The Canadian Senate in Bicameral Perspective

J.L. Granatstein, Distinguished Research Professor of History Emeritus,
York University, served as Director of the Canadian War Museum from 1998
to 2000. His latest works are Who Killed Canadian History?, Who Killed
the Canadian Military, and Hell’s Cor

“How many senators does it take to change a light bulb?” the
Canadian asks. “Who cares?” comes the response. Well, David Smith
cares, although his enthusiasm for the task seems tempered, for the
question with which he opens his well-written, thoroughly researched
book is whether it’s really time for yet another book on the Senate.
As Smith answers himself, there are not that many books, and his
approach is different. He will examine the question of Senate reform by
integrating it with a study of bicameral theory.

To Smith, the Senate matters, and the proof of this is that we can do
nothing to fix it without upsetting other applecarts. A bicameral
system, after all, is intended to impose delay, and while in Canada the
Senate’s ability to slow the House’s legislation is not infinite,
Canada is unique in having its wholly appointed Senate at the centre of
its system. Smith proposes many measures for reform—have at least a
third of Senators from Opposition parties, televise the meeting of
Senate Committees, and guarantee Senators at least a five-year
appointment to give them time to learn the ropes. Usefully too, he notes
that radical reform ideas like “Triple E” have not been thought
through. That comment, right though it is, will not make him very
popular on the Prairies.