In my college days more than a half-century ago, I did an essay about the Canadian Senate’s evolution since Confederation. I became fascinated by the extent to which that body had been diverted from its original purpose of serving as a representative for regional interests. It was also, according to leading Father of Confederation Sir John A. Macdonald, to serve as a “chamber of sober second thought.” Yet, I am sure that the Fathers of Confederation knew well what they were doing when they kept the power of appointing Senators in the hands of the federal government. That ensured the representation accorded regions in the Senate would be exercised through persons picked for their congeniality to the federal power of the day. It also, and those shrewd men could hardly have failed to foresee this, made the Senate a sluiceway for patronage by allowing the Senate’s appointers to hijack it for party purposes.
By the late 1980s, Senate reform became a live issue with the rise of the reform movement. The mantra was Triple-E: equal, elected, and effective. Talk of such a creature faded in the wake of the federal Conservative victory in 2006, as the new rulers of Canada came to enjoy the advantages of power over senatorial appointments. But astute politicians also knew that a truly TripleE Senate would radically alter the federal power structure. Elected senators would have a mandate to vote as they felt on legislation, perhaps feel little inclined to restrict themselves to the Senate’s present duckspeak role. And – a Senate controlled by one party and a Commons by another would be a recipe for periodic legislative stalemate.
Lately, respect for the Senate has diminished. We learn more and more of too many appointed legislators to whom extravagance on the public purse appears as a matter of course. I have no doubt that many Senators have applied themselves conscientiously to their duties. Indeed, once after distributing a column to all local area MPs and Senators, the only meaningful response I got was a thoughtful letter from then Senator Tommy Banks. But commendable instances do little to erase today’s image of an unelected body overly devoted to a free ride. The overspending could be cleaned up if there is the political will to do it, but even a cleansed Senate – being appointed legislators – has little credible role.
Bicameral legislatures, with an appointed upper house, were once the rage. Seven provinces had them, before or after Confederation. Two gave them up upon joining Canada. The other five abolished theirs over the years, the last – Quebec’s – in 1968. Canada’s three westernmost provinces have been unicameral from the start. All provinces have functioned adequately without an appointed upper house.
Senate reform or abolition is constitutionally difficult. An elected Senate would fundamentally change the political structure of the country. Public pressure should demand outright abolition, to allow continuing our style of government while discarding a dysfunctional, wasteful anachronism.
Writer David Haas is a long term St. Albert resident.
