Should The Canadian Senate Be Abolished?

The Canadian Senate is a distinct legislative body that differs from other administrations of government. Its role of careful analysis as well as deliberation within the government is fundamental to democracy as it ensures progression of government initiatives. However, controversy of the functionality of the Senate lingers regarding its position as a “sober second thought” representing the general Canadian population in government action (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2013; Canadian Bar Association, 2012; Brooks & Menard, 2013). Concern has also ensued on whether or not specific reform ideas and other bills considering such reform are constitutional (Canadian Bar Association, 2012; Brooks & Menard, 2013). It is clear that scrutiny of the Senate is

commonly present. This brief paper will analyze various aspects of the Senate, including its composition; perspectives on why the Senate should and should not be abolished, considering representation, appointment as well as examples from the past and present accompanied by recommendations on reform for this unique body. Therefore, an analysis on the Senate, drawing on both the setbacks and benefits is necessary to illustrate how the Senate does not need to be abolished, but instead have a universal covenant on the body through firm reform.
The Senate has been a legislative body since confederation in 1867. The initial goal was to take regional concerns into account and provide special representation (Lawlor & Crandall, 2013). This objective is still present, however, the House of Commons does have superiority over the Senate. The government is not bound by any decisions the Senate makes (Brooks & Menard, 2013). The Senate, then, may not be a necessity. Furthermore, it is argued that the Senate should be abolished as senators chosen to represent Canada are appointed by the Prime Minister, who can serve a maximum of 45 years as a senator (Brooks & Menard, 2013; Docherty, 2002; Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2013). Canada’s current legislature is bicameral, meaning that one body (the House of Commons) is elected, whereas the other (the Senate) is appointed (Brooks & Menard, 2013; Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2013). Those in favor of abolishing the Senate suggest that having representatives who are not elected strike down legislation is outdated protocol (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2013). Next, there are deliberations that the Senate is just there for the Prime Minister to counterbalance potential losses in the House of Commons (Brooks & Menard, 2013). If a minority government makes up the House, a majority, one-sided Senate could be compiled at the right time, causing gridlock in the parliamentary process (Brooks & Menard, 2013). As well, the Senate should be abolished based on the idea that although attempts at reform have been presented, they have been regularly inconsistent. One example of this is that reforming the Senate has been a topic since its induction as a formal body in 1867 (Docherty, 2002). More recently, Stephen Harper has attempted to reform the Senate. To elaborate, he attempted to implicate Bill C-7, which was deemed unconstitutional. It set out to limit a senator’s tenure to 8 years and have Senators elected (Canadian Bar Association, 2012).
Conversely, the Senate should not be abolished in Canada, and if followed through with, would cause more problems.

To elaborate, the Canadian Senate has evolved from having a mere 72 seats to now having 105 seats, encapsulating the equal representation. 24 Senators are appointed from the Maritimes, Ontario, Quebec and the Prairie Provinces, while 6 are chosen from Newfoundland and Labrador, and 1 Senator from each territory make up the Senate. (Brooks & Menard, 2013; Docherty, 2002; Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2013). While this may not seem democratic, it has been found that the Senate is more representative than the elected House of Commons (Lawlor & Crandall, 2013). If there were elected Senators, they would analyze legislation on behalf of the constituents they represent, rather than looking at the legislation with government influence (Brooks & Menard, 2013). An elected Senate would drive it further to abolition. The Senate should also not be abolished as it does provide a second opinion on issues, or legislation sent through the House of Commons. Although they serve as a ‘review’ group, it is uncommon for Senators to be discordant regarding proposed legislation (Cornell, 2014; Lawlor & Crandall, 2013). In addition, Senate committees are tasked with reviewing the legislation which needs to be passed, while also providing reports in areas like business and social investigation (Lawlor & Crandall, 2013). Next, the Senate should not be abolished considering deliberations about abolishing the Senate cannot be agreed on. To explain, Carver (2013) outlines the perspectives of the Prairie Provinces regarding the abolishment of the Senate by a vote under the ‘7 + 50 rule,’ while the remaining seven provinces believe that the vote should be unanimous. If the abolition process can not be agreed on, the Senate should not be

abolished.
The consideration of reform is an alternative notion to improve the deficiencies apparent in respect to the Senate (Carver, 2013). The persistent efforts of reform suggest that Canadian politicians agree that the Senate is an integral body involved in the Canadian political process (Docherty, 2002). Senate abolitionists argue that the constitutional amendment process and amending formula is too complicated to use for the Senate, due to the abundance of specific adjustments (Brooks & Menard, 2013; Docherty, 2002). In summary, senate reform is a protracted process that requires careful planning with a focus on the agreement of varying perspectives to resolve conflicts regarding the roles of the senate. Simply removing this, essential government sector threatens Canadian democracy. It is not proactive in nature (Flanagan, 2009).
In the final analysis, it is evident that the Senate is widely debated for its benefits and drawbacks. This controversy examines the intentions of the Senate’s interest of ensuring prosperity for the common good or government officials. Despite previous attempts, universal reform may still be considered the first order of business when discussing the Senate. Simply abolishing it may have risks that outweigh the benefits in years to come.