Should we abolish the Senate?

There is a question to be voted on in this blog post. Please go to the right sidebar to vote. Your vote counts.

We at Vote Canada have been hearing a lot of talk lately about whether we should abolish the Senate.  We didn’t know very much about the subject so we decided to do some research, learn about it and formulate some thoughts on the matter to share with our readers and voters.

Senate Background

The Senate is modeled after the British House of Lords which was originally a much more powerful body.  At times, the House of Lords was more powerful then the monarch or House of Commons.  While it is now made up mostly of Church of England bishops and life peers (appointed to the peerage for sole the purpose of sitting in the house of Lords) some hereditary peers remain.  In the past  it was much smaller (around 50 members) and was mostly made up of hereditary peers, i.e., the nobility.  When the British parliamentary system was developing the dominant social organisation was feudalism and the nobility held real power and were thus represented in government by the House of Lords.

The House of Lords has no fixed size.  The House of Lords can introduce legislation and can delay or force changes on legislation passed by the house of commons. Lords are now appointed by the Queen on advice from the Prime Minister.    The House of Lords acts as a check on the House of Commons that is independent from the electoral process.

The Senate In Canada

In Canada, we simply adopted the form and practices of the British state even though there wasn’t a nobility in Canada.  The Senate is composed of 105 members who are appointed by the Governor General  usually on advice from the Prime Minister.  In Canada, the Senate is intended to provide a sober second thought to legislation passed by the House of Commons and it also serves a function of balancing out regional representation although it does this in a rather inconsistent way.  For example the Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario each have have the right to 24 senators while British Columbia has only 6.  The Senate can introduce legislation and its approval is required to pass legislation.  In practice, the Senate rarely blocks legislation, usually less then twice a year.

In recent years, more attention has been paid to the Senate as we look for ways to cut cost in government.  As Senators are in essence appointed by the Prime Minister, it is often thought that the ability to appoint senators is being used to reward service or support of a particular political party rather then to ensure that effective individuals are in the Senate.  Recently, scandals involving expenses used to support purely political party activities have put this aspect of the Senate under particular attention.

So what should be done?  Should we abolish the Senate?

Vote Canada thinks that, at least on the surface, abolishing the Senate is a good idea.  The Senate was originally created (as the House of Lords) to represent a segment of society that does not and never existed in Canada.  It is also very expensive,  it doesn’t really do very much, it represents the people and provinces of Canada in an inconsistent way and more importantly,  it is fundamentally undemocratic.

Unfortunately, In order to abolish the Senate, it will require opening up the constitution and that requires the approval of all the provinces.  Constitutions are designed to make change very difficult as successful democracies seem to require fundamentally stable institutions. As a result, provincial support will have to be bought with real political capital and the process will eat up an incredible amount of the time and attention of our leaders and there is no guarantee of success.  At Vote Canada, we feel that there are many more deserving projects for our rulers to be undertaking. Projects such as fighting climate change, working with aboriginal people to help them be successful within Canada, improving the economy and reducing and reversing environmental damage.

What does Vote Canada recommend?

What we recommend is that we don’t try to abolish the Senate.  What we recommend is that we try improve the Senate and make it relevant to Canada and Canadians within the existing constitutional framework.  After all, the idea of a group of non-partisan, thoughtful and regionally representative people keeping a careful watch on our politicians is not the worst idea in the world.

First of all, we need to apply independent oversight for expenses.  Vote Canada understands that this process is underway as a result of the various scandals.  Every organization struggles with managing expenses and it is unreasonable to suggest that this problem is limited to the Senate.

Secondly, because the Prime Minister appoints senators, we can change the appointment process with a simple agreement between the major political parties.  No constitutional change is required but Canadians will have to apply pressure to make sure that this agreement is never broken.

Thirdly, The Senate can play a stronger role of balancing power so that Canada is not completely dominated by the larger provinces such as Ontario and Quebec.  Appoint Senators from each province and territory in numbers that address to some degree this regional concentration of power.  Appoint higher per-capita Senator representation in the regions relative to the larger provinces.

Fourthly, Senators should be the best of the best from each region and it should be a genuine honour to serve. Senators should be selected by a process in each province that ensures represntatives of the highest quality who also represent the society from which they come.  In New Brunswick for example there should be 60% or so anglophones and 40% or so francophones.


So the question to be voted on is:

Should we:

a) Abolish the senate?

b) Modify the senate as per described?

c) Leave it as is?

Please go to the “Vote on this Question” box in the upper right hand column to vote.
See the voting results on this blog question.

 

Please use these buttons to share “Should we abolish the Senate?” to social media

One thought on “Should we abolish the Senate?

  1. Bruce Johnston says:

    Senate reform, problem solved!

    Keep the following, ” 105 members appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada.[1] Seats are assigned on a regional basis, with each of the four major regions receiving 24 seats, and the remainder of the available seats being assigned to smaller regions. The four major regions are Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces. The seats for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut are assigned apart from these regional divisions. Senators may serve until they reach the age of 75.” – from Wikipedia

    ADD the following :

    1 -To within one of the best possible distribution, the senators that are recommended by the Prime Minister during the entirety of his or her mandate must represent the distribution of party seats won after the previous general federal election, provided that :

    A) Each party that won a seat in the House of Commons gets at least one senate member nomination. Each nomination shall have its party affiliation identified by the Prime Minister. Members elected as independents are discounted from the calculations. Members of the House of Commons who change their affiliation between General Elections do not influence the calculations. For simplicity, to avoid generating impossible nomination situations and to more accurately reflect the last known general will of the entire electorate, By-Election results do not influence the calculations.

    B) The senate member recommendations must be approved by a majority of the caucus of House Members that the senate recommendations represent.

    C) Senate member nominations that are declined by the caucus that they represent do not fall to another political party. The Prime Minister must continue the selection process until an acceptable nomination is found.

    D) No early recommendations may be made that render it mathematically impossible for later recommendations to fulfill this the principle of representation of the last known wishes of the electorate. For example, but not limited to; “front loading” the nominations in anticipation of vacancies to come but then calling another General Election before the vacancies occur. Within those bounds and those of point E) below, the Prime Minister may appoint the senators in any order desired.

    E) Until sufficient vacancies occur to provide each represented party with one senatorial candidate, the Prime Minister shall nominate senators in the descending order of the representation in the house with ties being broken by popular vote percentage.

    2 – No senate seat may remain vacate for more than 6 months. Should a General Federal Election occur while there are empty Senate seats, the incoming Prime Minister must first recommend appointments to fill the vacancies as of the date of the Election and according to the party seat distribution as of the previous election.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *