Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
A research paper about cyber bullying
Cyber bullying in today's society
Cyber bullying in cyber world
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Transparency in the Canadian Government is being used inefficiently and unfairly. Over many years since Canada has been a country their have been many different censorship laws. Censorship has been included, in film, broadcasting, print, art, and the internet. As years pass the Canadian Government has been lenient towards censorship towards film, broadcasting and the arts. However, with the expansion of technology the Government still censors and denies multiple files and information from the General Public. The Harper Conservative government and CSIS have denied access to multiple government files and even censored out files allowed viewing by the general Public and now Canada has had the most files censored currently in the history of the …show more content…
The three parties have been known to censor out and deny government file requests. Between June 2013 to June 2014 there were around 28 000 requests for government files. Out of all those requests CSIS only allowed 21% of the files were returned free of redactions. 2% of the files were denied completely. More than half of the files requested were partially censored by CSIS and RCMP, and this is the highest amount of censored files in the history of Canada. Because these files are censored it doesn’t give reliable information to the general public and organizations. This lowers respect from Canadian citizens. An example on how some files are censored when they should have full access is the Cyber-Bullying document in the Internet Safety Act. The government has censored this document excessively to the point where even the word Canada is blacked out in Government of Canada. This document is one of the most requested documents by the public due to the rapid growth of the internet. The censorship towards this document will deny people of their rights, and appear to be above the law. Side from the requests for multiple censored documents, the Harper Conservatives have been in between a conflict with them muzzling scientists. Canadian scientist were not allowed to reveal to the public about their discoveries, even if the discovery proved to be …show more content…
Many are for online gambling and many are against. In early 2015, Quebec made it illegal and made their own government run gambling site, because they projected that they would make 13 million dollars if they banned all third party sites. The Quebec Government is willing to deny peoples rights to gambling just so they can make more money, putting them over the law. In the criminal code there are limitations towards gambling, however none of the restrictions have any correlation with online casinos and gambling sites that Quebec is blocking. Therefore they are wrongfully blocking websites that have not broken any laws, just for economical gain. The plan that was created is likely face a legal challenge, both on free speech and jurisdictional grounds, since the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over telecommunications regulation. Many people are able to get by these blocked websites by changing their web VPN to display they are coming from different regions in the world just to access these sites. This has also sparked controversy as you can change your location to avoid blocked websites. Denying people the rights to gamble freely online makes them commit wrongful acts online. If Quebec were to keep the third party sites unblocked there wouldn't be any problems with people illegal changing their online location. Canada has tried to defend an open internet policy. The telecommunications act states a Canadian
A more sudden, but perhaps equally profound event is the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whereas before the adoption of the Charter Canadian legislatures were supreme, having power without limit within their jurisdictions, they now have debatable supremacy within altered jurisdictions. Moreover, although no powers or rights have been explicitly ‘reserved’ to the people, supporters of the charter nevertheless appear to give Canadians hope that the possibility may exist.
...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.
Dion, S., et al. (2000). The Clarity Act debate in the House of Commons. Canadian Parliamentary Review, 23(2), 20-30. Retrieved from http://proxy4.vaniercollege.qc.ca:2096/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA30049448&v=2.1&u=vaniercol&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w
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.
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...
There are Canadian citizens who thought that the Canadian government we have is perfect, citizens who believed that every aspect of the government was truly democratic, and citizens who believe that government could do no wrong. Truly this group of believers has been living a lie. In our Canadian system of government, large aspects within are far from democratic and need to be changed. Liberal-minded people will cry out for a change in order for government to serve the people better, and on the other hand the more conservative thinkers will argue that no change is needed because our government is efficient and considerate. However, our voting system, our Senate, and the power vested to the Prime Minister are far from democratic, do not meet the actual needs of the people and definitely need to be addressed.
Kukucha, Christopher J. "Dismembering Canada? Stephen Harper and the Foreign Relations of Canadian Provinces." Review of Constitutional Studies 14, no. 1 (2009): 21-52.
In order for Canada to share an equal part in the overall media industry as any other country, Canadian content regulations must be in place. CanCon regulations should be enforced on Canadian media content, as it is a crucial aspect of national culture, representative of the country as a whole. Without such regulations determined by CanCon, Canadian society risks becoming lost within the commotion of international media and their varied interests.
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.
“Constructing Canada: Do we need a public broadcaster to enhance democracy?” written by David Taras, a professor at the University of Calgary and director of Alberta Global Forum. Taras reinstates the turning point of Canada Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and their relationship with the Canadian parliament. He addressed on the developments and struggles Public Service Broadcasters (PSB), specifically CBC, encounter in order to continue to telecast. Lastly, he explains that PSB has a major role in maintaining the balance of power between the government and the mass media. PSB were created by the public for the public because a democracy can only happen if everyone cooperates.
On the other hand, there might b reasons as to why the government censors most of its news. One of these reasons might be because of “national security”. If the government were to release more than enough information, we might be threatened by people who take advantage of the situation.
Courtney C. John, “Recognition of Canadian Political Parties in Parliament and in Law,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 11.1(1978): 39-48. Print
The government of Canada has promised to become fully transparent with the public by the benefits of the Federal Accountability Act. The Act states that by expanding the coverage of the Access to Information Act, the government will become more transparent and will provide Canadians with more information about the government. In 2012, Mike Duffy was getting charged for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, but because the Act was so vague, all 31 of his charges got dropped. Bursts of outrage from the public developed when they found out that Mike Duffy was falsely claiming taxpayers money for his own and was not getting convicted. If the FAA was made more transparent regarding taxpayers money, citizens would be able to track where their money was going and the scandal would have been avoided. There is still plenty of questions that involve taxpayers money and general information about the government that the public doesn't know about, such as can we really trust our government with taxpayers money, still remains a never ending question to Canadians. Not only is there barely any transparency in the government that led to the ineffectiveness of the Federal Accountability Act but also how the government is responding to these mishaps have also led to the ineffectiveness of the
...for a service that restricts your free speech. The government chooses the websites that they don't want you to see. What would happen if the government blocked an opposition party website, because their views were different from theirs? The internet filter is capable of doing this. The internet in Australia is slow behind the world standards. Adding a filter will just make our internet more slower. The internet filter is just a waste of taxpayers money. The money should be spent on more effective educational campaigns, which should have been attempted in the first place. Parents do not put internet filters on their computer because of the lack of education and information about this. If they were educated, they would know how to put on one, and children can be taught about cyber safety in the curriculum as well. This is money well spent, unlike an internet filter.
Censorship affects our society in many different ways, it affects the music we listen to, the movies we watch, the books we read, and many other aspects of our everyday lives. Even though many might argue that censorship doesn't really have a place in a society that emphases freedom of speech and the freedom to express oneself, but censorship is an essential and needed part of our growing society, it's needed in the television industry, the Internet, and the music industry. Censorship helps to make our world a better place because it creates a better environment for us to live in.