Why Has Regionalism Developed In Canada

The Senate plays a key role in tandem with the House of Commons, in the operation of Canada’s government, some people think that the Senate should be abolished; however without the Senate, “The right to bear arms” could become true for Canada. The Senate should be reformed; abolishing or keeping the Senate at its current state would be unjust. The current Senate is not elected, effective, nor equal.

When it comes to certain qualities and attributes of the United States of America and Canada, many people residing elsewhere fail to tell the difference. The accents of people from certain parts of both countries, for instance, are so incredibly indistinguishable that they baffle any and everyone. Besides this one factor, they even share some comparable cultural characteristics, such as driving on the right side of the road and cherishing the same basic human rights to the utmost importance. Likewise, there are several similarities between multiple aspects of the countries’ respective governments, including within their individual established frameworks, political systems, and their divisions of authorities and duties. These could potentially point out a reason as to why Canada and the United States are immensely successful in their particular objectives, and are on their paths to achieving their long-term goals with difficult to accomplish, yet beneficial visions. After all, they are both either on the way to becoming or currently are two of world’s leading superpowers (Financial Post). However, there is not just one particular infallible way to rule a country and push it to further advancement simultaneously. In fact, each country works and functions differently, which is primarily due to individual background and history. Ultimately, although Canada and the United States of America are both nations that share similarities in various parts of their Constitutions, political

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.

The issues are compelling, the future of Quebec in Canada, and the future of our Senate seem like urgent issues that require immediate attention. Looks can be deceiving though, and the case for both of these issues are not as strong as they seem at first glance. First we are going to look at Quebec’s place in the constitutional family, to show why getting their signature is simply a

David C. Docherty’s scholarly journal responds to the continual controversy and debate of the usefulness of the Canadian senate in 2002. Docherty’s article does an amazing job at analyzing the current Canadian senate and argues that the senate is a failing Canadian institution because of two democratic deficiencies: the undemocratic nature of senator selection and the inability of senators to represent provinces properly (45). These two features of why the senate is a failing Canadian institution can be compared to how Rand Dyck defines democracy in Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches. Docherty looks at several previous senate reforms and answers the question of why these senate reforms failed, in doing so Docherty lays down a framework for a possible successful senate reform but acknowledges the obstacles. Docherty does a very good job at accessing the problem of the senate, accessing the problem of previous reforms, and suggesting a plausible type of reform for the senate. This provides the reader with the knowledge of why the Canadian senate is a failing institution but also the possible solutions of how the senate can be reformed in order to maximize its democratic potential. Although, Docherty fails to provide an exact reform that needs to be taken, he just draws upon other failures and hypothesis that this may be the right solution for reform. Rand Dyck’s chapter 11 fills in the missing gap of reform that needs to be taken by drawing upon one of the best attempts at

The concept of recognizing Quebec as a distinct society is an idea that has been kicking around for some time, but just what does it mean and what are its broader implications? This paper will examine the origins of the term, what it means, and its historical context. It will then examine rival interpretations of federalism. The essay will conclude with an in-depth examination of the concept's involvement with the failed constitutional accords and the failed Quebec succession attempts.

In terms of the reform option, as a country, we absolutely cannot afford to abolish the Senate, as it serves as, and is meant to be, a body of un-biased “economic and social élite”, who are capable of making/approving decisions to benefit the citizens of Canada, rather than the House of Commons, which makes decisions by majority, and in their own interest. The Senate is meant to play a neutral role, to be the final judge to make the un-biased, informed decisions. Sometimes, the Senate has taken on other roles, which it performs and works with very effectively. In fairness to them, these often do not receive much media coverage, increasing the public perception that Senators do very little. For example, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Tech released a report on the Health Care system, a month before the Romanow Report on Human Health Resources Planning.

The Canadian Senate has been a long standing problematic section of the Canadian government and since its creation in 1867 and has been scrutinized for its effectiveness and purpose. In recent years, concerns have been raised and approaches have been suggested into reforming the Senate. Those in favour of taking drastic measures to reform or even abolish the Senate agree that the Senate is not functioning and not a trustworthy part of Canadian government. However, there are those who view that the Senate can still be saved say it has a purpose in the Canadian government since it serves a vital function in passing Canadian legislature. Nonetheless, maintaining a government body that is non functional needs to be addressed and revised and gone

The first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system used in Canada poses several constraints on political parties, benefitting some and hindering others. Under the FPTP system a winning candidate simply requires one more vote than the next candidate to win the seat, thus emphasizing the importance of regionally concentrated constituent bases (Dickerson & Flanagan, 2009). This structural constraint is inherent to the FPTP electoral system and benefits the Conservative party, who have several regions of concentrated support across Canada. Alberta

1)Donald Savoie, "All Things Canadian Are Now Regional," Journal of Canadian Studies 35.1 (Summer 2000): 203-217.

Smith argues for the Crowns’ significance in three particular areas: federal and provincial relations, executive dominance, and its influence on organizing political power in Canada. The following paragraphs will examine the viability of Smith’s claims in each of these three domains. It will be argued that although Smith’s claims of Crown centrality are of substance,

For many years, there has been an ongoing debate as to whether or not the Senate should undergo a reform. Many Canadian citizens are unsatisfied with the fact that the Senate is not elected. How are citizens to be sure that they are being properly represented when they are not able to choose who represents them? Although the Senate is an integral part of the governmental system, many Canadians are leaning towards the idea to completely abolish the Senate. The credible, David C. Docherty, outlines the previous attempts for the Senate reform while describing the mindset of Canadians and where the reformation of the Senate currently stands in his article “The Canadian Senate: Chamber of Sober Reflection or Loony Cousin Best Not Talked About.” The previous attempts for the Senate reform while describing the mindset of Canadians and where the reformation of the State currently stands.

In this section, I will briefly discuss the effects of Trudeau’s Senate reforms and argue that reform is better than abolishment.

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