Aperte.org Jeremy Handcock

Senate reform in Canada has received newfound attention lately thanks to Stephen Harper's recent appointments that give the Conservative Party a plurality in Parliament's upper chamber. Conservative dominance in the Senate increases the likelihood that pending Senate reform legislation will be approved, notwithstanding any challenges to legislation's constitutionality by the provinces.

According to recent polls, the majority of Canadians support reform and I think many consider the Senate to be a stodgy relic of the country's colonial days. The most popular option among reformists is to have an elected Senate, similar to how it works in the United States. At first glance, this seems like a good option: the more democratic the Senate is, the better, right? In my opinion, this view is short-sighted and I encourage Canadians to dig deeper as the reform debate is reopened.

Canadian Senate primer

For those of you not familiar with how the Senate works in Canada, the Governor General---the head of state and the Queen's representative in Canada---has the authority to appoint individuals to the Senate when seats become vacant. In reality, the Governor General only makes appointments on the advice of the Prime Minister, so the PM ultimately decides who sits in the upper chamber. Once appointed, a Senator holds his or her seat until the age of 75. The Senate was originally designed to provide representation balanced by each region of the country and sober second thought to legislation passed in the lower chamber of Parliament, the House of Commons. The Senate considers each bill passed by the House of Commons and may approve the bill, request amendments to the bill from the House of Commons, or reject the bill altogether. If the Senate approves a bill, the Governor General approves it and provides royal assent---a formality from colonial days---and then the bill becomes law. See the Wikipedia article on the Canadian Senate for more background.

Senate reform

Senate reformists in Canada generally support electing Senators rather than appointing them, or abolishing the Senate altogether. A recent survey conducted by Harris/Decima found that a majority of Canadians want Senators to be elected by the voters of the region they represent. The next most popular option was abolishing the Senate, while very few support the status quo.

Advocates of an elected Senate believe that it should be a democratic institution and the actions of a Senator should reflect the will of the people that he or she represents. Moreover, the Senate should be responsible to the electorate. My issue with an elected Senate is just that: votes in the chamber would be highly influenced by the public opinion of the day. Facing re-election, Senators would pander to the latest polling numbers over the long-term interests of their region and the country. Raw partisanship in the House would bleed into the Senate as parties seek to differentiate and define themselves for the next election campaign. In this sense, more democratic isn't necessarily better.

To me, the fundamental purpose of the Canadian Senate is to provide non-partisan review and sober second thought to legislation on balance with the will of the elected lower chamber. With this in mind, abolishing the Senate altogether is not an option. As broken as it may seem, the status quo or a variation thereof may best reflect this purpose.

How does the Senate currently behave?

Proponents of an elected Senate argue that Senators simply toe the party line along with their colleagues in the House, so the unelected Senate can block the will of elected House. If this theory is correct, the Senate behaves as follows:

1. If the Senate is dominated by members of the governing party, it will approve the bills passed by the House without amendments.
2. If the Senate is not dominated by the governing party, it will block bills passed by the House by requesting amendments or rejecting them.

Obviously, both of these behaviours are less than ideal, so I set out to see if there is actually any evidence of them. Using the LEGISInfo database from the Library of Parliament, I found all the occasions where the Senate amended or rejected bills introduced and passed by the House of Commons. I'd hoped to go all the way back to 1867, but LEGISinfo only has data from the 24th Parliament to the 40th Parliament (from 1962 to the end of 2009). For each amendment or rejection, I found out whether the governing party at the time had a plurality---the most seats of any party---in the Senate, which is a decent indicator of how easily the government could move bills through the Senate.

Because the number of bills introduced and passed by the House can vary widely between Parliaments, I was really interested in the proportion of rejected or amended bills relative to the total number of bills that received royal assent in a given Parliament.

As you can see, the proportion of House bills that were amended or rejected by the Senate doesn't seem to be directly related to whether the governing party had a plurality in the Senate at the time. In other words, the Senate does not behave in a purely party-disciplined fashion. Quite the contrary: there are many instances where the governing party had a plurality in the Senate but returned legislation to the House for amendment. You'll also notice that for most Parliaments, fewer than 10% of the bills were amended or rejected, meaning that the Senate has generally respected the will of the elected House. (By the way, the Senate rejects very few bills from the House. It has rejected only three bills in the past 50 years).

So, do you really want an elected Senate?

There is no evidence in these data to suggest that our current Senate system doesn't work according to the principle of providing non-partisan review. Also, there is no evidence to indicate that the Senate does not respect the will of the elected House. Without getting into the substance of each amendment, I'd say the Senate is not as broken as most people think. In fact, its current form is probably better than any of the alternatives. Given the behaviour shown above, I would much rather stick with the Senate we have instead of turning it into a poll-driven, elected body that is motivated to act out of short-term interest.

There are as many opinions on senate reform as there are Canadians, although one thing is certain: there is a bumpy road ahead if the government decides to proceed with senate reform legislation. Keep these things in mind as you consider all the options.