ipl-logo

Why The Senate Should Be Abolished

436 Words2 Pages

The Senate is an assembly of legislators appointed by the prime minister. Their duty is to calmly analyze and improve bills passed by the House of Commons. They play a significant role in Canada’s legislative process; however, there are many debates surrounding the topic. Some believe that the Senate is unnecessary and should be abolished, while some believe that it should remain as it is. Others feel that the Senate is necessary, but requires improvement. Here is why the Senate is ineffective and should be abolished.
First and foremost, Canada has a democratic political system, essentially meaning that leaders are elected by common citizens. However, senators are appointed by the governor general, on the advice of the prime minister. This …show more content…

Another reason is that the Senate is very costly to maintain. According to the
Library of Parliament, a senator currently earns $160,800 yearly. Their salary is considered to be on the high end, and as mentioned in the previous point, the Senate may not be as effective as it is intended to be. In addition, their salary is derived from taxpayers, and they serve until retirement.
While keeping or reforming the Senate are ideas to consider, the option that is least complicated yet effective may be to simply remove it. For instance, having the
Senate remain as it is will continue to be costly, while reforming it can be complicated and even more expensive. Simply the initiative to reform the Senate will be of a high cost. Furthermore, there will be debates on how the Senate should be reformed.
Disagreements will be inevitable, and there may be new issues to work out after the
Senate is reformed. Instead, the money spent on the Senate could be used to improve the Lower House of Canada’s Parliament.
To summarize, the predominant reason why the Senate should be abolished is because their work is not worth how much it costs. The Senate rarely defeats

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
1295 Words | 6 Pages

In Maryland as well as at the federal level, the Senate would serve as a form of aristocratic check on the executive as well as on the democracy. Carroll helped create a system of checks and balance that would still work hundreds of years

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
564 Words | 3 Pages

The monarchy in Canada is a continuous debate among the politicians and individuals. This paper aims to present the advantages and disadvantages of the monarchy in Canada. This way will enable us to take a clear position. First, Canadian politics are known for their divisive attitudes, and it is very hard to get consensus on decisions. The Queen plays the role of reference for the Canadian politicians and their decisions.

Read More
1888 Words | 8 Pages

Canada’s constitution was created on, July 1, 1867, which established Canada’s bicameral parliamentary system consisting of the House of Commons and the Senate. The Founding Fathers of Confederation created the Senate as a complimentary chamber to the House of Commons, where its most important functions are to review legislation and act as a forum where the voices of the province’s regional interests can be heard. Sir John A. Macdonald made an interesting point that the Senate must never set itself in opposition against the understood wishes of the people (Forsey 2015). This statement by Sir John A. Macdonald is thought provoking because the Senate has faced controversy over whether its appointment process is affecting the Senate’s function

Read More
1284 Words | 6 Pages

Roman VS United States senate The Roman and United States senate are both very similar, and it is clear that the Roman Senate was a precursor to the United States Senate. As the Roman Senate came first and we could watch the history unfold, the United States made smarter decisions to create a more stable and people-serving government. Those who do not learn history repeat it, and with the advantage of time the US Senate got to learn from the Romans mistakes. I will be taking the position that the United States Senate is better and more efficient than the Roman Senate. I am going to give a light overview of each Senate, and compare and contrast them.

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
805 Words | 4 Pages

The bicameralism design was a better institutional design due to the fact that it served to better give representation at the national level to citizens of different classes of societies and regions. The bicameralism design was also more institutionally effective because it allowed a checks and balances system where as one group could not strictly dominate and be pushed by popular ways of thinking at the time. In this system, each state would have representation based upon their population in one house and the states would each have two representatives in the other. One advantage of this system was that the citizens would have varied representation, however with the senate it would not be as influenced as the house since their terms were longer and usually their decisions were not based on immediate popular opinion but based on what was good for the citizens and could hinder legislation that appeared to be flawed or reckless. Third, the Constitution was designed to be able to change or be amended as times evolved.

Read More
591 Words | 3 Pages

An infamously lifelong agnostic, he discovered something. The man looked into the sky that morning. He watched the enchanting metamorphosis of the plethora of colors. It started with a dark navy blue. The first rays of rosy-cheeked Dawn combined with it to create a splendid magenta and then went into a phase of marigold.

Read More
875 Words | 4 Pages

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

Read More
222 Words | 1 Pages

In any event, the Framers of the Constitution vested that task in the Senate and nowhere else. The last

Read More
1219 Words | 5 Pages

This corrupt system as some refer to it has many people confused and wondering what benefits are for Canadians. A specific case of the Charter being ineffective is the case Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward

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 Why The Senate Should Be Abolished

Related Topics

Open Document