The Martlet

Stephen Harper hasn’t let proroguing parliament keep him from contradicting previous campaign promises.

He’s long sought Senate reform, yet still appointed five new senators on Jan. 29. Harper’s third batch of new senators gives the Conservative party a plurality in the 105-seat upper house.

For most Canadians, this doesn’t mean much. Few Canadians even know what their Senate does, never mind who their senators are. But, considering each senator is paid over $130,000 a year and keeps their post until their 75th birthday, perhaps they should.

So what does the Canadian Senate do? Well, Sir John A. Macdonald described it as a chamber of “sober second thought” whose purpose is to curb “democratic excesses.” It achieves this through bi-partisan committees that review new legislation, often sending it back to the House of Commons with minor recommendations which are usually accepted.

Theoretically, it is possible for the “Red Chamber” (as the senate is known due to the colour of its carpet) to reject legislation outright, but this rarely happens.

The key to the senate is the committees, which represent the political composition of the chamber as a whole. So, now that the Conservatives hold a plurality, with 51 seats compared to the Liberals 49 and five “others,” all committees will take this shape during the next parliamentary session.

This, Harper hopes, will keep the senate from dragging its feet in passing his legislation.

Senate reform isn’t a new idea. The first attempt to reform the chamber occurred in 1874, a mere seven years after the British North American Act of 1867 created Canada.

Since then, there have been dozens of recommendations, from democratization to outright abolition.

Harper, for his part, would like to see set term lengths (he tried for eight years in 2006), and an election process to determine senate appointments. Alberta has elected “senators-in-waiting” since 1989, including Bert Brown who was appointed by Harper in 2007.

While it’s easy to see the drawbacks of prime ministerial appointments that last decades, it’s hard to see how more campaign funding and empty promises would really strengthen our democracy.

In response to the new appointments, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff came up with his own reform recommendations. He’d set term limits at 12 years and, while not calling for democratically-elected senators, would go for a committee to veto potential candidates, or even have a public service appointment commission. His recommendations leave the Senate in the hands of central Canada, and do nothing to make them more representative to the citizens of each province.

So, let’s help both out and spell out a senate reform that makes sense and addresses most of the accepted weaknesses of the current system, while still allowing for “sober second thought” that would be above the influence of re-election or campaign donators.

First, the current allotment of senators needs to change.

Currently, Ontario and Quebec get 24 seats, the Maritimes get 24 (10 each for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, four for P.E.I), and western Canada gets 24 — six for each province. Newfoundland and Labrador combined get another six, and each territory gets one seat. This creates an imbalance in strength (for Ontario and Quebec) and in representation; in 2006, B.C. got one seat for every 685,000 residents, while New Brunswick received one for every 73,000.

To balance this out, let’s give each province the same amount of seats, so all get an equal voice. Each province would get 10 seats, and each territory three. This would create an imbalance as far as senators per population, but would ensure each region of the country has an equal voice.

Next, senators need a term limit. Fresh voices and perspectives are important. Ten years is a nice round number, it splits Harper’s and Ignatieff’s suggestions and it creates a consistent environment. Say, the third year of each decade sees a new Senate.

The most important reform, however, would come in how senators are appointed. Campaigning for seats takes away the advantage of not having to appeal to electors or to thank contributors, while an appointment process inevitably leads to the prime minister of the day stacking open seats with his faithful.

So, let’s compromise and appoint senators proportionally to how each province voted. If the NDP gets 20 per cent of votes in Manitoba over 10 years, they’d get 20 per cent of Manitoba’s senate seats. How each party determines their senate appointments, let’s leave that up to them.

This system would give the best of democratic representation without the worst of campaign elections.

It would also allow every party (with significant enough support) to appoint senators. This would help the non-partisan appeal of Senate committees while ensuring each province is represented according to their ballots.

And, in the end, this offers the best of both worlds.