Senate Reform and Democratic Renewal

in the Canadian Context

F.M.C.

March 2010

Abstract

Senate reform and democratic renewal have been long standing issues in Canadian politics. This paper proposes
combining the key elements of the two reform movements into a single framework.

Overview

The purpose of this article is not to deal with the lengthly and sometimes controversial history of the two major
currents in Canadian politics for over 40 years – senate reform and democratic renewal. Rather its purpose is to
offer a framework which, it is hoped, will bring the proponents of the these two reform movements together, for a
more democratic Canada.
The issue of the Canadian Senate has long been a sore point for those citizens in Western Canada, as well as for
the more democratically minded. Some would argue the senate as a non-elected body is ineffective and the only
remedy is to have senators directly elected, as in other jurisdictions. There are those who would argue the senate
is the product of a less democratic age and therefore an anachronism in the 21st century that should be abolished.
While there is some merit to both of these propositions the remedies are a case of the cure being worse than the
disease. The Senate was established to be a check on the powers of the Commons, something which has rarely been
done, due to the present method of its constitution. In those rare instances when it uses the powers bestowed by the
Constitution it is accused of being undemocratic. This inevitably leads to calls for direct election or abolishment,
neither of which has been shown to result in a more effective or democratic system of government.
The second issue of concern for reformers is often called Democratic Renewal, a euphemism for Proportional
Representation. The present and most widely used method of election, first-past-the-post has its advantages, par-
ticularly in the less technological age from whence it arose. There is little uncertainty about the winner. It is a
simple method to administer and understand, especially when used with pen and paper. All of which were advan-
tages when it could take days or weeks for information to travel from one part of the country to the other. This is
not our world, information from far flung regions can be known almost as fast as it occurs and after centuries of
democratic government we are more experienced in its methods. Yet we remain saddled with an electoral system
from a bygone era in spite of recent attempts to introduce a more democratic form of election.

1
Method

The proposed framework incorporates the concerns raised by the two reform movements, described above, while
making the minimally required changes to our present form of election. The House of Commons would continue
to be elected using a first-past-the-post system even with its shortcomings. Too much change at one time can be
detrimental whatever the perceived benefits. The electoral term would remain unchanged as would the possibility
of minority government, should the people so decide. There would be no changes to the current powers of the
Senate or its composition, currently 105 members. In fact all the changes proposed would occur after the Commons
has been elected and would be administered by a designated body, most probably Elections Canada. There would
certainly be changes required to the election act and perhaps the Constitution, these however are best left to legal
scholars to determine. The result would be a Senate whose members are directly tied to the present electoral system
both by appointment and in the length of their terms in office. This proposed framework makes no other changes
to our present system of government.
The following would occur under this framework proposal:

1. The term of office of Senators would end at the calling of a federal election.
2. After an election is called each registered federal party would provide to the Chief Electoral Officer a list of
candidates that would represent that party in the Senate. The list should be in order of preference.

3. The election for members of the House of Commons would remain unchanged.
4. After the results from all federal ridings have been finalized, the Chief Electoral Officer would distribute
Senate seats to each federal party (see Table 1 for the results of the 2004, 2006 and 2008 federal elections)
based on the proportion of the national vote they received in the election.
5. The Senate would be constituted from all federal parties that received more than 1% of the vote in the election.

Table 1: Percent of National Vote by Political Affiliation (above 1%) and Projected Senate Seats
Percent of 2004 Number of Percent of 2006 Number of Percent of 2008 Number of
National Vote Senators Based National Vote Senators Based National Vote Senators Based
on 2004 on 2006 on 2008
National Vote National Vote National Vote
Bloc Québécois 12.4 13 10.5 11 10.0 11
Conservative Party of Canada 29.6 31 36.3 38 37.7 40
Liberal Party of Canada 36.7 39 30.2 32 26.3 28
New Democratic Party 15.7 16 17.5 18 18.2 19
The Green Party of Canada 4.3 5 4.5 5 6.8 7
Others 1.3 0 1.0 0 1.0 0
Total 100.0 104 100.0 104 100.0 105

2
Criticism

The framework outlined above attempts to make the least amount of change as possible to the current electoral
method. Although most of what now exists remains some things will be lost. The most significant being the idea
that Senators should come from a specific Province/Territory. While not explicitly changed, each Province/Territory
would continue to receive the allotment of Senators outlined in the Constitution, in practice this is not a certainty.
The method above works best when it is based on the percentage of the total federal vote rather than on a province
by province basis. It is hoped that each national party would list proposed Senators from each Province/Territory
but this is not a requirement. To base this system on the electoral result in each Province/Territory would distort
the result in those Provinces/Territories that have a small number of Senators. For example if a party received 25%
of the vote in a Province with 6 Senators would they get one Senator or two (6 X 25% = 1.5)? Or in the case of only
one Senate seat allotted then it becomes a first-past-the-post system for that Territory.
A second criticism might be raised by parties that limit themselves to one Province/Territory or Region. Cur-
rently the Bloc Québécois is the only party with elected members to the House of Commons from a single Province/
Territory. They or other single Province/Territory parties might be concerned that basing their allotment on the
percent of the total federal vote gives them less than they would be entitled to if it was Provincially/Territorially
based. This however is not correct as is seen when comparing the figures in Table 1 to Table 2 where it will be
evident that, for the Bloc at least, they would have received more Senators using the federal totals.

Table 2: Percent of Québec Vote by Political Affiliation (above 1%) and Projected Senate Seats
Percent of 2004 Number of Percent of 2006 Number of Percent of 2008 Number of
Québec Vote Senators Based Québec Vote Senators Based Québec Vote Senators Based
on 2004 on 2006 on 2008
Québec Vote Québec Vote Québec Vote
Bloc Québécois 48.9 12 42.1 10 38.1 9
Conservative Party of Canada 8.8 2 24.6 6 21.7 5
Liberal Party of Canada 33.9 8 20.8 5 23.8 6
New Democratic Party 4.6 1 7.5 2 12.2 3
The Green Party of Canada 3.2 1 4.0 1 3.5 1
Others 0.6 0 1.0 0 0.7 0
Total 100.0 24 100.0 24 100.0 24

A third and not insignificant criticism should be noted – the issue of rounding. As seen in Table 1 the use of
percentages can lead to problems, since there cannot be a fractional Senator, whole numbers must be the result.
In two of the instances given less than the total number of required Senators results. The percentage figures are
from Elections Canada who only provide accuracy to one decimal place. The number of Senators results from the
formula of 105(total senators) multiplied by the percent given and rounded to zero decimal places, to produce a
whole Senator! Perhaps the mathematically inclined will produce a better method should this system be adopted.

3
Final Words

The framework outlined here is just that and should be considered a starting point for discussion. The purpose
is to introduce an easily understandable proportional system to Canada and make the Senate accountable without
changing the fundamental electoral system. Ideally each Province/Territory would have an equal number of Sena-
tors but that is not necessary for the above reforms to work. Though in conjunction with the above system it would
serve as a counter to the census based Commons. Finally it is hoped that after a number of years these reforms will
lead to a fully proportional system for all legislatures in Canada. On the other hand the mixed system outlined
above may just prove to be the right balance in the Canadian context.