If there is one area where every Canadian political party agrees it’s that the current system of government isn’t working. Harper’s Conservatives want to see the Senate reformed while Thomas Mulcair’s New Democrats want the Senate abolished. The Liberal Party, as usual, doesn’t really know what it wants; however, the party recently approved a policy to push for preferential voting (voters would rank candidates 1, 2, 3, etc. instead of marking an x). Everyone understands the system is broken, but no one can agree on a solution.
Inability to change the way our government works is a political reality. To change our system of government requires a change to our constitution and changing the constitution is incredibly difficult, as it should be. Altering the constitution requires approval from the House of Commons and the Senate, as well as approval from at least seven provincial Legislatures (and those provinces must represent at least 50% of Canada’s population). Previous attempts to change the constitution resulted in the Meech Lake Accord (1987) and Charlottetown Accord (1992); both failed and, Meech Lake in particular, energized support for Quebec sovereignty. Today, opening up the constitution is considered political suicide.
Alas, I am young and impetuous. I think Canadians deserve a government that is willing to have hard conversations, compromise, and make decisions. It’s time to renew our belief in democracy and change the way things are done in Ottawa. If I was designing our system of government, here is what I would propose:
A House of Commons based on representative democracy and representation by
population. MPs would be elected by first-past-the-post (our current system), and directly accountable to the people who elected them. The number of ridings/province would be based on the population of the province, with each province and territory receiving at least one MP. As the Table above outlines, under the current system (see Current # MPs) the six smallest provinces (MB, SK, NS, NB, NL, and PEI) and QC are over-represented in the House while the fastest growing provinces (ON, BC, and AB) are under-represented. In the Fair Representation Act, the Harper Government has proposed adding 30 additional MPs to the House (see Proposed # MPs) to account for population growth, at an additional cost of $14.8-$18.2 million/year (plus $11.5 million/election). My proposal (My Proposed # MPs) uses a fixed number of 308 ridings, redistributed after each census by a non-partisan committee (appointed by the Governor General). I understand this would reduce the power of the maritimes and the prairie provinces, but that’s where the Senate comes into the picture.
An equal, elected, and effective Senate based on proportional representation. Senators (nine per province, one per territory) would be elected based on each party’s proportion of votes in each province. This would provide a major boost to the maritime provinces (who would hold thirty-six Senators), as well as the provinces west of Ontario (another thirty-six). Ontario and Quebec (who would hold a majority in the House) are minor players in the Senate, with only nine Senators each. Moreover, rural interests would be protected in the Senate with predominantly-rural provinces holding a majority. Elected Senators could also provide political parties with representation from every province (the Liberals would have elected a Senator from Alberta in 2011!).
I admit: this is a simplified solution. It doesn’t examine the extraneous demands provinces will make once the constitution is opened. It also ignores the inevitable outcry from Quebec. I truly believe Quebec holds a special place within Canada and that their heritage and language deserves protection; however, I don’t believe Quebec should be afforded extra influence within our federal government. That being said, I believe the system I have presented is fair, balanced, and easy to understand. Perhaps the best part of this idea is that voting system would not need to change: we still used first-past-the-post for our MPs and use the proportion of those votes for Senators. One ballot, one vote. Everyone is represented by a specific person in Ottawa (their MP), and everyone’s vote “counts” (at least for Senator).
I’m happy to hear what people think: leave a comment with any questions or suggestions you have!
Edit (April 25, 2012, 10:30am) - A couple people have asked what the Senate would look like right now given the results of the 2011 Federal Election. Based on a quick check of the provincial-breakdown of results the Senate would include 42 Conservatives, 25 NDP, 22 Liberals, 2 Greens, and 2 BQs (a majority would be 47).
I think that’s the first time I’ve heard it proposed that the Senate be proportional and the House first-past-the-post. That makes so much more sense to me than adding so many more seats to the House to accommodate a MMP system.
The one thing that would be lost is the current function of the Senate–that sober second thought from people who aren’t concerned about the next election–but I have a feeling it’s going to be lost anyway.
Yours is an interesting idea and while it may seem really simple, most of the genius ideas are in that “wow, I can’t believe we didn’t see that before now” way. Seems like something that would be worth considering.
Thanks for your comment Amanda! I hadn’t considered the “sober second thought” role (which is odd, since it’s so important).
The one thing I would say is the Senators wouldn’t have to worry as much in elections, since they aren’t directly responsible to a certain group of voters (like an MP). As long as their party does well in a province they stand a good chance at being reelected.
I’m going to think about this some more…Thanks again!
No sir I don’t like your proposal. It smacks of US style deadlock, the vary reason the Senate wasn’t elected to begin with. Good that people are thinking of it.
My proposal is probably as unlikely to succeed but does require the constitutional can of worms to be opened. http://qualitypunk.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/electoral-reform-my-proposition/
Perhaps we should just start by putting the whips away and limiting leaders power. If caucus could sack the leader with a simple majority that would reign most in and give the current system a shake up.
I’m definitely interested in reforming the Whips! People should be free to represent their constituents without fear of retribution from their party. Leadership is required to convince people of your proposals, not a Party Whip.
I’d also be interested in looking into caucus having the power to remove a leader…so long as party members are the ones who choose the new leader!
As for deadlock, wait until the Harper Government is defeated, and a new Government, be is Liberal or NDP, has to face the Harper Senate (he’s already personally appointed 43 Senators, by 2015 he’ll likely have appointed the majority of the Senate).
The Harper Senate will be no more obtrusive to the next government, than the Liberal dominated Senate was to the Harper government. As things stand now the Senate knows it lacks democratic legitimacy and can not usurp the will of the elected House of Commons.
If a Harper Senate was proving to be a hinderance to passing legislation, it is within the powers of the next PM to appoint more Senators. This has been done by both Mulroney and Harper on the pretext that a Liberal majority in the Senate would not pass PC or Conservative legislation.
That’s a fair argument Michael. My only problem is if the Senators are only serving as a rubber stamp then they aren’t serving any real purpose. Perhaps tying the Federal Senators to the results of Provincial Elections could provide a solution?
I think the original intent was that the Senate would be a chamber of “sober second thought”. So that if the Commons was doing something deem so egregious that it had to be stopped, they would in fact exercise their powers.
I think I would rather see the Senate abolished all together, rather have it elected.
Or perhaps since the Senate is suppose to protect provincial interests, have it appointed by the premiers
Having Senators appointed by Premiers is an interesting idea…
Zac, I have only read through it once, and would need to do so again, but I certainly agree with the premise that democracy is tilted and some areas have a disproportionate amount of influence and it needs to be addressed.
Thanks for the comment Dave (here and on Facebook)! It means a lot.
A lot of people consider proposals like this one impossible. Perhaps they are. I think if you explained this to the average person most people would agree it’s fair, balanced, and easy to understand.