Alberta Referendum Analysis: Question #7

Should Canada Abolish the Senate?

Our Alberta Referendum Analysis Series continues with an examination of the second of four constitutional questions. My hope throughout this series has been to approach each question from an educational perspective, encouraging thoughtful discussion rather than advocacy. Ultimately, nothing in this analysis should replace each voter’s responsibility to read the question carefully, consider the facts, and reach their own informed conclusion.

Ballot Question #7 says;

“Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to abolish the unelected federal Senate?”

On its face, this question sounds simple. Many Canadians have questioned the role of the Senate for decades. Critics argue that an unelected chamber has no place in a modern democracy, while supporters believe the Senate serves as an important safeguard against hasty legislation and regional domination by Canada’s largest provinces.

Before voting, Albertans should understand what the Senate does, why it exists, and how difficult it would be to abolish it.

Why Does Canada Have a Senate?

When Canada was created in 1867, the country’s founders deliberately established two chambers of Parliament.

The House of Commons was designed to represent Canadians based on population, while the Senate was created to provide regional representation and serve as a chamber of “sober second thought” by reviewing legislation passed by elected Members of Parliament.

Unlike MPs, senators are appointed rather than elected. Today, senators are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister, following recommendations from an independent advisory process introduced in 2016. They serve until age 75.

The Senate has nearly all the legislative powers of the House of Commons, except that it cannot introduce bills that spend public money or impose taxes. It can delay, amend, or, in rare cases, reject legislation passed by the House.

Why Do People Want to Abolish It?

Many Canadians believe the Senate no longer fulfills its intended purpose.

The most common criticisms include:

● Critics argue that because senators are not elected, they lack democratic legitimacy.

● Appointments have historically been influenced by political patronage.

● Canadians already elect Members of Parliament to make federal laws.

● Maintaining the Senate costs taxpayers tens of millions of dollars each year.

● An appointed chamber can delay or reject legislation approved by elected representatives.

● Supporters of abolition also argue that if legislation requires improvement, those changes should be made by elected Members of Parliament who are directly accountable to voters.

These concerns have existed for decades and are shared across the political spectrum.

Many Albertans have also argued that repeated attempts at Senate reform have failed, making abolition the only realistic path to meaningful change.

Why Do Others Believe the Senate Should Remain?

Supporters argue that the Senate performs an important constitutional function.

Because senators do not face elections, they may be better positioned to examine legislation without short-term political pressure.

The Senate frequently conducts detailed committee studies that identify unintended consequences, drafting errors, or constitutional concerns before bills become law. It has also amended or delayed legislation where senators believed additional scrutiny was warranted.

Supporters argue this independent review can improve legislation before it becomes law.

The Senate also provides representation for Canada’s regions and provinces, giving smaller provinces a stronger voice than they would have in the House of Commons, where representation is based primarily on population.

Supporters further argue that the Senate provides additional scrutiny for legislation affecting Indigenous peoples, official language minorities, and other groups whose interests may not always align with the priorities of elected governments.

They also note that the Senate’s operating costs represent only a very small fraction of overall federal spending and argue that those costs are justified if the institution improves legislation and protects regional and minority interests.

Finally, supporters argue that removing the Senate would leave Canada with a single legislative chamber, concentrating more legislative authority in the House of Commons.

Alberta’s Long History with Senate Reform

This referendum question is particularly significant in Alberta because the province has long advocated Senate reform.

For decades, Alberta promoted the idea of a “Triple-E Senate”—one that would be Elected, Equal, and Effective.

The goal was not to eliminate the Senate but to transform it into a chamber where every province had equal representation, somewhat similar to upper houses in countries such as the United States and Australia, where states have equal representation.

Supporters believed this would give smaller provinces greater influence over national decisions and help balance the political dominance of Ontario and Quebec.

Despite years of discussion, constitutional negotiations failed to produce reform.

The referendum question therefore reflects a shift from seeking to improve the Senate to asking whether it should exist at all.

The Constitutional Challenge

While the referendum asks whether Alberta should work with other provinces to abolish the Senate, voters should understand that Alberta cannot do this alone.

In its 2014 Senate Reference decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that abolishing the Senate would require unanimous agreement under the Constitution’s unanimity amending formula.

That means Parliament and every provincial legislature would have to approve the amendment.

Canada has struggled to achieve constitutional consensus for decades. The failures of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords illustrate how difficult major constitutional amendments can be.

As a result, even if Albertans vote “Yes,” the referendum would not abolish the Senate. Instead, it would signal that Albertans support the Alberta government pursuing this constitutional objective with other governments.

Questions Voters May Wish to Consider

As you prepare to vote, you may wish to ask yourself:

● Should unelected officials continue to have the authority to review and amend federal legislation?

● Does the Senate still provide meaningful protection for smaller provinces, regional interests, and minority groups?

● Would abolishing the Senate make Parliament more democratic, or simply concentrate more power in the House of Commons?

● Is pursuing constitutional abolition a practical objective given Canada’s stringent constitutional amendment process?

● Would Canada be better served by reforming the Senate rather than eliminating it altogether?

For Your Consideration

Whether one supports or opposes the Senate, there is broad agreement that Canada’s upper chamber has been debated for generations. Canadians, however, remain divided over whether it should be abolished, reformed, or retained.

Supporters of abolition argue that democracy is strongest when lawmakers are directly accountable to voters and that legislative authority should rest entirely with elected representatives.

Supporters of retaining the Senate believe an independent upper chamber provides valuable oversight, strengthens legislation, protects regional and minority interests, and serves as an important constitutional check within Canada’s parliamentary system.

This referendum is not about immediately abolishing the Senate. Rather, it asks whether Alberta should pursue one of the most significant constitutional changes in Canadian history by working with other provinces. Because such a change would require unanimous constitutional approval across Canada, the question is ultimately whether Albertans believe that effort is worthwhile.