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 …show more content…
However, there are inherent problems with this type of senate reform, where it asks both federal government and certain provinces to lessen their power so that all provinces have an equal platform to broadcast their issues and regional interests. The idea that these two conflicting governments are involved in the national legislation process would form problems, and even this idea of change would change the normal practices of parliament. This idea a triple E Senate calls for constitutional changes, which are difficult to do, and why so far the Prime Minister has only made informal changes since they would need a 7/10 provincial approval with at least 50 percent of the Canadian population on top of the approval of both parts of parliament. It calls for a complete overhaul of the current senate, to become better suitable for regional representation of the Canadian population (gibbins …show more content…
The types of things that this proposal calls for are great because it would strengthen the portion of Parliament that has had many problems since it was created in the 1867 Confederation, however when all three ideas are put together would be very difficult to implement. Senate reform itself presents a very daunting task that has been proposed many times over the years, with little actual change because both implementation and operation of new changes would be very difficult for the federal government to pass. Despite the optimism of the idea of Triple E Senate, there are problems in the powers it wants to bring to the Senate, as well as the idea of equal representation per province. I also think that this senate reform will not be passed on the simple idea that the two biggest provinces, Ontario and Quebec, do not want to lose any of their power and autonomy to be added into equal representation of all provinces. They would have over 60 percent of Canada’s population but would only account for 20 percent of the senators. I feel that the way in which the seating of the Senate is wrong, but the ideas in this reform are only a stepping stone to how we can actually fix the representation issues in parliament while still noting the provinces with the biggest parts of the
Ahead in the book, I discover that Norway, Sweden and Denmark nullified their second chambers, choosing that bicameralism was no more essential. In reality, even the House of Lords in England has had its energy fundamentally decreased through time and as Dahl says, "The fate of that old chamber stays in extensive uncertainty." The purposes behind these bicameral contemplations in the constitution need to do with accommodating equivalent representation.
Throughout the second chapter Levin states that there is a very small turnover in Congress and each time that election time comes into play, most of the same people are elected for position (Levin 19-32). He believes that while term limits are not enough to balance the power of the governing systems it is a step in the right direction and are necessary and a critical building block (Levin 22). In his next chapter Levin proposes an amendment that is to restore the Senate (Levin 33). This amendment would repeal the seventeenth amendment and make it to where all Senators are chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article I (Levin 33). Prior to the seventeenth amendment the Senate had been chosen by legislators of each state (Levin 34). Throughout the chapter he goes on to talk about how the Framers of our nation intended the Senate to be chosen and also how we have branched away from that. He discusses several different people’s opinions on how it should be ran and also how it should be managed. He states that John Dickinson made a notion that the Senate should be chosen by the state legislatures (Levin
... effect changes in the senate, to alter the representation within the House of Commons, influence immigration, control the Supreme Court and to be accorded a distinct society status, were excessive. Despite these demands being too much, they did not lead to the failure of the agreement, which was mainly influenced by the weaknesses in the constitution.
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.
Mallory, J.R.. 1965. “The Five Faces of Federalism.” In P.A. Crepeau and C.B. Macpherson (eds.) The Future of Canadian Federalism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
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.
Contrasts in the lawmaking methodology utilized as a part of the House and Senate reflect the distinctive size of the two chambers and individual terms of its parts. In the House, the dominant part gathering is inflexibly in control, stacking advisory groups with lion 's share party parts, and utilizing principles to seek after enactment supported by its parts. In the Senate, singular parts are better ready to hold up the procedure, which prompts lower similarity costs, however higher exchange costs. The complication of the lawmaking procedure gives rivals different chances to murder a bill, making a solid predisposition for the present state of affairs.
While having a legislative Union is preferable to him, it is not practical (Ajzenstat, 1999, 281). Like the American Founders, he acknowledged that not everyone has the same interests and values and it is not possible to eliminate these differences between citizens. The Canadian federal system instead has a legislative union while maintaining sectional freedom that comes with a federal union, with decreased threat of Factionalism because of the ensured protection of local interests. Both the Founding Fathers and Canadian Founders agree that it is best to protect as many local interests as possible because this provides lesser chance of a majority infringing upon a minority. Giving minorities avenues to express their interests and ensure their voices are being heard decreases the likelihood of Factionalism causing the breakdown of a
The electoral system in Canada has been utilized for over a century, and although it has various strengths which have helped preserve the current system, it also has glaringly obvious weaknesses. In recent years, citizens and experts alike have questioned whether Canada’s current electoral system, known as First Past the Post (FPTP) or plurality, is the most effective system. Although FPTP is a relatively simple and easy to understand electoral system, it has been criticized for not representing the popular vote and favouring regions which are supportive of a particular party. FPTP does have many strengths such as simplicity and easy formation of majority governments, however, its biggest drawback is that it does not proportionally represent
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 issue of electoral reform has become more important than ever in Canada in recent years as the general public has come to realize that our current first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, formally known as single-member plurality (SMP) has produced majority governments of questionable legitimacy. Of the major democracies in the world, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the only countries that still have SMP systems in place. Interestingly enough, there has been enormous political tension and division in the last few years in these countries, culminating with the election results in Canada and the USA this year that polarized both countries. In the last year we have seen unprecedented progress towards electoral reform, with PEI establishing an electoral reform commissioner and New Brunswick appointing a nine-member Commission on Legislative Democracy in December 2003 to the groundbreaking decision by the British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly on October 24, 2004 that the province will have a referendum on May 17, 2005 to decide whether or not they will switch to a system of proportional representation. This kind of reform is only expected to continue, as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty decided to take BC’s lead and form an independent Citizen’s Assembly with the power to determine whether or not Ontario will have a referendum regarding a change to a more proportional system. There is still much work to do however, and we will examine the inherent problems with Canada’s first-past-the-post system and why we should move into the 21st century and switch to a form of proportional representation.
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
Leeson, H. A., & University of Regina (2009). Saskatchewan politics: Crowding the centre. Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina.
Stilborn, Jack. Senate Reform: Issues and Recent Developments. Ottawa: Parliamentary Information and Research Service, 2008.
...ratic process but it at least protects the rights of Canadians and prevents all out domination the majority.