Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Canadian senate reform
Canadian senate reform
Canadian senate reform
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The role of senators in Canada is a widely debated topic in Canadian politics. Because it is one of the original chambers founded in Confederation, it has an extensive historical founding. That being said, the role of a senator has not changed much since then. In addition, the effectiveness of senatorial policies has wavered over time, but the systems within the Senate remain unchanged. What has changed, however, is the world surrounding the Senate. As Canada continues to grow and develop as a nation, the Senate has remained a constant in an ever-changing country. his paper will view the role of the senate and the general influence over policy changes through history from confederation to modern times. This paper will assess the changes in …show more content…
Legislation passed through the Senate is critiqued for its potential effectiveness and the effect of the legislation on Canada as a whole. A senator has a different perspective when approaching legislation as compared to an individual in the House of Commons. A premier is mainly concerned with the constituents who elected them, and therefore will frequently vote in favour of their party or the views of the region they are representing. A senator, on the other hand, is able to view the legislation from a more critical view, and consider the legislation without being occupied by the views of a particular party or constituents. A senator may also be placed in a committee. Senatorial committees are formed in order to discuss one or more specific issues in legislation, such as Administration and Conflict Interest, Internal Economy and Budgets, and Privileges, Standing Rules, and Orders. These committees can consist of at least twelve members. This is how most legislative review is …show more content…
This is a considerable amount of money at the time of Confederation in 1867, amounting to roughly $63,000 today. It may appear strange as to whether or not the intention of the Fathers of Confederation is to appoint wealthier senators, but according to John A. Macdonald, this was the intention of the Fathers of Confederation. Wealthy individuals were a minority in the Dominion of Canada at the time and the perpetuating belief “rich are always fewer in number than the poor,” resulted in the appointing of senators from wealthy socio-economic backgrounds. This aspect of the Senate has not changed, and is frequently criticized. The Senate is often critiqued for the lack of diversity of various socio-economic backgrounds. Diversity in this context is defined by various ethnic, geographic, and gender differences in the Senate. The socio-economic backgrounds of the Senate have not changed since Confederation, but the ethnic backgrounds of senators have changed to represent Canada as a whole. For example, at the time of Confederation, the Senate comprised entirely of wealthy white men. As society progresses, the Senate gradually becomes more representative of Canada as a whole. From the nineteen eighties until recent times, large changes have been made in the composition of the Senate. The number of female senators has
The years following the Second World War were bleak in regards to Canada's future as a country, with the public and politicians alike set against each other, but soon a Québec man by the name of René Lévesque entered journalism, and then politics, voicing his views for all to hear, with great success and vigour. Though obstacles presented themselves often in his life, he changed the views of Québec, Canada and the world as a whole. René Lévesque was a passionate and charismatic politician who greatly contributed to post-war Québec and even today through his beliefs in separatism, founding the Parti Québecois and passing Bill 101.
William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada’s longest serving prime minister, is known for both the great contributions he brought to Canada and for the scandals he was involved in. The one event that makes him most famous to Canadians is the King-Byng Affair of 1926. During this event, Mackenzie King asked Lord Byng to dissolve parliament in order to force a new election as he had lost with a minority. Because King’s intentions were to regain a majority government, Byng refused out of distrust for King’s plans and King was replaced in power by the Conservatives. While William Lyon Mackenzie King’s actions were in accordance with all the laws regarding his power as Prime Minister, he acted for selfish reasons thus putting him in the wrong. Mackenzie King’s and Lord Byng’s histories will be quickly analyzed to understand their actions in the affair. Right after, King’s options and reasons for dissolving parliament will be analyzed. Thirdly, Byng’s options and reasons for refusing King’s request will be researched. Once enough evidence has been collected, the end results of this affair will be discussed and the conclusion as to whether or not King was right to go against responsible government will be made.
The committee system is necessary in order to ensure that each piece of legislation receives the consideration that it deserves. Judy Schneider summarizes that, “Due to the high volume and complexity of its work, Congress divides its legislative, oversight, and internal administrative tasks among committees and subcommittees” (The Committee System in the U.S. Congress 1). It would be a daunting task for each member of Congress to personally review each piece of legislation that is introduced each year. The purpose of the committees is to review legislation, based on the committee’s area of responsibility, and determine whether or not the bill will go through for voting to the whole congress.
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.
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.
John Diefenbaker was the last “old Tory” to be the Prime Minister of Canada. He was a member of the Conservative Party with deep values as well as being a British loyalist who supported the Queen. Diefenbaker was also a man that was well known for not supporting anything he thought was anti- British. This sentiment was most evident when Diefenbaker criticized the Liberal’s refusal to support Britain in the Suez Canal crisis and sided with the Americans. This loyalty the Diefenbaker had to the British Commonwealth would not serve him well as Prime Minister of Canada. In 1958, Diefenbaker would win the largest majority government in Canadian history upsetting the new leader of the Liberal Party, Lester B. Pearson, who had taken over for St. Laurent. In the election Diefenbaker would win 208 seats out of a possible 265 seats. The Liberal Party, led by Pearson would only be able to obtain 48 seats making them the Official Opposition. Five years after this historic win, John Diefenbaker would once again rewrite history by losing the largest number of seats in Canadian history. Historians who have written about Diefenbaker are confounded when they try to unravel the puzzling actions of Diefenbaker in his dealings with others concerning foreign and domestic policies. Many historians look at a few major mistakes that Diefenbaker committed during his term as Prime Minister from 1957 until 1963 which led to his collapse of power. The major events that led to the downfall of his government in 1963 included; the amount of spending and tax cut bills his government passed immediately after the election, the Avro Canada planes which Canada was building to become the leader in aeroplane technology, the Bomarc Missile Crisis in the 1960s in whi...
The Confederation Settlement was inscribed in the British North America Act, 1867. The principle crafter of the document, Sir John A. Macdonald, “intended the new country be a highly centralized federation” (Dyck, 433), and thus the notion of Canadian federalism was birthed. The Founding Fathers modeled Canadian federalism from mercantile monarchy, Court Whigs, and from a renewal of counter-revolutionary transplant (Gagnon, 22 – 25). In February of 1865 at a debate in the Parliament of United Canada, the Fathers of Confederation proposed their model: “We have formed a scheme of government which united the advantages of both giving us the strength of a legislative union and the sectorial freedom of a federal union” (Parliamentary Debates, 32). The Confederation Settlement “consisted of five principal components: the division of powers between the central and provincial governments, the division of financial resources, federal controls imposed on the provinces, provincial representation in the central institutions, and certain cultural guarantees” (Dyck, 433).
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
Quebec has struggled with a need to be maitres chez nous “masters of their own house” (Young, 1998). Many attempts at resolving Quebec's issues has resulted in tensions from both sides. Because Quebec has a strong national identity, and do not define themselves as strictly Canadian, Quebec is seen as difficult, unyielding and discontented. Quebec's separation perhaps is inedible and the future of Canada questionable. Canada without Quebec will bring about many complications and whether there is a rest of Canada (ROC) after Quebec a major challenge. Western alienation and the lack of representation in federal affairs will be a factor; moreover, past actions and historical events may have turned Canada into a time bomb, and the deterioration of the provinces the only sulotion. How First Ministers react to Quebec's sovereignty regarding economic factors, political structure, and constitutional issues will be of great importance. Whether emotional issues will play a major role in decision making is subjective; however, it is fair to say that it will be an emotionally charged event and it could either tear apart the ROC or fuse it together. Placing emphasis on investigating what keeps Canada together is perhaps the key to Canada's future, and salvaging a relationship with Quebec.
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
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...
Frist, federalism is the division of power between the provinces and the federal government (Cutler 2010, 3). As well, Federal systems tend to be made up of multiple parts, which do not necessarily work together (Brock 2008, 3). There has been an increase on the study of federalism in recent years, which has created a more in-depth look at how federalism impacts the government. (Farfard Rocher 2009, 294). There are two aspects of federalism and both of them put limitations on the influence of the prime minister. The first is called political asymmetry; this encompasses the various attitudes of the different provinces such as the culture, economic, social and political conditions and how it shapes the relationship between the provincial and federal governments (Brock 2008, 4). This can create a problem for the federal government because it means that they may ha...
Stilborn, Jack. Senate Reform: Issues and Recent Developments. Ottawa: Parliamentary Information and Research Service, 2008.
..., & News, C. (n.d.). CBC News Indepth: The 39th Parliament - Harper at the helm. CBC.ca - Canadian News Sports Entertainment Kids Docs Radio TV. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/parliament39/quebecnation-history.html
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.