An Argument in Favour of a Triple E Senate

The request for a Triple E Senate, meaning one that is equal, elected and effective, is a logical and practical request in a democratic country such as Canada. It would serve to address the current imbalance of regional representation, create an effective voice for the individual provinces in confederation and eliminate the autocratic nature by which Senators are currently appointed.

Presently, the one hundred and five seats of the Senate are divided as follows: Ontario and Quebec have twenty four each, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each have ten, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland all each have six, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon Territories are represented by one each and Prince Edward Island has four.[1]

Although there have been many proposals put forward to reform the Senate, the scheme most often cited, and the one I will deal primarily with in the course of this discussion is the Alberta Senate Resolution.[2]

With regard to the allocation of Senatorial seats, the Alberta Resolution calls for each province to be represented by six Senators and each Territory to be represented by two for a total of sixty-six Senators. This proposed equalization of seats among the provinces is seen, especially by those in Western Canada, as a way to balance the power base of the Senate throughout the nation, rather than focusing it in Ontario and Quebec as it is now. Many feel that this solution would make the Senate more responsive to all of Canada and not just the two central provinces. Preston Manning said on the subject of Senate Reform that, “the current Senate arrangement is not serving Canadians. But, if we abolish the Senate, Canadians outside of Ontario and Quebec will continue to be at the mercy of Central Canadian influence. The Senate has the potential to provide a more balanced regional representation to protect less populous areas of the country.”[3] It is this kind of sentiment that the Alberta Resolution was designed to address.

As equal as the Alberta proposal seems, under it the province of Prince Edward Island with a population of 137.9 thousand, would have the same number of Senators as Ontario which boasts a population almost 90 times that size, and Alberta whose population is 23 times as large[4]. Some in the more densely inhabited provinces might argue that this is hardly equal and places too much power in the hands of the less populous provinces. After all, is one citizen of Prince Edward Island really equivalent to 90 Ontarians or 23 Albertans? Are PEI’s interests really that much more important than BC’s or Alberta’s? This argument is misguided as the primary intent of the Senate was to represent the interests of the regions of Canada, not based on population but on a governmental level, as equals within the federation. As George Brown said in 1867, "Our Lower Canadian friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House, on the express condition that they would have equality in the Upper House”.[5] The Senate was never intended to represent the population of the provinces but to give the provinces a voice in federal politics and to guard their interests against federal incursions.

The Senate was also designed to address regional and minority interests as a part of its mandate. With a system of provincial equality, such as that proposed by the Alberta Senate Resolution, the Senate would be more able to represent both the minorities within the provinces as well as larger provincial concerns. While it is true that this could lead to a situation where a number of provinces comprising only a minority of the population could effectively dominate the Senate, the possibility of that would be unlikely, especially if the Senate were elected and not appointed.

Some may argue that the Senate’s greater responsibility is to the nation as a whole and the effective functioning of our bicameral parliamentary system and that this would somehow be in danger should the Senate become equal. This is doubtful. For its entire history, the Senate has enjoyed powers almost equal to the House of Commons and yet it has never acted in an obstructionist manner. Even though under the Alberta plan, the six least populous provinces of the country could enjoy a majority in the upper house, it is highly unlikely that the Senators of those provinces would vote as one block. This would be especially true if those Senators were elected instead of being appointed by the Prime Minister of a single party.

With the current regional representation in the Senate, a majority is reached at 53 votes. Western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces (not including Newfoundland and Labrador) each hold 24 seats and therefore it is possible under the current system for Ontario and Quebec, with the aid of only five more Senate votes, to effectively control the Senate. Certainly this is less equitable than the parity proposed by the Alberta Senate Resolution. With Ontario and Quebec already holding the majority of seats in the House of Commons (106 for Ontario and 75 for Quebec) there is no doubt that the opinion that central Canada dominates over government at the federal level is not entirely unfounded, and therefore needs to be addressed.[6]

The allocation of Senators in our current system is not equal, either in the sense of population or provincial representation. In 1867, there had been an attempt made to represent the regional divisions in the country, but this falls short of the realities of Canada as it is today.[7] In a poll conducted in March of 2002, when asked the question, “In your opinion, does the federal government sufficiently look after the interests of your region?”, in all the provinces except Ontario, the majority of respondents replied, “No”.[8] Certainly this is an attitude which could be altered, at least somewhat, by instituting equality between the provinces in the Senate.

The next, and possibly the most important prong of the Triple E Senate is the question of election. What would or could the Canadian people expect to gain from having an elected Senate? What would the cost be? What could be done to make it reflective of both provincial concerns as well as those of minorities?

First and foremost, election would eliminate some of the perception of nepotism within the Senate. Making Senators responsible to the voters would reduce the inordinate amount of influence exercised over the upper house by the Prime Minister and the ruling party. A Senator’s continued service would be dependant on popular vote and not Prime Ministerial selection to a permanent appointment. With the election of Senators, the Prime Minister would no longer have power over who would sit in the upper house. Because of this, he or she could not be said to control it. This perception would hold, in spite of the fact that any party able to win a majority in the House of Commons would likely enjoy a similar majority in the Senate through the election process.

Another reason in support of an elected Senate would be the democratic principal behind it. As it stands now, a Senator is appointed and can serve till the age of 75 with virtually no way to be removed. Senators, such as Andrew Thompson, who was absent from the Senate for 488 days without excuse, would, if elected for a fixed term be responsible and accountable to the electorate for their actions.[9] While this particular example has more to do with the lack of one Senator’s work ethic than it does the effectiveness of the Senate itself, the election of Senators would impart a measure of liability which is currently lacking in that chamber.

It can be argued that this elected Senate would only duplicate the House of Commons within the Senate, and therefore, not effectively address the minority opinions that have had a voice in the Senate through the appointment process since 1867.[10] This does not have to be the case. Every election, a percentage of votes are cast for independent candidates. If Senatorial elections were based on proportional representation, then it is possible that there would be more independents in the upper chamber than there currently are.

Another argument against Senatorial elections is the cost to the taxpayer. The only province to have run Senatorial elections so far is Alberta which has done so three times since 1989. In the most recent election, that province spent approximately three million dollars to elect four Senators to fill three of Alberta’s vacant positions. Although these Senators in waiting may never fill a seat in the Senate the exercise does demonstrate just how costly Senatorial elections would be to the taxpayer.[11]

While these concerns are valid they are not insurmountable. The logical solution is to implement a system of proportional representation in the Senate that is tied to our federal elections.

For example, in British Columbia during the federal election of 2004 the parties involved garnered the following percentages of the popular vote: The Conservative Party of Canada – 36.3%, the Liberal Party of Canada – 28.6%, the New Democratic Party – 26.5%, the Green Party – 6.3% and Independents – 2.5%.[12] These percentages would translate into the following representation with regards to British Columbia’s six Senate seats: The Conservative Party of Canada – 2.178, the Liberal Party of Canada – 1.71, the New Democratic Party – 1.59, the Green Party – .378 and Independents – .15. Rounding down these results to the integers, the three major Canadian parties would receive four of the Senatorial seats with the Conservatives filling two, and the Liberals and the New Democrats filling one each. This leaves two seats to be split between the remaining parties, namely the Green party and the Independents, for a total of six seats.

This system of proportional representation is much more reflective of the democratic wishes of the Canadian people and in addition, is representative of minority parties. However, to implement this change without a corresponding change in the actual appointment of those Senators is to leave the job half done. The Senate is not only supposed to guard the interests of minorities but also to guard areas of provincial jurisdiction from infringement by the federal government. In order to address this requirement of the Senate, I propose that the responsibility for the selection of Provincial Senators be delegated to the Provincial Legislatures, who in turn, would select appropriate candidates from a list of qualified personnel.

I believe the above proposal would eliminate the monopoly that the federal parties are currently able to establish in the Senate after long periods of successful election. It would represent minority and provincial interests, eliminate federal patronage within the upper house and do it without any significant increase in cost to the taxpayer.

Additionally, the claims of those calling for Senate Reform stemming from the belief that “the current process of appointing Senators offends Canadians' democratic values, has deprived that House of political legitimacy and efficacy, and has prevented the Senate from being effective in protecting the interests of the provinces of Canada” [13], would be addressed. Indeed, the question of Senate effectiveness would no longer be an issue at all. Addressing the inequality and the autocracy of the system under which Senators were selected, would eliminate the perception of an ineffective Upper House.

In conclusion, it is time that we heeded the words of Sir John A MacDonald, when he spoke on the creation of the Senate in 1865 he said, “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.”[14] Our current system has become far too subservient to the ruling party without true provincial clout, equitable representation of minorities or responsibility to Canadians.

Under this system, with equality existing between the provinces and a democratic selection process of some kind Canada would be far ahead of where it is now. The Senate would still exist as, “the House which has the sober second-thought in legislation,”[15] but it would more accurately reflect Canada as it is today rather than the best work of one hundred and thirty-seven years ago.

Bibliography

Campus program.com (2004) Reference Library: Encyclopedia “Canadian Senate” http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/c/ca/canadian_senate.html, World Wide Web, (accessed on, November 24)

Canada online About (2004), “Alberta Election of Senators-in-Waiting” http://canadaonline.about.com/od/provincialelections/a/abelectsenators.htm, World Wide Web, (October 27)

Canadian Press/Leger Marketing (2002) “Canadians and Canada” http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/spclm/020325eng.pdf, World Wide Web, (March 5 & 10)

CBC News in Review April 98 “Canada’s Upper House: Do we need the Senate? http://www.cbc.ca/newsinreview/apr98/Senate/triple.htm , World Wide Web, (Toronto, accessed on, November 22)

Government of Alberta News Release(2003) May 14, 2003 “Alberta Senate Resolution” http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200305/14388.html#resolution, World Wide Web, (Alberta, May 14)

George Brown, “Quoted in Robert A. MacKay, The Unreformed Senate of Canada, revised and reprinted (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1963), p. 38.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, Committees and Private Legislation Directorate” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/legislative-e.htm, World Wide Web, (accessed on, December 19)

John A MacDonald, “Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, (Quebec: Hunter, Rose, 1865), p. 35-36.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, Committees and Private Legislation Directorate” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/Senate/legisfocus/legislative-e.htm, World Wide Web, (Ottawa, November 24)

Parliament of Canada Edited Hansard Number 57 (1998) “Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.), Senate of Canada” http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/057_1998-02-11/han057_1405-e.htm World Wide Web, (Ottawa, February 11)

Parliament of Canada, Senators and Members (2004) “Senators 1867 to date By Political Affiliation – Independent” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/Senate/SenIdx.asp?lang=E&Hist=Y&param=par&id=6 World Wide Web (Ottawa, accessed on, November 21)

Simon Fraser University (2004) “Elections: Initial Results of the 2004 Federal Elections” http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/2004-results.html, World Wide Web (Burnaby, accessed on, November 22)

Statistics Canada, The Daily (2004), “Demographic Statistics: Canada’s Population” http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040929/d040929d.htm, (Ottawa, September 29)

Wikipedia free encyclopedia (2004), “Canadian House of Commons”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_House_of_Commons#Composition , World Wide Web, (accessed on, November 18)

---

[1] Campus program.com (2004) Reference Library: Encyclopedia “Canadian Senate” http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/c/ca/canadian_senate.html, World Wide Web, (accessed on , November 24)

[2] Government of Alberta News Release (2003) “Alberta Senate Resolution” http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200305/14388.html#resolution, World Wide Web, (Alberta May 14)

[3] CBC News in Review April 98 (1998), “Canada’s Upper House: Do we need the Senate? http://www.cbc.ca/newsinreview/apr98/senate/triple.htm , World Wide Web, (Toronto, accessed on, accessed on, November 22)

[4] Statistics Canada, The Daily (2004), “Demographic Statistics: Canada’s Population” http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040929/d040929d.htm, (Ottawa, September 29)

[5] George Brown, “Quoted in Robert A. MacKay, The Unreformed Senate of Canada, revised and reprinted (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1963), p. 38.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, Committees and Private Legislation Directorate” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/legislative-e.htm, World Wide Web, (accessed on, December 1)

[6] Wikipedia free encyclopedia (2004), “Canadian House of Commons”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_House_of_Commons#Composition , World Wide Web, (November 18)

[7] The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, Committees and Private Legislation Directorate”

(2a “Text of the Quebec Resolutions as they Pertained to the Senate”) http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/legislative-e.htm, World Wide Web, (Ottawa, accessed on , December 1)

[8] Canadian Press/Leger Marketing (2002) “Canadians and Canada” http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/spclm/020325eng.pdf, World Wide Web, (March 5 & 10)

[9] Parliament of Canada Edited Hansard Number 57 (1998) “Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.), Senate of Canada” http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/057_1998-02-11/han057_1405-e.htm World Wide Web, (Ottawa, February 11)

[10] Parliament of Canada, Senators and Members (2004), “Senators 1867 to date By Political Affiliation – Independent” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/Senate/SenIdx.asp?lang=E&Hist=Y&param=par&id=6 World Wide Web (Ottawa, accessed on, November 21)

[11] Canada online About (2004), “Alberta Election of Senators-in-Waiting” http://canadaonline.about.com/od/provincialelections/a/abelectsenators.htm, World Wide Web, (October 27)

[12] Simon Fraser University (2004) “Elections: Initial Results of the 2004 Federal Elections” http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/2004-results.html, World Wide Web (Burnaby, accessed on , November 22 )

[13] Government of Alberta News Release(2003) May 14, 2003 “Alberta Senate Resolution” http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200305/14388.html#resolution, World Wide Web, (Alberta, May 14)

[14] John A MacDonald, “Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, (Quebec: Hunter, Rose, 1865), p. 35-36.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, Committees and Private Legislation Directorate” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/legislative-e.htm, World Wide Web, (Ottawa, accessed on , November 24)

[15] John A MacDonald, “Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, (Quebec: Hunter, Rose, 1865), p. 35-36.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, Committees and Private Legislation Directorate” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/legislative-e.htm, World Wide Web, (Ottawa, 2001)