The Pros And Cons Of Senate Reform

Words: 948
Pages: 4

However, given Canada’s claim to democracy and responsible government, an unelected, partisan body is limited in the extent to which it can influence the legislative process. Thus, rather than actively check the power of the House of Commons, the Senate focuses “almost exclusively on the principle of legislative review” (Lusztig, 1995). As previously mentioned, the Senate is lauded for its proficiency in legislative review, however, a more legitimate Senate might be entrusted with other functions as well. For many critics, a truly legitimate Senate is an elected Senate. While this proposal certainly addresses the issue of legitimacy, given the failure of previous constitutional amendments, it is of questionable feasibility. However, not all Senate reform necessarily requires constitutional changes. Senators themselves might take measures to increase transparency, such as …show more content…
Such an act presents no legal challenges and would alleviate the perception of the Senate as a distant and elitist institution. Moreover, the perception of legitimacy could be reinforced by the depoliticization of the appointments process, ensuring “that highly qualified and more diverse voices are appointed” (Burton & Patten, 2015). Such changes, while significant, pose no legal challenges. In fact, many considerations of Senate reform find “if the federal government was willing to act unilaterally on select issues and the Senate was prepared to pursue self-reform” constitutional amendments would be unnecessary to achieve the kind of legitimacy the Senate ought to have in order to function properly (Burton & Patten, 2015). As the Senate gains legitimacy, some suggest that it ought to assume more responsibilities, for example a more equitable representation of Canada’s regions. Given the diversity of Canada’s electorate, one might expect that the interests of voters differ considerably. The