The Pros and Cons of Establishing an Elected Upper Chamber in Canadian Provinces

The Pros and Cons of Establishing an Elected Upper Chamber in Canadian Provinces

Recently, there has been a discussion about the possibility of Canadian provinces establishing an elected upper chamber, akin to a provincial senate. This idea has sparked debate among political observers and academics, with arguments both in favor and against such a move. This article aims to discuss the potential effects of introducing an elected upper chamber in Canadian provinces and the associated challenges and benefits.

Introduction and Historical Context

The concept of an elected upper chamber is not novel; several Canadian provinces, including Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, once had appointed upper chambers, which they later abolished. Quebec, in particular, was the last province to do so in the 1960s. The federal Senate, on the other hand, remains an appointed institution.

Arguments in Favor

Proponents of establishing an elected upper chamber argue that it could bring more democratic legitimacy to the provincial legislative process. They claim that elected members would have a voice that aligns more closely with the will of the people, enhancing the democratic process and allowing for more diverse representation.

Providing Shadow legislators

For smaller provinces, an elected upper chamber could essentially act as a shadow legislature, replicating the roles and activities of existing elected bodies. This could streamline processes and reduce duplication.

Arguments Against

Opponents of this idea, however, argue that such a move would not offer significant benefits. They suggest that the primary benefit would be to create more jobs for politicians, which may not be the most efficient use of resources. They also argue that without substantial power, the elected upper chamber would be largely symbolic and not contribute meaningfully to the legislative process.

Legislative Duplicity and Conflict

It is often pointed out that an elected upper chamber would likely be frequently at odds with the lower house, much like the situation in the United States. This inherent conflict could lead to legislative gridlock and inefficiency, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of the legislative process.

Senator’s Role and Power

The original design of the Senate was for sober second thought, ensuring that appointed members could provide a critical and independent perspective. In the context of an elected upper chamber, the notion that it would serve the will of the people is based on a false premise. The Senate does not exist to merely mirror the lower house; it should be seen as a complementary body to ensure thoughtful and prudent legislation.

Compared to Federal Senate

Compared to the federal Senate, an elected upper chamber in provincial legislatures would face significant challenges. It is unlikely that provincial legislatures would see any benefit from having an elected upper chamber while the federal one remains appointed. Additionally, the idea of granting an elected upper chamber equal power with provincial legislatures raises serious questions about the practicality and necessity of such a move.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion, the establishment of an elected upper chamber in Canadian provinces must be carefully considered. While the idea of providing more democratic representation is appealing, the practical implications must not be overlooked. Policymakers should be cautious and must address the potential for legislative gridlock and inefficiency. Instead, it might be more beneficial to focus on improving the effectiveness of existing institutions and ensuring that appointed bodies, such as the Senate, serve their intended purpose effectively.

Moreover, Canada should not adopt the U.S. model of government with its separation of powers and checks and balances, as this has proven to be inefficient and has led to significant governance challenges, as evidenced by its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Canada needs a more cohesive system that can respond effectively to national and provincial challenges.

Key Takeaways

Establishing an elected upper chamber is a complex issue with both advantages and disadvantages. The Senate should serve as a chamber of sober second thought rather than an echo chamber of the lower house. Granting parity in power to elected and appointed bodies could lead to inefficiencies and gridlock. Focus should be on improving existing institutions rather than creating new ones.