What should be done about the Senate?

Recent scandals have rocked the Senate and have many observers searching for long-term solutions. SCAZON/FLICKR

In the time of Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, it is difficult to find anyone saying anything positive about Canada’s Senate. Yet while the Senate is undeniably broken, fixing the institution presents an opportunity to renew Canada’s governing institutions and to strengthen our democracy. This means making the Senate into an accountable Upper House and dramatically enhancing the ability of Parliament to represent and serve the population.

Yet this is not what our federal leaders propose. Stephen Harper’s plan is to allow the provinces to hold Senate elections, the winners of which he would appoint when vacancies occur. This is gimmicky — “electing” senators with no guarantee of when they will take office, then giving them the job to age 75. Two of four Senators “elected” in Alberta in 2004 resigned after waiting nine years to take office. Justin Trudeau’s Liberals plan to change the appointment process, but senators would still be unelected and keep their jobs until 75. Thomas Mulcair and the NDP want to abolish the Senate, but this ignores the need for a bicameral system, something most democratic federations in the world have.

Proportional representation is a superior approach to select Senators democratically. Under this system, senators would be chosen in elections where the parties present lists of candidates. The electorate would vote for individuals to send to the House of Commons, and parties for the Senate. The parties would then be allotted seats based on the percentage of the vote they received in each province. This would solve the Senate’s massive accountability problem — Senators would be elected by voters. More importantly, it would give us a chance to fix a major flaw in our democracy.

The current “first-past-the-post” system — in which the party with the most votes wins each seat, and the party with the most seats forms the government, is fundamentally anti-democratic. It allows a party that gets just 39.6 per cent of the votes — as the Conservatives did in 2011, to have unfettered control of the country for four years. It also perpetuates the problem of wasted votes — those that are cast but don’t go to the winner. Why should only those voters who choose the successful candidate see their views represented in Parliament? The bigger parties are also currently over-represented at the expense of smaller ones. In 2008, more than 900,000 Canadians cast ballots for the Green Party, yet it did not win a single seat in the House of Commons.

Every vote would count under proportional representation. By implementing these changes in the Senate and maintaining the current system in the House, Canadians would have the best of both worlds. The House is a larger body with members representing specific areas — a necessity in a country with Canada’s geographic disparity. The Senate would be smaller, with each party represented according to its share of the vote in each province.

Canada’s democracy is at a crossroads. Reforming our Senate using proportional representation presents a unique opportunity. After 146 years of nationhood, Canadians could finally have a Parliament that’s accountable and representative of every vote.

Alexander Cohen is a first-year student at Trinity College studying international relations.

If there was a way of getting the average voter interested in the notoriously legalistic and erudite topic of Senate reform, Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy found it. Last week’s Speech from the Throne marked the opening salvo of what is likely to be a controversial parliamentary season for the Conservatives. Tremendous pressures now weigh upon the House of Common’s sober, apolitical counter-part. These pressures are at the root of its current failures; the sooner they are countered the better off we’ll all be. Greater consultation during selection procedures, a Senate code of ethics enforced by the Speaker on behalf of all members, and greater regional representation will resolve the Upper House’s current crisis.

The Senate expenses scandal is a direct result of Harper politics — here referring to the Prime Minister’s uncanny ability to bring traditionally fair and accountable institutions of federal decision-making under his personal control. Some will suggest that mismanagement of public funds has, over the years, crossed party lines, and effectively describes an innate institutional failure in the Senate. This however, only emphasizes the fait accompli that is Stephen Harper’s metamorphosis of a previously docile and erudite Upper Chamber into a set of loyal pawns in his domestic grand strategy of party discipline. The only reason why Senate reform is on the agenda this fall is because the PM’s stratagem has failed, and the fallout is messier than planned. The Prime Minister’s power through party discipline will only increase with an elected Senate.

Australia and the United States’ Upper Houses are often raised as examples worth learning from when it comes to our Senate reform options. But do we want an elected Senate? The U.S. Senate’s paralysis from the partisan bickering and the widespread conflict of interests and gridlock would ensure that more expensive expense scandals will happen in the future. Australia’s constitutional crisis, often cited as a model for reform, was inconsequential; it served more as a cautionary tale of the dangers of a severely political Senate. I would like to believe that the problem with the Senate is not its excess or lack of constitutional power, but rather has to do with its misuse and a prevailing sense of impunity.

There’s also a need to reframe the official standard on what kind of actions a Senator may lawfully and legitimately engage in. Stricter standards of behaviour should explicitly prevent Senators from engaging in essentially political tasks like fundraising during their work terms, or risk suspension and dismissal. This might be hard to enforce, but I firmly believe that the Senators’ collective judgement, combined with the press and public opinion’s continued scrutiny, will be more than sufficient to keep our Upper House’s members on task and in line as they serve the public interest.

Finally, the Senate could also benefit from the enforcement of term limits if it intends to accurately reflect Canada’s demography. Term limits would also prevent perceptions of immunity-by-seniorty from endangering the institution’s long history of reliability.
Yves Messy is a student at the University of Toronto.