So Stephen Harper announced today that he will appoint Albertan Bert Brown as the first 'elected' Senator. First off -umm ok talk about contradiction.
First, let me repeat the smart words of Mr. Dion "We know what the Prime Minister wants to do. He wants to have an elected Senate without . . . [clarifying] in the Constitution the role of the two chambers." [Globe and Mail; April 19, 2007]
There will need to be some serious considerations put forward about the role of the 'new' Senate with respect to the House of Commons. What will be the role of the Senate? Which responsbilities will each house take on? Will the Senate have equal power as the House/ more power? Although legislation can normally be introduced in either house, the majority of government bills originate in the House of Commons and rarely do bills passed in the House get rejected by the Senate- would this change with Harper's Elected Senate?
Secondly, an elected Senate? Not only would an elected Senate be a duplicate of the House of Commons, but it would be less effective in pursuing its mandate. Rather than having just one house full of MP's arguing and bickering as they will over issues, over partisanship etc., there will now be two houses bickering over these things. Senate studies as they stand, often have a depth that Parliament rarely achieves. This is a strength of the Senate.
I do not think having an elected Senate will neccessarily give more representation for Canadians the way it is being promoted. I do not think it will achieve much more than an illusion of greater democracy. There is no reason to have two houses that do the same thing; repeatition does not get better results. It is not a bad thing that Senators are not elected. Issues are often shifted aside with MP's who have to spent a significant amount of time on elections; somethig that is not at stake in the Senate. Because their time is not spent on getting ready for elections, they have more time to deal with Issues. And this differentiates them from the duties of an MP.
It says on the Prime Minister's website, "Canada needs an upper house with democratic legitimacy.And I hope we can work together to move towards that enhanced democratic legitimacy." This talk of 'enhanced democracy' is little more than talk though. I believe this is more a photo opt for Harper to once again make the claim that he is following through with election promises.
If there is to be Senate reform, it should be in a positive way. I do not think an Elected Senate would be a positive step though. Its just unneccessary in terms of becoming more efficient and more representative.
But, What do you think the Senate should be like? Should it be elected like Harper is pursuing? Should it remain in tact the way it is?
3 comments:
Let It Be......
"I do not think having an elected Senate will neccessarily give more representation for Canadians the way it is being promoted. I do not think it will achieve much more than an illusion of greater democracy. There is no reason to have two houses that do the same thing; repeatition does not get better results."
I would go further. As is implied by the notion of a triple E senate, for example, the senate in its current form is an "ineffective" body devoid of any real powers. Needless to say, a body that adds nothing to the genuine "effective" democratic process of the House of Commons can not take away anything either.
Still, that begs the question: would Canada be better off with two “effective” houses?
The answer is no. As Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. However, for most of the supporters of a second house in the States of such an idea that was precisely the point. As the name of Britain’s two houses, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, indicate the purpose of having a second House was to check the will of common people. The purpose of the Canadian senate was to do the same.
Unfortunately for the US, political necessity gave US supporters of the Second House, modeled on the British parliamentary system, the upper hand over true democrats, such as Franklin. Agreement was not possible unless the smaller states were given the power to override, or at the very least temper the will of the majority of Americans. The slave owning south, for one, wanted to insure that the institution of slavery was maintained.
Worse still for Americans, the power of US senate did not atrophy, a la the Canadian Senate. The US senate was reformed. Today, it is “equal”, “effective” and “elected” and the lack of any sort of party discipline together with a bicameral house is a potent brew indeed. Regional interests make out like bandits, the lobbyist’s play divide and conquer and the need to water down legislation that has the support of the majority of Americans would have warmed the heart of anti democratic plutocrats, such as Adams. Alaska, for example, has a 1000 times the political clout of, say, PEI, even though Alaska makes up a smaller portion of the US population than PEI Canada’s. To top things off, a lack of any sort effective caps on corporate campaign contributions means that only the richest of the rich have the economic wherewithal to run for the Senate. Indeed, one could make a pretty good case that the original Senate, with its land ownership requirements, was open to greater percentage of the population than the current one is.
Naturally the Conservatives are committed emulating the American system and as bad as that is, things have the potential of getting a whole lot worse. Being unable to “reform” the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing effective Senators piece meal. It is hard to image a dumber idea. In the long term, the effect of such a process would be to transform an unelected political body with no power into a largely unelected political body with real political power. In the short term, it would commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power. If that was bad enough it would give, for example, New Brunswick more senators (10) and for all intensive purposes more power than BC (6).
Thanks for the additional comments Koby. You have made some very good points that I did not delve very much into in my short blog about the topic.
Post a Comment