The idea of a Triple E senate did not come into play until the legislation was passed under Pierre Trudeau about the National Energy Program (NEP) due to the energy crisis the 1970s. This was a welcome change for the eastern provinces, but created tension from Alberta with its natural resources, and became unpopular in the whole of western Canada, creating the idea of ‘western alienation.’ (Canada needs triple e reform, 2013) With the NEP, Alberta began to quickly call for changes in the federal government for more regional issues to have a better platform in federal government, finally proposing Triple E Senate. A year later polls such as the Gallip Poll in 1986 were used to show the popularity of the idea of senate reform, with support from …show more content…
However, there are inherent problems with this type of senate reform, where it asks both federal government and certain provinces to lessen their power so that all provinces have an equal platform to broadcast their issues and regional interests. The idea that these two conflicting governments are involved in the national legislation process would form problems, and even this idea of change would change the normal practices of parliament. This idea a triple E Senate calls for constitutional changes, which are difficult to do, and why so far the Prime Minister has only made informal changes since they would need a 7/10 provincial approval with at least 50 percent of the Canadian population on top of the approval of both parts of parliament. It calls for a complete overhaul of the current senate, to become better suitable for regional representation of the Canadian population (gibbins …show more content…
The types of things that this proposal calls for are great because it would strengthen the portion of Parliament that has had many problems since it was created in the 1867 Confederation, however when all three ideas are put together would be very difficult to implement. Senate reform itself presents a very daunting task that has been proposed many times over the years, with little actual change because both implementation and operation of new changes would be very difficult for the federal government to pass. Despite the optimism of the idea of Triple E Senate, there are problems in the powers it wants to bring to the Senate, as well as the idea of equal representation per province. I also think that this senate reform will not be passed on the simple idea that the two biggest provinces, Ontario and Quebec, do not want to lose any of their power and autonomy to be added into equal representation of all provinces. They would have over 60 percent of Canada’s population but would only account for 20 percent of the senators. I feel that the way in which the seating of the Senate is wrong, but the ideas in this reform are only a stepping stone to how we can actually fix the representation issues in parliament while still noting the provinces with the biggest parts of the
This has been one of the most fascinating political seasons in recent history. The level of discourse and potential scandals on both sides has increased my attention level. Rather you support either of these candidates, both the fringe candidates from the left and the right both have struck a chord with a lot of people. Whether either of them wins their party’s nomination and becomes the president is still left to be decided. Mainstream political pundits and major social institutions have either condemned or flatly said that some of these candidates’ proposals are not feasible, but to the electorate that doesn’t seem to matter. There has been a lot of commotion about a brokered Republican convention even though it seems that there will be one
Throughout the second chapter Levin states that there is a very small turnover in Congress and each time that election time comes into play, most of the same people are elected for position (Levin 19-32). He believes that while term limits are not enough to balance the power of the governing systems it is a step in the right direction and are necessary and a critical building block (Levin 22). In his next chapter Levin proposes an amendment that is to restore the Senate (Levin 33). This amendment would repeal the seventeenth amendment and make it to where all Senators are chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article I (Levin 33). Prior to the seventeenth amendment the Senate had been chosen by legislators of each state (Levin 34). Throughout the chapter he goes on to talk about how the Framers of our nation intended the Senate to be chosen and also how we have branched away from that. He discusses several different people’s opinions on how it should be ran and also how it should be managed. He states that John Dickinson made a notion that the Senate should be chosen by the state legislatures (Levin
The Meech Lake accord was a set of constitutional amendments that were designed to persuade Quebec Province to accept the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 (Brooks 152). This accord derives its name from the Meech Lake, where these negotiations were held by Mulroney Brian, the Canadian Prime Minister, and the ten premiers of the ten Canadian Provinces (Brooks 211). By the time the Canadian constitution was being implemented, Quebec was the only province that had not consented to it. Somehow, the partition of the constitution in 1982 was carried out without Quebec’s agreement, but it was still bound by the same law. Attempts were made to persuade this province to sign the constitution, which it agreed to do but only after its five demands are fulfilled by the Canadian government. Unfortunately, these demands were not met and this accord failed in 1990, when two provincial premiers failed to approve it. This paper answers the question whether Quebec asked for too much during the Meech Lake Accord negotiations.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is attempting to further decentralize Canadian government with, what he calls, open federalism. This essay will begin with a discourse on the evolution of Canadian federalism, then exclusively compare Harper’s approach to the proceeding Liberal governments approach, and ultimately explain why Stephen Harper’s “open federalism” methodology is the most controversial form of Canadian federalism yet.
Senate reform in Canada has been a popular topic for decades but has yet to be accomplished. Since the Senates formation in 1867 there has been numerous people who call for its reform or abolishment due to the fact it has not changed since its implementation and does not appear to be fulfilling its original role. An impediment to this request is that a constitutional amendment is needed to change the structure of the Senate, which is not an easy feat. Senate reform ideas have developed from other upper houses in counties such as the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany. From those two different successful governments emerges examples of different electoral systems, state representation, and methods of passing legislations.
Virginia, being a large state proposes that representation should be based on the state’s population. This means that the more citizens that populate a state can send more delegates to represent in congress. This would put larger states at an advantage because larger states naturally have a larger population. Therefore by having a larger population, they can send more representatives and consequently have a “larger” voice in the legislature. Ultimately, the smaller states would not accept or agree to Virginia’s plan because they would be at a disadvantage since they have fewer citizens. Within its plan, they believe in a bicameral legislature where there are two separate chambers in congress where the people elect the lower house and the lower house would vote to elect the upper house. The members of each chamber are determined proportionally. In addition, there will be three branches of government legislatures such as legislatives, executive, and lastly
However, the proposed systems must be thoroughly examined for their compatibility with Canada’s needs and their ability to resolve the issues outlined in this paper. From distortion in representation to Western alienation and to making the voices of minorities heard, the new system must also ensure that Parliament fulfills its role in representing, legislating, and holding the government. More importantly, after the current government abandoned its promise on electoral reform, it is important for researchers and future governments to build on the knowledge acquired by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform as well as previous experiences of the provinces with electoral
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
Such as, there are two senators for each state. But there are states that have a higher population than others, but still only represented by two senators. Since, there are places that have a smaller population, their vote towards the senate or for certain ideas is much more impacted. For example, if a state has ten people living it compared to a hundred then the being in the state with ten people is more beneficial. Your voice is heard and placed into the votes that the senator takes to the Senate. Whereas, if you are in a state with one hundred people, your voice is less likely to be heard and will have less of an impact. This is what Dahl is trying to share with us throughout the novel. I began to understand that we need more representation in the Senate close to Chapter
...eft our own system to fester and decay. Unfortunately for Canadians, the only way that we can actually change our electoral system is if the party in power lets us. The problem with that is the ruling party generally has been granted a phony majority from the antiquated SMP system, and so changing the electoral system is the last thing that they want to do, unless they one day find themselves on the outside looking in. In 1984 when he was campaigning for the Liberal leadership, Chretien told reporters in Brandon that if elected he would introduce proportional representation “right after the next election”6. In 1993, two elections later, Chretien would win a majority with only 41% of the popular vote, and interestingly enough noble plans for reform were soon scuttled. In 1997 the Liberals won only 39% of the vote, and in 2000 only 42%, and then in 2003 Chretien retired after ten years as our unjustly elected dictator without ever raising the issue of electoral reform. With the current minority government, we have an unprecedented chance to create real change, and we can only hope that the voice of the majority gets through and our government does what the people actually want.
Proportional representation is almost always acknowledged as the fairest electoral system. With this in mind, many still reject a mixed member proportional system. Critics argue that the current method has produced a stable and effective government, while MMP would create an ineffective government. Wiseman feels that since Canada has been consistently stable, our electoral system does not need to be changed. Hiemstra and Jansen disagree with the plurality system that is currently in place for it does not produce fair representation and devalues citizen’s votes. Canadians must make a choice between the value of effectiveness and the values of justice and equity. Although a switch is not anticipated in the near future, Canadian citizens can hope that it is at least in the minds of many voters and on the discussion list of the government.
The electoral system in Canada has been utilized for over a century, and although it has various strengths which have helped preserve the current system, it also has glaringly obvious weaknesses. In recent years, citizens and experts alike have questioned whether Canada’s current electoral system, known as First Past the Post (FPTP) or plurality, is the most effective system. Although FPTP is a relatively simple and easy to understand electoral system, it has been criticized for not representing the popular vote and favouring regions which are supportive of a particular party. FPTP does have many strengths such as simplicity and easy formation of majority governments, however, its biggest drawback is that it does not proportionally represent
Leeson, H. A., & University of Regina (2009). Saskatchewan politics: Crowding the centre. Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina.
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Alternative Federal Budget 2011, Report: Rethink, Rebuild, Renew (pg. 69, 70, 72, 75) Retrieved from: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/AFB2011
To conclude, in the present Canadians are seeing change in PSE funding policies begin to come from the provinces. Due to the fact that “when Ottawa went against the grain and launched the Millennium Scholarship programs, provincial feathers, especially Quebec’s, were immediately ruffled,” provinces such as Quebec and British Columbia, among others, were motivated to “set up their own research funding agencies with the view to [maximize] the likelihood of obtaining funds from Ottawa,” (Bakvis 216). As for the legitimacy of cooperative federalism in Canada today, it seems as though executive federalism itself is turning largely paternalistic – at least in the sense of PSE. More often than not, in PSE funding, the federal government has taken the initiative while “one set of executives – those from provincial governments – was largely absent,” (Bakvis 218).