Party Discipline In Canada

In Canada, party discipline is defined as the ability of getting support from its own political party for their leaders by using party policy (2016, Wikipedia). In a social order like ours, it is usually referred as the legislative control of the leaders have over its members. Under the system of responsible government, party discipline is the reason that gives voters ability to vote effectively (1993, Reid). Party discipline is the middle ground in between the opposition and main government; it requires consent in both sides. One is the view point constituency of each party and the other is the responsibility that the members of parliament has in voicing their opinions and votes (2006, Parliament of Canada).

In this short essay, I argue in

It was said that Canada’s MPs’ power is been minimalize completely by the Prime Minister (Kilgour, 2012 p.1). The reason for less restriction of party discipline is to give them the permission to vote according to the public and personal belief rather than under the influence of the party whip, which will result in freedom of vote for general public. The reason that members of parliament are there are that: they are the representatives of the sections; they are the voice of the people. In Canada we do not elect our MPs to be a puppet solely to be govern under the prime minister. Our country is a democratic country where there’s freedom of speech and freedom to vote. In reducing the hold on party discipline allows the governmental personnel to openly state their opinions without sparking an unnecessary controversy. Which will benefit both opposition and government in power to discuss the controversial debates and will speed up the process of decision making.

In order to let our members of parliament to have more power and saying, we will have to cut power from the party whip and the Prime Minister. In this way no one can force anyone to make a predetermined vote according to party lines rather than their personal conviction. In taking away the power from the PM and party whips will allow the riding representatives more freedom in which power is one

If the parties in our governmental system would openly discuss about the difference in positions and in point of views within the groups in realizing these controversies will minimize the unnecessary troubles greatly. Another possibility of improvement would be following the great examples of other countries with the Westminster governance system. For example, in countries like Australia and New Zealand have already a well-established party discipline rules that are less strict than the ones in Canada and way more effective than the ones we have. In an article, it was said that” Australian parties are considerably more discipline than those in the UK an even those in Canada, although the degree of discipline in the latter has been the subject of much critical comment. Parliamentary votes in the UK are subject to varying degrees of party discipline, with the most rigid being the so-called” three-line whip’ votes. Neither Australia nor Canada has such gradations. In New Zealand party discipline has increased under its mixed Member proportional (MMP) electoral system and, unless party leaders have agreed to a conscience vote, standing orders require a party vote to be taken rather than individuals casting their votes in the chamber. “(Sawer, Abjorensen and Larkin