A14(a) - The Changing Canadian Senate
Date: Jun 3 | Time: 03:45pm to 05:15pm | Location:
Chair/Président/Présidente : JP Lewis (University of New Brunswick)
Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : JP Lewis (University of New Brunswick)
Does Party Discipline Affect the Representation of Women’s Issues in the Canadian Senate?: Christopher Alcantara (University of Western Ontario), Michelle Caplan (University of Western Ontario), Timothy Brandl (Independent Researcher)
Abstract: A great deal of research suggests that the number of female politicians elected has a significant effect on the extent to which women’s issues are raised in legislative assemblies such as the Canadian House of Commons. These effects, however, are frequently mediated by party discipline and other institutional constraints. In this paper, we contribute to the literature by examining the role of gender on whether women’s issues are raised in the Canadian Senate. Upper houses have tended not to receive very much attention on these issues yet they represent an important institutional context for examining the interaction between gender, institutions, and women’s representation. Not only are its rules and practices different in important ways from the House of Commons, it also recently experienced significant institutional change between the 41st and 42nd Parliaments. After the 2015 election, the governing party altered its procedures for appointing senators and its exercise of party discipline. Our paper exploits this variation to assess the effect of these institutional changes on the likelihood of female and male senators raising women’s issues in their legislative speech. Using computer assisted content analysis, we explore the impact of gender and party discipline on whether women’s issues are raised in the Senate.
Caucusing in the Canadian Senate: Examining the Effects of Professional Relationships on the Legislative Process Before and After Reform: Elizabeth McCallion (Queen's University)
Abstract: In recent years, the Canadian Senate underwent reforms to its institutional structure that increased the number of independent senators. It is unclear how these reforms have influenced senators’ professional relationships, or how their relationships may have changed the legislative process. This paper asks how reforms to the Senate’s caucus system affected policymaking dynamics in the upper house. It finds that before the reforms, senators would have made policy contributions in private caucus meetings. Now, senators who no longer sit in a caucus see themselves as just as activist as they have always been; without the opportunity to voice their opinions in caucus, they find themselves critiquing legislation publicly. Further, senators noticed a change in the tone of their workplace when the reforms took effect. For many, what was once a cooperative policymaking environment became obstructive and sometimes hostile. As a result, voting has become strategic. This is true even for independent senators, who feel a responsibility to ensure that the Senate remains deferential to the democratically elected House of Commons. This paper uses original interview research to study the Conservative and Liberal caucuses in the Canadian Senate, as well as the meetings of the Independent Senators’ Group (ISG). Through in-depth conversations with senators and former senators, this paper uncovers revelations about the dynamics of caucusing, policymaking, and voting in the Senate. It finds that senators’ professional relationships were affected by the reforms. In turn, this has made the Senate’s legislative process more complex, as senators navigate their new workplace environment.
Attempts to Establish New Constitutional Conventions: Illegitimate ‘Amendment by Stealth’ or Valid Constitutional Practice?: Emmett Macfarlane (University of Waterloo)
Abstract: Do informal efforts at institutional change that are arguably designed to establish new constitutional conventions undermine democracy because they circumvent formal rules of constitutional amendment? Based on the premise of Richard Albert’s argument about “constitutional amendment by stealth,” this paper seeks to contribute to a long-standing scholarly debate over the formation of constitutional conventions and their implications for constitutional change. Two recent reforms – changes to the Supreme Court appointments process and Senate reform – arguably incorporate attempts to establish new constitutional conventions. The paper will attempt answer two questions: What are the implications of attempts to establish new conventions of practice, particularly when those new conventions may have implications for long-established ones? Are such attempts legitimate?
Warping Westminster: The Evolution of the Idea of the Westminster Model in Canada: Peter Price (Senate of Canada)
Abstract: When we talk about the Westminster model today, what do we mean? Over time, the debate over the adaptation of British constitutional practices has transformed into conflicting interpretations of correct models of parliamentary practice. This paper will examine when and why the idea of a Westminster model developed in Canadian political thought, highlighting that contrary to what is often assumed, the concept is a relatively recent import to Canada.
This paper examines three distinct periods to trace the evolution of the Westminster model. It starts with nineteenth century constitutional scholarship, which focussed on the idiom of the British constitution, characterized by mutable adaptations in local contexts. The second period traces the shift from “British constitution” to “Westminster model” in the works of scholars of the mid-twentieth century, many of whom were motivated by a desire to export British parliamentary practices to newly independent former colonies. The third period focusses on more recent developments in comparative political science, and the trend toward taxonomizing varieties of democratic regimes. The overall evolution traced in this paper shows that the idea of a Westminster model has evolved considerably and transformed the way that political scholars in describe parliamentary institutions.
The implications of the evolving meaning of the Westminster model are examined in the conclusion, with a focus on the recent reforms in the Senate of Canada. Proposals to change the rules and practices of the Senate have been refracted through the prism of congruence with the Westminster model, even though the term remains ambiguous.