Argumentative Essay: We Should Keep The Senate In Canada

Abolishing the filibuster could result in similar congressional errs becoming

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

This process has also caused problems for many Canadian citizens

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

Additionally, for the most part, Canada’s legislative body has several similarities and differences with the United States’ Congress. In the United States, Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Similarly, Canada’s Parliament is also made up of a bicameral legislature: the House of Commons and the Senate (Courthouse Libraries BC). In general, both legislatures in both countries have the ability to amend, repeal, and make new laws. And in order to do so, both have individual committees within the branches, in which they undergo several reading and deliberation phases for approval and assurances.

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

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

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

Even though both Canada and the United States are democratic countries, there are key differences in how their government functions and how the country is ruled. For starters, Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy and is ran by prime minister Justin Trudeau and the Parliament, on the other hand, the US is a Republic Democracy ran by a president and the Congress. In the US the head of state is its president but in Canada, for any law or bill to pass the parliament needs to have Royal Assent which is a signature of the Governor General or the Queen.   Therefore, this does kind of limit the prime minister’s powers.

Absolutism has led to many societal changes and lack therefore of. Canada has experienced Stability and Change as a result of its government, different Canadian political parties has ideals and objects that both progress or reject society and constant change in government ensures that policies proposed by governments are wholesomely beneficial to

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)

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.

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

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.

Canada has a parliamentary democratic type of government. They were once a constitutional monarchy, with the queen or king of England as head state. Currently, Queen Elizabeth II is represented by a Governor-General who carries out the queen’s duties and other political jargon. The Governor-General is like a prime minister or a president, in political terms, and the Parliament is like the congress, meaning the group of people who write and help pass laws. The governor-general is chosen by the queen, with advice from the prime minister of England, every five years.