A worker vacuums in the Senate chamber on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada, May 3, 2016. REUTERS/Chris WattieCHRIS WATTIE/Reuters
Peter Harder, the Liberal government's Government Representative in the Senate (a novel title), will reportedly no longer be lonely. In contrast, the so-called Independent Liberal Caucus, led by the former Liberal leader in the Senate, James Cowan, is at least a caucus.
Is Senator Harder himself a caucus, or what? He has just recruited Diane Bellemare, a former Conservative senator, as "legislative deputy" and a former Liberal senator, Grant Mitchell, as "government liaison." Initially, rumour had it that Senator Mitchell would be "whip," without anyone to whip.
These new arrangements once again raise the question of what the Senate is for. It is hardly a necessity, yet a case can be made that its committee work is often better than that of the overheated House of Commons, and that the chamber really can provide sober second thought. Anyhow, the Constitution makes the Senate extremely difficult to reform, and almost impossible to abolish. We're stuck with it, and with having to make the best of it.
More than a century ago, Britain managed to deal with this conundrum at a moment of political impasse between a Liberal majority in the Commons and a Conservative majority in the House of Lords. Not being bound by a written constitution, the British Parliament could make its own compromises.
The essence of the Parliament Act of 1911 was that the British House of Lords could delay passage of a Commons bill for no more than two years, and could not reject money bills, the Commons having always had a special role in consenting (or not) to taxes.
The Canadian Senate would do well to draft a resolution modelled on or at least influenced by the British statute of 1911 – to make it clear that, as the unelected house, it is not co-equal with the democratically elected house. It should have the power to send some bills back to the House of Commons, if the members think those bills need to be significantly revised. But senators should agree to not do this to any bill more than a few times. Yes to sober second and even third thought; no to gridlock.
Canada may not need a Senate, but it's stuck with one. If unelected senators want to be respected, they have to exercise their powers prudently, and within clear limits.