Public interest in the Senate is currently
stronger than it ever has been. Nearly
everyone agrees that our present Senate is unsatisfactory. Political parties such as the New Democratic
Party want the outright abolition of the Senate while others such as the Reform
Party want to elect it. Since the Senate
has not been considered an effective forum for regional representation-which
was one of the reasons for its creation-many Canadians have wondered what reforms
would allow it to perform that role better.
The objectives of Senate reform are based on one idea, that of enhancing
the quality of regional representation of politicians within national political
institutions. Through the implementation
of a Triple E Senate (Equal, Effective, Elected), a federal principle can be
constructed into the national government and therefore provide a check on the
majority in the House of Commons.
A major function
of second chambers is legislative review. This means that bills coming from the
other house are examined, revised and sometimes delayed. Unless regional representation is included,
the legislative review function does not examine the purpose of proposed
legislation, but instead attempts to improve it technically. In federal systems, the legislative review
function of the Senate is only secondary to their role in providing for
representation for various parts of the country in the national legislature.
Representation is selected in favour of the smaller regions, in contrast to the
first chamber, where representation is always based on population. Therefore the functions associated
with the Senate
are legislative review and the representation of the various regions on a
different basis from the lower house.
The Fathers of Confederation originally
intended for the Senate to play the legislative review role. As sir John A. MacDonald said, the Senate was
to have "the sober second thought in legislation" and should not be
"a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the Lower House". They also agreed on a particular
qualification of Senators, which was intended to help them act as a check
against the majority in the Lower House.
This qualification has remained unchanged since 1867, but its practical
meaning has long been discarded.
The other major role meant for the Senate was
to preserve what MacDonald called "sectional interests". It is believed that this agreement about
representation in the Senate was the main factor that allowed the Canadian
federation to be formed. The Senate has
functioned quite effectively as a house of legislative review up to the present
time, but its intended role in regional representation has not been as
effectively performed.
A major reason for this ineffectiveness is
the method of appointment. By having the
federal government alone appoint Senators and for such long terms (until the
age of
seventy-five),
the Senate's ability to represent the regions of Canada has been weakened. During long appointments, the responsiveness
to the views and concerns of the represented is not always guaranteed. There is also no obligation to account to
their respective regions and their representation is not put to any public
test. Even if Senators did perform an
adequate role as representatives, the public might not see it in the
light.
The implementation of a Senate which is elected
rather than appointed would ensure that representatives were more responsive to
the public. It would also give the
Senate the authority to exercise the substantial powers given to it by the
Canadian Constitution. Any political
institution can obtain formal or legal powers, but if the public does not want
them to use it, these powers may not be exercised. In addition, most Canadians have
reservations about appointments to a legislative body for such a long term in
this, a more democratic age than when the Senate was established.
Senators in our Upper House do not really
represent anyone except for the one who appointed them-the Prime Minister. It is because of this reason that they cannot
effectively express the views of anyone since their appointment lacks
legitimacy in our democratic age.
However, when Senators criticize and delay the legislative process, they
only remind us of
how much could be accomplished effectively if only they represented the people
who had elected them.
Another important function of second chambers
in federal systems like Canada's is the representation of the regions on a
basis other than representation by population.
When different people from different regions wish to achieve a common
goal while protecting their respective regionally-based differences against
majority rule, a federal system of government is utilized. When this is the case, the Upper House is
seen as a political check on the rule of a simple majority. It also reflects the diverse interests of the
regions of the federation to the lower chamber.
In countries like Canada where there are two
distinct linguistic groups geographically concentrated within its borders,
protection of the interests of the minority group can be established through
specially weighted representation of the political units in the second
chamber. It was because of this reason
that the French-speaking Fathers of Confederation sought equal representation
in the Senate for the three original regions (Quebec, Ontario and the
Maritimes). This would balance out the
House of Commons where there was no guarantee of proportional francophone
representation.
As it stands today, the Senate has 104 seats,
which are divided into 4 divisions.
Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and the western provinces each share 24
seats. Newfoundland has 6 seats while
the Yukon and Northwest Territories have 1 each. In the case of Quebec, 24 regions were
created in order to have a balance of anglophone and francophone
representatives. Under the proposed Triple
E Senate, there would be 6 representatives from each and every province while
the territories had one each. This would
provide for a new 62 member Senate which would be elected at the same time as
Members of Parliament. The only
exception would be Quebec where Senators would be hand-chosen by the National
Assembly.
The principle of equality simply means that
every province or region would be equally represented in the Senate regardless
of its population. The need for equal
representation arises when provinces like Ontario are compared to Prince Edward
Island, Since Ontario's population is so huge compared to many other provinces,
it along with Quebec could automatically become the majority in the Commons
when their interests were similar. The
comparison between Ontario and Prince Edward Island might be a bit extreme, but
what it really equates to is that Alberta and other provinces cannot have the
same powers as Ontario and Quebec. With equal representation, no province would
have to worry about being outvoted by such a wide margin that the interests of
the citizens were completely ignored.
The Government of Canada stresses the
importance in strengthening the role of the Senate in representing people from
all parts of the country. Equal
representation allows the Parliament to speak and act with greater authority on
behalf of all Canadians. Meanwhile, a
delicate equilibrium must be established if the Senate's role in regional
representation is to be upgraded while maintaining the effectiveness of
Parliament.
At the time of its creation, the Senate was
assigned extensive formal authority and with only two qualifications, it would
be equal in power to the House of Commons.
Not until recently were limitations placed on the Upper Chamber's powers
as a result of constitutional amendments.
However, even today, no federal legislation can be passed until it has
been passed by majorities in both the Senate and the House of Commons. The problem of the present Senate is not a
lack of power, but the lack of confidence and legitimacy that would allow it to
maintain and use that power. The
Canadian Upper House has all the formal legal power imaginable, including a
complete veto on any and all government legislation. Even with so much power, the Senate has felt
no justification in defying the Lower House ever since the widespread
democratic sentiment in Canada not long after Confederation.
Another reason for the Senate's past
ineffectiveness is due to the fact that Senate appointments are partisan in
nature. The majority in the Upper House
would usually
correspond to the
majority in the Lower House since appointments were made by the Prime
Minister. The House of Commons will
continue to be the subject to tight party discipline, whereas it can be less
strict in the Senate, since it was designed so that it does not control the
fate of the government. Another reason
is because the majority of amendments to bills have been introduced to the
Senate after it was already approved by the House of Commons. Therefore, it did not really matter whether
or not there was a majority in both chambers by the same party.
One of the benefits of the Triple E Senate is
that it will definitely have a positive effect on the rest of Canada's
political institutions. If the House of
Commons was to have a reformed Senate watching over it, it would have to work
harder, implement more compromises into their policies and this would make it
that much more effective. The regional
interests and views on national policy can also be dealt with by a reformed
Senate, thus allowing provincial powers to focus on their respective mandates
instead of just campaigning on national
policies.
Regionalism is a major force in Canada, one
that pervades almost all aspects of our political lives. Therefore, it is extremely important
that a means of expression is available
to us in our national institutions. The
Triple E Senate builds a federal principle into the national government which
then provides a more effective regional balance on the majority rule of the
House of Commons. More specifically, a
reformed Senate will enhance the
visibility of
provincial and regional representation in Ottawa, create more effective
territorial checks and balances within the legislative process and improve the
credibility and legitimacy of the national government in disaffected regions of
Canada. Ten years ago, the concept of a
Triple E Senate was unimaginable, but it is very much on the minds of Canadians
these days. Due to insufficient regional
and provincial representation at the national level , Canadians are now asking
whether we could not follow the example of other federations by strengthening
the second chamber of our national Parliament.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Campbell, Colin.
The Canadian Senate. Toronto: The
Macmillan Company of Canada
Ltd.,1978.
Dyck, Rand.
Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches.
Scarborough: Nelson Canada, 1996.
Fox, Paul w.,
ed. Politics: Canada Seventh Edition. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd.,
1991.
Kunz, F.A. The Modern Senate of Canada / 1925-1963. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1967.
MacGuigan, The
Hon. Mark. Reform of the Senate: A
Discussion Paper. Ottawa:
Publications Canada, 1983.
MacKay, Robert
A. The Unreformed Senate of Canada. Toronto: Oxford University
Press, 1963.
White,
Randall. Voice of Region: The Long
Journey to Senate Reform in Canada.
Toronto: Dundurn Press Ltd., 1991.
No comments:
Post a Comment