The Pros And Cons Of Senate Reform

The Fathers of Confederation conceived of the Senate as a “chamber of sober second thought.” However, almost ever since its creation, as the unelected arm of the legislature, people have suggested ways in which to reform the upper house. Concerns of illegitimate representation, party loyalty, and patronage are the main reasons the argument for change continues. This paper aims to review a couple of recent reform proposals, and then argue, leaving constitutional practicality behind, that the Senate should receive a major overhaul in how it is formed and represented.

In a proposal by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Bill C-7 sought to change the process by which Senators were selected. It would have allowed the provinces to hold elections to choose individuals who would represent their province, from which the Prime Minister would then base appointment decisions. It would have also imposed a non-renewable term limit of nine years.

Those in favour of electing Senators believe that the process of an election would make the Senate democratically legitimate, but in reality it would throw our
This new way of forming the Senate would randomly select Canadian citizens, bringing together people from all aspects of Canadian society. If one uses the Netherlands as an example of how to make selections, this approach would form a Senate from a pool of randomly selected citizens, employers, politicians, civil servants, and artists. As Chwalisz notes, other countries and cities around the world including Ireland, Australia, and Vancouver are implementing similar structures to form new kinds of government bodies and advisory committees. This kind of new representation in government would remove the elitism and partisanship the Senate is known for, and truly represent the diversity of Canada. It would also help to make the electorate feel more engaged in the democratic