to this end, one, a term limit for the house of commons, the other, a term limit for senators.
Both have serious constitutional considerations that need to be adressed.
A copy of the House bill setting the term limit for the commons can be found here
What the bill does is rather simple, it reduces the term limit of a Prime Minister from fice years to four.
Yes, it actually is that pathetic.
It states that, "subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament," an election must be held 4 years after the general election, and it sets the date as being the third monday of October.
Who has the power to dissolve parliament at will? The Governor General.
Presently there is no law stipulating that the Governor General cannot dissolve Parliament, nor has one been put to the house.
Specifically, the Governor General may still dissolve parliament at her discretion.
The process of dissolving parliament is a bit of a complicated one, it goes back 800 years, of course its complicated. Effectively, it is the Prime Ministers duty to go to Rideau Hall when he or she wishes to dissolve parliament and request dissolution of parliament. It is at that moment that the Governor General has a number of options, she can send him back and say no (which is almost never done), she can call up the leader of the opposition to attempt to form government (which hasnt been done in a long time, and so is effectively no longer doable thanks to the way our system works), or she can dissolve parliament.
And thus, is this proposed new law useless for all intents and purposes other than to attempt to limit the 5 year term to 4, which I am unsure if that is even constitutional (though I assume it is).
As for Senate Reform...
We have all been hoping for this for a long time, I must admit, when Harper appointed Fortier, I started to believe he wasnt serious about senate reform, but this is a step in the right direction.
A copy of the Senate bill limiting the term of senators to 8 years can be found here
I must say, I dearly do enjoy the whereas statements in this bill, definitely a step in the right direction.
A small step.
A tiny step.
A miniscule step.
But it is a step.
All that this bill does is ensure that all newly appointed senators (as of the passing of this bill) will have an 8 year term.
This does precisely what the whereas statements outline, it maintains the sober second thought while reducing the term of office.
If this is enacted, then you will see a somewhat greater turnover in the senate, which is probably good, get some fresh blood, and the ability to re-appoint. So for example, if a particularly excellent senator is forced to leave the senate after his or her 8 years is over, the PM of the day can choose to re-appoint that person, or, if they spend most of their time in Mexico, they can choose to not re-appoint.
It sort of allows for a sober second thought of the sober second thought.
This bill will also serve as a prelude to an elected senate, though no mention of that is made in the bill (for obvious and understandable reasons).
On the note of my title...
I dont like this seemingly willy-nilly style of change. What I want to see is a comprehensive reform package. If you fiddle here, and fiddle there, you could see an unbalancing affect. As was pointed out by a friend, the longevity of a system does not determine whether or not it should continue unmodified.
What it DOES lead to is a very complicated system, filled with intricacies that virtually no one could ever fully understand. To tinker and toy with it is to invite trouble and an unbalancing situation, as well as to further complicate an already extremely complicated system.
I dont want to see another band-aid slapped on to the system, I dont want a duct tape solution, I want a well thought out and debated plan which brings all of the elements of change that the tories want together in one package.
posted by Patrick Meehan at 3:13 PM
2 Comments:
So you are saying that piecemeal changes to a system of government are bad because the effects of said change are unpredictable? And yet you are endorsing the notion of a comprehensive reform package as an alternative? How does a comprehensive reform package sidestep the problems concerning the 'complexity' of an 800 year old system of government that does not leave it open to the same criticism you direct at piecemeal change?
Additionally, I find it rather disturbing that you are implying that Canada's incarnation of the Westminster system represents an ideal type which can claim an, assumedly, consistant 800 year history. Not only does Canada's system differ from other incarnations of the Westminster system in a strictly legal-formal sense but the very fact that it is a system governing Canada, and not some other country, further shows that it must operate diffrently then the '800 year old' ideal type you are appealing to. Shit, you can even easily argue that the Canadian form of government has experienced major formal and informal change relatively recently. Formally with the drafting of the Charter much, much less then 800 years ago and informally with the external constraints imposed by globalization (i.e. quiet constitutionalism).
PS: I also find it funny that you bemoan small changes yet you endorse Harper's bill on senate reform, a small change.
A comprehensive reform package would be one in which the provinces and the legislature and indeed the people of Canada are fully brought into the debate.
It would require another constitutional accord, similar (though hopefully less frustrating) to the constitutional debates of the 80's.
Why is this?
Its simple, Harper cannot take away the right of the Prime Minister to call an election without a real constitutioan ammendment.
Harper cannot bring about any further democratization of the senate without a real constitutional ammendment.
Harper cannot make the distribution of senators fair without a real constitutional ammendment. Why does Nova Scotia have ten senators and BC only has 6?
We have a constantly evolving form of government I will grant, however, that does not mean we should go about change in a willy-nilly fashion.
A full and comprehensive package, taking into account the will of the provinces in a real constitutional debate is what is called for, and the only real way for Harper to make any more of his promised changes.
All this does is slaps a band-aid on things. It will make people think 'didnt Harper fix that whole democracy issue?' and remove it from the public conciousness.
As well, the changes are likely entirely geared towards an election message. Harper can stand up next year if his government falls and say "we had an election date, they chose to ignore that." Granted, that kind of talk didnt help Martin much, but I think we can all agree that Harper is a MUCH more canny political actor than Martin.
Post a Comment
<< Home