4 ms·

I'm an American living in Canada and the political focus seems to always be on the government (PM and cabinet) and the House of Commons. I never really hear men

I'm an American living in Canada and the political focus seems to always be on the government (PM and cabinet) and the House of Commons. I never really hear mention of the Senate (basically the House of Lords of Canada), and being unelected, I assume it's not really taken too seriously. In the US, the converse is true, where the Senate is more powerful than the House and Senators are considered to be more important in pretty much every way. In such an environment where people have little power but have the air and outward appearance of having a lot, I would suspect bizarre speeches aren't uncommon.

stuaxo 16y ago
They do actually have real power in the UK and shape the laws, including sometimes putting a break on some that might be a bit harsh.
jat850 16y ago
In Canada, it is exceedingly uncommon to hear bizarre speeches - or anything whatsoever, for that matter - from the Senate. You are 100% right in that it is not taken exceptionally seriously, as they are lifetime appointments and most often bestowed as an honour. There is an element of power, as at least from a technical standpoint, the Senate in Canada could block the passage of legislation. It is a "rubber stamp" element of government, yes, but only out of tradition. If for some spectacularly weird reason the Senate decided to wield their power, it would have just as much weight - from a technical standpoint - as the US Senate.
- nkassis 16y ago
  They do actually sometime use this for very controversial laws. I can't remember that last time it happened but it does happen occasionally hence why every party in power tries to stuff as many of their own in there. It provides longevity to the parties in power.
- icegreentea 16y ago
  It's not totally a rubber stamp. There have been a few outright rejections in the previous decade. In addition, they often force bills that have been passed in the house of commons to be reviewed/changed before it evens comes to the Senate. Over the course of the review, the law almost always get changed into something the Senate agrees with and so it gets passed. But you are correct in the broad sense typically, once a bill passes the house of commons, it will become a law.
- sanderjd 16y ago
  Apologies for lack displaying my lack of knowledge regarding Canadian politics, but what why would it be "spectacularly weird" for the Senate to wield their power, when groups with power nearly always wield it? What holds them back from doing so? As an American, it is very odd to hear that a body exists with power technically equivalent to our (very powerful) Senate, but with lifetime appointments, and yet they do nothing, and are not taken seriously.
  - jat850 16y ago
    First, I erred on one point. Lifetime appointment is almost, but not quite true. Senators must retire at age 75. A big portion of it is the demographic of the Senate. As senate seats are typically honourary appointments, rather than partisan decisions (though there are exceptions), there is typically little reason or desire to rise up and exert their power. Senators include former career politicians, but also public personas of various origin - athletes, entertainers, and others of non-political origin. I would speculate that is almost out of a "gentleman's agreement" of sorts that senators respect and recognize their role and place in Canadian politics. Another is attendance - only 15 senators out of 105 are required to make quorum, and many senators are almost never found in their seats. I shouldn't make it seem as though the Canadian senate is merely an automatic stamp of approval; there have been past examples of dissent, discussion, debate, reform, and rejection of bills arriving in the Senate. However, it is generally understood among the public that the Senate acts primarily in a nearly ceremonial capacity, rather than one of actual weight and importance.
  - a-priori 16y ago
    In addition to what jat850 said, there's also the fear of jeopardizing their positions. Right now the senators receive a significant salary ($132,300/a) for not much work. The Senate has notoriously low attendance. If they do something to piss off the Canadian public, the Prime Minister could use that as an opportunity to push through legislation to change or even abolish the Senate. Harper, our current Prime Minister, talked about Senate reform in his election campaign, and he's not the first to do so, but it's never been urgent enough to actually do anything about.
muddylemon 16y ago
> In the US, the converse is true, where the Senate is more powerful than the House and Senators are considered to be more important in pretty much every way. especially by themselves

stuaxo 16y ago

They do actually have real power in the UK and shape the laws, including sometimes putting a break on some that might be a bit harsh.

jat850 16y ago

In Canada, it is exceedingly uncommon to hear bizarre speeches - or anything whatsoever, for that matter - from the Senate. You are 100% right in that it is not taken exceptionally seriously, as they are lifetime appointments and most often bestowed as an honour. There is an element of power, as at least from a technical standpoint, the Senate in Canada could block the passage of legislation. It is a "rubber stamp" element of government, yes, but only out of tradition. If for some spectacularly weird reason the Senate decided to wield their power, it would have just as much weight - from a technical standpoint - as the US Senate.

nkassis 16y ago
They do actually sometime use this for very controversial laws. I can't remember that last time it happened but it does happen occasionally hence why every party in power tries to stuff as many of their own in there. It provides longevity to the parties in power.
icegreentea 16y ago
It's not totally a rubber stamp. There have been a few outright rejections in the previous decade. In addition, they often force bills that have been passed in the house of commons to be reviewed/changed before it evens comes to the Senate. Over the course of the review, the law almost always get changed into something the Senate agrees with and so it gets passed. But you are correct in the broad sense typically, once a bill passes the house of commons, it will become a law.
sanderjd 16y ago
Apologies for lack displaying my lack of knowledge regarding Canadian politics, but what why would it be "spectacularly weird" for the Senate to wield their power, when groups with power nearly always wield it? What holds them back from doing so? As an American, it is very odd to hear that a body exists with power technically equivalent to our (very powerful) Senate, but with lifetime appointments, and yet they do nothing, and are not taken seriously.
- jat850 16y ago
  First, I erred on one point. Lifetime appointment is almost, but not quite true. Senators must retire at age 75. A big portion of it is the demographic of the Senate. As senate seats are typically honourary appointments, rather than partisan decisions (though there are exceptions), there is typically little reason or desire to rise up and exert their power. Senators include former career politicians, but also public personas of various origin - athletes, entertainers, and others of non-political origin. I would speculate that is almost out of a "gentleman's agreement" of sorts that senators respect and recognize their role and place in Canadian politics. Another is attendance - only 15 senators out of 105 are required to make quorum, and many senators are almost never found in their seats. I shouldn't make it seem as though the Canadian senate is merely an automatic stamp of approval; there have been past examples of dissent, discussion, debate, reform, and rejection of bills arriving in the Senate. However, it is generally understood among the public that the Senate acts primarily in a nearly ceremonial capacity, rather than one of actual weight and importance.
- a-priori 16y ago
  In addition to what jat850 said, there's also the fear of jeopardizing their positions. Right now the senators receive a significant salary ($132,300/a) for not much work. The Senate has notoriously low attendance. If they do something to piss off the Canadian public, the Prime Minister could use that as an opportunity to push through legislation to change or even abolish the Senate. Harper, our current Prime Minister, talked about Senate reform in his election campaign, and he's not the first to do so, but it's never been urgent enough to actually do anything about.

muddylemon 16y ago

> In the US, the converse is true, where the Senate is more powerful than the House and Senators are considered to be more important in pretty much every way. especially by themselves