Some things to love about the red chamber

Senate does its homework and there is sober second thought

OTTAWA — As the Senate-expenses affair rocks Parliament Hill, it seems the right moment to point out some of the red chamber’s redeeming qualities.

Here are five (and a half) good things about the Canadian Senate: 1. For every bad apple, there’s a good one. Sen. Roméo Dallaire, a retired lieutenant-general and a hero to many Canadians for his endurance in horrific conditions during the Rwanda genocide of 1994, has used his position as a senator to raise awareness of child soldiers internationally. Jim Munson, an Ottawa Liberal senator, has worked with many colleagues advocating on behalf of the disabled and the Special Olympics. Political historians remember largerthan-life senator Eugene Forsey, a formidable constitutional expert. There are dozens of senators crusading for causes across party lines.

“While the institution has been in for a rough ride, the doors to an individual senator have not closed if you’re out there doing public policy advocacy,” Munson says. 2. The Senate does its homework. The Senate has produced “good research and put the spotlight on some good issues,” says Luc Turgeon, a political scientist at the University of Ottawa. For example, the Kirby Committee, chaired by then-Sen. Michael Kirby, produced an exhaustive 2002 report warning that Canada’s public health care was no longer sustainable, and proposed major changes, such as a joint system of public and private funding.

“The Senate, over the years, has tackled a number of controversial topics, and written pretty good reports about them,” Turgeon says, such as the 2002 report from the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs that recommended the legalization of marijuana.

Quebec Sen. Serge Joyal says the work of committees is “reliable, professional and complete,” and that parliamentarians often take these reports into consideration when crafting laws. 3. Some of them know a lot about government. Anthony WilsonSmith, president of the Historica-Dominion Institute, says many senators put their own experience within government to good use. He points to Hugh Segal, a former chief of staff, who has carefully studied the question of Senate reform.

The Senate is also, to some extent, capable of standing back from the partisanship of the House of Commons.

“You tended to have very constructive dialogue at times when that’s been lacking in the House of Commons when things have been intensely partisan,” Wilson-Smith says. “If you accept the idea that compromise is a necessary part of the political process, then you need to have a place where you can do that, and the Senate has actually served pretty well for that.” 4. It’s a voice for minorities. The Senate gives language-group minorities representation when their population is too small to elect a member of Parliament, says Suzanne Bossé, executive director of the fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, which represents French-speakers outside of Quebec.

“Each province or territory is entitled to have its own representation. Why would a francophone from Saskatchewan accept representation by a Québécois?” Bossé says.

She said senators have helped protect language rights through legislation. She points to Sen. Jean-Robert Gauthier, who added “muscle” to the Official Languages Act by mandating that federal government institutions support official languages in minority communities. 5. There actually is ‘sober second thought’ going on in there. John A. Macdonald’s axiom about the Senate as the house of sober second thought is still relevant. Senators review bills that have not been given due attention in the House of Commons, says Wilson-Smith.

He points to Bill C-290, a private member’s bill on sports gambling, which was passed on a Friday afternoon with only a fraction of the entire House of Commons present. The Senate looked at it, and perceived problems.

Sometimes, this practice of holding up legislation has been called undemocratic. However, Wilson-Smith dismisses the charge. “Senators have, to their credit, pretty much always understood it’s not their role to actually knock bills out that a duly elected majority of people in the House have done,” he says. “They have not abused democracy in that way, and at times when they’ve taken legislation and found holes in it, you could argue that they’ve improved democracy.” 5.5. Job security can mean political independence. Doreen Barrie, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary, suggests abolishing the Senate would give a prime minister with a majority government unchecked legislative power. Therefore, it’s best if the Senate exists — and if senators exercise their power.

“They have this power, and the independence, they don’t have to behave in a partisan way because they have the same sort of security of tenure that judges have,” she says, adding this means that, in theory, they can act without constraint from their party or the prime minister.

“Heaven knows, if ever there was an opportunity for that that would get public support, it’s now.”