Pros And Cons Of Canadian Senate Reform

Introduction The Canadian Senate has been an institution of the country since the multiple negotiations that made possible the establishment of the federation. Section 17 of CA 1867 states that Canada is to have a Parliament comprising a House of Commons (lower house), a Senate (upper house), and the Crown. However, from the parliamentary institutions aforementioned, only the elected members of the House of Commons could claim to have a democratic mandate: the position of the Crown is hereditary, and the governor general that represents it, as well as senators, are appointed (Malcolmson et al. 2021). The. Despite Canadians’ general dissatisfaction with the Senate and ongoing criticism around its undemocratic model, patronage appointments and

This would be a very positive change in terms of the overall legitimacy of the Senate, it would grant it a vital meaning and purpose, and would not require an amendment to the Constitution. Nevertheless, for decades, one of the most frequent demands around Senate reform is for it to be made a democratic institution. Attempts have been made in the past: in 1978, a few years before the 1982 patriation of the Constitution, ideas of seat redistribution between regions, removal of the upper house’s veto powers on legislation, and the democratization of the Senate (by giving provincial legislatures or members of the House of Commons the power to elect senators) made it to Bill C-60. However, the bill was not adopted, and in 1980 “[the Supreme Court] concluded that Parliament did not have the power under the Constitution as it then stood to unilaterally modify the fundamental features of the Senate or to abolish it.” (McLachlin et al., Reference re Senate Reform 2014,