Forget about the money, that is a situation like so many others that can be dealt with by ethics and rules.
The real scandal is that our Senate has never lived up to its purpose and promise. In this federation, as in all others like the United States, Germany and Australia, an upper house is intended to balance the rep by pop lower house by representing the interests of the regions. In most federations the constituent states are equally represented; in Canada, the Confederation bargain featured a Senate with equal regional representation. This is historic, but perhaps also appropriate because we are to a large extent a country of regions.
The current situation is that Canadians are focussed on money and not the important questions of how to give Senators modern legitimacy to do the job they were intended to do in the first place – and that was not to duplicate the political partisanship that dominates the House of Commons. We have been badly served, particularly in Maritime Canada where our Senate representation at a guaranteed minimum should be working to protect us against population weights in other parts of the country.
There can be no argument that New Brunswick is suffering from a declining level of influence as a result of shifts in population and in the locus of economic power. National decisions are being taken in areas of health care funding and transfer payments that will have serious negative effects on our fiscal situation and our future prospects.
New Brunswickers have not traditionally looked to the Senate for protection from the effects of declining influence, but have instead relied on the federal government to ensure our interests weren’t neglected.
Provisions to promote less advantaged regions were included, at our then Premier’s insistence, in the Constitutional package along with the Charter of Rights, in 1982. Those provisions (Section 36) commit the federal government to policies promoting equal opportunities, reducing regional disparities, and making equalization payments to ensure reasonably comparable levels of public services. Despite these provisions, we are seeing serious erosion of federal and national commitment to these three principles.
We therefore need to think about whether we might gain by beefing up our representation in Parliament through the Senate, as the relative size of our representation in the House of Commons continues to decline. It is normal in a federation that the smaller constituent units are protected in an upper house against the lower house voting strength of larger states or provinces.
It is a peculiarity of Canada’s founding compact that regions, and not provinces, were granted equality in our upper house – the Senate. Given the nature of Canada and the swings in economic strength we have experienced over the years, it could even be argued that regional balance is more appropriate than provincial balance. In any event, it was the founding compromise – each region, Maritimes, Ontario, Quebec, and later the West, was accorded 24 Senate seats.
To his credit, the Prime Minister introduced legislation that would have provided for election of Senators and a limitation on term limits. Unfortunately he tried to do it unilaterally and the Court had no other choice than to remind him, as any knowledgeable advisor would have done, that our Constitution is quite specific about needing a measure of provincial approval to change the fundamental rules.
Getting provincial approval and ‘social licence’ has proven difficult to date, but they may have just gotten easier, due to Canadians’ impatience with what is being featured currently, combined with a developing general disinterest in the Senate.
Surely it is time for a new proposal to get us away from the obsession with money and mistakes. Why not a proposal to Canadians and the provinces to change the conversation and get on with focussing the Senate on its real task.
The Prime Minister is obliged, required even, by the Constitution to make appointments. Surely he can be guided by a process of selecting nominees who have received some degree of regional approval. I would like to see this done by democratically elected provincial legislatures. And nominees would enjoy the approval only for the life of the existing legislatures, ensuring a large degree of accountability for their performance generally in the duties of a Senator and as a representative of their region’s interests.
It’s time to raise our heads above the current news and petty controversies. We deserve better.
Don Dennison
Former NB constitutional Negotiator and Vice-President, Forum of Federations
[painting: Cicero Denounces Catiline, by Cesare Maccari (1889)]
