Should the Senate of Canada Be Abolished - Coursework Example

IN CANADA, SHOULD THE SENATE BE ABOLISHED? Information May 30 Introduction Compared with other big s of the Canadian parliamentary government and what has been written about them, it can be said that more has been written about the Canadian senate. However, although a lot is written about it, the senate is not much studied and everyone from the public, journalists to politicians seems to be satisfied with its accepted image “as a dusty, obscure Arcadia filled with aged and retired political warhorses…whose main concern, apart from enjoying a good, comfortable life, is to preserve private wealth and the interests of big business, the ‘lobby from within’.”1 In recent years the frustration of the public with the Canadian senate has reached its peak. The senate is alleged of being corrupt and covering up serious issues that affect the public and Canada in general. Due to this, the status quo of the Canadian senate is not acceptable anymore and the big question now is what should be done about the Canadian senate?2 A lot of attention has been given to how the Canadian senate can be abolished since as alleged, it is undemocratic, ineffective and unelected. In fact, those for its abolishment term it as a useless institution, which only wastes the taxpayers’ money in its maintenance and running operations. It has also been alleged that the senate undermines the principles of democracy, due to the fact that it is unelected. Courtney and Smith assert that “many Canadians see the senate as an ineffective institution with members who are underworked and overpaid, and can be counted upon to bow to the demands of the Prime Minister who appointed them.”3 However, apart from abolishing it, there are other viable solutions to the problem such as recognizing the worthwhile functions that it plays, having it become an elected body, or reforming it. This paper argues that the Canadian senate makes significant contributions to the Canadian parliamentary system and performs worthwhile functions, but these have a lot of time been ignored by critics and the media, who focus more on the negatives such as the scandals it gets involved in and accuses it of being a partisan institution. For this reason, rather than abolishing it, these functions ought to be recognized first and any necessary reformation performed. Issues that lead to the Canadian Senate being termed as Inactive Historically, the Canadian senate played an important role in federation; in fact, its role was almost similar to that played by the upper houses of other federations. Rather than being based on provincial units, representation in the senate was based on regions. Mahler points out that “over the years, however, the Canadian senate has decreased in importance to the point where it provides no real security for the provinces or the regions of Canada today.”4 A number of issues have been pointed out as being the reasons the Canadian senate has turned inactive. These include the facts that it is underwhelmed in the beginning of a session and then overwhelmed in the end, the work that can be performed is limited, and it is appointed rather than being elected. During the beginning of a session, the work of the senate is limited. Things however change towards the end of a session as the Commons who are usually also not busy in the beginning, hand so many bills to the senate, which lacks enough time to seriously consider each bill. Majority of senators get distracted from their legislative work by other occupations they have, which leaves most of the work to a small number of senate members, who are unable to complete it, since it gets overwhelming for them. Appointment of senate members rather than election is the third reason. Mahler points out that in a contemporary, “liberal context, it would be considered by many wholly inappropriate for a body of people appointed for life (or up to the age of seventy-five years) to override the judgment of an elected house.”5 Comparison between Senate Members and their Work and Commons and their Work Although there are a lot of contradicting and confusing notions about the Canadian senate, a comparison between its work and members, and the work of the commons and its members shows a lot of competence, experience and good work on the part of the senate. Senate members have been accused of being lazy and ineffective. However, when its committees and committee investigations are compared to those of the commons, they are often better. Senators have often been termed as political hacks who are loyal to the Prime minister, and parties which appoint them. In terms of qualifications and experience however, senate members have higher qualifications and are more experienced. Joyal states that “though senators are appointed on the basis of province and region, regional and provincial representation is among the least well performed of its functions.”6 The public also has the notion that senators are paid hefty amounts of money, but the truth is that they are paid less, especially compared to senior civil servants and judges. The accusation of the senate being unrepresentative also lacks a basis given that the proportion of women in senate is higher compared to that in the Commons. Worthwhile Functions of the Canadian Senate According to Courtney and Smith, “originally the senate was intended to represent regional interests and to provide a check on potentially rush actions by the popularly elected Commons.”7 These two functions were mainly performed through an evaluation of laws. During the twentieth century, the senate added two functions that were somewhat distinctive among its roles. These included providing representation and protection for minorities as well as special interests, though to a limited extent, and conducting of investigations on public administration and policy, which is an explicit oversight role. The four roles can be summarized as regional representation, legislative review, protection of minorities, and restraint of Executive power. The senate plays a worthwhile role as a protector of regional interests and dissolving it might worsen the current situation in Canada. This is because coming up with another institution that can represent and protect regional interests would be a complex task or an even bigger disaster. For this reason, it is important to recognize that the senate is still needed for purposes of regional representation and protection and due to failures that have been noted, reforms can be implemented. Top among the senate’s mistakes is failure to adequately represent the interests of different regions.8 All Canadian senators are appointed by the Prime Minister who seems to favor some regions over others as nearly half of senators are from Quebec and Ontario.9 As mentioned, this is an issue that can be corrected through reform rather than abolition of senate. The role of the Canadian senate in legislative review gave it the name ‘house of sober second thought’.10 The function of reviewing legislation is a worthwhile duty of the senate. It assesses a law and considers whether to pass is or to recommend its revision or amendment. As it fulfills this function, the senate is expected to look at a proposed legislation in two ways different from those of the House of House of Commons. First, it is expected to respect the rights of property by standing up for property rights and second, it is expected to pay particular attention to the needs of the less populous regions of Canada.11 According to Malcolmson and Myers, “in law, the powers of the senate are almost the same as those of the House of Commons.”12 Bayefsky and Waldman state that, “unquestionably, one of the traditional roles of the senate has been to protect minorities against any ‘tyranny of the majority’.”13 This is done through the rule that rather than being appointed based on population, senators ought to be appointed on the basis of equal representation. The Canadian senate has 105 seats available.14 According to Peterson’s Publishing, for one to be appointed as a Canadian senator, he must be a citizen of Canada either by birth or naturalization and be at least 30 and above, and also “have a net estate worth at least $4000, own property in the province for which they are appointed worth $4000, and be a resident of the province he or she is appointed to represent.”15 Ways of Reforming the Canadian Senate One of the major failures of the Canadian senate has been failure to represent and protect regional interests. Larger provinces in Canada usually get more seats and it seems that the provinces of Quebec and Ontario are favored over the rest of the provinces. This can be reformed by introducing a model that ensures proper representation even for provinces that are small in size. Kymlicka points out that, “in line with the principle of representation by population, Canadians have sought to have the American model adopted in Canada to ensure effective representation for smaller provinces that might be neglected in the House of Commons.”16 Senators do carry out their functions of reviewing legislations. However, in recent years, they hardly oppose bills that have support from the majority in the House of Commons. Rather, they merely make recommendations for minor amendments which is not right, since this can cause serious effects. To solve this dilemma, rules can be put in place to ensure that the senate is not coerced to support a bill due to the fact that many members of the House of Commons support it. The timeline for the passage of bills in Canada also needs to be revised. This is because among the reasons senators support bills they have not carefully reviewed is lack of enough time. As mentioned earlier, during the beginning of a session, the work of the senate is limited, but towards the end of a session, the Commons who are usually also not busy in the beginning, hand so many bills to the senate, which lacks enough time to seriously consider each bill. According to Joyal, “many senators maintain that they could do an even better job of legislative review if there was better management of the timeline for the passage of bills.”17 The Canadian Prime Minister has been accused of appointing senators in a biased manner, which leads to unequal representation and compromises the need for the interests of minorities to be protected. Reform in this area is necessary so that minority interests can be protected. This can be done by having senators elected rather than the Prime Minister appointing them.18 In fact, majority of Canadians urge that senators should be elected. However, proper rules will need to be put in place to ensure that the senate does not compete with the House of Commons, as each institution might claim to represent the rights of the people, leading to political stalemates.19 Conclusion Although the Canadian senate has been criticized as a useless institution that only wastes taxpayers’ money, critics need to take a keener look at the worthwhile functions it plays, rather than just urging for its abolition. It cannot be denied that the senate has its shortcomings, but abolition is certainly not the way to go. After all, who will play the significant roles it plays if this happens. Recognizing these worthwhile roles and implementing necessary reforms to have things move as expected is a better way of solving the problem. Overall, it can be said that critics have created a bad image of the Canadian senate, as they fail to recognize its positive contributions and rather coming up with serious accusations ridden by exaggerations, omissions and inaccuracies. The work of the senate is more significant than every critic imagines. Among its members are hardworking individuals that are politically experienced and also talented and who deserve the pay they get. In regard to regional concerns, it cannot be said that the senate is a complete failure. In regard to legislative review, the function of the senate has reduced in importance, but there are senators who still demonstrate their ability to perform detailed legislative work. Bibliography Alghabra, Omar. “Should Canada Elect, Abolish or Reform the Senate?” huffingtonpost.ca. 16 November 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/omar-alghabra/senate-reform_b_4268401.html. Bayefsky, Anne F. and Arieh Waldman. State Support for Religious Education: Canada versus the United Nations. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2007. Canada West Foundation. “What’s an Elected Senate for?” cwf.ca. n.d. http://cwf.ca/commentaries/whats-an-elected-senate-for. Courtney, John, and David Smith. The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Hart, Michael. From Pride to Influence: Towards a New Canadian Foreign Policy. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008. Joyal, Serge. Protecting Canadian Democracy: The Senate You Never Knew. Ontario: McGill-Queens University Press, 2003. Mahler, Gregory S. New Dimensions of Canadian Federalism: Canada in a Comparative Perspective. Cranbury: Associated University Press, 1987. Malcolmson, Patrick, and Richard Myers. The Canadian Regime. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. Meekison, J. Peter, Hamish Telford and Harvey Lazar. Reconsidering the Institutions of Canadian Federalism. Ontario: McGill-Queens University Press, 2004. Rockowitz, Murray, Samuel C. Brownstein, Max Peters and Ira Wolf. Barrons how to Prepare for the GED High School Equivalency Exam, Canadian Edition. New York: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2005. Read More