More handpicked essays just for you.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Roles of the Senate and House
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
For many years, political scholars as well as students have studied the importance of the Senate. Through conflicts and debates we have seen the world come to question whether Senates should be reformed or completely abolished. However, most of us don’t quite understand the purpose of Senates and what they actually achieve in our parliamentary system, instead we argue about why Senates get paid such a remarkable amount, and they do absolutely nothing of importance. Senates are part of the two legislative houses in the Canadian Parliament, which also includes the House of Commons. Their powers are described in depth in the Constitution Act of 1867 under sections 21 to 36. They are appointed by the Prime Minister and are members of the parliament which causes a …show more content…
In order to be appointed to a Senator position, you must be over the age of thirty, and a resident of the province you wish to be appointed in. One of the many powers of senators include that any piece of legislation or bill federally introduced must be approved by the senate in order for it to be signed by the governor general and to officially become law. This gives the senate a lot of power that can allow them to delay a bill if majority of the members do not agree with it. However, the senate cannot present bills that inflict taxes or linger constitutional amendments for more than one hundred and eighty days. In 1965, there was a piece of legislation that was passed by the parliament that required the senate to retire by the age of 75; However, this was initially a position that was appointed for life. There are a lot of reasons why Senators should be completely abolished, but nonetheless they do incorporate favourable attributes that can be beneficial towards our governments. They play a key role in reviewing the delegated legislation, and for every bad apple, there is a good one. The Senate is the voice of minorities. They speak on behalf of individual provinces in the process of the federal
...e observed now as easily as it might be in it's final form. The prevailing notion is that through judicial interpretation or legislative act it should be more onerous to affect legislative override, not to the level of constitutional amendment of the rights in question, but perhaps a moderated super majority . The dialogue created by judicial-legislative interplay is truly indispensable to the democratic process, however the possibility exists that the dialogue could be circumvented and replaced with a legislative diatribe. As equally unappealing is the judicial monologue, the disdain for which increasingly dominates legislative analysis in the United States. The override provision effectively eliminates such concerns in Canada. The inevitable democratization of our override provision will in time perfect the dichotomy so vital to legislative-judicial conciliation.
The committee system is necessary in order to ensure that each piece of legislation receives the consideration that it deserves. Judy Schneider summarizes that, “Due to the high volume and complexity of its work, Congress divides its legislative, oversight, and internal administrative tasks among committees and subcommittees” (The Committee System in the U.S. Congress 1). It would be a daunting task for each member of Congress to personally review each piece of legislation that is introduced each year. The purpose of the committees is to review legislation, based on the committee’s area of responsibility, and determine whether or not the bill will go through for voting to the whole congress.
A more sudden, but perhaps equally profound event is the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whereas before the adoption of the Charter Canadian legislatures were supreme, having power without limit within their jurisdictions, they now have debatable supremacy within altered jurisdictions. Moreover, although no powers or rights have been explicitly ‘reserved’ to the people, supporters of the charter nevertheless appear to give Canadians hope that the possibility may exist.
Stevenson, Garth. "Canadian Federalism: The Myth of the Status Quo." Reinventing Canada: Politics of the 21st Century. Ed. M. Janine Brodie and Linda Trimble. Toronto: Prentice Hall, 2003. 204-14. Print.
The Canadian Senate was originally created in the Constitution Act of 1867 with 72 seats but as Canada expanded more seats were added and it currently has 105 seats. (Government of Canada, About the Senate) The Senate was originally formed in order to allow the Canadian elite to have a say against the House of Commons, which represented the general population. The Senate was to also provide representation to minority groups, women, and Aboriginal peoples who
Furthermore, the issues of representation in the House of Commons are even more evident in terms of the alienation of certain provinces. Western Canada has experienced political alienation due to the dominance and influence of Ontario and Quebec over policy-making as both provinces contain the founding Cultures of Canada (Miljan, 2012, p. 53) Also, the fact that Ontario and Quebec make up more than 60 percent of Canada’s population attracts policymakers to those provinces while marginalizing the interests of westerners (Miljan, 2012, p. 53). Thus, policymakers will favor Ontario and Quebec as these provinces harbor the most ridings as well as the bigger electors’ base. In fact, Western Canada is also underrepresented in both the House of Commons and the Senate when compared to the Maritime provinces as the Maritime provinces are overrepresented compared to their population. Also, many western Canadians are turned off by the federal government as they have been alienated from major political action and discussion due to low representation (Canada and the World Backgrounder, 2002). In other words, Ottawa does not address the needs and hopes of Western Canada
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
...eparates congress into the House and Senate. This further provides internal checks on legislative branch. Likewise, in the political science lecture of the Introduction to Political Thought and Theory in the March, Professor Al Schendan explains these structures as the necessary for liberty.
It was said that Canada’s MPs’ power is been minimalize completely by the Prime Minister (Kilgour, 2012 p.1). The reason for less restriction of party discipline is to give them the permission to vote according to the public and personal belief rather than under the influence of the party whip, which will result in freedom of vote for general public. The reason that members of parliament are there are that: they are the representatives of the sections; they are the voice of the people. In Canada we do not elect our MPs to be a puppet solely to be govern under the prime minister. Our country is a democratic country where there’s freedom of speech and freedom to vote. In reducing the hold on party discipline allows the governmental personnel to openly state their opinions without sparking an unnecessary controversy. Which will benefit both opposition and government in power to discuss the controversial debates and will speed up the process of decision making.
The Electoral College Should Be Abolished Many years after the United States was founded, the Constitutional Convention met to decide how the new nation would govern itself; they later came to settle on the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a system in which the president and vice president are chosen indirectly. In general, the delegates did not believe that a direct popular vote was acceptable, however that it should be decided by the US senators and representatives instead. The way in which it works: a candidate must receive a majority of the electoral votes to be officially declared president. If no candidate obtains a majority, the US Representatives selects the president from the top three contenders; this means each state receives
Stilborn, Jack. Senate Reform: Issues and Recent Developments. Ottawa: Parliamentary Information and Research Service, 2008.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
Senate Reform address two main issue with the Senate and the solutions in order create a Parliament that would speak and act on behalf of Canadians in all parts of the country. As previously mentioned, the senate is weak, mainly due to political affiliation and a history of incompetent senators. Interconnecting with the issue regarding the Prime Minister’s ability to select his own Senators is that it over-represents the business leaders of the country that it serves as a feeding stratagem for the government party. The implementation of a Senate, which is elected rather than appointed, would ensure that representatives were more responsive to the public. It would also give the Senate the authority to exercise the substantial powers given to it by the Canadian Constitution. Any political institution can obtain formal or legal powers, but if the public does not want them to use it, these powers may not be exercised. In addition, most Canadians have reservations about appointments to a legislative body for such a long term in this, a more democratic age than when the Senate was
States for at least 9 years; a Representative must be at least 25. years of age and must have been a citizen for at least 7 years. Under the Constitution, the Senate is granted certain powers that the House of Representatives don’t have that. The Senate approves or disapproves certain Presidential appointments by majority vote, for example. example there was a huge possibility that the Senate were going to... ...
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. Contrary to Mellon’s view, Paul Barker disagrees with the idea of a prime-ministerial government in Canada. Both perspectives bring up solid points, but the idea of a prime-ministerial government leading to too much power in the hands of the prime minister is an exaggeration. Canada is a country that is too large and complex to be dominated by a single individual. The reality is, the Prime Minister of Canada has limitations from several venues. The Canadian Prime Minister is restricted internally by his other ministers, externally by the other levels of government, the media and globalization.