All things Canadian are now regional

Journal of Canadian Studies, Spring 2000 by Donald J. Savoie

If Cabinet is no longer capable of playing the role "which in the United States is performed, in the federal sense, by the Senate," then one naturally asks if other institutions, Parliament in particular, can play that role. Sadly, the answer is not encouraging. Indeed, Canadian national political and administrative institutions are on the defensive, as never before in our history; no informed person today claims that Parliament is functioning well. Conservative leader Joe Clark went to the heart of the matter in a recent speech when he observed that while the House of Commons may be the only "remaining pan-Canadian institution ... the only Canadian institution to which each citizen, in each corner of Canada, is equally connected," we none the less need to act with a sense of urgency to repair the House of Commons and to "earn back the trust" Canadians once had in it.

It is beyond the scope of this essay to review all of the shortcomings ascribed to Parliament. Suffice to note that majoritarians mechanisms of the House of Commons tend to produce one or two dominant parties and single party majority governments. Winning the big prize requires winning seats in vote-rich Ontario and, to a lesser extent, in Quebec. It is impossible to win a majority in the House even if a party wins all seats in Western Canada, Atlantic Canada and the North combined. In addition, party discipline usually ensures that members will vote as blocs; individual MPs have to put aside regional concerns or find another means to deal with them. Thus, Liberal and Conservative MPs from Atlantic Canada may hold similar positions on key regional issues but we will never know that by reading Hansard.

Nothing much needs to be said about the Senate and its failings. Irrelevance is now obvious to the great majority of Canadians, which may not have been the case, say, 40 years ago. A better-informed public no longer harbours any hope that, as currently constituted, it can ever serve to articulate regional interests. The Senate, it appears, serves one purpose only: it provides the prime minister with a rich source of partisan patronage appointment. Like the kings of old, a prime minister can reward not just the party faithful but also those who have served him well; Senate appointments over the past 25 years suggest that those who supported the winner in leadership campaigns or who had a strong personal relationship with him have had a much better chance of securing a Senate appointment than longserving party loyalists. In the past, strong regional ministers had a say in Senate appointments from their regions, but this no longer appears to be the case.

The Senate fails badly on another important front. It serves to devalue political institutions and the role of politicians in the eyes of Canadians. Canadians know full well that 11 politicians (the provincial premiers) have in their hands the power to reform the Senate or even to abolish it tomorrow morning, but day after day and year after year, nothing is done.