Published by Senator Grant Mitchell on 27 June 2006
The recent proposal by the Conservative government to limit Senate terms to 8 years reflects a significant retreat from its original and forcefully stated position on Senate reform.
There are two fundamental objectives for Senate Reform from the West’s perspective and, to his credit, the Prime Minister captured them in his election platform: (1) to make the Senate more democratic by electing Senators; and (2) to make it better able to redress regional imbalance by reallocating seats.
Interestingly, as important as these two Senate reform objectives are to Westerners, limiting Senators’ terms to 8 years contributes nothing to either of them. This, of course, begs an obvious question: Why would a Prime Minister who clearly understands the West’s interests in Senate reform and who promised accordingly end up at this relatively minor change that misses the mark on those Senate reforms critical to the West?
It is not a surprise. Electing Senators and reallocating seats involve the more difficult form of constitutional change, the kind requiring the approval of at least 7 provinces constituting 50% of the Canadian population.
And, many provinces do not agree. Why would the Atlantic Provinces give up their seat advantage? Currently, the Atlantic Provinces have 30 Senate seats while the West, Ontario and Quebec each have 24.
Why would most Premiers want a Senate that, being elected, would be much more inclined to exercise its considerable power in representing regional interests, thereby reducing the power and influence of the provinces? Consider the US experience where the single most powerful political institution is the Senate and the states are seen to be considerably weaker than our provinces.
On his way from strong election promises to the far less significant term limit proposal, the Prime Minister did talk of some form of non-constitutional, ad hoc election process, like the Alberta experiment with provincially sponsored elections. However, without unanimous provincial agreement to hold elections, the process would be seriously flawed and, once again, there is not unanimous agreement to do this. Federally sponsored elections, even if just to “advise” the Prime Minister, raise serious constitutional questions.
Backing off the ad hoc election idea does, however, have much to recommend it. The Senate can veto virtually all legislation that is passed by the House of Commons; certain constitutional amendments being the exception. These powers are used only occasionally because unelected Senators are reluctant to overturn legislation passed by the elected House. If Senators were elected, this inhibition would be lifted and the Senate could grind government to a halt. Before we start electing, we need to determine a procedure for breaking impasses between the two houses.
Moreover, simply electing the Senate will do nothing to redress regional imbalance, and might exacerbate it. Under the current seat allocation, elected Senators exercising their power in a determined fashion would mean more influence for the Atlantic Provinces, not to mention the distinct advantage that the numbers give Ontario and Quebec. Alberta actually has greater representation in the House of Commons than in the Senate, 9.1% of Commons seats compared to 5.7% of Senate seats.
That leaves the most recent proposal, limiting Senators’ terms to 8 years. (The historic average term has been between 11 and 12 years). While it does not address the two most significant Senate reform objectives, limiting terms is not without consequence.
In fact, longer terms have been critical to the effectiveness of the Senate. First, they allow Senators to acquire institutional memory important to their ability to provide “sober second thought”. There are many examples of where the Senate has assisted in improving legislation and avoiding critical legislative flaws that were missed by the Commons.
Second, longer terms allow Senators to develop issues that may not be of interest to Members of the Commons who face elections every 4 years or even sooner, and who therefore tend to focus on issues of immediate electoral consequence (i.e. votes). Prime examples include the work of Senators Joyce Fairbairn on literacy, Sharon Carstairs on palliative care and Michael Kirby on mental health. Of special current relevance is the work of Senator Lucie Pepin in developing resource centers which provide support for families of military personnel deployed abroad. These kinds of issues may not be of intense political interest, but they are often of great importance to less influential Canadians.
Why would the Prime Minister be reduced to term limits in his quest for Senate reform? Term limits might just require the easier form of constitutional change involving the approval of only Parliament, although that is controversial. Whether or not he achieves this, he can at least say that he tried, and seek some political cover for not delivering on his more important promises.
While that may be good politics, it ultimately does not advance the cause of meaningful Senate reform. Instead, the Prime Minister should remain consistent in his quest for Senate elections and seat reallocation. He should engage the debate directly with the provinces to see what leadership he can provide in getting them to agree, rather than tinkering at the edges.