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. …show more content…
Firstly, the bicameral system started in the 17th century and has been set up in many countries since. This system is justified on its standard of checks and balances on the governing party. The members of the two houses are elected or appointed to their positions depending on what method the country decides on. Canada is one of the countries with a bicameral parliamentary democracy, which was modeled off of England’s House of Lords. (Supreme Court 2014, pg. 720) One of the important factors of the bicameral system is the upper house of Parliament called the Senate, which has a long history and distinctive structure within Canada.
The Canadian Senate was originally created in the Constitution Act of 1867 with 72 seats but as Canada expanded more seats were added and it currently has 105 seats. (Government of Canada, About the Senate) The Senate was originally formed in order to allow the Canadian elite to have a say against the House of Commons, which represented the general population. The Senate was to also provide representation to minority groups, women, and Aboriginal peoples who
…show more content…
This came to be known as the Sober Second Thought and allowed in-depth study and review on national issues by Senate Committees. (Supreme Court 2014, pg. 720) The Senate Committees are non partisan groups, which draw upon the knowledge of its members to provide careful studies on national issues. These Committees are made up of between five to fifteen senators ranging from prior positions of federal and provincial ministers, lawyers and business people, ethnic representatives, and former members of provincial assemblies. (Government of Canada, Senate Work) The three basic tasks that they must cover is to accept or change legislations, to study policy matters and offer improvements, and to asses the governments budget proposals. Popular studies that have been done were on unemployment, foreign affairs, the aging population, Aboriginal affairs, and matters concerning science and technology. Many of the studies lead to important changes in government legislation as they are able to make aware political, economic, and social concerns that aren’t always always expressed within the House of Commons. One example of Committee work was the 1982 studies by the Committee on Foreign Affairs on Canada- U.S. relations. (Government of Canada, How is the Senate’s Work Relevant to our Everyday Lives) In that study the senators presented a bilateral free trade
For a democratic country to thrive, they must have a proper electoral system in producing the party to oversee our government. Since its inception in 1867, Canada has been using the first past the post system during elections to decide their leading party. Although we have been using this system for an extended duration of time, the FPTP system is flawed and should be changed. The goal of this paper is to prove the effectiveness of shifting to more of a proportional system, while also exposing the ineptness of Canada’s current system. With other methods advancing and little change of the first past the post system, this system is becoming predated. A variation of the proportional electoral system is key because it empowers voters, increases voter turnout, and creates a more diverse environment. Canada should adopt a more proportionate electoral system at the federal level if we wish to expand democracy.
Most individuals with a general background knowledge of the United States Federal Government system are aware that in order for a bill to become a law, it must first pass a majority vote in Congress. There is, however, a very important step in the legislative process that sometimes goes unnoticed. The committee system of the legislation process ensures that the appropriate attention is given to each bill introduced to Congress. Each member of both chambers are assigned to committees and subcommittees, and are expected to become subject matter experts in their respective roles as committee members.
A more sudden, but perhaps equally profound event is the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whereas before the adoption of the Charter Canadian legislatures were supreme, having power without limit within their jurisdictions, they now have debatable supremacy within altered jurisdictions. Moreover, although no powers or rights have been explicitly ‘reserved’ to the people, supporters of the charter nevertheless appear to give Canadians hope that the possibility may exist.
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
of the Senate while others such as the Reform Party want to elect it. Since the
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
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 Prime Minister of Canada is given much power and much responsibility. This could potentially create a dangerous situation if the government held a majority and was able to pass any legislation, luckily this is not the case. This paper will argue that there are many limitations, which the power of the prime minister is subject too. Three of the main limitations, which the Prime Minister is affected by, are; first, federalism, second the governor general and third, the charter of rights and freedoms. I will support this argument by analyzing two different types of federalism and how they impact the power of the Prime Minister. Next I will look at three of the Governor Generals Powers and further analyze one of them. Last I will look at the impact of the charter from the larger participation the public can have in government, and how it increased the power of the courts.
Stilborn, Jack. Senate Reform: Issues and Recent Developments. Ottawa: Parliamentary Information and Research Service, 2008.
When many people hear the words the Senate and the House of Representative they might think of Congress. They do not truly go into depth of what those two departments mean, and they do not understand how vital they are to our own government. Congress is part of the Legislative Branch and is a bicameral legislature. Which means that is a legislature that is separated into two houses, and in that case is the House of Representatives and the Senate. Many know the words "The Senate" and "The House of Representatives" but they do not truly know what those words entail, many do not know the contrast and comparisons of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
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
Canada has a central government designed to deal with the country as a whole. Things like national defense, banking, currency, and commerce are controlled by the central government. All other matters are left to the provinces to deal with. Such as education, hospitals, and civil rights are responsibilities of the states. The Canadian Parliament consists of two houses. Their Senate is made up of 104 members who serve until the age of seventy-five.
“The founders of Confederation gave the Senate the important role of protecting regional, provincial and minority interest” (Parliament of Canada, 2015). Basically, every region had the same number of seats in order to ensure them an equal voice in the Senate. As new territories and provinces entered Confederation, seats were added. Today, there are 105 seats that represent the Senate. The Maritimes Division has 24 seats, the Ontario Division has 24 seats, the Quebec Division has 24 seats, the Western Division has 24 seats, and additional representation; such as Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory and Nunavut has a total of 9 seats (Pouliot, 2015). Moreover, the Constitution also allowed the Senate to temporarily
Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers. Contrary to Mellon’s view, Paul Barker disagrees with the idea of a prime-ministerial government in Canada. Both perspectives bring up solid points, but the idea of a prime-ministerial government leading to too much power in the hands of the prime minister is an exaggeration. Canada is a country that is too large and complex to be dominated by a single individual. The reality is, the Prime Minister of Canada has limitations from several venues. The Canadian Prime Minister is restricted internally by his other ministers, externally by the other levels of government, the media and globalization.
For years, countries have had different legislatures bicameral and unicameral. The features of each legislatures are distinct from one another. It even accounts to various vices and virtues. Both legislatures exist in various countries in the world. The reason to which varies in each place. Legislatures are essential for a society to perform politically well. However, the political structure of every nations varies thus, there exist no simple generalization. The structural arrangements of different legislatures are distinct in relation to their number of chambers available. (Danziger, J. N. (1996))