There has been a lot of recent talk on possible changes to the upper house with the outbreak of the senate expense scandal. Almost since its creation over a century ago, politicians have been trying in turn to reform or eliminate it. To date, little about it has changed. WSIC engaged in a discussion on May 26th with two eminent speakers on the topic of senate reform. Noted constitutional scholar Professor Peter Russell, and currently sitting senator the Honourable Art Eggleton lead the discussion.
Dr. Russell began by announcing his support for bicameralism, noting that almost all federalist parliamentary systems are bicameral. One of the strengths of our system is that it tends to prevent deadlock between the houses. An elected senate with a mandate from the people would have to interpret that mandate and may not agree with the House of Commons. His response to a question on why Canada should not adopt an American system was fundamentally linked to that idea, while also noting the tradeoffs available by having the checks and balances of the United States. On the subject of a German style senate he noted that in Canada the provinces are given a lot of power to govern local issues. In Germany, the federal government has a lot more say in what happens at the local level and therefore the German “federated states” need a way of formally interacting with the federal government that is not matched in Canada. Finally, the strength of the senate comes in its need and ability to affect public change through persuasion rather than political power.
Senator Eggleton focused on the need for an independent house whose value was in calmly considering legislation, yet also not setting itself against the will of the people. In particular, he stressed the need for a body to represent various minority interests in our parliamentary system. His emphasis was on the need to get the best people to be senators, and to minimize political patronage. He spoke about the bipartisan nature of the studies done by the senate that they use to inform themselves on how best to implement their mandate of “sober second thought”. Perhaps a combination of the right people would address the issue of potential gridlock? He agreed with Dr. Russell that an appointed senate would be best for avoiding gridlock. Interestingly, he expressed was that senators feel their work is underpromoted to the public leading to a lack of knowledge on what the senate does.
We had great and focused questions taking up the various points brought up in the introductions. Questioners pressed the topic of elect or appoint leading to an idea of a set of criterion that would be used to determine senate appointments. A body could create a short list that would be passed to the prime minister. This would allow the public to clearly see, and therefore trust, the process by which individuals are appointed. Any government functions with the trust of the people and this is one way for it to show its relevance. This would also be a way of getting the “best people” into senate spots because the criteria should be set up to emphasize skills relevant to the senate’s mandate.
Questioners also took the speakers up on the issue of communication. Using social media and the internet as a tool was urged. The senator felt that CPAC should carry more TV content on the senate and let us know that the senate is actively working to improve its online presence. A quick search on the internet reveals that the senate tweets, blogs, and CPAC provides online video.
As usual there were more questions than time, and the discussion ended on the topic of how best to communicate with the senate. Specifically, the Ontario Public School Board’s Association has been engaging in a social media campaign around the proposed Fair Elections Act. The question was about how best to communicate the will of the people to senators. Should they stick to fax machines? Or maybe emails? While it is clear that social media will continue to play a larger role in society Senator Eggleton mentioned that personalized, rather than form emails (or faxes!) are a great way of getting one’s message across to senators.
It was clear from our discussion that there is broad support for senate reform. Bicameralism by and large was noted as necessary to provide a government with the appropriate checks and balances needed for a healthy democracy. Both speakers support legislation allows provinces to set criteria to appoint senators (but insist that criteria itself should not be legislated). This is a simple change that will take the partisanship out of the senate and will not require opening the constitution.
Dr. Peter Russel’s Opening Remarks
Senator Art Eggleton’s Opening Remarks
Transcript:
I don’t know where Lois Wilson this but I want to recognize her because she’s a former senator who served well as an independent. She’s sitting right down here. Good to see you. I frequently come across people who remember me and my days as mayor of Toronto or my days as an MP or a cabinet minister and they say to me what are you doing now? I say I’m in the senate of Canada. Oh! I didn’t know that or they might say Oh! I guess I heard that somewhere down the line but I’ve forgotten. Oh! How long have you been in the senate? And they’re expecting me to say I’ve only been there few months. Bet you didn’t notice. But the current answer is nine years. Well, they then say, what do you do in this senate and I think that’s similar to saying what does a senator do anyways? So I tell them I’m there along with my colleagues to review the legislations that come from the government to hear from people who the government having passed it feel that there’s some unintended consequences that are going to affect them or perhaps there’s some mistakes that have been made. We have found over the years there’s a lot of mistakes are rushed through by the government in the House of Commons I can tell you. So even things that are intended. That’s what we’re there for. We’re there as a review body of the legislation. Now we respect the elected body. We know we’re not and so we’re careful not to override what appears to be the will of the elected people, the will of the majority of the population, but on the other hand, we’ve also got to look out for the minority interest as well and make sure that people are not being hurt in our country. So, I said that’s what we do and I said furthermore I particularly enjoy public policies. I sit on committees that study some of the great issues of our time. We’re just finishing on the Social Affairs Committee. A study we’ve had for two years. Two years people have dedicated to study pharmaceuticals in Canada. The effects it has on people, the regulations, the impact and some of them are quit dangerous, in fact. It’s an important study. In the past, we’ve done studies on mental health, we’ve done studies on poverty, in housing, I can go on and on. We’ve doing a study on the CBC right now, that’s a very current topic as well so lots of good studies that we do and you know what, the
government doesn’t always pay attention but sometimes they do and they set up the Mental Health
Commission of Canada for example, and the bases of recommendation came from our committee under four former Chair, Michael Kirby, who I succeeded a few years ago and I’m turned it over to a conservative because of the change in political reality now but anyways, there’s a lot of good things that have come in the way of studies. So I don’t hear from other senators from the time I joined the Senate saying, yeah but we never get attention for this. We never get any recognition for the good work that we do. Then all of a sudden, a year ago, we were on the front page! We were at the top of the news but for the wrong reasons. It’s because of the misbehaviour a few spending scandals as we know it involving four of our
members out of a hundred and five. So all the horror my colleagues bemoan the fact that we can’t get attention for the good things we do. Well, the fact is the media gives us scant attention they will much prefer the cut and thrust of question period, the attacks and the counter-attacks, that gotcha moments
in politics. That’s the stuff that gets all the attention. Oh, those senators over there they’re talking about public policies. They’re talking about pharmaceuticals and the CBC… That’s boring. They don’t pay any
attention to us. That’s a great part of the problem because people just simply don’t know what it is
we are about. I think the founding fathers of confederation that Professor Russell referred to settings back at its beginnings; I think they’ve got it right. I think they knew what they wanted to have and there was a concern I think particularly by the smaller provinces that the growth was going to come from Ontario, Quebec and in central Canada. And the rep by pop chamber, the House of Commons, was
going to gain more and more members from there but they wanted to make sure they didn’t get lost, that the regional interest didn’t get lost, so the senate was the key to joining confederation, the very key, part of the bargain that was reached at that time and I think it was John A. McDonald who first gave the concept that name we hear constantly. He himself not known to be sober all the time but nevertheless it was a good reason we still use it to this day so instead of saying we’re just a review body, reviewing legislation, we provide sober second thought to the legislation. I think they had it right when they said okay a senate should be more independent, yes, it should be in fact a check on the executive, which is the cabinet, should be as part of the checks and balances system. It should look after regional interests. Originally, they gave 24 to Atlantic Canada, 24 to Quebec, 24 to Ontario, 24 to the West. It’s a little out of line because New Foundland came into confederation, that added 6, then gave one to each of the territories, so we’re up to one hundred and five. But nevertheless it gives a stronger voice to regional representation or they might
not otherwise give in the House of Commons. It does something else, we have for all the faults and I agree with the professor about the appointments that some of these Prime Ministers make because it is all about their private prerogatives. I remember when I was in the cabinet; Jean Chretien will adjourn the cabinet at 12 noon. Two minutes before 12 noon he’d put a piece of paper on the table saying I’m
appointing these five people to the senate. Meeting adjourned. That’s it. I suspect every Prime Minister
have pretty much operated on more or less on that basis.
So there have been some great appointments, Lewis Wilson****** was a great appointment and there have been many others that were really terrific people to serve in the senate for the people. And there’s people that we won’t get otherwise in the senate because they’re not inclined to go out and get elected and yet they provide a valuable contribution. They’ve got a lot of knowledge, a lot of expertise. We have doctors and we have people of different ethnic backgrounds, we’ve also got more women than they have in the House of Commons. So we have a better balance of what Canada is about than even the House of Common. And that’s another opportunity for the senate. But I think they’ve also got it right also when they said it should be a non-elected body. I am against abolition of the senate because I think it provides the kind of valuable service I just talked. (8:20 – 8:50)********** Look at the United States. They have two elective houses. Both of them think they know what’s best for the public. They get into conflict quite frequently and they get into gridlock quite frequently. Actually they’ve got three divisions of government down there because they’ve got the executive branch separated from the two houses in the commons. Well, our system
is inherited from the British. It’s the Westminster system and that system to me has stood the test of time.
I don’t think anybody says the Brits are not democratic because certain parts of the government system are not elected. Their head of state is not elected. Our head of state doesn’t even live in the country.
We don’t elected the head of state in this country but that doesn’t mean that our institutions of government less democratic but that may be the way some of our government leaders operate are not democratic at all, I would certainly agree with that but I think the institutions that we have are put together makes us a very democratic country. So I don’t think we need to go down that path. Professor Russell said that he pointed out about the purpose of being more independent and less partisan. Well, you’re not going to have more independence and less partisanship if you have an elected chamber. They’re all going to run on political parties. They aren’t going to be able to afford to run on their own dollar. They will have to run on a party machine. Well, we’re all going to have less independence and more partisanship. I don’t think we need that. So I don’t think the second chamber, the upper chamber, should be elected. But I think
we need to restrict its activities either through the amendment of the constitution or just recognizing as it has by tradition by the popular elected house and be somewhat differential to their position in terms of reading the public mind and the majority in that case. Now, the one area I think we do need and can get some reform, because I do think we need reform, is how the Senate is appointed. According to the Constitution it has to be done by the governor general on recommendations of the Prime Minister but I think we can work with that without getting into a conflict. I’m not afraid of getting into a constitutional amendment but some people are in the whole world, the political leaders don’t seem to want to touch anything or talk about opening up the Constitution again and you’ll hear that from them constantly.
I think if the Prime Minister maybe the next Prime Minister will be willing to have to have an advisory committee and where they can make recommendations, that screens the recommendations to make sure we get good quality applicants they could then submit to the Prime Ministers, say the Prime Minister has three vacancies in the senate they could send them five names, six names, whatever,
so pick from these. So it maintains the Constitutional requirement but at the same time provides for a
better process and you can objectives. Maybe the Prime Minister sets the objectives; say I want thirty percent women. I want to reflect better the population and I’d like to have, oh, maybe one third of them with political legislative experience because that’s valuable in the institution of governance. Whatever, but I think it needs to change from the time of appointments for me today and unfortunately a lot of appointments made lately have been just off the wall as long as far as I’m concerned. They haven’t been the kind of quality
appointments I think this country deserves. So, I think that’s what we need in the way of reform.
Eventually, we also need to figure out how to get a better balance in the senate. Let me give you an example of British Columbia. In 1867 the West wasn’t fully developed. British Columbia has six seats in the senate. It has over four million people. Nova Scotia has less than a million people, has ten seats. It’s a little out of whack. So there needs to be a better regional balance but that’ll require a constitutional amendment which a lot of our governmental leaders don’t want to touch. But anyways,
what I’m saying is this institution I think has served this country well. Let’s reform it, let’s make it work better, let’s make sure people can’t abuse the rules but let’s not throw away a system that served his country well for one hundred and forty-six years. Thank you.
