The Canadian Bureaucracy
Government in itself is a large and unwieldy organization. Every day the Canadian
federal government makes hundreds of decisions; that effect everything from the fonts on
health pamphlets to which helicopters will be used to patrol this great nations borders.
How do our elected officials deal with so many important decisions? They don’t. The
members of the house of commons, the elected representatives of the Canadian people,
have ridings to watch over, and re-elections to worry about. The MP’s would be hard
pressed any day to know what was going on within the Treasury Board (TB), much less
the Defense Department Commission. Yet, these institutions and others like them make
major resource allocation decisions before the house has even an idea when they will be
voting on such legislation. These offices that research, propose, and implement the
government’s major policies are in fact the originators of all legislation. This is the
Bureaucracy.
The Bureaucracy is the largest component of the Canadian nations government. If
the Canadian government were viewed as a human body, Cabinet and the House of
Commons would only be the brain. This is the top of the bureaucratic pyramid where
information is examined and pronounced good or bad. There is a large and productive
body below this “head.” It is huge; with strong arms like the police and armed forces,
and legs like the Canadian Pacific Railroad. Its digestive system consists of a large
taxation branch made up of many organs that deal with distribution and allocation. The
senses of this body are everywhere. The individual nerves on its skin interact with
citizens everyday, while booking them into hospital rooms or registering their
...
... middle of paper ...
...Bureaucracies
movements makes them a fully functional entity of the Canadian government. Even our
powerful house of commons could be brought to its knees. Bureaucrats are possible foes
to Canadian democracy, the risk is realistic. Any head that looses control of its body and
senses will ultimately loose control and the body will wither, perhaps even because of
virus. In conclusion though it is very far fetched there is a possibility our Bureaucrats
could affect our democracy. Perhaps not individually but if the banded together a
significant hindrance could be created. However, the author has a very low opinion of
bureaucrats and feels their individual or group volatility is a joke. “ In a hierarchy, every
employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." 5 With such a thought in mind, how
could one ever feel threatened from such a group.
The next problem is an Autocratic Leadership. In an autocratic leadership employees have no say. All decisions are made by the management. This is a problem because even though management may know what is best for the company, they do not know what is best for the employees. They should listen to the employee’s ideas and not dismiss them immediately. (toolbox, Leadership Styles: Autocratic leadership)
Often, when the discussion of American bureaucracy is broached in conversation, those holding these conversations often think of the many men and women who operate behind the scenes within the government. This same cross section of Americans is looked upon as the real power within the federal government and unlike the other branches of government, has little to no oversight. A search of EBSCO resulted in the following definition, an organization “structure with a rigid hierarchy of personnel, regulated by set rules and procedures” (Bureaucracy, 2007). Max Weber believed that a bureaucracy was technically the most efficient form of organization, one structured around official functions that are bound by rules, each function having its own specified competence (2007). This wide ranging group of Americans has operated within the gaps, behind the scenes, all under the three core branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The division of government into three branches and separate powers gives each branch both exclusive powers and some additional power...
In light of the recent Senate scandal, the public’s attention has been directed to the government’s credibility and its members’ discipline again. Mike Duffy’s 90,000 dollars scandal has put the Canadian government’s party discipline into the spotlight. While it is well-known amongst general public, there are other similar incentives and disincentives shared between the Members of the Parliament (MPs) and senators in keeping them disciplined, as well as some different ones that set them apart. In this essay, I am going to analyze the main levers of party discipline in the House of Commons and the Senate for their effectiveness. By comparing the similarities and differences, I will explain for the motivations behind the Senate, even if they have seemingly fewer incentives than the MPs, such as free of worrying about being re-elected.
...r votes elect individuals who will represent their values and interests. While many will argue between whether a minority or majority government better represents Canadians, this essay has shown that regardless of the type of government, the Prime Minister is able to use his power to control his MP’s, media, and opposition members in order to fulfill a personal or hidden agenda. The sheer manipulation that is possible by a Prime Minister completely undermines the transparency and accountability of true democracy.
While the electorate vote for Members of Parliament that should hypothetically representing their constituents, MP’s are instead adhering to the objectives set out by the Prime Minister’s Office. Indeed, while former Canadian Prime Minister, Pier...
C. Wright Mills, in this selection, explains to us how there are a certain group of people who make the important decisions in our country, the “power elite.” Mills splits this group into the 3 top leaders: the corporate elite, the military elite, and the small political elite. These 3 different departments work together as a whole to make decisions regarding the country.
The symbol of the Canadian judicial system is the balanced scales of justice. When a wrongful act is committed, the scales of justice are greatly misplaced and require a solution to counterbalance the crime and restore balance. Additionally, the scales represent the idea that law should be viewed objectively and the determination of innocence should be made without bias. The Canadian criminal justice system encapsulates the idea of the scale of justice, to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate the law. One of the most important aspects of this system is that an individual charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The current system has two prevailing methods involved in the process of dealing with crime: Retributive and restorative justice. This paper will analyze aspects of retributive justice and restorative justice, with reference to their respective philosophies, for the purpose of finding which is more effective at achieving justice and maintaining balance.
Every country has a justice system in place in their society in order to maintain peace and equality. The Criminal Justice System gives civilians the opportunity to receive integrity through a legal system while giving them a fair chance to deal with negligence and misconduct. There are several components that work together to enforce the purpose played by the Criminal Justice System. Most obviously, it includes the rules and laws entrenched in the Charter and Constitution in which prosecutors and judges base their decisions. Secondly, it consists of the parliament who is responsible for putting these laws together. Then come the enforcement agents such as police officers and defense attorneys who regulate society using these rules. Lastly, there would be no use for the Criminal Justice System if the world was perfect, but fortunately, it is used to help victims and the accused. The document in the Criminal Justice System that withholds all of the offences and penalties for crimes committed in the country is called the Criminal Code of Canada.
The court system of any country is a fundamental aspect of the society. In this respect, there are no public institutions in Canada which are subject to public scrutiny like the court system. People expectations of how they are treated by others are guided by laws made by various levels of institutions of justice. The Canadian judicial system, particularly, has undergone major developments and challenges as well. This paper explores three published articles that report on the problem of patronage appointments what lies behind the confidence in the justice system and the relevance of gender and gender equality in the legal profession.
Bureaucracy has been the main form of organisation for over a century and can be characterised by the following: functional specialisation, employees carrying out one function of activity as their primary role; hierarchy of authority, those in superior positions having authority based solely on the virtue of the position itself; a system of rules, the tasks of the organisation following a formal set of procedures and practices; and impersonality, individuals being treated on the basis of the rules rather than emotions and personality (Knights & Willmott, 2012). The mainstream perspective states that a bureaucratic organisation’s central aim is to maximise efficiency, objectivity and fairness and can be thought of as a ‘machine’ with the people making up the components (Knights & Willmott, 2012). This view attributes three problems to this rule-centred organisation: poor motivation, poor customer service and a resistance to innovation and change (Knights & Willmott, 2012). Employees in bureaucratic organisations tend not to be committed to their
In every society around the world, the law is affecting everyone since it shapes the behavior and sense of right and wrong for every citizen in society. Laws are meant to control a society’s behavior by outlining the accepted forms of conduct. The law is designed as a neutral aspect existent to solve society’s problems, a system specially designed to provide people with peace and order. The legal system runs more efficiently when people understand the laws they are intended to follow along with their legal rights and responsibilities.
The Harper government, elected in 2006 and defeated in 2015, was one of the longest serving governments in Canadian history. Starting as the smallest minority government to ever be formed in Canada, it expanded, becoming a powerful majority serving nine years. The Harper government ended with the loss of 67 seats for the Conservative government and the gain of 150 seats for the Liberals. This rapid change was not surprising, as the Harper government alienated many. Harper himself was known to be temperamental and a control freak. While Harper was disliked by many, however, his government led Canada through a period of change and created many of those changes. Some of those changes were extremely controversial, such as the tough-on-crime agenda
On the medium term he would need to upgrade the company’s human resources policies, at the moment are mainly reactive.
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.
not having any interest in their suggestions to the employee that thinks they were hired