Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Powers and limitations of the canadian prime minister
Federalism in canada
Powers of pm in canada
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Canadian democracy was based of the British parliamentary system, and the goal was to have an independent country without having to go through the negative aspects of war like the United States in their independence. What has arisen from the earliest days of Canadian government is a hotbed of power waiting to be seized by a leader with a vision for the Canadian people and way of life. The problem is that there is much of Canadian federal politics is a charade; a façade of representational government and democracy with arbitrary appointments and no oversight to a plethora of government activities, the Canadian Prime Minister is one of the most powerful positions in and ‘democratic’ government. The Cabinet government that was the original model for the Canadian government, had a variety of people in charge of their area of influence, they held the power of persuasion with respect to their ministerial portfolio (Cochrane et …show more content…
This is because the Prime Minister has the power to pick members of the senate and it is in their best interest to ensure that those members will act favourably to the selecting governing power, usually selecting party loyalists or persons who have donated money to see the party succeed. As a result, those selected have a vested interest in the party’s platform, and by extension, are usually more than happy to pass bills with little resistance from the Prime Minister that appointed them (class notes). The fact that the senate is wary of dissolution from excessive public distrust owing to the lack of ethics within the senate, also affects the absence of senate opposition to House of Commons’ bills (class
Source I is a quote from the Paris Peace Talks by British Prime Minister; Lloyd George, where he states a desire for Germany to suffer. This line was said after the end of World War I, where nations met up to discuss the Treaty of Versailles or the treaty to end World War I. In that treaty, it claimed that Germany was responsible for the war and included all the punishments for Germany. Britain and France wanted to make Germany hurt, in return from all the losses it’s caused them, like death of loved ones and damaged property. Squeezing an orange until its pips squeak, means to apply intense pressure on one, until it suffers or in Germany’s case, becomes economically and militarily weak. The Treaty of Versailles harshly punished
The history of Canada was flooded with many influential and incredible events, particularly during World War 1 and World War 2. During the 20th century, Canada got more involved in worldwide events. It was a very important period for Canada; it was where they gained their independence and progressed as a country. After this century, Canada was considered an important and powerful country. The three main 20th century events in Canadian history are the battle of Vimy Ridge, the change of woman’s rights and the battle of Juno Beach.
Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers. Contrary to Mellon’s view, Paul Barker disagrees with the idea of a prime-ministerial government in Canada. Both perspectives bring up solid points, but the idea of a prime-ministerial government leading to too much power in the hands of the prime minister is an exaggeration. Canada is a country that is too large and complex to be dominated by a single individual. The reality is, the Prime Minister of Canada has limitations from several venues. The Canadian Prime Minister is restricted internally by his other ministers, externally by the other levels of government, the media and globalization.
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.
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.
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.
The confederation of Canada, a process which took over a century long, with many notable events and people who were involved in forming what we know as Canada today. The confederation all started in 1763, with The Royal Proclamation. Britain decided that pacifying First nation was the best alternative to a costlier war. This proclamation created a boundary between the First Nations and the British Colonies. In the next 50 years or so, the Quebec Act, which revoked the Royal Proclamation, and Treaty of Paris, which recognized British North America to independently exist, and the Constitutional Act, happened. Although these were major events in Canada’s history, The War of 1812, was one of the most notable events that lead to Canada’s Confederation.
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...
Different states have various ways of ruling and governing their political community. The way states rule reflects upon the political community and the extent of positive and negative liberty available to their citizens. Canada has come a long way to establishing successful rights and freedoms and is able to do so due to the consideration of the people. These rights and freedoms are illustrated through negative and positive liberties; negative liberty is “freedom from” and positive liberty is “freedom to”. A democracy, which is the style of governing utilized by Canada is one that is governed more so by the citizens and a state is a political community that is self-governing which establishes rules that are binding. The ‘Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ allow Canada’s population to live a free and secure life. This is demonstrated through the fundamental freedoms, which permit the people to freely express themselves and believe in what they choose. Canadians also have democratic rights authorizing society to have the right to democracy and vote for the members of the House of Commons, considering the fact that the House of Commons establishes the laws which ultimately influence their lifestyle. The tools that are used to function a democratic society such as this are, mobility, legal and equality rights, which are what give Canadians the luxury of living life secured with freedom and unity. Furthermore it is safe to argue that ‘The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’, proves the exceeding level of efficiency that is provided for Canadians in comparison to other countries where major freedoms are stripped from their political community.
The Canadian constitution is bereft of democratic legitimacy; an alluring term for political democratic deficit. Over the past years, the unsuccessful attempts to reform its laws have made passing new bills and regulations almost an unreachable goal for every newly elected prime minister. This inflexibility in adapting new laws made the fundamental principles of the Canadian constitution known only by few reforms. The lack of democratic accountability in the Canadian parliamentary democracy is demonstrated not only in its electoral system, but also in its national parliament and at the federal level of its politics. Many reforms must be addressed in order to make the Canadian democracy healthier.
Nationalism is a political, economic and social ideology, doctrine and practice describing the “advocacy of or support for the interests of one’s own nation”, especially above the interests of other outside nations, individuals, and regions (“Nationalism”). It is a conscious state of mind where individuals believe their duty and loyalty is to the nation-state. It believes that a nation is the most crucial aspect for human social life because it gives a nation a sense of unity by promoting the shared interests and identities of the individuals such as language, race, religion etc. (“Nationalism”). Therefore, the aim of nationalism is to preserve and promote the nation’s culture as opposed to other cultures. Politically, the goal is gaining and
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.
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
With an understanding of the theoretical links between economic structures, relations of production, and political systems that protect economic structures in society this case study examines media as a contributor to democracy in Australia as well as a business with economic objectives. This section will provide a short explanation of Fairfax media history and position in 2012 prior to explaining Gina Rinehart’s role in the company. The print sector in Australia has historically exhibited relatively high levels of concentration, dominated by News Corp Australia, Fairfax and APN. The Australian print news media have experienced a long-term trend of a decrease in titles and owners. According to Geoffrey Craig, ‘in 1923 there were as many as
Achieving unity within a country is the most fundamental and central goal of a nation. In order for a county to unite, they must first achieve unification in what values they hold to be important. They also need to be in accordance with one another as to how the country works and how they wish to be governed. These factors help create a region's identity and make it different from areas around it. It is a goal most difficult to accomplish due to the discrepancies between cultures, religions, personal beliefs and many other factors that may exist in that area.