Canadian Senate Takes Another Hit

JamesHackerMP · July 15, 2016

I've talked to a couple of Canadians on this subject a long time ago, and this is another thing I'm trying to figure out, so if I someone would be nice and patient and explain it to me, this Yank would be most appreciative. I've got 3 questions regarding the Canadian Senate.

Question #1: As far as an abolition of your upper house, if the Senate does (as a Canadian I'm friendly with alleges) have so little power, then why not abolish it and have a unicameral federal parliament like one of you suggested?

Leading to Question #2: could Canada actually maintain its principle of federalism, without an upper house?

In the United States, such an abolition would destroy the principle of federalism in the United States. But I'll seriously go out on a limb here and make the bold assumption that most American political principles do not apply to Canada.

The respondent who mentioned New Zealand is correct: the Legislative Council was abolished in 1950. However, New Zealand is not a federal state, as yet another one of you pointed out. On the other hand: the Republic of Austria IS a federal state, and they've been talking about abolishing the Bundesrat (National Council) for some time, because it has next to no power at all; it's kind of an...appendage, really, in many people's opinions. (But my information on Austria comes from Wikipedia so you never know.)

And to sum things up with Question #3: what sort of/how much power does the Senate of Canada really have? Especially considering that the Government of Canada is responsible to the Commons alone, not to both chambers, if I have understood correctly?

Smallc · July 15, 2016

The Senate has vast power allowing them to block legislation and delay constitutional amendments by up to 6 months. They don't, however, (generally) use that power, as it's felt that they'd risk being seen as illegitimate thwarting the elected commons. What they do is give bills careful study, and tweak legal meanings and words. They also make recommendations. A recent example is the assisted dying legislation. The Senate sent it back to the house with major changes, but then passed a revised bill containing only minor changes, rather than the major one they had asked for.

Smallc · July 15, 2016

I think getting rid of the upper house would be a mistake. I think the minor change that Trudeau has made, if it is continued, goes a long way toward increasing the legitimacy of the body.

dre · July 15, 2016

When did they stop any of Harper's omnibus bills or obnoxious legislation?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/senate-made-terrible-mistake-blocking-bills-pm-1.246018

They blocked four of them there. I think its about 20 in total during Harper's lost decade. The courts had to block a bunch as well.

In any case this is a good argument for having the Senate. Members of the HOC are whipped, lazy, partisan, ideologues. In the Senate its quite normal for senators to vote against a bill that was created by the party that appointed them. In the HOC nobody is even allowed to vote their conscience.

We have all this whining about the Senate and the Supreme court... always along the lines of "Oh meee gawd! They arent elected!". But the reality is those two branches of government are much more professional and sober, and non partisan than the HOC.

The HOC is what is "broken". Whipping votes is a complete subversion of democracy and should be illegal. Lets not even get started on the whole "pay for play" system the HOC and corporate Canada has created in Ottawa.

dre · July 15, 2016

I think getting rid of the upper house would be a mistake. I think the minor change that Trudeau has made, if it is continued, goes a long way toward increasing the legitimacy of the body.

I think all this whining about the SOC and Senate is just sour grapes. The real problem is the HOC and that's where we should focus reform efforts. We have this big expensive sham of an election where people from all over the country vote for someone to represent their riding... But when that person gets to Ottawa they are told how to vote on almost every bill by party officials. Fix that.

Queenmandy85 · July 15, 2016

The best way to fix the HOC is to abolish the position of Prime Minister. That would lessen the whipped votes and, since there is no brass ring, MP's would not be driven by so much ambition.

The office of Prime Minister is not a constitutional institution so no constitutional amendment is required.

Smallc · July 15, 2016

The best way to fix the HOC is to abolish the position of Prime Minister. That would lessen the whipped votes and, since there is no brass ring, MP's would not be driven by so much ambition.

The office of Prime Minister is not a constitutional institution so no constitutional amendment is required.

So, what would we use instead?

-1=e^ipi · July 15, 2016

Question #3: what sort of/how much power does the Senate of Canada really have? Especially considering that the Government of Canada is responsible to the Commons alone, not to both chambers, if I have understood correctly?

It can block essentially all legislation it wants. Historically it hasn't done that because historically it's been filled with party hacks by the prime minister, so usually the party in power of the senate is the same as the party in power in the HoC.

What they do is give bills careful study, and tweak legal meanings and words. They also make recommendations.

If you want more study, why don't you instead use the money wasted on the senate on universities and fund universities to do more studies? That is more cost effective.

Smallc · July 15, 2016

They study bills and make changes before they're passed, as is their job. It has nothing to do with research.

Queenmandy85 · July 15, 2016

So, what would we use instead?

Follow the Constitution. The ministry would be appointed by and meet regularly with the head of state or the Governor General.

Smallc · July 15, 2016

Follow the Constitution. The ministry would be appointed by and meet regularly with the head of state or the Governor General.

That's not how constitutional monarch works. The monarchy holds the power, and the cabinet wields it. The monarchy will not act without advice, as that would be anti democratic. The cabinet needs a leader or else governing would be nonsense.

It's also worth noting that our entire constitution is not written. It is precedent that there be a prime minister. I'm not sure you could just do away with a government leader of some kind without a constitutional crisis.

Queenmandy85 · July 15, 2016

That's not how constitutional monarch works. The monarchy holds the power, and the cabinet wields it. The monarchy will not act without advice, as that would be anti democratic. The cabinet needs a leader or else governing would be nonsense.

It's also worth noting that our entire constitution is not written. It is precedent that there be a prime minister. I'm not sure you could just do away with a government leader of some kind without a constitutional crisis.

I should have prefaced my comment with the acknowledgement that this is not what could happen.

JamesHackerMP · July 16, 2016

If I understand correctly, being based on the Westminster model of government, there's been (officially) prime ministers in Westminster since the 19th century, and unofficially since the mid 18th. If you get rid of a prime minister in a parliamentary system, you get rid of the representative of the elected politicians. Justin Trudeau is not elected by the people-at-large, but he's elected by people who are.

If I understand your debate correctly, you're worried that turning the Senate into an elected chamber would cause "obstruction" a la the US Senate. Am I correct?

cybercoma · July 16, 2016

I don't want a regional house of commons in the style of the US Senate - I want a Senate that is somewhere between what we have and what they have. I think if we were to follow what they used to do, and allowed the provinces to select their own senators (an equal number for each) with similar powers to those that exist now, it would be useful.

An equal number of Senators for each province would be a HUGE imbalance. We've talked about this before so we're never going to agree. However, I don't believe the Atlantic provinces should have nearly HALF the power of the upper house. That's not fair to any of the other regions and I live in the Maritimes.

Smallc · July 16, 2016

An equal number of Senators for each province would be a HUGE imbalance. We've talked about this before so we're never going to agree. However, I don't believe the Atlantic provinces should have nearly HALF the power of the upper house. That's not fair to any of the other regions and I live in the Maritimes.

I think as a counterbalance two things should happen:

a. true rep by pop for each province.

b. there should only be one Atlantic province, and only one prairie province. There would be only 6 provinces.

Bob Macadoo · July 16, 2016

I think as a counterbalance two things should happen:a. true rep by pop for each province.b. there should only be one Atlantic province, and only one prairie province. There would be only 6 provinces.

If you asked Thunder Bay to amalgamate with Toronto today you would get a revolt. Never get Acadiens to join NS; dilute their voting power.

Smallc · July 16, 2016

If you asked Thunder Bay to amalgamate with Toronto today you would get a revolt. Never get Acadiens to join NS; dilute their voting power.

Something has to give in provinces like Newfoundland, and to a lesser extend, New Brunswick and Manitoba. The finances just don't make any sense anymore for 10 provinces, I don't think.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Smallc

Bonam · July 16, 2016

Something has to give in provinces like Newfoundland, and to a lesser extend, New Brunswick and Manitoba. The finances just don't make any sense anymore for 10 provinces, I don't think.

Government that is closer to local tends to be better and keeps its constituents better in mind. Amalgamating the prairies into one province would only decrease the quality of provincial government for everyone in the prairies. Population is only increasing in the prairies so if they've been fine as individual provinces thus far, they'll be just fine in the future, too.

Smallc · July 16, 2016

Government that is closer to local tends to be better and keeps its constituents better in mind. Amalgamating the prairies into one province would only decrease the quality of provincial government for everyone in the prairies. Population is only increasing in the prairies so if they've been fine as individual provinces thus far, they'll be just fine in the future, too.

You could make an argument for leaving Manitoba and Saskatchewan as they are (I hadn't included Alberta in the merged province). The Atlantic region is in a much more dire circumstance, in terms of budgets and populations.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Smallc

-1=e^ipi · July 16, 2016

They study bills and make changes before they're passed, as is their job. It has nothing to do with research.

The house of commons can study bills and make changes before they are passed. Don't need a senate for that.

Smallc · July 16, 2016

The house of commons can study bills and make changes before they are passed. Don't need a senate for that.

The house can, you're right, but only from their narrow angle as elected politicians. People with a different perspective are welcome.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Smallc

-1=e^ipi · July 16, 2016

The house can, you're right, but only from their narrow angle as elected politicians. People with a different perspective are welcome.

Why not just have a proportional house of commons? Then you will have more diverse perspectives represented.

Bonam · July 16, 2016

You could make an argument for leaving Manitoba and Saskatchewan as they are (I hadn't included Alberta in the merged province). The Atlantic region is in a much more dire circumstance, in terms of budgets and populations.

I don't know enough about the Atlantic provinces to have a good feel for whether it would make sense for them to merge. I don't see why they would want to, politically, though... the present situation gives them extra representation on the federal stage.

Smallc · July 16, 2016

I don't know enough about the Atlantic provinces to have a good feel for whether it would make sense for them to merge. I don't see why they would want to, politically, though... the present situation gives them extra representation on the federal stage.

I know it does, and I wouldn't expect that they'll agree. It's financial pressures that may cause it.

Bob Macadoo · July 16, 2016

I know it does, and I wouldn't expect that they'll agree. It's financial pressures that may cause it.

No financial pressure from Ottawa will cause it......that will just cause multiple visits to the Supreme Court. The only way you would convince them is to increase their Senate proportion and/or funding formula proportion with long term guarantees.