Last month, the Supreme Court rendered its opinion on the options for Senate reform. Contrary to the Conservatives and the NDP, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has proposed a practical and achievable plan that would allow for immediate reforms to be made. Constitutional experts have noted that the non-partisan, senatorial selection process proposed by Trudeau would not require a reopening of the Constitution.

This is in stark contrast to the NDP’s interpretation — as articulated by former NDP adviser Hugo Cyr in the Star last weekend — that a non-partisan Senate cannot be achieved without reopening the Constitution. This flawed line of reasoning is based on sections 64 and 65 of the Supreme Court opinion, notably the following statement: “The framers of the Constitution Act, 1982 extended the constitutional protection provided by the general amending procedure to the entire process by which Senators are ‘selected’.”

The NDP’s mistake is to think that this means that no changes can be made to the selection process by Parliament alone, without constitutional amendment and provincial support. In reality, it means that any change that would alter the Senate’s constitutional nature and role would require a constitutional amendment with the support of at least seven provinces representing 50 per cent of Canada’s population (the 7/50 rule).

The NDP has raised questions about the nature and legitimacy of the consultation process. The prime minister is of course perfectly entitled to consult with anybody he chooses, whenever he chooses, however he chooses, on two conditions. The first condition is that he must respect the convention, as recognized by the Supreme Court (section 50), that he should not delegate his responsibility to recommend a senatorial candidate to the Governor General.

The second condition is that the prime minister or Parliament cannot unilaterally alter the “Senate’s fundamental nature and role” (section 52). That is precisely what Prime Minister Stephen Harper was trying to do with his proposal to place consultative elections at the heart of the selection process. To make the Senate an elected chamber, the 7/50 threshold of provincial approval must be met.

In contrast, a selection process that aims to make the Senate less partisan does nothing to change the fundamental nature of the institution; instead, it reinforces it. The Supreme Court’s opinion reminds us of the role that the Fathers of Confederation envisioned for the Senate: “to provide ‘sober second thought’ on the legislation adopted by the popular representatives in the House of Commons” (section 15), “in order to remove Senators from a partisan political arena” (section 57).

This is exactly the kind of Senate that Trudeau had in mind when he proposed his practical and constitutionally correct plan to create a chamber that is less partisan and more independent. His proposal includes the establishment of an advisory body that would actually help the Senate fulfil its constitutional role by reducing partisanship in the selection process and would provide the prime minister with objective advice. In the end, the prime minister would continue to make the final choices and recommendations to the Governor General.

Trudeau’s Senate reform proposal is a significant step toward making our Senate more independent and representative of our country’s diversity. His proposal seeks to create an Upper House that can focus on fulfilling its role as envisioned by the Fathers of Confederation: to be a chamber of scrutiny that complements and completes the work of the House of Commons.

Without constitutional wrangling, Trudeau’s plan will help to restore Canadians’ faith and pride in their Senate. The NDP should support this plan and so should Harper and his Conservative government.

Hon. Stéphane Dion is Member of Parliament for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville and the Liberal critic for Intergovernmental Affairs.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Read more about: