Canadians should worry about Senate
Canada’s members of Parliament have long disdained t he Senate: “t hat other place” as we refer to it. How could it be otherwise? When a new parliamentary session begins, MPs are marched through the Parliament buildings from our House to theirs, “The Red Chamber,” as it’s called in polite company. There, corralled in a narrow space at the back of the Senate chamber, we are left standing like an unruly mob “at the rail,” to be delivered the throne speech that starts the parliamentary season. This quaint tradition is a vestige of the medieval origins of the British parliamentary system, and serves as a not- so- subtle reminder that we are commoners and representatives of commoners in the face of our betters. “Lords,” they’re still called in Great Britain. Here, in the old colonies, it’s just “senators.”
The throne speech read, we skip back down the corridor to our chamber, secure in the knowledge that the Hobbits of Middle Earth will not disturb us as we, the “duly elected representatives of the people,” go about the nation’s business. To be sure, legislation must be debated and pass the Senate eventually. This chamber of sober ( most of the time) second- thought (sometimes) has a role in the great machinery of government. For 150 years, some good work has been done there — especially in their committees — and there has been nothing wrong with a Senate that slows things down a bit for a rethink. But as far as the government is concerned, the Senate has been mostly a logistical matter to be managed, not a body to be much considered or feared.
But that was then. This is now. We are witnessing nothing less than a complete, unanticipated, but perhaps ( in retrospect) predictable upheaval in the power dynamic on Parliament Hill.
The question about what to do about Canada’s unelected Senate, and what role senators should play in our bicameral legislative system, has vexed governments for years. Because any significant change in the qualifications or appointment of senators, or the geographic balance or role or prerogatives of the Senate, might require amending the Constitution ( and that’s a nogo zone), governments have either left the Senate alone or more recently tinkered around the edges.
Former prime minister Stephen Harper toyed with the concept of “elected senators,” or appointing senators who had made it through some quasi- electoral process that would somehow create a cloak of legitimacy if he appointed them. He eventually had to give up and just appointed people he wanted.
More recently, in response to the quadrennial election clamour to make Parliament less partisan, as well as the spate of Senate spending scandals, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unceremoniously threw the Liberal senators out of the Liberal party caucus. This was done without notice or much of a “thank you for your service,” so it rankled.
Thenceforth, the prime minister proceeded to appoint only “independent” senators through a somewhat transparent process that has made it clear that no Liberal partisan need apply no matter what their qualifications. But I’m not bitter. The stakes and the implications are greater than that. The new approach to Senate appointments has unwittingly created a new political animal, and it’s off its leash.
It’s starting to become apparent what a challenge this change presents to how an elected government governs, and how a legislative agenda gets passed. As it turns out, a Senate with the long- held power to manage its own affairs and budget that becomes freed of any caucus- imposed discipline is an unruly and unpredictable beast.
Previously, the government caucus in the Senate could always be counted on to get the government’s l egislation through the upper chamber. A little patience, a dose of deference, and the occasional push for a non-threatening amendment was usually enough to get the job done.
Today, t he caucus f ormerly known as the “Government Caucus in The Senate”( hats off to the late singer once “formerly known as Prince”) are cut off from the government and are adrift in search of a role. The opposition Conservative caucus is doing, well, what oppositions do: opposing. And, for the most part, the newly appointed “independent” senators have no experience in government and are casting about trying to figure out how they should behave. They meet as a group and try to forge common, “bi- partisan” positions, until one of their number stands and says the obvious: “But I thought we were supposed to be independent, not just non- partisan.”
This is a brave new world where the government will need to be brave indeed. The Senate is demanding that the provisions establishing Canada’s Infrastructure Bank be severed from the Budget Implementation Act. The Senate is questioning the need for the Invest In Canada office. The Senate had a role in torpedoing the nomination of a new commissioner of official languages. If framework legislation for the much- contested panCanadian securities regulator is stalled, it may reflect the new reality and “independence” of senators from Quebec and Alberta. In the past, regional interests in the Senate were subsumed and mitigated within a national party caucus. That is no longer the case.
Those charged with managing the machinery of government, its legislative agenda, and timetable suddenly have to seriously consider that “other place” like it matters. Because it does. Those who lobby government will now have to add senators to their “will call” list.
Meanwhile, how will the Senate evolve? In its own way, and at its own pace, and as the author of not only its own procedure (as before), but of its own role in the entire parliamentary system.
If you walk long enough, as the Cheshire Cat advised Alice, you’re sure to get somewhere, as long as it doesn’t matter where. The Senate will indeed get somewhere. Absent a grand constitutional bargain that includes reform of the institutions of government, the Senate is master of its own fate, and as goes the Senate, so will go Parliament. Absent the courage to start reappointing loyal partisans to the upper chamber, an unelected body of individuals could decide the Senate’s role and nothing less than how Canada’s government will function into the future. If that is the case, we may go from Harper’s hoped- for Triple “E” Senate — equal, elected and effective” — to a Triple “U” Senate: “unelected, unaccountable and unpredictable.”
AS GOES THE SENATE, SO WILL GO PARLIAMENT.