Is Saskatchewan ever going to get tired of copying Alberta?

First the conservative government, then having oil, and now this: Saskatchewan is going to start electing senators. What's next? Is Brad Wall going to address his province's most glaring problem by spending $25 million on a PR campaign to convince the world that it doesn't exist?

I hope not! I'm definitely not an expert on the precise workings of our country's mutated federalism, but based on my limited understanding, I can't say I'm a fan of elected senators. This is, I think, a fairly unpopular position, as selecting our senators via election rather than appointment seems to make intuitive sense: why not let the public choose them, instead of having the red chamber stuffed full of prime ministerial cronies? Although I can certainly sympathize with this point of view, I think that we need to get past the rhetoric and take an honest look at this institution before making any rash decisions.

First of all, although there is fantastic potential for abuse that I'm sure is taken advantage of at least some of the time, I don't think that prime-ministerial appointments are necessarily bad. I don't think it's entirely problematic if an appointee has links to the PM, so long as appointments aren't made strictly on this basis. There has to be something to be said for the PM appointing someone who's abilities he is familiar with (as opposed to a stranger with whom the PM may have never been personally exposed). I recognize that I'm advocating something that is part of our  near-omnipotent PMs bevy of powers,  but perhaps before we take the relatively drastic step of electing senators, we could try adding some sort of vetting mechanism to the appointment process.

Another aim of those who favour electing senators is making the senate more representative of the people's will. While I certainly understand this, I would argue that the Senate in its current form is representative of the people's will, but simply on a longer timescale that isn't as regionally specific. The large majority of Liberals in the current Senate reflects the proportionally large number of Liberal governments we've had in recent history. People often point to the appointment of Liberal senators from Alberta as prime example of the poor rendering of the people's will in the Senate, but maybe there's something to be said for having a house of parliament that isn't heavily cleaved along regional lines. There is the obvious problem of representation from parties other than the Liberals and Conservatives, but  the Green Party has nothing to show for it's 4.5% of the popular vote in the last federal election and nobody seems to be very worried about that.*

Finally, and most importantly, is the issue of accountability. I can certainly see the rationale for wanting the ability to remove a Senator from her post if her performance warrants it, but I think there is significant value in having a portion of our legislative body that isn't entirely beholden to the rapidly-shifting and almost invariably (but understandably) myopic whims of the electorate. Not having to worry about getting ripped in newspapers nationwide by opposition spinsters for a comment or idea that may be the slightest bit contentious gives Senators the freedom to honestly and thoroughly evaluate controversial issues like the introduction of elements of privatization to our healthcare system or the legalization of marijuana. Again, before doing anything drastic, why not try out something like a recall mechanism?**

In summary, I certainly think that this issue is worthy of debate. In this age of declining political engagement, anything that has the possibly of involving Canadians is certainly worth examining. I would simply like to see the debate take move beyond ideology and take into account nuances that move beyond the simple notion of "elected = good, appointed - bad."

*I actually am, but I think taking an honest look at first-past-the-post is a much more pressing priority -- and would mean a lot more for our democracy -- than senatorial reform.

**I think if we did this, we'd realize very quickly how much people really care about the Senate.

Comments

[Jewel]

Hmm... this is really interesting. I have yet to read any commentary on keeping the senate as is, so this is refreshing. And definite food for thought.

What do you think about keeping the monarchy as Head of State?

[jk]

Hi Jewel;

Ya, there don't seem to be many that support the Senate in its current form. It's my opinion that the current debate largely overlooks what I feel to be significant advantages of the Senate -- hence the post.

With regards to your question: I support our links to the monarchy. I don't think anyone would argue that its power is anything but symbolic, and any attempts to make it more than that would do nothing but ensure its demise. Ultimately, I think ridding ourselves of our links to the monarchy would accomplish nothing in practical terms except to eliminate a sign of national identity in a country that has precious few.