|
How does one become a Senator?
According
to the British North America Act of 1867, the qualifications of a
Senator are as follows:-
(1.) be of the full age of thirty years:
(2.) be a Canadian
citizen
(3.) own
at least $4,000 of equity in land in the province of their
appointment
(4.) live in the region of their senatorial
appointment (with the exception of Quebec).
Senatorial appointments in Quebec differ from those in the rest
of the country, in that in order to be appointed to be a Quebec
Senator, one must own "Real Property" in the actual senatorial
district
to which one is being appointed.
Quebec is the only province in Canada to have specific
senatorial districts. These districts follow the
boundaries of the 24 Electoral Divisions of Quebec's Legislature
at the time of Confederation. It was agreed by the
founders that in order to govern by population in the House of
Commons, the Senate would have regional equality.
"But the very essence of our
compact is that the union shall be federal and not
legislative. Our Lower Canada 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
..."
-The
Honourable George Brown, as quoted by the Supreme Court
of Canada in Re: Authority of Parliament in relation to
the Upper House, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 54, at p. 67
Why do we have two chambers?
At the Quebec Conference of 1864, the Canadian founders of
Confederation worked out a blueprint for the Constitution of the
new country. The founders were convinced that Canada's
Parliament would need two houses to make sure that each piece of
legislation received careful consideration. They gave the
Senate legislative powers similar to those of the House of
Commons, but anticipated a very different role for it. The
Senate was to be, in the words of Canada's first Prime Minister,
Sir John A. MacDonald, a place of "sober second thought".
"In order to
protect local interests, and to prevent sectional jealousies,
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.
There are three great sections, in this proposed
Confederation. We have Western Canada, an agricultural country
far from the sea, and having the largest population who have
agricultural interests principally to guard. We have Lower
Canada, with other and separate interests, and especially with
institutions and laws which she jealously guards against
absorption by any larger, more numerous or stronger power. And
we have the Maritime Provinces, having also different
sectional interests of their own, having from their position,
classes and interests which we do not know in Western Canada.
Accordingly, in the Upper House, - the controlling and
regulating, but not the initiating, branch (for we know that
here as in England, to the Lower House will practically belong
the initiation of matters of great public interest), in the
House which has the sober second-thought in legislation -it is
provided that each of those great sections shall be
represented equally by twenty-four (24) members. The only
exception to that condition of equality is in the case of
Newfoundland, which has an interest of its own, lying, as it
does, at the mouth of the great river St. Lawrence, and more
connected, perhaps with Canada than with the Lower Provinces
... It, therefore, has been dealt with separately, and is to
have a separate representation in the Upper House, thus
varying from the equality established between the other
sections.
As may be well
conceived, great difference of opinion at first existed as to
the constitution of the Legislative Council. In Canada the
elective principle prevailed; in the Lower Provinces, with the
exception of Prince Edward Island, the nominative principle
was the rule. We found a general disinclination on the part of
the Lower provinces to adopt the elective principle; indeed, I
do not think there was a dissenting voice in the Conference
against the adoption of the nominative principle, except from
Prince Edward Island. The delegates from New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland, as one man, were in favour of
nomination by the Crown. And nomination by the Crown is most
in accordance with the British Constitution ...
The arguments
for an elective Council are numerous and strong; ... I hold
that this principle has not been a failure in Canada; but
there were causes - which we did not take into consideration
at the time - why it did not so fully succeed in Canada as we
had expected. One great cause was the enormous extent of the
constituencies and the immense labour which consequently
devolved on those who sought the suffrage of the people for
election to the Council. For the same reason ... the
legitimate expense was so enormous that men of standing in the
country, eminently fitted for such a position, were prevented
from coming forward ...
There would be
no use of an Upper House, if it did not exercise, when it
thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or
postponing the legislation of the Lower House. It would be of
no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the
decrees of the Lower House. It must be an independent House,
having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as
being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation
initiated by the popular branch, but it will never set itself
in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of
the people". John A. MacDonald (Parliamentary Debates
on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North
American Provinces, (Quebec: Hunter, Rose, 1865), p. 22.)
It was acknowledged by
Prime Minister John A. MacDonald and other contemporary supporters of our
bi-cameral system of government that the Upper House, being
independent and unelected, could represent the interests of
Canadians in a very unique and necessary way.
Additionally, basing the number of senators on regional equality helped to balance the potential
inequalities in the House of Commons' population based
representation.
In modern times, the Senate as we know it has become the subject
of debate, which is more lively in some regions than in
others. It is felt by some that the number of senators per
region today no longer represents an equal division by region.
Some argue, therefore, that the Senate should be reformed or
even abolished. This argument is reinforced by those who
assert that the Senate is illegitimate and unaccountable because
senators are appointed rather than elected.
This debate concerning possible reforms of the Senate will be
monitored from time to time on this website.
For further details, consult the following links
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/Senate/FAQ/senate-e.htm
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/idb/forsey/index-e.asp
|
