CKNW Editorial
for February 5, 2001

Senator Ray Perrault, having reached the mandatory retirement age, is retiring from the Senate and there will be the usual bun toss, roast and toast which, because of Ray’s long and colourful career, will be one of the social highlights of the year. I personally wish him well and look back on some interesting things that he had a hand in, not the least of which were his stout efforts to bring major league baseball to Vancouver.

But my dissertation today is not about Ray but is triggered by a phone message I received, and didn’t answer, from a reporter in Ottawa who wanted to know what the buzz was in BC concerning Ray Perrault’s replacement. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that the 16^th round draft choice in 2005 of the soon to be defunct Vancouver Grizzlies would be of more interest to people in British Columbia than who our next senator will be. That far from being a buzz, most people don’t know about the Senate vacancy and those who do, don’t care assuming that it will probably be an Indian Chief or Liberal hack like David McLean.

It is sad and depressing that this should be so. It should matter and if we had a proper senate it would. Of course if we had a proper senate, vacancies would not be filled by the Prime Minister.

When this country came together in 1867 the founding fathers recognized that pure rep by pop would not work in such a vast area as was even represented by Ontario, Quebec and two maritime provinces. While in the mind of Sir John A Macdonald the need for a senate was so that rich people could offset the power of ordinary people who might dominate the House of Commons, hence the then substantial requirement that a Senator have assets of at least $4000, I think we can assume that the inequities of pure rep by pop was in the minds of other founders. In any event, 24 senators for Ontario, 24 for Quebec and 24 for the Maritimes seemed about right. This upper house was sort of a mongrelization of the British inherited House of Lords and the American Senate, which at that time was almost exclusively made up of state appointed, non elected senators. But the Senate created had a number of fatal flaws.

The American senate is not a terribly helpful example for us because of the great number of states involved. Whereas in Canada there were eight provinces contemplated in 1867 – PEI, Newfoundland, a new province in Manitoba and British Columbia - were expected to join or be created - it would obviously be inequitable, if only because of PEI, to have equal provincial representation in the upper chamber. The second flaw with the Senate agreed upon, was that there was no flexible formula which would make the senate representative of the regions as they grew, representing regional interests over pure representation by population while still taking into account the huge population disparities in various provincial populations. I say that is the second fatal flaw – the first was to have senators appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada. When you think about it for a moment, that’s akin to giving management the right to name who will negotiate with them on behalf of the union. One can scarcely expect to have provincial interests pushed in parliament by those who have been appointed by the federal government.

I don’t propose here to do the usual bashing of senators – many, including Senator Perrault, have done much useful work. The late Senator Van Roggen did the seminal paper on US-Canada economic relations that led to the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement. (It was ironic that Van Roggen, a Liberal, fought his own party in supporting Mulroney the Conservative in the fight for free trade) And I have no doubt that, behind those proverbial closed doors, Senator Perreault often made British Columbia’s case on many matters.

The fact remains that we do not have a proper Upper Chamber and we badly need one.

The Germans have worked out the problem of large states v smaller states, or as they call them Lander, by giving larger states a bit more representation than smaller ones … not by any means in proportion to their population for that would defeat the purpose. But this sort of thing could be done in Canada … you might have three levels – 10 senators for any province having more than 15% of the population, 8 for any having more that 10% and six to all others with one each for territories not yet provinces. I don’t cast that notion in stone but just put it forward to indicate that there are formulae that can work to offset the tyranny of the majority without giving that tyranny to the minority.

But, it is argued, why shouldn’t the majority rule? Isn’t that democracy?

It all depends on what you mean by democracy. The United States, if rep by pop is the sole criterion of democracy, isn’t one. Nor are Germany and Australia. Nor indeed now is Great Britain.

Pure democracy, I would argue, only really works in small unitary states and certainly doesn’t work in countries where there are natural and cultural regions. (In Germany’s case we tend to forget that until Bismarck’s time, Germany was dozens of principalities and regions and that today is there is all the difference in the world between a Bavarian and someone from the Rhineland Palatinate, for example.)

The problem with pure rep by pop is that 50%+1 of the governing body gets 100% of the power. In the United States, if the House of Representatives ruled absolutely, a coming together of New York and California Representatives could, and likely would, be able to run the show much as they wished. The only reason, for one example, that defence contracts in the United States have been spread out amongst nearly all states is that each state has two senators.)

It is essential if this country is going to survive that all regions have, in addition to the MPs they send back to Ottawa, a regional say in how the country is run. Some would argue that this is the role of provincial governments but that’s not so. Provincial governments are there to deal with local matters – every Canadian should have an equal say in how the federal government is run.

There have been innumerable suggestions made over the years as to how the senate might be reformed. The Canadian Alliance proposes that we start be electing senators which I think would be a mistake. While the Senate should surely be elected, to elect senators under the present grossly inequitable system would give that body legitimacy and simply ensure domination of the country by Ontario and Quebec.

We won’t have senate reform, of course, because it’s not in the interests of Ontario and Quebec to have it.

When the history of Canada is written 25 years hence, it will, alas, conclude that the reason the country did not stay together was because of irresolvable regional differences and the inability of Canadians to find a way to bring regions together in the exercise of federal power.