Will the Canadian Senate pass the gay marriage bill?

Great Debates
1

Let’s assume that the Commons passes the bill, and the Martin gov’t survives long enough for the bill to go to the Senate - will the Senate pass the bill?

The reason I ask is that all of the media coverage that I’ve seen seems to assume that once the bill passes the Commons, it’s a done deal. I’m not so sure.

The Senate has the constitutional authority to defeat any bill that comes to it from the Commons. It rarely exercises that power, but it exists. Normally, it defers to the Commons because bills have been passed with the full authority of the elected government, but there have been exceptions. In particular, the last time a major “conscience” bill went to the Senate having passed the Commons (the Mulroney abortion bill back around 1989) the Senate held a free vote and defeated the bill on a tie vote.

This case is similar to the abortion bill - the marriage bill is a government measure, but PM Martin is only requiring members of the government (i.e. Cabinet) to vote on it. All backbenchers are free to vote their conscience.

If it goes to the Senate, as far as I know there is only one Senator who is a member of the government - the Government House Leader in the Senate. So, by the same rules as PM Martin has set for the Commons on this bill, all the other Liberal Senators would be free to vote their conscience.

One thing that the polls consistently point out - opposition to gay marriage tends to increase with a person’s age. And the average age of Senators is much higher than in the Commons, given that they are appointed until they are 75 years old.

[Mods - not sure if this is a question or a debate, but given the subject matter, thought I’d put it here.]

2

Most the senators now in office were appointed by the Liberal party over the last 12 or so years, and I find it unlikely they’d risk a schism on this issue in these precarious days.

3

I have no special insight into the question, but it seems to me that this must have occurred to some reporters on good terms with senators, and that they would have written stories on it if there were anything of note to tell. But, as the saying goes, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

I think it would be amusing, though, to see the conflict on the faces of the old Reform types. Do we applaud the Senate for holding up a socially disastrous bill, or do we rail against the unelected, unrepresentative body gainsaying the will of Parliament? Oh, the dilemma!