I have my doubts that the Senate of Canada could be reformed by direct means. The 7/50 rule, the veto power held by BC, Ontario, and Quebec, and the tendency of regionalism in Canada to trump good policy. I'm not alone. Some, such as Andrew Coyne, have suggested that to reform it, it should be abolished first, then reformed (or, at the point, recreated). It turns out that there is at least one precedent for it, the Senate of the Philippines. One might even count it as two precedents. It was effectively abolished in 1935 and restored in 1945. It was shut down in 1972, and restarted again in 1987.
The circumstances in the Philippines are quite different from the ones in Canada, though. The Philippine Senate was shuttered the first time because the country drew up its own constitution and opted for a single legislative chamber. The second phase ended when the president declared martial law, which shut down both houses of Congress. Canada is not drawing up its constitution, nor has martial law been declared. Thus, the precedent is only partial.
Perhaps the most relevant part of this comparison is the first time their Senate was reestablished. They went for a time without one, like Canada would if we were to abolish ours, but decided it was desirable to have one after all.
I have my doubts that the Senate of Canada would be reestablished if it were ever abolished. The same regionalism that keeps it from being reformed directly would likely prevent it from ever being formed again.
No comments:
Post a Comment