Canadian Study of Parliament Group: The New Senate.

• Author: Stos, Will

On September 15, 2017, the Canadian Study of Parliament Group convened a one-day conference where academics, journalists, parliamentary staff and parliamentarians were asked to share their thoughts on some of the changes that have occurred in the Senate over the past few years. Diverse perspectives prompted some animated discussions among presenters and audience members, but there was general agreement that we are experiencing a unique moment in parliamentary history.

Evolution of the Senate--Historical Perspective

Members of this first panel, including David Smith, a distinguished visiting professor at Ryerson University, Jean-Francois Godbout, associate professor of political science at the University of Montreal and Jack Stilborn, formerly of the Library of Parliament, examined the original intent behind the formal structure of the Senate in 1867 and some past reform proposals.

Smith, who remarked on the considerable interest in the second chamber today due to the new independent selection process and the Supreme Court ruling on reform rendered in 2014, explained that, constitutionally, the three parts of Parliament are inextricably bound--change in one affects the others. Indeed, he reminded the audience that the Supreme Court called the Senate a key part of the architecture of Confederation. Smith suggested that, to many Canadians outside of Ontario, the Senate was, and remains, an important balance to that province's power. He said it is not "a vestigial institution" to be dismissed merely as a bargaining chip in helping Confederation happen, as some scholars have argued. Smith wondered if Canada will move in the direction of a suspensive veto similar to the UK's 1911 Parliament Act. Although a Globe and Mail editorial supports this idea, Smith suspects the Court may have something to say about such a policy. In closing, he highlighted a link between a rejuvenated independent Senate and the party-constrained MPs in the House. The Senate becomes a protector of the public interest if, as the St. John's Telegram notes, a minority of Canadians can elect a majority government.

Godbout's presentation delved into his research on all recorded divisions in both the House (12,106) and the Senate (1,285). He is using these votes to examine party loyalty and discipline and hopes his analysis may help to explain why there appears to be much more cohesion in parties since the 1930s. Is this cohesion related to electoral pressure and partisan sorting? Franchise expansion? Career or replacement effects? Legislative agenda and Parliamentary rules? Member ideology? Godbout noted that in the Senate there is no electoral pressure or franchise expansion to account for party cohesion as there is in the House, yet he identified an increase in partisanship in the Senate. Why is partisanship in the Senate a problem? Godbout contends the chamber was supposed to be one of sober second thought and to represent regional interests. Partisanship didn't occur as quickly in the Senate as it did in the House, but since the 1960s his research suggests it has become quite partisan. Godbout states that only 133 bills have been vetoed by the Senate. When the same party controls both chambers, only one per cent of bills are vetoed. When the houses are divided, it increases to two per cent. He concluded by noting that social choice theory suggests the new independent selection process predicts little impact on the extent of partisanship.

Stilborn provided a brief history of Senate reform initiatives. Early attempts looked to enhance regional representation, while...