Abolition of the Canadian Senate

Canadian Senate Abolition

Abstract

Canada is torn between those who believe the Senate should be left the way it is and those who believe something must be done about it. Even here lies another problem; if something must be done about it, what should that be—should the Canadian Senate be abolished or should it be reformed? The undemocratic nature of the Senate has put it in a bad light before the public and there is no gainsaying it gets more unpopular amongst Canadians day by day. But can we successfully abolish an institution that exists for over 100 years, an unelected body of Parliament that some may argue is vital to the existence of democracy?

Both sides of the argument seem to be short-sighted about the implications of its proposal and the reasonability in what another man has to say. The Pro-Senate reformers (those against the abolition of the Senate) believe that the Senate plays a vital role in democracy and that stability in any heterogeneous nation like Canada can only be achieved by bicameralism; the abolitionists share some of these reasons but see no sense in having a non-functional Senate, or one that can never be successfully reformed to become satisfactory.

Critical Assessment on the Need to Abolish Canada’s Senate

In business psychology, every good negotiator knows that when persuasion becomes paramount, it is not giving reasons that matter—but the existence of a relationship. We are apt to be persuaded by people we like; with open hearts, come open minds. That sort of relationship is almost non-existent between the Senate and Canadian citizens. It would require supernatural intervention to alter the current ethos that inhabits the minds of most Canadians; perhaps if the Senate had been more covert about its overt irregularities, the trending racket about its dissolution would never have surfaced. It is one thing to be manipulated, but it’s another to discover how long we have been manipulated; such discoveries send unstoppable chills up and down your spine, a hunger for change over which we have no control over.

Parliament hill is a bizarre place for public minds. It is sometimes regarded as incomprehensible, other times simplified as a cesspool of corporate corruption for Harper and his cronies. In the age of swift information flow, we can believe whatever we want—just google for evidence. It is easy to see the push for the abolition of the Senate of Canada as mere propaganda by the frenzied opposition to topple the sitting government; it is also effortlessly congenial that perhaps the outcry is that of a public commonsense, with no visible political induction attached to it, an outcry that is valid even outside the borders of Canada—the most recent case of Senegal in 2012. So whatever our reasons are, with google we can find the right evidence that supports it; it becomes therefore a question of what we can believe or what we must believe in. To set our belief system in motion, we must first untangle the arguments in favor of the Senate from those against its existence, after which, we must strip both sides of its biased clothing and see for ourselves what fate lies for the Senate.

Pro-Senate reformers or those perfectly conciliated with the status quo of the Senate of Canada are confounded by the push of the ‘abolitionists’ to see the Senate dissolved. These abolitionists are considered as people with a narrow spectrum of an ideal political structure. They wish the abolitionists would be a jot hesitant about their rant and seek clairvoyance about the consequences of eliminating the country’s chamber of ‘sober second thought’. What is the Senate and why should we maintain it? The Pro-Senate reformers seem to have ample answers to this question; they only wish the abolitionists would ask them in the right way—and listen to them patiently. Bicameralism is an ancient parliamentary system, traceable to the old Roman Empire, and the word Senate is said to have been coined from senex, a Latin word for ‘old man’. The Senate was regarded as an “assembly of elders”, and the Roman Monarch was designated to choose its members.

The Canadian Parliament has existed since Confederation; much of its structure was adopted from Britain. It is equipped with the Senate—Upper House—and the House of Commons or the Lower House, and the two chambers are seated at Parliament Hill. The Senate should ideally consist of 105 senators with exceptions to this rule stated in the Constitution Act, 1867. The original intent of appointment against election—as explained by Pro-Senate reformers and those in favor of the status quo—was to make certain that the Senate would be non-politicized, which, in theory, should ensure their independence in debating critical decisions concerning all Canadians as that of law-making. On the contrary, their elected colleagues in the House of Commons (HoC), in theory, would be prejudiced due to their political affiliations. Hence, the State needed a group of neutral and capable citizens whose opinions were widely respected by Canadians to carry out careful deliberations over the proposals of the HoC. As the old cliche? goes, two heads are better than one; if the Senate is abolished, who puts the House of Commons in check?

Want an expert write a paper for you

Talk to an operator now

Start live chat now

The argument further explains the system as one where Canadians can select credible people who might not be able to win the elections. This theory, as much as one can argue its validity, has placed power in the hands of unlikely candidates like clerics, teachers, journalists, and even sportsmen, who, however reluctant they may be, have the best interest of people at heart. Such a scheme of appointment has also ushered in more female intellectuals in the Senate, some of whom otherwise might never get a shot at the male-dominated leadership table. In the Senate, all states—notwithstanding its size—are equally represented, this assures fair play and boycotts the bullying effect larger states have on smaller ones since the former would naturally have more representatives in the House of Commons. There have always been debates in the House of Commons revolving around over-representation and under-representation of certain states due to their size. This practice has an overall effect on the outcome of bills in the ‘Lower House’. The existence of the Senate, therefore, gives such minority groups and states equal bargaining power in decision-making.

The question, then, is what makes things what they are? It is worth emphasizing that the Canadian Senate is not at all immaculate in its deals, neither are the conducts of its senatorial team members free from mediocrity. But notwithstanding its shortcomings, Pro-Senate reformers consider it a necessary evil. If at all, anything must be done, they would reluctantly budge to constitutional reform. Logically—the Pro-Senate reformers speak further—if more than one-third of Canadians endorse the abolition of the Senate, it takes little mathematical knowledge to know that two-thirds—the majority—disagree with the scrapping of the Senate (Ipsos-Reid, 2013). The supporters of the Senate consider abolitionists as unserious people who have a disturbing habit of first kicking up dust and then complaining that they cannot see. It is a no-brainer that the long duration of the senatorial term of office produces an experienced arm of legislators, whose portfolios cut across different government regimes, equipping them with a wider scope and broad wisdom to properly deliberate on issues with a long-term effect. It is however likely that a change in leadership of the ruling party or government alters the manifestos and focus of the Lower House almost automatically.

The apparent characteristic of a good State is its leadership. It must be properly led, and those at the helm of affairs must have people they are accountable to. Power must not be left unchecked in the hands of those who will abuse it either for their deliberate selfish interest or in pursuit of an unintentional, but misconceived, common good. Therefore, a proper state structure ensures that power will be given not only to those who want it but also to those who least desire it, to brood over the actions of the former. Those who follow policy development closely would appreciate the immense work that the Senate of Canada has been able to achieve; it must be carefully noted that the role of the Senate in fostering intra-state federalism vindicates it of any minor irregularities (Serge, 2003). Is unicameralism a better alternative—is it even an alternative? Scholars in support of retaining the Senate point out that the unicameral structure would only work effectively in a country with a homogeneous bunch or worse in a communist country with no opposition. Canada is vast and highly multicultural, and all its citizens must be properly heard and represented; bicameralism is the only tool that ensures thorough representation of Canada’s heterogeneity and promotes its stability.

The argument gets more interesting when talking about why the Senate of Canada must be abolished. There is a side echo about the growing impunity that the Senate enjoys which makes it almost untouchable. From the abolitionists` point of view, most of the ideas propagated by the Pro-Senate reformers are historical in context; they rely on its original intent while shutting their eyes to the reality they deny exists; they visualize theories more than they observe its practicality; they cleave to sentiments and abhor commonsense. One commenter of an online journal puts it well when he said, “With too much focus on the snake, Pro-Senate reformers have missed the scorpion”. In the perfect social order, the idea of the Senate would be most admirable—but let’s face it, there never would be a perfect social order, it’s extravagantly utopian. The reformers` argument does not work in the real world; the questions they should have been, were these original purposes of the Senate appropriate, and have they ever succeeded or have they failed? To what effect would a reform be? (Barnes et al., 2011). Can we properly—and for once in our lives ignore the interest of outsiders—disentangle the essential from the accidental? Are there alternatives to this financial Bermuda, which signifies so little, costs so much, swallows up many and feeds upon the myriads of mysteries hovering around it?

We conducted a survey and questioned those against the existence of the Senate—abolitionists as we have termed them. Most abolitionists consider the argument of Pro-Senate reformers self-contradicting; the latter speaks of appointing credible people with Canada’s interest at heart. The Constitution however bestows the power to appoint senators by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister which means that the Prime Minister chooses, while the Governor-General officiates (Constitution Act, 1867). According to numbers produced by the Library of Parliament (2012), the incumbent Prime Minister has appointed about 59 senators to date, and all owe their allegiance to the Conservative Party. There has not been a selection made from the official opposition or the non-partisan bloc. It becomes easy to see why the Senate of Canada has lost its legitimacy; it is unelected and unaccountable. If the Senate serves as a checker institution over the House of Commons, who is to check the Senate? Moreover, it is unlikely that Senators are capable of stopping the idiocy of a Prime Minister who appointed them into office, so they are not at all independent (Docherty, 2002). If they are not independent, would it be wrong to tag them inept?

The Senate of Canada is viewed by abolitionists as highly undemocratic. Those in favor of abolishing the Senate found such phrases as “those with Canada’s interest at heart” very confounding. Who would represent the interest of people better those they duly elected or those the Prime Minister selected? If the Senate should be commended for anything, it would be its uncanny ability to address important issues as trifles, and unimportant ones as urgent. Most of the proposals passed to the Senate would rarely face rejection if it is properly pushed by the incumbent party, but when it relates to critical proposals already consented by the House of Commons, it is frequently stymied by the Senate; this regrettably slows the process of legislation in Canada. An example that is usually cited is the Climate Change Accountability Act that was automatically silenced without deliberation by the Canadian Senate. Its existence is not only unnecessary but an ergonomic approach by the government to reward elites that have paid patronage to the incumbent political party (Docherty, 2002). This band of Senators and the chamber itself gulp over ninety million dollars of taxpayers’ money every year, and yet it is unaccountable for it. The Senate is unloved by Canadians and should not be saved.

It is argued that abolition would be more appropriate than reform. What exactly would a reform do? The Triple-E Senate—equal, elected, and effective—and the call to adjust the term of office for Senators pushed by prominent reformers is a sham way of painting the already condemned Senate as respectable in the eyes of the public. If the original idea of the Senate was to be non-politicized, any reform that makes it politicized only de-emphasizes the need for the Senate. Most Canadians agree that the Senate cannot be left the way it is; the confusion that abounds is what to do with it. The abolitionist's reason that if Senatorial elections are held, it would be redundant to have two arms of parliament that are so identical they should not have different names. If both chambers are elected by people, as democratic as this sounds in theory, it leads to a political deadlock between two tiers that are gripped by the need to exercise their constitutional mandate. Elections would never rid the Senate of the redundancy it represents, the same way a white veil does not make the devil an angel. The abolitionists conclude that the Senate can never be reformed well enough to be considered satisfactory. It is, therefore, appropriate to call for its abolition.

There is much truth to what both parties have to say, but it also seems to be a hovering black cloud of unreason to which each side is deliberately or inadvertently oblivious. Every Canadian is a political philosopher, pundit, and social idealist; he/she has a self-crafted sculpture of what a nation entails and how he/she wants to be governed. Those in support of the Senate or those complacent with its current status quo argue from the standpoint view about what an ideal Senate signifies, but they hardly admit its current shortcomings. It has so far not delivered the dividends for which it was created. Should the Canadian public then be implored to be more patient with a legislative arm that exists for over 100 years? If at all it is a necessary evil Canadians must deal with, it is hard to ignore Senators like Patrick Brazeau, Pamela Wallin, and Mike Duffy, who, whether allegedly or proven, consistently dispel the public of any hope they have left in the accountability of the system. Those in favor of retaining the Senate are passionate about having ‘neutral citizens’ with no political affiliations to crosscheck the decisions and supervise the ‘politically inclined’ Lower House. But such arguments refer to politics as if it were synonymous with outright corruption—even a teacher can be corrupt, a boxer can be extremely prejudiced, and a cleric can harbor unthinkable thoughts some criminals would never dare to imagine. These are simple human behaviors, and it does not take a psychologist to know that they are not political.

The notions held by the abolitionists are fair, honest, and congenial. Inlay terms, there are citizens who after a long period of calm have gotten so disgusted with a seemingly corrupt and ineffective system. The peaceful vendetta against the Senate is not politically motivated but of those whose political patience is long exhausted. The abolitionists do not want a Triple-E Senate, they crave a Single-E—Eliminated—Senate. As they highlighted, the elected Senate would do little good, it almost makes no difference; in the hands of a bad chef, the Golden Fleece would not taste any different. Ideologies such as the few mentioned bind those in support of the abolished Senate, but they remain blind by its presumptive translation—that is, does a call for the abolition of one arm of the parliament reflect a display of confidence in the power, capability, and integrity of the other arm? Is the Lower House less corrupt and more effective than the Upper House, or has light been cast on only one arm for now? It must be realized however that if the Senate failed to operate appropriately, it is because the system of governance at the apogee of affairs—which trickles down to every sector of that nation—has either failed or is failing. We are then torn between the abolished Senate and a restructured democracy—one must be the real need and the other the felt need, but which is which?

As cockeyed as it might sound, one is apt to agree with the abolitionists on the fate of the Senate of Canada. It is a big leap, viewed by most, as impossible, it comes with a lot of ‘what ifs’; What if our assumptions fail us? What if this or that happens? It would perhaps be one of the most crucial decisions we make (Smith, 2003). The crux, however, is less about the Senate but more about how much the world is getting impatient with undelivered services promised by those in power. Indeed two heads are better than one, but only when both heads are functioning—one dysfunctional head would be better than two. In a world that has gotten flatter, and with the emergence of social media, it is hard to imagine why we cannot exist without the Senate. It is believed by some that the Senate ensures we are not prone to the tyranny of a sitting government, but this is one of the known unknowns of the ongoing debate—we cannot say for certain how something will play out (Rumsfeld, 2002). There has been a breach of promise by the Senate, and its end is certain—if not now, sometime in the future. There is already a consensus that things cannot remain the way they are, there is also much wisdom in the idea that the Senate cannot be successfully reformed, which leaves us with the option of abolition. The destination is decided, and the brakes are off.