Jeff and James provide some excellent thoughts on what Stephen Harper would be doing if he really cared about reforming the Senate. But let's toss one more possibility into the mix.
Most of Harper's current criticism of the Senate consists of complaining about its impact on the speedy/immediate/retroactive passage of legislation which has emerged from a democratically-elected House of Commons. Which seems to me to be an entirely misplaced criticism which I'll address in more detail in a future post.
But if that rather than naked partisanship were his main concern, then why doesn't the set of pledges he's extracted from his new nominees include a commitment not to stand in the way of legislation which passes the House in the future, regardless of which parties supported it along the way?
This is my first time visit at here and i am in fact impressed to read all at one place.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to visit my web-site ... raspberry Ketones reviews