Canada divided over Senate reform

James Mangan
Team Member

he Senate is underappreciated,

especially here in British Columbia.
Canadian dissatisfaction with the Senate
is justified. Earlier this year, Canadians
discovered that Senator Mike Duffy
accepted over $90,000 directly from
the Prime Minister’s Office for housing
expenses. This led to the revelation that
the expenses of Senators is not nearly
as regulated as earlier believed, which
triggered a discussion among Canadians

concerning senate reform. Most Canadians,

regardless of ideology or party, agree
that the Senate requires some form of
reformation.

Unfortunately, over the past year,

no consensus has been reached. The
two major solutions offered to “fix

the Senate” involve either complete
abolishment of the Senate, or have the
Senators elected by the regions they
represent. Unfortunately, these solutions
challenge the Senate’s role of applying
checks and balances to Parliament.

If the current senate reform debates
continue the way they are, efficient

regional representation will remain at
risk. This means that certain regions,

especially northern British Columbia,
will have less influence in Parliament.

One of the Senate’s most important
jobs is to make sure that the legislation
passed in the House of Commons

is in the best interest of Canadians.

This obligation is considered “Sober
Second Thought.” Without the Senate

in Parliament, bills passed in the House
of Commons are only challenged and
critiqued by the opposition parties. In
the case of a majority government, there
is no effective opposition in parliament
preventing a bill from becoming law.
Since the House of Commons represents
Canadians by population, urban centres
in Canada have a disproportionate
amount of influence when compared

to smaller regions. In order to bring
balance to Parliament, the Senate
represents regions in Canada, regardless
of population; no province or major
geographic region in Canada can unjustly
impose its legislative will on another.

Abolition of the Senate challenges this
balance. British Columbia, which makes
up one quarter of the region of Western

Canada, constitutes 6 out of 24 Senators
representing the interests of western
Canadians in Parliament. Abolishment

of the Senate would leave only 36 out

of 308 MP’s in the House of Commons

to represent the interests of British
Columbia, a vast majority of which
represent the interests of southern British
Columbians. As small as it may be already,
northern British Columbia’s influence in
Parliament would be further minimized.

Alternatively, an elected Senate would be
redundant. The House of Commons already
represents Canadians by population,

and is expected to uphold the will of the
majority. As a result, Senators are not
expected to have the same obligations as
MP’s. The Senate is required to practice
sober second thought, because MP’s are
bound by the will of their constituents.
Constituents do not inhibit Senators, who
do not have to worry about re-election,
from their responsibilities in parliament.
Therefore, Senators representing British
Columbia can adress its interests as a
whole, rather than just the interests of
the more densely populated south.

Despite being ineffective in pursuing
efficient Senate reform, these two

solutions make up the bulk of the Senate
reform debate. During the winter of

2013, the Conservative Party of Canada
presented the possibility of an elected
Senate to the Supreme Court of Canada,
and inquired as to whether such action
would require a constitutional amendment.
They also inquired as to whether or not
the Senate could be abolished by enacting
the amending formula (support from 7 out
of 10 provinces that made up over 50% of
the population). Both suggestions were
found to be legally unconstitutional, and
the Conservatives have since abandoned
their positions on reforming the Senate.
The NDP have traditionally supported

the abolishment of the Senate, despite

the party’s current position as the official
opposition in a majority government.

Northern British Columbians need

to recognize that these two leading
options for senate reform are not only
unacceptable, but could seriously inhibit
British Columbia’s ability to practice
regional representation effectively.
Senate reform must not compromise this
obligation, but must rather accommodate
it to provide Canadians with balanced
representation in Parliament.