Senate Series Part 2: A Bit of History

In our last post about the Senate, we started looking at just what the Senate is. As is often the case, though, it is difficult to understand the present, or plan for the future, without delving into a bit of the past.  So that is today’s task!
Does the Senate only exist because we copied the UK?
No. Although our political system is modelled after that of the UK, our founders did not simply mimic the example; they put in a whole lot of careful thought.
In fact, at the confederation meetings in Quebec City in October of 1864, “practically a whole 6 days of the 14 spent in discussing the details of the [union] scheme were given over to the problems of constituting a second chamber.”[1] Furthermore, it turns out that the inclusion of the Senate – in the precise form that it was and still is today – was a critical factor in confederation occurring at all. George Brown, a journalist and one of our founders, stated that the Senate was: “the very essence of our compact. […] Our lower Canadians friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower house, on the express condition that they would have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step.” [2]
But why did the founders of our confederation want a Senate?
The above quote from George Brown hints at one of the reasons for the decisions made regarding the make-up of the Senate, but, naturawlly, there were quite a few reasons. Let’s have a look at 3 of the big ones!

• Regional Representation:  In the late 1800s, Canada was made up of wide expanses of land, with very different interests and huge variations in populations (still is, just in a different way, but more on that in a later post). A strict representation by population would give certain parts of the country a whole lot more of a say in things that other parts of the county. Why would areas with less people and completely different interests sign up to be governed by a group of people who lived thousands of miles away and knew nothing about their land and their neighbours? Well that’s just it, they didn’t really want to … unless they had some guarantee that somewhere, somehow, their region and their people would be heard, would be learned about, and would have a strong voice.  Hence, a second chamber where there is representation by region – as opposed to the representation by population in the House of Commons.  As noted by Alexander Campbell during the Confederation debates: “the principle of election [of the senate] kept alive a germ of doubt as to the security of the Lower Provinces.”[3] Similarly, Sir John A MacDonald said, as he was pointing out all many of the region’s interests and differences:  “In order to protect local interests, and to prevent sectional jealousies, it was found requisite that the three great divisions into which British north America is separated should be represented in the Upper House on the principle of Equality.” [4]

• Checks and Balances:  A second house, regardless of its make-up, is meant to be a place of “sober second thought”:  a place somewhat protected from the partisanship that can sometimes plague the assembly (i.e.: House of Commons).  A place to ensure that the government of the day does indeed have the mandate to do what it proposes and to do extensive study to ensure that new laws are in the public interest of the time. [5]  In other words, the Senate was to be: “security for political dissent, and respect for minority political rights” and to curb “high-handedness in the Commons”.[6]  According to Sir John A MacDonald:  “It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the Lower House. It must be an independent house, having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people.”[7]

• Broader representation of citizens:  There was a fear that having an elected Senate (which was – and may be again – one of the options) would result in just a second version of the House of Commons, “made up for the most part of citizens who have already made their mark in life [which] might in the end have over-shadowed the assembly, just as the Senate of the United States has over-shadowed [their] House of Representatives.”[8] The founders wanted to ensure that other people (ok, they said men, but we say people), worthy for other reasons, knowledgeable in other areas, who might never choose to undergo the process of running for office, would also have the opportunity to use their expertise in the governance of this new country.  As noted by H.L. Langevin: “…because the very nature of the system prevents a large number of men of talent, of men qualified in every respect and worthy to sit in the Legislative Council, from presenting themselves for the suffrages of the elections, in consequence of the trouble, the fatigue and the enormous expense resulting from these electoral contests in enormous divisions. We know that the system has wearied Lower Canada.”[9]

How then did the founders attempt to ensure that these goals were reflected in the Senate make-up?
In keeping with these stated goals, the founders of confederation included some very specific provisions in the Constitution Act 1867 (formerly known as the British North America Act 1867).
Regional Representation:   When the Senate was established in 1867, the country was divided into 3 regions and each given a certain number of the 72 Senate seats:  Upper Canada (24), Lower Canada (24) and the Maritimes (Nova Scotia (10), New Brunswick (10) and Prince Edward Island (4)).  Any Canadian citizen – by birth or naturalization – who was at least 30 years of age could become a Senator. That citizen had to reside in the province from which he (it was only men at the time!) was appointed. As well, he had to have at least a $4000 net worth and own or have equity in $4000 of property in the province of appointment.[10]  It was believed that coming from and having property in the province of appointment would help to ensure that candidate’s vested interested in, and ingrained perspective of, that region.
Checks and Balances:  In order to help ensure that there was not duplication of roles, and that representation by the people was respected for what it was meant to me, the Constitution Act 1867 clearly defines the differences in the roles of Senators and Ministers of Parliament (MPs).  For example, the documents that appointed Senators stated that they were appointed: “for the purpose of obtaining […] advice and assistance in all weighty and arduous affairs which may be the State and Defence of Canada concern” – this is a different function from elected members who represent their constituents.  Another difference?  Although the Senate can amend “money bills”, it cannot introduce them. As is stated in section 53 on the Constitution Act 1867, “[b]ills for appropriating any part of the Public Revenue, or Imposing any Tax or Impost shall originate in the House of Commons.”
Broader representation of citizens:   Rather than be elected, Senators were to be appointed, by the Governor General, in the name of the King. The Governor General acted customarily on the advice of the Prime Minister, so, effectively, Senators were to be appointed by Prime Ministers. There were no constitutional rules regarding past experience or party affiliation; the idea was that Senators were to be selected based on achievements in their professional field. When the first Senate was selected in 1867, the senators were selected from the provincial legislative assemblies and there was equal representation from government and opposition parties.
As was the case with the last post, this just leads to many more questions, doesn’t it? Fear not gentle reader, lots more fascinating information is on its way. Stay tuned!

---

For more information on the history of the Senate (and I know that some of you may want this!), see:

• The Senate of Canada (Committees and Private Legislation Directorate), A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, accessed on September 13, 2013.
• Janet Ajzenstat, “Bicameralism and Canada’s Founders: The Origins of the Canadian Senate”, Protecting Canadian Democracy, edited by Senator Serge Joyal, (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003), pages 3-30.
• Senator Donald Oliver, The History of the Canadian Senate and Senate Reform, accessed on September 13, 2013. http://senatordonaldoliver.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=97.
• Senator Serge Joyal, “The Senate as the Embodiment of the Federal Principle.” Protecting Canadian Democracy, edited by Senator Serge Joyal, (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003), pages 271-316.