Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Role of government in public policy
Th role of government
Essays on the major role of government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Stephen Harper has been the Prime Minister of Canada since 2006. Since stepping into office he has continually changed the way that our society runs, and how we as Canadians live. He not only makes positive changes to our government but helps to keep all changes and laws that are set in place to run smoothly and effectively. The Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, constantly reforms his government through tax cutting, changing laws, and improving our way of life. In order for Harper to accomplish these tasks he has provided family tax cuts to provide more money to families with children, he created the violent crime act which will keep the streets clean and also improves our way of life with his accountability and reform of employment. In this …show more content…
In order to protect citizens and keep criminals off the street the Tackling Violent Crime Act was created. This act included two new firearm offences and intensifying the sentencing for serious firearm offences. This act also includes monitoring high risk offenders, a new rule for the investigation of drunk driving and raising the sexual activity consent age to 16 from 14. These laws were put into action because Canadians should be entitled to live in a safe society and without those laws firearms, dangerous and high risk offenders, driving under the influence, and sexual predators will all continue threating the safety of Canadians. Another reason why Stephen Harper running a reforming government is very beneficial is that he is able to make quick decisions to change laws in order to keep safety among our country according to recent events that occur. After a just recent shooting in Ottawa by Parliamentary Hill Stephen Harper decided he would like to act fast on this situation and enhance the powers of Canada’s spy agency and police forces. Stephen Harper was quoted saying “In recent weeks, I have been saying that our laws and police powers need to be strengthened in the area of surveillance, detention and arrest,” […] “They need to be much strengthened. I assure members that work which is already under way will be expedited.” This shows that by him making …show more content…
Harper has implemented his great leadership and positive changes to the government in many ways such as his accountability and reform of employment. When elected Prime Minister and handed the accountability for Canada, Harper began to change the way politics were done previously in order to make Canada the best place it can be. To help guarantee that politicians were not being influenced by large donations, he banned both corporations and unions from giving political contributions. Harper’s government has also reduced the amount of money that individuals are able to donate from $5,000 to $1,100 per year. This will help cut back on the influence that politicians will receive from donations. Also, Harper has recently taken action in order to make the Senate more responsible for us Canadians. The government appointed Canada’s first elected Senator, Bert Brown from Alberta, and every other new Senator that is appointed is committed to reforming the Senate. Another way in which Harper has improved the way of life for Canadians is with reform of employment. Over his 8 year tenure, Harper’s government has helped out businesses that are in need of employees and it is easy to hire temporary foreign workers. Foreign workers are now employed by 33,000 companies across Canada and not just in the agricultural area but also in the
“Just watch me.”Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau said in 1970. He meant it as he fought to keep Quebec a part of Canada. Not only did he do that, he managed to be prime minister for 16 years, as well as being Canada’s youngest leader at the time. He brought greater civil rights to Canadians, Quebec citizens mainly. His charismatic personality matched his innovative ideas, that enhanced Canada for the better. For his entire political career, not only did Canada watch him, the whole world watched him change the country for the better. He made a radical change to Canada by championing the idea of officially implementing bilingualism. Trudeau was a trailblazer from the moment he was elected.
If I were the prime minister of Canada, I would strive to accomplish and strengthen three major things. First, I would make sure that our educational system maintains strong and will make others succeed in life, second, I would make sure that everyone has equal and fair treatment in our society, and lastly, I would make sure every Canadian family can live happily by reducing tax.
There are many more examples of conflicts between Trudeau's thoughts and his actions. For instance, Trudeau has always been uncomfortable with excessive state intervention in the economy. For this reason he has consistently opposed the imposition of price and income controls. But this did not stop him from deciding, in 1975, that a lack of responsibility on the part of business and labour necessitated the introduction of a controls system. Trudeau has spoken of the need for a shift of emphasis in Canadian society from consumption to conservation. And yet, he allowed energy-conservation measures in Canada to fall far behind those of the United States. More than a few times, Trudeau has insisted that it is our moral obligation as Canadians to share our wealth with poorer nations. Nevertheless, he still reduced foreign-aid spending and even put a protective quota on textile imports from developing countries. Trudeau has written about the importance of consensus in government. But again, this did not prevent him, on more than a few occasions, from entirely disregarding the consensus of his cabinet ministers on a given issue, preferring instead to make the decision on his own.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is attempting to further decentralize Canadian government with, what he calls, open federalism. This essay will begin with a discourse on the evolution of Canadian federalism, then exclusively compare Harper’s approach to the proceeding Liberal governments approach, and ultimately explain why Stephen Harper’s “open federalism” methodology is the most controversial form of Canadian federalism yet.
...ications with the world. If elected, the NDP promises to propose a new act called the Poverty Elimination Act which aims to eliminate all poverty in Canada by 2020.
Spicer, Keith. 1991. Citizen’s Forum on Canada’s Future: Report to the People and Government of
This essay has argued that there are many limitations that the Prime Minister is subjected too. The three most important are federalism in Canadian society, the role of the Governor General, and the charter of rights and freedoms. I used two different views of federalism and illustrated how both of them put boundaries on the Prime Minister’s power. Next I explain the powers of the governor general, and explained the ability to dissolve parliament in greater detail. Last I analyzed how the charter of rights of freedoms has limited the Prime Minister’s power with respect to policy-making, interests groups and the courts. The Prime Minister does not have absolute power in Canadian society, there are many infringements on the power that they have to respect.
Canada is a society built on the promise of democracy; democracy being defined as “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” In order to operate at full potential, the people of Canada must voice their opinions and participate fully in the political system. This is why it’s shocking to see that people are becoming less engaged in politics and the voter turnout has steadily been declining over the last 20 years. This lack of participation by Canadians is creating a government that is influenced by fewer people, which is detrimental to the democratic system Canada is built on.
Politicians from western provinces and rural areas are opposed to these stricter laws because there is a more widespread acceptance and use for guns around them. On the opposite side are politicians from urban areas where crime rates are higher, who embrace the new harsher gun control laws as one solution to violent crimes. There are many pros and cons to the recently passed Firearms Act to control guns in Canada. Severe gun control laws do not limit crime sufficiently enough and it is not worth the government money being spent on it. Government intervention in the licensing of firearms in Canada first took place in 1892.
Both Hart and Anaquod were subjected to the cultural assimilation and social isolation that was part of the Canadian government’s policy to “kill the Indian in the child.” Where the goal to transform Indigenous children into productive members of society shifted to abuse and the church and government covering up the secrets of abuse is sitting on a blurred line. On June 11, 2008, the current Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, made a statement of apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools, on behalf of the Government of Canada for the previous government’s actions. “The government of Canada now recognizes that it was wrong to forcibly remove children from their homes and we apologize for having done this,” Harper said. “We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions, that it created a void in many lives and communities and we apologize for having done this.” Harper noted that many former students have died and are unable to hear the government’s
Canada is viewed as being a very safe and stable place to live because people are lucky enough to have healthcare, benefits for unemployment and family needs, as well as maternity leave. Crime is something that Canadians don’t often think about because people feel as though they are out of harm's way. As Canadians, we’ve watched the world experience different threats and crime, and we’ve seen the world fight back. For example, our neighbors in North America, the United States, have gone through terrorist attacks and issues with guns and violence. Just because we are witnessing these things in other places doesn’t mean that we aren’t at risk as well, and Canada does have certain approaches and regards in place if we are ever in danger. What I wish to address in this paper is how Canada is set up for reacting to crime and jeopardy, as well as an example of where we went wrong in our past. Methods in response to crime, Canada’s legal regime and the issue of Residential schooling for Aboriginals a hundred years ago will be presented.
Throughout history, the actions of governments have always been debated; however, occasionally there are certain events which spark much controversy, both at the time of the event and by historians today. One of these controversial acts was the invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970, an act which suspended the civil liberties of Canadian citizens. In October 1970, in what became known as the October Crisis, the Front de libération du Québec, (commonly known as the FLQ) which was a French Canadian organization advocating independence from Canada, kidnapped two politicians. This initiated a series of events, one of which was the invocation of the War Measures Act by Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Many historians argue that Trudeau was justified in invoking the War Measures Act because the October Crisis ended shortly after the Act was invoked. However, this argument is invalid as justification; primarily because the War Measures Act was an extreme overreaction by Trudeau, as the threat of the FLQ was largely small-scale, and the demise of the FLQ was impending with the rise of the Bloc Quebecois. Furthermore, the Act may have inspired Quebecers who favoured separatism, as they saw the government desperately employ the most extreme measure to stop the FLQ. Finally, the War Measures Act suspended the civil rights of citizens within a democracy, violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
...n of their cabinet, while others may choose to create a new political path without consulting the views of their party. Mellon thinks that the Canadian government is under dictatorial scrutiny, whereas Barker contradicts this belief. The idea of a prime-ministerial government is certainly an over exaggeration of the current state of Canada. There are too many outside and inside forces that can control the powers the Prime Minister of Canada. Furthermore, there are several outside sources that indicate a good government in Canada. The United Nations annually places Canada at the top, or near the top of the list of the world’s best countries in which to live. These outcomes are not consistent with the idea of a one ruler power. Canada is not ruled by one person’s ideas, suggestions, and decisions, but by government approved and provincially manipulated decisions.
The United States faced the worst economic downfall in history during the Great Depression. A domino effect devastated every aspect of the economy, unemployment rate was at an all time high, banks were declaring bankruptcy and the frustration of the general public led to the highest suicide rates America has ever encountered. In the 1930’s Franklin D Roosevelt introduced the New Deal reforms, which aimed to “reconcile democracy, individual liberty and economic planning” (Liberty 863). The New Deal reforms were effective in the short term but faced criticism as it transformed the role of government and shaped the lives of American citizens.
Since federalism was introduced as an aspect of Canadian political identity, the country has undergone multiple changes as to how federalism works; in other words, over the decades the federal and provincial governments have not always acted in the same way as they do now. Canada, for example, once experienced quasi-federalism, where the provinces are made subordinate to Ottawa. Currently we are in an era of what has been coined “collaborative federalism”. Essentially, as the title would suggest, it implies that the federal and provincial levels of government work together more closely to enact and make policy changes. Unfortunately, this era of collaborative federalism may be ending sooner rather than later – in the past couple decades, the federal and provincial governments have been known to squabble over any and all policy changes in sectors such as health, the environment and fiscal issues. Generally, one would assume that in a regime employing collaborative federalism there would be a certain amount of collaboration. Lately, it seems as though the only time policy changes can take place the federal government is needed to work unilaterally. One area in which collaborative federalism has been nonexistent and unilateral federalism has prevailed and positively affected policy changes is in the Post-Secondary Education (PSE) sector.