Second Thoughts on Senate Elections

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
I have long been an advocate for a Senate of Canada that should never be elected by the citizens of Canada — this would create another House of Commons, and would threaten the use of the institution as a balance to the Lower House. However, this article, from the National Post, articulates my opinion far better than I could.

I apologize profusely, in advance, for the length of the article.

Michael Dobbin (the [color=orange said:
National Post[/color])]Sir John A. Macdonald once genially remarked, "We must protect the rights of minorities, and the rich are always fewer in number than the poor." Perhaps Canada's first prime minister was among the first to poke fun at the Upper House that he helped to create; but he was hardly the last.

Even before its creation, Christopher Dunkin, an opponent of the proposed Upper House, argued in 1867 from the legislature of the United Canadas that it was "just the worst body that could be contrived." He joked that the only constitutional check was that the appointed, rich old men would eventually die off. (Nowadays, the mandatory retirement age for Senators is 75.)

The players have changed, but the arguments for an elected Upper House remain the same: The idea of an appointed Senate is cast as elitist, obsolete, unrepresentative. Certainly, the current government believes so. "One way or another, we are committed to Senate elections," says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

But consider: Reform has been threatened for years -- 139, to be exact. If the Upper House is as ineffectual as Mr. Harper and his supporters would have us believe, how has it survived this long?

One reason is that, contrary to popular belief, the Senate has changed with the times. The outdated argument is that Senators appointed through patronage are old, rich, white men who abuse their positions and contribute little or nothing to the democratic process. In fact, with regards to female representation, the Senate has the House of Commons beat: Currently, 33% of Senators are female, compared to only 21% in the House of Commons.

Nor is the Senate full of old fogeys out of touch with voters. The Senate has recently introduced popular bills on such varied issues as spam e-mail, official language promotion, protecting heritage lighthouses and increasing transparency in filling public positions. Senate committees also provide well-researched blueprints for reform on issues from defence to health care.

Although appointments are made at the discretion of the prime minister, Senate seats are traditionally filled by individuals with political or professional experience likely to benefit the legislative process. Currently, three former premiers hold seats in the Senate: John Buchanan from Nova Scotia, Catherine Callbeck of Prince Edward Island and Nick G. Sibbeston of the Northwest Territories. Furthermore, there are no less than 24 former MPs. The average Senator boasts over 10 years of service, with 14 having over 20 years' experience.

The Fathers of Confederation weren't politically naive. They were well aware of the vulnerabilities that attended a weak, decentralized federation, of the type that had recently produced a civil war in the United States. Sir John A. Macdonald remarked in 1867 that the Senate would serve as "the sober second thought." He stated that it "must be an independent House" preventing any hasty or ill-considered legislation, "but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people."

One of John A.'s greatest rivals agreed: George Brown, a Reformer (and founder of the Toronto Globe), had made a name for himself as the champion of representation by population. He passionately believed that the new Dominion government must be kept responsible to voters -- and for that very reason, he vehemently opposed an elected Upper House.

Most Reformers, like Brown, understood that the Upper House would check the excesses of the elected Lower House. But they did not wish to create a Senate that was entitled to block the House of Commons entirely. As governmental expert Jack Stilborn wrote: "An elected Senate, simply by virtue of being elected, would undermine the supremacy of the House of Commons and foster confusion."

To further ensure the authority of the Commons, it was decided in 1866 that Cabinet should be authorized to appoint extra Senators in the case of a deadlock between the two houses. In 1990, more than a century later, when the Senate challenged the Commons over the GST Bill, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney exercised this power. Controversial as it was, the decision nipped a constitutional crisis in the bud, thus demonstrating the wisdom of the architects of the Canadian Parliament.

It was this faith in responsible government, not an obsession with elitist autocracy, that led them to this system. Had the Senate been given an equal mandate from the electorate, the situation in 1990 could have led to disaster.

Brown also pointed out that experienced professionals would be unable or unwilling to meet the demands of Senate elections, effectively eliminating their valuable insight and experience from the political process.

Today, Senate seats are filled by economists, scientists, businessmen, judges, lawyers, professors, engineers, social workers, doctors, cardiologists, journalists, TV personalities, musicians, actors, authors, teachers, public servants and consumer advocates -- many of whom would be unable to meet the staggering personal financial and time demands required for an electoral campaign.

For instance, General Romeo Dallaire, the retired Canadian general who led the UN intervention to Rwanda in 1994, was recently appointed to the Canadian Senate. He continues to write about conflict resolution and work on behalf of war-affected children. Were the Senate elected, it is almost certain this man would not be part of Canada's legislative process.

That is not to say that elected Senators couldn't competently fill the same positions, but elections would attract more of the same types that fill the Commons -- effectively creating a mirror image of the Lower House. Would the Canadian electorate really want do away with this professional elite in favour of more career politicians?

Former prime minister Arthur Meighen once described the Senate as "a workshop and not a theatre." But its tradecraft is obscure to many Canadians. Few are well-acquainted with the constitutional role of the upper chamber and the balance it provides to the elected House of Commons. Fewer still appreciate the individuals who serve within it. The resulting gap, between the public's perception of an ineffective chamber and the reality of it as an assembly of experienced individuals from many walks of life, is difficult to bridge.

Senator Marie P. Poulin remarked that when individuals come to know a senator, they frequently say: "We know that you work hard -- but we're not sure about the others." Her response is: "My colleagues get the same remark."

Change for change's sake is not always a good thing, especially after 139 years of a proven and viable institution. A new leader such as Stephen Harper should take pause to consider the wisdom that has been ingrained in our parliamentary system since Confederation.
Thoughts?
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Yeah dictatorships get things done, makes the bus's run on time, perhaps with certain ones they can cut back on corruption too, and hell who doesn't like a big old may day pariod to show off our revolutionary might. But this is the modern age. Democratic theories, well arn't theories anymore they are expected.

Paradox look as far as almost any modern nation. Many have two houses an upper and a lower, and some even have an elected executive as well. I think it's this simple, I'm a big supporter of the Senate, but I'll agree with the NDP, on this one point, if it's not elected then remove it, it's not worth tax payers money to have a (unelected)body of government which barely does anything at all. Plus when it does do things it is an afront to everyone, everyone who believes in democracy. Who gave these people the right to pass laws for us? The voters of Canada sure didn't!

Though I think an unelected Senate is pointless and worthless, I however have followed the more conservative view of the Reform party/Canadian Alliance and CPC view on democratic reform of the senate.

Now anyone with half a brian can figure out a formula for the senate. As in the norm with most upper houses, they should be holder, so you have to have an age reqirment, nobody under 35 need apply. Also the term should be differnt, perhaps 5-8 years. Also they should be elected differently then MP's but this doesn't have to be the case either. I'd say we should elect our MP's by MMP and our Senate by FPTP.

I am a Social Democratic Republican, and I believe our system removes the common person from the political process already. In the most recent poll Politicians where seen as the least trusted people!!!! UNDER LAWERS!!! with this and the low voter turnout and empathy to both elections and the political parties, I think if we keep following this broken system it will progressively get worse as ppl learn that it really doesn't matter, electing our politicians, as my vote doesn't count, and so many people in government arn't even elected anyways. The system we have currently is the best system to kill peoples interest in to politics since it is so sad to watch it in canada and so hard to change it.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Finder, perhaps you have not read into any of the work that the Senate of Canada does. They process and release countless reports and studies, used by the House of Commons for their debates and committees. An elected Senate may have too much of a mandate — the Senate would cease to be a chamber of sober second thought, and would become a second chamber with debates as heated — and sometimes irrational — as the House.

That would not be in the best interests of Canada.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Mr. Harper has indicated, quite clearly, that he is going to reform the Senate; however, I doubt that he is going to convince one hundred five senators to resign by their own hand at the end of each Parliament — which is the only way it can happen without a constitutional amendment.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Yeah ... he needs seven out of ten legislatures to agree to any amendment to the constitution regarding the selection and removal of Senators — and they must represent at least 50% of the population of Canada. Would Ontario and Québec really agree to this?
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Sure we would, we believe in elections out here.

Or we could just continue to allow political parties that hang out in government for 40 years to fill the senate up with people of their choosing....
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
Good point Jay. Also i'm not a big fan of Senators that don't actually do their jobs, however instead choose to sit around in the Bahama's whilst receiving a paycheck larger than anything I will ever see while I bust my ass sometimes up to 12 hours a day. Our Senate system does NOT work, and I think Senators should be elected, not appointed by the party in power, thus having no fear of ever losing their jobs. The whole Senate is a defunct institution in need of rampant change.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
They do important work! And they rarely oppose the House, unless it's over something really important and controversial — so why create an elected Senate where, as mentioned above, in order to run you'd need tons of money and the resources to run an election — something that most of the highly qualified people in the Senate now would be unable to do.

We'd have just another chamber of career politicians.
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
1.
They do important work!

I guess your definition of important and mine vary slightly my friend

2.
so why create an elected Senate where, as mentioned above, in order to run you'd need tons of money and the resources to run an election — something that most of the highly qualified people in the Senate now would be unable to do.

Because the level of corruption would be greatly reduced. You may be too young to remember things, being only 18 now, however years ago it was discovered that over HALF of the Senators currently serving attending less than 50% of all Senate sessions, with some attending NONE in an entire fiscal year. Are we as Canadians expected to pay large, inflated, salaries to people that don't even do their job. If I don't show up for work 50% of the time i'd be released from the CF...well in actual fact i'd do two years at Canadian Forces Detention Barracks Edmonton, then be released, but that's beside the point. My point is that we're giving these people huge, digustingly huge, salaries and they're doing little to no work in the grand scheme of things. Yes, I have no doubt the Senate works, but it doesn't work to the level I as a tax payer expect. Those highly qualified people you speak of have been soaking this nation for hundreds of thousands of dollars and producing little results. A prime example is the Senator (i've forgotten his name) who never worked for over a year and spent his entire time down in Texas at his condo living of his Senate paycheck. I'm sorry Five, I don't want people like that "working for me". Lastly with regard to the money for running an election; they make enough money and they can easily get funding from any of the political parties. Money would not be a problem for them.

I'd prefer a chamer of career politicans, than a chamber of career embezzlers
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Hmmm I wonder why they rarely oppose the House? Can you say political appointment by party that has been in power for 40 years?

Election spending is part of the process. Can't raise the money? Don't run.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
I wonder how many people who accuse the Senate of being useless have ever watched coverage of Senate Committees on CPAC, or read one of the research reports from the Senate.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Okay, so maybe I'm being a bit too stanced against the democratic selection of senators; however, I think that electing senators directly would undermine the purpose of the Senate, and serve only to give us a mirror-image of whatever the House of Commons of the day might happen to be. I have mentioned it in other threads, so I won't re-explain it here, but I think that the "memory" of the Senate should be an idea to protect.

I would suggest that for my extensive view on how the Senate should be reformed, people search for the "Senate Reform" thread in the "Conservative Lounge".
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
But if I had the ability to vote for both Houses, I might (maybe) spread my vote out a bit more instead of only voting conservative....If I was worried about X position the conservatives were taking I might vote for a liberal to go the senate.....do you see what I mean.?
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Yeah, I think I know what you mean, and that's a neat position to take, too; but, I mean ... I dunno. I have serious reservations about an elected Senate, 'cause I'm scared that they would stop being the chamber of sober second thought and basically start assuming the authority of a second House of Commons. Hell, besides finances, that could put the Commons in a subordinate position, lol.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
It doesn't now? Or are they just blank cheque writters?
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: Second Thoughts on Senate Elections

FiveParadox said:
Yeah, I think I know what you mean, and that's a neat position to take, too; but, I mean ... I dunno. I have serious reservations about an elected Senate, 'cause I'm scared that they would stop being the chamber of sober second thought and basically start assuming the authority of a second House of Commons. Hell, besides finances, that could put the Commons in a subordinate position, lol.

I mean they don't send stuff to the senate for a rubber stamp now right?
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Well, sometimes they do; with finances and constitutional amendments, the Senate is powerless to stop them. I think that we need to give the Senate realistic power (so as to make them useful), while ensuring that we aren't making it so that they can revert whatever work the House of Commons does.