ipl-logo

Argumentative Essay: We Should Keep The Senate In Canada

875 Words4 Pages

The Senate: “The upper chamber of Parliament where there are 105 members who are appointed until age 75 by the Crown on the advice if the prime minister.” (Rules of the Game pg 106)The original Senate that was created in 1867 had only originally 72 seats. It was created to counter balance representation population in the House of Commons, although in recent years the Senate has become to reinforce representation of groups that have often been underrepresented in parliament, examples; Aboriginals, visible minorities and women. There has been a huge debate’s on whether Canada should keep the Senate. The people all over Canada have mixed opinions on if we should keep the Senate or not. Some Canadians believe that we should abolish it. Others could …show more content…

All over Canada, Canadians have different views as for what should we do about the Senate .Yes, the Senate has some important qualities but what we do not need the Senate for today is one of its original purposes, to represent the interests of the provinces in the federal legislative policy process. For example, people like “Ralph Goodale, who fought hard for Saskatchewan’s interest around the Cabinet table for more than a dozen years. John Baird, the regional minister for Eastern Ontario today,”(Eugene Lang) is a current equivalent. The provincial interest is taken care of by regional ministers in a way that no senator or group of senators could hope to …show more content…

The bills are studied to find out how they might affect the daily lives of Canadians. Changes are suggested to improve them. In the event some bills may even be rejected. The Senate may also introduce bills of its own, even though most bills are introduced in the House of Commons. A bill is not able to become law in Canada without Senate approval. The Senate is responsible for protecting the rights and interests of Canadians in all of its regions, especially minority groups or people who do not often get a chance to present their opinions to Parliament. Before a bill can become law, it goes through three stages, called "readings," in both Houses. The bill is debated, adjusted and then voted on by each House. Once approved, the bill is presented to the Governor General for royal assent and is made law. Another role of the Senate, not plainly provided for in the Constitution, “is to act as a non-ideological, routine revising chamber that picks up flaws in legislation that have avoided notice during a bill’s passage through the House of Commons.” (Jay Makarenko) Accordingly, the Senate might highlight confusing ideas or language in legislation, or raise questions about potential loopholes that may diminish the usefulness of a certain

Show More
Related
510 Words | 3 Pages

This argument remains valid in modern debates as the absence of an upper house continues to severely restrict the possibilities by which legislation can be evaluated and amended (Costar 2015). Although it has been determined that the upper house alone is not the cure for attaining an answerable government, it is said that by re-introducing a second chamber in Queensland, a number of valuable functions can be performed. Functions such as the review of legislative proposals at a ministerial and departmental level as well as the control and limit of political power and the ability to protect human rights can be carried out in a way that is not possible alone by a lower house nominated by the government (Aroney 2008, 28). Not only does the upper house act as an extra technique to review and amend changes to legislature, it also has had a profound effect on the ability of the Queensland Parliament to correctly carry out its functions under the Constitution which compel it to act responsibly and review the undertakings of the executive arm of

Read More
562 Words | 3 Pages

By means of a cloture vote sixty senators may end discussion and vote on the proposed bill. Without this precaution, a simple majority may pass legislation without considering the opinions of the minority. This is especially dangerous in the United States – a country historically dominated by only two political parties. Since a single political party seldom gains the necessary supermajority of sixty senators needed to move to direct vote, the filibuster ensures that the minority party retains a voice in government.

Read More
1949 Words | 8 Pages

The Senate in Canada should be abolished Introduction: Canada senate is a part of legislation institution in Canada, which represents the interests of upper class people. Different from America, it is not produced by election but directly-nominated by the premier and appointed by governor. Senate, governor, and the House of Commons are like three legs of a tripod which constitute the congress and legislation system in Canada. Senate undertakes the responsibility of proposing expostulation to governor and cabinet, which acts the role of supervision and restriction. Senate played critical role when Canada established federal government in 1867, the diversity of senators warrants the smooth convey of popular will to governors and legislators coming from different ethnic group and social status.

Read More
1618 Words | 7 Pages

The Senate of the United States was instituted for several reasons.

Read More
1111 Words | 5 Pages

When looking at the current state of Senate in Canada today, many provincial governments are unhappy with their position in parliament and how their voices are being heard in the federal government. Senate reform has been a popular topic for over 60 years, with minimal changes toward how Senate has been run since the Constitution amendment in 1982. Originally, the Senate was to be a platform where regional representation was shown at the national level, and at its creation was credited with three main duties: to give proper representation of the regions of Canada, to be a ‘sober second thought’ for the House of Commons legislation, and to represent the population for Canadian interests. Many view that these duties are not being properly done by the current senate and have in many

Read More
1888 Words | 8 Pages

With debate and public consultation being minimized because of obstructions by party lines, citizens are not able to effectively voice their opinions in Senate committees so senators will act in their interests to either approve or deny legislation. If public consultation and debate is shut down from reaching committees then the Senate cannot hear public opinions on how a piece of legislation may impact their community, which severely restricts the Senate from being responsible to the Canadian citizen’s interests while voting on a bill. Although the government says that Senate committees provide public consultation on the legislation being passed, this notion is false because senators shut down any debate that will affect how they view the legislation and

Read More
89 Words | 1 Pages

Members of the U.S. Senate serve six-year terms, however, there is no limit to the number of terms an individual may serve. With that being said, many senators serve numerous terms, and it is rather unlikely to see an incumbent senator, a current member of the Senate, lose his/her seat after seeking reelection. This phenomenon is known as the incumbency advantage. As seen in the graph above, incumbent senators up for reelection have had an advantage since at least the mid-twentieth century.

Read More
286 Words | 2 Pages

One factor that can hurt a bill chance of passing is the fact that Congress is a partisan body and members of the minority party especially the House of Representatives have no change of their bill enacted

Read More
452 Words | 2 Pages

I believe the important thing in parliament is to be subject to the Constitution and Rule of Law. This is to ensure that every one of Australia is treated the same way, equally and fairly. The Constitution provides the basic ruled of government and the Rule of Law ensures that everyone is subject to the law. I believe that the current system couldn’t be improved, this is due to that the current system is fair and deals with issues in parliament

Read More
344 Words | 2 Pages

However, abolishing the Senate may not be the best for Canada in the end, so another argument is to reform the Senate. The best plan at the moment to reform the Senate is the Triple E plan, as it would make it so that the Senators are elected, each province is represented equally, making the Senate more effective. If we were to abolish the Senate the only way to do so would be by a constitutional amendment backed by at least seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population, or one with unanimous provincial

Read More
1286 Words | 6 Pages

The greatest factor that the article to persuade me in agreeing with the Rocher’s statement was how the article was structured, for example when discussing the differences between the French and English scholars and how it affects political decisions. The article first labeled Quebec’s autonomy approach by citing the Tremblay commission and discussing how the commission's views on philosophical, historical, judicial, and instutionalital justifications influenced the priority of autonomy from the rest of Canada. After showing background and distinguishing these key ideas, the article showed the contrast with the opposing English scholar view and how the two views clashed with one another. From there, Rocher highlighted that with these two separate priorities on the agenda, the true normative qualities of Canada’s federal system could not discussed, as well as problems with the federal system (levels of autonomy per province) were not capable of being solved. If Canada wishes to keep its place as one of the paradigm examples of liberal democracy and a successful federal state on the world stage, then it must put forth adequate resources and time to solving these

Read More
1010 Words | 5 Pages

Executive agencies in the committee must give written comments on the bill.second, the committee holds hearings where witnesses answer questions presented to them. Next, the committee adjusts the measure to their liking. Lastly, once agreed upon by the committee, the measure is sent to the full chamber for debate and potential approval. The executive branch of government has the power to

Read More
3818 Words | 16 Pages

The Harper government agreed that because it would only alter the powers of the Senate that then it should only have to be passed federally. (458) The government ruled against them and said they would need to use the general amending formula. (459) Abolishing the Senate would fundamentally change Canada 's constitutional structure by removing its bicameral system (Synder 4)

Read More
1476 Words | 6 Pages

Our current laws are not strict enough on our government if loopholes such as this exist. We elect our government to rule, regulate and act in the interest of Canadians, yet Harper was able to disregard the interest of Canadians and prorogue parliament for his government’s own partisan reasons. Six years later, nothing has been done to ensure prorogation is not again used in such a partisan way. In analysis we also run into the issue that the Governor General plays an integral part in the prorogation process. The ability to end a parliamentary session is too much power for an individual that Canadians cannot keep responsible.

Read More
1581 Words | 7 Pages

Our current laws are not strict enough on our government if loopholes such as this exist. We elect our government to rule, regulate and act in the interest of Canadians, yet Harper was able to disregard the interest of Canadians and prorogue parliament for his government’s own partisan reasons. Six years later, nothing is done to ensure prorogation is not again used in such a partisan way. In analysis we also run into the issue that the Governor General plays an integral part in the prorogation process. The ability to end a parliamentary session is too much power for an individual that Canadians cannot keep responsible.

Read More

More about Argumentative Essay: We Should Keep The Senate In Canada

Related Topics

Open Document