Prime Minister Stephen Harper might be staring a constitutional battle in the face if his plans to reform the Senate are once again delayed or defeated. Tackling the problem head on might be the only way any government — Conservative or otherwise — will finally be able to rid the country of the last bastion of political nepotism.
There is no question the Senate needs reform as it served little purpose since confederation other than as a tool of patronage to reward party stalwarts and friends. But Harper’s ‘backdoor’ strategy has been years in the making, never successfully passing into law. At its core are two bills — one that would limit terms for senators to eight years and another that would ask the provinces to hold elections for senators-in-waiting, as is done in Alberta. Once a vacancy for that province or territory opens up, the senator-in-waiting who received the most votes would take office in the red chamber. Harper even went so far as to leave several Senate seats unfilled until such time as the reforms could be brought to fruition. And even now, with a majority government and a Senate in which the Conservatives enjoy a 10-seat lead over the Liberals and a six-seat majority, Harper’s plans for reform are apparently meeting some heavy opposition, especially within his own Senate caucus.
Harper made the right decision in leaving Senate seats open to appoint elected senators, but quickly undid any opportunity he had for mass reform when he prorogued Parliament in 2008 and filled 18 Senate seats by appointment. He again incurred the wrath of reformers when he appointed three failed candidates from the May federal election to the red chamber. While some might have argued Harper did so to ensure he had enough support to pass through reform legislation, that point appears to be moot as Conservative appointees begin to circle the wagons for what could be a protracted battle.
Harper has already tried to make one concession in extending the proposed eight-year term limit to nine, but even that isn’t winning over support. There are several other problems inherent with his ideas. First is the participation of the provinces — while Alberta is the only province to have two elected senators appointed to the red chamber, Saskatchewan is the only other province to pass legislation allowing for such elections, with B.C. saying it intends to do so. Most of the other provinces want the Senate completely abolished, meaning participation in a ‘voluntary’ process of electing senators will likely generate a lukewarm response east of Saskatchewan. If Harper was truly committed to Senate reform, he would make Senate elections coincide with federal elections instead of provincial, making them subsequently obligatory and not party to the whims of the individual provinces. Even if the legislation passes, the changeover to a reformed Senate under this method would take decades as all current senators can serve until they are 75. Unless the legislation completely revokes that eligibility for all sitting senators, reforming the red chamber one seat at a time will be a slow, painful process.
Already the Tory faithful, such as elected Alberta Senator Bert Brown, are lambasting their Conservative colleagues who are now hesitant about giving up their positions. And the government’s plans to introduce the omnibus legislation in the House of Commons instead of the Senate itself are proof of the battle Conservatives can see brewing in the future.
Harper’s six years of trying to reform the Senate are proof that the only way to abolish it (or “entertain more dramatic options” as cabinet minister Jason Kenney has suggested) or fundamentally reform it is to amend the constitution, which is a daunting task. But as the backdoor approach appears to be growing more difficult — even with a majority government — it might be the only way to truly change the red chamber for the better, whether that means electing its members or getting rid of it all together.
