The Senate Should Be Abolished Of The Senate

In his article Marsh (2010) suggests that the Australian political system could benefit from new infrastructure by replacing senate with committees of

The Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate was implemented in 1980 in the wake of the Quebec referendum on independence. The goal of the committee was to hear submissions from the public on amendments to the Constitution. In a three-month consultation period, 914 individuals and groups submitted briefs before the committee (Clément, 2015). Hoping to have a direct impact on the Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, five organizations

Many modern democracies have a bicameral legislature which is a body of government that consist of two legislative chambers. The bicameral legislature provides representation for both, the citizens of the country and the state legislature on a federal level. The Canadian parliament has two chambers, the lower chamber which is an elected House of Commons and the upper chamber which is the non-elected Senate. The Canadian Senate is assumed to be a “sober second thought” [3] on government legislation which is a phrase that describes the Senate’s role in promoting and defending regional interest. There has been an immense amount of the public outcry regarding the Senate after spending scandal that occurred during the recent election period. A question that has induced discussion in parliament is whether the Canadian Senate should be reformed or not? This issue divides the population in half because of differing views. Some political parties want the abolition of the Senate to occur while other parties would like to have an elected Senate because provinces are not represented equally. A method of deciding the faith of the current Senate, the functions of the Senate and objectives of Senate reform should be defined. The assumptions about the purpose of the Senate, problems of the current Senate, the goal of Senate reform and the method of achieving the reform may help provide a consensus on how the Senate should be reformed.

In Canadian government it best to have legislators who do not vote their own interests and they vote the interests of their constituents. If legislators vote in their own interests they could be going against their own parties or the constituents that voted them in. Even if they know a lot about the subject they should still keep their interests out of their decisions and keep the interests of their constituents. Legislators that vote their own interests might even be going against the party policies, which could get them kicked out of the party or disciplined. Legislators are there to represent the people of their riding, not to vote their own interests in.

Canada’s friendly neighbor to the South, the US, has an electoral system that is composed of 3 separate elections, one of them deciding the head of state. The president elected by the people and he or she is the determining person of the country’s political system. In the US runs like a majority system” In Canada, however, elections are held slightly differently. Citizens vote for a Member of Parliament in a 308-seat house and candidates win not by a majority, unlike in the US, but by a plurality. This means that a candidate can actually win by simply having more votes than the other candidates. This method of representative democracy, in general, does not cause too much controversy in a global scope but has

The issue of electoral reform has become more important than ever in Canada in recent years as the general public has come to realize that our current first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, formally known as single-member plurality (SMP) has produced majority governments of questionable legitimacy. Of the major democracies in the world, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the only countries that still have SMP systems in place. Interestingly enough, there has been enormous political tension and division in the last few years in these countries, culminating with the election results in Canada and the USA this year that polarized both countries. In the last year we have seen

The U.S. Congress has worked much as how the founders have intended it to be. In the book it says, “The legislative branch was and is designed to be the ‘inefficient’ element of the federal government, slowing the ‘efficient’ branch, the presidency” (Sabato 22). The Senate consists of 100-members at the

The Senate, undemocratic as it is, obviously needs some tweaks and changes in the system to make it more so. The Canadian Senate should reform entirely into a triple-E Senate (Elected, Efficient, Equal). In the Triple E Senate, Senators should be elected by the voters instead of appointed, the efficient distribution of power towards the Senate to balance out the power. This would create a more democratic and fairer Senate that would better serve the needs of the citizens it represents. While the Triple-E Senate may not get things done nearly as quickly as the current Senate, it would at least make the right decisions for everyone. While the Senate is a major blight upon Canadian government, it is not the only one.

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.

The senate is a controversial subject to some as many strongly dislike the senate as some feel the senate is an important aspect of our government. Although others feel a few changes to the senate would make it a more effective and efficient part of our government. Abolishing the senate would leave a hole in the system as keeping it would continue paying people tax dollars that only work 100 days a year. What if the senate was simply changed that so fairness and equality was a key component in the senate's existence. Fairness and equality is a large part of any government and when talking about the group that makes and passes laws it would seem to be pretty important. Equality is for the provinces and territories who should all have equal senators

Today, Ontario and Quebec have maintained their 24 member senatorial status. The four Western provinces have 6 members each. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick both have 10 seats. Prince Edward Island was given 4 out of the original 24 Maritime senators. Together, Newfoundland and Labrador have a total of 6 members. Finally, Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories stand in the equation with 1 senator apiece. Along with the Senate`s original intentions, the principle of equality between the provinces is evidently lost. The Senate primarily fails because it was formerly created to balance out the representation by population which lies in the House of Commons however currently only seems to reinforce it. In fact, Canada’s central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, account for 60 percent of the seats in the House of Commons and almost half of the seats in the Senate at 46 percent.5 The inadequacy of regional representation is emphasized as the Canada West Foundation clearly states: “Canada is the only democratic federal system in the world in which the regions with the largest populations dominate both houses of the national legislature.“6 With an unelected Senate that no longer fulfills its role of equal regional representation and a House of Commons grounded on the representation of provinces proportional to their population, the legitimacy of Parliament has become a

The consequences of the senate not being able to reform have been western provinces feeling like they are left out in the process of decision-making, policy making and other legislative decisions made by the federal government. “The senate was envisioned as a legislative body that would serve several functions in addition to legislation”(Lawlor, Crandol,2013). The senate is refereed as the sober second thought in terms of legislation review but the second thought is rarely concerning the western provinces. Western alienation is caused by regional misrepresentation which is mainly caused by the senate. According to Lawlor, some provincial governments have challenged the unilateral approach by the senate to restructure itself. However the Supreme Court Of Canada will consider a reference case on the constitutional status of senate reform in November 2013. This means that the senate may be reformed this year, the western provinces would prefer a senate that can represent their interests. The senate may need a reform in order to remove the discrimination of the west but in order to do this, it must reform the whole committee that the senate works with.

There is a fundamental problem with the democratic process in Canada. This problem is rooted within our electoral system. However, there is a promising solution to this issue. Canada should adopt the mixed-member proportional representation electoral system (MMP) at the federal level if we wish to see the progression of modern democracy. The failure to do so will result in a stagnant political system that is caught in the past and unable to rise to the contemporary challenges that representative democracies face. If Canada chooses to embrace the MMP electoral system it will reap the benefits of greater proportionality, prevent the centralization of power that is occurring in Parliament and among political parties through an increased

In 2011, three legal and constitutional scholars, Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis and Lori Turnbull set out to write a book detailing what they believed to be obvious and egregious errors in the way in which the current form of responsible government as it was practiced in the Canadian federal government, fell short of operating within basic democratic parameters. Canada has a system that is based one the Westminster system, in which its the Constitution act of 1867 is influenced by British principles and conventions. “Democratizing the Constitution reforming responsible government” is a book that makes an analysis for the reform of responsible government in Canada. The authors believe that from the unclear rules, pertaining to the role and power of the prime minster foresees for a failing responsible government. In this essay the functions of the government , conventions of the constitution, the a proposal for reform will be addressed.

For decades, Canadians have been defending their right to have a fair and open electoral system. Since its creation in 1867, Canada has been proud to call itself a true democratic country, but today there would be many people who disagree with this statement. The Canadian electoral system, which uses First Past The Post (FPTP), has come under scrutiny for not being as fair as it claims to be. Over the past couple of decades, many countries have switched their system to Proportional Representation (PR) or some form of it. Based on successful results in other nations, Canada’s current FPTP system should change to Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), which is a form of Proportional Representation, as it will allow for more fair elections. The intent of this paper is to outline how an electoral reform from First Past the Post to Proportional Representation or Mixed-Member Proportional, will lead to more confidence in the government, more accurate seat-vote percentage, and better overall representation of the population.