tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4608187347082258635.post6256096520408157939..comments2023-06-24T04:31:55.215-04:00Comments on The Orange Tory: Reform the Senate: Two Competing ProposalsSJLhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16507376219360029032noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4608187347082258635.post-47130586571627492872015-07-30T23:05:05.700-04:002015-07-30T23:05:05.700-04:00Thank you very much for your feedback Mr. Rasmusse...Thank you very much for your feedback Mr. Rasmussen. I will try to address the points you raised. <br /><br />Regarding confirmation, the Crown through the Governor General appoints many of these positions on the direction of the Prime Minister. It could simply made tradition, enshrined in law, that the PM nominates a candidate, the Senate consents and until then the GG appoints him/her. And it is not that MPs are more or less trustworthy than Senators, its about a distribution of responsibilities and duties. <br /><br />Simon is correct, I constrained our attention to the Senate alone. Otherwise we would spend too much time talking about limiting PM power, reforming the HOC, electoral systems, etc. Not to mention we may be approaching a time where reform of the Senate is politically tenable, but the status quo will remain for the rest of our system. <br /><br />Thanks for reading. SJLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16507376219360029032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4608187347082258635.post-18325650235462961422015-07-29T20:25:01.441-04:002015-07-29T20:25:01.441-04:00If this is case, and I don't doubt that it is,...If this is case, and I don't doubt that it is, then the Constitution ought to be amended to allow for Senate confirmation of said officials. If I had my choice the monarchy would be done away with entirely, but I was told to limit myself to Senate reform only. If the House is to have sole responsible for the budget, the Senate should be allowed oversight on appointments. It's all about balance. <br /><br />All the same, an excellent point. S.A.Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09584670383990330110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4608187347082258635.post-69424850083791550032015-07-29T15:51:53.810-04:002015-07-29T15:51:53.810-04:00I enjoyed both your proposals. They were well reas...I enjoyed both your proposals. They were well reasoned and, even if one quibbled with a few things here and there, took well into account the dynamics of federalism in Canada.<br /><br />I do have one substantive comment on both proposals. Each included references where the Senate would "confirm" the appointment of certain officials. Unless confirmation were an informal conventional process, eg. a reference check rather than an official giving of consent, this could run into significant problems with the role of the Crown in Canada.<br /><br />It would be no issue for the Senate to formally confirm the appointment of Officers of Parliament, since they are creatures of Parliament and have no relationship with the executive arm of the Crown. Far more problematic, however, would be "confirmation" of judges and, most significantly, the governor general. To do so would fetter ministerial discretion to advise the Crown, which the Supreme Court found unconstitutional regarding the government's proposed elections to the Senate. Perhaps instead the Senate could be called upon, much as was done with some Supreme Court appointments until recently, to provide its opinion on suitable candidates. This opens up a whole other question as to why the Senate is inherently more trustworthy than MPs to do such things, but regardless, such a practice couldn't really be part of the constitution.Simon Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07895837402130074319noreply@blogger.com