It is widely regarded that countries with overlapping national and provincial governments must have upper and lower houses in their legislatures to ensure fairness among the regions of the country and to prevent an imbalance of power. This concept was referred to by Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John A. MacDonald, as the “sober second thought”. It is submitted that in today’s legal and political environment, Canada does not need a Senate to have its government function fairly, honestly and efficiently due to the procedures of the House of Commons. The Senate should be abolished for the reasons noted below. Firstly, the costs of operating the Senate have become extremely high, and there does not appear to be any political will to change this. Second, in spite of numerous half-hearted attempts to reform the Senate, senators are appointed by the Prime Minister and not …show more content…
The Senate is referred to as the “Upper House” because it looks at proposed laws after the House of Commons does. “A Concise Guide to the Process and Materials of Canadian Legislation” tells us how the Canadian Senate goes about dealing with a piece of legislation. Typically, proposed laws, known as bills, are brought before the House of Commons by an interested Member of Parliament for review and consideration by all members. After three rounds of editing and revisions, each referred to as a “Reading”, a proposed law is then sent to the Senate for final approval. Members of the Senate typically establish committees to further inspect the law. The Senate’s job is to reflect on what the House passed and whether or not they agree with the decision the House made. In the early history of Canada, the Senate was thought of as a valuable asset to our country — a balancing act against the House to make sure laws are looked upon from all sides before being passed. Sir John A. Macdonald