Here goes…

Current Situation

Current Senate, courtesy of Wikipedia

The Senate – currently an unelected body of representatives that are appointed by the current governor general (under advice of the current Prime Minster) whom hold their positions until they turn 75 – is the part of our government that has to approve bills after they pass the House of Commons (where our elected MPs sit and discuss bills and other issues). Since new Senators are chosen by the sitting PM, all of them are either Liberal or Conservative, and the Senate rarely rejects bills passed by the House.

It’s bad enough the House of Commons doesn’t reflect the true will of the people thanks to the existing first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Why does the Senate purely reflect the will of past PMs?

I propose that we impose a proportional representation system on the Senate, so that the number of seats assigned in the Senate are directly proportional to the percentage of votes each party has received, with a minimum of 1 seat being assigned to any party that receives a significant number of votes, or maybe even to any party that has received any votes.

The Solution

Going back to the 2008 Federal Election, here are the results for percentage of nationwide votes by party:

• Conservatives – 32.67%
• Liberals – 30.23%
• NDP – 17.48%
• Bloq – 10.48%
• Green – 4.48%
• Other – 4.66%

Note that only the top 4 parties won seats in the House, and the Bloq wins a disproportionate amount because all 10.48% of  votes come in Quebec. But what do those numbers mean for the Senate? Well, currently the Conservatives hold 52 out of 105 seats, the Liberals hold 46, Progress Conservatives hold 2, Independents hold 2, and 3 are vacant. Instead of this current oligopoly, the makeup of the Senate using proportional representation would be quite different:

• Conservatives – 34 seats
• Liberals – 32 seats
• NDP – 18 seats
• Bloq – 11 seats
• Green – 5 seats
• Other – 5 seats

Looking that over, I suppose it would be best to split those other 5 seats amongst the next top 5 polling parties (I think we have to draw the line somewhere, but that’s up for debate). Whether they be fringe parties like the Communist Party of Canada, the Rhinoceros Party, or the Christian Heritage Party – as much as you may disagree with their politics and policies – the people who voted for them deserve to be heard.

So what now?

At this point it’s important to note that each province has a set number of seats in the Senate. I’m not sure whether this should be continued or not. In the USA, each state has a junior and a senior Senator. I think, for the sake of provinces currently feeling under represented in Parliament, this should be done away with. Instead of each province having a set number of seats, instead each party should be able to choose their best and brightest to sit in the Senate.

One other thing that I’m open to suggestions on is term limits. I think a limit of, perhaps, 8 years or two elections should be in place. While the Senate should theoretically provide a steady, guiding hand for the country, fresh ideas are still needed. I suppose we could let previous Senators back in after being out for one or two elections, but I think most of us are a bit tired of “career politicians,” especially those Senators that were appointed for life prior to recent changes, and even those that are appointed until 75 yet don’t sit in the Senate nearly as often as our MPs do in the House.

What I like about this is that it’s easy to implement. Citizens are already voting for their favourite party/candidate at the local level, and this practically guarantees them representation in Parliament regardless of the results in their riding. It doesn’t require extra effort, math, deciding which parties they prefer in what order, etc. Same tick in the same box as before, with Elections Canada applying the numbers to the Senate, and then calling upon each party to send their best and brightest to the Senate for whatever term we decide appropriate.

Is it perfect? No, of course not. The existing FPTP system stays in place, but I think this is a quick and easy way to bring about electoral reform without confusing the populace (including me).

So let’s open this up for discussion. Love it? Hate it? Suggestions for improvement? What say you?

I just did a little reading on the Senate and discovered that it has 105 seats. 105! Why so many? The U.S. has 10x the population we do and each state only elects two Senators – one junior, one senior. Considering Ontario, the most populous province in our fair nation, has only 2 million more people than New York City, why does it need 22 more senators than the entire state of New York? It boggles the mind.

105 Senators getting paid $122,700 each (in 2006) equals $12,883,500 each year in taxpayer money going to people we don’t elect. Admittedly there are currently 16 vacant seats so we’re “only” spending $10,920,300 this year on salary for the Canadian Senate. If we moved to a structure where each province had 2 Senators and each of the territories had one, not only we would achieve a system that makes sense and is fair but it would also mean we have 23 Senators, ensuring we never have a tie as long as they all vote on each piece of legislation.

And not only do we cut out a lot of the fat, we cut down expenses! 23 Senators would only cost $2,822,100 a year! That’s a savings of $10,061,400!

People, this is the type of thinking we need in the PMO! Why isn’t Harper talking about downsizing the Senate? I’m all for electing my own Senators from Ontario, but we don’t need 24 of them represening the province! Also, is it just me or does $122,700 just scream “overpaid!”?