Pamela Anderson may know next to nothing about Senate reform in Canada. But she was unfairly kicked off “Dancing With the Stars” last night – and had stood up for her home and native land on the same US TV show a few weeks ago. Besides, if she ever did run for a provincial Senate election in BC, under the new Bill S-8, she would probably get elected.

If you support some workable version of Senate reform in Canada – as I have for many years  myself – you are bound to in some degree support the Harper minority government’s latest stab in the dark at step-by-step advance on a democratically elected “upper house” of parliament in Ottawa. Whatever else, you have to agree with the April 30, 2010 National Post editorial: “if Bill S-8 becomes law, it could bring real change to the way senators are chosen.”

Yet Bill S-8 is the Harper government’s third attempt to propose federal legislation that effectively opens the door to elected senators, while avoiding “the constitutional wrangling inherent in overhauling the Senate, which would require the support of at least seven provinces collectively representing 50% of the Canadian population.”

Bill S-8 is different in some ways from its predecessors – Bill C-20 and Bill C-43 (both from the 39th as opposed to the current 40th Parliament of Canada). But you still have to be very aggressively wild-eyed and optimistic to imagine that there is any much greater chance it will finally become law. Or, even if it does somehow become law, it is far from clear that it actually could bring substantial change to the way Canadian senators are chosen, coast to coast to coast.

Pamela again, at a Grand Prix party in Montreal, June 2008. Some might now say she is doing almost as much to drive the Senate reform agenda in Canada as the Harper government. And they could be half right?

Here, as in more than a few other places (some at least will say), it seems that the real-world agenda of Mr. Harper’s new Conservative Party of Canada has more to do with furthering the  narrow ambitions of Prime Minister Harper, than with the broader need for reform and renovation in Canada’s increasingly wobbly parliamentary democracy of the early 21st century.

The best guess may be that one strategic part of Mr. Harper’s Alberta-centred political base still has some largely mythical (and even irrational?) attachment to Bert Brown’s 1980s concept of a Triple E Senate in Ottawa. As a practical matter, in Bill S-8 Mr. Harper’s minority government is doing little more than trying to shore up a key element in its core regional support, for the next Canadian federal election that may yet come sooner than most of us think (?).

So … the headline on the official announcement – “Harper Government Drives Senate Reform Agenda” – is lame advertising copy at best. Don Draper in Mad Men would wince. And if you really want to wade into the deeper senatorial selection swamp read on, at your own peril.

1. Senatorial Selection Act vs. Senate Appointment Consultations Act

Stephen Harper in 2006, urging “Senators to join Canada's New Government in bringing long overdue reform to their institution.”

The two earlier failed versions of the Harper government’s step-by-step Senate elections bill (C-43 and C-20) were known as the Senate Appointments Consultations Act. As one mark of the latest strategic adjustments, the current Bill S-8 is known as the Senatorial Selection Act.

As the letter-number designations also suggest, the earlier bills were both introduced in the Canadian House of Commons (thus C-43 etc). The current Bill S-8 has been introduced in the Senate itself, where Mr. Harper’s party is now much better represented than it used to be, thanks to his recent unprecedented numbers of old-fashioned Senate patronage appointments.

It is conceivable (if not altogether likely or at least certain) that the bill stands a better chance of getting through the Senate as currently constituted than it does through the current Commons. But it must of course still get through both houses to become law.  (Still, getting through the Senate alone might prove useful enough Conservative cannon fodder in the next election.)

The key substantive difference between the earlier and current animals is that Bills C-43 and C-20 both envisioned some prospect of federally sponsored “consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate.” Bill S-8 envisions only provincially sponsored (and funded) consultations of this sort.

Senator Hugh Segal instructs Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty about something – maybe even Senate reform? – at Gala Dinner at Royal Ontario Museum, 2008.

As Ontario Conservative Senator Hugh Segal remarked during the second reading debate on Bill S-8 this past Thursday, April 29, there has been “quite a movement here from the previous proposal in a prior Parliament, which was for a broad referendum in which people could vote in their federal ridings at the time of a federal election to fill vacancies in their own province; versus this approach, which is focused on a province-by-province basis … If it passes and some provinces agree, you may have some provinces voting to send senators; others demurring.”

In fact, the new name of Bill S-8 mimics the name of the Alberta provincial legislation which has led to what might be called the only two elected senators as yet ever appointed to the unreformed Senate of Canada. They are: Stan Waters, elected by consultations with the provincial electors under Alberta’s legislation in 1989, appointed by Prime Minister Mulroney in 1990, and serving until his death in September 1991; and Bert Brown, similarly elected in Alberta, in 1998 and 2004, and finally appointed by Mr. Harper himself in 2007.

2. Bert Brown’s mistaken history of the “desire for equality of the provinces in the Senate”

Senator Marjory LeBreton (r), Leader of the Government in the Senate, places the Senate pin on new Conservative Senator Bert Brown (c) as Stephen Harper looks on, October 16, 2007.

It makes some sense that – as the only elected senator in the so-called Red Chamber today – the Alberta Conservative Bert Brown should serve as the Harper government’s point man for the second reading debate on Bill S-8 this past Thursday, April 29.

On moving second reading Mr. Brown said: “ Honourable senators, Bill S-8 is an act respecting the selection of senators. It is an offer to the provinces to draft their own legislation, hold elections in their provinces and to fill future vacancies in this chamber with elected senators … When the bill comes into effect, it will not be a legal directive to the provinces. Bill S-8 will give the voters of each province an opportunity to democratically choose future senators or leave the decision to the office of the current Prime Minister and future prime ministers.”

He then went on to illustrate why the history behind the Triple E Senate concept to which he is still so attached (“elected, effective, and equal” representation for each province) does not in fact add up (even if Mr. Brown still does not seem to appreciate this point himself).. He noted, eg, that “two years before the act of Confederation … George Brown [no relation to Bert today] explained: ‘Our Lower Canada [ie Quebec] friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House, on the express condition that they shall have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step.’”

Bert Brown also cited John A. Macdonald in 1865: ‘In order to protect local interests … it was found requisite that the three great divisions into which British North America is separated, should be represented in the Upper House on the principle of equality.’”

As Brown understands this history, the “desire for equality of the provinces in the Senate stems from those quotes.” Yet in present-day terms the old George Brown quotation means something much more like equality between predominantly French-speaking Quebec on the one hand, and the predominantly English-speaking “rest of Canada” on the other.

Macdonald’s 1865 reference to equality among the “three great divisions” did not imply provincial equality either. The three great divisions were Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes – each of which was assigned 24 senators. In 1915 a new fourth great division of Western Canada was assigned an additional 24 senators. Adding six more for Newfoundland, which joined at last in 1949, and one more for each of the present-day three territories gives you our current 105-member Senate of Canada, with these various seats by province: Quebec 24, Ontario 24, Nova Scotia 10, New Brunswick 10, British Columbia 6, Alberta 6, Saskatchewan 6, Manitoba 6, Newfoundland and Labrador 6, Prince Edward Island 4, Nunavut 1, NWT 1, and Yukon 1.

Bill S-8 will not by itself change this current distribution of Senate seats in any way. As Bert Brown also explained this past April 29: “This bill is but the first step to a reformed Senate. The next two steps can only be done when elected senators prove their worth to their provinces … At some future point, the provincial governments and Parliament will need to draft a stand-alone constitutional amendment to agree on the future representation in the Senate and retain the supremacy of the House of Commons without crippling the powers of the Senate.”

Charlottetown conference 1864 – where the present Canadian confederation began. John A. Macdonald is seated on the step, more or less in the middle. Standing at the front immediately left of Macdonald is his crucial French Canadian partner, Georges Etienne Cartier. Standing some distance to the right, at the front, is George Brown.

Like some others, however, Mr. Brown still seems to believe that the “the future representation in the Senate” in some “stand-alone constitutional amendment” (agreed to by seven provinces with 50% of the cross-Canada population) will involve equal representation for each province – as in the Senates of both the United States and Australia.

Yet if the modern Canadian Senate reform debate over the past quarter century and more has made anything clear, it is that Canada is not quite the same kind of federation as the United States and Australia. As even the confederation era quotations that Mr. Brown mistakenly cites suggest, equal provincial representation is just not in the Canadian DNA. If Mr. Harper’s government were serious about driving a Senate reform agenda that might eventually lead somewhere practically, it would be addressing this issue head on – at the same time as it tried to set its step-by-step model for some initial form of Senate elections in motion.

3. How many provinces are really interested … etc?

Senator James Cowan (right) presents gifts to Chef Allan Williams (centre) and Chef Blair Zinck (left) of the Culinary Institute of Canada, during the Taste of Atlantic Canada reception. Chicago, October 2005.

If, unlike Bills C-43 and C-20, the new Bill S-8 is concerned strictly with provincial Senate elections – or consultations with electors organized and paid for by the provinces – and if Alberta, eg, has already held a number of such elections, which have already led to the appointment of two so-called elected senators, it seems reasonable enough to wonder why there is ultimately any real need for federal legislation?  And this particular plot thickens quickly once you start studying it, in any detail at all.

There could be a quite practical reason for federal legislation, if the federal government were offering to pay for all or even part of the cost of holding provincial senatorial elections (or consultations etc).  Two Liberal senators – James Cowan from Nova Scotia, and Sharon Carstairs from Manitoba – rushed to open this can of worms during the second reading debate on Bill S-8 this past Thursday, April 29.

Senator Cowan asked: “Can Senator Brown identify the provinces that have indicated that they are prepared to support a process they will pay for? … Can the honourable senator name the provinces that have indicated to him that they are prepared to support a process where they would run elections for election to a federal body?” Senator Brown finally admitted : “I doubt that the Prime Minister wants to pay for those elections for the simple reason that … we expect people who run in these elections to represent a provincial political party, not a federal one.”

As Senator Cowan is no doubt aware, all three prairie provinces have in fact looked into the prospect of provincial senatorial elections (or consultations) in some depth, although only Alberta has as yet actually implemented the concept. The present government of Saskatchewan, eg, has at least already “passed the Senate Nominee Election Act, which would allow people to vote for nominees to the Senate. Under the plan, names selected by voters could be sent to the Privy Council in Ottawa for consideration.”Â  Similarly: “Last year, Manitoba held a series of public hearings on Senate reform that ultimately recommended elections.”

Senator Sharon Carstairs (right) and Louise Cadrin, director of palliative care services for the Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region in Regina, Saskatchewan, February 2010. Photograph by: Roy Antal, Leader-Post.

Yet as Senator Carstairs from Manitoba urged this past April 29, in response to Senator Brown’s admission that Prime Minister Harper probably does not want Ottawa to pay the piper here: “I am interested in the honourable senator’s reply with respect to Manitoba because the Manitoba report is clear that it will permit Senate elections provided the federal government pays for them. In addition, Saskatchewan indicated that that is their concern also; that province wants to ensure that the federal government pays for this election.”

An April 27 Canadian Press report by Joan Bryden similarly noted: “So far, Alberta is the only province to ever hold Senate elections. British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have shown some interest but haven’t yet followed through.”Â  Former Nova Scotia Conservative premier Rodney MacDonald was a frequent supporter of Mr. Harper’s Senate reform agenda. But as Senator Cowan no doubt appreciates better than most, whatever support there may still be for the kind of provincial election schemes envisioned in Bill S-8 in Nova Scotia would almost certainly be contingent on federal financial support. Current Nova Scotia New Democrat premier Darrell Dexter has “said he supports the federal NDP’s stance on abolishing the Senate … “I think a lot of premiers across the country see that as a legitimate option, as do I.’” It has been reported as well that “British Columbia’s Premier Gordon Campbell’s government would also like to make the Senate a part of the past, but is willing to accept Senate reform as an alternative if the federal government pays the costs.”

4. What are the serious prospects for Senate reform now?

Premier Brad Wall of Saskatchewan, on the campaign trail. He used to think Senate reform was a good idea, but has more recently started to wonder.

Very early this year Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall unburdened himself of some further thoughts on the current status of the Senate of Canada – which suggest that having the federal government pay for provincial Senate elections or consultations is not the only fly in the Senate reform ointment nowadays.

According to a CBC report, in any case: “Wall used to be a fan of letting people in their province choose their senators, but says these days, he’s wondering if it’s worth it … ‘We can elect all of the senators from Alberta and Saskatchewan that we wanted, but if we’re the only ones and Senate reform is never going to happen … where are we?’ … Wall said reform would see Canada moving toward a Triple E Senate – which stands for elected, effective and with equal representation by provinces …”

The report goes on: “With the Saskatchewan law now in place, a Senate election could be held at the same time as the general provincial election in November, 2011. Wall hasn’t ruled that out, but says if nothing else changes in the Senate, he’s not sure he’ll bother …’Maybe the time has come for everyone to realize, if [the Senate] can’t be fixed, is it useful?’ … Wall said he hasn’t made a final decision yet, but noted that premiers may be better able to look after their province’s interests better than the Senate anyway.”

This past weekend William Thorsell – a journalist who was born and raised in Alberta but eventually found his way to the illustrious job of director and chief executive officer of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto – published an essay in the Globe and Mail, entitled “End run to an Americanized Senate … The Conservatives are trying to circumvent the Constitution to empower the Red Chamber — altering the very fabric of Canadian federalism.”

William Thorsell (l), director and CEO of the Royal Ontario Museum, and Michael Lee-Chin (r), who donated the money for the Museum’s latest architectural embellishment, the Michael Lee-Chin Crystal.

Mr. Thorsell argues that the Harper government’s ultimate plan for (he seems to assume) a “Triple E” Senate in Canada would altogether Americanize Canadian politics in an altogether undesirable way. (He leaves out the case of Australia’s parliamentary democracy, still quite like that of Canada, even though it does have a Triple E Senate too.) He concludes with: “The Harper government’s sly attempt to achieve this profoundly Americanizing shift through a bit of ordinary legislation in the face of the Constitution and experience in both Canadian and American history merits sober second thought indeed. Let’s not let it happen.”

I can myself vaguely sympathize with some of the thrust behind this Thorsellian rhetoric.  One shred of it, as far as I can tell at least, relates to a counterweights posting this past March 30: “Whatever happens with Senate reform in Canada, Washington is no model” – which draws on the recent struggles of the Obama administration and its 2008 democratic (and Democratic) majority in American politics.

Again, as already noted above, it also seems to me that if the Canadian Senate reform debate over the past quarter century and more has made anything clear, it is that Canada is indeed not quite the same kind of federation as the United States and Australia. As even the confederation era quotations that Bert Brown mistakenly cited in his April 29 Senatorial remarks suggest, equal provincial representation is just not in the Canadian DNA. If Mr. Harper’s government were altogether serious about driving a Senate reform agenda that might eventually lead somewhere practically, it would be addressing this issue head on – at the same time as it tried to set its step-by-step model for some initial form of Senate elections in motion.

And here I’d point as well, for anyone who still has more energy to soldier on even further with these remarks here, to my own counterweights posting of this past April 8: “In the strange spring of Stephen Harper new voices of region are rising in the east .. true or false?” A further related supplement would be the counterweights editors’ posting from this past February 5: “Why no one in Calgary today is taking off clothes for a provincially equal Senate.”

Having said all this,  I believe that Mr. Thorsell’s kind of argument about the latest incarnation of Stephen Harper’s step-by-step Senate reform schemes is essentially misplaced, for three main reasons. (And I’d note here as well a somewhat similar argument by the University of Calgary political scientist, Doreen Barrie, in the May 3, 2010 Toronto Star: “Senate reform not the popular Western cause you think it is.”)

In the first place, it seems to me there is little serious prospect that Bill S-8 will do significantly better in the Parliament of Canada than the earlier failed Bills C-43 and C-20.

With the added strength that Mr. Harper’s rash of old-fashioned Senate appointments has now given the Conservatives in the unreformed so-called Red Chamber, Bill S-8 just might squeak through there. (As I read the numbers there are at the moment 51 Conservative senators, 49 Liberals, and five others. Assuming uniform party line votes, the Conservatives might get the two votes from the others Bill S-8 would need to pass with the barest of majorities in the Senate – though this seems less than certain.) But even if this were to happen, it still seems unlikely that the bill would go on to win enough votes from any of the three opposition majority parties in the Canadian House of Commons to become law.

Second, even if Bill S-8 were to somehow become the law of the land, it seems unlikely that many provinces would actually take advantage of its provisions – if only because there aren’t really many advantages to provinces in these provisions. In fact, enthusiasm for provincial Senate elections appears to be waning even in Alberta: the one province that has actually produced two elected senators so far. (See, eg, both the recent article by Doreen Barrie noted above, and eg again: “Alberta extends terms for senators-in-waiting” and “Alberta’s would-be senators slam premier as undemocratic.”)

Senator Anne Cools (l) and Margaret Trudeau (r) at an Ottawa book signing event, August 2009. Senator Cools is one of the five less traditionally partisan attached senators who seem to hold the balance of power in the Red Chamber today. And already she has said not very friendly things about Bill S-8.

Finally, even if Bill S-8 were to pass in both houses of Canada’s current Parliament, and actually stimulate at least a few provinces to hold (and pay for) Senate elections or consultations, the practical scale of things would still be so modest as to largely preclude the kinds of dysfunctional interim change in the balance of power between the present Canadian House of Commons and Senate that William Thorsell and others apparently fear.

All that would happen, as best as I can make out, is an almost entirely benign increase of political pressure for the kind of constitutionally mandated full-blown reform of the unreformed Senate of Canada that I still think could make a highly useful contribution to urgent enough Canadian nation building in the earlier 21st century.

Again, history does have many cunning passages, even in Canada. And the final impetus for the kind of Senate reform that would ultimately contribute to the kind of “strengthening Canada” that was the original declared goal of the Alberta legislature back in the mid 1980s may well come from Atlantic Canada and even Quebec, rather than Western Canada. But if anything Mr. Harper does now helps set this kind of Senate reform in motion, he will at last have done something useful for the long-term future of Canada’s unique parliamentary democracy.

His minority government is not really driving a serious “Senate Reform Agenda” nowadays. But it has not altogether given up on this eminently worthwhile cause. And on balance I still think that is a good thing myself – worth two vaguely hopeful cheers, if certainly not any more.