Is the Canadian Senate really necessary?

The following is an excerpt from Canadian Politics Online

We’ve heard a lot about the House of Commons. What happens when you enter the Parliament buildings in Ottawa and turn right? When you turn right, you head towards to the Canadian Senate. This is referred to as the Upper House of the Parliament of Canada (the House of Commons is called the Lower House). It is called the “red chamber” because of its colour scheme. The red colour was borrowed from the House of Lords in Britain and symbolizes the colour of royalty.

The people who sit in this chamber are also politicians but are appointed rather than elected. They perform functions that are similar to the politicians in the House of Commons. In fact, they are part of the process for making laws. They debate most of the proposed bills that the House of Commons considers but are not entitled to review legislation that involves the spending of public funds. That privilege rests with the House of Commons alone. Because of their role in the law making process, the Senate sits in session at the same time that the House of Commons does, although the Upper Chamber sits for shorter periods (usually three days a week).
The Senate is made up of 105 members, all carefully chosen to reflect every region of the country. There are twenty four members each from the Maritime provinces, Québec, Ontario and the West. There are six members from Newfoundland and one each from the three territories – Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon.

The chamber appears at first glance to be a miniature version of the House of Commons and in many ways it is. As with the House, a Speaker is appointed from among the members to lead and control proceedings. The chamber is divided into two sides representing the two main political parties in Canada. There is a leader of the government in the Senate and there is a leader of the opposition. The leader of the government performs the dual roles of representing the governing party in the Senate and he represents the Senate at the cabinet table. Likewise, the leader of the opposition in the Senate acts as a leader of the opposition in the House of Commons.

The Governor General appoints senators but only upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Senators come from all walks of life but the majority of them have been appointed because of their past service to the party of the current prime minister. Thus, a Conservative Prime Minster will nominate Conservatives as senators and a Liberal Prime Minster will nominate loyal Liberals to become senators. These nominees could be retired Members of Parliament, campaign organizers or federal party officers. Lately, Prime Ministers have recommended the appointment of less "political" candidates. Olympic medalists or generals with distinguished military service have been selected as a way of making those appointments appear a little less partisan (one sided).

Senators can hold office until the age of 75 at which time they must retire. There was a time when they could hold office for life but that changed in 1965. There are a few other requirements in order to become a Senator. You must be thirty years of age or older and have net assets of at least $4,000.00. A Senator must reside in the province or territory that they represent or have property there.

This is the end of the article, Canadian Politics Online. Now I will give you my views with respect to the question: Is the Canadian Senate really necessary?

The rhetorical question that Canadians ask themselves is; “Are the Senators really qualified to make the kinds of decisions that have an effect on the lives of Canadians?

To begin to answer that question, we have to ask how they get to sit in the Senate in the first place.

The Governor General of Canada appoints the senators but only upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Senators come from all walks of life but the majority of them have been appointed because of their past service to the party of the current prime minister. Thus, a Conservative Prime Minster will nominate Conservatives as senators and a Liberal Prime Minster will nominate loyal Liberals to become senators.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that these appointees are suitable for the task that faces them in the Senate. For example, just because an appointee served in the election committee of the successful prime minster that got elected is actually qualified to deal with issues raised in the Senate. He got the appointment because of his service to the elected prime minister and not because of his understanding of complicated issues raised in the Senate.

Currently, Canada has a finance minister who is highly qualified to deal with issues of finances and if in the next election, he isn’t elected, it would be most appropriate if he later served in the Senate.

Unfortunately, most of these nominees are retired Members of Parliament, campaign organizers or federal party officers. Lately, Prime Ministers have recommended the appointment of less "political" candidates. Olympic medalists or generals with distinguished military service have been selected as a way of making those appointments appear a little less partisan (one sided).

An Olympian medalist may be qualified to deal with issues involving sport but would the medalist be qualified to vote on issues such as finance or criminal law? A retired general would certainly be qualified to deal with issues of national defence but would he be qualified to deal with issues such as health or employment insurance?

We have had some rather bad senators in the past that should never have been appointed to the Senate in the first place. Recently, the Prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper has increased the size of the Senate by choosing some more senatorial members of his choice. This step was taken by the Prime Minister to confirm the chances of any legislative bill to be successfully and rapidly passed by the Senate. One among them is Jacques Demers, who was a hockey coach previously. Jacques was reported to have announced in public that he is illiterate. What possible use can this man be to Canada as a senator? Years ago, one of our former prime ministers appointed his barber to the Senate

Although many of the senate members are knowledgeable and experienced, the decisions of the Senate members may not be nearer to the people since they were not elected by the people. In other words, they owe their allegiance to the prime minister that appointed them to the Senate and when he is gone, their allegiance is then to the political party they belong to.

Why is it necessary to have a Senate?

The Senate is the third part of Canada’s Parliament, the other two being the House of Commons and the Queen who is just a figurehead, The Senate has the power to initiate legislation, just like the House of Commons but this is a privilege that they do not often exercise. The principle role of the Senate is to review the legislation that has been tabled by the House of Commons. John A. Macdonald, our first Prime Minister, referred to our Senate as a chamber for “sober second thought.” This is a sometimes complicated process. Senators discuss and debate important issues in the chamber. They examine proposed legislation clause by clause and they often use their own specialized knowledge of issues to assess a bill’s worthiness. After they debate the legislation that they receive from the House, they have a vote and almost always pass it. They also do a lot of work in committee. The primary purpose of the Senate is to examine legislation that has been introduced in the House of Commons.

The Senate is a controversial institution of government. Arguably, the Senate is the weakest link in our democratic chain. That is because a group of appointed and unelected politicians can delay or even overturn legislation that has been passed by the elected members of the House of Commons.

For this reason, Canadians are skeptical, if not downright angry with the entire notion of a Senate. The very idea that there should be a body to protect the elite is a repugnant notion to most Canadians. Current appointments to the Senate smell of patronage, a practice that Canadians in today’s world have little tolerance for and are tired of hearing about. While there is value in how the Senate studies and improves legislation, Canadians have witnessed a sometimes bellicose (bloated, lazy) Senate at work in recent decades. Until a few years ago, fewer than half of all Senators would show up to conduct business in the chamber. There was a feeling that Senators collected generous salaries, benefits and pensions with no regard to actually having to work for those privileges. Recent bad behavior by some Senators eventually effected a rewriting of the rules for them. There are now monetary penalties for Senators who miss too much time from work. Senators can even face the prospect of being removed from the chamber or being forced to resign. These changes have been made as a result of public pressure.

The Canadian Senate has become so disliked in recent years that two proposals have emerged as to how to deal with it. The first one, apparently favoured by most Canadians, is to simply abolish the Senate. We don’t need it, their argument goes. It is a waste of taxpayer's money and it violates one of the central principles of Parliamentary democracy, that is, representation by the people.

A second proposal is to fundamentally reform the Senate so that it is accountable. Western Canadians proposed a “triple-E” Senate in the 1990’s. The triple E stood for “equal, elected and effective”. Under this proposal, the Parliament of Canada would have adopted a system of government not unlike Congress in the United States. A bill would have to be passed by both chambers but a more representative Senate would have more power to defeat legislation because it would be an elected body.

The triple-E proposal grew out of an initiative from the West to have better representation in Parliament. As the House of Commons is essentially a representation by population type of institution, with Ontario and Quebec dominating in the number of seats, a triple-E Senate would help to correct that imbalance. This idea has fallen out of vogue in recent years but Canadians do see the need for Senate reform nonetheless and the safe bet is that changes to the grand Upper House are coming.

The US Senate functions very differently from our Senate. Members of the US Senate are elected for a six year term, two Senators from each of the fifty states. In this chamber, each state is represented equally, regardless of the population of the state.

It is my view that the Senate plays an important role in Parliament but I also feel that the senators should be chosen by the people and not by the prime minister. Further, I think they shouldn’t be elected at the same times as the members of the House but instead, should be elected two years later. Further, I don’t think that an elected member of the House should qualify to run for the position of senator until he reaches the end of his term of four years in the House. If he wants to run for office as a senator, then he can do it when he is no longer sitting in the House as a representative of the people. This way, we wouldn’t have members of the House deserting the people who voted them in office before their term of office is over just so that they could run for the office as a senator.

By electing Canadian senators, we have a better chance of removing those who are incompetent or lazy rather than have them remain until they are 75 years of age.

I do have a problem about the concept that they cannot sit in the senate chamber as a senator after they reach the age of 75. I believe that many of them would be quite competent to continue serving as a senator after the age of 75. I am 77 and I don’t think I have lost my ability to think rationally. In our city of almost a million people, (Mississauga, Ontario) our mayor is 90 years of age and is still proficient in her duties as a mayor of a large city.