Most democracies function under a bicameral legislative system meaning legislation must pass through the scrutiny of multiple houses before it can become law. While imperfect, those systems often work well in addressing regional differences within nations to reach a balance in policy formulation. In Canada, our Senate is ostensibly supposed to serve as a house of “sober second thought” and offer a less partisan level of scrutiny on government bills.
So, if a prime minister has the sole authority to appoint senators and a prime minister can add senators to ensure partisan compliance, how is the Senate acting as a check on the House of Commons? It isn’t.
While senators often do some good work as advocates in their communities and Senate committees have improved legislation from time to time, the Canadian Senate for the most part is a patronage pit for well-connected politicos. Senators are extremely well-paid and can build a massive personal pension fund for themselves within a relatively short time in office. The actual time commitment for senators to maintain their jobs is minimal compared to other political offices.
Many senators have taken their jobs for granted and demonstrated an extreme sense of entitlement upon being appointed. In the 1990s, the late Liberal Senator Andrew Thompson only showed up for work 47 times in 14 years as he spent most of his days collecting a salary while living in Mexico. He said he was there for medical reasons.
Canadians were outraged but all that happened was Thompson was suspended from his role for a couple of years rather than fired, enabling him to collect his lavish pension upon his mandatory retirement at age 75. Conservative Senator Mike Duffy was unrepentant to the end with his abuse of expenses and officially stayed in his role until 75 years of age though his pay was cut.
In the 1990s, the rallying cry of the Reform Party under Preston Manning was for a “Triple E” Senate. That stood for equal, effective, and elected. While it would take constitutional changes to make the Senate regionally equal, the elected part can be accomplished by prime ministers. If senators were elected, they presumably would become more effective as they would feel more beholden to the electorate than the prime minister or party that appointed them.
While the concept of a “Triple E” senate resonated in Western Canada where citizens are grossly underrepresented, it never garnered popularity in Eastern Canada which enjoys substantial senate representation. As the Reform Party evolved and eventually became part of the Conservative Party of Canada, the notion of Senate reform faded away. While Stephen Harper had been a Reform Party MP and did (through the Governor General) appoint elected senators from Alberta, he didn’t make senate reform a priority.
Like electoral reform, senate reform loses its appeal to a party in power. They got there under the current system and have no incentive to change it.
Canada desperately needs Senate reform and the only way to get it will be if an up-and-coming party is pressured into irrevocably committing to it. Pierre Poilievre hasn’t made Senate reform a priority and he won’t unless pushed into it by party members. It’s not that Poilievre opposes the notion, but as a savvy political player, he knows it wouldn’t do him any electoral favours in Eastern Canada.
If Poilievre does become Canada’s next prime minister, rest assured he won’t be interested in meddling with a Senate that he controls the levers of unless he had already promised to do so.
If Canadians want to see the Senate made accountable and effective, the time to lobby for it is right now. If Poilievre becomes the next prime minister without a commitment to Senate reform, the Red Chamber will remain dysfunctional for decades to come.
The Senate can be reformed but opportunities to do so are few and far between. The window is closing on an opportunity right now unless CPC members take up the cause.
