Constitutional Experts Skewer NDP Calls for Senate Abolition

[FiveParadox]

Canadian constitutional experts are skewering calls from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for the abolition of The Honourable the Senate, despite the constitutional, democratic, and functional benefits of bicameralism. It has been a long-standing position of the New Democratic Party that the Senate should be abolished, whereas Her Majesty's Government advocates for reform.

Constitutional Reality

The Official Opposition has been pushing the prime minister to enter into consultations with the provinces for the abolition of the Upper House. However, there would be more required than just a push to convince the provinces. Normally, the Senate only has a 180-day suspensive veto when it comes to constitutional amendments. After those 180 days have passed, the House of Commons can re-adopt a proposal and send it directly to the viceroy, without the consent of the Senate.

It is believed that, in the reference question referred to it by the Government, the Supreme Court of Canada will rule that the abolition of the Senate would require the consent of all ten legislatures of the provinces, and that the 180-day suspensive veto of the Senate would not apply (i.e., that the Senate would have an absolute veto over a proposal on whether it should be abolished).

The comprehensiveness of the Senate's integration into the Canadian constitutional framework would also pose a significant challenge to constitutional change. Even the distribution of seats in the House of Commons depends on the structure of the Senate for its seat guarantees in smaller provinces. Such a change would also affect the powers of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada to expand the Senate upon viceregal recommendation, and the Governor General to appoint senators.

Value of Bicameralism

The particular politics of the Senate notwithstanding, the values of bicameralism are clear. The rushed and hyper-political work of the House of Commons must be reviewed with a critical lens, technically corrected and, at times, fully revised or rejected upon closer scrutiny. The majority is not always correct, even when electorally-backed, and so this mechanism to slow things down and take a more critical look at fast-moving proposals is essential to healthy and responsible decision-making.

Possible Changes to Practice

One of the possible changes to the way that the Senate works that constitutional experts have agreed is entirely within the authority of the Government to make without a bona fide constitutional amendment would be the establishment of an "independent appointments commission" to provide non-binding advice to the prime minister on who ought to be nominated to a place on the Senate.

Sources

• Constitutional experts skewer opposition calls for Senate abolition (source)
• The role of the Senate in the legislative process (source)

 

[Goober]

While the Senate generally rubber stamps Govt. Bills it does not always. It has a purpose as a check and balance which should be strengthened.
If I recall correctly the Senate can make, propose and send Bills to parliament???? Help me on that one please.

 

[El Barto]

While the Senate generally rubber stamps Govt. Bills it does not always. It has a purpose as a check and balance which should be strengthened.
If I recall correctly the Senate can make, propose and send Bills to parliament???? Help me on that one please.

I second this question

 

[FiveParadox]

While the Senate generally rubber stamps Govt. Bills it does not always. It has a purpose as a check and balance which should be strengthened.
If I recall correctly the Senate can make, propose and send Bills to parliament???? Help me on that one please.

The Senate has the authority to introduce legislation.

Debate on bills in Senate works the same way as it does in the House, in that it is debated in principle at second reading; it is then referred to a committee to be studied, and is returned to the House with recommendations; the report of the committee is debated and revisions to the bill are made, if needed; the bill is then debated in detail at third reading, before being passed and sent to the House of Commons for its concurrence. The House then debates the bill in its usual way and process.

Government bills are introduced by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (as the person who is usually the only minister of the Crown who sits in the Senate), and represent the official proposals and positions of the Government. Public bills are introduced by any senator, and are bills that affect the Canadian public generally (these are similar to private member's bills in the House, although they stand a much better chance in the Senate of being considered and passed).

Private bills are an interesting category of legislation that are always introduced in the Senate instead of the House of Commons. These are bills that relate to the private interests of an individual or a corporation. For example, the three private bills passed by the Senate this session (all of which have been approved by the House of Commons, and are now law) were to change the name of "Queen's College at Kingston" to "Queen's University at Kingston;" and two acts to allow a specific corporation to apply to continue as a corporation in Québec.

The only exception to the Senate's authority to introduce legislation is on money bills. The Senate cannot introduce a bill that seeks to approve new spending or to raise new revenue. (This is because the Constitution Act, 1867 sets out that only the House can introduce such bills, consistent with practice in the United Kingdom from which our system is derived.) However, the Senate can amend money bills to reduce spending or to lower taxes, and the Senate has the authority to reject money bills (including budgets). The defeat of these bills in the Senate does not trigger the defeat of the Government like it would if it happened in the House (to which the Government is responsible).

In the current session, fifteen Government bills have been introduced (of which eleven have been sent to the House of Commons, and four have become law); fifteen public bills have been introduced (of which three have been sent to the House, and two have become law). Three private bills have been introduced, and all three were sent to the House and have now become law.

(All of this is as of February 23, 2013, for the First Session of the 41st Parliament.)

Source

• Filtered Bills for the Current Session (source)

 

[damngrumpy]

No one wants to open the constitution because we will spend more than a decade
fighting over Quebec. I think the NDP has a point, in a modern society where the
Senators can hold up bills but not veto them period and they are not elected they
are in fact a waste of money.
Open the constitution, discuss the Senate and deal with the Quebec issues and
move on. The time has come

 

[gerryh]

No one wants to open the constitution because we will spend more than a decade
fighting over Quebec. I think the NDP has a point, in a modern society where the
Senators can hold up bills but not veto them period and they are not elected they
are in fact a waste of money.
Open the constitution, discuss the Senate and deal with the Quebec issues and
move on. The time has come

Oh ya, the NDP (separatists in NDP clothing) would love to see this. The beginning of the end of Canada.

 

[FiveParadox]

No one wants to open the constitution because we will spend more than a decade
fighting over Quebec. I think the NDP has a point, in a modern society where the
Senators can hold up bills but not veto them period and they are not elected they
are in fact a waste of money.

This is incorrect.

The Honourable the Senate can insist on amendments to bills (i.e., refuse to pass a bill unless and until the House of Commons agrees to the Senate's proposed amendments). The only amendments that the Senate cannot make are amendments that would appropriate or increase appropriations of funds, or to raise taxes (although the Senate can decrease spending and lower taxes). The Senate actually has an absolute veto over all legislation except for amendments to the Constitution Acts, 1867-1982 made under sections 38, 41, 42, or 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (in which case the Senate can only "hold up" the amendment, as you have said).

While I certainly acknowledge that the legislative process needs to be led by elected representatives, I do absolutely feel that there is a role for appointed senators in a modern and responsible legislative process. Appointed senators are able to make decisions independently of the parties in the House of Commons, which in many cases can result in more accountable governance (for example, forcing a more comprehensive review and debate of the Federal Accountability Act that was rammed through the House of Commons—an Act which was largely disregarded by the Government once it had been enacted in any case, but the Senate performed this function nevertheless).

Bicameralism has tremendous advantages for Canada. Hundreds of corrections have been made to legislation by the Senate; and, more technical and complex bills are routinely introduced in the Senate first, in order to allow for a comprehensive and thorough review and correction process before the bills are considered by the House (this is common in the implementation of, for example, implementation bills for tax or trade agreements). The House depends on another chamber to review these bills with close scrutiny, so that the House can spend more of its time dealing with the partisan legislative elements of the Government's agenda and platform.

Without the Senate, the legislative efficiency and effectiveness of the Parliament of Canada would be severely compromised. The Senate has also conducted a number of independent and authoritative studies that have proven invaluable to the people of Canada. Such studies could never be conducted with any degree of skill or expertise in the hyper-partisan environment of the House of Commons.

These studies, in 2012-2013 alone, included:

• From the Standing Senate Committee on Finance:
  • The CANADA-USE Price Gap (source)
  • First Report on the 2012-2013 Main Estimates (source)
  • Report on the Supplementary Estimates (C), 2011-2012 (source)
• From the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights:
  • Cyberbullying Hurts: Respect for Rights in the Digital Age (source)
  • Level the Playing Field: From Playground to Podium for Canadians with Disabilities (source)
• From the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology:
  • Canada's Clinical Trial Infrastructure: A Prescription for Access to New Medicines (source)
  • Time for Transformative Change: A Review of the 2004 Health Accord (source)
• From the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages:
  • Internet, New Media, and Social Media: Respect for Language Rights! (source)
  • Air Canada's Official Languages Obligations: Towards Substantive Equality (source)
• From the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans:
  • The Sustainable Management of Grey Seal Populations (source)
• From the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources:
  • Now or Never: Vision for Canada's Energy Future (source)
• From the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples:
  • A Commitment Worth Preserving: Reviving the B.C. Treaty Process (source)
• From the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications:
  • The Future of Canadian Air Travel: Toll Booth or Spark Plug? (source)
• From the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade:
  • Intensifying Strategic Partnerships with the New Brazil (source)
  • A Charter "Fit for Purpose": Consultation on the Proposed Commonwealth Charter (source)
• From the Standing Senate Committee on Conflict of Interest for Senators:
  • Conflict of Interest Code for Senators (Amended) (source)

The work that the Senate does is vital and critical to our parliamentary process, and to ensuring that the Parliament of Canada is making the most informed and responsible decisions possible on behalf of Canadians. Elected representative democracy in the House of Commons is only a part of this; the other part is the appointed Senate, which performs its functions admirably.

 

[Machjo]

Oh ya, the NDP (separatists in NDP clothing) would love to see this. The beginning of the end of Canada.

If Canada is worth saving, it will survive opening the constitution. If it can't even survive that, then it's a weak country indeed. Give your country some credit why don't you.

Let's remember the Constitution we currently have is essentially a pre-Reconciliation-era constitution. It definitely needs an overhaul, especially with regards to Sections 16 to 23 which discriminate explicitely in our favour, and Section 25 which is better than nothing but grossly insufficient (Though I suppose it might be sufficient if we got rid of those provisions that discriminate explicitely in our favour).

 

[wulfie68]

If Canada is worth saving, it will survive opening the constitution. If it can't even survive that, then it's a weak country indeed. Give your country some credit why don't you.

Let's remember the Constitution we currently have is essentially a pre-Reconciliation-era constitution. It definitely needs an overhaul, especially with regards to Sections 16 to 23 which discriminate explicitely in our favour, and Section 25 which is better than nothing but grossly insufficient (Though I suppose it might be sufficient if we got rid of those provisions that discriminate explicitely in our favour).

The country won't survive re-opening the constitution right now: there are far too many disparate interests that see their issues as non-negotiable. The actual culture is drastically different as you go from east to west and a lot of it boils down to one central issue: most Westerners (and many Maritimers although they tend to be softer on it than their Western counterparts) don't want the centralized control that Ontario and Quebec do. Ontario and Quebec want to maintain the status quo, because it allows them to control the rest of the country.

 

[damngrumpy]

The NDP is not a separatist organization quite the contrary. Funny when the Liberals
had huge numbers in terms of Quebec seats no one called the Liberal Party Separatists,
when the Federal Conservatives had a big majority of Quebec seats no one shouted
separatists. The NDP is a federal party like the other two.
As for the Senate, they are a waste of time with all the Monarchy trappings, as we still
pretend to be part of a long ago empire of British Culture, that really died with the end of
WWII and our current way is either the longest wake or the longest funeral for such a
culture, the world has ever seen.
Let us get on with our own ways and stop pretending some institutions are useful when
they are not. Face it the only way to get around the nonsense in with regard to the Senate
is for the Government of the day to fill the benches with more of their patronage friends.
Those friends in turn are rewarded with our money.

 

[Machjo]

The country won't survive re-opening the constitution right now: there are far too many disparate interests that see their issues as non-negotiable. The actual culture is drastically different as you go from east to west and a lot of it boils down to one central issue: most Westerners (and many Maritimers although they tend to be softer on it than their Western counterparts) don't want the centralized control that Ontario and Quebec do. Ontario and Quebec want to maintain the status quo, because it allows them to control the rest of the country.

If no one wants to be part of Canada, then maybe the new countries born out of it might become not only stronger, but friendlier towards one another too.

No point forcing people in a country they don't want. I say open the constitution. I'm confident either Canada will survive with its borders intact or, worse case scenario, with new countries in friendly association with one another.

 

[El Barto]

No one wants to open the constitution because we will spend more than a decade
fighting over Quebec. I think the NDP has a point, in a modern society where the
Senators can hold up bills but not veto them period and they are not elected they
are in fact a waste of money.
Open the constitution, discuss the Senate and deal with the Quebec issues and
move on. The time has come

If ever we keep the Senate , then it should be candidates appointed by the people voted by the people and no ties what so ever to the parlement Government.

 

[Cliffy]

If ever we keep the Senate , then it should be candidates appointed by the people voted by the people and no ties what so ever to the parlement Government.

Good idea. All senators should be elected and independent (no party affiliation whatsoever).

 

[Machjo]

Good idea. All senators should be elected and independent (no party affiliation whatsoever).

A non-partisan chamber? Can't have that. It would make Parliament look bad.

 

[Cliffy]

A non-partisan chamber? Can't have that. It would make Parliament look bad.

Good. They already look bad. Parliament should model itself after Nunavut.

 

[taxslave]

There is always some "expert" around telling us why we can''t do something.

 

[Machjo]

Good. They already look bad. Parliament should model itself after Nunavut.

Now you're talking. Non-partisan democracy. It promotes more concensus building rather than all the political brinksmanship we see today.

There is always some "expert" around telling us why we can''t do something.

If we did it, he'd lose his job. But no conflict of interest of course.

 

[Cliffy]

Now you're talking. Non-partisan democracty. It promotes more concensus building rather than all the political brinksmanship we see today.

The party system is detracting from democracy. With majority governments we have a virtual dictatorships and with minority governments we have stalemate but at least we have some cooperation. With no parties we would have to work with consensus, more cooperation and all regions of Canada would have a say. I think it would be a win/win situation.

 

[taxslave]

The party system is detracting from democracy. With majority governments we have a virtual dictatorships and with minority governments we have stalemate but at least we have some cooperation. With no parties we would have to work with consensus, more cooperation and all regions of Canada would have a say. I think it would be a win/win situation.

In theory. But it will slow down the decision making process possibly to the point where nothing gets done. In most cases a bad decision is better than no decision. At least a bad one can be changed.

 

[Trex]

The Senate seems to be slowly evolving into an expensive snakepit
The Conservatives have claimed to want a triple E senate which probably would be the best system for taxpayers in general but I think would involve opening the constitution.
The Liberals want the Senate left the way it is.
The Dippers and the Bloc want it scrapped.
Tinkering with the Senate, by making a trying to make few changes here and there I think would involve at the very least a 7 province 50% population approval.
The Maritimes would never go for the changes because the are presently nicely over represented thus getting 7 provinces to agree to change it seems impossible.
Quebec would probably only be in favour of scrapping it altogether.
Looks like a stalemate.

Back in the day when the LPC was the natural ruling party of Canada they stacked the Senate with Libs which caused the incoming minority Conservatives no end of grief.
The shoe is now on the other foot.
The Conservatives have stacked the Senate with Cons and hold the trump.
If any party or coalition other than Conservatives take power the CPC can block or amend any bill passing through Senate.
In other words the Cons probably can control Government even if they fail to get re elected.
So why would Harper change that?
If Harper cannot get at least a triple E my guess is things will stay the same.

With the taxpayer sucking up the ever increasing expense bill.