The Canadian House of Commons was established in 1867 as a result of the British America Act passed by the British Parliament (Godbout " Høyland 773). The Act united the Province of Canada that was separated into the Ontario and Quebec (Godbout " Høyland 773). The Canadian Parliament became constituted of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Queen that was represented by the Governor-general (Godbout " Høyland 774). However, from the time of establishment of the Canadian House of Commons, there has been a constant debate on the democracy in the house (Smith 398). Smith (1999) stated that current debate in the Canadian House of Commons is not all about democracy but rather a debate on the responsiveness of the parliament. It is based on this fact that this paper discusses the advantages and the disadvantages of the House of Commons by looking at what is right with the House of Commons, what is wrong and the reforms that can be used to address the weakness of the house.
The Advantages of the Canadian House of Commons
Success has been seen in the Canadian Parliament ever since the establishment of the Canadian House of Commons (Franks 465). Party unity is one of the achievements that have been made in the House of Commons. According to Godbout and Høyland (2013), there has been a drastic change in the party unity of the House of Commons over time. The party unity has been achieved because of the partisan sorting, control of negative agenda, and the electoral incentives (Godbout " Høyland 776). The party unity has also been witnessed in the increased voting unity within the conservative and liberal causes (Godbout " Høyland 774). It can, therefore, be concluded that the establishment of the Canadian House of Common has been of benefit to the Canadian Parliament by creating party unity in the house.
As a result of the party unity in the House of Commons, the Canadian government has been able to successfully get its legislation from the parliament. The House of Commons has a regular number of days the members meet and this has made it easy for the Canadian government to get its legislation from the House (Franks 461). The house meetings have improved the number of legislation that the government passes in a year. The progress of the House of Commons in giving out legislations can be seen in the released report on Canada’s drug strategy that was released in 2002. A motion was introduced by Randy White, a Member of the House, in the House of Commons on the non-medical use of drugs in the country and the motion had the mandate to study the factors that underlined the nonmedical use of drugs in the country (Jürgens 9).
The motion was also to suggest recommendation on the strategies that could be made in reducing the non-medical use of drugs in the country. The house was able to release a report on the problem on the ways in which people could work together in redefining the drug strategy of Canada (Jürgens 9). The fact that the house of Commons was able to come up with the report on the Canadian Drug strategy is an indication that the house helps in providing the government with legislation that is used in running the country.
The establishment of the Canadian House of Commons has improved the democracy of the member of the public. There has been an increased turnover in the Canadian House of Commons. Docherty (1992), for instance, stated that the increased membership turnover in the House of Commons has replaced the domination of the parliament by Members of the Parliament (PMs) who have not been properly representing the members of the public but acting on their own accords to force policies down the throats of their subjects. The increasing number of the member of the House of Commons has made it easy for maximum representation of the member of Commons in the parliament and this has promoted democracy in the country. Therefore, the establishment of the Canadian House of Commons has been of benefit to the Canadians by boosting the democratic rights of the members of the public by the elected leaders seeking for the opinions of the public before initiating any form of regulation due to the power of recall. Additionally, the increased literacy levels in the country has created awareness of the roles and responsibilities of the public on socioeconomic and political affairs- a reality that rings in the minds of the elected leaders.
Consequently, there has been prioritization of the needs of the members of the public due to the improved democracy. There has been a relationship between the priorities of both the partisans and the parties in the Canadian House of Commons (Penner, Blidook " Soroka). There is a well-established representation of the members of the public whereby there has been a generalized representation of the national constituency and the partisan constituency of the parties in the House of Commons (Penner, Blidook " Soroka). It is because of the balanced representation in the House of Commons that has created the balance in the issue priority in the House. Hence, there has been a prioritization of the needs of the members of the public in the Canadian Parliament because of the development of the House of Commons.
The creation of the House of Commons in Canada has also caused gender balance in the country. Women are highly represented through a Standing Committee on Status of Women (SCSW) that was established in the House in 2004 (Godbout " Høyland 774). Standing Committee on Status of Women was mainly formed to give relevant reports on the issues that affect the status of women in the country (Young 47). The committee has been found to be effective because it has caused gender presence to the House of Commons and that implies that the policies that are made in the Canadian parliament are gender sensitive and favors both men and women. The existence of gender balance in the representation has also caused innovation in the institution of the House of Commons (Godbout " Høyland 774). Based on this information, it is clear that the creation of the Canadian House of Commons has created gender balance in the country signaling an optimistic environment for affirmative action.
Additionally, there has been proper coordination of the Canadian House of Commons that has made the citizen representation easier than before. There has been the position of the leader of the House of Commons that has been undergoing constant evolution. The position of the government leader has been evolving from informal to part-time, and to a secondary appointment that has formed a significant part of cabinet portfolio (Thomas 125). The legislation process management in the House of Commons has been fully vested upon the leader of the House (Thomas 126). This is a strength of the house because the legislative process is centralized in the House and this makes it easy to come up with a final decision. The decision that is made, also, does not undergo much opposition because the position is not aligned with any party in the house. The citizen representation in the Canadian parliament is, therefore, made easy because of the establishment of the Canadian House of Commons.
The Disadvantages of the Canadian House of Commons
Despite the many advantages and strengths that the Canadian House of Commons has shown, some weaknesses have been witnessed in the House. As time has been passing by, the trust on the House of Commons has also been deteriorating. According to Franks (2009), there has been a difference between the earlier and the present-day Canadian House of Commons. The House has generally changed from the way it used to be some sixty years before (Franks 462). It is these challenges that have caused weaknesses in the House of Commons.
One of the disadvantages of the Canadian House of Commons is that the results of the formation of the House are not visible. Indeed, confirmed that there has been a conflict between the expectations of the MPs for the reformation of the committees in the House of Commons and the real achievement of those committees. The hardship of the committees meeting their responsibilities have been as a result of the different motivations that have been between the sides of the opposition and the members of the parliament (Franks 461). It is the differences that have turned out to produce conflict between the parties. The conflict between the parties has been heightened by the arguments that the increased membership turnover in the Canadian House of Commons has denied the experienced MPs a chance to make decisions in the parliament (Docherty 295).
As a consequence, even the SCSW that has been representing the interest of women in the house has not been able to achieve its mandate because of the conflicts in the House of Commons. It has been shown that SCSW has been unable to compel the government to take action on the recommendations that they have been making (Godbout " Høyland 778). Moreover, the committee that was formed to give a report on the Canadian non-medical drug policy in the House of Commons was unable to adequately deal with the harms that the Canadian drug laws have caused (Jürgens 10). The implication is that the representation in the Canadian House of Commons is not practical.
As a consequence, the representation in the Canadian House of Commons can be said to be non-effective. The single-member plurality rule in the Canadian parliament has cause severe underrepresentation of the different regions in the country (Weaver 473). There has been an imbalanced representation of the members of the public and the women also (Weaver 473). Some regions have been overrepresented while others are not. Therefore, the establishment of the Canadian House of Commons has not evenly represented all regions in the country and hence the people are not fairly represented in the parliament.
The Reforms that Could Address the Weaknesses of the Canadian House of Commons
There are reforms that have been established to handle the weaknesses in the House (Smith 398). It is the responsibility of the different parties to look at the reforms and conform to them (Smith 399). One main reform is in the electoral process of the membership to the house. The electoral reforms can be used to counter the weaknesses of the House by developing a promotional representation through the development of mixed number corrective systems (Weaver 475). The system can help in solving the problems related to the even representation of the members of the public to the Canadian Parliament.
Conclusion
In summary, this paper discussed the advantages and the disadvantages of the House of Commons by looking at what is right with the House of Commons, what is wrong and the reforms that can be used to address the weakness of the house. The Canadian House of Commons was established in 1867 as a result of the British America Act passed by the British Parliament(Godbout " Høyland 775). The Act united the Province of Canada that was formerly separated into the Ontario and Quebec. The advantages of the House include the increased party unity in the house, helping the Canadian government to formulate legislation for the country, improved democracy of the Canadians, prioritization of the needs of the members of the public, promotion of gender balance in representation, and proper coordination of the house through a centralized leader. The disadvantage of the Canadian House of Commons is that there is an uneven representation of the members of the public and the House has also not been realistic in terms of results. It is, therefore, recommended that the electoral reforms to the membership of the Canadian House of Commons be made to ensure even representation of the citizens.
Works Cited
Docherty, David C. “Moving Right Along: The Roots of Amateurism in the Canadian House of Commons.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 25.2 (1992): 295–318. Web.
Franks, C. E.S. “The Dilemma of the Standing Committees of the Canadian House of Commons.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 4.4 (1971): 461–476.
Franks, C.E.S. “The Functioning of the Present-Day Canadian House of Commons.” Conference in Honour of Peter Aucoin. N.p., 2009. 1–17. Print.
Godbout, Jean François, and Bjørn Høyland. “The Emergence of Parties in the Canadian House of Commons (1867-1908).” Canadian Journal of Political Science 2013: 773–797. Web.
Jürgens, Ralf. “House of Commons Committee Releases Report on Canada’s Drug Strategy.” Canadian HIV/AIDS policy " law review / Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network 7.2-3 (2002): 9–12.
Penner, Erin, Kelly Blidook, and Stuart Soroka. “Legislative Priorities and Public Opinion: Representation of Partisan Agendas in the Canadian House of Commons.” Journal of European Public Policy
2006: 1006–1020. Web.
Smith, Jennifer. “Democracy and the Canadian House of Commons at the miIlennium.” Canadian Public Administration
42.4 (1999): 398–421. Web.
Thomas, Paul G. “The Role of House Leaders in the Canadian House of Commons.” Canadian Journal of Political Science
15.1 (1982): 125–144. Web.
Weaver, R Kent. “Improving Representation in the Canadian House of Commons.” Canadian Journal of Political Science
30.3 (1997): 473–512.
Young, Lisa. “Women’s Representation in the Canadian House of Commons.” Representing Women in Parliament: A Comparative Study. N.p., 2006. 47–66. Web.
