Mike Erickson
...idual member also have interest-constituencies and generally take care of their constituents (Dyck 573). This shows that although they may not have a significant part in actually making up these different policies, it is the parliament that decides if these policy’s are going to be put to law. They basically make the final decision on things and that is one of their major strengths. 8).Probably the most significant aspect of the operation of the House of Commons is that everything is organized along party lines and the party discipline is so rigid (Dyck 578). Almost all members of belong to one party or another, and, with rare exception, the MPs of each party vote together (Dyck 578). The most obvious reason for party discipline, at least on the government side of the House, is the system of responsible government (Dyck 578). Although they say that responsible government should always have discipline there are other reasons also. One is the tendency of people who belong to a political party to see things in a similar light- a natural cohesiveness common to most organized groups (Dyck 578). Related to this cohesiveness is an equally natural deference to the leadership of the party and a desire to present an image of party unity to the public (Dyck 578). Promotion is also a huge advantage to having rigid party discipline. Government backbenchers who are well behaved can become committee chairs, parliamentary secretaries, or Cabinet ministers, while even in opposition parties one can be moved up to more important responsibilities (Dyck 578). Members also want to participate in the distribution of perks available in parliamentary life, especially opportunities to travel at public expense, which are generally in the control of the party whips (Dyck 579). Those who are very loyal and follow the party discipline can also be included in the Canadian delegation to the United Nations. Another huge thing is that many MP’s depend on the government to provide them with employment if they suffer defeat, and are not unmindful of this future dependence while serving in the House (Dyck 579). If some does decide to not be loyal they can face expulsion from the party caucus, involving relegation to the unpleasant status of an independent (Dyck 579). Another great thing for party discipline and having a party is the fact that you are not by yourself when it comes to many different things. The way things are today many different lobbyists and other groups are always trying to get the MP’s to vote the way they want them to. There is tremendous pressure from them. Without party discipline and having a party you might have to give into them even if you didn’t want to. It also frees the prime minister from time-consuming negotiations with individual MPs. It is fashionable to advocate more free votes and greater opportunity for MPs to represent the interest of their constituencies rather than slavishly follow the dictates of the party (Dyck 579). Forcing MPs to toe the party line has allowed the executive to pursue a collectivist public interest beyond the narrow interests of constituencies, provinces, parties, pressure groups, and lobbyists, and has permitted Canadian governments to be more activist and welfare-orientated than legislature-centered systems such as in the United States. The biggest negative outcome from having rigid party discipline is the fact that people are not able to speak their mind as much. If there is a bill that maybe a MP wants to vote on our maybe aggress with they can’t if their party does not agree with it. Many new ideas and challenges are lost because the groups follow the same old things and never challenge anything or try anything new. They just go along with what the party says and that is not good for advancement because many new ideas are being lost. 9. The ideal of democracy was still not enthusiastically accepted in the 1860’s and the Father of the Confederation felt it advisable to provide for an appointed body that would exercise “sober second though” (Dyck 596). There were three reasons for having the senate. The second was that the smaller provinces would agree to join Confederation and accept representation by population in the House of Commons only if they were overrepresented in the Senate (Dyck 596). The third function of the Senate, not explicitly provided for in 1867 but that can also be seen as part of the concept of sober thought, is to improve legislation from a technical point of view (Dyck 596). The senate was also given a veto over all legislation, a power that was not restricted as in the case of the British House of Lords ( Dyck 596). The only point of Senate inferiority to the Commons was that “money bills”, that is, legislation involving the raising or spending of money, had to be introduced in the lower chamber...