The Canadian Senate rouses
July 4, 2017 7:07 PM   Subscribe

The Canadian Senate has long been a sleepy place - an occasional expense account scandal aside - a retirement home for party fundraisers, losing candidates, and C-level celebrities. On the rare occasions when it has pushed back against Parliament, it has been easy enough to push over. But Prime Minister Trudeau removed all Liberal senators from the Liberal caucus in 2014 and said that he wanted the chamber of sober second thought to "provide a check and balance on the politically driven House of Commons." There are some signs that he is getting his wish, as the Liberal's agenda is now getting bogged down in two chambers instead of just one.

The Conservative Party of Canada theoretically supports replacing the prime ministerial appointment of senators with elected senators, but Stephen Harper didn't make much progress on that. The New Democratic Party - which has never been in a position to appoint any senators - understandably wants to abolish it.
posted by clawsoon (18 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
As long as they are appointed, they should have to wear UK House of Lords-style ceremonial robes.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:38 PM on July 4, 2017 [4 favorites]


As long as they are appointed, they should have to wear UK Lords of Acid-style ceremonial robes.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:38 PM on July 4 [+] [!]

posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 8:06 PM on July 4, 2017 [3 favorites]


The mere mention of the Canadian Senate makes me see red.
posted by My Dad at 9:39 PM on July 4, 2017 [4 favorites]


As an American, let me say: Dear God, why would you ever want a Senate with real power?! All you're doing is creating an extra veto point that will stymie your agenda and muddle accountability for governmental action (or, more likely, inaction). The whole point of parliamentary government is that it can move swiftly in translating majority proposals into policies and thus avoid the endless gridlock that plagues American-style legislatures. I'm with the NDP on this one: just get rid of it.
posted by Cash4Lead at 10:08 PM on July 4, 2017 [2 favorites]


Problem is that changing it requires changing the constitution, which is a can of worms few want to open. They should all have the decency to realize they were not elected and restrict their role to rubber stamping legislation like the GG, unless something flagrantly unconstitutional is passed, in which case they wouldn't be changing the outcome just the timeframe. We didn't elect them, so I don't give a damn if their morals or positions don't agree with legislation, it is simply not acceptable for a bunch of unelected people living on our dime to restrict our elected government. (I didn't vote liberal but they're still our elected government).
posted by WaterAndPixels at 10:34 PM on July 4, 2017 [3 favorites]


As an American, let me say: Dear God, why would you ever want a Senate with real power?! All you're doing is creating an extra veto point that will stymie your agenda and muddle accountability for governmental action (or, more likely, inaction). The whole point of parliamentary government is that it can move swiftly in translating majority proposals into policies and thus avoid the endless gridlock that plagues American-style legislatures. I'm with the NDP on this one: just get rid of it.

But somewhat unlike the American system, the Canadian Prime Minister and Cabinet, armed with a majority government in the House of Commons, has immense power. Executive power in Canada has been increasingly centralized, aided by strict party discipline and other factors, such as the decline of certain of Parliamentary and constitutional conventions (e.g. omnibus bills). So the Senate, as a place of sober second thought, is not necessarily a bad thing. Otherwise, as seen by recent majority governments, the policies of the day can be implemented into law without any real debate or oversight, leaving only the unelected courts to review legislation on a case-by-case basis. It shouldn't have to get that far, and I think a non-partisan Senate could still have a role to play in this regard.
posted by ageispolis at 10:44 PM on July 4, 2017 [8 favorites]


So the Senate, as a place of sober second thought, is not necessarily a bad thing

Talk about damning with faint praise.

The great lesson of the last couple decades of American politics is that if it can be abused, it will be abused; that norms are rules right up until it's more profitable to ignore them; that unwritten rules are a just a Mexican standoff that will end badly some day. The Canadian Senate serves no structural purpose except as a patronage award. It's a sinecure for the loyal and the bribeworthy. It's worthless. Get rid of it.
posted by fatbird at 11:45 PM on July 4, 2017 [4 favorites]


As an Australian, I love senates! Remember it's all fun and games when your guys are in power, but when the other mob are in its a different kettle of fish.

Whilst our senate has stuffed up perfectly good legislation, it has also improved, softened or blocked bad legislation, exposed incompetence and spending that wouldn't see the light of day, and gives a space for (sometimes terrible) voices outside the rigid two party system that dominates our lower house.

By all means reform the Canadian senate, but bicameral houses for life!
posted by smoke at 11:54 PM on July 4, 2017 [6 favorites]


Fatbird: It's worthless. Get rid of it.

If only. But as waterandpixels mentions above, that is not realistically possible. It would require changing the constitution, which would require (IIRC) unanimity amongst the provinces. In other words, practically impossible.

So far it looks like Trudeau's reform is just about the best option. Electing the senators (per the conservatives) would give them democratic legitimacy which sounds like a recipe for a giant American mess to me. And doing nothing (which is essentially what the NDP's proposal amounts to) will just leave it as a rubber-stamping chamber of patronage, expense, and scandal.

I'm currently cautiously optimistic that the current reforms will work. So long as they abide by the (albiet unwritten) rule of not sending the same legislation back more than once...
posted by Arandia at 12:25 AM on July 5, 2017


My Dad: The mere mention of the Canadian Senate makes me see red.

Haha, I see what you did there. Eponysterical, even.
posted by Arandia at 12:30 AM on July 5, 2017 [3 favorites]


which is a can of worms few want to open.

Cans of worms are easy to control. Open the can in light, the worms at the top not wanting UV to kill them will move to the bottom, pushing other worms to the top.

If you are looking for cans to not open in a political sense why not cans of cockroaches or cans of mosquitoes?
posted by rough ashlar at 3:33 AM on July 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


Arandia: It would require changing the constitution, which would require (IIRC) unanimity amongst the provinces. In other words, practically impossible.

Most constitutional changes only require the agreement of 7 provinces with at least 50% of the population. That's what's written down, anyway. But after Mulroney tried to get all provinces on board for Meech Lake and Charlottetown, and let them die when that didn't happen, there's an assumption in practise that changes require unanimity.
posted by clawsoon at 4:00 AM on July 5, 2017


As an American, let me say: Dear God, why would you ever want a Senate with real power?!

Harper was all for a so-called Triple-E (Elected; Effective, having power; and Equal, meaning senators per province) senate because he thinks that Canada should resemble the US in all ways possible. It's also a way for the conservatives to really stack the decks for the larger number of potentially-conservative provinces with low populations against the two or three (Ontario, Quebec and BC) where a large majority of Canadians live, but which often vote Liberal or NDP. IOW, political maneuvering to achieve conservative control over the national agenda even when they can't get more than 1/3 or less of the popular vote. Gerrymandering, in a word.

Trudeau appears to be acting out of a fuzzy-minded ideal without a lot of thought for the consequences, immediate or longer-term.
posted by bonehead at 11:15 AM on July 5, 2017 [3 favorites]




One thing I really like about the US Congress is that the House and the Senate have very different distributions of seats. In Canada, both the House of Commons and the Senate follow similar, almost weighted by population but with some caveats about Quebec and the maritimes and rural votes that count for twice as much as urban ones. I'd love to see a reformed Senate that messed with the formula (literally, there is a formula to distribute ridings). Maybe they Senate gets elected with an alternate voting system that we know will never go through for the House even when parties run on electoral reform. Hard to argue with FPTP when you're the party with the most votes. Maybe the senate could be truly proportional. Maybe the senate could ditch the provinces entirely and be appointed by gender or ethnicity. It needs a shake-up but giving the old geezers in there a modicum more power isn't the way to fix it.
posted by thecjm at 4:05 PM on July 5, 2017


I think Roméo Dallaire's decision to retire from the Senate well before his mandatory retirement date was an admirable one, and throws into stark relief the most craven aspects of said chamber.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:25 PM on July 5, 2017


clawsoon: Most constitutional changes only require the agreement of 7 provinces with at least 50% of the population. That's what's written down, anyway.

The unanimity requirement isn't just an "assumption". It's written down.

The 7+50% scheme is called the "general amending formula", but it's not the only codified amending formula for the constitution. Unanimity is required to address the Crown, language rights, and minimum provincial representation in the House of Commons. It's also required to change the amending formula themselves (s.41 of the Constitution Act 1982).

Now the Senate isn't expressly among the types of amendments that require the s.41 (unanimity) process, but here's the thing: Several of the current amending formulae (including the general and unanimous formulae) require that the Senate approve the amendment. So in order to abolish the Senate, you'd have to amend the amending formulae, and that requires unanimity.

But don't take my word for it - here's the Supreme Court of Canada on the subject (see paras. 103-110).
posted by Clandestine Outlawry at 7:13 AM on July 6, 2017 [4 favorites]


I believe you are traditionally supposed to bring in Marshall McLuhan at this point.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:03 AM on July 6, 2017


« Older In photography, the smallest thing can be a great...   |   United Biscuits Network. The sound of '70s cookie... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments