In 2012, the Canadian Senate became embroiled in a scandal that is still ongoing, and still having an effect on Canadian political life today. At times in the 20th century, there have been calls for the reform, or even the abolition of the Senate completely. The current scandal has resulted a renewal of the frequent calls for reform that have frequently accompanied the many questionable actions of Senators. The structure of the Senate, and its outdated rules of appointment and procedure are also frequently the target of reformers in Canada. It is the contention of this paper that the Canadian Senate be reformed to represent the democracy that is Canada in the 21st Century, as this body is outdated and representative of entrenched party interests, as well as of a system that dates back to the days of aristocratic and upper-class privilege.
The 2012 expenses scandal was followed closely by the Canadian public. The entire scandal has also given the impression that certain Senators had adopted a sort of “above the law” attitude, and only showed repentance when they were caught abusing their office and breaking the law. This type of crime and malfeasance is especially egregious when the people who are committing the crime are the ones charged with (at least to some extent – as will be shown later in this paper) making and upholding the law.
Let us examine the scandal as the latest example of Senate corruption and elitism. In late 2012, an investigation was opened to look into irregularities in the reporting of travel expenses by three Senators: Mike Duffy (Prince Edward Island), Mac Harb (Ontario) and Patrick Brazeau (Quebec). By February 2013, Senators, acting on the basis of preliminary information resulting form their own inve...
... middle of paper ...
...the Senate." Standings in the Senate. http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenatorsMembers/Senate/PartyStandings/ps-e.htm (accessed March 16, 2014).
"Timeline: Key dates in the evolution of the Senate expense-claim controversy." Global News. http://globalnews.ca/news/568714/a-look-at-key-dates-in-the-evolution-of-the-senate-expense-claim-controversy/ (accessed March 16, 2014).
Wayne K. Spear: Brazeau’s latest outburst shines a harsh light on the Senate." National Post Full Comment Wayne K Spear Brazeaus latest outburst shines a harsh light on theSenate Comments. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/27/wayne-k-spear-brazeaus-latest-outburst-shines-a-harsh-light-on-the-senate/ (accessed March 16, 2014).
Weston, Greg. "Pamela Wallin selling Manhattan condo." CBCnews. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pamela-wallin-selling-manhattan-condo-1.1704906 (accessed March 16, 2014).
The idea of a Triple E senate did not come into play until the legislation was passed under Pierre Trudeau about the National Energy Program (NEP) due to the energy crisis the 1970s. This was a welcome change for the eastern provinces, but created tension from Alberta with its natural resources, and became unpopular in the whole of western Canada, creating the idea of ‘western alienation.’ (Canada needs triple e reform, 2013) With the NEP, Alberta began to quickly call for changes in the federal government for more regional issues to have a better platform in federal government, finally proposing Triple E Senate. A year later polls such as the Gallip Poll in 1986 were used to show the popularity of the idea of senate reform, with support from
William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada’s longest serving prime minister, is known for both the great contributions he brought to Canada and for the scandals he was involved in. The one event that makes him most famous to Canadians is the King-Byng Affair of 1926. During this event, Mackenzie King asked Lord Byng to dissolve parliament in order to force a new election as he had lost with a minority. Because King’s intentions were to regain a majority government, Byng refused out of distrust for King’s plans and King was replaced in power by the Conservatives. While William Lyon Mackenzie King’s actions were in accordance with all the laws regarding his power as Prime Minister, he acted for selfish reasons thus putting him in the wrong. Mackenzie King’s and Lord Byng’s histories will be quickly analyzed to understand their actions in the affair. Right after, King’s options and reasons for dissolving parliament will be analyzed. Thirdly, Byng’s options and reasons for refusing King’s request will be researched. Once enough evidence has been collected, the end results of this affair will be discussed and the conclusion as to whether or not King was right to go against responsible government will be made.
...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.
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.
Burke, Marie. "Seven aboriginal senators: 40 years (looking back on the Senate's Aboriginal representatives)." Windspeaker Dec. 1998: 9. Canada in Context. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
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.
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.
Senate reform in Canada has been a popular topic for decades but has yet to be accomplished. Since the Senates formation in 1867 there has been numerous people who call for its reform or abolishment due to the fact it has not changed since its implementation and does not appear to be fulfilling its original role. An impediment to this request is that a constitutional amendment is needed to change the structure of the Senate, which is not an easy feat. Senate reform ideas have developed from other upper houses in counties such as the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany. From those two different successful governments emerges examples of different electoral systems, state representation, and methods of passing legislations.
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...
The common saying ‘with great power, comes great responsibility’ is extremely evident in the Toronto Computer Leasing Scandal, specifically in the first woman, as well as youngest, city treasurer of Ontario. As Treasurer of the City of Toronto, Wanda Liczyk oversaw a large annual budget and had a sizable influence on countless municipal government contracts. Ms. Liczyk failed to uphold boundaries of professionalism that were necessary in her position and in doing so partook in the corruption that occurred in the City of Toronto’s government in the late 1990s (The Honourable Madam Justice Denise E. Bellamy, 2005). Ms. Liczyk’s relationships with American IT consultant, Michael Saunders, and hairdresser turned computer salesman, Dash Domi, were never disclosed with Mel Lastman, the Mayor of Toronto at the time, and involved large conflicts of interest. These conflicts of interest demonstrated Ms. Liczyk’s inability to maintain transparency, objectivity and to claim accountability for her actions – all qualities needed in government officials the public is expected to trust (Milrad, 2006).
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...
Stilborn, Jack. Senate Reform: Issues and Recent Developments. Ottawa: Parliamentary Information and Research Service, 2008.
Known as a period of political scandal, many politicians engaged in bribes, lies, and abuse of power to further a political, social, and often personal agenda. The typical corrupt leader "will sell his vote for a dollar [...] turns with indifference from the voice of honesty and reason [...] his unalienable right may be valuable to him for the bribe he gets out of it" (166). Such politicians are an injustice to society because as they are elected by the people, they must act towards the betterment of the people, rather than for themselves. Furthermore, those who elect this politician to office merely underestimate their political and social responsibility because they "want the feeling that their own interests are connected with those of the community, and in the weakness or absence of moral and political duty" (167). Thus, under the control of the ruthless politician and the reckless voter, the true essence of democracy is
In recent times scandals of senators misusing government expenses for things such as vacations and diners for personal expenses have unfolded. For instance, in an article by the CBC news it states that “The 2013-15 audit of senators' expenses led by auditor general Michael Ferguson cost some $23.6 million but found a relatively paltry $600,000 in ineligible expenses. (The annual budget for the Senate is just north of $100 million a year.)The review, which examined every expense senators incurred over a two-year period, was a "colossal waste of money," in the eyes of Liberal Sen. Percy Downe, with a poor "return on investment.”(Tasker, Sep 23, 2017). This quote illustrates the enormous amounts of unnecessary spending by senators. It is under criticism, not only for a huge waste of money but also the fact that the money they are spending comes out of tax payers pockets. It sparks outrage within the Canadian public because not only do the Canadian public have little say in who gets appointed as a senator but when senators are appointed they abuse their privileges. In addition to that, the money that was spent on personal expenses for the senators could have been used for actually benefiting the Canadian public instead of being wasted by senators. In order to improve upon this there needs to be more transparency within the senate. This could include a yearly