In light of the recent scandal in the Senate, public attention has once again been turned to the credibility of the government and the discipline of its members. The Mike Duffy $90,000 scandal has put the Canadian government's partisan discipline under the spotlight. While well known to the general public, there are other similar incentives and disincentives shared among Members of Parliament (MPs) and Senators in keeping them disciplined, as well as a few different ones 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. By comparing similarities and differences, I will explain the motivations behind the Senate, even though they apparently have fewer incentives than parliamentarians, for example they don't have to worry about being re-elected. For Canadian parliamentarians, party discipline is central to their actions. For them, collective responsibility plays an important role in their agenda. As a party, they are held accountable for any decision made by their party and are expected to defend it at all times. For a majority government, party discipline becomes an even more important issue as it is directly linked to the mandate of the Prime Minister (PM). Under the rule of maintaining the confidence of the House, the Prime Minister must gain the support of the House to remain in his role. This is where high party discipline comes into play. With it, the Prime Minister will not have to worry about being fired by the Governor General. If high party discipline were to deteriorate and yield to low party discipline, like that of the United States, the government will be in constant and potential risk of collapsing into paralysis. Once chief of staff... center of paper... as a whole. While there are similarities and differences in the leverage of party discipline between parliamentarians and the Senate, both work and are effective. For MPs, levers such as collective responsibility, the threat of re-election or suspension, and control over question period help ensure senior party discipline and unity by defining a hard boundary and uniting them. While the Senate does not face the problem of being removed from the party for displeasing its party leaders as MPs do, the very method of being appointed directly by the Governor General (under the advice of the Prime Minister) and their underlying similarities they ensure that they think alike and therefore have high party discipline. In contrast, MPs have relatively more individualistic reasons to maintain high party discipline, while the Senate's motive is more group-oriented..