Senate a ‘colonial relic,’ should be abolished, says former Mulroney-era Progressive Conservative MP Boyer
Canada’s Senate is a “colonial relic” with “negligible significance” as a legislative body, incapable of reform and should be abolished, according to a former Progressive Conservative MP, constitutional lawyer and political science professor in a new, provocative book.
“Because the best predictor of future performance is past behaviour, Canada ought not to waste any more time or money on yet another round of teasing out and trying on nebulous concepts around the non-existent possibility of Senate reform. Patience has run out,” writes Patrick Boyer, a two-term Progressive Conservative MP in his new book, Our Scandalous Senate.
“Abolitionists now want our turn. Once the Senate of Canada is gone, it will not be missed.”
Mr. Boyer, 69, who served in Parliament from 1984 to 1993 and represented the Ontario riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, told The Hill Times that the Senate can be abolished without opening up the constitution. He explained that this objective could be achieved in two steps—first by consulting Canadians in a referendum in conjunction with next year’s federal election and then asking the two Houses of Parliament and all provincial legislatures to pass resolutions on abolition. Mr. Boyer said that based on his consultations with Canadians and public opinion polls, he’s confident that Canadians will vote in favour of abolishing the Senate and once that verdict is out, both Houses of Parliament and all the provincial legislatures will have no option but to pass resolutions to abolish the Senate. He said that a simple majority in a national referendum and in provincial legislature resolutions would be adequate to abolish the Senate.
“I do believe whether you’re a legislator in P.E.I. or Manitoba, Quebec or Alberta, when you can see that in a free and democratic society, in an open and fair referendum, that a majority of Canadians want to put our colonial past into the past, that they would not stand in the way of national progress,” he said.
Mr. Boyer, who also ran unsuccessfully in the 1993 and 2008 federal elections as a PC and Conservative Party candidate respectively, is the author of about 20 books on Canadian political history. He said in the interview that the Senate expenses scandal is not limited to a few Senators, but is the product of a culture in which such behaviour has become almost commonplace over the 140-year history of the Upper Chamber. Mr. Boyer predicted that the ongoing audit by the auditor general will produce more embarrassing evidence about misspending by other Senators, including campaigning and participating in election preparedness for their respective political parties on the taxpayers’ expense.
The total annual budget of the Senate is about $100-million, but Mr. Boyer said, Canadians “get almost nothing of value in return.” As for the work of Senate Committees and committee reports that are produced on a variety of subjects and are almost universally admired, Mr. Boyer argued that this work can be done by the researchers of Library of Parliament for a fraction of the total cost of the Senate.
“If the only justification for a second legislative body is that it makes good studies, let’s just hire some people to do that work and be done with this unelected body of people that are in a very privileged position,” Mr. Boyer said.
In response to a legal opinion sought by the Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) government on Senate Reform, the Supreme Court of Canada in April said that the Senate reform measure proposed by the government, such as term limits or election of Senators, could not be undertaken without provincial consent. The top court said that abolition of Senate would require unanimous consent by all the provinces.
Prime Minister Harper reacted with disappointment at the time of the opinion.
“We know that there is no consensus among the provinces on reform, no consensus on abolition, and no desire of anyone to reopen the Constitution and have a bunch of constitutional negotiations,” Mr. Harper said in April.
“I think it’s a decision that the vast majority of Canadians will be very disappointed with, but obviously we will respect that decision.”
Following the Court’s opinion, the Harper government announced that it will discontinue its work on Senate reform and ruled out the possibility of a referendum on the abolition of Senate.
Meanwhile, Liberal and Conservative Senators in interviews with The Hill Times last week vehemently disagreed with Mr. Boyer’s views.
British Columbia Liberal Senator Larry Campbell, who has read Mr. Boyer’s book, said the author is “clearly against the Senate” and he found no “new compelling” argument that would convince him that the Upper Chamber should be abolished. He argued that the Senate plays a pivotal role in improving the quality of legislation in Parliament. Sen. Campbell described the idea of having only one Chamber in Parliament as “dangerous.”
“He’s [Mr. Boyer] suggesting that allowing the House of Commons by itself to determine what the laws of Canada and anybody with any sense only has to sit in here and see some of the messes that comes from the other place that we straighten out. Their C-2 [An act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act] bill if you remember, at one point, we advised [them] if we pass this bill, we’d be breaking 14 other statutes,” said Sen. Campbell, a former RCMP officer, chief coroner, and mayor of Vancouver.
“How many times have we advised that this bill is unconstitutional? How many times has the Supreme Court confirmed this? This idea that we should have only one House is very dangerous, very dangerous. Can you imagine Prime Minister Harper having unfettered powers where he had to answer to nobody. He thinks he does now but the Senate steps in. Can you imagine, it would just be unthinkable.”
Comparing the committee work of the House and the Senate, he said that the House Committees’ work is always negatively affected by partisanship but on the Senate side, Senators always strive to improve the legislation that is passed by the House.
“Just go to a House of Commons committee and come to one of ours and you’ll see the difference. They spend all of their time in politics, how to stick it to the other party. In ours, we just say, how do we make this bill better? Is this a good bill and how do we make this better?” said Sen. Campbell, and added that the vast experience of Senators in different walks of life also improve the quality of the Senate committee reports.
“This isn’t research that gets you to this. It’s knowledge, it’s understanding, it is not about going and reading books, it’s about talking to witnesses and to inquiring and finding out what’s going on. It’s not to send it off to somebody else.”
Ontario Liberal Sen. Jim Munson said that besides performing a number of important tasks, the Upper Chamber provides a platform to those who do not have anywhere else to go to fight against the “tyranny of majority.” He pointed out that the Senate’s work overall and his own caucus’ work on issues like autism, missing and murdered aboriginal women, and Euthanasia play a key role in giving more profile and making the significance of these issues known to public.
“We’re giving strong voices to those who don’t have that much of a voice. And I say that with great sincerity when it comes to minority rights, when it comes to rights of those with intellectual or physical disabilities. When it comes to giving a forum, for example in our Senate Liberal open caucus, we have every second Wednesday where groups can come here, speak to us, just to give an example to Mr. Boyer of giving voice to people in our open caucus as other caucuses are closed,” said Sen. Munson.
Ontario Conservative Sen. Marjory LeBreton told The Hill Times that she has known Mr. Boyer for years, considers him a friend, and participated in his fundraisers in the past, but is surprised that she never got a call from him to be interviewed for his book. She said that she has not read it, but based on newspaper reports about the book, she disagrees with him.
“Whatever we think of the Senate in its current state or how it’s operated over the last number of years, it is part of our Westminster system. We operate in a bicameral system of Parliament and until there’s a clear desire to change it, it’s rather unfair to Parliament writ large to declare one part of it as irrelevant and redundant,” Sen. LeBreton said.
She also disagreed that Senators in the past or now have participated in their respective parties’ election readiness or campaigns on the public dime.
“I travel on the campaign with Prime Minister Harper and the party paid for all of my expenses… For him [Mr. Boyer] to say that, that might be what he thinks is a popular view but that again is not borne out by facts.”