Canadian Senate Analysis

Canadian Senate Analysis The current government of Canada has remained in place since the British North America Act, 1867, which established the Parliament for Canada to be comprised of three parts: the Crown, the Senate, and the House of Commons.[1] Unique to Canada’s government, which is based on the Westminster Parliamentary System, is that the upper house of parliament, or the Senate, is comprised of unelected officials. For a large portion of Canada’s history there has been a debate concerning the Senate, largely concerning its unelected officials. While there has consistently been a discussion on if the Senate should be changed, Canada’s political parties cannot agree on if this change should be a reform of the Senate or its abolishment. In recent years this debate has been revitalized due to scandals concerning senators, Stephen Harper’s commitment to reform the Senate, and the Supreme Court ruling on what would need to be done to reform the Senate. While it is understandab le that some may want to push for the Senate to be abolished, this is much too drastic of a step for Canada to take and should not be taken just for simplicity’s sake. Democracies function and exist on mechanisms that help balance the power of the governing bodies to ensure that no one body or official has too much power and abolishing the Senate before attempting to reform it would give the House of Commons too much power. Prime Minister John MacDonald’s words are often used in explaining what the Senate does when he said that they are â€Å"the sober second thought.†[2] The reasoning for this is that by having politicians that are concerned for the long term stability and integrity of Canada and its laws and not concern themselves about being reelected and the perpetual campaign or about politics. Essentially they can give their full attention to being the check on the House of Commons. In addition, section 54 of the Canadian Constitution states that bills which deal with any aspect of money, including appropriating revenue or creating or removing a tax, must originate from the House of Commons.[3] What this then causes, because most bills deal with issues of revenue or taxes in some manner, the vast majority of bills come from the House of Commons, which creates a unique dynamic between the two houses.[4] The dynamic that is crated is an uneven balance between the two in terms of the am ount of work that is done. The House of Commons is the primary body that creates legislation and the Senate largely provides review and second thought on the issues addressed in legislation. While this may be the original thought, there are flaws to it. Many ideas on how to change the Senate have been proposed over the years, but to understand the current debate the most it is best to look at what each major political party current proposes. Currently the common discourse about the Senate is divided into three areas: main the status quo; keep the Senate, but reform it; or abolish the Senate in its entirety. Political parties of Canada have often differed on how the Senate should be approached and dealt with along the three lines. The New Democratic Party (NDP), especially in recent years, has been vocal proponents of abolishing the senate. The NDP has even gone as far as creating a website to promote the idea of abolishing the Senate, citing its unelected nature and high costs as reasons for it to be abolished.[5] The Conservative Party, on the other hand, has taken a different route and has attempted to reform it. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party attempted to create a system whereby senators would be elected by the provinces for nine years.[6] The legislation that proposed this came in 2011, but the constitutionality of this effort immediately came into question and went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court responded in 2014 when it ruled that any Senate reform must go be approved by at least seven provinces and half of the population.[7] The Liberal Party has not been as loud as the others, but did eject the senators that were part of the Liberal Caucus and released a statement declaring their support for reform of the Senate and the ejection of the senators from the caucus is the first step.[8] Each of the major political is in favor of some change to the Senate, which is a reflection of the opinion of Canadians. In addition to the political parties siding on the Senate being altered in some way, a majority of Canadians are in favor of some sort of change. According to a poll by Angus Reid conducted in April of 2015, 86% of Canadians are in favor of a change.[9] However, while an overwhelming majority of citizens are in favor of a change, there is a deep divide on what kind of change should exist. In the same poll by Angus Reid, 45% of Canadians are in favor of a reformed Senate while 41% are in favor of the Senate being abolished entirely.[10] Just as with the political parties, this mirrors the debate and contention between the political parties on exactly what should be done. Compared to the 2013 poll by Angus Reid on the same topic, in a year filled with news about scandals concerning senators, 50% of Canadians were in favor of abolishment vs. 43% for reform.[11] This shows, like with many topics, the interest and concern of people will differ a lot depending on how senators are conductin g themselves and how the Senate is functioning. The reason why the vast majority of criticisms that have been leveled against the Senate are about its unelected senators is because that is its biggest flaw. While it can be argued that removing the time consuming process of elections it gives senators a different set of priorities to focus on the work of Parliament, this is the exact reason why it is bad. By being selected rather than elected, senators are then beholden to those that choose them rather than the citizens of Canada. This then means that if a senator does not do a good job, or do the job at all, according to Canadians, it is a difficult process to get rid of them. Since these senators are then beholden to those that choose them, this creates a dangerous mechanism for internal party politics whereby those that are actually selected to be a senator may not be deserving of the position. On the contrary, as the NDP accuses the Conservative Party of doing, those that do work for the party or the Prime Minister may end up a s a senator as a favor.[12] The Senate is an undemocratic and authoritarian instrument that has to be reformed. Regardless of the scandals that have occurred or if the senators take advantage of their position, the critical point is there exists a need for senators to be elected. In the overall discourse, the idiosyncrasies of reform matter little as long as the process towards elections. What the Conservative Party proposed is a good step and is not a bad way to reform the Senate. An important part of this proposal that should be in all other proposals is that senators should have a longer term than those in the House of Commons. This is to help preserve some of the original motivations for the creation of the Senate, which is to have senators think about and be concerned for the long term integrity and development of Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party’s efforts to reform the Senate have been described as failures, but they actually began one of the most important steps to changing the Senate: discovering the process. The Supreme Court ruled that reform or abolishment of the Senate cannot be done unilaterally by the House of Commons, which caused the Conservatives to cease their efforts and Prime Minister Harper to say that the ruling â€Å"leaves [them] with little choice† but to abandon their efforts.[13] Contrary to what Stephen Harper may say, the Supreme Court’s ruling gives the Conservatives and all of Canada reason to pursue reform and creates the parameters of how. The Supreme Court ruled that in order to reform the Senate, at least seven provinces would need to approve in addition to half of Canada while abolition would require unanimous consent.[14] Although this is a daunting process, if we take into account that 86% of Canadians want change, i t is not impossible. While this 86%, when broken down accounts for 45% that are for reform and 41% that are for abolition, it can be assumed that many of those that want abolition would much favor reform rather than no change in the event that a vote was given to the general population. Overall, the strengths and arguments for reform outweigh those of abolition. In addition to paving the way on how reform of the Senate must occur, the Supreme Court also gave a strong argument for reform over abolition: it is easier. While there may be arguments to be made for to having a unicameral parliament and abolishing the Senate, this path is too far to go without attempting reform first. If we are to accept that a bicameral legislature and Senate is part of our cultural heritage and that it does have merit in providing a check and balance to the actions of the House of Commons, there should at least be some effort to preserve it with reform. Some of the criticisms that have been used against the Senate including the significant cost to taxpayers compared to the lack of work can be rectified with reforming and making senators elected officials. By becoming elected officials, they are then accountable to the people that elected them into office and can easily be voted out if th ey do any work or their work is not sufficient to their electorate. While there many strengths to reforming the Senate, there does exist problems that must be considered. The first, and possibly biggest, obstacle in regards to reforming the Senate is its inability to create bills concerning the allocation of revenue or use of taxes. Already this creates a great hindrance on the work of the Senate and is one of the reasons why the Senate does not produce nearly the same amount of bills as the House of Commons. If the event of serious efforts and progress to reform the Senate, it would have to be addressed if the Senate would be able to create bills concerning money or if the restriction would remain in place. On one hand, the removal of such restriction would encourage senators to produce more bills, but would diminish the role and authority of the House of Commons Insight into this can be drawn from Australia’s Parliament, which has an elected Senate, but still requires all money bills to begin in the House of Representatives, which is the low er house of the Australian Parliament.[15] This causes the same imbalance that occurs in Canada’s Parliament where the House of Representatives produce the vast majority of bills while the Senate produces much less, but gets to spend much more time in committee work.[16] When looking at the overall discourse and benefits presented by reforming the Senate, it is something that should be pursued by Canada. The Senate still plays an important role by providing committee work, which the House of Commons often does not have enough time to do, and provides a needed balance. However, an unelected Senate is an artifact of an old system of government that must be updated to become more democratic. While there are strong arguments to be made for abolition, it should not be considered before at least attempting to reform. In addition, it is easier to reform rather than abolish so it is rational to at least turn the Senate into something Canadians want before losing it forever. References A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada. A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada. Accessed April 27, 2015. Abolish the Senate. Roll up the Red Carpet: Its Time to Abolish the Senate. Accessed April 29, 2015. Angus Reid. Future of the Senate: Majority of Canadians Split between Abolishing, Reforming the Red Chamber. Accessed May 3, 2015. CBC News. Canadas Senate: Sober Second Thought. CBCnews. July 9, 2010. Accessed April 25, 2015. Cody, Howard. Lessons from Australia in Canadian Senate Reform. Canadian Parliamentary Review. Accessed May 3, 2015. Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982. Legislative Services Branch. Accessed April 26, 2015. Fine, Sean. Stuck with Status Quo on Senate, Says Harper after Courts Rejection. The Globe and Mail. Accessed April 29, 2015. Parliamentary Institutions. Parliamentary Institutions. Accessed April 25, 2015. Trudeau Leads on Senate Reform: Liberal Leader Takes Concrete Action to Remove Partisanship and Patronage from the Senate. Accessed May 3, 2015. [1] Parliamentary Institutions, parliamentary Institutions, accessed April 25, 2015. [2] CBC News.,Canadas Senate: Sober Second Thought, July 9, 2010, accessed April 25, 2015. [3] Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, Legislative Services Branch, accessed April 26, 2015. [4] A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, accessed April 27, 2015. [5] Abolish the Senate, Roll up the Red Carpet: Its Time to Abolish the Senate, accessed April 29, 2015. [6] Sean Fine, Stuck with Status Quo on Senate, Says Harper after Courts Rejection, The Globe and Mail, accessed April 29, 2015. [7] Sean Fine, Stuck with Status Quo on Senate, Says Harper after Courts Rejection, The Globe and Mail, accessed April 29, 2015. [8] Trudeau Leads on Senate Reform: Liberal Leader Takes Concrete Action to Remove Partisanship and Patronage from the Senate, accessed May 3, 2015. [9] Angus Reid, Future of the Senate: Majority of Canadians Split between Abolishing, Reforming the Red Chamber, accessed May 3, 2015. [10] Angus Reid, Future of the Senate: Majority of Canadians Split between Abolishing, Reforming the Red Chamber, accessed May 3, 2015. [11] Angus Reid, Future of the Senate: Majority of Canadians Split between Abolishing, Reforming the Red Chamber, accessed May 3, 2015. [12] Abolish the Senate, Roll up the Red Carpet: Its Time to Abolish the Senate, accessed April 29, 2015. [13] Sean Fine, Stuck with Status Quo on Senate, Says Harper after Courts Rejection, The Globe and Mail, accessed April 29, 2015. [14] Sean Fine, Stuck with Status Quo on Senate, Says Harper after Courts Rejection, The Globe and Mail, accessed April 29, 2015. [15] Howard Cody. Lessons from Australia in Canadian Senate Reform, Canadian Parliamentary Review, accessed May 3, 2015. [16] Howard Cody. Lessons from Australia in Canadian Senate Reform, Canadian Parliamentary Review, accessed May 3, 2015.

The Spread of People, Agriculture, and Disease Essay -- Agricultural D

The Spread of People, Agriculture, and Disease It is obvious that as humans have traveled and exploited the world for their own purposes, their actions have had drastic effects on the environment as they deforest the land and introduce foreign flora and fauna to different ecosystems that may not be able to cope with them. What is not as obvious is that as humans have affected the environment, so the environment has also affected humans. While humans have settled down and chosen an agriculturalist, sedentary lifestyle over the semi-nomadic life of the hunter-gatherer, they have become susceptible to a barrage of diseases that have adapted specifically to afflict human beings. Because we, as humans, have come to believe that we completely dominate our environment, we find it hard to accept that perhaps the environment can also affect us in ways that may be out of our control. However, I think that the complimentary effects of humans and the environment on each other are important facts to explore and understand in o rder for coexistence to continue. Several millennia ago, there were certain groups of humans (mainly in Eurasia) who believed that an agricultural lifestyle was more desirable and would increase chances of survival more so than the hunter-gatherer way of life that had been in existence for millions of years. With the rise of agriculture came the domestication of the ‘farm’ animals – for example, pigs and cows (dogs had been domesticated well before these other animals). Farmers and herders began to need more land for their crops and animals, as well as for their offspring who also became farmers and herders, and so they expanded their territories. This territorial expansion continuousl... ...man travel and trade. I think that although it is theoretically possible to change the factors that allow the destruction of the Earth and the rise of diseases, it is actually impossible to achieve the sustainability and health of the human race. However, by understanding the complimentary effects of each on the other, I think that it is possible to alter our behaviors in such ways that problems in both directions can be greatly reduced. Works Cited Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel. New York: W.W. Norton & Comp., 1999. Ponting, Clive. A Green History of the World. New York: Penguin, 1993. Schneider, Jane. Rumpelstiltskin’s Bargain: Folklore and the Merchant Capitalist Intensification of Linen Manufacture in Early Modern Europe. From Cloth and Human Experience, ed. Annette Weiner and Jane Schneider. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993.

People in the Long House

This article â€Å"People of the Long House† is about the life of the Iroquois people. These people are very interesting; they were independent and very smart. They had a remarkable form of a government. Their lives were good, but of course like everyone else in this world they were not perfect. They made really bad decisions and tried to solve them by war. This is never a good idea. The men and woman were rated differently than what you would expect.These three men came into the Iroquois' lives and changed a lot of things. The way Iroquois lived was very different from history ever. The Iroquois have five nations, basically what we call states. They are the Mohawk, Cayuga, Seneca, Oneida and Onondaga. They lived a matrilineal society, which means that their descent was trace through their mother. The mothers were the leaders of their families. The men were in charge of the government. The men thought their Job as most important, but the women had a bigger role.They work on th e farm harvesting crops, for the food that feeds their families. The Iroquois life as a man was not all that good. Each nation had ten men stand up for them creating laws. They discussion the laws and listen carefully to each. Men are very good at persuading their point and getting what they want. They make a unanimous decision. When they don't agree on the law they want they fight. Fights are terrible rounds of anger and revenge. Some warriors practiced cannibalism. They loud throw their enemies into a pot and eat them.The Iroquois life as a woman was tough; they had a lot of work. Women were the head of their family clan. Women were much more respected during this time period. The men depend on the woman for their food. Woman did all the hard work of harvesting plants and sometimes hunting or gathering other foods. The woman also voted on the men that went into the government. The women were the most important part of the Iroquois people. The three men that entered the Iroquois' l ives were good and bad.Two men who were known as being good and harmless were Degradedly and Hiawatha. The third man was a man named Today who was known as being very evil and so horrible. Hiawatha was sick of all the killing and the cannibalism. Hiawatha spoke of peace. He wanted to end the bloody wars, but the terrible Today opposed him. People of was so furious that he killed Hiawatha three daughters. Hiawatha was devastated, but he didn't give up. He started a unity to have peaceful tribes of Iroquois. Hiawatha was an amazing speaker everyone was on his side.Hiawatha eventually converted Today to be peaceful. After that life was good for the Iroquois people. Most of things happened in the 16 century, but no one knows for sure when Today took over. What we do know is that it was not to long the first Europeans came to the land of the People of the long Houses. No one knew what was going to come out of this world. The Iroquois thinking they were the most powerful. The Europeans th ought they were even more powerfully until they realized there was another side of the world China and Japan

The Most Poisonous Chemical Compounds

The Most Poisonous Chemical Compounds When you get right down to it, everything is poisonous. Water will kill you if you drink too much of it. Oxygen is a deadly poison, yet we need it to live. However, there are some chemicals that we are better off not encountering. Heres a list of the most poisonous chemicals known. Keep in mind, toxicity varies from one species to another (i.e., what may be poisonous for a mouse may be more/less poisonous to a human) and within a species (i.e., age, sex, genetics all affect susceptibility to a toxin). Ive listed the name of the toxin, its source, approximate average lethal dose per kilogram of body weight (LD50), and the species. Tetanus:Â  1 nanogram/kg mouse, humanBotulinal neurotoxin (bacteria):Â  1 nanogram/kg mouse, humanShigella (bacteria):Â  1 nanogram/kg monkey, humanPalytoxin (coral):Â  60 nanogram/kg dog (iv)Diphtheria (bacteria):Â  100 nanogram/kg humanRicin (from castor beans): 1 microgram/kg humanAflatoxins (mold which grows on nuts, legumes, seeds): 1-784 micrograms, depending on type of aflatoxin duckling (oral)Shigella (bacteria) 1 microgram/kg mouseSaxitoxin (shellfish) 3-5 micrograms mouse (iv), about 50x higher dose orallyTetrodotoxin (fugu pufferfish) 10 micrograms mouse (ip)Diphtheria (bacteria) 1.6 milligram/kg mouse Sources Merck Index, 11th Ed., S. Budavari et al. (editors), Merck (1989) ISBN 911910-28-XMcGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 2nd Ed., McGraw Hill (1989) ISBN 0-07-045512-0, CD-ROM

Six Rules for Making Subjects and Verbs Agree

Six Rules for Making Subjects and Verbs Agree Six Rules for Making Subjects and Verbs Agree Six Rules for Making Subjects and Verbs Agree By Michael If you want to write proper English, you have to follow a rule called subject-verb agreement. That means that if the subject is plural (ducks), then the verb needs to be plural (quack). If the subject is singular (duck) then the verb needs to be singular (quacks). This issue is not as picky and unimportant as you might think. Traditionally, American novelists who wanted to show that a character was uneducated would give them dialog with incorrect subject-verb agreement: Waall, we is just gonna have to ride after them, aint we? or But suh, dey tells me not to do dat! It could be worse. If you spoke Basque, the object would have to agree with the subject too. In many languages, such as French, pronouns and nouns, even inanimate objects, have gender, and they have to agree with each other too. In proper Turkish, some vowels need to agree. Notice that English verbs, unlike nouns, usually dont become plural by adding s. In fact, many singular, present-tense verbs end with s, while many plural verbs dont exactly the opposite of nouns. More than anything else, sentences that begin with several nouns tend to fool people. Here are some rules to guide you into what you should do with them: Two singular subjects connected with and are plural, and need a plural verb. For example, which is correct: My mother and my father are visiting me or My mother and my father is visiting me? After all, its correct to say My father is visiting me. But two parents together are plural, not singular, so you need to use are. Of course, a plural subject combined with a singular subject is still plural, and you would use a plural verb. For example, this is correct: The general and his advisers are responsible for the decision. To make it less confusing, we put the plural subject last, closest to the verb. Two singular subjects connected with the conjunctions or or nor need a singular verb. For example, My mother or my father is going to call me today is correct, because only one of them will be calling. It works the same way with andor and neithernor: Neither my mother nor my father is going to call me today. If one of the subjects is plural, use a plural verb: The general or his advisers are responsible for the decision. Again, we put the plural subject last, closest to the verb. Dont get distracted if theres another phrase between the subject and the verb. For example, you should say My sister, along with her children, is visiting me next month; even though you would say My sister and her daughters are visiting me next month. The verb needs to agree with the subject, not with other nouns that happen to precede the verb. Words such as either, neither, everyone, everybody, anyone, anybody, someone, none or each, are singular and need a singular verb. As we just said, dont be fooled if a singular subject is followed by plural nouns. For example, when you write each of my daughters, make sure the verb agrees with the singular subject each instead of the plural noun daughters. And the singular subject everyone who knows my daughters should be followed by the singular predicate is impressed by them, not are impressed by them. On the other hand, fractions or portions of a plural noun are still plural. Often these are expressed with prepositional phrases: most of the students or half of the campus. Use a singular verb if the object of the preposition is singular, but a plural verb if its plural. For example, write Some of the students are wealthy, and Half of the campus is covered with trees. Time and money are singular. Yes, five is plural, and the word yards is plural, but you would write Five yards is all I need to finish my sewing project. Notice that many of these rules are really just warnings to look carefully at the sentences you write. Once you know that subjects and verbs need to agree, and you know what counts as the subject and what doesnt, you are on your way to sounding more educated. Subject-Verb Agreement Quiz In each sentence, choose the correct form of the verb. 1. Either Jack or the children ___ too loud. is are 2. Everyone ____ chocolate. loves love 3. My sister, along with her children, ___ visiting me next month. is are 4. Neither my mother nor my father ___ going to call me today. are is Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Grammar category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:12 Signs and Symbols You Should KnowHomogeneous vs. Heterogeneous50 Musical Terms Used in Nonmusical Senses

UK Aviation Policy Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

UK Aviation Policy - Case Study Example Air travel is of primordial importance to the United Kingdom's economy and prosperity. In the last 30 years there has been a five-fold growth in air travel. This vibrant air travel opened up opportunities: half of the population flies at least once a year, and many citizens have began flying far more often than that. The main challenge of UK aviation policy is to deal with the pressures caused by the increasing need to travel whilst at the same time retaining their commitment to protect the environment in which we live. The present UK aviation consists of a global policy framework that achieves stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would obviate dangerous man-made interference with the climate system. Aviation in the UK contributes an annual  £14bn value added output to the UK economy, creating and sustaining 675,000 jobs, exporting  £13bn per annum, and is directly responsible for transporting a third by value of our goods. (NATS and Trade Association in the UK, 2007). Aviation is a global industry. Many of its impacts demand global solutions. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) must identify the way forward and set the framework at an international level for national and local implementation. The ICAO must consider both the national and international impact of proposed policies. Moreover, it should lessen the adoption of unilateral measures which may result in adverse effects on the UK aviation industry and the national economy. Background of the Greenhouse Common The NATO's Nuclear Planning Group created a High Level Group (HLG) to determine NATO's requirements for handling threat from Soviet nuclear forces. The HLG started analyzing in December 1977 and decided to deploy cruise missiles in Britain. Cruise missiles were chosen as these were cheap, accurate and it could be fired from different platforms. The HLG's modernization plan was approved in 1979. (Sean, 2004). Then on June 17, 1980, British Defence Secretary, Francis Pym, announced in the House of Commons that 160 missiles were to be stationed at the United States Air Force standby base at RAF Greenham Common in Berkshire, and RAF Molesworth. (Parliamentary Debates of House of Commons, 1980). The first cruise missiles were delivered to the airport on November 14, 1983. (Sean, 2004) The NATO's December 1979 information that it had set-up a base for nuclear cruise missiles in a British airport generated instant and heavy public opposition. The anti-cruise missile movement had expanded to include mass demonstrations, peace camps at the bases, and multiple civil action by various organizations. Public opinion against the cruise missile deployment strengthened the

Lean Six Sigma Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Lean Six Sigma - Essay Example Although Lean manufacturing and Six Sigma have been practiced for several decades now, Lean Six Sigma itself is a relatively new initiative being followed by companies worldwide. Whereas Six Sigma is focused on reducing variation and improving process yield using statistical tools, Lean is primarily concerned with eliminating waste by following a defined approach to implement various Lean principles. Lean brings action and intuition to the table; Six Sigma uses statistical tools to uncover root causes and provide metrics; Lean Six Sigma is a combination of both and provides the tools to create ongoing business improvement (Smith, 2003). The synergy of Lean and Six Sigma bring in the advantages of both, achieving results consistently superior than what either system could achieve alone. Lean Six Sigma is different from Six Sigma in the sense that it marries the principles of both Lean manufacturing and Six Sigma concepts to produce a much enhanced system. Six Sigma is a process for eliminating defects and variation through the development of a disciplined data driven approach. However Six Sigma alone cannot dramatically improve process speed or reduce invested capital. Although it can bring a process under statistical control, variations will still exist in terms of delivery times, assembly times, routings, etc. Incorporating Lean principles within the Six Sigma framework enhances speed and quality by improving and streamlining the processes and creating excellent customer service. According to Badurdeen (2008), "to get to Lean Six Sigma an organization should first incorporate Six Sigma into their process improvement and then engage in Lean Six Sigma to speed up the processes after the systems have been broken down into smaller components". Selecting the Right Team As such, rightsizing Lean Six Sigma teams should be the first priority for businesses that want to ensure the success of 'Lean' projects and realize the full potential of such projects. Some of the factors that characterize an efficient Lean Six Sigma Team are: High level of efficient communications amongst implementers, management officials and other entities associated with the 'Lean' project. The team members are accountable since decisions and actions taken by the team can be traced back to individual members. Team works with a reduced cost of operations because the lesser the numbers, the less will be the amount of resources used for performing the same tasks and duties The team constantly strives in increasing efficiency in solving complex problems and issues and employees know the exact person to contact if they encounter problems during the implementation phase The team shows less chance of conflicts and ego issues. One way we evaluate the success of a Lean Six Sigma initiative or strategy is to measure the involvement in LeanSix Sigma by way of numbers of people involved, i.e., numbers trained, practicing, certified, etc. DMAIC DMAIC is a standard improvement model; it is a structured, disciplined and rigorous approach to process improvement consisting of 5 logically interlinked phases. The 5 phases are discussed in the following section (George, 2002). Define: This is the first step which aims at clarifying the goals and value of a project. A set of tools such