|
Regional Representation The Senate's failure to adequately represent regional interests stems
primarily from three sources: The Appointment of Senators by the Prime Minister The appointment of Senators by the Prime Minister - instead of direct
election or appointment by provincial legislatures - means the Senate is not
seen as representing either the people or the provincial governments. Instead,
the Senate is viewed as a reward for years of political party service. A
breakdown of recent Senate appointments based on Party affiliation supports this
conclusion: *Between March 1968 - June 1979 The Method of Representation Senate representation is based on regions instead of constituent units (the
provinces). This was done to ensure that Canada's linguistic minority -
concentrated primarily in Quebec - was adequately represented. It is unlikely
that Quebec would have agreed to Confederation otherwise. However, the result is
that less populous provinces such as PEI are not equally represented in the
Upper Chamber. Furthermore, the representation of larger provinces is unequal.
Ontario and Quebec are designated as separate regions, but British Columbia is
not. Instead, B.C. forms part of the western region with Alberta, Saskatchewan,
and Manitoba. The result is that, with four times the population of Saskatchewan
and half the population of Quebec, B.C. has the same number of Senators as
Saskatchewan, but only one-quarter as many as Quebec or Ontario. The Rise of Executive Federalism Like other countries that merged federalism with parliamentary institutions,
Canada has seen the development of executive federalism. Instead of an open
process in Parliament, intergovernmental relations (relations between provincial
governments or between the provinces and the federal government) take place out
of public view at the ministerial level, through meetings such as First
Minister's Conferences and the annual Provincial Premiers Meeting. Even with
Senate reform, executive federalism will impact the Senate's ability to
effectively represent regional interests. Failure to serve as a check on the Lower House Appointment Process The fact that they are appointed instead of elected makes Senators reluctant
to exercise the considerable powers given to them in the Constitution Act, 1867.
Specifically, Senators seldom reject or substantially change legislation
submitted by elected House of Commons MPs. There have been exceptions. In 1991, the Senate defeated the House of
Common's abortion law in a close tie vote. Generally, Senators are more willing
to vote against legislation that clearly lacks public support. However, party politics often play a role, which makes the Senate's actions
seem less legitimate. Major policy disagreements between the two chambers
primarily occur when the majority of Senators are members of a different
political party than the government. Furthermore, in some cases the Senate
clearly isn't acting in the public's interest. For example, during the 1973 - 74
session of Parliament, the Senate removed a provision in the Conservative
government's wiretap legislation requiring that persons under surveillance for
ninety days be notified. At the time the Liberals formed a minority in the House
of Commons, but a majority in the Senate. Since 1982, the Prime Minister's ability to apply Section 26 of the
Constitution Act, 1867, gives the process even less legitimacy. In 1990, Brian
Mulroney became the first Prime Minister to apply this provision when he
appointed eight Conservative Senators to force passage of the controversial GST
bill, which was being blocked by a Liberal-dominated Senate. Party politics
aside, in this case, Senate opposition to the bill clearly reflected the
public's wishes. Nonetheless, Section 26 enabled the government to push it
through. Lack of Accountability The Senate punishes Senators who aren't performing their duties by denying
plum positions on Senate committees, removing travel privileges, and other
measures. However, for all practical purposes, the only way to remove a Senator
is to force him/her to resign. For example, in 1998, Senator Andrew Thompson
resigned after Prime Minister Chretien removed him from the Liberal caucus.
Between 1990 and 1997, Senator Thompson attended only fourteen Senate meetings.
Dubbed the "Tequila Senator" by the media, Thompson faxed his
resignation from his home in Mexico. Next Page>>International
Perspective: How Does Canada's Senate Compare With Other Countries?
|