The Senate is a body of parliament in which bills are passed. The senators in this body of government are appointed by the Governor General with the advice from the Prime Minster and are permitted to stay in office until the age of 75. The senate is a highly contested topic with the political parties and the Canadian public. One of the problems argued, is the bias that some senators may have based on their affiliation with a particular party. This is important because they are allowed to stay in office for a long time. Along with that, there have been many cases in which senators have abused their spending budget for personal expenses. This is important as that money comes from the hardworking tax paying citizens. With this, transparency within …show more content…
the Senate is necessary. Also, there is a notion that personal bias based on age and party affiliation may enable senators to vote or veto certain on particular bills. However, the Senate should only be reformed instead of completely being abolished. Abolishing it completely would allow almost complete bias when passing bills as the House of Commons would be the ones passing bills. Also it would erase all the years of work put in by federalism. With this being said, the Senate should only be reformed because it is one of the checks and balances in place that aide in the making of effective laws. This essay will examine the problems and resolutions in depth as well as provide reforms to combat the problems within the Senate. Firstly, abolishment of the senate would be a very drastic change to make.
The public perception of the senate has become negative throughout the years of being “lazy”. However the senate performs as the house of second thought (Brooks, 2015).This enables senators to make educated decisions on laws and passing them. There is more of a debate and looking in depth of bills. Compared to the idea of only having a House of Commons where political parties are either in a majority, minority or a joint form of government. In this case members of the house are impacted by party discipline where they are obligated to vote with their party even if their belief in a bill or policy is different. It does not allow proper discussion within a political party or house because opinions are subject to being silenced. Therefore if senate were abolished and only The House of Commons was in place it would not allow for a meaningful implementation of laws. This is the reason why reform of the senate in contrast to complete abolishment would be beneficial to fixing the problems within the senate(Hoffman, 2012). The reason being is that reform is an ability to make changes in order to improve it.In contrast to abolishment it is more of a compromise because it addresses the problems, whereas abolishment it a quick fix for a short period of …show more content…
time. With the idea of reform in mind, one of the reforms made in Senate should be a publicly elected Senate. This is important as the members of senate are currently appointed by the governor general on the advice of the Prime Minister(Russell,2016). This creates a bias in the house of second thought as bills may not go through objective observation. This is important because of the extended time senators are able to stay in office. According to the constitution senators are able to stay in office until the age of 75. It prevents change in Canada as bills that are more progressive may be challenged by personal belief and thoughts on topics that are highly opposed by some parties. For example, policies for LGBTQ rights may not be well received by conservatives. This is important because if a Prime Minister in the conservative party elected a senator on the basis of shared beliefs, it would be hard for that particular policy to move forward. As older senators may have a set belief and bias, voting on a proposed bill may not be impartial and in accordance to whether it meets with the charter. In turn, proving that reform in which senators are put in office should be considered. Furthermore, many senators may not be as driven to work proactively in the senate because of the job description. In public perception, it is contested as a job only desired by those who have accomplished much in their careers and are looking for job security with good pay. The criticism is that the role of a senator is only to provide job security that pays well. According to R.M Dawson “No one goes to the senate with an eye to a future career, but always with the sense of opening up the last chapter. It is a shelter for those whose active life is almost over and who are primarily concerned with pleasant, secure and not very strenuous old age(Franks,1988).This quote illustrates a beneficial point as it outlines that having too much security as a senator influences them to become less active or attentive to the bills and issues concerning the Canadian people. A solution to this problem could be addressed in a time restriction a senator can stay in office. This way a set time cap would prevent senators from being complacent and more active to affect change in Canadian politics . A solution to the problems listed above could be implementing a triple E Senate. This reform was suggested by the government of Alberta,where the triple E senate would be elected, effective and equal(Pellerin ,2006). This reform is important because in order for the senate to be less biased on the advice of the prime minster at the time an election would allow the Canadian public to elect someone who would be an active member of that particular province not on the basis of affiliation of the prime minister’s needs but on those of the Canadian public. It would allow for further development in the Canadian political system because bills and laws will be passed more efficiently to reflect the beliefs of the Canadian public rather than that of a political party in power. The third “e” for the effectiveness of the senate would mean putting a time restriction for how long a senator could stay in office. This is important as it enables them to be more active in decision making, whereas as a senator now only want the job for the security of the position. Also, for the last “e” the equal representation in the senate would mean having representation from more provinces as well as diversity in the senate. This is important because for many years senators have been white males or white women from a background of certain wealth . This however does not reflect the Canadian public. Therefore, by allowing more diversity in the senate bills that are going through a reading will have an insightful view on policies in contrast to having only 2 different perspectives. Lastly, the senate should be more transparent as cases of personal spending from the senate budget have become apparent.
In recent times scandals of senators misusing government expenses for things such as vacations and diners for personal expenses have unfolded. For instance, in an article by the CBC news it states that “The 2013-15 audit of senators' expenses led by auditor general Michael Ferguson cost some $23.6 million but found a relatively paltry $600,000 in ineligible expenses. (The annual budget for the Senate is just north of $100 million a year.)The review, which examined every expense senators incurred over a two-year period, was a "colossal waste of money," in the eyes of Liberal Sen. Percy Downe, with a poor "return on investment.”(Tasker, Sep 23, 2017). This quote illustrates the enormous amounts of unnecessary spending by senators. It is under criticism, not only for a huge waste of money but also the fact that the money they are spending comes out of tax payers pockets. It sparks outrage within the Canadian public because not only do the Canadian public have little say in who gets appointed as a senator but when senators are appointed they abuse their privileges. In addition to that, the money that was spent on personal expenses for the senators could have been used for actually benefiting the Canadian public instead of being wasted by senators. In order to improve upon this there needs to be more transparency within the senate. This could include a yearly
document outlining every single expense. Also, Although, senators should not spend government issued money on personal expenses a way of ensuring this is limiting their budgets even further that way there is not too much extra money left over. As senators make well over the average Canadian and do not need excess money at their disposal. By stealing money from the taxpayers of Canada they undermine the values of responsible government. Hence ,proving reform is essential to fixing these problems of transparency within the Senate. In conclusion, due to the reasons mentioned in this essay the Senate should only be reform because it is one of the checks and balances in place that aide in the making of effective laws. For instance, the senators in this body of government are appointed by the Governor General with the advice from the Prime Minster and are permitted to stay in office until the age of 75. The problem this creates is bias as senators certain views based on their affiliation with a particular party. This is important because they are allowed to stay in office until the age of 75. Along with that, there have been many cases in which senators have abused their spending budget for personal expenses. This is important as that money comes from the hardworking tax paying citizens. With this, transparency within the senate is necessary. Also, there is a notion that personal bias based on age and party affiliation may enable senators to vote or veto on particular bills. However, the Senate should only be reformed instead of completely being abolished. Abolishing it completely would allow almost complete bias when passing bills as the House of Commons would be the ones passing bills. With this being said, the Senate should be reform in terms of electing senators, transparency within the senate as well as the time senators can stay in office.
Ahead in the book, I discover that Norway, Sweden and Denmark nullified their second chambers, choosing that bicameralism was no more essential. In reality, even the House of Lords in England has had its energy fundamentally decreased through time and as Dahl says, "The fate of that old chamber stays in extensive uncertainty." The purposes behind these bicameral contemplations in the constitution need to do with accommodating equivalent representation.
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
Burke, Marie. "Seven aboriginal senators: 40 years (looking back on the Senate's Aboriginal representatives)." Windspeaker Dec. 1998: 9. Canada in Context. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
Mann and Norman J. Ornstein argue that the Legislative branch is the most broken branch of government. Congress was designed by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States to be an independent and powerful party. The Framers wanted the Legislative branch to represent the vast diversity of people of the United States, to deliberate on important issues and policies, and to check and balance the other branches. However, Congress’s role in the American Constitutional System differs from the part it was meant to play. The authors argue that Congress has failed to fill its responsibilities to the people of the United States because of the division of the Democratic and Republican parties, which leaves little room for compromise and negotiation. Members of Congress focus on their own needs and interests, and will travel to far lengths to prove that their political party is the most powerful. Congress has turned a blind eye to the needs of the American people. Congress cannot succeed in getting the United States back on track unless they start to follow the rules dictated by the Framers of the Constitution. A vast series of decisions made by Congress, driven by Congress’s disregard for institutional procedures, its tendency to focus on personal ethics, and the overpowering culture of corruption, led to Congress failing to implement important changes in the United States
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.
Special rules and new floor procedures have been institutionalized. Although the external political environment of the House is as electrifying as that of the Senate, it is based on a very different body of basic rules. The individualist Senate, a body in which senators aggressively exploited the great Congressional privileges these rules gave them, as she argues, to further their own individual ends. In fact, nowadays, the process of lawmaking in a chamber with non-majoritarian rules and with members so accustomed to exploiting those rules fully is reasonably expected to drag on for months, if not
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
Sayers, Anthony M., and Lisa Young. "Election Campaign and Party Financing in Canada." Australian Democratic Audit. Canberra: Australian National University (2004).
Furthermore, the issues of representation in the House of Commons are even more evident in terms of the alienation of certain provinces. Western Canada has experienced political alienation due to the dominance and influence of Ontario and Quebec over policy-making as both provinces contain the founding Cultures of Canada (Miljan, 2012, p. 53) Also, the fact that Ontario and Quebec make up more than 60 percent of Canada’s population attracts policymakers to those provinces while marginalizing the interests of westerners (Miljan, 2012, p. 53). Thus, policymakers will favor Ontario and Quebec as these provinces harbor the most ridings as well as the bigger electors’ base. In fact, Western Canada is also underrepresented in both the House of Commons and the Senate when compared to the Maritime provinces as the Maritime provinces are overrepresented compared to their population. Also, many western Canadians are turned off by the federal government as they have been alienated from major political action and discussion due to low representation (Canada and the World Backgrounder, 2002). In other words, Ottawa does not address the needs and hopes of Western Canada
The Electoral College was created by the framers at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. They believe that it wasn’t a good idea for the people to elect the president directly because they did not trust that voters would have enough information to make a good choice. The Electoral College basically chooses who the next president will be since it takes away our freedom to vote away. The Electoral College should be abolished because it’s undemocratic, the small states are overrepresented, and it hurts third parties.
There are Canadian citizens who thought that the Canadian government we have is perfect, citizens who believed that every aspect of the government was truly democratic, and citizens who believe that government could do no wrong. Truly this group of believers has been living a lie. In our Canadian system of government, large aspects within are far from democratic and need to be changed. Liberal-minded people will cry out for a change in order for government to serve the people better, and on the other hand the more conservative thinkers will argue that no change is needed because our government is efficient and considerate. However, our voting system, our Senate, and the power vested to the Prime Minister are far from democratic, do not meet the actual needs of the people and definitely need to be addressed.
The Electoral College Should Be Abolished Many years after the United States was founded, the Constitutional Convention met to decide how the new nation would govern itself; they later came to settle on the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a system in which the president and vice president are chosen indirectly. In general, the delegates did not believe that a direct popular vote was acceptable, however that it should be decided by the US senators and representatives instead. The way in which it works: a candidate must receive a majority of the electoral votes to be officially declared president. If no candidate obtains a majority, the US Representatives selects the president from the top three contenders; this means each state receives
The Electoral College today is a very complex system of voting and campaigning. When it was first created, the Framers thought the average citizen of their day was not intelligent enough to know who should be leading their country. So they created the Electoral College which was run by people who knew what they were doing. The Electoral College is a body of people who represent each state and they determine the president. The real question is: Has the Electoral College gotten too far out of hand where it needs to go? The answer is yes. The reasons are because any third party candidate running in the election has no chance of winning any electoral votes. Also, it gives too much power to the big states in electoral votes. Finally, it creates problems on majority electoral votes and equality of smaller states is diminished.
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
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))