Senate Reform Essay

Memorandum to Cabinet – Senate Reform

Issue: After several informal reforms, has the time come for the final push to Senate Reform?

Recommendations: It is recommended that

- No further advances to be made with Senate reform or abolishing the Senate.

- Avoid opening up the constitutional can of worms that is Senate reform.

- Not to pursue a radical wholesale change to our representation system.

- Avoid such large changes that could result in unforeseen circumstances.

Rationale:

- Section 42 of the Constitution. Federal unilateralism would not allow a Prime Minister to pursue any constitutional amendment without getting the provinces abroad.

- It is difficult to get the consent of seven provinces that make up 50% of Canada’s population according

to the constitutional amending formula.
- Examine previous attempts to reform the Senate including Meech Lake, Charlottetown, and the Harper government.

- Change could result in opposite effect. Current informal change issues. Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments created an unpredictable Senate causing trouble for current Prime Minister.

- The government is facing opposition not only from Conservatives but also from independent Senators who exercise “sober second thought”. The impacts of informal will have to be examined to prevent Canada’s Senate from being in gridlock like the US Congress.

- What would a reformed Senate look like? These are issues that we currently do not have an answer for when asking for reform. Such as the number of Senators for each province (Western alienation), what powers would a reformed Senate have?

- Examine why the previous cabinet under Harper decided not to go through with Senate reform. As well as the effect of this withdrawal from Senate reform on the government.

Proposed Approach and options:

According to the professor, sections of the memorandum to cabinet can be optional. In this case, the proposed approach is irrelevant as I am not suggesting changes or use of policy

instruments.
- In terms of alternative options, I would examine the private member’s bill (S-221) introduced by Senator Dennis Patterson which aims to remove the $4000 property requirement. Proceeding with getting Patterson’s bill into force is the only formal constitutionally acceptable change that can be enacted by Parliament alone in regard to removing the property ownership requirement.
- I will also examine the principal strengths of this option, such opening the door to more Canadians to become Senators (such as people that do not own property, young professionals, and lower class).
- In terms of stakeholders, this option would gain the support of people in the North and indigenous peoples as well as amongst other Canadians that are economically disadvantaged.
Considerations:
- These considerations are not applicable: privacy impacts, Official Languages Act requirements; and, gender-based analysis.

Other considerations to take into account:

- Examine why the Senate was created the way it is and the purpose of its current design, “not an accident of history” according to the Supreme Court. Consider regional representation, sober second thought, checks and balances, and protection from populism.

- The Supreme Court of Canada reference question and the constitutional requirements for reform possible by parliament alone as well as reforms that require approval from the provinces.

- Look into the Auditor General reports regarding the Senate. Identify if there are serious issues in spending of the Senate and individual senators. Look at spending reports from the Senate and how much the Senate costs taxpayers every year.

- Consider what provinces have done (such as Alberta’s elected Senators).

- International perspective in terms of seeing the challenges faced by other countries that reformed or abolished their Senate (Australia, New Zealand, and Germany).

- Indigenous considerations. How would Canada’s indigenous population fit within the reformed Senate as well as how will they be

represented?
- Consider that abolishing the Senate is a move that would be extremely costly to reverse.
Due Diligence:
- Due diligence is linked to the Chief Financial Officer for the sponsoring minister. In this case, since no reforms are being suggested, the CFO can make financial assumptions, risks and analyze other issues while undertaking the due diligence review using predictions of future Senate spending.
- CFO predictions based on historical and previous Spending reports from the Senate as well as the study of uncertainties that could impact the cost estimate for the Senate in the future.
- Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould (junior cabinet position), with the approval of the Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould, and the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.