Senate Reform
The Canadian Senate has been criticized as being an outdated, expensive, and ineffective body in the government. Critics of the Senate generally propose two solutions to this problem: the Senate can be abolished altogether or the Senate can be reformed. If the Senate were to be abolished this would mean that the Prime Minister would become the dictator of a one-party government. Since that would mean the end of Canada’s bicameralism and possibly the demise of democracy as we know it, I would support that the Senate be reformed so that it is effective and representative of the population. Proponents of Senate reform generally support a "Triple-E" model: elected, effective and equal. This would mean that all senators are to be elected by the Canadian public, that the Senate should have as much power as the House of Commons and that there is equal representation of Senators amongst the provinces.
Theoretically, the Senate is effective, however it does not live up to it’s effectiveness because its members are appointed by the Prime Minister. Senate appointments are used as “political rewards’ or as an alternative home for colleagues that the minister wishes to move on. “once appointed, only bankruptcy, felony convictions, losses of property/residency, or missing two sessions would lead to disqualification”(smith 2008,96-text) and even these conditions are not strictly upheld (smith 2008,97 text) . Ultimately, there is not much motivation for senators to do ‘their job’. By having a senate that is elected by the citizens of Canada and that has a set term, we would be ensuring (to a certain degree) that senators would be representing the people of their province and looking to those people for a mandate. However, at the same time, , we are in essence replicating the body of the lower house and in turn replicating it’s problems. Considering the likelihood that potential senate candidates would come from the same pool as MPs, this could have the side effect of reducing...
View Full Essay
