Time for a change

Let’s start small in reforming the Senate

The recent fiscal scandals in the Senate are disheartening, but they are not a reason to abolish the upper chamber. Recently, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall polled his party members and the majority was in favour of abolishing the Senate. The Senate, however, is in need of reform, not abolition.

In fact, scandals or not, it’s time to give some sober second thought to the chamber of sober second thought.

In the past, much attention was given to the notion of creating a Triple-E Senate — equal, elected and effective. What with the constitutional change which that sort of major overhaul required — and all the procedures that needed to be followed and consultations that had to be carried out — it was a daunting task, to say the least. That’s probably why the issue continues to languish. The idea of such a huge tackling of issues all at once feels unworkable.

But what if changes were made incrementally? Often, the best way to effect change is to do so in manageable chunks, one piece at a time. Let’s start for the time being with the first e—equal. Following the American model of two senators per state, regardless of the size of that state, would go far toward easing regional resentments over the illogical apportioning of the numbers of senators. It makes no sense, for example, that a tiny sparsely populated province like Prince Edward Island has four senators, and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have 10, while Manitoba and B.C. have five each, and Alberta has six. Meanwhile, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon each have only one. Two senators for each province and territory would make things equal across the country, though not proportionate. There is no reason a national referendum couldn’t be held, and the question of equality among numbers of senators be put to the people. Once a mandate for change is received, the subsequent constitutional process could be set in motion.

Abolishing the Senate because a few senators have got themselves in dicey monetary situations is the same as using a machine gun to kill the proverbial fly. It’s overkill. It’s unnecessary. And it ignores the very worthwhile work the Senate does.

Without the Senate, a major source of checks and balances would vanish from the parliamentary system. The scandals have, unfortunately, tended to make people forget the necessary “sober second thought” that the Senate really does provide in its role of legislative reviewer — had it not been for the Senate’s moderating influence, for example, the GST would have been brought in at 11 per cent, rather than the seven per cent rate at which it began. Abolishing the Senate would mean creating as yet unknown changes to the way the House of Commons enacts legislation because that moderating influence would disappear. Senate committees are also tasked with studying and investigating controversial subjects, such as U.S.-Canadian relations, aspects of the healthcare system, defence, science and social issues such as unemployment and poverty.

It’s not time to end the Senate. It’s time for a new beginning.