In light of the recent Senate scandal, public attention has once again focused on the credibility of the government and the discipline of its members. The Mike Duffy $90,000 scandal has put the party discipline of the Canadian government in the spotlight. Although this is well known to the general public, there are other similar incentives and disincentives shared between deputies and senators to keep them disciplined, as well as others that set them apart. In this essay, I will analyze the main levers of party discipline in the House of Commons and the Senate for their effectiveness. Comparing the similarities and differences, I will explain the motivations behind the Senate, even though they apparently have fewer incentives than MPs, such as not having to worry about being re-elected. For Canada's MPs, party discipline is central to their actions. For them, collective responsibility plays a big role in their agenda. As a party, they are held accountable for any decision their party makes and are expected to defend it at all times. For a majority government, party discipline becomes an all the more important issue as it is directly linked to the mandate of the Prime Minister. Under the rule of maintaining the confidence of the House, the Prime Minister must obtain the support of the House to retain his role. This is where high party discipline comes into play. With this, the Prime Minister will no longer have to fear being removed from office by the Governor General. If high party discipline deteriorates and gives way to lower discipline, such as that of the United States, the government will be at constant potential risk of falling into paralysis. Once chief of staff... middle of paper ...... as a whole. Although there are similarities and differences in the level of party discipline between MPs and the Senate, they both work and are effective. For MPs, levers such as collective responsibility, the risk of being re-elected or suspended, and control of question period help ensure high discipline and party unity by defining a rigid boundary and bringing them together. Although the Senate does not face the problem of being expelled from the party for displeasing its party leaders as MPs do, the very method of appointment directly by the Governor General (on the advice of the Prime Minister) and their substantive similarities ensure that they think alike and therefore have great party discipline. In contrast, MPs have relatively more individualistic reasons to maintain high party discipline, while the Senate's motive is more group-oriented..