For years, people have been saying Canada’s senate is broken because it’s appointed and has veto powers. Most democratic thinkers don’t believe such power should rest with an appointed body. There are three popular alternatives:
- Elected and powerful
- Appointed and advisory
- Abolished
The senate could become worthy of its authority by being made elected, it could be stripped of its power and changed to an advisory body, or abolished all together.
The elected option asks whether we need to appease a separate circle every time we wish to pass legislation. The advisory option isn’t as lame as you think — because that’s what Britain does. And abolition would remove a number of members (assuming they’re redundant) thereby saving a whack of cash. In all cases, constitutional change is required, which is a very big deal.
Constitution
Our Canadian system requires that any change to the constitutional be adopted by the House of Commons, the Senate, and 7 out of 10 provinces — representing over 50% of the population.
Our constitution, patriated in 1982, has had 11 minor amendments but both attempts at major change have failed. The Meech Lake Accord (1987) attempted to get Quebec’s endorsement (they didn’t sign in ’82, but are still bound). It failed when Manitoba and Newfoundland couldn’t ratify the changes by the deadline. The Charlottetown Accord (1992) tried a similar thing but was defeated by a nationwide referendum. Both accords occurred under leader, Brian Mulroney.
Supreme Court
Our constitution is a legal document that legislators can’t get around. That’s why we have a supreme court to ensure every piece of legislation is legit. So no matter how important the House may think it is, politicians can’t pass anything that violates the constitution. As a result, the Supreme Court is a power check on our elected officials.
England
Cheery old England was initially ruled by a monarch who relied upon nobles for help. In 1215, the nobles forced King John into signing the Magna Carta, which made him share power — specifically in the area of raising taxes (he couldn’t raise them without them). 50 years later, England added an elected element called the House of Commons. So they had a three-tier system:
Monarch <==> Appointed House of Lords <==> Elected House of Commons
Power gradually shifted to the elected body, highlighted by the Glorious Revolution in 1688. That’s when the monarch’s role changed to that of a constitutional monarch — meaning, he or she still had executive powers but those powers were assigned by the elected house.
More importantly, for the sake of this discussion, the House of Lords continues to be appointed. Previously consisting of only the rich, today’s group includes distinguished members from across many fields. Not just former prime ministers and military chiefs, but also senior industry leaders and artists who’ve formed the country’s social fabric — basically, citizens valued for their opinion. And though virtually powerless, this body is heavily influential when it comes to public opinion. For example, during the debate over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, views from the Lords were greatly respected.
USA
Established in 1776, America also decided on a three-tier system. But in their version, the king is elected (president), house representatives are elected every two years (not four), and the senate is elected to six year terms (one third, every two). Plus the senate is geographically representative by holding two members per state. Add a constitution and supreme court, and you see Yanks are loaded with checks and balances.
Yes, the president has executive powers but he or she cannot pass money bills or go to war without the consent of congress (the house and senate).
Canada
Canada liked the American twist of regional representation but kept the British style of making the senate appointed. And herein lies the issue. Maybe that was good for 1867 but is it still relevant today? (Especially knowing that Britain has declawed their own.)
In our 2015 federal election, the NDP were in favour of abolishing the senate while Stephen Harper wanted it elected. (Harper actually tried to appoint only senators who were first elected within their respective provinces but the premiers didn’t go for it). Our new liberal government likes the idea of an appointed body and have opened it up to where anyone can apply (kind of like getting on a game show), but the Canadian senate still owns voting powers. In the end, the debate will continue until the country reaches some consensus because we don’t want to open up the constitution until we’re really sure something will pass.
Notes: The US Senate was initially appointed by state legislatures. The 17th amendment, passed in 1913, changed it to elected positions.
Before 1982, we just had the British North America Act (with no local amending formula) and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both were incorporated into our constitution. To see the whole package, click here.
Meech Lake included changing the amending formula from 7 out of 10 provinces to all 10. This new formula was used for passing the accord. That’s why Manitoba or Newfoundland could bring it down.