Just Abolish the Senate...

In today’s Globe and Mail, Brian Laghi writes about Prime Minister Harper’s plan to reform the Senate. First he’s going to term limit them and then this will force him to replace them through elections since he pledged he would never appoint Senators (oops Michel Fortier).

Well, I agree that adding term limits to Senators is a good idea, but I do not agree with electing new representatives to fill the empty seats. We should just let the Senate slowly die with a goal of total vacancy by 2010.

Why abolish the Senate? Well my reasoning is not based on the fact that it’s the best option. It is based on the conclusion that the alternatives are far worse.

Status Quo Doesn’t Work…

First let us discuss the current Senate. Despite a membership of some genuine scholars and hardworking individuals, an unelected, unaccountable representative institution does not have a place in what is supposed to be a healthy and vibrant democracy. Australia got rid of their unelected Senate years ago and the US did away with their appointed Senate in the early 1900s.

Arguments in favour of the chamber of sober second thought do not mesh anymore. The Courts serve that purpose. If the elected House of Commons steps outside its bounds then the Courts rein them in. The Senate has not blocked legislation in a meaningful way in a very long time. If they are not willing to be a chamber of sober second thought, why should they exist? The very political pressure that they are supposed to be able to overcome (public opinion, mob rule mentalities) stops them from dutifully doing their work (For example – what if the Senate blocked passage of the Accountability Act? BTW – it definitely should, more on that in another post).

Therefore, the current Senate – with all its unelected, unaccountable members – is unacceptable and has to go.

But Electing It Won’t Fix Its…

Now that we’ve concluded that the current Senate is unacceptable, what about doing what Reformers and Harper have been calling for for years – “let’s elect the thing”.

Well I am against that too. If we choose to elect Senators, we automatically give them more legitimacy and therefore, they will demand more power. You cannot say that an elected member in the House of Commons is more important than an elected member in the Senate. With equal legitimacy (popular election) comes equal power. And within the system of responsible government how would such a system work? Can the Senate defeat the budget and cause an election? Does the government need the confidence of both houses of Parliament?

I say look to the framers of the Constitution. The Senate was made an appointed body in part to fulfill the patronage tendencies of the time, but also because the framers did not want to give the Senate an equal footing with the House. Hence its lack of power in matters related to budgets and defence.

If you give the Senate legitimacy through a vote, then you have to give it more power. And it is at this point that I cannot support an elected Senate. Responsible and Parliamentary democracy cannot survive in the Canadian context with an elected second chamber. It works in the United States because of the division of powers and executive separated government. It can’t here in Canada.

Heck – no province has a second representative body anymore. If a province like Ontario can manage (despites its clear regional cleavages) than so can Canada. Some improvements can be made to representation in the House, but there is no need to elect Senators.

So there you have it – abolishing the Senate is the only acceptable option because the current Senate is unaccountable and undemocratic but a democratic and accountable body will conflict with our system of government. This will cause more headaches than solutions.

So Mr. Harper – ABOLISH THE SENATE!