“What have people said about the Senate?”
Quotes about the Senate of Canada
“ '… That's what the Senate does best, is study,' ” retired Queen's University professor Ned Franks told The Hill Times. 'Senate committees are very good at looking at things like this [the Budget 2009 implementation Act] …. Committees there tend to be less partisan than the House of Commons. The members tend to have more experience and they have more time. They're immune largely from pressures of party politics. So they often do really good jobs of looking at programs and issues.' ” (The Hill Times, March 23, 2009)
“Policy studies are conducted by standing committees in both houses, but those of the Senate sometimes involve more extensive deliberations, enable members to acquire more specialized knowledge, and address broader issues. This effectiveness has been attributed to greater continuity in the membership of Senate committees, the relative freedom of Senate committee work from partisan political pressures, and the absence of time-consuming electoral duties, which enables some Senators to invest more time in this work.” (Jack Stilborn, Senate Reform: Issues and Recent Developments, Library of Parliament, Political and Social Affairs Division, January 21, 2008)
A possible model is the Canadian Senate which has investigated major issues such as poverty, science policy, foreign relations and the efficiency of Government departments. Evidence shows that not only are valuable reports produced which have led to changes in legislation or Government policy, but that the work has been carried out far more cheaply than if undertaken by a royal commission or task force, since members are paid already and a permanent support staff is available. (Submission to the Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords by democratic advocacy group Charter88 [1999])
The Senate has been very severely criticized for its action ... If we enact legislation speedily, we are called rubber stamps. If we exercise the constitutional authority which the Senate possesses under the British North America Act, we are told that we are doing something that we have no right to do. I do not know how to satisfy our critics. (The Honourable Carl Goldenberg, Debates of the Senate, January 11, 1974, p. 1454)
... governments have invariably found the Senate a well-suited place for first consideration of voluminous, complex, and highly technical pieces of legislation, such as consolidating measures, requiring great legislative experience as well as legal and financial talent and leisurely procedure. The services rendered by the Senate in such instances have been more than simple time-saving for the House of Commons; the Senate has turned out reliable and enduring pieces of legislation, which are amongst the best framed and most competently constructed Acts on the Statute Book of Canada. (F.A. Kunz, The Modern Senate of Canada 19251963 [University of Toronto Press, 1965], p. 198)
It must be remembered that, under our system, the power of the Cabinet tends to grow at the expense of the House of Commons. ... The Senate is not so much a check on the House of Commons as it is upon the Cabinet, and there can be no doubt that its influence in this respect is salutary. (Sir Clifford Sifton, The Foundation of the New Era, in J.O. Miller, ed. The New Era in Canada [London, 1917], p. 50)
It is not by any manner of means a trifling thing to say when I say that the value of a Senate is not only in what the Senate does, but in what the Senate prevents other people from doing. (Sir Richard Cartwright, Debates of the Senate, May 17, 1906, p. 469)
It must be an independent House, having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, and preventing any hasty or ill considered legislation which may come from that body, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people. (The Right Honourable Sir John A. Macdonald, Parliamentary Debates on Confederation of British North American Provinces [Quebec 1867, Ottawa, 1951], p. 36)
Quotes about upper houses in general
Combinations of these factors tend to mean that upper house members work more closely together, scrutinise legislation in more detail, become more expert in specialist topics and operate in a more consensual way which is less driven by the party whip. These are the distinguishing features of second chambers, which often help to ensure that they make a distinct and valuable contribution to the legislature. (From Second Chambers Overseas by Meg Russell in Political Quarterly [Oxford: Oct./Dec. 1999])
If a Second Chamber dissents from the First, it is mischievous; if it agrees, it is superfluous. (Abbé Sieyès as quoted in S.D. Bailey, The Future of the House of Lords [The Hansard Society, London, 1954], p. 17)
... if we had an ideal House of Commons ... it is certain we should not need a higher Chamber. (Walter Bagehot as quoted by S.D. Bailey, The Future of the House of Lords [London: 1954], p. 21)
A majority in a single assembly, when it has assumed a permanent character — when composed of the same persons habitually acting together and always assured of a victory in their own house — easily becomes despotic and overweening, if released from the necessity of considering whether its acts will be concurred in by another constitutional authority. (John Stuart Mill, from Representative Government, as quoted in S.D. Bailey, The Future of the House of Lords, [The Hansard Society, London, 1954] p. 19)
“His [Sir John A. Macdonald’s] view of the necessity for a second chamber may be expressed briefly by the story told of Washington, which Sir John was fond of relating. It is said that on his return from France Jefferson called Washington to account for having agreed to a second chamber. ‘Of what use is the Senate?’ he asked, as he stood before the fire with a cup of tea in his hand, pouring the tea into his saucer as he spoke. ‘You have answered your own question,’ replied Washington. ‘What do you mean?’ ‘Why did you pour that tea into your saucer?!’ ‘To cool it,’ quoth Jefferson. ‘Even so,’ said Washington, ‘the Senate is the saucer into which we pour legislation to cool.’ ” (J. Pope, Memoirs of the Rt. Hon. Sir John Alexander Macdonald [Ottawa, 1894], vol. II, p. 233)