Senate Reform Or?

Abolishing or reforming the Senate, although not the most pressing issue facing the country, is weighty enough to warrant thoughtful consideration and we should try to get it right. Consider what the Senate accomplishes and how much it costs to operate. According to a parliamentary report "only four bills ... have actually been defeated (by the Senate) in the past several decades, with all of these defeats occurring in the 1990s." On issues where the Senate has tried to assert itself – free trade and GST – ultimately both happened anyway. The Senate holds committee hearings when Parliament is in session, and even has its own Question Period. Yet its proceedings are perfunctory. In sum, its accomplishments are insubstantial. Its cost is not. For the 2005-06 fiscal year it cost $76,526,904 to run the Senate, a figure roughly equivalent to a sponsorship scandal each year. That is too high a price for work that culminated in nothing of substance – a cost which will remain year after year and likely increase with time. That money could obviously be better spent elsewhere, or maybe never collected in the first place. The cause of the Senate's ineffectiveness is its patent lack of legitimacy stemming from its appointment process. If unelected senators exercised the full power they are vested with, we would have a constitutional crisis. If, however, the Senate were imbued with democratic legitimacy, they would be justified in exercising authority. Therein lies a complex consequence. In a very real way it would redefine our structure of governance – what is required to pass laws. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/273742 And: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/04/layton-senate.html [Proofreader’s note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on November 7, 2007]

Note: http://www.thestar.com/... http://www.cbc.ca/canad...