On Senate Reform

Canada has been much divided on the need for a federal Senate.  Long a resting place for party faithful, Senate reform has become a contentious issue. 

Let’s look at the US Senate and the British House of Lords.  The US constitution builds a carefully scripted separation of powers.  Each player, be it the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Administration (President) have a part to play.  Each may introduce legislation but must get the other player to cooperate if the legislation is to become law.  It’s like a perpetually hung parliament.  The British House of Lords stems back to a time when the commoners were not to be trusted to have a free reign when passing legislation.  The Lords were th landed gentry and others of merit who were put there to take a “second sober look” at what might be an impetuous action on the part of the elected parliament.  Most peers are now appointed for life and so the generation after generation of feeble players has now pretty much come to an end. 

In Canada we established the Senate to have a second sober look at legislation from the Commons but without the landed gentry component.  During the long Liberal years the Senate built up a Liberal majority that was just recently eroded by Senate appointments by the current Conservative government.  Some of the duties of the Senate were, indeed, arcane.  I can remember as a law student delivering petitions to the Senate to end marriages that were contracted in Quebec:  only the Senate could grant a divorce to a Quebec couple.  This made for a tidy legal practice for some Ottawa lawyers.  What I do remember, though, is that the senate had the time and the patience to delve into matters that the Commons simply did not have the time to do.  Much of the banking legislation and regulation can harken back to Senate committees.  Much of this work was highly distinguished and persists to this day.

I cannot remember a time when appointments to the Senate were not based in political patronage.  Having said that, it seems to me that Senators appointed, say, thirty years ago were more substantial than the sports and media figures that have recently graced the Red Chamber.  Also, those recently appointed have had to acknowledge their faithfulness to the Conservative mantra.  A Prime Minister that avowedly stood for Senate reform appointed them so that government bills could not be stalled in the upper chamber.

Until recently it appeared that Canadian voters liked the compromise that a hung parliament can bring.  It seems a bit ingenuous (and evidence of the lack of basic political knowledge by many Canadians) that a majority of seats in the Commons should result in any kind of tyranny.  The US system has a built in negotiation system that requires compromise.  The Canadian system does not.  Also, the growth of the parliamentary committee has, in part, replaced the work that was previously done by the Senate.  However, these committees are now mired in politics that have rendered them mostly useless. 

If Canada goes toward an elected senate, the most populous provinces will have most of the say.  In the US, each state, regardless of size, has two senators.  This was done so that each state would have exactly the same say as any other state, while the House of Representatives was exactly that:  representative of the population of the constituency. 

So what kind of senate does Canada really want?  First we want elected representatives so that the political patronage can stop.  Second, I am in favour of the US style of senate where each province (and possibly each Territory and Aboriginal People) could have equal representation.  It is possible that the senate will have a majority of members that are of a different political stripe than that of the commons.  This will lead to the US kind of compromise government. 

Does Canada want any kind of senate?  There is some comfort in the fact that there is an arm of parliament that gets a “second sober look”.  There is some check and balance in the system.  I believe that Canadians want some check on the tyranny of the majority (so called) that could arise if the Senate were abolished. 

What do we get?  We get a watered down version of nothing at all.  Offering term limits to Senators does not fix any legislative or political problem.  

Bernie.