Challenges in reforming Canada’s Senate and the Supreme Court
In terms of reforming Parliament’s upper chamber, the task is faced with several challenges. The Canadian constitution makes it difficult to make certain reforms to the Senate as the “powers, selection and qualifications of senators, and the length of their terms” are all defined in the Constitution Act of 1867 (Pare, 2009, p. 1). Thus, a constitutional amendment is needed to make any significant reform to the Senate. Also, according to section 44 of the Constitution Act of 1982, Parliament can amend the Constitution without the provinces. (Barnes et al., 2011, p. 1). In fact, section 44 allows Parliament to unilaterally amend the constitution in matters relating to the Senate, House
…show more content…
1). However, section 42 of the Constitution Act of 1982 makes it clear that four Senate related amendments cannot be taken unilaterally by the federal Parliament, rather, the provinces must be consulted and their consent is needed to reform the powers of the Senate, method of selecting senators, number of seats to each province, and the residence requirement of senators (Barnes et al., 2011, p. 1). In other words, the amending formula created in the Constitution Act of 1982 requires the consent and agreement of a minimum number of provinces that is needed to reform the Senate. Also, opening the constitution to make amendments has proven to be hard to achieve as seen in previous attempts to amend the constitution that have not succeeded in Canada such as the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord. Another challenge is the fact that the Federal government cannot act unilaterality amend the constitution through federal legislation as …show more content…
The British North America Act of 1867 contained a subsection which described how the Parliament of Canada would be created. In fact, section 17 states that “there shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate and the House of Commons” (BNA Act, 1867, IV.17). In other words, Parliament’s three institutions are required to pass laws and without the Senate, bills cannot become law (Library of Parliament, 2002, p. 11). Thus, a constitutional amendment is required to change how Parliament operates and how the legislative process works. More importantly, as part of the legislative process and since Parliament itself must agree to abolish the Senate along with the ten provinces, Senators will have to agree to abolish the institution in which they work to represent their regions. Also, smaller provinces must be taken into account as these provinces, such as the Maritimes, would not agree to abolish the Senate as they are overrepresented in the chamber can maintain sufficient representation for their interests and concerns. Therefore, abolishing the Senate is a task which requires negotiations with the provinces and is a process that is not worth undertaking in terms of time and
In contrast to the Canadian parliamentary system, which has remained fairly static and unchanged since Victorian times, the Canadian legal system has undergone a tremendous evolution over the last century and a half. When looking at Canadian history in depth one discovers the repeated movement to take power from the superiors or the overruling and place it into the palms of the people. As seen through examples our western law (canadian law) has slowly branched off from the supremacy of God (mosaic law), to the supremacy of the monarchy (bristish law), finally to a realization of the importance of citizen participation in the creating, governing, and administrating of the laws (Greek law).
In this section, I will briefly discuss the effects of Trudeau’s Senate reforms and argue that reform is better than abolishment.
Now known as the Constitution Act, the BNA is commonly referred to as ‘Canada’s greatest strength and challenge’; it formed a lasting federation that grew into a peaceful, flourishing and well governed state, while challenging governments to refine its ‘amending formula’ and spread of authority to meet the needs of its occupants. Federal and provincial governments both reached a compromise at which point provinces, supported by federal grants,
This is a country of different nations and each nation allowed a different territory. Under the BNA Act those expansive matters fittingly treated nationally, like defence and post office, were under the federal government, while controls over property, local issues, districts, and most private law matters went to the provinces. The setting of the constitution was a hierarchy system from the colonial office to provincial legislatures . The compact theory lets us believe, that the provincial legislature were the privilege voice and the means of the expression of the people of those provinces. The federal government does not represent a voice of Ontarian or people of Québec. Most Canadian, believe that provinces represent more closely the interest of each their own people than the federal government does.
As Pierre Elliot Trudeau strived to patriate the Constitution, the opposition was a huge threat. “The Statute of Westminster (1931) and the Second World War (1939-1945) secured Canada 's independence. However, Canada continued to retain its links to Great Britain, since its Constitution could only be modified by the British Parliament” (Roch). Trudeau wanted to put an end to British control by modifying the Constitution. In the last few weeks of the 1979 election campaign, Trudeau was struggling and decided it was time to present his plan. As he put it in a Toronto speech, “a Constitution made in Canada, by Canadians, for Canadians” (Lewis 16). The idea was not popular among Canadians and Conservative leader Joe Clark became the youngest Prime Minister in Canadian history. This did not last very long though as a vote of non-confidence occurred after the government proposed tax increases. “As a result of his government 's defeat, Clark called a general election for Feb. 18, 1980. Trudeau led the Liberals in the campaign. He climaxed an
This means that the Canadian Senate would have to be elected by the citizens, the senate would need to be equal and effective in their terms. The implementation of a senate which is elected rather than appointed would ensure that representatives are more responsive to the public. It would also give the Senate the authority to exercise the powers given to it by the Canadian constitution. Any political institution can obtain formal and legal powers, but if the public does not want them to use it, then these powers may not be exercised. Currently, the senate has 104 seats, which are divided into 4 divisions. Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and the Western provinces each share 24 seats. Newfoundland has 6 seats, Yukon and Northwest Territories each have 1. Under the triple E senate, there would be 6 representatives from each and every province. This would create a new 62 member senate which would be elected at the same time as Members of Parliament. The principle of equality means that every province would be equally represented in the Senate regardless of its population. The idea of equal representation arises when provinces like Ontario are compared smaller provinces such as Alberta. Since Ontario’s population is much bigger, it could automatically become the majority in the House of Commons. Other provinces cannot have the same powers as Ontario. With equal
As time goes on, some countries become more relevant in the global sphere while others start to fade away. Canada is a country that only becomes more relevant as time goes on. Since being granted full sovereignty, Canada has had a growing role as a major world player. Much of their international growth has to do with its close ties to the United States and the United Kingdom. However, the country has also undergone huge change and refocusing on a domestic level. With influence from both Europe and the United States, Canada has a very unique system of governing. This paper will focus on a few major areas of Canada. It will look into the history of Canada, the structure of its government, its politics, and many of the major issues it faces today.
Many modern democracies have a bicameral legislature which is a body of government that consist of two legislative chambers. The bicameral legislature provides representation for both, the citizens of the country and the state legislature on a federal level. The Canadian parliament has two chambers, the lower chamber which is an elected House of Commons and the upper chamber which is the non-elected Senate. The Canadian Senate is assumed to be a “sober second thought” [3] on government legislation which is a phrase that describes the Senate’s role in promoting and defending regional interest. There has been an immense amount of the public outcry regarding the Senate after spending scandal that occurred during the recent election period. A question that has induced discussion in parliament is whether the Canadian Senate should be reformed or not? This issue divides the population in half because of differing views. Some political parties want the abolition of the Senate to occur while other parties would like to have an elected Senate because provinces are not represented equally. A method of deciding the faith of the current Senate, the functions of the Senate and objectives of Senate reform should be defined. The assumptions about the purpose of the Senate, problems of the current Senate, the goal of Senate reform and the method of achieving the reform may help provide a consensus on how the Senate should be reformed.
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
There is a fundamental problem with the democratic process in Canada. This problem is rooted within our electoral system. However, there is a promising solution to this issue. Canada should adopt the mixed-member proportional representation electoral system (MMP) at the federal level if we wish to see the progression of modern democracy. The failure to do so will result in a stagnant political system that is caught in the past and unable to rise to the contemporary challenges that representative democracies face. If Canada chooses to embrace the MMP electoral system it will reap the benefits of greater proportionality, prevent the centralization of power that is occurring in Parliament and among political parties through an increased
Today, Ontario and Quebec have maintained their 24 member senatorial status. The four Western provinces have 6 members each. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick both have 10 seats. Prince Edward Island was given 4 out of the original 24 Maritime senators. Together, Newfoundland and Labrador have a total of 6 members. Finally, Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories stand in the equation with 1 senator apiece. Along with the Senate`s original intentions, the principle of equality between the provinces is evidently lost. The Senate primarily fails because it was formerly created to balance out the representation by population which lies in the House of Commons however currently only seems to reinforce it. In fact, Canada’s central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, account for 60 percent of the seats in the House of Commons and almost half of the seats in the Senate at 46 percent.5 The inadequacy of regional representation is emphasized as the Canada West Foundation clearly states: “Canada is the only democratic federal system in the world in which the regions with the largest populations dominate both houses of the national legislature.“6 With an unelected Senate that no longer fulfills its role of equal regional representation and a House of Commons grounded on the representation of provinces proportional to their population, the legitimacy of Parliament has become a
The Senate plays a key role in tandem with the House of Commons, in the operation of Canada’s government, some people think that the Senate should be abolished; however without the Senate, “The right to bear arms” could become true for Canada. The Senate should be reformed; abolishing or keeping the Senate at its current state would be unjust. The current Senate is not elected, effective, nor equal.
The Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate was implemented in 1980 in the wake of the Quebec referendum on independence. The goal of the committee was to hear submissions from the public on amendments to the Constitution. In a three-month consultation period, 914 individuals and groups submitted briefs before the committee (Clément, 2015). Hoping to have a direct impact on the Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, five organizations
The consequences of the senate not being able to reform have been western provinces feeling like they are left out in the process of decision-making, policy making and other legislative decisions made by the federal government. “The senate was envisioned as a legislative body that would serve several functions in addition to legislation”(Lawlor, Crandol,2013). The senate is refereed as the sober second thought in terms of legislation review but the second thought is rarely concerning the western provinces. Western alienation is caused by regional misrepresentation which is mainly caused by the senate. According to Lawlor, some provincial governments have challenged the unilateral approach by the senate to restructure itself. However the Supreme Court Of Canada will consider a reference case on the constitutional status of senate reform in November 2013. This means that the senate may be reformed this year, the western provinces would prefer a senate that can represent their interests. The senate may need a reform in order to remove the discrimination of the west but in order to do this, it must reform the whole committee that the senate works with.
In 2011, three legal and constitutional scholars, Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis and Lori Turnbull set out to write a book detailing what they believed to be obvious and egregious errors in the way in which the current form of responsible government as it was practiced in the Canadian federal government, fell short of operating within basic democratic parameters. Canada has a system that is based one the Westminster system, in which its the Constitution act of 1867 is influenced by British principles and conventions. “Democratizing the Constitution reforming responsible government” is a book that makes an analysis for the reform of responsible government in Canada. The authors believe that from the unclear rules, pertaining to the role and power of the prime minster foresees for a failing responsible government. In this essay the functions of the government , conventions of the constitution, the a proposal for reform will be addressed.