On the Senate
Introduction
Rumours have come that at long last, legislation is finally being tabled to reform the Canadian senate. One of the most widely held opinions, from all of Canada - that the Senate should be elected, so far seems to be the most obvious and reported changed. A Triple-E senate - long a bulwark of the Reform Party and still a popular idea, is yet to be seen in its entirety. A senate that is Equal, Elected, and Effective; the first quality is open to interpretation. The second quality raises issues, such as how they should be elected? How is it funded? etc. The third quality will be entirely up to the senate, despite the best efforts of legislation, and only time will tell.
So what issues do they confront with regard to the Senate?
Equality
As the House of Commons is based around representation by Population, albeit in a nineteenth century form, the Senate was established as a way of giving less populated regions a greater voice. Thus, for more than a hundred years, the "losers" in this arrangement were Ontario and Quebec. Even the Maritimes, at one point, could have derided the Senate for its over-representation from the newly established provinces in the West (it bears remembering that the populations of Atlantic Canada and Western Canada only began to diverge significantly, and in favour of the West, roughly 50 years ago). Now that the situation has changed, demographically, the over-representation of Atlantic Canada, with 30 senators, is the target of the age.
People should be forgiven for forgetting that that was the point entirely. Under the current framework, the basis of equal representation on the basis of region, all the regions of Canada receive 24 Senators, regardless of population. The regions were the West, Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes. The territories of Canada each receive a single senator, bringing the total number of senators in this framework to 99 (98 before 1999 and the creation of Nunavut).
This formula was thrown out of whack in 1949 when Canada admitted Newfoundland and Labrador as a province to Confederation. As apart of its negotiations with Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador were to receive six senate seats - which the did. This is the same number of seats given to each province of the Western region. It bears mentioning that Newfoundland and Labrador is not a Maritime province. It is an atlantic one. If they were to keep the region framework intact as it was, perhaps it would have been smarter at the time to have rolled the Maritime region and Newfoundland and Labrador into a new Atlantic region, wherein Newfoundland received its six seats not out of the air, but rather by taking seats from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island.
Therefore, not only would each region of Canada still be represented by 24 senators, but the public would also go the further step and acknowledge that it was in fact, the case. Today each region is represented equally, but the perception of this is distorted, and quite rightly, by the added influence of Newfoundland and Labrador. The region basis of the senate has been compromised.
So with reform the question of equality simply raises three questions, first: is it, the senate, to be equal by region as intended? This question raises another question as to whether Quebec and Ontario, Canada's largest provinces in both area and population, deserve the relatively distorting influence of being considered a region to themselves. Finally, could the senate be rendered equal by province, in a manner essentially similar to the Senate of the United States?
The easiest way to solve to the problem of regional equality is to absorb Newfoundland into a greater Atlantic Region, allowing the set number of 24 seats per region to be maintained. Taking the six seats entitled to Newfoundland and Labrador out of the total from the Maritime provinces would render each region again, equal. The question of what composes a proper region could cause heated debate, however. The West has a population equal to the five easternmost provinces. Again, this is about regional equality - there is already a house for representation by population.
Representation by province is another way of going about the problem. However, Ontario and Quebec stand to lose massively by such a proposition, while the relative abundance of senate seats from Atlantic Canada would gain at the expense of Central Canada. For reasons I will outline later, let us say that each province becomes represented by 10 senators. PEI would stand to more than double its presence in the senate from its current 4 Senators. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would gain nothing, while Ontario and Quebec would all lose 14 Senators. All other provinces would each gain four senators from such an establishment.
Opposition from Quebec and Ontario is already showing its head, and the legislation has yet to be tabled, or even leaked. An equal system, one based by provincial status or membership in an arbitrary block called a region does not serve their interests. With an elected body in parliament comes a great power, long denied to the senate - power to use money. In reforming the Senate House, Central Canada, which has been seeing economic and political power fly westward, would now see the newest power in government not dwelling closely by, but rather in the Atlantic Provinces. They will win no matter how this issue is resolved (save the forced amalgamation of the Maritime provinces into a single entity, an idea that has been proposed from time to time).
Part 2: Elections
The immediate problem of holding a senatorial election is the question of when? How often, and with whom? The idea of a 12 year term seems to be presented in the discourse, so now we know of a possibility. To piggy back the Senatorial election onto a general election makes the most sense logistically, while a separate election raises fears in some of an apathetic electorate bothering at any other time. Should this election be first past the post, like the elections to the House of Commons? Should it party based, or independent, as some have suggested? Is an election even effective?
In my eyes, to institute a carbon-copy of our standard electoral process would be redundant, and in the end, self-defeating. We have an opportunity to institute creative and corrective electoral measures with a Senate election, ones that could in some ways alleviate the drawbacks of our present system. What I propose is an election based on proportional representation. There would be no campaigning. There would be no unique senate election. Instead, say every three elections or so, any new federal election for the commons also dissolves the senate. Thus, we have a term of office within the senate of up to twelve years, but of course, potentially much less. When the votes are finalized on election night, the popular vote in the province determines how many senate seats are distributed to each party. As I stated earlier, let us say ten seats per province are available each time the Senate is to be reconstituted. Based on the results of the 2011 Federal Election, the breakdown of 100 such senate seats would be as follows:
- 45 Conservatives (broken down further to: 5 - BC; 7 - AB; 6 - SK; 5 MB; 4 - ON; 2 - PQ;
5 - NB; 4 - NS; 4 - PE; and 3 from NL)
- 29 New Democrats (3 - BC; 2 - AB; 3 - SK; 3 - MB; 3 - ON; 4 - PQ; 3 - NB; 3 - NS; 2 - PE; and 3 from NL)
- 23 Liberals (1 - BC; 1 - AB; 1 - SK; 2 - MB; 3 - ON; 2 - PQ; 2 - NB; 3 - NS; 4 - PE; and 4 from NL)
- 1 Green (from BC)
- 2 Bloc (from Quebec)
I achieved the above numbers by rounding up and down, for example 45.1% of the vote translating to 5 Senators, while 44.9% brought in four. The exception was for provinces where rounding down reduced the number of filled senate seats to nine. To correct that, the party with popular vote furthest from the base-ten would win the tenth Senate seat - this was the situation in Quebec. There, popular vote was divided 16.5% to the Conservative Party (who receive two Senators), 42.9% for the NDP (at least four Senators), 14.2% for the Liberals (at least one), and 23.4% for the Bloc Quebecois (at least two). For the tenth seat, the Conservatives are eliminated having been rounded up already. The NDP has a remainder of 2.9%, the Liberals 4.2% and the Bloc 3.4%. Thus the tenth Senate seat is awarded to the Liberals.
This system leaves no room for Independents. It also prevents people from chosing their candidates. However, I felt people more generally vote based on party than on the character representing them, as evidenced in Quebec and Alberta most obviously in the last election. Also, it fails to fall into line with national voting lines; however as the system is one based around the province I feel such an objection is missing the point. A fundamental problem regards the status of the territories in this whole system, but I believe they can be reasonably accomodated in this system, perhaps by using the popular vote from all three territories to determine how to distribute the territories' three senate seats. If these three seats are increased to five, then we needn't have to worry about moving chairs in or out of the Senate House.
This system, despite its misgivings I maintain is worthwhile as it gives voice to the unheard voter. Alberta Liberals may not have elected a Member to the House of Commons, but at least they have the solace of having helped send someone to the Senate House. In fact the Liberals, destroyed in the House of Commons, still represent a viable block in a 100 seat Senate. The representation of the three national parties is in fact, under this system, national, barring an actual electoral collapse of one of the parties. The majority the Conservatives achieved in the House of Commons is tempered by the presence of a minority in the senate surrounded by an opposition with vitality. The last Liberal governments would also have faced similar circumstances. A government wishing to dissolve Parliament to take advantage of a positive swing in the polls would quickly see such hopes evaporate against a Senate majority against it.
This application of proportion representation could also be utilized on a regional basis. Calculating the seat values for province-regions such as Ontario and Quebec is rather easy. If the regions keep their valuation 24 senate seats each, then we would see Ontario receive eleven Conservatives, six New Democrats, six Liberals and and even a Green; from Quebec there would be four Conservatives, ten New Democrats, three Liberals, six Bloc, and another Green! From the 48 senators, we would have fifteen Conservatives, sixteen New Democrats, nine Liberals, six Bloc, and two Greens. Combining the popular votes of the four western provinces and calculating regional proportional vote based on that total, rather than individual provinces, will lead us to divide up the 24 Western Senators. Each province would receive six senators from that total. The same process would occur in the Atlantic Region. Voter turnout in each individual province from in the West and Atlantic Canada could however dramatically affect results. Alberta, which voted overwhelmingly voted for the Conservative Party, but suffers from the highest rates of voter apathy, could see some of its influence on the Western popular vote significantly reduced versus the other three provinces in the West. Likewise for Prince Edward Island, which enjoys the highest voter turnout (in excess of 70%) could, even with its small population, make a big difference in the least populated region of the country.
Now, some have called for the Senate to be free of party politics, and I believe that this is also a worthwhile consideration. However, this adds to the problems of logistics, as not only must there now be a direct election, but there must also be a massive promotional campaign to alert the voters to the values of each aspirant to the Senate. I believe this election should too be piggybacked onto a general election, although this could cause problems in the following way - that boundaries for a Senator's riding will not conform to the the electoral bodies for the house of Commons. There will be people, not most, but many, who will find they have to vote in two separate locations for House of Commons and Senate, unless extra steps are taken to predict potential problems. Some would say that this is a reason to separate elections to the Commons and Senate, but I fear, given the indifference Canadians have towards the Senate, the turnout will be embarrassing.
Part 3 - Why do we Need a Senate?
The Senate was established as a place for "Sober, Second thought;" a place where the legislation approved by the popularly elected delegates of the masses could be compared against the interests of an appointed elite. The Senate was not merely a place to represent regions, but also to represent divergent classes in society. Unelected, however, they had no power of issues of money. At best, the give the country a body of experts in government with which to balance the theoretically less experienced members of the House of Commons.
It would seem that opposition to the Senate arises from two, related factors. First, that the Senate just doesn't affect legislation. The statement may be untrue, but it is a commonly accepted view of the Senate. However, if the still unelected Senate begins to block legislation, then the cries of "how dare they!" begin to sound. An elected Senate can and will be more forceful when it comes to legislation. If they are not, then it will be irrelevant and likely bound for disbandment. Those in favour of disbanding it do not want something ineffective, but if it were to become effective, would become seen as being obstructionist. They are figuratively unallowed to perform.
Our neighbours have a system of checks and balances. The Canadian "Check" is the Supreme Court; the balance is the Senate. The Senate has the means of balancing the contradictions of Canadian democracy, representing the unheard and promoting the weak. A reformed Senate, one dedicated to equal representation on the basis of region or provincehood gives the House of Commons the room to be the House of Commons. This is overlooked but important.
Where the Upper House was meant to represent the regions of Canada as they were in 1867, the Lower House was established to represent the population. It has very seldom held to this principle. Instead, the House of Commons has been a compromise between the population of Canada and various special cases, be it relatively unpopulated provinces, or rural districts. A Senate with more power and equal representation can allow the House of Commons to rededicate itself to truly representing all Canadians. If seats in the House of Commons were distributed based by population (with the exception of the special cases of the territories and Labrador), we would see many more seats for British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, with fewer seats for the rest. Prince Edward Island could at best lay claim to a pair of MPs, but given its representation in the Senate, this should not be a problem. There are many American states where there are as many or more Senators than Representatives. This could be the case in Canada, too, under an equal system.
We need the balance of a Senate. We need the expertise of a Senate. We need a Senate that lives up to its purpose. We need a Senate that fulfills its role in Confederation. An empowered and equal Senate can prevent the pseudo-dictatorship of Commons-majorities, without the obstruction feared by those who look south.
No comments:
Post a Comment