A Canadian Senate Model

This is an idea I’ve had for some time now, and I thought I’d better put it down before I forget it for good.

Senate reform is a complicated process, which would involve an intense national debate, consultation and referenda. I do not suggest that this would be an easy undertaking but for the purposes of this post, I only offer a possible model which might result once all the hard work has already been done.

I use the American model as a base, though I am aware of the failings of such a federalist system. Pork-barrel politics ensues on Capitol Hill, where pet projects are tacked on to legislation in order to get a particular bill passed through either the House or Senate. At the same time, the Senate is effective in maintaining a balance between the highly populated states and the rest of the Union — as important as California and New York are to the American economy, neither one of them holds absolute sway over the national agenda, partially due to the distribution of authority to the Senate. In the United States, a senator from Rhode Island has as much opportunity as a distinguished senator from Texas. That’s equality.

Contrast that situation with Ontario holding one-third of all the seats in the House of Commons.

The Canadian Senate was supposed to work in the same fashion, except on a regional scale. Dividing the nation between the regions of Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, and the West might have made sense at one time (though I don’t see it myself), and is the most enduring defense on behalf of the status quo today. However, I don’t buy it.

The Senate consists of 105 members, which are divided into 4 main regions: Ontario and Quebec have 24 senators each; the Maritimes also have 24 — 10 in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and 4 in Prince Edward Island; the four provinces of the West — Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan — have 6 senators each. Newfoundland, which joined Confederation in 1949, is not included in any region and holds 6 senators, while the three territories of Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories have one senator a piece. Any moderately intelligent observer can immediately see the disparity within the make-up. But it’s more than disparity that’s involved — it’s the arbitrary reasoning which endures without acknowledging the realities of the Canadian demographics.

Whereas the American constitution had enough foresight to imagine a growing federation in which states would join and evolve over time, the Canadian framers devised their own scheme in a suspended time warp. What’s even more confounding is that Sir John A MacDonald, First Father of Confederation, had already been considering westward expansion in order to hold off
American movement into the North West Territory and British Columbia, and thus must have contemplated additional provinces to the Dominion, yet endorsed a Senate structure which could not evolve from 1867 onwards.

We, as Canadians, have an obligation to correct the mistakes of our forefathers (many of whom, I might add, conceived the Dominion in the midst of a roaring party in 1864).

Either we go the route of increased federalism, or we don’t. If we choose the latter, then I end this discussion, as the milquetoast federalism represented by a regionally divided Senate should be abandoned altogether.

If we go the other way, however, we must take the arbitrary nature of the current structure out of it, and prepare for future provinces (and future provincial relationships). Thus, I propose to have equal number of senators for every province in Confederation.

This is where it gets good. In order to placate the proportional representation fetishizers out there, we will not have first-out-the-gate elections when it comes to senators (I’m going democratic here; any fans of the blatant government patronage of today can go elsewhere). Instead, each province will elect three senators — at the same time. Any number of candidates can put their names on the ballot. I would suggest that no party affiliation be included on the ballot, but I’m not married to the idea. The point is that if the first-place candidate does not garner 50% of the vote, it doesn’t matter, because all three candidates chosen do not need it to get to Ottawa. What this does guarantee, however, is that minorities (in the political sense) have an opportunity to become decision-makers.

For example, in a supposedly conservative province like Alberta, in all likelihood a conservative would end up first on the ballot. A second conservative might also win a seat; however, the chances that a different party affiliation might get the third position in the Senate are greatly increased. This is because a voter would be allowed only one vote on any given ballot. No complicated weighted voting scheme is needed, nor would there be any requirement to make two or more choices. The top three candidates get in.

I propose that elections be held every two years, and that senators serve six-year terms. Therefore, there would be three elections before a sitting senator would have to run again. As this gives a sitting senator a term which would extend at least two governments, a method of continuity in parliament would exist. If we limit a senator to only two consecutive terms, that would give them up to 12 years in order to accomplish something useful, after which we should hope they move on to more meaningful aspirations. It would also allow a senator to move into a lame duck stage in his second term in which he would not be beholden to partisan shenanigans.

In this model, then, there would be ninety senators from the provinces. Add in one senator chosen from each of the territories during a given election, then the total would amount to 99.

To sum:
3 senators per election per province (1 per territory);
2 years between elections;
6-year terms;
12 years maximum;
99 senators in total.

And that’s it.

There are weaknesses in this model, and I would concede several points, including holding elections every three years instead of two. However, I do believe that this would be a welcome compromise between the current Canadian model and the American federalist model. It allows for regional growth, it provides equality between the provinces, and it removes the problem of Ontario controlling the government agenda within the Commons by simply bypassing it.

I do not expect such a model to be adopted any time soon. In fact, there is a strong chance that I will either be dead and gone, or that the country has split apart, before this to be considered.

That said, I do believe that fresh, independent thinking has to occur in order to solve the current dilemma afflicting our upper house.