Here is a really good op-ed from Stephane Dion about what Senate Reform means for Albertans…

Stephen Harper’s Senate Reform: Wrong for Alberta and British Columbia

Strong voices from Western Canada are now being heard, warning Albertans and British Columbians against the negative impacts of the Senate reform legislation proposed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Democratic Reform Minister, Tim Uppal.

Both British Columbia Premier Christy Clark and former Alberta Premier Don Getty rightly point out that Stephen Harper’s version of Senate reform would be bad for their respective provinces. (“Clark pitches plan for Senate reform”, Globe and Mail, June 23, 2011; “Senate ‘reforms’ bad for Alberta, Getty fears; Ex-premier worries Harper plan will entrench inequality”, Edmonton Journal , June 23, 2011).  As the Edmonton Journal wrote, “second thoughts” must be given to this plan (“Second thoughts on Senate reform”, Edmonton Journal, June 21, 2011).

Stephen Harper’s Act would go against the interests of these two provinces.  Here’s why: practically speaking, an elected Upper Chamber would carry more weight in its dealings with the House of Commons than it does in its present form; the problem is that both Western provinces are better represented in the House than they are in the Senate; and both provinces have only six Senators when some provinces have ten with a much smaller population.

Let’s look at the numbers.  Alberta has 9.1% of the total number of Members of Parliament but only 5.7% of the Senators.  The gap is even larger for British Columbia, with 11.7% of the Members in the House of Commons and only 5.7% in the Senate.  Compare with New Brunswick, which counts 10 Senators for a population 4.8 times smaller than Alberta’s and 6.1 times smaller than British Columbia’s.

This unbalanced distribution of Senate seats – an historical artefact – is a problem for the two Western provinces and an anomaly of our federation; Stephen Harper’s reform would make the situation much worse.  In the existing unelected Senate, this problem is mitigated by the fact that our Senators play their Constitutional role with moderation, letting the elected House of Commons have the final word most of the time.  But in an elected Senate, with Members able to invoke as much democratic legitimacy as their House counterparts – if not more, since they would represent provinces rather than ridings – the underrepresentation of British Columbia and Alberta would take its full scope and significance.

Of course, elected Senators from the other provinces would not be hostile to the interests of Alberta and British Columbia, their duty being to address the interests of the whole country.  But these Senators would be more familiar with – and closer to – the interests of the voters of the province where they got elected.

And there are other compelling reasons – practical reasons – why British Columbians, Albertans and all other Canadians should reject this Bill.  One of them is that if the Bill is adopted, we can expect frequent delays and blockages in Parliament, caused by the disputes that are bound to arise between an elected House of Commons and an equally elected Senate.  Just look at the numerous gridlocks south of the border!  In fact, the situation could be even worse in Canada than in the United States: contrary to what they have in that country, there is no constitutional mechanism in ours to resolve such conflicts between two elected Chambers invoking a legitimate claim to speak for the people.

Another issue to which all Canadians should be sensitive is that this unilateral initiative of Mr. Harper’s epitomizes this Prime Minister’s centralist, controlling style of management.  This attitude shows disrespect for the Provinces and a poor understanding of Canada’s federalism.  If the Bill is adopted, the resulting Act of Parliament would be deemed unconstitutional because the fundamental changes it proposes cannot be implemented by Parliament alone.  These changes would require the support of at least seven provinces representing 50% of the Canadian population, notably because:

- Appointing Senators through a patchwork of voluntary provincial senatorial elections is clearly a fundamental change.

- Limiting the Senators’ tenure to nine years is a significant change.

- Giving the Prime Minister the power to name the totality of Senators at the end of two 4 ½-year mandates would strengthen his power considerably: another significant change.

Premier Charest has already announced that his government will challenge the constitutionality of Prime Minister Harper unilateral Senate reform in the Courts.  Premiers Stelmach and Clark will serve the interests of their provinces well if they join their Quebec colleague in his Court action.

Do Canadians need and want the waste of time, effort, money and good will that Mr. Harper’s initiative would cause?  I think not.  It is time for Prime Minister Harper (a Calgarian) and Minister Uppal (an Edmontonian) to give this issue a second, sober thought and abandon their ill-advised and ill-conceived Senate reform plan; an ill-advised and problem-fraught plan for Alberta, British Columbia and the whole of Canada.

Recent Posts