Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

How they do it

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:32pm - 0 Comments

If senate reform is, as has been hinted, to be prominent in the government’s fall agenda, it is perhaps worth seriously considering what it is we want the senate to be. And on that note, here is an extensive look at the U.S. Senate, penned by the New Yorker’s George Packer after a few months of observation.

As the senators cast their votes, I noticed Robert Kaiser, the author of “So Damn Much Money,” in the press gallery. I later asked him if, with the passage of two big reform bills in three months, we were witnessing a possible renewal of the Senate. “If you can engage public opinion in a way politicians can understand, public opinion can still blow away money and interest groups,” he said. “But over the past few decades the reflex has grown in the Senate that, all things considered, it’s better to avoid than to take on big issues. This is the kind of thing that drives Michael Bennet nutty: here you’ve arrived in the United States Senate and you can’t do fuck-all about the destruction of the planet.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    Pork-dealers, the lot of them.

    That's all a US senator is.

    We don't need that here.

    • LynnTO

      One such "pork-dealer" recently became President, did he not? This would suggest to me there's more work going on in the Senate down there than you're giving them credit for.

      I don't want a US-style Senate up here, either, but denigrating duly elected members of the body is not the argument I'd use. (In case you're wondering, I'd stick with the propensity toward partisanship among elected officials; the turnover in the Senate, the continual election periods – one third every two years would put our Senate on constant hold, policy-review-wise, and others…)

      • Emily

        CongressCritters do the same thing in the US. They don't have a party system like we do.

        The president, any president, is also always a pork-dealer…it's the only way they can do things there.

        And no, we don't need an elected senate. Either let them do the job as intended, or abolish it, but we don't need a duplicate of the HOC, or any more politicians, or gridlock.

        The US, the UK and Canada would all be better served by eliminating that second level of govt.

        • Blacktop

          No, we need a house of second thought in case the emily Party gets in.

          • Emily

            If there was an 'Emily party' this country would actually be in the 21st century, instead of dawdling along in the 19th.

          • Greg

            Abolish the Senate and turn it into a nice restaurant.

          • Emily

            Be a nice place to hold G20 meetings instead of in downtown Toronto.

  • YYZ

    In his piece, Packer has effectively said that the days of bipartisan cooperation in the senate are effectively dead — and that used to be the Chamber's biggest strength. He cites many reasons for this — but one of them is the idiotic seat distribution.

    I hope any senate reform in Canada does not fall pray to any form of equal representation by region . Anything less than Rep by Pop is a serious affront to democracy; I hope Mr. Harper realizes this.

    • LynnTO

      We're supposed to have Rep by Pop in our House as it is. Is the purpose of the Senate to also represent the needs of individual constituencies, or broader region- or province-based interests at a national level?

      • Blacktop

        By province, originally.

  • kevina

    Hi everyone,

    Wanted to comment on the notion of a reformed/revised Canadian Senate, but very quickly, a little about myself. Simply put, I’m an American with, some say, an inordinate interest in the affairs of other nations. So much so, that I’m a regular Capital Read lurker.

    That said, Packer makes some good points about our Senate, though his reasons may not be 100% accurate. The institution is an utter basketcase, but a lot of that is attributable to a 2-party adversarial system in which it’s almost always in the opposition’s interest to obstruct and oppose. Should initiatives pass, the opposition can point to any sign of failure/trouble and pin it ALL on the governing party. Which is fine if the governing party can pass MOST of it’s legislation. With 60 votes needed in the Senate, it cannot, which makes the upcoming tough choices on taxes, entitlements and spending d@mn near impossible.

    Second, a question. Would a reformed Canadian Senate (if the dreams of proponents ever came to fruition) be able to defeat the Budget/supply? If so, you might want to read THIS.

    I think it’s problematic in a parliamentary system to have the government come solely from the lower house but, via supply, be able to be defeated by the upper house. The gov’t, in essence, needs the confidence of BOTH houses. That has crisis, esp. in a polity with the Bloc as a reality, written all over it.

    • Blacktop

      In regard to oyur second-to last question. They can't now and I doubt if they would ever be so empowered. They can stall only. Our r system isn't a balance-of-power constitution like the US, although some have tried to go that way. The parliamentary tradition now is that spending is firmly in the hands of the Commons, even if a Senate were elected it would probably jhave nothing more than stalling powers on money votes.

      Pehaps some of the regulars here could better answer you.

      I would like to welcome you to the club but I don't think I am myself .

      • Halo_Override

        I'd say you are, but then I never agree with you. :)

  • Blacktop

    Regardless, I don't think any politiocian in his/her right mind wants to reopen the Canadian Constitution. There are a lot of things that some people want to re-write and other who don't want them touched. Could you practically reopen the constitution for a single purpose like senate reform?

    • Emily

      Newfoundland did, for schools.

      • Olaf

        Only because the amendment in question only affected Newfoundland, Emily. There is a different amendment process when only one province is affected, in that it only requires the consent of that province.

        • Emily

          Could be done for anything if you agree ahead of time.

          • Olaf

            What does that even MEAN?

            Yes, of course you can open up the constitution for a single purpose if everyone agreed that it would only be opened up for that single purpose. Blacktops point is that not everyone would agree to open it up for just that single purpose.

          • Emily

            The amending formula is very specific….the entire country doesn't have to agree.

          • Olaf

            Obviously not, you idiot. But a substantial portion does (including the Senate) if you want to change a part of the constitution, like the Senate, that affects a substantial portion of the country. Your example regarding Newfoundland was inapt and entirely inapplicable to the point being made.

            p.s. I think I hate you.

          • Blacktop

            Me too.
            DUDE aka Blacktop

  • kevina

    No, I get that the current system is one in which the Senate's powers are limited, ala the UK House of Lords.

    What I'm wondering is if, as I've read about, a "Triple-E Senate" were enacted, what would the "Equal" part mean? B/c if it's truly "equal", then it certainly should be able to kill supply. Or would it just be "mostly equal?"

    And at any rate, as the Australian example shows, the Senate doesn't have to "kill" supply outright. Delay long enough and at the right time, and presto!, no supply, which, I'd think, triggers a Gen. Election.

    I also suspect the preconceptions of your Senate's role would quickly change with elected, more powerful Senators.

    Thanks for the welcome, though!

    • kevina

      Argh! Meant that in reply to Blacktop.

  • Blacktop

    I believe it means equal respresentatiion, effective powers, and elected. Some of the scholars might know better.

From Macleans