Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Discovering the Senate's Fundamental Nature: Moving beyond the Supreme Court's 2014 Opinion

  • Gary William O'Brien (a1)

Abstract

In the 2014 reference, the Supreme Court sought to discover the Senate's “essential nature” in order to determine what reforms parliament could legislate unilaterally. Making use of a classification model found in comparative and historical studies, the Court concluded that the Senate was a “complementary legislative body of sober second thought.” This article re-examines the Court's narrow definition of the Senate's perceived role and presents evidence that its essential characteristics are direct continuations of various pre-Confederation design principles. Limiting a description of its architecture to a single model that eclipses all other roles the Senate may play shifts the debate on Senate reform, which in the recent past has laid emphasis on resolving the conflict among the models embedded in the upper chamber's essential characteristics. The article concludes by reviewing previous constitutional initiatives that aimed at bringing those models more in tune with modern Canada and by making suggestions about how reform proposals could better succeed.

Dans le renvoi de 2014, la Cour suprême a cherché à découvrir la « nature essentielle » du Sénat pour déterminer quelles réformes le Parlement pourrait légiférer unilatéralement. S'inspirant d'un modèle de classification que l'on trouve dans des études comparatives et historiques, la Cour a conclu que le Sénat était un « corps législatif complémentaire de second examen objectif ». Le présent article réexamine la définition étroite que la Cour donne du rôle perçu du Sénat et démontre que ses caractéristiques essentielles sont le prolongement direct de divers principes de conception antérieurs à la Confédération. Limiter la description de son architecture à un modèle unique qui éclipse tous les autres rôles que le Sénat peut jouer déplace le débat sur la réforme du Sénat qui, dans un passé récent, a mis l'accent sur la résolution des conflits entre les modèles intégrés aux caractéristiques essentielles de la Chambre haute. L'article se termine par un examen des initiatives constitutionnelles antérieures qui visaient à harmoniser davantage ces modèles avec le Canada moderne et par des suggestions sur la façon dont les propositions de réforme pourraient mieux réussir.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author. E-mail: garyobrien@sympatico.ca

References

Hide All
Ajzenstat, Janet. 2007. The Canadian Founding: John Locke and Parliament. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Ajzenstat, Janet, Romney, Paul, Gentles, Ian and Gairdner, William D., eds. 2003. Canada's Founding Debates. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Beck, J. Murray. 1957. The Government of Nova Scotia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Browne, G. P., ed. 1969. Documents on the Confederation of British North America. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Careless, J. M. S., ed. 1980. The Pre-Confederation Premiers, Ontario Government Leaders, 1841–1867. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Craig, Gerald M., ed. 1963. Lord Durham's Report. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Creighton, Donald. 1964. The Road to Confederation: The Emergence of Canada, 1863–1867. Toronto: Macmillan.
Dion, Stéphane. 2015. “The Future of the Senate: The Liberal View.Policy Options. September 21. Institute for Research on Public Policy.
Dunham, Aileen. 1963. Political Unrest in Upper Canada, 1815–1836. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Dunsmuir, Mollie. 1990. “The Senate: Appointments under Section 26 of the Constitution Act, 1867.” Library of Parliament.
Forbes, H. D., ed. 1985. Canadian Political Thought. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Fox-Decent, Evan. 2007. “Parliamentary Privilege, Rule of Law and the Charter after the Vaid Case.Canadian Parliamentary Review 30 (3): 2735.
Franks, C. E. S. 1987. The Parliament of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Grittner, Colin. 2015. “Privilege at the Polls: Culture, Citizenship, and the Electoral Franchise in Mid-Nineteenth-Century British North America.Doctoral dissertation. McGill University, Montreal, Quebec.
Harder, V. Peter. 2018. “Complementarity: The Constitutional Role of the Senate of Canada.” Discussion paper. Senate of Canada.
Kennedy, W. P. M., ed. 1930. Statutes, Treatises and Documents of the Canadian Constitution, 1713–1929. 2nd ed. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Kunz, F. A. 1965. The Modern Senate of Canada, 1925–1963: A Re-appraisal. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Laurier, Sir Wilfrid. 1908. Canada. House of Commons Debates, Tenth Parliament, Fourth Session, Volume 1.
Levy, Gary. 2017. Canada. Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization. Proceedings, Issue 10, Evidence, March 1, 2017.
Lijphart, Arend. 1987. “Bicameralism: Canadian Senate Reform in Comparative Perspective.” In Federalism and the Role of the State, ed. Bakvis, Herman and Chandler., William Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Mackay, Robert A. 1963. The Unreformed Senate of Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
McNairn, Jeffery L. 2000. The Capacity to Judge: Public Opinion and Deliberative Democracy in Upper Canada, 1791–1854. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Second Convention of the Delegates of the British American League. (1849) 2018. Toronto: Patriot Office. Reprint, London: Forgotten Books.
Moore, Christopher. 2015. Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting That Made Canada. Toronto: Allen Lane.
Norton, Philip. 2017. Reform of the House of Lords. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
O'Brien, Gary. 1984. “Origins of the Confidence Convention.Canadian Parliamentary Review 7 (3): 1114.
Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces. 1865. Quebec: Hunter, Rose.
Patterson, Samuel C. and Mughan, Anthony. 1999. Senates: Bicameralism in the Contemporary World. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Province of Canada. Parliament. 1855, 1857. Debates of the Legislative Assembly.
Province of Canada. Parliament. 1849, 1858. Journals of the Legislative Council.
Quebec. 2017. Quebecers, Our Way of Being Canadian: Policy on Quebec Affirmation and Canadian Relations. (Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes, Directions des Communications, Ministère du Conseil exécutif), Policy Paper.
Russell, Meg. 2001. “The Territorial Role of Second Chambers.The Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (1): 105–18.
Sait, Edward McChesney. 1938. Political Institutions: A Preface. New York: D. Appleton-Century.
Schneiderman, David. 2015. Red, White and Kind of Blue? The Conservatives and the Americanization of Canadian Constitutional Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Smith, David E. 2003. The Canadian Senate in Bicameral Perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Smith, David E. 2016. Canada. Special Senate Committee on Senate on Senate Modernization. Brief. “Coming to Terms: An Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling on the Senate, 2014.”
Stilborn, Jack. 2003. “Forty Years of Not Reforming the Senate.” In Protecting Canadian Democracy: The Senate You Never Knew, ed. Joyal., Serge Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
Strauss, Leo and Cropsey, Joseph. 1987. History of Political Philosophy. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Supreme Court of Canada. Reference re: Authority of Parliament in Relation to the Upper House, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 54.
Supreme Court of Canada. Reference re: Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217.
Supreme Court of Canada. Reference re: Senate Reform, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 704.
Thomas, Paul G. 2018. “The ‘New’ Improved Senate.” Policy Options, January 26. Institute for Research on Public Policy: 1–7.
Tsebelis, George and Money, Jeannette. 1997. Bicameralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, John N. 1961. “The Senate of Canada: Political Conundrum.” In Canadian Issues: Essays in Honour of Henry F. Angus, ed. Clark., Robert M. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
United Kingdom. Hansard Parliamentary Debates. 1790–1791. Debates on the Second Quebec Government Bill.
United Kingdom. 2000. Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords. A House for the Future. London: The Stationery Office.
Vile, M. J. C. 1998. Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed