Over the last few months, many Canadians have asked senators to block Bill C-45 on cannabis. Either they were opposed to the legalization of marijuana and thought the Upper Chamber was the last line of defence before it was passed, or they wanted the Senate to force the Trudeau government to amend the bill one way or the other.

The government of Quebec, for instance, asked the Senate to insist on an amendment that would have allowed provinces to prohibit the home cultivation of cannabis. Quebec Public Health Minister Lucie Charlebois said senators should “see it through to the end.”

The cannabis issue is far from unique. People like to disparage the Senate, but that does not stop them from knocking on its door when the time comes to block or amend a bill they oppose. Suddenly, all the criticisms leveled against the members of the Red Chamber are forgotten.

In Canada, the role of the Senate is largely misunderstood. Some people believe it just rubber stamps whatever comes its way, while others see it is all-powerful. In the cannabis file, for example, many people seemed to think that the Senate just had to refuse to approve Bill C-45 and the government would have been forced to make the amendment that Manitoba, Quebec and Nunavut wanted.

However, refusing to pass the bill would only have created a legislative stalemate lasting for weeks or even months. Few Canadians would have tolerated such a political crisis, and the Senate would not have emerged the winner. How many citizens would support an unelected chamber preventing the will of the House of Commons?

So what is the Senate’s purpose, if it generally can’t oppose the will of the House? It serves to provide “sober second thought,” in the words of John A. Macdonald, on bills from the House of Commons. This means it carries out a more in-depth consideration of legislation in a less partisan arena with a broader perspective than is found in the House of Commons.

The Senate examines legislation through the lens of its distinct mandate: protecting regional interests and minority rights. In theory, the Constitution grants the Senate the same powers as the other House. But in practice, because its members are not elected, the Senate’s power is one of influence. Its influence depends on the objective quality of the senators’ work and on the impact they have on public opinion.

For example, without widespread support from the Canadian public, the Senate would have had a hard time convincing the Trudeau government of the need to make the proposed amendments to the cannabis legislation, particularly as regards provincial jurisdiction on home cultivation.

In that context, “seeing it through,” as Minister Charlebois wanted, would not have been in the Senate’s or the country’s best interests. In the end, there is no doubt that it would have been forced to capitulate, and with public opinion so stridently against it (with the possible exception of Quebec), its reputation would have suffered yet another blow.

This does not mean that the Senate can never go head to head with the government. However, it does mean that the Senate must choose its battles carefully, as a matter of principle and for strategic reasons. In an inspiring speech, new Senator Pierre Dalphond gave a list of objective criteria that would justify the Senate “insisting” on the amendments it wanted to make to a bill. These include:

does the legislation clearly or most likely violate the Constitution or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

is it an extremely controversial issue for which voters did not give the government the mandate?

does the evidence provided to both houses unequivocally show that the bill is fundamentally flawed?

Etc.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The matter of provincial jurisdiction over cultivating cannabis at home did not meet any of those criteria. As a result, in this particular case,the Senate did not have the justification to act as a “last line of defence,” nor would it have been an effective one. Especially because the provinces have another option, one that is both less controversial and more promising: the courts.

The Senate is an institution that wields influence, not raw power. If senators overstep this role, Canadians would not stand for it.