Senate reform appears to be back on the table. Why do we need Senate reform? Apart from being unaccountable (since it is appointed), the regional representation bears no relation to population. So if you want an elected Senate (or technically, Senators appointed on the advice of the people), then you also need to bring representation more in line with population distribution. This will necessarily be imperfect, because it is believed that reforms must obtain the support of 7 of 10 provinces. Practically speaking that means that no more than 3 provinces can lose Senate seats.

First, I propose adopting the government’s former bill C-56, with one small change. This would grant Alberta 5 more MPs, BC 7 more MPs and Ontario 13 more MPs (the government’s bill adds 10). All other provinces/territories remain the same. The House of Commons would therefore have 333 MPs:

House of Commons
Ontario 119 (+13 from today)
Quebec 75 (0)
B.C. 43 (+7)
Alberta 33 (+5)
Manitoba 14 (0)
Saskatchewan 14 (0)
Nova Scotia 11 (0)
New Brunswick 10 (0)
Newfoundland & Labrador 7 (0)
P.E.I. 4 (0)
Northwest Territories 1 (0)
Yukon 1 (0)
Nunavut 1 (0)
TOTAL = 333

The Senate would be comprised of 37 Senators from 3 regions (not unlike Canadian junior hockey!): East (Quebec eastward), West (Manitoba westward, including the North), Central (Ontario), for a total of 111, a ratio of exactly 3 MPs per Senator. Therefore, Senators would be elected in districts that are, on average, the size of 3 ridings (i.e. every 3 ridings would become a Senate district). In the case of the 4 biggest provinces, some urban Senate districts will be 4 ridings large and in the case of the smaller provinces, some Senate districts will the same size as ridings. The distribution would be as follows (* = provinces supporting the reform plan):

Senate
East:
*Quebec 25 (+1 from today)
*P.E.I. 4 (0)
Nova Scotia 4 (-6)
New Brunswick 4 (-6)
Newfoundland & Labrador 4 (-2)
TOTAL = 37

West:
*British Columbia 12 (+6)
*Alberta 10 (+4)
*Manitoba 6 (0)
*Saskatchewan 6 (0)
Northwest Territories 1 (0)
Yukon 1 (0)
Nunavut 1 (0)
TOTAL = 37

Central:
*Ontario 37 (+13)
TOTAL = 37
SENATE TOTAL = 111

Obviously, 3 provinces lose out: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland & Labrador, since they are currently over-represented. This new alignment simply grants all provinces in Atlantic Canada 4 Senate seats. Ontario, B.C., Alberta, and Quebec all gain Senate seats, while the territories, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and P.E.I. all stay the same. This means that 7 of 10 provinces gain or stay the same, hopefully allowing the reforms to pass (with NS, NB and NL opposing).

So, what would these new 3-riding (on average) Senate districts look like? A few examples:

NORTHWEST ONTARIO (ON) DISTRICT, comprised of:
Kenora
Thunder Bay-Rainy River
Thunder Bay-Superior North

LONDON (ON) DISTRICT, comprised of:
London-Fanshawe
London North Centre
London West

CENTRAL TORONTO (ON) DISTRICT, comprised of:
St. Paul’s
Trinity-Spadina
Toronto Centre

VICTORIA (BC) DISTRICT, comprised of:
Victoria
Saanich-Gulf Islands
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca

LAVAL (QC) DISTRICT, comprised of:
Alfred-Pellan
Laval
Laval-les-Iles

and so on…

Senators would serve 8 year terms (I have no problem with Senators being allowed to stand for re-election, but perhaps a 2- or 3-term limit would be wise). Senate elections would be staggered, with half being elected in each election cycle (i.e. every 4 years on fixed election dates). So, every other election (i.e. every 8 years on fixed election dates, House of Commons elections are every 4 years on fixed election dates), in addition to casting a ballot for your local MP, you also cast a ballot for your district Senator (with every 3 ridings, on average, comprising a Senate district).

This would represent real Senate reform.