Couillard abolishes Senate abolition
The cat is out of the bag. Quebec Liberal leader Phillipe Couillard says he will not discuss Senate reform—or any other constitutional changes—unless the talks include Quebec’s traditional demands.
Over the last 18 months lots of people who should know better have convinced themselves otherwise, campaigning for abolition as though it were a viable option—even with a Parti Québécois government in power.
It was never really an option. And Couillard’s comments make this clear. As he says, “I will not participate [in any constitutional discussions] if the agenda doesn’t include the traditional demands of Quebec. That will be my historic duty as premier.”
No one should be surprised. Since the collapse of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, the linkage between such talks and Quebec’s “traditional demands” has been an article of faith in Quebec. To participate in major constitutional talks without raising these demands would be to betray the Nation.
Abolition of the Senate very likely requires unanimous approval of the federal government and all 10 provinces. (The Supreme Court will rule on this shortly.) So without Quebec, the project goes nowhere. Couillard rightly sees the Senate as a major bargaining chip and as a Québécois he has no intention of giving away Quebec’s support.
As for Premier Pauline Marois, the idea that she would simply agree to divest Quebec of a substantial part of its power in Ottawa—and give up her leverage on such an important issue—this seems just fanciful.
When pressed on the question, the main argument proponents offer to support their optimism is that Quebeckers are as sick of the Senate as other Canadians and would just like to see it gone.
In other words, the PQ might be willing to participate in discussions—or even a referendum—to abolish the Senate because currently it might be popular to do so. I think Couillard’s comments make clear just how badly this view misreads the political culture.
In the end, no political leader in Quebec is going to give away the province’s Senate seats for a few points in the polls. In the unlikely event that someone tried, he/she would quickly be savaged in the National Assembly.
Getting all this out in the open is a welcome event. Couillard’s views provide a reality check on the Rest of Canada’s expectations and show us that it is time to dispense with talk of abolition. Not because it is wrong, unjustified or inappropriate.
But because it is a waste of time to pursue what will not be achieved. This only distracts from the debate we really should be having over what, if anything, we can do about the Senate that does not involve constitutional reform.
In the space that remains, I’d like to make a few points about the two main options on the table that don’t require constitutional change.
Regarding Ottawa’s position on Senate reform, the writing appears to be on the wall. Whatever the Supreme Court may say in its upcoming decision, it won’t be enough to save the federal approach and the government is likely to find itself in full retreat.
The real problem is that there is no strategy to redistribute the numbers of seats. An elected senate that continues to give 48 of its 105 seats to Ontario and Quebec will not fly in the West. Indeed, it is a mystery why anyone ever thought it would—especially a Conservative government from the West.
That leaves the recent proposal from Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. By freeing his senators from their links with caucus, Trudeau has created an environment in which they are free to (re)claim their traditional role of providing sober second thought.
The second part of Trudeau’s proposal neatly reinforces this. It proposes that senators be selected by an independent, non-partisan panel, and then appointed by the prime minister. This would help ensure that people of substance and good character were selected, which, in turn, would help ensure the Senate really did become a house of sober second thought.
Given the intensely partisan climate in the House of Commons, there is a genuine need for someone to play this role in Parliament; and there is no obvious reason that it could not be the Senate. As far as I can tell, this is the best and perhaps only real option for moving the institution beyond the status quo.
So how likely is it that the other parties will buy-in to this option?
As the NDP currently have no senators to give up, they would only need to undergo a change of heart—a willingness to park their current commitment to abolition and to support something much less ideal, but infinitely more practical. My hope is that Couillard’s message helps drives home this point.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, would have to give up their senators, along with their current approach. And, of course, they’d have to be willing to adopt a position proposed by the Liberals. As things stand, that seems hugely unlikely.
So in the short-term, at least, the status quo will likely prevail. Nevertheless, as an issue, Senate reform is a long way from dead. Indeed, there is every reason to think it will resurface in the next election—perhaps with a vengeance—especially as there is now something practical on the table.
Dr. Don Lenihan is Chair of the Ontario Open Government Engagement Team and Senior Associate at Canada’s Public Policy Forum in Ottawa. He is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and public engagement, accountability and service delivery. Don’s latest book, Rescuing Policy: The Case for Public Engagement is an introduction to the field of public engagement, a blueprint for change, and a sustained argument for the need to rethink the public policy process. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at: Don.Lenihan@ppforum.ca or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan