Attacking the Defence

Cherniak has posted a Defence of the Senate in response to my post below that I find pretty unconvincing. So, consider this an offensive against this particular defence. You may want to go over and read his post to follow the debate.

Note that I don't propose to have "the" answer to Senate reform in Canada. The critique of Martin is in his failure to galvanize the considerable resources at his disposal to make any attempt.

This will only fuel those who think I only like to concern myself with criticizing and picking apart the actions of the Prime Minister, and will never be satisfied with anything. Let's put that broader opinion aside. On this issue, I can only say that trying to galvanize any support to attempt reform is my major priority, rather than craft my perfect alternative [maybe if someone appointed you to the Senate you'd have the necessary spare time to devote to uncovering the perfect solution? -ed.] What I find frustrating is inertia on this issue and the lackadaisical acceptance of the status quo. Give me the leaders who attempt something with vision, rather than those too timid to try anything when the circumstance cries out for reform, either modification or abolishment.

On to the substantive critique of Cherniak's defence:

(1) Jason states in his opening paragraph that the "best way to stifle democracy" is to increase the accountability of those in government by electing the officials elections. That's a paradoxical (and almost laughable) argument today.

Take a look at this "Forum of the World's Senates" report: Of the world's 67 two-chamber parliaments, 39 have a second chamber where all members are elected, and many others have at least some type of mixed system. Only 14 have solely appointed Senates: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cambodia, Fiji (Isles), Grenada, Jamaica, Jordan, Lesotho, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, and of course Canada and the UK. The report notes that this is mainly because these countries are going through a process of democratization or are simply too small to justify two-tier elections. The United Kingdom faces its own unique difficulties, but at least Tony Blair has placed reform of the House of Lords on his agenda.

Do not attack an elected Senate as somehow anti-democratic or undermining of the House of Commons. It is, in fact, the model favoured by the majority of the world.

(2) Jason then assumes that Canada's appointed Senators fulfill a valuable function because they can differentiate between "popular and necessary" versus "popular and badly considered" legislation, giving the House time to sober up by bogging the poorer legislation down.

On what basis does he derive such faith? Are not the potential problems on this front starkly obvious, especially if a Conservative government were elected and the Senate (the vast majority of whom were appointed by Liberals) then attempted to slow things down? Today's Senators are neither representative nor responsible to anyone. If they perform an effective review function, it is despite the current Senate's structure, not because of it.

(3) Jason has an affinity for the political partisan. "We should recognize that they are giving up their lives to work behind the scenes to do what they think is right for society," he writes. "90% of the time, these people really do deserve some recognition for their efforts." I dare say most Canadians would disagree. The Senate is widely recognized as THE plum appointed position in a Parliamentary system full of such appointments. The wide discretion available to the PM in appointing ensures that often the appointment is yielded as a partisan tool - moving MPs to the Senate to clear the way for favoured nominations is only one possible example.

(4) Jason then goes on to say that it doesn't matter if these people are paid by "political parties or directly through government coffers", completely missing the general criticism that we don't think taxpayers SHOULD be paying these people! Political parties at least face their own operational constraints on who they hire. The Senate's budget is immensely larger than money directed to the parties for such purpose. The democratic system may depend on party workers and volunteers, but that doesn't justify a second House to reward a select few with excessive and cushiony salaries for life. At a time when the Canadian voter is increasingly disillusioned with a perceived political class, why not take a step toward some semblance of accountability for our Parliamentarians in the "other house".

(5) To rebut the challenges involved in changing the Senate by concluding, "well, no institution is perfect" does not rebut the argument that the Senate as is remains a relative disgrace. The question should not be whether it performs a useful function, but whether it is performing that function effectively and efficiently. If it is not, and most don't think it is, even if we can point to a few benefits to its existence, surely Canadians are right to demand reforms to such an embarrassing relic of the mid-1800s. After all, it is our government, and we are footing the bill.