0
What Canada Needs: Senate Reform
26 December 2005
[indent]Contrary to popular belief, Canada is not a democracy. Nor is it a republic as our southern neighbour is. Although the proper definition is a "constitutional monarchy", it's really an oligarchy.
Okay, most nations are oligarchies (government by the privileged few). Or worse, plutocracies (government by the rich). Political power is preserved in the handful of a few rich, powerful families or business tycoons. They jealously guard their power base, and closely control the means of entry into the political arena. But in democracies or republics, this is somewhat mitigated by the electoral system which cannot be adequately controlled by the elite.
Sure, Canada has democratic elements in its political system, but so did the former Soviet Union. We elect our municipal, provincial and federal governments fairly and honestly. And despite some inconsistencies and hiccups, municipal and provincial governments are democratic in that elected people govern, create laws and represent the people (there are concerns that the appointed courts have too much power and often become politicized, overturning legislation, but that's an issue for another entry... as is the undue influence of special interest groups at all levels of government).
Not so, federally. Looming over our elected federal government is the shadowy and nefarious Senate - an appointed body mostly filled with sycophants, cronies, party supporters and people to whom the political leaders owe favours. And since the Senate has the authority to stop any legislation created by the elected body below it, the Senate holds the true reins of power in Canada. In other words, political appointees run Canada.
And they are not accountable to the public: they serve the Prime Minister. As Senator Murray himself said in 1997: "We have not been elected. We are not required to go to constituents periodically to be re-elected and explain our attendance or non-attendance in Parliament, in the constituency, or with regard to other activities. We are not accountable in that sense." I'm not sure if that's a complaint, a boast or merely a statement of fact.
The Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA) reported that "Canadians want Senate reform (with 47% of Quebecers believing it should be abolished entirely), referenda on moral issues, political parties to keep their promises, and accountability in politics (they believe that patronage is an avoidable part of the system). "
Even in the UK, Canada's erant Senate is the topic for course discussion. For example, at this British university site on a Reformed Canadian Senate, it recommends giving provinces the right to appoint their own Senators: "One of the reasons that the many house of federation, or mixed appointment and elected models have failed is a result of the publics negative perception of the appointment process. By giving the provinces power to name senators it would give the premiers the ability to perpetuate the patronage process and thus reduce the credibility of the reformed senate. It would take the criticism of the senate away from the federal government and place it in the provincial arena."
Technically, the Governor-General (another unsavory boondoggle and egregious waste of taxpayers' money that lost its last vestiges of credibility and respect under the excesses of Queen Adrienne) has the authority to appoint members of the Senate, but in practice, the Prime Minister makes the recommendations and they get appointed.
(As a sidebar - Americans feeling smug or superior at this point should read the selections from the book Who Rules America... )
The Senate costs Canadians more than $50 million a year. Here's what they get from your tax dollars:
Senate reform isn't anything new. It's been bandied about almost since Confederation. Former Senate Law Clerk Russell Hopkins wrote in 1962, "the volcano of ‘Senate Reform’, never extinct but for some time dormant, may erupt once more."
The current "best" option is the "triple-E" Senate: elected, effective and equal. That idea was introduced by Preston Manning and the Reform Party back in 1998. When the Reformers got subsumed into the new Conservative Party, that idea was cast adrift for a while, but has resurfaced again in the latest election campaign as a plank in the Conservative platform. Back in the late 1990s, one Reform Party member described the Senate in the Washington Post thusly: "
Of course, the Liberals have avoided any contact with Senate reform, in great party because as the long-term ruling party, they've been able to fill the Senate seats with Liberal cronies. Well, since Senators seldom actually fulfill their responsibility, and truly earn their exorbitant salary, they don't really "fill" the seats as much as sit in the trough suck at the public teat in absentia...
Over at the site Proud to be Canadian, these facts are touted about the Martin government and its relationship to the Senate:
Supporters of the Senate say nations need a house of "sober second thought." But the Senate does not represent Canada. Aside from the fact it really only represents the elite and powerful friends of the prime minister du jour, it is not proportional to the population. The site This Canada suggests voters ask this question of their Liberal candidates:
And at Mapleleaf Web, the author asks, Why does the Canadian Senate lack legitimacy? In part, he answers,
Columnist Larry Zolf once offered then-PM Jean Chretien the sort of loyalty he expected of his Senators:
Anyway - for Canada to become a true democracy - that is, a state not rules by the hand-picked buddies of the elite - we need to reform the Senate. Abolishing it is the best option, and certainly save a lot of taxpayers' money. The second best appears to be an elected Senate, but that might devolve into a popularity contest. Thirdly, allow provinces to appoint their own Senators. No matter what the model, we must throw out the parasites and lampreys who infest it now, and fill the seats with accountable people.
No matter which choice we take, the Senate reform has to remake the representation model for better equality, and then set fixed terms for each member. No more lifetime cronyism, no more "political Valhalla" appointments. And we have to ensure that the appointments or elections are done at regular, fixed intervals, not to run concurrent with the federal government.
As the above-noted Washington Post concluded, "Politically, the Senate's modern purpose is also unclear." It's time we made some clarity!
Resources:
Think you can get elected to Prime Minister in Canada, 2006? Well, it may be too late to start your own political party, but you can certainly take a run at the seat in Prime Minister Forever from 80soft.
Okay, most nations are oligarchies (government by the privileged few). Or worse, plutocracies (government by the rich). Political power is preserved in the handful of a few rich, powerful families or business tycoons. They jealously guard their power base, and closely control the means of entry into the political arena. But in democracies or republics, this is somewhat mitigated by the electoral system which cannot be adequately controlled by the elite.
Quote
Oligarchy :
Any system of government in which virtually all political power is held by a very small number of wealthy but otherwise unmeritorious people who shape public policy primarily to benefit themselves financially through direct subsidies to their agricultural estates or business firms, lucrative government contracts, and protectionist measures aimed at damaging their economic competitors — while displaying little or no concern for the broader interests of the rest of the citizenry. “Oligarchy” is also used as a collective term to denote all the individual members of the small corrupt ruling group in such a system. The term always has a negative or derogatory connotation in both contemporary and classical usage, in contrast to aristocracy (which sometimes has a derogatory connotation in modern usage, but never in classical).
Source: www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/oligarchy
Any system of government in which virtually all political power is held by a very small number of wealthy but otherwise unmeritorious people who shape public policy primarily to benefit themselves financially through direct subsidies to their agricultural estates or business firms, lucrative government contracts, and protectionist measures aimed at damaging their economic competitors — while displaying little or no concern for the broader interests of the rest of the citizenry. “Oligarchy” is also used as a collective term to denote all the individual members of the small corrupt ruling group in such a system. The term always has a negative or derogatory connotation in both contemporary and classical usage, in contrast to aristocracy (which sometimes has a derogatory connotation in modern usage, but never in classical).
Source: www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/oligarchy
Quote
A plutocracy is a form of government where all the state's decisions are centralized in an affluent wealthy class of citizenry, and the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concomitantly with the features of those systems.
...a pejorative reference to the great and undue influence the wealthy have on the political process in contemporary society. This influence can be exerted positively (by financial "contributions" or in some cases, bribes) or negatively by refusing to financially support the government (refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, etc). It can also be exerted by the owners and ad buyers of media properties which can shape public perception of political issues (e.g. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp's alleged political agendas in Australia, the UK and the United States or George Soros' efforts to back left-leaning PACS (political action committees)) or the NRA (National Rifle Association) and Oil Industry which back right-leaning PACS.
from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
...a pejorative reference to the great and undue influence the wealthy have on the political process in contemporary society. This influence can be exerted positively (by financial "contributions" or in some cases, bribes) or negatively by refusing to financially support the government (refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, etc). It can also be exerted by the owners and ad buyers of media properties which can shape public perception of political issues (e.g. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp's alleged political agendas in Australia, the UK and the United States or George Soros' efforts to back left-leaning PACS (political action committees)) or the NRA (National Rifle Association) and Oil Industry which back right-leaning PACS.
from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
Sure, Canada has democratic elements in its political system, but so did the former Soviet Union. We elect our municipal, provincial and federal governments fairly and honestly. And despite some inconsistencies and hiccups, municipal and provincial governments are democratic in that elected people govern, create laws and represent the people (there are concerns that the appointed courts have too much power and often become politicized, overturning legislation, but that's an issue for another entry... as is the undue influence of special interest groups at all levels of government).
Not so, federally. Looming over our elected federal government is the shadowy and nefarious Senate - an appointed body mostly filled with sycophants, cronies, party supporters and people to whom the political leaders owe favours. And since the Senate has the authority to stop any legislation created by the elected body below it, the Senate holds the true reins of power in Canada. In other words, political appointees run Canada.
And they are not accountable to the public: they serve the Prime Minister. As Senator Murray himself said in 1997: "We have not been elected. We are not required to go to constituents periodically to be re-elected and explain our attendance or non-attendance in Parliament, in the constituency, or with regard to other activities. We are not accountable in that sense." I'm not sure if that's a complaint, a boast or merely a statement of fact.
The Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA) reported that "Canadians want Senate reform (with 47% of Quebecers believing it should be abolished entirely), referenda on moral issues, political parties to keep their promises, and accountability in politics (they believe that patronage is an avoidable part of the system). "
Even in the UK, Canada's erant Senate is the topic for course discussion. For example, at this British university site on a Reformed Canadian Senate, it recommends giving provinces the right to appoint their own Senators: "One of the reasons that the many house of federation, or mixed appointment and elected models have failed is a result of the publics negative perception of the appointment process. By giving the provinces power to name senators it would give the premiers the ability to perpetuate the patronage process and thus reduce the credibility of the reformed senate. It would take the criticism of the senate away from the federal government and place it in the provincial arena."
Technically, the Governor-General (another unsavory boondoggle and egregious waste of taxpayers' money that lost its last vestiges of credibility and respect under the excesses of Queen Adrienne) has the authority to appoint members of the Senate, but in practice, the Prime Minister makes the recommendations and they get appointed.
(As a sidebar - Americans feeling smug or superior at this point should read the selections from the book Who Rules America... )
The Senate costs Canadians more than $50 million a year. Here's what they get from your tax dollars:
Quote
THE SALARY - A basic $70,000.00 per year and an extra $150.00 for every day they show up in the senate. This is an incentive for them to actually be there, rather than retiring to Mexico on the generous salary and expense account.
THE JOB: - The Senate meets on average for 100 days a year. Senators are allowed to miss 21 days without losing any salary.
THE EXTRAS - * Research Grants (for what?) $30,000.00 per year. * Office Budget $20,000.00 per year. * Tax Free Expense Allowance $10,100.00 * Free Business Class flights for Senators and their families, as many as 52 return-trip flights a year. * Free telephone calls and faxes, and also free postage, at home as well as office. * Free Gym privileges, private equipment and instructors. * Subsidized (that means REALLY CHEAP!) haircuts, dry cleaning, furniture, limousine rides.
from www.islandnet.com/~luree/politics.html#Senate
THE JOB: - The Senate meets on average for 100 days a year. Senators are allowed to miss 21 days without losing any salary.
THE EXTRAS - * Research Grants (for what?) $30,000.00 per year. * Office Budget $20,000.00 per year. * Tax Free Expense Allowance $10,100.00 * Free Business Class flights for Senators and their families, as many as 52 return-trip flights a year. * Free telephone calls and faxes, and also free postage, at home as well as office. * Free Gym privileges, private equipment and instructors. * Subsidized (that means REALLY CHEAP!) haircuts, dry cleaning, furniture, limousine rides.
from www.islandnet.com/~luree/politics.html#Senate
Senate reform isn't anything new. It's been bandied about almost since Confederation. Former Senate Law Clerk Russell Hopkins wrote in 1962, "the volcano of ‘Senate Reform’, never extinct but for some time dormant, may erupt once more."
The current "best" option is the "triple-E" Senate: elected, effective and equal. That idea was introduced by Preston Manning and the Reform Party back in 1998. When the Reformers got subsumed into the new Conservative Party, that idea was cast adrift for a while, but has resurfaced again in the latest election campaign as a plank in the Conservative platform. Back in the late 1990s, one Reform Party member described the Senate in the Washington Post thusly: "
Quote
It's the Valhalla of fallen political warriors," said Rob Anders, a Reform Party member of Parliament. "Although I am not sure that is appropriate because to go to Valhalla you have to have an amount of honor."
Of course, the Liberals have avoided any contact with Senate reform, in great party because as the long-term ruling party, they've been able to fill the Senate seats with Liberal cronies. Well, since Senators seldom actually fulfill their responsibility, and truly earn their exorbitant salary, they don't really "fill" the seats as much as sit in the trough suck at the public teat in absentia...
Over at the site Proud to be Canadian, these facts are touted about the Martin government and its relationship to the Senate:
Quote
Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointed his friend Dennis Dawson to the Senate
Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointed his former Principal Secretary Francis Fox to the Senate
Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointed disgraced former cabinet minister Art Eggleton to the Senate
Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointed his former Principal Secretary Francis Fox to the Senate
Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointed disgraced former cabinet minister Art Eggleton to the Senate
Supporters of the Senate say nations need a house of "sober second thought." But the Senate does not represent Canada. Aside from the fact it really only represents the elite and powerful friends of the prime minister du jour, it is not proportional to the population. The site This Canada suggests voters ask this question of their Liberal candidates:
Quote
Senate Representation: Why does the Maritimes, with less than 8% of the population, have nearly 29% of Senate seats? Why does Ontario and the West with 68% of the population, have only 46% of the seats?
And at Mapleleaf Web, the author asks, Why does the Canadian Senate lack legitimacy? In part, he answers,
Quote
The Senate punishes Senators who aren’t performing their duties by denying plum positions on Senate committees, removing travel privileges, and other measures. However, for all practical purposes, the only way to remove a Senator is to force him/her to resign. For example, in 1998, Senator Andrew Thompson resigned after Prime Minister Chretien removed him from the Liberal caucus. Between 1990 and 1997, Senator Thompson attended only fourteen Senate meetings. Dubbed the “Tequila Senator” by the media, Thompson faxed his resignation from his home in Mexico.
Columnist Larry Zolf once offered then-PM Jean Chretien the sort of loyalty he expected of his Senators:
Quote
But best of all, Prime Minister, I make you this offer. Put me in the Senate and I'll shut up forever. Put me in the Senate and I'll be your favourite lap dog.
Anyway - for Canada to become a true democracy - that is, a state not rules by the hand-picked buddies of the elite - we need to reform the Senate. Abolishing it is the best option, and certainly save a lot of taxpayers' money. The second best appears to be an elected Senate, but that might devolve into a popularity contest. Thirdly, allow provinces to appoint their own Senators. No matter what the model, we must throw out the parasites and lampreys who infest it now, and fill the seats with accountable people.
No matter which choice we take, the Senate reform has to remake the representation model for better equality, and then set fixed terms for each member. No more lifetime cronyism, no more "political Valhalla" appointments. And we have to ensure that the appointments or elections are done at regular, fixed intervals, not to run concurrent with the federal government.
As the above-noted Washington Post concluded, "Politically, the Senate's modern purpose is also unclear." It's time we made some clarity!
Resources:
- Glossary of US political terms. This doesn't list either plutocracy or oligarchy, but is nonetheless interesting.
- Sourcewatch. Also known as the Disinfopedia. A project of the Centre for Media and Democracy. It's an American-oriented site, but has some Canadian content.
- Thomson Nelson glossary of political terms.
- Auburn University glossary of political terms
- Harvard University glossary of political terms
- Glossary of Canadian Confederation terms (mostly historical)
- Nelson's poli-sci glossary (Canadian)
Think you can get elected to Prime Minister in Canada, 2006? Well, it may be too late to start your own political party, but you can certainly take a run at the seat in Prime Minister Forever from 80soft.
