Senate

Speaker of the Senate, Noël A. Kinsella Interview

Greg Farries — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:53:45 -0600

Members of the Maple Leaf Web Forums where given the opportunity to propose questions to Speaker Kinsella. A few of those questions were included in this interview.

Greg Farries: The Speaker plays an important role in the day-to-day operations of the Senate. What do you consider the Speaker’s most vital role in the Senate? Moreover, what qualities do you feel make an effective Speaker?

Speaker Kinsella: Well, first and foremost, the responsibility of the speaker in any chamber in the Westminster Parliamentary system is to maintain order and to facilitate the smooth functioning of debate. The debate is the life and soul of Parliament. So, the Speaker’s responsibility is to ensure that the Standing Orders of the House are respected, that the debate proceeds in an orderly fashion and that the members’ privileges are protected. That is basically the function the Speakers play, whether in any of the legislative assembles in Canada or the two Houses of Parliament.

Greg Farries: When most people think of Parliament they often think of the lively debate that takes place during the House of Commons question period. Is it a similar situation in the Senate?

Speaker Kinsella: No, it would be quite different in the sense that the responses to the questions raised in the Senate come from two groups of Senators. On one hand, the Leader of the Government in the Senate responds to all questions raised concerning issues of the Government. The exception — and we’re in one of those exceptional circumstances today — is if there is another Senator who is a Minister of the Government. Today, it is Senator Michael Fortier, the Minister of Public Works who may be asked questions by the Honourable Senators. But the questions may only relate to his ministerial area of responsibility, namely, public works. Senator Marjory LeBreton, who is a member of the Government and represents the Government in the Senate, answering all questions (other than public works) in the name of the Government.

The other group of Senators who may be asked questions during Question Period are any of the Chairs of the Senate Standing Committees. They are required to answer questions and the Standing Orders provide for that.

Greg Farries: The public tends to be unaware of the Senate’s role. What would you stress is the most vital function of the Senate in Canadian politics?

Speaker Kinsella: Under our Canadian Westminster System of parliamentary democracy, the role of the Upper Chamber is fundamentally to be a house of review. Normally government legislation commences when it is presented by the Government in the House of Commons. The bill goes through the same legislative steps in the Senate, as it would in the House of Commons: first reading; second reading; which is then followed by a debate on the principle for a given bill and referral of that bill to a committee for detailed study and input. Witnesses may also be called by the committee to give expert testimony on the content of the given bill. Then it is reported back to the [Senate] Chamber with or without amendments before it goes on third reading. [After third reading] a message is sent back to the House of Commons stating the Senate has studied the bill and concurs with the bill unamended, or recommends given amendments. So fundamentally, the legislative role of the Senate is to serve as a house of review.

Theoretically, the function is that you get better legislation if you’ve got two Chambers looking at a legislative proposal, rather than one Chamber.

Greg Farries: Traditionally, a key role of the Senate is to provide sober second thought on legislation passed by the House of Commons. During its history, the Senate has acted on this role, stalling the passage of certain pieces of legislation, the most famous recent example being the 1988 US-Canada Free Trade Agreement. As Speaker, do you believe this is an appropriate role for the Senate?

Speaker Kinsella: First off, it’s important to understand the rules of procedure, which have a history in our country of over 140 years. [These rules] provide us with a good foundation as to what the parliamentary procedural opportunities are. Sometimes delay or making sure sufficient attention is drawn to a given legislative proposal — so that the public can be aware of the proposal — is a legitimate procedure used by Senators. Senators have in the past — as they have in the other Chamber if there is criticism on a bill and they want the public to be aware of the criticism — used delay as a parliamentary tactic.

The Senate’s role is to exercise its responsibilities to review legislation to make sure Parliament really knows what it is proposing to make law. The tradition in Canada for the past 140 years is, if at the end of the day, there is a disagreement [interrupted by an election] — as there was with the Liberal majority in the Senate in the case you’ve cited, where a national federal election intervened, the Conservative government was returned and the Liberal majority remained in the Senate — the Senators recognized that the Government had been re-elected and they agreed to the free trade bill. In other words, they continued to respect the constitutional convention, which states that at the end of the day, the Senate yields to the will of the House of Commons. Why? Because the House of Commons members are directly elected by the people of Canada.

Greg Farries: Another key role of the Senate has been to investigate social and political issues facing the country. This role often overlaps with public inquiries, the most recent example being investigations in the future of public health care in Canada, which were undertaken by both the Senate and a Royal Commission. What advantages are there to having the Senate investigate public issues, as opposed to holding a full-blown public inquiry?

Speaker Kinsella: The record certainly demonstrates that public policy inquires or studies that the various Senate committees undertake are, in fact, first-class pieces of work. The example you have given, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology did do a study from a policy development point-of-view of the health system in Canada. And that study was occurring while there was a Royal Commission underway on the same topic. At the end of the day, the Senate Committee report was adopted by the Senate; it ended up being the foundation upon which the Government of Canada went forward in improving the public health care system. Obviously, there was some overlap [with the Royal Commission’s report on Health Care], but there were some differences. The Government found that the Senate study was a more appropriate way, and it wanted to base its policies on what the Senators came up with.

That is not surprising when considering on that particular committee, as we find on other committees, the honourable members who sat on that committee were extraordinarily gifted men and women. For example, the chair of that committee was former Senator Michael Kirby, who has had years of experience in public policy: he was Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council. The Vice-Chairman of the committee was Doctor Wilbert Keon, one of Canada’s pre-eminent cardiology surgeons, a former director of the Ottawa Heart Institute. There were a number of other members of that committee that were highly qualified. This is the advantage of having Senators who come from vast professional backgrounds and experience.

When one looks at the composition of the Senate, it’s very impressive to see some of the skill sets that are present, skill sets that are then brought to bear on these policy studies undertaken by the Senate.

Greg Farries: Do you agree with limiting the terms Senators may serve? [This question was submitted by forum member Capricorn.]

Speaker Kinsella: Let me add to that question in this way: my analysis of the Canadian system of governance proceeds from the standpoint of how well has the practice of freedom been in Canada. If you look over the past 140 years, freedom has had, in my opinion, a fairly grand success in Canada. Yes, along that way there have been some bumps and unfortunate things, and perhaps not always a smooth road. I think, for example, of the incidents like Komagata Maru, the internment of Japanese Canadians, the Chinese head tax, and others incidents like these. By and large, looking at Canada today, I cannot find any other country around the world where freedom, democracy and democratic values are as rich as they are in Canada. I say to my students, if you can find that place, let me know where it is.

Therefore, I come to the conclusion that there has got to be a few things right about the Canadian system of governance, based upon our experience of freedom during the past 140 years. Now, with that backdrop, can our institutions, all of our institutions, be improved? As you know, Parliament, under our Constitution, is composed of three constituent elements: the Crown, the House of Commons, and the Senate. Can each of these institutions be improved? No doubt. Any organization can be improved. But I do believe that the fundamental model of these three constituent elements of Parliament is valuable, and that there are lots of things right about it. To answer your specific question of the bill [on limiting terms introduced by the Government] that is in Parliament, that bill — and looking at the issue of terms — speaks to one of the three big questions about reform. The first is accountability. The second issue is the selection process: as we all know, on July 1, 1867 Canada came into existence with this particular model of governance. On July 2, 1867 the debate on Senate reform began and has been going on for the past 140 years. Very often the focus has been on the selection process.
We also have a proposed constitutional resolution brought forward by Senator Murray and Senator Austin dealing with the issue of representation; in particular, what is perceived as the under-representation of British Columbia and Western Canada. That is the third big question around Senate reform.

What pleases me is that for the first time in our history we have three big questions on the order paper for debate in Parliament. We have had, on term limits, witnesses appearing before the committee examining the issue of term limits and a fair amount of debate. We’ve never had that before, and the present Parliament is certainly engaged in this issue.

Greg Farries: In terms of Senate reform, with all these different proposals floating around, in your opinion, what reforms could be implemented to improve the effectiveness of the Senate?

Speaker Kinsella: I think the Senate is very effective as a second chamber on an operational basis. I think, as all institutions, it could be improved if we are able to come up with a model for improving the selection process and term process, as well as dealing with regional representation issue. If one reflects upon the representation side of things — the representational model that is used for selecting members of the House of Commons — how brilliant and wise the Fathers of Confederation were back in 1867. In the House of Commons today, there are 308 members and from the province of Ontario alone, there are some 106 members; one third of the members of the House of Commons come from one province alone. That means a third of the political power is concentrated in one province. The wisdom of Fathers of Confederation was to use the Upper Chamber as a balance to the House of Commons.

The three Maritime provinces were created as a division, and were given 24 senators. Upper Canada and Lower Canada each had 24, so that you had some degree of equality. In today’s terms, the inequality that many of people perceive is that Western Canada, that is, west of the Ontario border, was created as one division and only given 24 senators. That principal of balance and fettering the awesome power of the House of Commons — which centres power in one province — brings the wisdom of having representation in the Senate as a counter balance. Indeed Confederation would never have occurred (in the opinion of some authors) had the Senate not been part of the system proposed.

Greg Farries: Do you think there are any reforms that would ensure that Senators not only represent the geographic diversity of Canada, but also the cultural and ethnical diversity?

Speaker Kinsella: That’s a very interesting question. In some parts of the world where they have bicameral systems, they make a special effort to have a percentage of members coming from different ethnic or national groupings. I see that working in some countries, and I’ve seen it not work so well in other countries. In some countries that started off with a bicameral system where the selection process was the same in each chamber, they ran into the difficulty of their parliaments becoming paralyzed because the lower and the upper house made the same claim to electoral legitimacy. In some incidences they abolished one of the two houses and then ended up with a unicameral system. I think all of this is about the history and local experience of a country and its peoples. As I said, that is why I believe that we have to be very, very prudent and understand what the real test is. In my opinion, the real test of the effectiveness of governance is how well does freedom prevail in that particular country.

Greg Farries: Is it possible to enact these types of Senate reforms within the existing framework, or do we need to crack open the Constitution?

Speaker Kinsella: I believe there is an opportunity here. That is why I am very supportive of the current Prime Minister and I’ve congratulated him on being the first Prime Minister to at least get those three big questions on the order papers of Parliament. Which model, at the end of the day, would be accepted, and which model would be achieved through an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act as opposed to an amendment to the constitution? That is a technical issue.
The issue of the Senator-selection process in the Government’s bill is a very interesting one. It is very respectful of the current constitution; it is advisory, so that the purgatives of the Prime Minster remain. I like the indirect election model for the Upper House, whereby the Prime Minister would nominate a person for a province where there is a vacancy, and it would be tested by the legislature of that particular province.

Greg Farries: What is the reception of the other Senators to these proposals?

Speaker Kinsella: I think every Senator you speak with will engage in a good discussion on Senate reform. Some of them have done a fair amount of writing and reading in the area. I think all Senators have a strong opinion on this subject.

Greg Farries: I think you might agree there are some misconceptions about the Senate. The general public may not have a keen understanding of the Senate or what exactly it accomplishes; hence they may respond that it needs to be reformed or perhaps abolished. However, what you’re saying in this interview is that it is effective. What can the Senate do to improve the public’s perception of the Senate?

Speaker Kinsella: As Canadians, we are bombarded with what we learn about governance from our neighbours to the South and their particular system. And because the terminology is similar, many people would be of the view that the House of Representatives is similar to the House of Commons and that the US Senate is the same as the Canadian Senate. But that is a congressional system, which is radically different from our parliamentary system. There would be very few students, even at the universities in Canada, who would understand this distinction. We need to take the time to first understand our system of governance and, from my point of view, see what we’ve achieved with this system. [We should also] recognize that any modifications we make to the Senate should mean that the burden of proof is on those proposing the modifications and the practice of freedom will be enjoyed as much or more under the modified system.

Greg Farries: Do you think the Senate will be reformed in your lifetime or perhaps during your tenure as Speaker? [This question was submitted by forum member, August1991.]

Speaker Kinsella Yes, I am very hopeful that we are going to be successful in bringing about some positive modifications not only to the Senate but also the House of Commons. No doubt at some point in time Canadians will be reflecting upon what modifications are meaningful in terms of a third element of Parliament, the Crown.

Greg Farries: That’s great to hear, I certainly hope that this interview helps people understand the Senate a bit more.

Speaker Kinsella: Thanks you very much for calling,

Greg Farries: Thanks and goodbye.

Interview with Senate Speaker, Noël A. Kinsella, Please Submit Your Questions!

Greg Farries — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:45:07 -0700

I am scheduled to do an interview with Senator Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker of the Canadian Senate. I'm providing visitors (and forum members) the opportunity to submit potential questions to Senator Kinsella.

This interview will touch on several subjects, including questions relating to the Canadian Senate, and some of the proposals to reform the Senate. Your questions can be emailed directly to me, or you can post the questions in this weblog thread or this forum thread.

Your questions can be submitted until Friday, February 15th, after which I will select three (or more) interesting questions and include them in the batch asked to Senator Kinsella. The interview will appear in the Interviews section of Mapleleafweb.

Any off-topic or disrespectful postings or questions will be deleted.

The Opposition in the Canadian House of Commons: Role, Structure, and Powers

Jay Makarenko — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:32:54 -0700

The opposition is an important element of the Canadian parliamentary tradition and the day-to-day operation of government. This article examines the role, structure and powers of the opposition in Canada’s premier national legislature, the House of Commons. This includes discussions of the basic nature of opposition politics, the powers of the opposition in the House, the role of the Official Opposition (as a component of the opposition), and the disadvantages faced by the opposition in its relationship with the government.

Introduction to Opposition Politics in Canada

What is the opposition and what does it do?

Powers of the Opposition in the House of Commons

How does the House opposition “oppose” the government?

The Official Opposition in the House of Commons

Overview of the Official Opposition and the Opposition Leader

Limits on the Opposition in the House of Commons

Can the House opposition effectively oppose the government?

Sources and Links to Further Information

Lists of article sources and links to more on this topic

Introduction to Opposition Politics in Canada

What is the opposition and what does it do?

Parliamentary System and the Opposition

Opposition politics in Canada stems from the nation’s basic parliamentary system of government. Central to this system is the specific way governments (that is, the Prime Minister and Cabinet) are chosen. In Canada, citizens do not directly elect their Prime Minister. Instead, citizens elect representatives to the House of Commons, who then select a Prime Minister from amongst themselves. Who becomes Prime Minister and forms the government thus depends on who can muster the most support amongst members of the House.

This process of choosing a Prime Minister operates within a strict political party system. Elected representatives in the House usually belong to a federal political party, such as the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada or the New Democratic Party of Canada. In selecting who will become Prime Minister and form the government, elected representatives usually support the leader of the political party to which they belong. As such, who becomes Prime Minister, and forms the government, depends on which political party has the most elected members in the House.

For more information on Canada’s parliamentary system:

Mapleleafweb: Parliamentary Government in Canada: Basic Organization and Practices

The House of Commons, therefore, is divided along an important line. On the one hand, there is the government side. This includes the Prime Minister, his/her Cabinet ministers, and all those other members of the legislature who share party allegiance with the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In the 39th Parliament, for example, the Conservative Party of Canada formed the government side in the House.

On the other hand, there is the opposition side (also referred to as the “opposition” or the “opposition parties”). This includes all those representatives in the House who belong to political parties not in government. In the 39th Parliament, this included those representatives belonging to the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois.

The Opposition’s Basic Function

Under Canada’s parliamentary system, the basic function of the opposition is to oppose the government on a day-to-day basis (hence, the term “opposition”). In this role, the opposition takes on an adversarial role vis-à-vis the government. This includes routinely criticizing government legislation and actions, as well as providing the Canadian public with alternative policies. In some cases, the opposition may even organize to bring down the government, by voting against key pieces of government legislation, such as the annual budget (this is formally referred to as a vote of non-confidence).

See the Powers of the Opposition in the House of Commons section of this article for more information on precisely how the opposition may oppose the government.

In theory, then, the opposition acts as a check on the government’s power. In practice, however, it can usually do little more than criticize and attempt to publicly embarrass the government. This is due to the level of control the government has over the parliamentary process, as well as the prevalence of majority governments in Canadian politics, which enable the governing political party to dominate votes in the House.

See the Limits on the Opposition in the House of Commons section of this article for more on the opposition’s ability to act as a check on government power.

The Opposition versus the Official Opposition

In Canadian politics, one often hears the terms “opposition” and “Official Opposition.” What is the difference? As stated above, the “opposition” refers to all those elected representatives in the House who belong to political parties not in government. The title of “Official Opposition,” by contrast, is reserved for the largest of these opposition parties; that is, the opposition party that has the most representatives in the House. In the 39th Parliament, for example, the Liberal Party of Canada was the largest political party not in government, and thus became the Official Opposition.

While the Official Opposition receives certain special privileges, it does not have any formal authority over the other opposition parties in the House.

See The Official Opposition in the House of Commons section of this article for more on the role and powers of the Official Opposition.

Powers of the Opposition in the House of Commons

How does the House opposition “oppose” the government?

Questioning and Debating the Government

As discussed above, the opposition criticizes government actions and policies, and offers alternatives to the general public. In this context, the opposition is given several opportunities to question and debate the government.

One of most important of these is Question Period, which is officially referred to as “Oral Questions.” During each sitting day of the House of Commons – that is, days in which members of the House convene to discuss business and vote on legislation – 45 minutes is allotted for Question Period. The opposition can use this time to pose questions to the government and to state any criticisms they might have regarding the government’s actions and policies. The government, in turn, is given a chance to respond to these opposition questions and criticisms. These exchanges are typically very adversarial and often lack substantive political debate. The opposition will often attempt to trip up the government into making statements that will make it look bad in public, while the government will often respond in a manner that sidesteps the opposition’s questions. Moreover, Question Period can also involve personal attacks between opposition and government members, as well as heckling on both sides.

In addition to Question Period, the opposition may also debate the government during readings of proposed bills in the House. Before any piece of legislation (or “bill”) becomes law, it must undergo several stages of debate (or “readings”) in the House. During these readings, opposition members are usually given an opportunity to debate the government on the merits or weaknesses of the proposed legislation. In some cases, this may involve opposition members criticizing bills proposed by the government; in other cases it may involve supporting bills proposed by the opposition itself.

Opposition members may also regularly criticize the government in informal “media scrums” that occur outside of the chamber after a sitting of the House. During these scrums, members of the opposition make statements directly to reporters about House business and the conduct of the government, and also address questions posed to them by the media.

Finally, in organizing their questioning of the government, opposition parties often form shadow cabinets, where opposition spokespersons are responsible for criticizing specific cabinet ministries or portfolios. There will be, for example, a recognized opposition critic for national defence, foreign policy, finance, and so forth. Each opposition party usually forms its own shadow cabinet.

Introducing Legislation in the House

Opposition members also have the power to introduce legislation for consideration by the House of Commons through private members’ bills. Members of the House not in Cabinet are referred to as “private members” – hence the term “private members’ bill.” This includes members of opposition parties, independent members (members that do not belong to a political party), and government backbenchers (members that belong to the governing political party but who are not in Cabinet).

Normally, private members’ bills may include any sort of legislation except those dealing with the appropriation of public revenues or taxation. These financial bills may only be introduced by the government; that is, by the Prime Minister or a Cabinet minister. In some rare cases, however, a private member may get special permission to introduce a piece of legislation dealing with government finances.

Like any legislation introduced in the House of Commons, private members’ bills go through the normal legislative cycle. In order for them to become law, they must go through several readings and debates within the House. A private members’ bill may also be given to a parliamentary committee for more detailed review. Finally, the bill must be formally approved in both the House and the Senate, as well as receive Royal Assent (approval from the Monarchy or his/her representative, the Governor General).

For more information on private member’s bills:

Opposition Days in the House

Opposition members also have the opportunity to influence the formulation of laws and policies during Opposition Days in the House of Commons (also referred to as “Supply Days”). Normally, the government controls the House’s daily agenda, including what motions will be discussed and voted upon by all members. During Opposition Days, however, opposition motions have precedence over government motions. As such, opposition members can effectively control the House’s agenda (hence the term “Opposition Days”). This power to control the agenda, however, does not mean that opposition motions will be passed, it simply means that the opposition members are able to control what motions will be discussed and voted upon.

Opposition Days are another holdover from the British or Westminster parliamentary system. Originally, Opposition Days were associated with debates over “supply” and were held prior to the release of budget estimates – hence the interchangeable “Supply Days” moniker. They were created so that opposition members could advance ideas for what should, and should not, be funded by the government. In more recent years, Opposition Days have become known as opportunities for opposition members to draw attention to issues and policy positions the government would not normally discuss.

Votes of Non-Confidence

One of the opposition’s most important powers is the ability to undertake votes of non-confidence against the government. Central to Canada’s parliamentary system is the requirement that the government maintain the support (or “confidence”) of the House. This support, or lack thereof, is regularly expressed through votes in the House. If a majority of House members vote against a key piece of government legislation, such as the annual budget, then one would say the government has lost the confidence of the House. This usually results in the fall of the government and a general election being held to elect a new government. Opposition members may also initiate a vote of non-confidence by simply introducing a motion declaring the House no longer supports the government, which is then voted upon by all members of the House.

Normally, the governing political party has a clear majority in the House, meaning that more than 50 percent of the members of the House belong to the same political party as the Prime Minister and Cabinet (this is referred to as a “majority government”). In these cases, votes of non-confidence are very difficult for the opposition to orchestrate. The Prime Minister can simply use party discipline to ensure that all of his/her party’s members vote in favour of key pieces of government legislation or against opposition motions of non-confidence.

In minority governments, however, votes of non-confidence are a much more powerful tool for the opposition. This is because the government only has a minority (less than 50 percent) of the members in the House. As such, the opposition parties can work together to vote down a key piece of government legislation or to pass a vote of non-confidence against the government. In order to protect themselves against votes of non-confidence, minority governments will often work closely with one or more of the opposition parties to ensure that proposed legislation will be acceptable to them, and that they will support it when it comes time to vote in the House.

Parliamentary Committees

Another way in which the opposition may influence legislation and policy is through the parliamentary committee system. The House of Commons has committees made up by members from all political parties; however, they are usually administered and controlled by the members in the governing political party. The purpose of these committees is to review proposed legislation and government actions, and to offer advice on how to strengthen them.

Parliamentary committees do not have the power to force the government to change legislation it proposes. It may only make suggestions, which the government is free to heed or ignore. This is not to suggest that the government will never listen to parliamentary committees, but simply that it is not required to do so. In cases of minority governments, however, the work of parliamentary committees can become much more significant. This is because the governing political party alone does not have enough members in the House to pass legislation, but must rely on the support from one or more opposition parties. As such, it may take seriously the suggestions made by opposition members in parliamentary committees as a way of ensuring that government legislation will be passed when it reaches a final vote in the House.

The Official Opposition in the House of Commons

Overview of the Official Opposition and the Opposition Leader

Who Forms the Official Opposition?

Opposition politics in Canada is also characterized by the existence of an Official Opposition. As stated earlier, the title “Official Opposition” is usually given to the largest opposition party. Following the 2006 Canadian federal election, for example, there were three parties in opposition: the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, and the Bloc Québécois. Of those three opposition parties, the Liberals had the most seats in the House of Commons, and were thereby recognized as the House’s Official Opposition.

It is important to note, however, that a political party can refuse the title of Official Opposition, in which case the next largest opposition party takes on the role. This occurred in 1921 when the Progressive Party of Canada (a distinct party, separate from the Conservative Party at the time) was the largest opposition party, but turned down the chance to form the Official Opposition. Consequently, the Conservative Party, the next largest opposition party, assumed the role.

The Official Opposition’s Function

The Official Opposition’s function is to take the lead in holding the government accountable for its actions and policies. The Official Opposition does not have authority over the other opposition parties, nor does it control their criticisms of the government. Instead, opposition parties (whether they are the Official Opposition or not) usually review and attack the government independently. The notion of “taking the lead” here simply means that the Official Opposition is often given the first and most extensive opportunity to criticize government policies and actions. This is facilitated through the granting of special rights and privileges to the Official Opposition over other opposition parties (see below).

Another important role of the Official Opposition is to take on the image of “government in waiting,” by presenting itself to the public as a viable alternative to the government of the day. The Official Opposition will usually advocate a set of policies which are significantly different from those of the government. Moreover, key members of the Official Opposition, such as the Leader and senior party members, will often present themselves as government leaders in waiting, ready to take over as Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers should the current government fall.

The Official Opposition’s Special Privileges

The Official Opposition is granted special rights and privileges above those granted to other opposition parties.

First, the leader of the political party that forms the Official Opposition is formally recognized as the “Leader of the Opposition” (or “Opposition Leader”). Following the 2006 general election, for example, the Liberal Party became the Official Opposition. As a result, the leader of the Liberal Party becomes the Leader of the Opposition. The position of Opposition Leader was first officially recognized in Canada in 1905, when the occupant of that position was granted a salary equal to that of a Cabinet minister. Although the function of the Opposition Leader is not governed by statute, the role is officially recognized in the procedures of the House of Commons.

The Opposition Leader does enjoy certain privileges, which are not extended to other opposition party leaders. S/he has special status at official functions and in parliamentary ceremonies, as well as international standing with foreign governments; foreign dignitaries will often meet with the Opposition Leader during state visits to Canada. In addition to a salary and expense allowance as a Member of Parliament, the Opposition Leader receives other perks, such as a car allowance and an official residence in Ottawa, which is referred to as Stornoway. The Opposition Leader, like the Prime Minister, also receives a large staff and offices in the House of Commons, which other opposition party leaders do not receive.

During Question Period, the Official Opposition is permitted to ask more questions of the government more often. The Opposition Leader gets to question the government first, and the Official Opposition’s questions usually come before those of any other opposition party. Moreover, the Official Opposition receives more funding than any other opposition party, which enables it to better organize its opposition to the government.

One of the greatest assets of being the Official Opposition is the accompanying publicity that such prominence affords. The Official Opposition and the Opposition Leader usually draw large and regular media and public attention. This, in turn, enables the party and its leader to keep a high public profile, and to more effectively communicate to the public its policies and criticisms of the government. Other opposition parties, especially those with limited members in the House, often struggle to draw public attention.

Limits on the Opposition in the House of Commons

Can the House opposition effectively oppose the government?

To say that that the adversarial relationship between the government and the opposition is a fair fight would be an exaggeration; this is particularly the case when there is a majority (as opposed to a minority) government. This section examines some of the advantages enjoyed by the government, and disadvantages faced by the opposition, in their relationship.

Government Power over the Parliamentary Process

One key disadvantage the opposition faces is the government’s control over the parliamentary process. For example, with the exception of those limited times and days set aside for the opposition parties, the government controls the parliamentary timetable. As such, the government dictates what sorts of motions and bills the House will hear, debate and vote upon. Moreover, through the use of certain parliamentary powers, such as closure, the government can limit parliamentary debate. This is a particularly powerful tool for the government when it holds a majority in the House because it can close debate, and then use its majority to quickly pass or defeat a motion or bill. Furthermore, as the government has power over key positions in parliamentary committees, it is often able to control the outcomes of the committee process. In addition, the government can simply disregard any advice or conclusions offered by a committee if it so chooses.

Government Access to Departments and Ministries

Another disadvantage faced by the opposition stems from the government’s access to its department and ministries. As the head of the executive branch of government, the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers have unlimited access to the staff, resources, and knowledge of their governmental departments and ministers. Moreover, the government can use these large resources when dealing with the criticisms and questions posed by the opposition parties, either in the House or publicly through the media. While opposition parties are provided with publicly funded staff and resources for their own partisan activities (and can also draw on their own internal funds and staff), these never come close to the resources at the disposal of government.

Fragmentation of the Opposition in the House

Making matters even more difficult for the opposition is the reality that very little solidarity exists between the opposition parties when opposing the government in the House. Each opposition party is its own entity, with its own policies, ideologies, members, and leaders. This, in turn, can degrade cooperation between opposition parties, and even create outright inter-party conflict within the opposition. For example, during the Liberal governments of the 1990s and 2000s, the opposition comprised two right-of-centre conservative parties (which often fought between themselves), a left-wing social democratic party, and a Quebec regional party whose primary purpose was to promote Quebec independence from Canada. As such, there was very little common ground between the opposition parties, and these parties often vigorously opposed one another on key policy questions.

By contrast, the government (particularly in the case of a majority government) is a single political party, which is usually very manageable through party discipline. As such, the government can present itself as a united and focused front against the opposition parties, and attempt to take advantage of sharp disagreements and conflicts within the opposition.

It is important to note, however, that circumstances can arise in which the governing political party becomes fragmented itself, with particular individuals or groups within the party fighting for control over leadership or party policy. This, in turn, can leave the government open to manipulation by the opposition parties, especially if the opposition can introduce legislation or raise the public profile on issues that will cause a wedge between members of the government. One recent example of this sort of fragmentation was the later stages of Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s tenure, in which the governing Liberal Party was highly divided over the rivalry between Prime Minister Chrétien and the Finance Minister Paul Martin.

Competition with Other Political Actors

Not only does the opposition often face fragmentation within its ranks, it also has to compete with other political actors in society in its opposition to government. Modern Canadian democracy is characterized by the existence of a wide range of well-organized and financed interest groups, lobby and advocacy organizations, and research institutes. These actors, moreover, regularly engage in the activity of publicly criticizing the government and offering alternative public policy choices. In doing so, they will frequently offer well articulated and publicized reports and public policy statements. Opposition parties can find it difficult to compete in this environment, and have their voice and ideas heard above the general hubbub of other political actors.

Sources and Links to Further Information

Lists of article sources and links to more on this topic

Sources Used for this Article

Jackson, R. & Jackson, D. Politics in Canada: Culture, Institutions, Behaviour and Public Policy, 6th Edition. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc., 2006.
Dyck, R. Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches, 3rd Edition. Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Thomson Learning., 2000.
“Supply Periods.” Parliament of Canada. March 2006. 31 October 2007. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_d_supplyperiods-e.htm>
“Types of Bills.” Parliament of Canada. March 2006. 31 October 2007. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_d_typesbills-e.htm>
“Private Members’ Bills - Notice, Introduction and First Reading.” Parliament of Canada. May 2007. 31 October 2007. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_d_privatemembersbillsnoticeintroduction1read-e.htm>
“Questions.” House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2000 Edition). 31 October 2007. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch11&Seq=2&Lang=E>

Links to More Information

Parliamentary Government in Canada: Basic Organization and Practices

Jay Makarenko — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:11:51 -0600

Canada’s parliamentary system is a central component to its government. This system frames the relationship between Canadians and their political leaders, the manner in which laws are passed, and the organization and authority of key government positions and institutions. This article introduces the concept of Parliamentary government and provides an overview of how Canada’s parliamentary system operates at both the federal and provincial/territorial levels.

Introduction to Parliamentary Government

Basic concepts of parliamentary government

Institutions of the Canadian Parliament

The Monarchy, House of Commons, and Senate

Practices of the Canadian Parliament

Rules and processes in the operation of Canada’s Parliament

Parliamentary Government in the Provinces/Territories

Comparison of federal and provincial/territorial parliaments

Links to More Information

Lists of links for more on this topic

Introduction to Parliamentary Government

Basic concepts of parliamentary government

Basic Definition of Parliamentary Government

What is a parliamentary government? Generally speaking, parliamentary governments are defined by an absence of clear separation between two key branches of government: the legislative branch, which is responsible for enacting laws, and the executive branch, which is responsible for implementing laws. Instead, in parliamentary governments, the executive branch is “fused with” and “dependent upon” the legislative branch.

In Canada’s parliamentary system, this interrelationship between the legislative and executive branches is expressed in several ways. First, key members of the executive, such as the Prime Minister and Cabinet, are usually drawn directly from the legislative branch. The Prime Minister, for example, is usually an elected member of the House of Commons. As such, s/he performs the dual functions of leading the government, as well as representing his/her riding as a regular member of the House of Commons.

Second, and more importantly, the executive branch is completely dependent upon the legislative branch for its authority. The Prime Minister and Cabinet cannot decide the direction of government or administer enacted laws if it does not enjoy the continual support of the majority of members in the House of Commons. If the executive loses majority support in the legislature, then typically the government will fall, and elections will be held to select a new executive.

Comparison to Other Systems of Government

The parliamentary system of government can be contrasted to other sorts of government; in particular, presidential systems found in countries such as the United States. Presidential governments have a clear separation between the executive and legislative branches of government.

In the US, for example, the leader of the executive branch, the President, is not drawn from the legislative branch, but is elected separately in presidential elections. Moreover, the President does not depend upon the legislative branch for his/her authority. S/he does not need majority support in the legislature in order to maintain power, but instead governs until the next presidential election. (However, in the US, the legislative branch can remove the President if he/she found guilty of committing certain wrongdoings.)

The parliamentary system of government can also be contrasted with hybrid systems that include aspects of both the parliamentary and presidential governments. France, for example, has both a President, who exercises power independent of the legislative branch, and a Prime Minister, who is directly dependent upon the support of the elected members of the French legislature.

Institutions of Canada’s National Parliament

The Monarchy, House of Commons, and Senate

British Westminster Model of Parliament

While all parliamentary governments are the same in that they fuse the executive and legislative branches of government, they often differ substantially otherwise. Canada’s parliamentary system is referred to as a “Westminster Model.” This model was first developed by the British and is named after the Palace of Westminster, which houses the British Parliament. Many former colonies of Great Britain, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, adopted this British parliamentary model once they became independent nations.

The Westminster parliamentary model is distinctive in several ways. First, most Westminster parliaments include a monarch; that is, a king or queen who represents the national sovereign. In most modern Westminster models, however, the monarch is primarily a symbolic figure with little actual political power. Second, most parliaments based on a Westminster model are bicameral, meaning they have two legislative houses or chambers. This generally includes a “lower” house made up of members elected directly by citizens, and an “upper” house made up of appointed or hereditary members.

Under a Westminster model, typically each of these components must approve legislation for it to become law. In other words, the monarch, as well as both the lower and upper legislative houses must pass it. The precise procedure for enacting legislation can differ somewhat between different Westminster-based parliamentary systems.

The Monarchy in Canada’s Parliament

In Canada’s Parliament, the national sovereign is the Canadian Monarch, which the country shares with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth nations. Most of the monarch’s day-to-day parliamentary responsibilities, however, are performed by the Governor General, the Monarch’s representative in Canada.

Before any legislation becomes law, the Monarch (or, in practice, the Governor General) grants “Royal Assent,” that is, formal approval. In addition to approving legislation, the Governor General (as the Monarch’s representative) also has the power to appoint key parliamentary officers and leaders, including the Prime Minister, Cabinet, and leaders of the legislatures. The Governor General opens and closes parliamentary sessions (periods when the legislative houses sit and undertake parliamentary business), and to dissolve a particular parliament (which usually leads to an election and the forming of new parliament).

It is important to note, however, that while the Governor General (as the Monarch’s representative) holds these parliamentary powers in theory these powers are rarely exercised independently of the Prime Minister and the elected legislature. It is general custom that the Governor General always grants Royal Assent to legislation passed by the legislative houses. Moreover, the Prime Minister usually decides when to open and dissolve parliaments, with the Governor General simply carrying out the Prime Minister’s decision.

For more information on the Canadian Monarch and the Governor General of Canada:

Legislative Houses in Canada’s Parliament

In Canada’s Parliament, there are two legislative houses or chambers: the House of Commons and the Senate. The House of Commons is an elected house, which is constituted by representatives elected at the local constituency level. The Senate, in contrast, is an appointed house consisting of members appointed by government.

The House of Commons is the primary legislature in Canada’s Parliament. All legislation must be approved by the House of Commons (by majority vote) in order for it to become law. Moreover, the government of the day is highly dependent upon the House of Commons. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are usually drawn from the elected members of the House, and the government must maintain majority support in the House in order to stay in power (cabinet minister have also been drawn, in rare cases, from the Senate).

The Senate also plays an important role in Parliament, albeit a less politically powerful one. All legislation must be approved by the Senate (again, by majority vote) in order for it to become law. It is, however, generally customary for the appointed Senate to automatically approve legislation that has been passed by the elected House of Commons. Nevertheless, the Senate does engage in extensive review of parliamentary legislation and will, on rare occasion, reject legislation passed by the House. Moreover, the Senate does not enjoy the same level of interaction with the government of the day as the House. Rarely are Cabinet members drawn from the Senate, and the government does not need to maintain majority support in the Senate in order to remain in power.

For more information on the Canadian Senate:

Practices of Canada’s National Parliament

Rules and processes in the operation of Canada’s Parliament

Written and Unwritten Constitutional Rules

The basic framework of Canada’s parliamentary government is set out by the national Constitution. Central to this is the Constitution Act, 1982, which forms the core of Canada’s written Constitution. The Act sets out such things as the different components of the national Parliament, their basic mode of operation, as well as their specific powers and authority.

Much of Canada’s parliamentary system, however, is also governed by unwritten constitutional conventions and customs. These are rules and practices regarding the operation of the Parliament, which have been developed incrementally over time, and have never been formally codified in writing. This does not mean they are any less binding – only that they are based upon historical practice instead of explicitly written principles.

Many of these unwritten customs have been borrowed from Britain, the original model of the Westminster Parliament. The British practice of responsible government, for example, was first adopted by Canadian colonies as they moved from authoritarian colonial governments to democratic governments. Other British customs were adopted by Canada in 1867, when the country was formed during Confederation.

Practice of Responsible Government

The concept of responsible government is at the heart of Canada’s parliamentary system of government. For many people, however, it is a confusing concept. When asked to define responsible government, most people intuitively believe it means that government (that is, the Prime Minister and Cabinet) is responsible to the citizens it presides over. While there is an element of truth to this, the technical meaning of responsible government is that the government is responsible to Parliament, and, in particular, the elected representatives of the House of Commons.

Under Canada’s system, the Prime Minister and Cabinet must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. This means that a majority of Members of Parliament (MP) must support the government. This support, or lack thereof, is most commonly expressed when the government submits legislation to the House for its approval. If a majority of MPs vote in favour of the legislation, then the government has maintained the confidence of the House; if a majority vote against the legislation, then the government has lost the House’s confidence.

Votes against important pieces of government legislation, such as the federal budget, will result in the government falling. In the event this happens, the Prime Minister usually submit his/her resignation to the Governor General, who, typically, calls for an election or, in rare cases, asks another Member of Parliament (customarily the Leader of the Opposition Party with the greatest number of sitting members) to try to form a government that will have the confidence of the House.

Another way in which confidence is expressed in a particular government is through direct votes on the government itself. A Member of Parliament may, for example, introduce a motion calling for the resignation of the government. If the motion passes with a majority of votes, then the government is deemed to have lost the confidence of the House, and the Prime Minister will submit his/her resignation to the Governor General.

In addition to votes on the government or its legislation, the House further holds the government responsible through the relentless review of individual cabinet ministers and their actions. Ministers must account to the House for the way they run their departments, their policies and budgets, and any mistakes made by department officials. This is what the daily Question Period is all about: it provides a forum for individual MPs to ask questions of Ministers. It is one of the most visible ways the government is held responsible to the House of Commons. The Standing Committee system also provides a series of parliamentary committees that “shadow” government departments and oversee their operations.

The idea of responsible government is infused throughout the parliamentary system. Interestingly, though, this idea does not appear anywhere in Canada’s written constitutional documents. It is, however, considered to be a constitutional convention – an unwritten rule that Canada’s political actors view as binding.

Practice of Parliamentary Supremacy

Another important characteristic of Canada’s parliamentary system is the practice of Parliamentary supremacy or sovereignty, which generally means that Parliament is to be regarded as the highest political institution in Canada’s political system, with no limits on its powers and authority. Essentially, Parliament may make or unmake any laws as it deems, and no other political institution may undermine Parliament’s ability.

The concept of parliamentary supremacy is rooted in British tradition and its democratic evolution. Britain was dominated early in its history by two non-democratic institutions: the Monarchy and the Church. As the nation moved towards democratic reform in the 16th and 17th centuries, it sought to undermine the power of these institutions and replace them with government by the people. As such, the democratic institution of Parliament was recognized as the highest political body in the nation – a body that would not be limited by other forms of authority, such as the Monarch or the Church. The practice was formally carried over to Canada at the time of Confederation in 1867.

In Canada, however, there are several important limitations on Parliamentary supremacy. One limitation stems from the organization of Canada as a federal state with multiple levels of government. The federal Parliament is not the only legislature in the country; there are also several provincial legislatures with their own constitutionally protected powers and jurisdictions. This means that parliamentary sovereignty is limited in Canada, with the federal Parliament having to share law-making supremacy with its provincial counterparts. This differs from non-federal parliamentary nations, such as Britain, where there is only one level of government and the British Parliament does not share law-making supremacy with any provincial or state counterpart.

Another limitation on parliamentary supremacy stems from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, which was formally included within the Canadian Constitution in 1982. The Charter provides all citizens with certain rights and freedoms that cannot be violated by the federal Parliament or provincial legislatures, such as freedom of speech, democratic rights, and the right not to be discriminated against. Accordingly, the judiciary has the power to review any legislation passed by Parliament to ensure it is consistent with these Charter entitlements. This represents an important limit on the Parliament and juxtaposes the courts as an important check on the law-making ability of parliamentarians.

Official Opposition in the House and Senate

Canada’s Parliament exhibits a wide variety of parliamentary processes and events, some of which are briefly reviewed here. Firstly, central to the operation of parliament is the existence of an Official Opposition in each legislative chamber, the House of Commons and the Senate. The Official Opposition is usually the political party with the most seats in a particular legislature after the party that forms the government. The leader of the party will usually become the Leader of the Official Opposition. The Official Opposition’s purpose is to be critical of government decisions, and to provide alternative policies for political debate and public consumption. In performing this role, the Official Opposition is provided with resources, employees, offices, and special status in Parliamentary debate.

Parliamentary Committee System

Another important element in the operation of Parliament is the parliamentary committee system. Both the House of Commons and the Senate have their own committees, comprising members of the respective houses. In some cases, there are also joint committees consisting of members of both legislative houses. The general role of these committees is to review government legislation and policies and to recommend possible improvements to them. Parliamentary committees, however, may only offer advice to the government, which it may or may not heed. Committees, in of themselves, cannot reject or hold up government initiatives. There are standing or permanent committees, which are assigned to key policy fields such as finance, defence, foreign affairs, etc. There are also ad hoc or temporary parliamentary committees which are formed for short periods of time to review a particular government initiative or policy field.

Federal Government Budget

A key event of in parliamentary life is the passing of the federal budget. The budget sets out two elements of the government’s finances. It provides an estimate of future government revenues, and from where it will be collecting these monies. The budget also provides details on government expenditure, such as how much money it will be spending and where it will be spending that money. The federal budget is presented to Parliament each year, usually around February. In order for the budget to be implemented, it must be passed by majority vote in both the House of Commons and the Senate, as well as receive Royal Assent from the Monarch (or Governor General). A vote against the budget in the House of Commons is recognized as a vote of non-confidence for the government, which can lead to the fall of the government and the holding of general elections.

For more information on the federal budget:

Mapleleafweb: The Federal Budget in Canada

Speech from the Throne

Another important event in the parliamentary life is the annual Speech from the Throne (or “Throne Speech”). The Throne Speech outlines the current government’s agenda for the upcoming parliamentary session. It will detail such things as the government’s priorities, the sorts of legislation it will introduce, and the government initiatives it will pursue. The Throne Speech is delivered by the Monarch or his/her representative in Parliament (the Governor General of Canada). The Speech itself, however, is not written by the Monarch, but by the government (usually the Prime Minister’s office). Moreover, the Throne Speech is delivered to a combined sitting of the both legislative houses, the House of Commons and the Senate. Once delivered, members of the legislatures have the opportunity to debate the government’s agenda outlined in the Throne Speech and vote on whether or not they approve of it. A vote against the Throne Speech in the House of Commons can be interpreted as a vote of non-confidence in the government (and could lead to the fall of the government and an election).

Parliamentary Government in the Provinces/Territories

Comparison of federal and provincial/territorial parliaments

Canada has two levels of legislatures. The first is the national or federal Parliament, which includes the Monarch, House of Commons, and the Senate. The second are regional legislatures, which includes provincial legislatures (which are provided for under the Constitution) and territorial legislatures (which are creations of the federal government). Like their federal counterpart, these provincial/territorial legislatures operate under a parliamentary system of government. The following provides a brief overview of their operation.

Fused Executive and Legislative Branches

As with the federal level of government, provincial and territorial governments operate under a parliamentary system in which the executive branch of government is fused with, and dependent upon, the legislative branch. Members of the executive branch, which includes a Premier and Cabinet, are drawn from their respective legislatures. Moreover, provincial/territorial premiers and cabinets are dependent upon their legislatures in order to stay in power. A Premier and their Cabinet must maintain majority support amongst members of the legislature in order maintain power and exercise their authority. If they lose this support, usually the government falls and a general election is held.

The Monarch in Provincial Legislatures

Moreover, like the federal Parliament, the Monarch plays a key role in the operation of provincial legislatures. Similar to the federal Parliament, the Monarch must grant Royal Assent to all provincial legislation before it becomes law. Moreover, the Monarch has the power to appoint key legislative and government officials, as well as to open and close legislative sessions, and to dissolve legislatures.

The day-to-day activities of the Monarch are performed by Lieutenant-Governors his/her representative in the provincial legislature. These representatives are formally appointed by the federal Governor General on the advice of the provincial Premier and Cabinet.

As is the case at the federal level, these powers of the Monarch are mainly ceremonial, and are exercised in practice by the provincial Premier and Cabinet.

Commissioners in Territorial Legislatures

Territorial legislatures also have a ceremonial figure similar to a Lieutenant-Governor, referred to as a Territorial Commissioner. However, while appointed by the Governor General of Canada, territorial Commissioners are not official representatives of the Monarch. Instead, they are simply the official representatives of the federal government, which is due to the fact that territories are creatures of federal legislation with no constitutional autonomy of their own. Territorial Commissioners perform many of the same functions as the Monarch’s representative at the federal and provincial levels, such as approving legislation before it becomes law, which is referred to as granting “Commissioner’s Assent”. In other aspects, however, these Commissioners have less responsibility. In the Yukon and Northwest Territories, for example, it is the federal Governor General, and not the respective Commissioner, that dissolves the legislature.

Unicameral versus Bicameral Legislatures

A central difference between parliamentary governments at the provincial/territorial and that at the federal level is the number of legislative bodies. The federal Parliament is a bicameral legislature, meaning there are two legislative bodies: the House of Commons and the Senate. At the provincial/territorial level, however, there is only one legislative body, usually referred to as a provincial assembly. Members of these assemblies are elected at the local constituency level and are responsible for passing all legislation under their respective jurisdictions. Moreover, provincial/territorial governments, which include the Premier and Cabinet, are responsible to their respective assemblies for their executive authority.

Key Legislative Processes and Events

Many of the processes and events that occur in the federal Parliament are also evident at the provincial/territorial level.

Provincial and territorial legislatures usually have Official Oppositions, formed by the political party with the largest number of seats not in government. The territories of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are exceptions; they practice consensus government in their legislatures. Under this approach, members of the legislature are not organized in political parties, but operate, instead, as independents with informal allegiances to other members. As such, there is no Official Opposition in these legislatures. Instead, legislative members not in government organize into an unofficial opposition, and fill the role of criticizing government legislation and policies.

Most provincial legislatures also operate some form of a committee system, in which legislative members review and offer advice on government legislation. Provincial and territorial legislatures also have a Speech from the Throne, which is delivered by the Lieutenant-General in the case of provincial legislatures, and the Commissioner in the case of territorial legislatures. Finally, all provincial/territorial legislatures have an annual budget process, in which the government of the day must present financial estimates, and which must be approved by the legislature and the Monarch.

Links to More Information

Lists of links for more on this topic

The Canadian Senate: Role, Powers & Operation

Jay Makarenko — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:00:00 -0600

Canada’s Parliament consists of two legislative houses: the House of Commons and the Senate. While the House generally garners the majority of public and media attention, little is often known about the role and operation of its Senatorial counterpart. This article provides an introduction to the roles, powers, and operation of the Canadian Senate. Specific discussions include what the Senate is and what it does; the differences between the Senate and the House of Commons; the composition of the Senate; processes officers and committees of the Senate; as well as a comparison of the Canadian Senate to other Upper Houses in other countries.

Role of the Senate in Parliament

What is the Senate? What does it do?

Senate Powers in Theory & Practice

Differences between the Senate & the House

Composition of the Canadian Senate

Rules Governing the Appointment of Senators

Operation of the Canadian Senate

Senate Processes, Officers & Committees

A Look at Senate Chambers Around the World

How does Canada’s Senate Compare with other Countries?

Sources & Links to Further Information

List of Article Sources & Links for more on the Senate

Credits: This article was initially written by Rhonda Lauret Parkinson. It has since been altered and updated by Jay Makarenko.

Role of the Senate in Parliament

What is the Senate? What does it do?

Canada’s Bicameral Parliament

Canada has a bicameral parliamentary system, meaning that there are two legislative bodies or chambers. The first of these is the House of Commons, which is made up of elected officials called Members of Parliament (or MPs). The second legislative body is called the Senate, which is constituted by appointed members called Senators.

For more information on Canada’s Parliament:

Mapleleafweb: Canada’s Parliamentary Government

Chamber of Sober Second Thought

The Senate, in concert with the House of Commons, plays an important role in the operation of Canada’s government. In theory, any piece of government legislation must be approved by both the House of Commons and the Senate (as well as the Canadian Monarch) for it to become official law. This, however, raises the question: why does Canada have two legislative bodies to review and approve government legislation?

The ideal of democracy was cautiously accepted in the 1860s when the Canadian colonies negotiated Confederation. The primary worry was that the democratic participation of "regular citizens" in government would be detrimental to good government and policy making. As such, the Fathers of Confederation decided to provide an appointed body, the Senate, which would exercise “sober second thought” in the legislative process. The Senate was to comprise economic and social elites that would act as a check on the interests and policies of the “commoners” or “lower classes,” who were believed to dominate the democratically elected House of Commons. It is important to note, however, that this idea of an “elitist check” on the House no longer carries weight in contemporary Canadian politics. That said, the Senate continues to act as second legislative review on government legislation and action.

Routine Revising Chamber

Another role of the Senate, not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, is to act as a non-ideological, routine revising chamber that picks up flaws in legislation that have avoided notice during a bill’s passage through the House of Commons. Accordingly, the Senate might highlight confusing ideas or language in legislation, or raise questions about potential loopholes that may reduce the effectiveness of a particular law.

Regional Representation

The Senate was also envisioned as a vehicle for regional representation at the federal level of government. During the negotiations for Confederation, both Quebec and the Maritime colonies were concerned the interests of Ontario would dominate the elected House of Commons. (Ontario had the majority of Canada’s population and, thus, the largest share of seats in the House.) In order to provide balance, the three regions at the time (Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes) were subsequently allocated an equal number of seats in the Senate. This role of regional representation was maintained in 1915, when the West was designated as a senatorial region and given equal representation in the Senate.

Investigative Chamber

The Senate often undertakes another type of work, but which again is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution; namely, the investigation of social and political issues facing the country. In this context, the Senate acts in a manner similar to a Royal Commission or Public Inquiry, and will engage in detailed studies of complex or controversial issues. Over the years, issues investigated by the Senate have included poverty, aging, unemployment, the mass media, science policy, land use, national defence, Canadian-American relations, constitutional affairs, the decriminalization of marijuana, and the health care system.

Senatorial Powers in Theory & Practice

Differences between the Senate & the House of Commons

Legislative Powers of the Senate in Theory

In terms of its legislative powers, the Senate is theoretically equal to the House of Commons. Under Canada’s written Constitution, any piece of government legislation must be approved by both the House of Commons and the Senate (as well as the Canadian Monarch) for it to become official law. This provides the Senate with veto power over Parliamentary legislation, and allows it to reject, offer amendments, or delay any bills with which a majority of its members disagree.

There are some small qualifications. The Senate is not permitted to introduce bills that impose taxes or appropriate public funds. This power is reserved solely for the House of Commons, although the Senate may reject or amend ‘money bills’ that are introduced in and passed by the House. The Senate is also not permitted to delay constitutional amendments passed by the House of Commons for more than 180 days. This restriction on the power of the Senate was introduced in 1982 with the patriation of the Constitution, and allows the House to pass the constitutional amendment again, bypassing Senate approval after the 180-day period has expired.

Legislative Powers of the Senate in Practice

While the Senate is theoretically equal to the House of Commons, in practice the House is the dominant legislative body in Canada’s Parliament. This is due, in large part, to the so-called ‘undemocratic’ nature of the Senate. Whereas the House of Commons is made up of elected Members of Parliament that are democratically responsible to their constituents, the Senate consists of appointed Senators that are effectively responsible to no one. Over the years, this has led to the development of an unwritten constitutional practice that the Senate veto or delay legislation passed by the House of Commons only in rare and exceptional cases.

For more information on unwritten constitutional practices or conventions:

Mapleleafweb: Canada’s Parliamentary System – Basic Principles of Canada’s Parliament

While the Senate generally does not interfere in the work of the House of Commons, there are some notable exceptions. During the 1980s, for example, the Liberal-dominated Senate was consistently at odds with the Progressive Conservative-dominated House of Commons. Between 1984 and 1993, the Senate attempted to delay or amend several important pieces of House legislation. The Senate also tried to alter federal legislation pertaining to the constitutional amendments associated with the Meech Lake Accord, but was finally overridden by the House following the 180-day period (referenced earlier). One of the most famous conflicts between the two legislative houses occurred in mid-1988, when the Senate delayed passage of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (or “FTA”). Following the 1988 general election, however, and the return of the Progressive Conservatives to government (the PCs had campaigned in favour of the FTA), the Senate bowed to public sentiment and passed the trade agreement.

Senate & the Government

Under Canada’s system of responsible government, the federal government (or more precisely, the Prime Minister and Cabinet) is responsible to the elected House of Commons. If the government were to lose the support of the House, then the Prime Minister and Cabinet would resign and a general election would customarily be held. The Senate, however, does not enjoy the same power over the government. There is no written or unwritten requirement that the Prime Minister and Cabinet must resign if they lose the support of the Senate.

For more information on responsible government in Canada:

Mapleleafweb: Canada’s Parliamentary Government – Practice of Responsible Government

Moreover, government members, such as the Prime Minister and Cabinet, are usually drawn from the pool of members elected to the House of Commons. Only in rare cases will a Prime Minister ask a Senator to sit in his or her Cabinet, such as when a particular Senator has special qualifications desired by the government, or when the governing political party is seeking broad representation in the Cabinet and does not have enough members in the House from a particular region or ethnic group.

For more information on the composition of the federal Cabinet:

Mapleleafweb: The Prime Minister & Cabinet – Cabinet Rules & Practices

Composition of the Canadian Senate

Rules Governing the Appointment of Senators

Qualifications for Becoming a Senator

Canada’s written Constitution provides several requirements for becoming a Senator. Appointees must be 30 years of age or older, a resident of the province (or territory) for which they are appointed, and a natural born or naturalized subject of the Queen. Reflecting the tradition that the Senate consists of members of the economic elite, Senators must also own property in the province they represent. This requirement has, however, become irrelevant, as the property requirement is set at $4,000, meaning that most persons today are eligible for appointment to the Senate.

Initially, Senators were appointed for life. In 1965, however, Parliament passed legislation requiring Senators to retire at age 75. In addition to age, a Senator may be removed if s/he fails to attend two consecutive sessions of Parliament, declares bankruptcy, is convicted for treason or a felony, or ceases to reside or own property in the province s/he represents.

For a list of current Senators and their biographies:

Parliament of Canada: Members of the Senate

Regional Representation in the Senate

The basic principle governing the allocation of Senate seats is equal regional representation. The Senate is divided into four main regional areas: Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, and the Western Provinces, each with 24 seats. In the case of the Maritimes and Western Provinces, Senate seats are further divided among the provinces comprising those regions. In the Maritimes, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have 10 Senate seats, while Prince Edward Island has four seats. In Western Canada, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba each have six seats. In addition to the four main regions, Newfoundland & Labrador, and the Territories also enjoy Senate representation. Newfoundland & Labrador has six Senate seats, while the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and Nunavut each hold one seat.

Senate as an Appointed Legislative Body

Under Canada’s written Constitution, the Senate is conceived as an unelected legislative body. This means that Senators are simply appointed to their offices instead of being elected by citizens. Moreover, it is the Governor General of Canada, on the advice of Cabinet, who holds the constitutional power to make Senate appointments. Over time, however, unwritten constitutional conventions have developed which effectively give the Prime Minister and Cabinet absolute control over the selection of Senators. While the Governor General today still officially approves appointees, in practice s/he simply accepts whomever the Prime Minister and Cabinet selects.

In making Senate appointments, the Prime Minister has complete discretion (beyond the limited qualifications provided for in the written Constitution outlined above). There is no requirement, for example, that the Prime Minister select a Senator that is acceptable to the governments or residents of the provinces they are meant to represent. Instead, Prime Ministers usually use Senate appointments as a form of political patronage, selecting persons who have been friends and allies of the Prime Minister and/or the governing political party.

It is important to note, however, that while the Senate operates as an appointed body chosen by Prime Ministers, there are no legal barriers to making Senate appointments more democratic or regionally responsive. The Prime Minister, for example, could use his/her discretionary powers to appoint Senators that have been recommended by provincial governments. The Prime Minister could also hold elections for Senate seats and simply recommend the winner of an election to the Governor General for appointment. This, however, has only occurred once in the history of the Senate, when in 1990 then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appointed Stan Waters to the Senate for Alberta. Waters had won a Senate nominee election held by the Alberta provincial government in 1989.

Appointing Additional Senators

Normally, the Prime Minister appoints a Senator to fill an existing vacancy. Under certain conditions, however, s/he can appoint additional Senators. Section 26 of The Constitution Act, 1867, states that four or eight additional Senators, equally representing Canada’s four regions, may be appointed “If at any Time on the Recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit…”

Prior to 1982, the reference to the Queen forced the Canadian Prime Minister to obtain official permission from Britain to appoint additional Senators. Following patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, however, consent from Britain was no longer required.

Operation of the Canadian Senate

Senate Processes, Officers & Committees

The Legislative Process

Senate voting operates on the principle of majority rule. For a bill or motion to be approved by the Senate it must receive majority support, with each Senator having only one vote. In the case of a tie, the bill or motion is considered defeated. Votes in the Senate occur when Senators themselves introduce bills or motions, when legislation passed by the House of Commons arrives at the Senate, or when the government (the Prime Minister and Cabinet) introduces a bill directly to the Senate for a vote.

As with the House of Commons, a bill must follow several steps before the Senate officially passes or rejects it. These include:

Introduction: The process begins when a bill is introduced in the Senate.
First Reading: The bill is “read” for the first time, without debate, and printed.
Second Reading: The principle of the bill is debated. It is then voted on and the bill is sent to a Senate committee.
Committee Stage: A committee hears witnesses, examines the bill clause by clause, and submits a report recommending the bill be accepted as is, or with amendments, or that it not proceed any further.
Report Stage: Additional amendments to the bill may be moved, debated and voted on.
Third Reading: The bill is debated a final time and voted on.
Message: Once passed, the bill is either sent to the House of Commons for approval (in the cases of bills introduced first in the Senate), or sent to the Governor General for Royal Assent (in the case of bills that were previously approved by the House).
Royal Assent: The Governor General, or a deputy, gives the bill Royal Assent, meaning that the legislation officially becomes law.

(Source for stages of the legislative process: “Parliament of Canada – Democracy in Action.” Parliament of Canada. 2005, 31 July 2006 <http://parl11.parl.gc.ca/Publications/Democracy-e.asp>)

Senior Officers in the Senate

The Senate has two senior officers: the Government House Leader and the Speaker of the Senate. The House Leader is appointed by the Prime Minister and sits in the Cabinet. His/her role is to speak, in the Cabinet, on behalf of members of the Senate, and to be the voice of the Cabinet in the Senate. His/her responsibilities also include steering government legislation through the Senate, and representing the Cabinet during the Senate Question Period, when Senators are given an opportunity to raise questions and concerns regarding the actions of Cabinet Ministers (the Prime Minister and Cabinet Minister themselves answer criticisms during the daily Question Period in the House of Commons).

The Speaker of the Senate enjoys a role that is similar to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and is vested with the responsibility of overseeing the day-to-day administration of the Senate, as well as business in the Chamber. This includes managing Senate debates and votes, enforcing Senate etiquette, and administering Senate employees and budgets. Like the Government House Leader in the Senate, the Prime Minister also appoints the Speaker of the Senate. In contrast, the Speaker of the House of Commons is elected by Members of Parliament.

Senatorial Committees

As in the House of Commons, the Senate has many different committees to review government legislation, scrutinize government departments and agencies, and study broad societal issues. The largest Senate committee is the Committee of the Whole, which includes all Senators. This committee operates under slightly different rules than a regular sitting of the Senate, and is convened for special debates on government legislation, to hear testimony, or to review nominees to be Officers of Parliament.

The Senate also has several Standing Committees, which are responsible for specialized areas of public policy, such as government finances, Aboriginal Issues, fisheries and oceans, and foreign affairs. These standing committees will review government legislation, departments, and agencies that are within these specialized policy areas. In so doing, they may hold hearings, collect evidence, and question members of the government or the public service, and then report their findings to the Senate body.

The Senate will also form special committees to review particular issues or events of interest. These are known as Ad Hoc Committees and typically exist for limited periods of time. Finally, the Senate may also form Joint Committees with the House of Commons, some of which are standing committees (such as the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations), while others are special joint ad hoc committees to review a particular issue or event of interest to both legislative chambers.

For more information on Senate rules and procedures:

Parliament of Canada: Rules of the Senate of Canada

A Look at Senate Chambers Around the World

How does Canada’s Senate Compare with other Countries?

The United States of America Senate

The Legislative Branch in the US government consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate’s main features are as follows:

Representation based on constituent units;
Equal representation (each state has two Senators);
Selection based on popular election (originally, US Senators were appointed);
Fixed terms lasting six years, with one-third of the Senate elected every two years; and
Virtually equal powers to the House of Representatives.

The switch from appointment by state legislature to direct election is a primary reason the US Senate remains powerful. Another interesting feature is that, in the United States, the Vice-President is also President of the Senate. The Senate President’s most important role is casting the deciding vote in the event of a tie.

For more information on the United States Senate:

Official Website of the United States Senate

The Australian Senate

In 1901, the Australian Commonwealth merged six former British colonies to form a federation. Australia took Canada’s experience into account when considering how to merge Parliamentary institutions with a federal system of government. The Australian Senate’s main features are as follows:

Equal representation, whereby each state has 12 Senators, and the two mainland territories have two Senators each;
Selection based on election by proportional representation;
Fixed terms of six years, with one-half of the Senators re-elected every three years; and
Powers nearly equal to the lower House of Representatives. The Senate can review, amend, or reject government legislation, including money bills. The Senate can also introduce legislation other than a money bill, but most bills are introduced in the Lower House.

On paper, the Canadian Senate’s powers are virtually equal to those found in the Australian model. The main differences, however, lie in the form of representation, the method of selecting Senators, and their length of tenure. These key differences give Australian Senators legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

The Australian Senate’s strong role relative to the House of Representatives is illustrated by a constitutional provision for breaking deadlock between the two chambers, a provision that involves the dissolution of Parliament and, subsequently, the conduct of a joint sitting involving both chambers. In contrast, in Canada the only mechanism for breaking deadlock between the House of Commons and the Senate is a rarely used constitutional provision allowing the Prime Minister to appoint extra Senators.

For more information on the Australian Senate:

Official Website of the Senate of Australia

The United Kingdom: House of Lords

Like Canada, Britain has two legislative bodies, a Lower Chamber (the House of Commons) and an Upper Chamber (the House of Lords), with the majority of power residing in the House of Commons.

Among the main features of the House of Lords:

Representation based primarily on a combination of hereditary ties (“Hereditary Peers”) and government appointments (government appointees are known as “Life Peers”).
It functions in both a legislative and judiciary capacity. The House of Lords consider legislation passed by the House of Commons, in addition to serving as final arbiters for certain civil and criminal cases.
Legislative powers are limited to a 12-month ‘suspensive’ veto. After this time the House of Commons can resubmit the bill for Royal Assent. The suspensive veto does not extend to money bills.
Other roles, including making inquiries into public issues.

For more information on the British House of Lords:

Official Website of the United Kingdom House of Lords

Sources & Links to Further Information

List of Article Sources & Links for more on the Senate

Sources Used for this Article

Book & Periodical Sources:

Dyck, Rand. “Parliament.” Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches, Third Edition. Scarborough: Nelson Thomson Learning, 2000. Pages 569-578.
Jackson, Robert, and Jackson, Doreen. “Legislative Politics.” Politics in Canada: Culture, Institutions, Behaviour and Public Policy, Sixth Edition. Toronto: Pearson Publication Canada Inc, 2006. Pages 334-341.

Electronic Sources:

“Parliament of Canada – Democracy in Action.” Parliament of Canada. 2005, 31 July 2006 <http://parl11.parl.gc.ca/Publications/Democracy-e.asp>