Skip to main content

ELL Blog

Canada Parliamentary Reform

In 1927, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, unanimously, in the Persons Case that women were not eligible to be senators. Since this was during the time that Canada was still under British rule, an appeal was allowed and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council allowed women to become senators.

What does that mean? That means that courts are not likely to be filled with unbiased individuals. If all the justices can deem women ineligible to be a senator, then our laws will always be begrudged to the societal views held by judges in the past.

I propose two things. Supreme court rulings should always be able to be appealed resulting in a group of people from the age of 16 to the age of 70 deciding the final verdict. The group of people would have to be 10, with half guaranteed to be under half the age of life expectancy. The life expectancy will be a hard coded age in the constitution meaning that every time the age is too low, everyone in Canada has to agree that the age is too low.

The second thing is that we need to do away with the senate. It’s a waste of time and only exists because of a broken electoral system. Voters did not vote for senators and there’s too many of them to hold a single one accountable. If the PM gets to pick the supreme court, why do they get to pick the senators as well?!