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.
I apologize profusely, in advance, for the length of the article.
Thoughts?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 The outdated argument is that Senators appointed through patronage are old, rich, white men who abuse their positions and contribute little or nothing to the democratic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.