Unelected Senators: Good For Democracy
by Elaine McCoy
Independent Progressive Conservative Senator (Alberta); lawyer.
- First Posted: Mar 04 2010 00:15 AM
- Updated: 3 months ago
Electing Senators would just mean more backbenchers voting along party lines. Better to appoint them.
Stephen Harper has for several years now claimed that his proposed reforms for the Canadian Senate are about bringing accountability and democracy to the much maligned second chamber. With his most recent prorogation of Parliament, however, it is clear that for all his rhetoric, his reforms are less about a thoughtful reinvigoration of our political institutions and more about maintaining political power.
National and international political pundits alike have called him out for proroguing Parliament this time round. Happily, many more Canadians are now debating what might be done to fix our political system. But first, I believe we need to make sure we focus on the right questions.
In my opinion, the critical question is this: Why does the Prime Minister have so much power? The answer is quite simple: Because the House of Commons no longer holds the Prime Minister to account. Next question: What should be done? Answer: Insist that MPs take orders from their constituents, not their party leaders. MPs with backbone, not back benchers, would deliver a properly functioning House of Commons. Of course, the likelihood of this happening is somewhat remote. So what can we do while we're waiting?
Lots of people think we should just go ahead and elect senators to make the system work better. Indeed, a new CP poll proudly trumpeted "a majority of Canadians would like to [see] Senators elected by the voters from the province they represent." Well, I guess even I might have answered that way if I'd only been given the three choices offered by the pollster: (1) abolish the Senate (2) have the Prime Minister appoint them or (3) elect them myself.
Looking at each of the three choices, I'm always surprised that more people don't just want to get rid of the Senate. But then I'm reminded that we wouldn't have a Canada at all if the Fathers of Confederation hadn't agreed to an appointed Upper Chamber. That was the deal-maker – none of the other provinces wanted to let Ontario run away with the country, which it could have done if it abused its power of the majority. Perhaps Canadians today intuitively recognize that the Senate provides a valuable counterweight against the abuse of power, and therefore want to keep it.
But to have the Prime Minister appoint senators? Ah, there's the rub. We're already upset that the Prime Minister has too much power. The thought of giving him or her any more rankles at all levels. Especially so, when we remember transparently political payoffs evident in various prime ministerial appointments over the past few years.
Like a mischievous genie wanting desperately to get out of a musty old bottle, the pollster only gives you one more choice: an elected Senate. Unlike a journeyman genie, however, he doesn't give you the standard warning: "be careful of the wish you make."
Consider what happens now when you elect someone to go to Ottawa. No sooner have they spent their first term in office than they're emailing home to explain why they voted for something their constituents didn't want. The reason, of course, is party discipline. They're "whipped," i.e., told to vote with their party or else leave caucus. Most stay and do what they're told. Without the party, it's very difficult to get re-elected.
It would be no different for senators if they were running for election. Most would run as party candidates. What we'd end up with is nothing more than 105 more backbenchers. Right back, in fact, where we started.
So let's start again. Let's take the proposition that an independent, appointed Senate is, after all, Canada's last best chance for democracy.
We'd still be left with the problem of how we appoint senators, of course. But surely we can figure out how to do that without Prime Ministerial intervention. It is, when you get right down to it, a prerogative exercised by the Governor General. That she takes advice is a good thing. For years now, however, we've accepted that she only take advice from the Prime Minister. What if, instead, she convened a blue ribbon advisory panel to help choose senators? The panel could identify outstanding Canadians with a proven record of dedication to what's best for the country, men and women who could stand tall and say to our elected members, "Are you sure that's what you want to do?"
As Senator Abbott declared, speaking in 1890, that's our job. "Let us take care," he said, "that no temporary fit of prejudice or passion, injurious to our country or disadvantageous to our interests is allowed to force a measure through this Parliament without giving to the people a further opportunity for considering it..."
Being appointed, individual senators can stand up and do what Senator Abbott called upon us to do without worrying about whether we have a job at the end of the day. At least that gives our nation one last bulwark against overbearing executive power. What it gives us, in short, is a constitutionally protected place where Canadians from all parts of the country and all across the political spectrum can make their voices heard.
Comments
Re:Marks
“ Bravo! This essay raises some realistic concerns about Senate reform. While I am unsure what the best course of action is, I certainly can agree that a second chamber that is essentially just the same as the Commons is pointless. There are some creative ideas here that I hope Canadians who care about their democracy will debate seriously.
Nick Van der Graaf
“ The best top level appointments are necessarily based on the proven ability to make and maintain relationships, synthesize large amounts of testimony and data, and to balance these in fulfilling a vital constitutional duty as a deliberative check on the House of Commons, the chamber through which the people's voice is heard. What support amongst their peers the chosen individuals have, and the experience and body of knowledge they bring to the position, is a factor in any such decision. It appears that if adherence to these factors is maintained during the selection process through an effective tribunal, e.g. Harper's once-promised appointments commission, a fair system could be maintained and the jockeying of power between dual elected chambers is thus avoided; the Senate cannot overstep its bounds and subvert the will of the people (as expressed through the Commons) as it lacks the legitimacy of an elected chamber. While some may argue that putting the choice in the hands of the people is the best way to deal with selecting senators, I disagree. An effective check through a tribunal of persons qualified to interview candidates is certainly a better system than popular public election where charismatic dictators and demagogues, partly platforms, and the inept and unproven can sell themselves to a naive public, gaining access to a position that holds a unique and deliberate purpose under our constitution. The role in question is not a starter job, with a long learning curve, as is the case in some similar situations in other countries, but instead a senior leadership role that requires experience. By extension, the appointments process should not be prone to abuse and should be accountable in some way to the House of Commons. Similarly, some would argue for abolition. This is an unsettling proposition, as it eliminates a venue through which sounder legislation can be achieved. Commons committees are at present constrained by the amount of time allotted to studying various bills or issues. Senate committees are not so bound. Spending more time considering the facets of laws and other societal issues invariably leads to a more balanced result, and as such we want to avoid shortening the time made available for considering legislation. The Senate, while oft-maligned or denigrated, is a misunderstood institution that does good work. In all seriousness, this is a constitutional matter of grave import and should be treated as such. In my opinion, any democratic reform must consider the whole and not focus on the upper chamber to the exclusion of other pressing issues concerning the mechanics of Parliament and the Constitution. Paying cheap lip-service through populist pandering is thus irresponsible and unwise.
Chris Slothouber
“ While PMs in the past usually picked party supporters, few PMs have been as brazen as Harper in their partisanship. Has any other PM demanded an oath that the appointed senators would support party policy without question? Harper has made a mockery of the need for a senate. If the senate is simply a rubber stamp for the party in power then there is no need for a senate. If it will automatically vote against any bill proposed by a new government, then there is no need for a senate. It might be very worthwhile to do a survey of current and former senators to see if their vote on bills had been solicited as a condition of their appointment. I believe we have entered new territory with Harper. I hope it is territory we won't see again. BTW, was this item not published on Feb 22 as well?
Brent Beach
“ I would say that it depends on how you elect them. One-off elections as each seat becomes vacant will just entrench the false view that each province is a political monolith (every Albertan a Tory, for example). PR with Party lists will just result in more party hacks being effectively appointed to the Senate, just spreading it out across more parties. I would like to see all seats in a province up for grabs at once, with candidates running as individuals, and the first _n_ past the post (however many Senate seats a province has) elected. Senators would be accountable as individuals, and popular individuals (e.g. well-known mayors of large cities) could run successfully as individuals. It would be near impossible to generate a majority in the Senate, making it the chamber not only of sober second thought, but of diversity of views that would need to be accommodated. It would help, of course, to have longer terms (8 years, fixed?) and limit the number of re-elections (once?), so that Senators could remain above the daily political fray. ...Given the Constitutional barriers, of course, this will never come to pass....
Michael Mackinnon
“ While that might sound like a good idea at the start, it does have one drawback that I can see. If senators were elected, more independants would probably inclined to run. These are often the ones who have become disenchanted with all political parties and tend to carry the voice of the average Canadian into the senate.
Fred Leard