A rejected Op Ed

The Canadian Senate is a cozy Valhalla for political warriors who have fought sometimes brave and often dirty battles on behalf of their parties. It’s no surprise then that some of these Machiavellian types feel they are entitled to every privilege our paltry tax dollars can provide them. They view their prestigious positions as an opportunity not only to enrich the nation with their worldly wisdom, but also to enrich themselves via some poorly enforced entitlements.

Many ordinary Canadians are fed up with the wasteful vanities of these unelected gluttons. Unfortunately, constitutionally speaking, our hands are tied. The senate cannot be disbanded without a great deal of political will on the part of all the provinces and the federal government. But as nasty as some senate scandals get, few are worth the decade or so of wrangling and back room deal making it would take to amend the constitution and shutter the upper house permanently.

Stephen Harper’s government has been floating the idea of an elected senate. But the unequal geographical distribution of seats, combined with the fact that an elected senate would be expected to be more than just a jolly-old rubberstamping club, makes this option seem as untenable as the first.

The problem with Canada’s senate is not that it does next to nothing. The problem is not that the upper house is filled with unelected partisans who have served their party faithfully. The problem is that Canada’s senate is an extraordinarily wasteful institution that offers modest returns in exchange for massive perks and salaries paid to its members. Therefore, the solution is simply to purge its budget and strip away many of the entitlements today’s senators enjoy.

Currently, the media is focused on the inappropriate claims of housing expenses made by several disgraced Conservative senators. Such controversies could be avoided entirely with a bit of creative thinking. For example, if the government built or bought a modest hotel in Ottawa, and converted it for use by non-resident senators attending Parliament, they could avoid paying out housing costs altogether. When Parliament was not in session the rooms could be let to tourists, foreign dignitaries and the like. Senators who did not fancy this style of living need not accept their appointments.

The pay of senators has always been a sticking point. But since senators are supposed to be serving the greater good, and since they are appointed, not elected, it seems as though there need not be a great incentive in terms of salary.

Suppose a senator’s annual salary were based on income testing, sort of like a senior’s Old Age Security payments. If a senator is independently wealthy, and/or has a healthy MP’s pension, then he or she gets a fancy title and a lovely hotel room and perhaps the occasional invite to a parliamentary luncheon.

If they are a member of the working class, unlikely as that seems, then by all means pay them appropriately for the time they spend in Ottawa. It would be worth it just to see a tradesman, teacher or unemployed Poli. Sci. grad sitting in the upper chamber.

The mantra of conservative governments from time immemorial has been to eliminate in government deficits and reign in wasteful spending. The current focus on senate corruption will eventually spin itself out, but the opportunity for the Harper Government to do something useful, and not altogether wishful, about senate reform exists. Slashing the senate’s budget would not by itself solve the federal government’s financial woes, but it would prove to be massively popular with Canadians. Maybe not enough to win another majority, but you just never know.

Ryan Kinrade, a Victoria writer, would gladly serve on the Canadian Senate for a deeply discounted annual salary.