CKNW Editorial
for March 12, 2001

Last Thursday evening I was at Trinity Western University for the third annual award of the Mel Smith scholarship which goes to the student whose studies best exemplify the lifetime work Mel Smith did in British Columbia and Canadian public policy. Two years ago I was accorded the great honour and privilege of giving the first paper at this annual event, I was followed last year by Preston Manning, and this year it was my good friend and colleague, Gordon Gibson. This was a very special occasion, of course, because Mel passed away last September 3^rd.

Not for the first time by any means I was given pause for a great deal of thought by Gordon’s masterly address. Let me back up a bit first.

Back in 1978 the British Columbia constitutional papers – which as I have said and Gordon said last week, were a masterful presentation and still make good reading today – proposed radical changes to the Senate. I was a great fan of a reformed senate. Mel and I had spent some time in what was then West Germany studying their system and had been considerably impressed with how their system worked. Our recommendation was a senate with equal representation from the five Canadian regions and at that time we thought that the members ought to be appointed by the provincial governments. Mel’s thinking – and mine – changed over the years to where we thought senators ought to be elected and I think it fair to say that after going through the Triple "E" phase with some difficulty, we both felt, by the time of Mel’s death, that there had to be a loaded factor … that the five region theory wouldn’t fly and that therefore in any new arrangement the smallness of Prince Edward Island against the largeness of Ontario had somehow to be acknowledged.

As I look back on the exercises I have gone through trying to come up with some sort of upper house that did ameliorate the tyranny of the majority strict representation by population imposed, it was an undertaking bound to be frustrated by the reality of Canadian politics. No one in power ever agrees with changes for the greater good of the country if it will in the slightest diminish their own powers. This was evident in the federal government’s proposals for a House of the Provinces back in 1979 and in the Charlottetown Accord. As long as any new Senate would, in the slightest, diminish the power in Ontario and Quebec, especially the latter, there would have to be compensations to load the dice back up in Central Canada’s favour.

Gordon surprised me last Thursday, especially since he had been one of the authors of the Triple "E" senate, by recommending that it simply be abolished. I have thought about that ever since and I find myself agreeing. Reluctantly, but agreeing nevertheless.

Doesn’t that take Gordon and me right back to those who, 30 years ago, suggested the same thing?

Yes and no. I think we’re back there but it doesn’t validate the opinion then held. Let me explain.

Back in the 70s, those who simply wanted the Senate abolished had not seen the final power grab of the executive under Pierre Trudeau as fortified by Brian Mulroney. There was still the hangover of the Mackenzie King/Louis St Laurent days where cabinet ministers were themselves powerful and very effective voices for regions and where the MP still carried considerable weight. In that context it did seem as if the senate was an unnecessary appendage. But those of us who demanded reform of the senate clearly saw the usurpation of power by the prime minister. We also saw the Liberal party, under the careful guidance of Jim Coutts and Keith Davey, confining their election commitments to Ontario and Quebec, not caring a fig for other regions, especially British Columbia. We saw reform of the senate as the only way British Columbia could exert its fair influence on Ottawa.

What has happened since makes senate reform impossible. As we heard from constitutional expert Ronald Cheffens QC last week, the federal government has made change to our constitution impossible. Just to remind ourselves of what has happened, under the present amending formula, even those areas where amendment can be made under the 7 & 50 formula, the federal government must consent. Jean Chretien, in 1995, passed a law whereby the federal government undertook to withhold consent to any constitutional change where any of the five Canadian regions objected. Because of the way the formula works, The Atlantic Provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairie provinces and British Columbia have vetoes, Alberta effectively has a veto and the Atlantic provinces have banded together to ensure that even minuscule Prince Edward Island can block any constitutional change. The result is political constipation such that no movement can ever be made.

As W.C. Fields once said, "If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. For there’s no sense making a damned fool of yourself." It having become an idle exercise, there’s no point fighting for a new effective, regional senate.

Gordon Gibson makes another argument. Because of equalization grants, any new senate would have 7 out of ten provinces on the dole and holding the gun consistently to the heads of the "have" provinces. We’re already outvoted under the ludicrous present system, why go to a lot of trouble to make things no better and, arguably, worse?

I think the main reason Gordon is right is this:- for the reasons I have given, if we are going to make any changes they will have to be informal ones. Since we can no longer amend the constitution, we must do things like changing the system in parliament by changing Elections Canada Act so that party leaders can no longer withhold consent to run under the party banner; we must make the committee system into what it was always intended to be, a watchdog, not a lap dog, of the Prime Minister and cabinet; we must have more free votes perhaps made truly free by having them by secret ballot. And the list goes on.

I offer no hope that any of these things will happen. The history of politics is that people in power do nothing to diminish that power and nothing to change the system by which they got that power. I don’t think anything will happen to change the system until the country, by reason of its total lack of representative democracy, starts to crumble.

And by then only a miracle will save it.