Last week I wrote a column explaining the use of reference cases in the Canadian political context. The reason that this seemed pertinent, as was pointed out by my colleague who suggested the column topic, is that the Conservative government is pursuing a reference case to ask some important questions about the scope of their power to reform the Senate. This week I thought I would explore the role of the Senate and propose that we revisit its important role in our democracy.
Canada's governing system is based on the Westminster model of government. This model includes a bicameral system. In other words, there are two separate seats of power: the House of Commons and the Senate. We adopted this model from Britain although Canada is different because we have a federal state rather than in a unitary state. Our head of state (the Queen represented in Canada by the Governor General) is separate from our head of government (the Prime Minister who is the head of the executive). The Westminster model is interesting because the Prime Minister and the Cabinet sit as members in the House of Commons. They are responsible (quite literally) for maintaining the confidence of the House of Commons when they pass legislation. Thus, they vote on their own legislation when a bill is passed.
With all this in mind I think that traditionally, theoretically and even in practice the Senate has an important role to play in the functioning of our system. It was originally designed as a House of "sober second thought." This expression has come to define the Senate chamber as a place outside the political fray where legislation might be "reconsidered." Originally this idea developed in connection to the conservative tradition of the British model that allowed for a "check" on the power of the elected body. Remember that a Prime Minister with a majority government is quite powerful in moving forward a legislative agenda. The Senate was also put in place to represent minority issues and regions like the "Maritimes" particularly at the time of Confederation when the Maritime provinces (then New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) were overshadowed by the populations in Ontario and Quebec. So in 1867, the Senate was made up of 72 seats: 24 each for Quebec and Ontario and 24 for the combined provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick). As Canada grew to include other provinces, Senate seats were doled out by region. NS and NB lost 2 seats each and P.E.I picked up 4. The West has a total of 24 (6 each). Newfoundland and Labrador has 6. Each of the territories has one for a total of 105.
The continued call for Senate reform has come as a result of number of criticisms. First, some Senators have not taken the role very seriously. They have broken faith with the public and taken advantage of the lucrative salary and benefits without the corresponding commitment to the post (although this is not true of many Senators). Second, the Senate has been filled with appointees with deep political affiliations. An elected Senate would not fix this problem and would likely exacerbate it. It seems to me that the real issue is the continued decline in trust in our political institutions. We have not done an effective job of explaining to the public the central role that this institution can and, should play, in our democracy. I must admit that I don't know what the solutions are but I do fear that entering the fray of Senate reform will once again open up a quagmire of constitutional issues.
The Senate's role has evolved since 1867. There is less concern now than in the past that the Senate will keep a real check on the House. Yet the Senate can do some really important work to support evidence based policy. Some time ago I wrote about decision making in government and in this capacity the Senate can examine important issues like poverty and demographic change and their impacts on our society and our citizens. The Senate has the freedom to consider issues across ideological lines and this is a really critical function of an effective democracy.
