The Senate doesn鈥檛 need reforming, it needs abolishing. Many Canadians already regard the red chamber with a certain amount of suspicion; the recent developments regarding senators鈥� expenses do little to dispel their unease.
Three Conservative senators 鈥� Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau 鈥� have resigned from or been kicked out of caucus because of improper expense claims, and Mac Harb has left the Liberal caucus under a similar cloud. Nigel Wright, Prime Minister Stephen Harper鈥檚 chief of staff, has resigned over his bizarre donation of $90,000 to cover Duffy鈥檚 expenses.
No one makes a better case for abolition of the Senate than senators wallowing in entitlement and fudging 鈥� or blatantly breaking 鈥� the rules.
Does that mean we should get rid of the whole Senate because of the misdeeds of a few? No. But we should abolish it because it too easily becomes a temple of entitlement, a palace of patronage and a warehouse for politicians whose best-before dates have expired. The Senate鈥檚 very nature 鈥� unelected and unaccountable 鈥� allows that to happen.
Theoretically, the Senate has a higher purpose 鈥� a chamber of sober second thought for the benefit of all Canadians. Many senators have served well and others continue to do so.
We have a soft spot for the Senate, given that William Templeman, owner and editor of the Victoria Daily Times, served in the Senate from 1897 to 1906, during which time he was minister without portfolio in the cabinet of Wilfrid Laurier.
Templeman obviously didn鈥檛 see it as a snug place of retirement for the rest of his life 鈥� he resigned from the Senate in 1906 to run successfully as an MP, and served again in the federal cabinet as minister of inland revenue and minister of mines.
But even his career shows the weakness of the system. The sitting MP, George Riley, resigned to allow Templeman to run in a safe riding. It wasn鈥檛 much of a sacrifice on Riley鈥檚 part 鈥� he was quickly rewarded with a Senate appointment and stayed there until his death 10 years later.
Sometimes, rewarding a long-serving elected politician with a Senate seat makes sense. Victorian Nancy Hodges (who had been the women鈥檚 editor of the Daily Times) was appointed to the Senate in 1953 after many years of distinguished service to her community and province. An MLA for 12 years, she was a feisty champion of women鈥檚 rights and was the first woman in the Commonwealth to serve as speaker in a legislature. She would have brought experience and energy to the Senate.
Pat Carney, now of Saturna Island, brought her experience as a senior federal cabinet minister to the Senate, where she served for nearly 18 years, resigning of her own accord two years before her mandatory retirement date.
But since Confederation, prime ministers have used the Senate to reward cronies, give soft landings to MPs who fail to get re-elected and tilt the balance of parliamentary power in their favour. Few prime ministers can resist the temptation to use the Senate for political expediency rather than the public good, and that won鈥檛 change.
The supposed beneficiaries of the Senate鈥檚 wisdom have no say about who sits in the red chamber. Bad apples and non-performers can鈥檛 be turned out in the next election.
But elected senators without real power would not be appreciably better than appointed senators with no power. You can鈥檛 reform the Senate into an institution with authority without changing the nature and role of the House of Commons, and consensus on that issue would be impossible.
We don鈥檛 need more elected politicians. We need to hold more accountable the ones we already have.
