Yesterday I came across this piece in the Hill Times that was quite negative on the constitutional prospects for Senate abolition. A couple different experts were quoted in the piece, and a couple elements of what they’re quoted as saying weren’t clear to me so I wrote to one of them, Bruce Ryder of Osgoode . . . → Read More: Autonomy For All: How Difficult is Senate Abolition? A Law Professor Responds
I can’t claim to have reviewed every one of the 60 odd national governments with Senates, but in my review of a large number I find that limitations similar to what I outlined for Australia’s Senate are the norm, not the exception.
Canadians probably have a skewed view based on our proximity and shared media . . . → Read More: Autonomy For All: Most Senates are Subordinate to Lower Houses
Advocates of Senate reform (particularly direct election of Canadian Senators) have taken to citing Australia’s Senate as evidence that elected and democratically legitimate Senates are compatible with well run societies (here, here and here). They should desist, unless they are prepared to advocate for an actual Australian model Senate, which is quite different from the . . . → Read More: Autonomy For All: Canadian Senate Reformers Should Not Cite The Australian Senate
Calls for reform represent a stealth effort to foist a radical new form of government on an unsuspecting Canadian public.
Aside from the cost (about $90 million per year) and the recent scandals about residency and private life criminal behaviour, the real threat the Senate poses is that it has (mostly) equal formal constitutional powers to . . . → Read More: Autonomy For All: The Sensible Path: Abolish the Senate