Canadian Senate Reform

Case studies

Around the world, federal countries have reformed their upper chambers and some have completely abolished them. Among these countries are two that share the same Westminster traditions with Canada such as Australia which has reformed its Senate and New Zealand which has abolished its Legislative Council. Therefore, it is to necessary to examine how these countries dealt with their upper chambers and what lessons can be learned from their experience.

To begin with, the Australian Senate has to be examined as it was created for the same reason as Canada’s Senate. In fact, the purpose of the Senate in Australia was to protect regions with lower populations (Cody, 1995). Also, the Australian Senate was part of the legislative process

At the same time, it is important to recognize that differences exist between Canada and Australia in terms of political processes, constitutions, and democratic systems. First, the Australian Senate has become more effective in the legislative process as its review and amendment of bills have increased and its “assertiveness is proof that elections would make the Senate more credible and effective” (Barnes et al., 2011, p. 16). Second, the second has become more involved in scrutiny as it independently supplies checks and balances through bicameralism (Cody, 1995). In other words, the Senate can impose “impose accountability and to detect misconduct and expose corruption” through its committees and reviews (Cody, 1995). Third, after having elected Senators, the Senate itself became more legitimate when compared to the House of Representatives as well as the fact that it has been providing adequate representation for smaller states in national institutions and the decision-making process (Cody, 1995). Finally, the Senate in Australia has advanced the interests of “politically important to groups” such as small regional political parties through the equal state representation (Cody, 1995). Therefore, Australia’s Senate does provide great insights to the advantages of Senate reform in which Canada can learn from and

Having an upper chamber is advantages even to countries as small as New Zealand. In fact, upper chambers provide valuable experience and studies to issues that are faced by the people. In the case of New Zealand, the country has lost the safeguard against populism that can come with majority governments in the lower chamber as well as valuable input in the form of recommendations from Legislative Council committees. Also, the Legislative Council used to provide New Zealand’s legislative process with a long-term view that goes beyond an electoral cycle when considering reviews and amendments to bills. In other words, abolishing an upper chamber will result in the loss of arguments and evidence that can be used to improve and judge laws on. Therefore, abolishing a democratic country’s upper chamber results in the loss of important knowledge and experience from the legislative process. More importantly, in New Zealand, the system of checks and balances was weakened as they only institution left to hold the executive to account is the House of Representatives which in many cases is controlled by the Prime Minister and his