Senate reform

Senate Reform – The Nunavut example

Before I begin I want to say a big thank you to Canada's foremost political scientist Donald Savoie, who was kind enough to invite me to Dinner at All Souls College here in Oxford last evening for some good food and great conversation about both national and provincial politics. For those of you not in Oxford, All Souls is sort of the Vahalla for academics. The college doesn't accept students and the fellows, who are admitted on the understanding that they are at the top of their field, are given free range to spend all of their time researching. Most students don't get the chance to explore the insides of this mysterious place, and so it was a great honour to be Doctor Savoie's guest. When he was a student here at Oxford, Dr. Savoie received a similiar invitation by a fellow named Charles Taylor, and so he felt a duty to reciprocate that kindness. Now it would be wrong to reveal the details of our discussion, but I will hint that I may or may not have received my first high-profile backing in my bid to become premier of New Brunswick. We'll see how that works out.

One of the things I’m hoping Stephen Harper will move forward on during his mandate is the reformation of the Senate. Harper has talked about Senate reform in the past, and it is often cited as one of the causes of Western alienation. Like Mulroney before him, Harper correctly points to the many Liberal patronage appointments to the Senate as one of the causes for Canadians’ decreasing respect for public institutions. And like Mulroney before him, Harper wasted know time in using the senate for his own political purposes by appointing Michel Fortier in order to allow him to sit in cabinet.

If it doesn’t do too much damage, Harper’s choice may have been a smart one. Fortier probably stood no chance of winning a seat in Montreal before the election. As a high-profile and visible cabinet minister, he could win a seat next time around, which might end the Liberal’s stronghold on the island. All of this remains to be seen.

What I want to talk about today is a proposal to reform the Senate. First of all, let me say that, as much as Canadians probably want to see an elected senate, I’m not sure they want a dysfunctional bicameral government, with one level constantly interfering and watering down with the other’s legislation. It seems to me that Canadians like to elect a government with a clear mandate and expect that mandate to be implemented. So the question now becomes, how do we reform the Senate without ending up in that scenario?

For an answer, I think we should look to Nunavut. The structure of the provincial government in Nunavut is a hybrid system based on Indigenous and non-indigenous practices. Members of the legislative assembly are elected as independents; no-one runs under a party banner. Once elected, the members vote in secret for a cabinet. The individual with the most votes becomes the premier (this part of the system is currently being debated. Many people in Nunavut would like to have more control over deciding who becomes premier). Those with the most votes form the cabinet and the governing party. Those with the fewest are the opposition. Rather than sitting across from each other, the government and opposition sit in a circle, which is supposed to represent the consensus-based style of government of the Indigenous people, rather than the confrontational approach of the Westminster parliamentary system. Because the candidates do not know whether or not they will form part of the government or the opposition, they are forced to work together in order to address Nunavut’s great social problems in a non-partisan fashion.

This system, however, is not without its problems and detractors. For starters, voters do not give any government an ideological mandate, and it’s very often difficult to know how one’s vote is going to change the direction of the government. I suppose that the system could be manipulated by well-organized backroom alliances where promises are made in order to ensure consistent voting patterns amongst certain members. I am sure that many of you out there can think of different ways in which this system could be abused. We should also remember that the Nunavut government’s brilliant democratic design wont on its own solve that province’s deep and complicated social ills.

Nevertheless, Canadians need to invent governing institutions which reflect our history and our diversity. We are no longer a British colony, and we need to develop a stronger sense of collective identity based first and foremost on recognition and respect for the cultures of our first nation’s peoples. Canada has much work to do in terms of cultural reconciliation, and unfortunately it seems to be moving quite slowly. Having institutions which remind us of our unique makeup is one step in the right direction.

Senators, elected at the same time as parliament, could vote amongst themselves for a government and an opposition. Basically, the Senate would continue to function as it does now, only without Senators sitting in on caucus meetings, unless of course a Senator was occupying a position in cabinet. The senate seats could be distributed more evenly in order to better provide regional representation, which is one of the major complaints against the current system.

If Canadians aren’t convinced by this idea, than maybe we should look for methods that would involve people in the political process who wouldn’t normally want to step into the circus of electoral politics. Let’s face it: if we switched to an elected senate today, the majority of people who would allow their names to stand would be former provincial and federal politicians hoping for an additional pension beyond the age of 75. One way we could go about this would be to adopt a system similar to what the Campbell government used in B.C. in order to draw a committee to look at electoral reform. Citizens would put forward their name to the government and a committee would be drawn randomly through a lottery. Those people would then draw up a list of outstanding citizens from civil society, academia, the volunteer sector, business, etc, who would then be put forward to the electorate as candidates.

With senate reform we have a wonderful opportunity to add democratic credibility to our government and introduce to the world a unique governing system which reflects our particular cultural values. Let’s not be satisfied with simply throwing another layer of partisanship on top of a system that is already in desperate need of serious democratic reform.