The Senate

Somehow the Canadian Senate inspired nonsense from almost everyone who comments about it. At risk of falling into that morass, let me try hack away some of the brambles.

1. It doesn't represent the provinces or their people; it was never intended to

In the Globe & Mail on Nov 5, Professor David Bercuson argues Senate abolition would be a huge transfer of power to provincial premiers. Why? Because "the senate's role in Confederation -- to represent the people of Canada's diverse provinces (as opposed to the governments of those provinces) in the development and making of federal policy -- is a vital part of a healthy federal system."

But no, surely that cannot be the Senate's role. In reality, the Senate plays practically no role in representing the provinces and only a minor advisory one in developing and making federal policy. If it were a vital part of a healthy federal system, surely there would be some record of achievement in the last 130 years that people could point to.

Professor Bercuson is speaking politically, not historically. He would like to have a Senate that represented the provinces in Ottawa, that had a substantial policy-making role to match that of the House of Commons. He'd like a Senate that was elected and powerful.

Well, he's entitled to want that. But he is not describing the role of the Senate. He is inventing an entirely new role for it. When the Senate was created in 1867, the one overriding requirement was that it be weak. The confederation-makers were parliamentary democrats: they wanted to focus power in the lower house that was legitimately elected, representative of the population, and able to keep the government accountable to it and to it alone. They understood a powerful upper house would be a threat to that, and so they ensured that the Senate would be weak and largely advisory.

To do that, the confederation-makers made sure Senators did not (despite Professor Bercuson) represent provinces or provincial populations. They allocated senate seats mostly by region, not province. Senators authorized to speak for provinces might have hoped to claim some authority for themselves, but regions had and have no official political status and a much less clear identity than provinces.

It was to buttress the authority of the Commons and ensure the Senate's role would be weak and advisory that the confederation-makers put an end to the pre-confederation process of elective upper houses. Making the Senate appointive meant a deliberate choice to make it weak. And in that the confederation-makers were absolutely successful. No appointive house could claim real authority, not in 1867, not in 2007. The Senate was born to be largely ceremonial and advisory and has remained so ever since.. Good thing too, sez I, but then I'm a parliamentary democrat too.

Professor Bercuson wants a totally different Senate for a totally new purpose: to create a "double majority" system, in which a powerful Senate would be able legitimately to block and oppose the Commons. I prefer what we have.

It is true that the House of Commons, the place where the people really are and should be represented, the place where regional and provincial interests should be accounted for, is not working well. But the solution to that is to fix the Commons, not to meddle with a Senate that, elective or not, can never be truly representative and should not be truly powerful.

2. Australia's Senate is no panacea

Today the Globe & Mail quotes PM Harper declaring "Australia's Senate shows how a reformed upper house can function in our parliamentary system."

Well, Australia's Senate is elective. But it's worth noting:

• how shockingly unrepresentative Australia's Senate is. Tasmania has as many Senate seats as New South Wales, which has six times the population. Being elective doesn't make it democratic; representation matters too.
• how little the Senators actually represent the Australian states. Senators are elected on party tickets. When the governing party controls the Australian Senate, it becomes a rubber stamp. When the opposition controls, it blocks and opposes. Party loyalty trumps regional loyalty every time.
• how sceptical informed Australians are about their Senate -- too much power, too unrepresentative, too party-driven, etc.

The case still needs to be made that there are democratically-based arguments for a powerful Canadian Senate. Most arguments for a powerful elected Canadian Senate are covers for a rightwing gerrymander, since upper houses are by design and definition more conservative than the more representative lower houses, the "common" houses. The other motive for Senate reform is the desire to fix the democratic deficit, not where the need for fixing is real and pressing (in the Commons), but somewhere else.

Don't worry about the Senate. It cannot do much harm. The problem is in the House of Commons, and so is the solution.