A reformed Senate, now
Ted Morton is wrong to think that “the Supreme Court shut the door on Senate reform” and to ask the Prime Minister to abandon his constitutional responsibility of selecting good Senators to the premiers ( National Post, April 28 and 29). Conversely, the National Post (‘The Senate, like it or not,’ April 25) is right to say that the status quo for the Senate is not working and that an alternative would be “a more open, less partisan appointment process” that “would improve the quality of appointees while insulating future prime ministers from blame for appointments that went horribly wrong, à la Duffy.” This is exactly the Senate Reform proposed by Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.
The Trudeau plan consists of two phases. The first one has already been completed: Senators are no longer members of the Liberal caucus and have no formal responsibilities within the Liberal Party of Canada. In this way, they are exempted from partisan work and better able to focus on their Parliamentarian and legislative work. Justin Trudeau invited the Prime Minister to do the same with his own Senators. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, Stephen Harper refused.
The second phase of the Trudeau Plan for Senate Reform will be implemented if Canadians vote to give themselves a Liberal government in the 2015 federal election. It will provide for the establishment of a nonpartisan senatorial appointment process.
Some constitutional experts have suggested that a good way to proceed would be to establish a Senatorial Advisory Council such as the one that selects certain members of the United Kingdom’s Upper Chamber. The proposed Council would be tasked with providing the prime minister with informed, objective advice on possible Senate appointees. Personally, I think this is a model that can be considered among others.
Under this model, the recommended candidates would have to demonstrate a comprehensive list of qualities: exceptional competence, in- disputable connection with the province, a history of outstanding service to their communities, an exceptional work capacity, flawless honesty and integrity, open-mindedness, the wisdom and sound judgment expected of a legislator, and full understanding of what a Chamber of sober second thought is supposed to do: proposing improvements to legislation without disputing or usurping the legitimate lead role of the elected House in a democracy. Care would be taken to ensure fair representation of women and minorities — including First Nations and Official Language communities who have historical ties to the Senate.
How might the proposed Senator selection process work? Here’s a possible model: the prime minister would make the final recommendation to the governor-general based on a short list prepared by the Advisory Council. Should the prime minister feel unable to name anyone from the short list, he/she would have to provide the reasons to Parliament and ask the Advisory Council for a new short list.
A reform enacting such a selection process would be fully constitutional. It would not change the “Senate’s fundamental nature and role,” a nature and role that, according to the 2014 Supreme Court opinion (Section 52), Parliament has no right to alter unilaterally. The court’s definition of the Upper House’s fundamental nature reads as follows: “to provide ‘sober second thought’ on the legislation adopted by the popular representatives in the House of Commons” (Section 15), to be “a thoroughly independent body which could canvass dispassionately the measures of the House of Commons” (Section 57), and “a complementary legislative body, rather than a perennial rival of the House of Commons in the legislative process” (Section 58), removed “from a partisan political arena” (Section 57).
Without having to change a single word in the Constitution, the Trudeau plan will deliver a Senate that is worthy of the pride and confidence of Canadians: a true Chamber of sober second thought.
Trudeau’s proposed advisory council is constitutional … and practical