This is the third and final entry in a series comparing the US and Canadian systems of government.
I believe that Canada benefits from having an unelected Senate. That’s because without being elected, the senate have little legitimacy – and its only role can therefore be to act as an emergency brake on the Cabinet and lower house. Canada gets two things from this: (1) a check on the almost absolute power inherient in the system of parliamentary soveriegnty and responsible government and (2) no need to get most legislation through both houses.
This works for Canada because conventions are respected as Constitutional law – even if not written down. Since the entire Executive function is established through convention, so can the limited (in practice, if not in theory) role of the Senate be. By having the Senate’s role unclear, limited and not legitimate (without a direct vote of the people) it can barely function in ordinary times. But if times were ever to get extraordinary, then the Senate would become quite relevant and useful. This is especially that case given that the only situation in which the Senate could perform its role would be when it was to enhance – not take from – the people’s power. That’s because any other move would surely result in the end of the Senate – or in it moving towards direct elections.
The nature of the Senate – in terms of both how Senators are selected and in the length of terms (for how long, to age 75) – makes for a very conservative body. In this sense, conservative merely refers to an inclination to not change things. That’s because the Senators have a vested interested in keeping their amazing jobs intact (near life employment for a ceremonial job). Since the Senate will be comprised of Senators appointed by past governments – it also contributes to a sense of continuity. Finally, the role of patronage serves some useful functions – and provide one outlet for patronage that can result in little practical harm.
If the government finally ever got around to reforming the Senate (instead of just putting if off for ever), and if the Senate were reformed – I think that Canada would be a little less well governed. If the powers of the Senate were increased (an expected result if the Senators are elected), then the Canadian system would be more like the less-accountable US system of two equal houses and three equal branches. That said, if the Senate were to be elected – I would not in the streets (of America, mind you) protesting (nor would I be up at night worrying about the state of Canadian governance).
I feel the same way about the British system. Does Canada have any bishops in the senate? That seems like a good part of the British system too.
No – no Bishops there. But if so, I would disagree with you on that one. I like purely secular regimes. 🙂
Nothing’s more secular than the British Anglican church.
It occurs to me that the odd position of the Anglican church as far as the British goes is a bit like the sovereignty of the Queen — it’s a powerless figurehead church which prevents the threat of a real dose of religion and seems to work better than the American system of separation of church and state which appears to be a source of endless trouble.
It is true that the Church of England is pretty harmless now, but it has become so weak as an institution that Evangelical lunatics are becoming increasingly influential. They have made clear, both on women priests and gay priests, that they stand against theological liberalism.
Probably only the system of filling senior posts by royal patronage is restraining those forces who think the Church took a wrong turn with the restoration of the Monarchy in 1660. I understand the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Australia is spreading this sort of neo-Puritanism through the Anglican Communion.
I consider that the Church of England should be disestablished and that the Bishops should no longer have guaranteed seats in the British Parliament. If they are thought to have a useful contribution to make Anglican leaders can be given life peerages, as has happened with a Chief Rabbi.
I get the impression, possibly wrongly, that the Canadian Senate is a less active institution than the British House of Lords. Does the Senate ever get into the sort of Parliamentary ping-pong on major legislation that the House of Lords sometimes does?
As I understand it the Canadian Senate still has, in theory, equal legislative power to the House of Commons but in practice does not use that power. The House of Lords has only a delaying power but is much readier to use it than the Canadian Senate is to block legislation.
You’re right – while the Senate can technically instigate any bill that doesn’t require the spending of public fund, they don’t. For the most part, they amend bill for clarification – they have a near-infinite number of committees that review line-by-line every bill that comes through, and make minor changes to them.
As for significant Senate actions, there haven’t been too many:
And that’s about it – they don’t do much, but they’re useful. Hrm…a diary on the legal status of Abortion in Canada may be forthcoming (as it’s pretty interesting).
legal approach to abortion – I’d like to know
As long as Canada’s Senate doesn’t have ass hats like Frist in it, theirs will always be superior to that of the US.