With a federal election coming this fall, and with it the possibility that the Liberals will swap sides of the House of Commons with the Conservatives, this is a good moment to ponder the fate of the somewhat less partisan but definitely more activist Senate created by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer says, if elected, he will end Mr. Trudeau’s practice of appointing independent senators recommended for the job by an advisory board, and go back to stacking the upper chamber with loyal partisans who can be relied upon to do their appointer’s bidding.
It’s easy to imagine why Mr. Scheer would want to do that: Over the past four years, the Senate has repeatedly amended and slowed down the passage of government legislation.
Two major bills – C-48, imposing a moratorium on tanker traffic off parts of the British Columbia coast, and C-83, which reforms solitary confinement in prisons – teetered on the brink of being rejected by the Senate last week.
In the end, the senators passed both bills before the House lifted for the summer. It was a repeat of an episode in June, 2017, when the Senate came within a day of refusing to pass the government’s budget before the summer recess but backed down at the last minute.
Those episodes demonstrate how the 105-seat upper house has gained influence and power under Mr. Trudeau. Led by its 59 independent members, who can vote their conscience on all matters and hold a majority of the seats, senators are now so apt to ask for amendments to bills that lobbyists are lining up to meet with them to discuss impending legislation.
It’s a big change from the days when the Senate could snooze through a session of Parliament without demanding a single amendment, and individual senators only made the news when they were caught fudging their expenses or failed to show up for work.
But while the new system has some merit, Mr. Scheer is right to worry about what Mr. Trudeau has bequeathed to future governments.
The 59 members of the Independent Senators Group (ISG) may be unaffiliated with a party, but they are almost entirely Trudeau appointees. Even if they are willing to challenge Liberal legislation up to a point, they still hold values and ideals associated with the Prime Minister.
Think about it: If Mr. Scheer named independent senators, would they be the same independent senators as Mr. Trudeau would name? Not likely. He isn’t wrong to worry about a reform that has given a bloc of independent but liberal-minded senators an inflated sense of their legitimacy.
Canadians should worry, too. If Mr. Scheer were to be elected prime minister and then acted on his promise to cancel the federal carbon tax, would the reinvigorated Senate pass the required legislation? What about Mr. Scheer’s promise to end the moratorium on tankers off the B.C. coast? Would the Senate stand in his way?
This is the real issue for Canadians. Senate reforms can come and go, but there are three things no prime minister will ever be able to change.
One, the Senate is here to stay. The constitution sees to that. Two, it is unelected. Its appointed members have no democratic legitimacy.
And three, those unelected men and women, who have guaranteed jobs until age 75 and can’t be fired, can reject any legislation they want.
So far, the rejigged Senate has shown a level of deference to the will of the Commons. It did it again last week when it yielded at the last minute and adopted laws that appeared to be headed for deadlock.
But the real test of Mr. Trudeau’s reform will come the day his party loses power. Will those independent senators be as willing to defer to a government agenda that is not in line with their thinking?
How senators are chosen is far less important than how they use their powers. In the end, the only reform that matters must come from the senators themselves. They should change their rules of procedure and put it into writing that they can advise, amend and delay the Commons for a period of time, but they can’t overrule it.
Because a country in which unelected and unaccountable political appointees have the final say over legislation can’t call itself a democracy.