The right moment for reform
If he can get away with it, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s policy of forcing Senate reform through attrition might just work. His political argument here is sound: the provinces — whose regional representation in the Senate depends on continued appointments, and which hold the cards in the matter of reforming or removing the upper house — should be motivated to advance the debate and bring forward some concrete options for change.
The legal argument is shakier. In its reference case on the subject, the Supreme Court of Canada said that a long-term policy of not making appointments would alter that Senate’s structure and thus be unconstitutional. Indeed, Vancouver lawyer Aniz Alani has launched a case against Harper for failing to appoint any senators since March 2013, arguing that not filling vacancies leaves some provinces under-represented and makes the Senate unable to perform its function. In May, a federal court judge rejected the government’s motion to have the case dismissed.
So just allowing the Senate to empty over time would be, like the NDP proposal to simply defund the institution, not a long-term solution to the problem at hand. What we need is to build a national consensus on either abolition or reform; one that the majority of the provinces consent to. That’s a tall order that may never bear fruit. But the public’s considerable dissatisfaction with the status quo is reason enough to push forward.
With Harper’s announcement on Friday, all three major political parties now have stated policies about how to deal with the Senate, which will give voters the opportunity to weigh in on the subject come October. The Liberals favour a selection process that will improve the quality of senators; the NDP favours abolition; and now the Conservatives favour a continued moratorium on appointments until workable alternatives are advanced by the provinces. Importantly, this will provide a basis for discussing the sub- ject of the Senate during the election, perhaps even as a debate topic.
We would far prefer to see the Senate reformed, rather than abolished, as the upper house provides a vital role in the process of lawmaking and legislative oversight. By allocating seats based on regions, it also provides a counterweight to the House of Commons’ system of representation by population, thus reinforcing the federal nature of the country and affirming the status of provinces. Indeed, a true Triple-E Senate — one that is elected, equal and effective — could give regional concerns more influence over national policies and help address this country’s democratic deficit.
Given all the scandals that have plagued the Senate as of late, it is clear that Canadians are no longer satisfied with the status quo and are ready to make major changes to the body — even though that would mean reopening the Constitution (something that has been off the table politically in this country since the failure of the Charlottetown Accord).
An EKOS poll conducted in June found that only 11 per cent of Canadians wanted to leave the red chamber as it is, while 45 per cent favoured reform and 35 per cent would prefer abolition. If the provinces were to do nothing, they would be directly ignoring the will of the people — a slap in the face that would be made worse given that they would be supporting an undemocratic body that is despised for being unaccountable to the very people it is supposed to govern.
Canada’s founding fathers designed the Senate as a hybrid between the British House of Lords and the American Senate. The United States was able to turn its Senate into an elected chamber over 100 years ago. And even the U.K. has been able to make some modest reforms to the body. We sincerely hope the provinces heed the call made by Prime Minister Harper and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall to take the lead on this issue, regardless of the outcome of the next election.