As a concept, Parliament is intuitive to define yet complex to substantiate. Although in theory it lies at the intersection of civil society and the political establishment, in practice committees are the more accessible microcosms of Parliament that empower affected stakeholders to come out of the woodwork. Viewed from this paradigm, the Canadian House of Commons committee system is far from broken, and its continued evolution in empowering backbench MPs in legislation since Confederation has not been routine nor particularly in vain. Neither are technical inadequacies within the House’s Standing Orders (SO) a cause for concern, whether now or in the past. Instead, committee expectations – vis-à-vis their broader causal narratives – need to be tempered: Legislatively, they have too much power, if nostalgia gives way to reassert the original vision of Parliament as the McGrath reform last explicitly argued. The bottom line is simply that it is untenable to investigate fundamental questions on responsible …show more content…
While an important question, its premise is flawed, since Canadian committees are the key to more than merely Canadian legislative problems – they provide an exciting and testable foil for the simplified causal narratives affecting legislatures, domestic and abroad, that ultimately help define a national legislature as a distinct polis. By shortly exploring the bedrock for the empirical rationale to study Canadian committees, both the gaps in literature and the universally Canadian implications for studying committees are delineated. At the end, this argument set the stage to investigate the unclear theoretical background and recent ambiguous history for the role of an independent legislator vis-à-vis the causal narratives guiding the committee
Senate reform in Canada has been a popular topic for decades but has yet to be accomplished. Since the Senates formation in 1867 there has been numerous people who call for its reform or abolishment due to the fact it has not changed since its implementation and does not appear to be fulfilling its original role. An impediment to this request is that a constitutional amendment is needed to change the structure of the Senate, which is not an easy feat. Senate reform ideas have developed from other upper houses in counties such as the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany. From those two different successful governments emerges examples of different electoral systems, state representation, and methods of passing legislations.
Furthermore, the issues of representation in the House of Commons are even more evident in terms of the alienation of certain provinces. Western Canada has experienced political alienation due to the dominance and influence of Ontario and Quebec over policy-making as both provinces contain the founding Cultures of Canada (Miljan, 2012, p. 53) Also, the fact that Ontario and Quebec make up more than 60 percent of Canada’s population attracts policymakers to those provinces while marginalizing the interests of westerners (Miljan, 2012, p. 53). Thus, policymakers will favor Ontario and Quebec as these provinces harbor the most ridings as well as the bigger electors’ base. In fact, Western Canada is also underrepresented in both the House of Commons and the Senate when compared to the Maritime provinces as the Maritime provinces are overrepresented compared to their population. Also, many western Canadians are turned off by the federal government as they have been alienated from major political action and discussion due to low representation (Canada and the World Backgrounder, 2002). In other words, Ottawa does not address the needs and hopes of Western Canada
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
Canada itself claims to be democratic, yet the Canadian Senate is appointed to office by the current Prime Minister rather than elected by the citizens. The original purpose of the Senate was to give fair representation between provinces and to the citizens. Having failed its purpose, clearly there are issues within the Senate that need to be addressed. Because of the Prime Minister appointing the Senators, they will now serve the Prime Ministers needs rather than the people who they should have been listening to. As if this were not enough of a show of power for the Prime Minister, the Senators cannot be lawfully kicked out of office until the age of seventy-five. An example of Senate idiosyncrasy in Canadian government is Ross Fitzpatrick, who was appointed to office by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien of the Liberals in June 1990. His official opponent, Preston Manning, rightfully questioned the circumstances regardin...
The contentious little book titled Women, Power, Politics maintains politics to be devalued, acknowledging the fact that only few people do vote, and women are unable to achieve within the realm of Canadian politics. Sylvia Bashevkin, the author of the book argues that Canadians have a profound unease with women in positions of political authority, what she calls the "women plus power equals discomfort" equation. She evaluates a range of barriers faced by women who enter politics, including the media's biased role of representing the private lives of women in politics, and she wonders why citizens find politics is underrepresented in Canada compared to Belgium. In clear, accessible terms, Bashevkin explains her ideas on how to eliminate “low voters turn-out,” “devaluation of politics,” "gender schemas," and "media framing.” She outlines some compelling solutions to address the stalemate facing women in Canadian politics which are; contesting media portrayals, changing the rule of the game, improving legislative quotas, electoral reform, movement renewals, and so on. This response paper would addresses the reality of a political mainstream, actions which should be taken against the oppressive elements of reality, and the awareness it brings through economic, social, and political environment.
The Prime Minister of Canada is given much power and much responsibility. This could potentially create a dangerous situation if the government held a majority and was able to pass any legislation, luckily this is not the case. This paper will argue that there are many limitations, which the power of the prime minister is subject too. Three of the main limitations, which the Prime Minister is affected by, are; first, federalism, second the governor general and third, the charter of rights and freedoms. I will support this argument by analyzing two different types of federalism and how they impact the power of the Prime Minister. Next I will look at three of the Governor Generals Powers and further analyze one of them. Last I will look at the impact of the charter from the larger participation the public can have in government, and how it increased the power of the courts.
Stilborn, Jack. Senate Reform: Issues and Recent Developments. Ottawa: Parliamentary Information and Research Service, 2008.
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
This paper will seek to discuss the historical aspect of the Party Systems of Canada. Moreover, explain how each one of the five parties functioned, how they sought to serve Canada to get Canadians to vote. It will go into deep detail about the parties to get a clear understand of what was going on within Canadian politics when it comes to the Party Systems as well as its structure. This paper asserts that the political realm of Canada went through a major transition in the beginning of 2003 and the rise of a new period of Canadian politics which is the fifth party system.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
..., & News, C. (n.d.). CBC News Indepth: The 39th Parliament - Harper at the helm. CBC.ca - Canadian News Sports Entertainment Kids Docs Radio TV. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/parliament39/quebecnation-history.html
Commons would only be the brain. This is the top of the bureaucratic pyramid where
In the year of 1867 the nation we know as Canada came into being. The Confederation in this year only came about after things had been overcome. Many political and economic pressures were exerted on the colonies and a federal union of the colonies seemed to be the most practical method of dealing with these pressures and conflicts. While Confederation was a solution to many of the problems, it was not a popular one for all the colonies involved. In the Maritime colonies views differed widely on the topic. Some were doubtful, some were pleased, others were annoyed and many were hopeful for a prosperous future.1
In recent years, Select Committees have become incredibly significant and effective at holding the executive to account. This ability to scrutinise has been propelled by the intense media coverage and public support for committee reports and inquiries. This is especially the case with issues such as the phone hacking scandal. With such a high profile of certain aspects of committee work, their scrutiny has been incredibly effective at forming and reforming aspects of government policy and conduct. Despite select committees being the most effective they have been in their entire history, there is still an incredible amount of scope for future reform and development. Select committees need to be more self-evaluative, in order to assess their
On one hand, political constitutionalists argue that parliamentary sovereignty is the underlying principle in the British constitution as power and law making are bo...