Canadian Senate Chamber
As Canadians we know that one of the main issues that has come to dominate Canadian politics on Capitol Hill, has been the issue of Senate reform. Reform that ever since the 1970’s with the rise of Alberta and the West in the Canadian economy, has been a major issue in Canadian federal politics. Thus, it should be no surprise that this issue has come to the fore once more, with an Albertan Prime Minister in Stephan Harper and his conservative majority.
Due to this development Senator Colin Kenny, a Montréaler and a Trudeau appointee in 1984, recently wrote an article in the National Post presenting his objections to the most current proposal by Stephen Harper to reform the Senate. Using this article we will explore the proposed reforms to the Senate and Kenny’s objections to them and try and determine whether Kenny’s objections defeat Harper’s proposal. Let’s begin…
More After the Break
Elected vs. Appointed
Under Prime Minister Harper’s proposal the Senate would become an elected body of officials, with each Senator being elected by the whole province, unlike the House of Commons where members are elected by small portions of the population, located in each riding.
Kenny's Objection: The idea that the Senate must be elected in order to be more effective is absurd, there are plenty of components of the federal government that are effective, but not elected; including bureaucrats (federal servants) and Supreme Court Justices. Also, the idea that legislators that pass legislation requiring public expenditures should be elected doesn’t have any weight. Since the Senate already informally recognizes that while they can delay and review legislation, once legislation is passed by the house the Senate cannot stop it. Therefore, the elected component of the federal government already has the last say.
My Defense Against Kenny's Objection: It is well documented throughout human history that bureaucrats, while they may eventuallyget things done, also waste a lot of public funds because they have no reason to worry about being held accountable for their actions, because once embedded in the system you cannot get them out, especially with the unionization of public servants in Canada. I think all Canadians recognize this basic fact of the waste that occurs in bureaucracy. This does not mean necessarily that public servants aren’t needed or that they should be elected, but it does mean that whenever a component of the federal government can be made publically accountable it should be done.
Score: Harper 1 –Kenny 0
Elected Senate = Stronger Senate
Under Prime Minister Harper’s proposal the Senate would become an elected body of officials, with each Senator being elected by the whole province, unlike the House of Commons where members are elected by small portions of the population, located in each riding.
Senator Kenny's Objection: If it were to become the case that Senators would be elected than they would have no reason to allow the House of Commons to have the final say on legislation. Moreover, this could lead to deadlock, as one can witness currently in the United States’ Congress. Especially, because Senators under this proposal would be backed by vote of the entire province or territory, not just a mere fraction as is the case with members of the House of Commons, meaning they would feel more empowered than their House counterparts to have the final say.
My Defense Against Kenny's Objection: His first objection does not make any sense. It is fine that under the new system the Senate would have the final say, since they are now elected, just like in the House of Commons. As for the potential of deadlock in the Canadian legislature that could occur under this new system, this is a good thing. Deadlock’s mean that the Canadian Government is not limiting our freedom, they are not spending our money and they are not implementing any new taxes; all positive things. Furthermore, if elections for Senators were to occur in the middle of each Prime Minister’s Terms, that would mean that Canadians would not have to wait for the Prime Minister’s term to end before being able to halt the government’s plans.
Let’s call this one a tie, since while I am for deadlock, I know that it can also do unnecessary harm to the nation.
Score: Harper 1 – Kenny 0
Term Limits
Term limits have been proposed within the Prime Minister’s circle as being 9 years.
Kenny's Objection: Under this system, those people in their 30’s, 40’s and 50’s of high profile and success will most likely not want to run for the Senate knowing that they will have to restart their careers and return to the private sector in their 40’s, 50’s and 60’s; meaning that they will most likely choose to stay in the private sector. This will result in mostly rich and old people to run for the Senate. Furthermore, it will result in many Senators in their last two years in office, becoming highly influenced by special interests and lobby groups that can offer them jobs and money for after they leave office.
My Defense Against Kenny's Objection: In this same article Kenny states, "[If] the Senate is elected, [then] Senators spend much of their time and energy scrounging for money to get re-elected." Meaning, he believes that the corruption that would occur in the Senate would occur regardless of whether or not there were term-limits. I agree with this, and that is exactly why term-limits are necessary, since it provides an automatic mechanism to remove corrupted officials from power. Moreover, the idea that having a term limit of 9 years would detract younger people from wanting to run for the Senate, in my mind is a good thing. Since, this would ensure that those people in the Senate actually care enough about serving the nation to potentially sacrifice their own careers. Also, Kenny shows his liberal bias, by stating that only old-rich people will run for the Senate. This is because, being old or rich are not disqualifiers for public office, and besides I thought that that was the original purpose of the Senate to act as a place where the older wisdom of past generations could help guide the people of younger generations.
I will now address another objection that would certainly be made by Kenny in regards to term limits, and it is this, that with term limits that would mean throwing out the good Senators along with the bad. Yet, while I concede the point that good people will be removed from the Senate, the costs of leaving bad people in the Senate indefinitely, are too great. Besides, when was the last time you met a politician and then said,"yes, I want him to have power forever."
Let’s call this one a win for Harper.
Score: Harper 2 – Kenny 0
Provincial Relations
Under the proposed system Senators would be representatives of their respective provinces, no longer representatives of the old guard of Canada and the old guard’s wisdom, whatever that means.
Kenny's Objection:This would necessarily curb the power and influence of Premiers on the power of the Federal Government.
My Defense of Kenny's Objection: This is clearly going to be the case for unlike the Senators, premiers actually live in their province/territory, and thus are more sensitive to shifts in public mood and the public’s political wishes. Whereas Senators will not have to care or they may not even notice these shifts in their voting base, because they are in Ottawa far from their constituents and protected by their terms. This will result in a curbing of provincial power, because shifts in desires in the province/territories’ voters will not be recognized or felt by the Federal Government. Especially, since the weight of the Premier’s objections would be lessened if a member of the Senate from the same province/territory were to disagree with them. Since, those in the media and within the federal government who are in opposition to the premier’s objection(s), can merely undermine the premier by stating, "well the senator(s) from that province do not agree with the premier, and therefore the premier does not clearly represent the desires of the entire population of their province/territory."
Let’s say that this is a win for Kenny.
Score: Harper 2 – Kenny 1
Abolish the Senate Completely
There are some within Prime Minister’s circle that are also toying with the idea of abolishing the Senate altogether.
Kenny's Objection:This would lead to a very unstable government if the House of Commons were the only body within the legislative branch of the Canadian Government. Moreover, it would not allow for reviews, amendments and stalling of important legislation that the House of Commons wanted to pass. To allow time for the Canadian public to fully understand the legislation before it’s passing, a key ingredient in the democratic system of Canada. Kenny also pointed out that, "In 2010, the cost of the Senate cost every Canadian $3.14 – one boutique cup of coffee."Meaning the cost of the Senate is fairly cheap.
My Defense of Kenny's Objection: I agree with Kenny that the Senate plays a vital role in reviewing, amending and delaying important legislation, to allow the Canadian people to fully understand the legislation and decide whether or not to allow it to pass. Moreover, the idea of abolishing the Senate, I would argue, is not a conservative position, especially if you care about the principle and believe in the necessity of small government. This is because, the Senate is just one more roadblock to overcome in passing laws in the nation, and all laws necessarily expand the Federal Government, because you need bureaucrats to oversee and carry out the newly passed legislation. So to remove a roadblock that slows down the growth of the federal government, no matter how ineffective, is not a smart idea.
Let’s say Kenny wins this one.
Score: Harper 2 – Kenny 2
With this breakdown of the current proposals and their aspects in regards to Senate Reform, resulting in a tie as to whether or not the Senate should be reformed. It leaves Canadians with a bit of a decision to make. However, before doing so, comeback tomorrow and check out a third way that I would like to propose for Senate reform that I believe solves all of the objections and fills the needs of all sides when it comes to Senate reform. In the meantime feel free to leave comments and post your own ideas for Canadian Senate reform.
- Corey S.
<THINK ABOOT IT>
Elected vs. Appointed
Under Prime Minister Harper’s proposal the Senate would become an elected body of officials, with each Senator being elected by the whole province, unlike the House of Commons where members are elected by small portions of the population, located in each riding.
Kenny's Objection: The idea that the Senate must be elected in order to be more effective is absurd, there are plenty of components of the federal government that are effective, but not elected; including bureaucrats (federal servants) and Supreme Court Justices. Also, the idea that legislators that pass legislation requiring public expenditures should be elected doesn’t have any weight. Since the Senate already informally recognizes that while they can delay and review legislation, once legislation is passed by the house the Senate cannot stop it. Therefore, the elected component of the federal government already has the last say.
My Defense Against Kenny's Objection: It is well documented throughout human history that bureaucrats, while they may eventuallyget things done, also waste a lot of public funds because they have no reason to worry about being held accountable for their actions, because once embedded in the system you cannot get them out, especially with the unionization of public servants in Canada. I think all Canadians recognize this basic fact of the waste that occurs in bureaucracy. This does not mean necessarily that public servants aren’t needed or that they should be elected, but it does mean that whenever a component of the federal government can be made publically accountable it should be done.
Score: Harper 1 –Kenny 0
Elected Senate = Stronger Senate
Under Prime Minister Harper’s proposal the Senate would become an elected body of officials, with each Senator being elected by the whole province, unlike the House of Commons where members are elected by small portions of the population, located in each riding.
Senator Kenny's Objection: If it were to become the case that Senators would be elected than they would have no reason to allow the House of Commons to have the final say on legislation. Moreover, this could lead to deadlock, as one can witness currently in the United States’ Congress. Especially, because Senators under this proposal would be backed by vote of the entire province or territory, not just a mere fraction as is the case with members of the House of Commons, meaning they would feel more empowered than their House counterparts to have the final say.
My Defense Against Kenny's Objection: His first objection does not make any sense. It is fine that under the new system the Senate would have the final say, since they are now elected, just like in the House of Commons. As for the potential of deadlock in the Canadian legislature that could occur under this new system, this is a good thing. Deadlock’s mean that the Canadian Government is not limiting our freedom, they are not spending our money and they are not implementing any new taxes; all positive things. Furthermore, if elections for Senators were to occur in the middle of each Prime Minister’s Terms, that would mean that Canadians would not have to wait for the Prime Minister’s term to end before being able to halt the government’s plans.
Let’s call this one a tie, since while I am for deadlock, I know that it can also do unnecessary harm to the nation.
Score: Harper 1 – Kenny 0
Term Limits
Term limits have been proposed within the Prime Minister’s circle as being 9 years.
Kenny's Objection: Under this system, those people in their 30’s, 40’s and 50’s of high profile and success will most likely not want to run for the Senate knowing that they will have to restart their careers and return to the private sector in their 40’s, 50’s and 60’s; meaning that they will most likely choose to stay in the private sector. This will result in mostly rich and old people to run for the Senate. Furthermore, it will result in many Senators in their last two years in office, becoming highly influenced by special interests and lobby groups that can offer them jobs and money for after they leave office.
My Defense Against Kenny's Objection: In this same article Kenny states, "[If] the Senate is elected, [then] Senators spend much of their time and energy scrounging for money to get re-elected." Meaning, he believes that the corruption that would occur in the Senate would occur regardless of whether or not there were term-limits. I agree with this, and that is exactly why term-limits are necessary, since it provides an automatic mechanism to remove corrupted officials from power. Moreover, the idea that having a term limit of 9 years would detract younger people from wanting to run for the Senate, in my mind is a good thing. Since, this would ensure that those people in the Senate actually care enough about serving the nation to potentially sacrifice their own careers. Also, Kenny shows his liberal bias, by stating that only old-rich people will run for the Senate. This is because, being old or rich are not disqualifiers for public office, and besides I thought that that was the original purpose of the Senate to act as a place where the older wisdom of past generations could help guide the people of younger generations.
I will now address another objection that would certainly be made by Kenny in regards to term limits, and it is this, that with term limits that would mean throwing out the good Senators along with the bad. Yet, while I concede the point that good people will be removed from the Senate, the costs of leaving bad people in the Senate indefinitely, are too great. Besides, when was the last time you met a politician and then said,"yes, I want him to have power forever."
Let’s call this one a win for Harper.
Score: Harper 2 – Kenny 0
Provincial Relations
Under the proposed system Senators would be representatives of their respective provinces, no longer representatives of the old guard of Canada and the old guard’s wisdom, whatever that means.
Kenny's Objection:This would necessarily curb the power and influence of Premiers on the power of the Federal Government.
My Defense of Kenny's Objection: This is clearly going to be the case for unlike the Senators, premiers actually live in their province/territory, and thus are more sensitive to shifts in public mood and the public’s political wishes. Whereas Senators will not have to care or they may not even notice these shifts in their voting base, because they are in Ottawa far from their constituents and protected by their terms. This will result in a curbing of provincial power, because shifts in desires in the province/territories’ voters will not be recognized or felt by the Federal Government. Especially, since the weight of the Premier’s objections would be lessened if a member of the Senate from the same province/territory were to disagree with them. Since, those in the media and within the federal government who are in opposition to the premier’s objection(s), can merely undermine the premier by stating, "well the senator(s) from that province do not agree with the premier, and therefore the premier does not clearly represent the desires of the entire population of their province/territory."
Let’s say that this is a win for Kenny.
Score: Harper 2 – Kenny 1
Abolish the Senate Completely
There are some within Prime Minister’s circle that are also toying with the idea of abolishing the Senate altogether.
Kenny's Objection:This would lead to a very unstable government if the House of Commons were the only body within the legislative branch of the Canadian Government. Moreover, it would not allow for reviews, amendments and stalling of important legislation that the House of Commons wanted to pass. To allow time for the Canadian public to fully understand the legislation before it’s passing, a key ingredient in the democratic system of Canada. Kenny also pointed out that, "In 2010, the cost of the Senate cost every Canadian $3.14 – one boutique cup of coffee."Meaning the cost of the Senate is fairly cheap.
My Defense of Kenny's Objection: I agree with Kenny that the Senate plays a vital role in reviewing, amending and delaying important legislation, to allow the Canadian people to fully understand the legislation and decide whether or not to allow it to pass. Moreover, the idea of abolishing the Senate, I would argue, is not a conservative position, especially if you care about the principle and believe in the necessity of small government. This is because, the Senate is just one more roadblock to overcome in passing laws in the nation, and all laws necessarily expand the Federal Government, because you need bureaucrats to oversee and carry out the newly passed legislation. So to remove a roadblock that slows down the growth of the federal government, no matter how ineffective, is not a smart idea.
Let’s say Kenny wins this one.
Score: Harper 2 – Kenny 2
With this breakdown of the current proposals and their aspects in regards to Senate Reform, resulting in a tie as to whether or not the Senate should be reformed. It leaves Canadians with a bit of a decision to make. However, before doing so, comeback tomorrow and check out a third way that I would like to propose for Senate reform that I believe solves all of the objections and fills the needs of all sides when it comes to Senate reform. In the meantime feel free to leave comments and post your own ideas for Canadian Senate reform.
- Corey S.
<THINK ABOOT IT>
