Senate Reform
I’m forgoing what I intended to post about today after yesterday’s events in the Senate. I’m not linking to anything other than the parliamentary website as I’m assuming most readers of Slaw are well aware of what I refer to. I realize that I am likely in the minority but I think that the Canadian Senate actually functions fairly well and needs only min0r tweaks rather than wholesale reform. The bulk of the work that takes place in Senate is in committee, which is away from where the majority of the population can see the work that is done, and therefore thinks that the Senate is a glorified retirement home. Furthermore, committee is where a good portion of the Senate’s work is supposed to take place (i.e. sober second thought) and I believe that wholesale Senate reform will open a pandora’s box.
Okay, there is the gauntlet thrown down. I’m sure that Slaw’ers will have a lot of interesting points of view that I am eager to see.
Just to get things rolling a bit more, I think it is unseemly for a Prime Minister to threaten the Senate.
OK, I’ll bite. I worked as political staff for a time (at the provincial level), so I must confess a certain predilection for matters parliamentary.
I agree with you, Mark, in that I have never found the case for wholesale Senate reform convincing. I think this is in part because I don’t see the point of bicameral legislatures, especially in a federal system. “Representation of regions” is a nice slogan, but makes no sense as a democratic concept, in my view: regions don’t vote, people do. The concern for the tyranny of the majority is well addressed by allocating certain jurisdictions to the provinces, and through the courts. A truly effective and elected Senate would seriously undermine responsible government, unless all members of the Senate were elected at the same time as the House of Commons. But in that case, why bother having two chambers ?
As to the “sober second thought” argument, that appears to me an obvious hold-over of 19th century elitist attitudes regarding expanding the franchise. Once the rabble (or at least the male land-owning rabble) could vote, my goodness, anything might happen. So the aristocrats must have a veto. Tempting as I may sometimes find that argument when I see some of the laws that get passed in the heat of the moment, it is not one that we should find compelling. Truly bad laws will be reversed by a later Parliament, or potentially struck down as unconstitutional. Voters are not children; they should not be protected from themselves.
In short, if the Senate did not exist, I don’t think there would be any need to invent it. Sort of abolishing it, I’m not sure what the best option is. I know the last thing I want to see it increasing its democratic legitimacy such that it can compete with the House of Commons. I concede that it has done very useful work in the past (the Telecom Act, the Kirby Report), and could continue to do so in the future.
Perhaps it might be helpful to improve the appointments process, to encourage more well-qualified candidates, rather than merely well-connected ones. The changes to Supreme Court appointments may offer some possible ideas in that regard. I have no objection to shortening the term of appointment either, as Harper has proposed; presumably the loss of lifetime appointment will reduce the attractiveness of a Senate post to those seeking a sinecure.
Alex Manevich
Having lived in the United States for three years and watching the legislative process there, I would also support Mark’s assertion. In the United States, the elected Senate has merely politicized another step in the legislative process.
When I started this posting, I wanted to argue that the party composition of the U.S. Senate seems to mirror the composition of the House anyway, but an historical comparison doesn’t really support that argument:
Party division in the U.S. Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
Party division in the U.S. House:
http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/partyDiv.html
I still support keeping our current Parliamentary process. I think the Canadian electoral and legislative process is much more effective than what they’ve got in the United States. Our boat is being steered in that direction however.
Another perfect example of our boat going off course: since when have we as a society ever been concerned about judicial activism? I’ve seen cases out of India citing ground breaking Canadian human rights cases, and we ought to be proud that the world looks to us for forward thinking judgments.
Interestingly, judicial activism IS a big partisan issue in the United States that was suddenly raised during OUR last election…
Hasn’t there also been stirrings about our judicial appointments process?
Why do we need to be like the U.S.? I’ve yet to see any concrete evidence that these options have resulted in a more democratic and efficient lawmaking system over there.
Okay, Slaw-ers, three of us more or less agree, what about the rest of you? Do most readers of Slaw feel this way? Are us three a vocal minority or do we reflect some segment of Canadian society?
Mark, given my weariness on the subject of this current government, can I just respond by saying that you can add my name to those who more or less agree? I differ a bit with Alex in that I do think the sober second thought remains a useful rationale. For example, when a minority house elected by a relatively tiny fraction (i.e. comprising an even smaller minority) of voters can implement legislative changes in part because the majority senses the weariness of voters regarding elections, I prefer that there remain an opportunity for earlier defeat. Like Alex, I do think that shorter than for-life terms are worth considering.
Kim
Is it reasonable to be torn on this subject? I think the current system works. An elected Senate would simply open up our legislation to another layer of politics and complexity. That said, I’d also be ok with a reform of the appointment process. I’m also ok with mandatory attendance, levels of required contribution, and perhaps portfolios representing different stakeholder groups of Canadian society & culture.
Accountability is a reasonable expectation. I’m just not sure electing a Senate is going to get us there.
Ah, me. I’ve been hoping for an appointment to the Senate, I have to confess. There is no better sinecure in the whole wide world, surely. Looks like I’m not going to achieve this lifelong dream.
My own selfish interest apart, I’m very much opposed to an elected Senate. To give even more representation to areas of the country based on something other than population is a terrible idea, and a foible of the American system that has resulted in very bad government indeed. Let Mr. Harper fix the current basis for electing MPs if he wants to tackle a constitutional matter, so that cities count in fact. Also, a proportional representation system wouldn’t be a bad idea, in my view.
So on balance I’d 1. eliminate the Senate; or, failing that 2. keep it as unexciting and largely irrelevant as it is now.
I’ve appeared before both Senate and Commons Committees presenting briefs and discussing legislation, and there’s no comparison between the two. If you want Parliamentarians who have read your brief, ask intelligent questions and aren’t engaged in political posturing, the Senate’s your place. Appearing before Senators Michael Kirby or Leo Kolber when they were chairing the Banking Committee kept one on one’s toes.
By contrast, the Commons Committees had loads of substitutions, MPs who weren’t entirely sure what the issues were, and a fair share of grandstanding.
I find it odd defending the Senate, but what they do, they do well, and the actual laws of Canada are the better for their input.