Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Canadian senate reform
Should the Canadian Senate be reformed
Canadian senate reform
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Canadian senate reform
The Triple E Senate of Canada
Public interest in the Senate is currently stronger than it ever has been. Nearly everyone agrees that our present Senate is unsatisfactory.
Political parties such as the New Democratic Party want the outright abolition of the Senate while others such as the Reform Party want to elect it. Since the
Senate has not been considered an effective forum for regional representation- which was one of the reasons for its creation-many Canadians have wondered what reforms would allow it to perform that role better. The objectives of Senate reform are based on one idea, that of enhancing the quality of regional representation of politicians within national political institutions. Through the implementation of a Triple E Senate (Equal, Effective, Elected), a federal principle can be constructed into the national government and therefore provide a check on the majority in the House of Commons.
A major function of second chambers is legislative review. This means that bills coming from the other house are examined, revised and sometimes delayed. Unless regional representation is included, the legislative review function does not examine the purpose of proposed legislation, but instead attempts to improve it technically. In federal systems, the legislative review function of the Senate is only secondary to their role in providing for representation for various parts of the country in the national legislature.
Representation is selected in favour of the smaller regions, in contrast to the first chamber, where representation is always based on population. Therefore the functions associated with the Senate are legislative review and the representation of the various regions on a different basis from the lower house.
The Fathers of Confederation originally intended for the Senate to play the legislative review role. As sir John A. MacDonald said, the Senate was to have "the sober second thought in legislation" and should not be "a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the Lower House". They also agreed on a particular qualification of Senators, which was intended to help them act as a check against the majority in the Lower House. This qualification has remained unchanged since 1867, but its practical meaning has long been discarded.
The other major role meant for the Senate was to preserve what MacDonald called "sectional interests". It is believed that this agreement about representation in the Senate was the main factor that allowed the Canadian federation to be formed. The Senate has functioned quite effectively as a house of legislative review up to the present time, but its intended role in regional representation has not been as effectively performed. seventy-five), the Senate's ability to represent the regions of Canada has been weakened.
The excerpt “Congress: The Electoral Connection” written by David Mayhew centers around the fundamental arguments that discusses how members of congress are self-interested for reelection. Mayhew further elaborates on his idea by discussing the electoral activities that congress members devote their time into and resource from, which are advertising, credit-claiming, and position taking. Mayhew’s excerpt further examines the framework in how congress operates which contributes to the explanation of how and why congress partakes in the certain electoral activities.
The Republicans are against the federal government. In result, they are ruining the concept of the foundations of self- rule in a representative democracy. They use objection, obstruction, and filibustering to block not only the process of government but also in order to make Americans deeply cynical about Washington. According to the book, legislating has become “war minus the shooting”. Eric Cantor, the House Republican leader, said he would shut off major legislation which further on could potentially affect our economic recovery an entire congressional session. Another example of a Republican who isn’t exactly fit for the political job is Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich saw the House as a rotten and corrupt institution largely because it was run by democrats. When Gingrich won control over the House, it only resulted in wasted money and stationary committee nameplates. He also decimated the traditional committee system, and reduced the power of the committee chairman. When he stepped down and the other Republic...
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.
A Democratic Party long ruled by moderates and conservatives succeeded in stunting what seemed like the natural growth of a successful Republican Party until the 1990s. Since then, various forces have contributed to the growth of the Republicans, and in the end, to an altering of the core membership of each party. Most recently, the state has seen the development of a dominant Republican Party that doesn't yet hold quite the dominion the Democrats enjoyed through most of the twentieth century. The Republican Party has certainly benefited from the defection of former Democrats, the arrival of Republicans and independents from out of state, and organizational difficulties in the Democratic Party. Thus, Republican officials dominate state government, and Democrats find themselves reduced, for the present, to the status of an embattled minority party seeking to recreate themselves among their voting and financial constituencies. This is showing that the newfound Republican dominance can be the beginning of a new strong party system, or if we are in a state of transition in which the terms of political competition are still in change. If it is a new party system, I don’t think it will be very durable or last too long for that matter. Now, it seems that Republican dominance of state government will
Lazar, Harvey. “The Spending Power and the Harper Government.” HeinOnline. 34 Queen's L.J. 125 2008-2009
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.
The Founding Fathers and Canada’s Founders both faced many obstacles and concerns when working towards creating the best possible form of government for their respectable nations. The Federalist Papers seek to counter the Articles of Confederation whereas Canada’s Founding Debates is a discussion between supporters and opponents of Confederation. Between the Founding Fathers and Canada’s Founders in the Founding Papers chapter Federal Union, there are many common concerns about the future of the country. When there is a change in how a country is structured, it brings concern over group rights and interest being ignored for the common good, and it is very
Canada is a strong and independent country made up of thirteen unique provinces and territories. However, it took great efforts for Canada to become the united nation it is today. The British colonies were facing many problems. One solution for these issues was for the colonies to come together and form one county or nation. There were a number of different factors that pushed the colonies of British North America towards confederation. Due to political deadlock, economic challenges and pressure from the United States, confederation was absolutely necessary for the well-being and progress of 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...
West Virginia’s voting for state and Congressional representatives have been overwhelmingly democratic since the 1960’s. For example, the late, great Robert C. Byrd was a democratic US Senator from 1959 to 2010. His efforts to bring pork barrel spending and ear marks to benefit his represented citizens was the understood methodology of his incumbency. The West Virginia House of Delegates is current 54 to 46, with Democrats being the majority party. Twenty-eight Democrats and six Republicans (WV Constitution) fulfill the 34 seats in the Senate. The federal representatives of the House and Senate are similar, with incumbent Democrats Jay Rockefeller, and Joe Manchin, as well as two Republican, and one Democratic representative in the House. For my local region of West Virginia, Shelley Moore Capi...
Justin Trudeau, newly elected prime minister of Canada, and the Liberal Party made many promises during their election campaign to better the lives of the Canadian people, economy and make a positive change. With that being said he and his liberal party promised to legalize cannabis. In this paper, I will outline the promises made by Trudeau, discuss why Trudeau and the liberals are making this promise, explain how the promise will be kept and provide information to shed light on how legalization is a good idea for Canada.
Commons would only be the brain. This is the top of the bureaucratic pyramid where
Famous American poet James Russell Lowell once said, “Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor” (“Quotations” 2011). And it should be just that. James Russell Lowell successfully defined democracy when it is in its truest form; a citizen’s beliefs should be equally represented and considered for. The representative democracy instated in the United States presents the need for three branches in the government; they include the executive, legislative, and judicial branch. The Congress embodies the lawmaking branch of the government, having “all legislative powers” as it is stated in Article I of the Constitution. To prevent one state from having too much power over other states, the Congress was separated into the House of Representatives and the Senate to have checks and balances over each other. Although they have several different functions in society, both legislative bodies play a very important role in representing both the citizens’ and government’s choices.
Since federalism was introduced as an aspect of Canadian political identity, the country has undergone multiple changes as to how federalism works; in other words, over the decades the federal and provincial governments have not always acted in the same way as they do now. Canada, for example, once experienced quasi-federalism, where the provinces are made subordinate to Ottawa. Currently we are in an era of what has been coined “collaborative federalism”. Essentially, as the title would suggest, it implies that the federal and provincial levels of government work together more closely to enact and make policy changes. Unfortunately, this era of collaborative federalism may be ending sooner rather than later – in the past couple decades, the federal and provincial governments have been known to squabble over any and all policy changes in sectors such as health, the environment and fiscal issues. Generally, one would assume that in a regime employing collaborative federalism there would be a certain amount of collaboration. Lately, it seems as though the only time policy changes can take place the federal government is needed to work unilaterally. One area in which collaborative federalism has been nonexistent and unilateral federalism has prevailed and positively affected policy changes is in the Post-Secondary Education (PSE) sector.
One of the most influential and celebrated scholars of British consistutional law , Professor A.V Dicey, once declared parliamentary soverignity as “the dominant feature of our political insitutions” . This inital account of parliamentray soverginity involved two fundamental components, fistly :that the Queen-in-Parliament the “right to make or unmake any law whatever” and that secondly “no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.” . However this Diceyian notion though an established principle of our constitution now lies uneasy amongst a myriad of contemporary challenges such as our membership of the European Union, the Human Rights Act and a spread of law making authority known as ‘Devolution’. In this essay I shall set out to assess the impact of each of these challenges upon the immutability of the traditional concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the British constitution.