Stephen Harper's Senate Gamble

Piecemeal reform could disappoint Alberta, attack Ontario, and anger Quebec.

Legend has it that the Emperor Caligula once appointed his favourite horse Incitatus to the Roman Senate. When he recently named three rejected Conservative MP candidates to the upper house, our own prime minister didn’t go quite that far, but he ruffled more than a few feathers. It was, without question, a blatantly partisan move. But it may also have been a very clever one: With his actions, Stephen Harper has demonstrated, reductio ad absurdum, the need for Senate reform in Canada.

Harper has shown a preoccupation with the Senate ever since he began his political career in the Reform party. The party’s base in Alberta has long called for an elected, equal, and effective Senate that would strengthen the West’s representation in Ottawa and counterbalance the influence of Quebec and Ontario. The issue is important enough to Alberta that the province elected its own senators-in-waiting. In 1990, Brian Mulroney felt obliged to appoint one of them, Stan Waters, to the upper house, while Harper followed up in 2007 by appointing Bert Brown. Harper’s previous reformist attempts were thwarted by his parliamentary minority, but this obstacle was removed on May 2. With the recent speech from the throne, Senate reform is now officially back on the agenda.

Harper’s modest proposal

So what should we expect? Harper won’t be able to completely overhaul the upper house. It would take a constitutional amendment to alter the distribution of seats, change the way senators are selected, or modify their powers. The procedure is slow, cumbersome, and risky, and any change requires the formal support of seven provinces representing more than 50 per cent of Canada’s population. It would mean launching a new round of constitutional negotiations with Quebec. And for defenders of the status quo, that can of worms is best left on the shelf.

All things considered, the government’s current proposal seems modest. Right now, senators are appointed by the Governor General on the prime minister’s recommendation. Under the government’s plan, the prime minister would consult the public before making his recommendations. These “consultations” could be formalized through a popular ballot. This could be done in tandem with federal elections and would create, in practice, an elected Senate. Also, by limiting senators’ terms to eight years, the Upper House would become accountable and democratic.

At first glance, it seems like a brilliant idea. We would avoid the headache of a constitutional amendment, and rectify one of the most glaring deficiencies in our political system. Harper would be hailed as having solved a problem as old as Confederation.

The provinces’ reaction

But Quebec and Ontario have already voiced their opposition. And together, the two central provinces could derail Ottawa’s plans.

Ontario, on the one hand, has nothing to gain from this type of reform. The seats in the House of Commons are distributed according to population, and Canada’s most crowded province is wary of any Senate reform that could dilute its influence, regardless of the potential for improved equality or efficiency. Premier Dalton McGuinty has instead suggested abolishing the upper house altogether.

Full Article
Source: The Mark