‘A fever in the air’
Senate doing its job on energy
According to Andrew Coyne, “there’s a fever in the air in the Senate,” as Senators “with a genuinely inflated sense of their own importance” prepare to kill two major government bills. Coyne is right: the Senate is running a high temperature. But his diagnosis is incorrect: the fever is not caused by the thrill of rejecting important bills, but by a fervent desire to do the right thing, to contribute to the improvement of these pieces of legislation, while enabling the government to pursue its legislative agenda.
As Coyne acknowledges, “there is ample grounds to criticize” both Bill C- 69 (the new Impact Assessment Act) and Bill C- 48 ( a tanker ban on the north shore of B.C.’S coast). Faced with defective legislation, what should “a bunch of unelected sluggos” do? If we follow his logic, the answer is: nothing. We should just sit idly on our hands and pass all government legislation. Of course, in this scenario, we would be criticized for not only being “unelected sluggos,” but “useless sluggos,” as we fail to fulfil our constitutional role.
The fever in the air is fed by two colliding truths: first, the enormous amount of pressure Senators are put under by thousands of concerned Canadians who want these bills to at least be amended and, second, our understanding of the Senate’s traditional role and its limitations. The result is more pressure, more combustion, more heat.
Many would like to see the Senate abolished, others want it to be an elected chamber. But, these changes entail amendments to our constitution, and it is highly doubtful that these changes will take place in the foreseeable future. Members of the Senate have chosen to do their job as rigorously and as carefully as possible. This means that for each bill that we examine, we listen attentively to Canadians, including the many who were not heard in the
House of Commons, and attempt to improve legislation where the need arises.
This is happening. Over the past three years, several government bills were amended by the Senate. The government accepted some amendments, rejected others, and the Red Chamber has abided by the government’s decisions. Improved legislation resulted from this process.
In all likelihood, this is precisely what will happen with Bill C- 69, which has been adopted with amendments and sent back to the House. On Thursday, the majority of the Senate voted to proceed with C- 48. The Senate will vote again on the bills as amended or unamended, and will almost certainly pass them. Because, contrary to what Coyne appears to think, Senators are very much aware of their fragile legitimacy, considering their appointed status.
Finally, Coyne writes: “The minute senators actually defeat a bill, they have crossed the line.” The columnist would be surprised by the large number of Senators who actually agree with his assertion. I am not one of them. I believe that in certain, limited circumstances, the Senate is perfectly within its constitutional rights, by law and by convention, to defeat a government bill. If we relinquish this power, the Senate will lose all influence on the government, reducing the soft pendulum swing of our bicameral model to nothing. The majority in the House of Commons would have absolute control over Parliament. A significant part of the checks and balances designed by the Fathers of Confederation would fall into self- imposed irrelevance. Coyne and many others would undoubtedly be satisfied. But the legislative process in Ottawa will have been significantly weakened. Ultimately, the people of Canada would lose out.