Running Head: Canadian Senate Reform 1

Public Sectors Final Essay

Debating Whether the Canadian Senate should be Reformed?









Taha Abbas and Ovais Ahmad
0834973 and 0840900
AHSS 1140(3)
March 24, 2014
Canadian Senate Reform 2
Theodore Roosevelt once stated, When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do
not know whether to answer 'present' or 'not guilty. Throughout history, there has been political
discourse regarding the construction of the Canadian Senate and its validity. Canadian
Parliament is bicameral and is comprised of two chambers: the upper chamber which is the
Senate, and the House of Commons, which is the lower chamber. While the House is comprised
of elected representatives, the Senate has its members appointed by the Governor General at the
advice of the Prime Minister. Thus, the Senate is referred to as a sober second thought, since it
has been employed for the purpose of reviewing legislature that was passed from the elected
House. The Senate has the legislative responsibility to approve, amend, and improve laws passed
from the House and has the legislative power to pass its own bills. However, the creation of the
Senate was also to represent a legislative bodyintended to provide special representation to
property and more conservative influence (Crandall & Lawlor, 2013, p.551). Consequently, the
creation of the Senate brings its objectivity in disrepute because it has a preferential interest in
the unbiased act of lawmaking. Recently, the expense scandals involving the Senate abusing
taxpayer money has escalated the public frustration against the Senate. The current state of the
Canadian Senate is in dire need for reform due to the lack of democratic representation. For this
reason, the Senate fails to represent a fair and competent institution of Canada
In certain domains, the Canadian Parliament fails to accurately reflect democratic
ideology. For example, the Canadian Senate, since its formation, has been rooted with
conflicting ideology and is therefore in need of significant reform. In contrast to democratically
elected officials, Senators are appointed based on the recommendation of the Prime Minister,
who selects the composure of governing legislature. This, unfortunately, involves and grants the
Prime Minister authority that should be outside of his jurisdiction. Senate appointments are
objectionable because the selection of Senators are made by the prime minister and serve as
Canadian Senate Reform 3
patronage appointment to party loyalist (551). Since the Prime Minister appoints them solely for
party loyalty and affiliation, it has detrimental effects on the lawmaking process. In the book,
The Canadian Senate in Bicameral Perspective, David Smith argues against partisan in the
Senate as he fears, partisan will be injected into the upper house debate and business, and thus,
the potential for conflict with the lower house (Smith, 2003, p.79). Accordingly, Smith
explains that the Senate would be working towards the political agenda of the Prime Minister.
Consequently, party loyalty diminishes the legitimacy of the Senate, as they are required to be an
independent and objective legislative body (Joyal, 2003, p.290). It is of utmost importance that
the Senate acts without that influence because lawmaking should be based on the need and
merits of the law. In addition, the work of this undemocratic Senate would contravene with the
voice of the elected representatives in the lower chamber. The Senates review of legislature can
taint the law making process as it would give preference to political agenda of the governing
party rather than the public needs represented by the House. For example, bill C-311, the Climate
Change Accountability Act, has been successfully passed in the House with a majority vote. Bill
C-311 was then sent to the Senate, where the bill was struck down by a strategic move by
Conservative Senators (Galloway, 2012). The Conservative Senators called the bill to vote
without any debate or notice, thus the absence of more than 15 Liberals from the Senate
allowed the bill to be defeated by a margin of 43 to 32. Former NDP leader, Jack Layton,
affirmed that Harper used his control in the Senate to revoke this environmental act to please his
friends in the big oil companies" (Galloway, 2012). This example of the Prime Ministers
control in the Senate shows the implications the Senate can have on the democratic will of the
House of Commons. For this reason, the Senate members should be elected and follow the
democratic ideology of Canada. Furthermore, an elected Canadian Senate would more
accurately reflect the views of Canadian and allow for independent and impartial lawmaking
Canadian Senate Reform 4
without the bias from any political party. Ultimately, Senators would demonstrate more
accountability and competency in lawmaking because they would need to garner public approval
and support. For example, Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau has made a recent effort to make the
Senate more independent. Trudeau removed all liberal Senators from the caucus to bring an
open, transparent, non-partisan process to the Senate (Smith, 2014). While the former Liberal
Senators are not elected, they are independent from party ties and show the urgency and
importance of dealing with Senate matters based on merits and impartiality. Ultimately, Senate
reform is a pressing issue as the appointment process sparks great controversy and weakens its
validity in the public eye.
Public outcry about the Senate has not only been attributed to the appointment process,
but also with respect to misuse of power and privilege. The Senate has failed to prove itself as
legitimate body in the public eye. In many circumstances, the Senate of Canada has shown that it
cannot be trusted, nor can it be relied upon to deal with matters in an ethical and appropriate
manner. The recently damaged reputation that the Senate carries has eliminated its remaining
legitimacy (Collenette, 2014). For example, since 2012, the Canadian Senate has garnered much
controversy and criticism as a consequence of the Senate expense scandal. In particular, four
Senators have unjustifiably claimed living and travel expenses to which they were not entitled.
These four senators include: Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Mac Harb
(Global, 2014). Investigations into the Senators revealed Brazeau, Duffy, and Harb all claimed
that they lived outside of Ottawa which was later demonstrated as to be incorrect. The
investigations into Senator Wallin revealed that she inappropriately claimed $121,348 from the
Senate for travel expenses. The other Senators unjustly claimed; $48,744 by Brazeau, $231,649
by Harb, and $90,172 by Duffy (CTV, 2013). Consequently, the expense scandals in Senate
contribute towards its discredited validity. The mismanagement and fraudulent use of taxpayers
Canadian Senate Reform 5
money depletes the remaining trust and accountability of the Senate. In Serge Joyals article, The
Senate as the Embodiment of the Federal Principle, states that Senators must demonstrate that
they are motivated a sense of moral purpose and public service, and unfortunately, the current
Senate scandals prove to be a disservice to the Canadian people (Joyal, 2003, p.290). In addition,
Joyal reveals that lawmaking entails principles of morality and decisions made for the betterment
of people. Yet ironically, the Senate members of Canada that are tasked with lawmaking, are
themselves, corrupt criminals. While members should be regarded with higher standards of
accountability, they are avoiding prosecution and maliciously stealing taxpayers money instead.
The Senate expense scandal had also brought light towards planned and executed cover-
ups that involved Stephen Harpers chief of staff, Nigel Wright, the Prime Ministers Office and
Mike Duffy. Wright and the PMO attempted a convoluted plan that would allow the disgraced
Senator Duffy to repay his expenses claimed for travel and living. Then, Wright and the PMO
orchestrated the Senate Committee to whitewash the report into Duffys action. The Senate
committee ensured that the Duffy review was quietly put to rest and that the report would go
unnoticed as opposed to aggravating public outcry (Macleans, 2013). The PMOs interference
and the Senates inability to honestly and diligently review the actions of one of its members
demonstrate the dire need for change. The Senate should be autonomous, but rather continues to
reveal a twisted methodology and conflicting interests. The Senate itself has failed the public, by
mismanaging funds, neglecting their proper distribution. Hence, the Senate cannot be a trusted
institution as it is endlessly shrouded with corruption.
Besides the scandalous actions and interference with lawmaking, the requirements to
become a Senator prohibit the institution from being more answerable to the public. According
to the Journal of Legislative Studies, author David Docherty asserts, the upper chamber has
been a more elitist and conservative body (Docherty, 2002, p.30). Docherty is correct as many
Canadian Senate Reform 6
Senators, almost 80 percent of them, currently have an income outside of the Senate and many
come from high paying jobs such as lawyers (8) and real estate agents (18) (Smith, 2013). Thus,
the Senate primarily consists of appointed individuals from higher socioeconomic levels and fail
to represent individuals from all aspects of socio-economic system. An elitist in the Senate can
result in preference and bias towards the business class or rich, which can be reflected in their
lawmaking (Docherty, 2002, p.46). A Senate comprised of the elite bring in to question whether
they can adequately make decisions and laws for those at lower socio-economic levels.
Furthermore, in order to be Senator, it is required you must own property worth $4,000 in their
respective province (Reforming the Senate, 2009, p.18). This requirement was put into place to
ensure that Senators have a stake in the community (Docherty, 2002, p.30). However, this
requirement is an unfair barrier as an individuals economic level does not determine their ability
to make, approve and amend laws.
Another requirement that demonstrates that the Senate is not an accountable institute is that a
Senator can hold office from appointment till the age of 75 (LOP, 2009, p.25). With practically
no term limits, the urgency in the Senate can be undermined as there is no time constraint
regarding the initiation or change of needed law. The lasting terms of the Senate are problematic
because law and societal values are ever changing, and there is uncertainty regarding the
adaptability of the Senate members perspectives. Consequently, fixed terms would introduce a
renewal of ideas and perspectives and allow for new perspective that is congruent with modern
public needs. Shorter, fixed terms would ensure that Senators work diligently to pass bills that
would promote public confidence. Recently Stephen Harper attempted to introduce a term limit
in the Senate. Bill S-7 would require that the term limit be reduced to nine year instead of terms
ending at the age 75 (Fitzpatrick, 2011). However, this bill will require a constitutional
amendment which is a controversial matter. This bill would strengthen the accountability in the
Canadian Senate Reform 7
Senate, as it will ensure that Senators accomplish their tasks in due time.
Lastly, for the Senate to be a competent institution, it should be equally represented
among the provinces. The current formation of the Senate delegates 24 members to Ontario and
Quebec, and divides 24 members amongst the West (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan,
and Manitoba) the Maritimes, leaving six members for Newfoundland. (LOP, 2009, p.29). The
formation of the Senate was also intended for regional representation, the Senates membership
was apportioned to recognize the provinces as separate units and thus, promote and advocate for
regional interests (Crandall & Lawlor, 2013, p.551). Since there is not an equal number of
Senators per province, is difficult to incorporate the needs and demands of each province.
Unfortunately, it is understandable that provinces with the most Senators would have a
significant sway of regional matters. For example, the article called, Understanding Alienation in
Western Canada by Robert Lawson states, as a region, western Canada is thought not to have
its voice heard effectively or its input because the West lacks adequate representation
(Lawson, 2005, p.130-131). Lawson affirms that because Quebec and Ontario have more
senators, they have been more dominant over lawmaking. Lawsons argument explains that the
current Senate makeup prohibits fairness, as each province does not have equal input in the
lawmaking process (131). Regardless of the size and population of a province, they still have
same needs and concerns that must be adequately addressed. A reformed Senate would allow for
equal representation by province, thus allowing all provinces to have a fair influence over all
matters and decisions. Lastly, changes to Senate such as the introduction of members regardless
of economic stability, limited Senate terms, and equal provincial representation would establish
the Senate as a reliable and responsible authority in Canadian society.
While Senate reform seems prominent, the arguments defending the current state of the
Senate are equally compelling. Furthermore, there is support for the status quo in the Senate. The
Canadian Senate Reform 8
Senate brings much to the table that has been unnoticed and unappreciated. In David Smiths
book, The Canadian Senate in Bicameral Perspective, he states the senate is a national
institutionwith experience, memory and a long view of policy and events (Smith, 2003,
p.172). David confirms the advantage of appointed Senate members. For example, it ensures that
only capable and meaningful candidates will be selected to comprise the Senate. The current
appointment ensures that it selects experienced members and an appointed Senate can provide
for adequate representation of women and minorities in lawmaking. As Smith states, the Senate
has become the forum for expressing minority interests but with distinctiveness (Smith, 2003,
p.27). Ultimately, Smith reveals that the status quo Senate displays crucial aspects that are much
overlooked and unappreciated.
Furthermore, on occasions the Senate has shown its competence and reliability in the
review of legislature. For example, the recent Bill C-377 called the union bill had been quickly
approved by the House without much scrutiny Bill C-377 would require the labour unions to
extensively disclose their finances to the public. Thus, the Senate showed its independence as
several Conservative and Liberal Senators joined to amend this extremely invasive bill
(Berthiaume, 2013). It should be noted the Conservative Senators acted against the wishes of the
Prime Minister, thus confirming the Senates title as a sober second thought. Alongside
legislative review, Senate committees make great unnoticed contributions through their
investigations. These investigation committees are considered as an objective non partisan
institution. Consequently, investigations enabled the Senate to properly amend legislation,
position itself as a stronger and more active check (Crandall & Lawlor, 2013, p.554). Also,
Senators have been credited with making the most valuable contribution during committee reports
(Mallory, 1982, p.145). As a result, this reaffirms the Senates dependability and competence as a
legislative body of Canada.

Canadian Senate Reform 9
Lastly, the Senate should remain with status quo because reforming the composition of
the Senate would require constitutional amendments. Constitutional amendments are a difficult
task as the federal government is unclear with respect to which requirements would change the
constitution. Harper has asked the Supreme Court of Canada, his proper authority, to bring forth
changes to Senate requirements in the Constitution Act. The confusion ensues debate whether
Senate reform must be approved by seven provinces, 50% of the population or if the reform is
required to be unanimously accepted (Macfarlane, 2013). Thus, Senate reform and amendments
will surely be a long and daunting task.
To conclude, the Senate reform is an ominous issue that shrouds the Canadian
parliament. The Senate, with its undemocratic appointments, partisan relationships and expense
scandal, depict an unreliable institution in Canada. In addition, the Senates disputable economic
requirements, term limits and unfair member distribution are pivotal weaknesses that need
improvement. Nonetheless, the Senate has shown glimmers of accountability and its true virtue
of a sober second thought in its actions of Bill C-377. For the Senate to be considered a
trustworthy lawmaking institution in Canada, it needs to demonstrate the absolute highest moral
and ethical values. In order for the Senate reform to take effect, it will require a constitutional
amendment. Once reformed, the Senate will not only complement the House, but also fulfill the
responsibility to the Canadian people. As Benjamin Disraeli nicely put, power is a trust; that
we are accountable for its exercise.