The Senate of Canada is often referred to as the “upper house” of Canadian politics. This means that it has the final say in the passing of a proposed bill that has already been through the “lower house” (House of Commons). Therefore, the senate must also pass all federal legislation that has been passed By the House of Commons. Although the senate does have the final say in weather or not a bill will be passed or not, it is rare that the senate would ever veto a bill already passed by the House of Commons. However, the senate will often recommend changes to the proposed bill, send it back to the House of Commons and then pass it through.
The first and fore most undemocratic factor is how the senators are appointed to office. They are not elected, as they should be in a democratic government, but they are appointed this position by the Prime minister. Often he appoints his senators to gain a majority so his laws may be carried out and also he or she may give this position of power as a patronage to loyal supporters of their party. The second reason is the misrepresentation of the provinces and territories in the senate. The senate elects people for the amount of population in the area so both Quebec and Ontario have more representation than the rest of the country, especially compared to the Northwest territories and the Yukon who only have on each.
No! They are appointed chosen by guess who the govern general who appoints senators based on Harpers choices. Elected senators would demand corresponding power and responsibility to go along with their new status and also unelected senators render judgment without being influenced by anyone (thechronicle). Reformed Senate could be used to overcome the chronic inability of the House of Commons to reflect the diversity of the Canadian people. Having our senators being reformed would also help create a diverse and a representative body.
Along with the rising number of back-bench rebellions and MPs defeating government’s proposals such as the Syria war in 2011, it can be seen that Parliament is performing well in making laws. However, although it has enormous power, Parliament is oftenly not expected to demonstrate that since by convention, government with the majority dominates and Parliament should support it. The whips system-a weekly outline sent to MPs with items underlined by 1,2 or 3 lines depending on how important the MPs attendance is- maintains party discipline and makes sure that rebellions are exceptional. Usually, MPs obey this system, therefore, Parliament in reality has not fulfilled this function. Parliament is believed to
Comparing Canada’s and the United States’ government system, we can see just how different they are from each other. With Canada, they have a responsible government, where the executive functions at will of the legislative body. This type of government is the best way to maintain stability, because if the government wants to create a bill, it has to be passed by the House of Commons. However if that bill does not pass, then the Parliament would have a vote of non-confidence. If they get a majority in favour of non-confidence, then the prime minister must call an election.
As it is impractical for all citizens to directly participate in running the government, the election process asserts the voting power of the people every time. It is, after all, a government made for the people, by the people and with the people. Studying the origin and history of our Constitution, I have come to recognize the value of the wealth of the years of experience and knowledge that went into the development of our government and its framing document. Over the last hundred years, our Constitution has undergone several changes. For me, this makes the Constitution far more precious and far more susceptible to manipulation and abuse.
Secondly, The Balfour Report allowed Canada to receive autonomy and gave Canada equal status with Britain for creating laws. (Cranny p.55/56) This was one of the biggest steps for Canada to become more self-sufficient. It makes more sense that the elected members would be in charge of running the country. After all, the citizens did not vote for British representatives to set the laws. It would have
Pierre Elliot Trudeau kept Canada united by avoiding the separation of Quebec. Trudeau gave a very powerful speech on May 14, 1980 in Quebec. A vote was to be made whether or not Quebec was to be separated from Canada. Trudeau pointed out in his speech that Quebec was the national government of French Canadians and the French Canadians and the French culture should be protected. Trudeau wanted French Canadians to feel more comfortable and to feel like they belonged to Canada by saying, “Canada will be a strong country when Canadians of all provinces feel at home in all parts of the country, and when they feel that all Canada belongs to them (Trudeau)”.
I believe that this principal of the Constitution is very important because without this put into effect the senate of the president could become much too powerful and overthrow the whole government and we would be in a dictatorship or we would be in a direct democracy or some other form of government. The second principal of the Constitution that I believe that is the most important is that of Checks and Balances. This Principal makes it so that each branch of government has some different control over another type of government. This principal is important to society today and I believe that our government would fall apart without it, because without it the branches of government would be able to do what they wanted and they would easily be able to become much to powerful that’s why veto’s and overrule veto’s were created. Also that is why the President is able to appoint judges in the court and how the courts are able to declare other branches unconstitutional.
At that time it was viewed as a regular law passed by legislation, although most of them had different sources of income. Fees and income seems to play a huge part of Roman society. It is explained how John Lydus a lawyer, increased his chances of advancement when reforms carried out by himself increased fees and lowered income. As most employees had different sources of income, they decided to quit leaving vacant positions open. Although this could have been just ironic that the reform that he enacted just advanced him in his career, I view it as a plan that he devised so he could have a higher income.