SENATE RENEWAL: IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE           

Since being appointed to the Senate of Canada in March 2005, I have attended many public events where I come in contact with people who, remembering my years as Toronto Mayor or as a Member of the Federal Cabinet, ask: What are you doing now? After I tell them I’m in the Senate, they further ask: What does a Senator do?

 

This demonstrates how little is known about the Senate and its workings.   The media pays scant attention to its deliberations but reports many critical comments, warranted or not, leaving, for many, few but largely negative thoughts about the Senate.

 

The Senate, constitutionally, is one of three approval entities in the process of Canadian legislation, the others being the House of Commons and the Crown, the latter as represented by the Governor General.   In most cases, bills passed by the House will get Senate approval and of course, royal assent by the Governor General.   The Senate recognizes the decisions of the House as the chamber representing the people of Canada through election and the place where most of the government or cabinet members (the Executive) are situated.   Much of the Senate’s value is as a legislative review body or, in those traditional words, “the chamber of sober second thought.”   In that review role the Senate, and its appropriate committee, examine a bill coming from the House, hearing from experts, and interested or affected parties.   This sometimes leads to amendments or recommendations back to the House about possible improvements now or when a future review of the legislation is carried out, or if regulations are being established to implement the legislation then some modifications may be helpful to satisfy the intent of the House.   A good example is Bill C-2, the Accountability Act, which was processed last winter.   It was rushed through the House, largely for political purposes, and was found to be flawed by the Senate in terms of meeting the intent of the legislation.   Dozens of amendments were passed in the Senate and the Bill was returned to the House where most amendments were accepted by the government and referred back to the Senate.   There were some not accepted and after some further discussions between Senate and House representatives, a final Bill acceptable to the government and the majority of the House was approved by the Senate.   That clearly demonstrates the value of review or “sober second thought.”

 

The importance of the Senate doesn’t end there.   Senate committees have been praised for their work on public policy development.   They have more time than House committees to study issues in depth; members usually have more years to develop expertise in committee issues, and the Senate functions in a less partisan way.   A good example is the committee I chair – the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.   A two-year study under the previous chair, Senator Kirby, on mental health issues resulted in an award winning report which the Committee unanimously (both Liberals and Conservatives) adopted with many of its recommendations being implemented by the government.   The chances of a House committee coming up with such a report involving a two-year study and a unanimous decision would be rare indeed.

 

Finally, the Senate also brings stronger regional perspectives to bear in its deliberations.   This is particularly important to protect the minority interests of smaller provinces, and that was a key concern for the Fathers of Confederation.   In fact, all democratic federations in the world have an Upper Chamber to better protect their minorities’ interests in the legislative process.

 

Clearly the Senate has value, and should not be abolished.   However, Senator Hugh Segal (Conservative) has put forth a motion to hold a referendum on abolition.   He says that although the Senate has existed since Confederation in 1867, the public has never been asked to vote on the future of its existence.   True, but that can also be said of our entire governance system including the House of Commons, the Monarchy, and the Courts.   These were all established by the Fathers of Confederation based on the British or Westminster system, which has stood the test of time.   I suspect that governance systems in most democratic countries have been inherited as opposed to decisions by referendum.   Given how little is known about the Senate, a substantial public education program would be required so that people would have the facts they need to make an informed decision, a decision that gives only the choice of abolition.   And even if it was held and abolition carried the vote, a constitutional amendment requiring 7 of 10 provincial governments representing at least 50% of population would still be required to put it into effect.

 

Reform or renewal is a better route.   But what kind of reform or renewal?   The major issue is over an appointed versus an elected Senate.

 

Those advocating an elected Senate will say it’s the democratic thing to do, but I don’t think our system of government as a whole lacks for democracy.   We have one of the most democratic countries on the face of the earth.   Changing to an elected Senate, however, will change the dynamic of our Parliamentary system.   Two elected chambers will make it less like the traditional Westminster system and more like the American system.   An elected Senate, like its counterpart in the U.S., will feel that it has as much right to represent the public as does the House of Commons.   I don’t think we need two elected chambers in the Parliament of Canada.   One is enough.

 

Furthermore, many Senators are not politicians who would seek election to public office.   And yet, they provide dedicated service, valuable insight and expertise in helping the Senate to carry out its sober second thought, policy development, and minority protection mandates.

 

What I believe the Senate needs more than anything else is a change on how appointments are made.   Until now, appointments have been the prerogative of one person – the Prime Minister.   One alternative would be to have a special council, including former Senators, make recommendations to the Prime Minister or Parliament similar to the process of selecting judges.   Another could involve some provincial appointments.   A 10 - 12 year non-renewable term limit would be appropriate in my opinion.

 

Let’s renew the Senate, let’s make it function better but let’s not destroy or radically change the structure of an institution that has served us well for the 140 year existence of this country.