Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the powers of the canadian prime minister
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Canada has been claimed to be a country of democracy and fairness, where majority rules and everyone gets a say. Though this is evident in some areas of Canada, in The House of Commons and in the political background it is not. Members of Parliament are not as powerful as they are said to be and due to party discipline, the amount of power they actually have is very limited. Party discipline has taken Members of Parliament and trained them to obey whatever the leader of the Party and their whips say, just like seals. There are several arguments supporting this issue, such as Members of Parliament are forced to vote in whatever way their Political Party wants them to, even if they do not agree with the decision. This is seen in plenty examples of Members of Parliament complaining about decisions made and not being informed about certain legislation. Another argument would be the contrast of power between the Prime Minister and Members of Parliament. The amount of power the Prime Minister and his or her leaders supresses Members of Parliament to do what they wants regardless of what power each Member of Parliament has. Also, Members of Parliament cannot make any significant change by themselves. There are many Members of Parliament that want to make personal changes in society, but cannot because party discipline makes sure they stay focused on the main party’s agenda. These arguments will prove that Members of Parliament are called to do what the parties ask and obey without hesitation. Party discipline has taken over democracy in the Political realm and has made Members of Parliament have no power or control over the decision made. Politics in Canada trains Members of Parliament to be seals.
Members of Parliament are force...
... middle of paper ...
...ur Member of Parliament Edmonton-Beaumont: http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/discipline.htm
Mackrael, K. (2013, February 7). 'Behave and Obey': How party discipline hurts politics. Retrieved from The Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/behave-and-obey-how-party-discipline-hurts-politics/article8235842/
Members of Parliament. (2011, June 2). Retrieved from Parliament of Canada: http://www.parl.gc.ca/parliamentarians/en/members
Munroe, S. (2014, March 17). Role of Canadian Members of Parliament: Responsibilities of Members of Parliament in Canada. Retrieved from about.com: http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/parliament/a/rolemps.htm
Service, C. N. (n.d.). Quebec's Nation Status cost Harper his first cabinet member . Retrieved from National Post: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=692b134e-c712-44c5-83ae-bff78fc1a071&k=49129
.
A proper analysis of why this is so would require a book-length account of the constitutional and political history of Canada and the United States. It would include but would not be limited to the selection and role of judges, the role of legislatures and political leadership, the attitudes and practices of the police and administrative agencies, and, not least, popular attitudes towards rights, minorities, and government. In short, the whole of a person’s way of life. Bibliography McKercher, William R., ed. The U.S. Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights.
In the year 1957, Canada elected its first Prime minister without English or French root, John Diefenbaker. While growing up in the city of Toronto, because of his German name, he was often teased. [1] He grew up as an outcast, and so he was able to relate to the discrimination and inequality many of the minorities in Canada felt. This essay will attempt to answer the question: To what extent did Prime Minister John Diefenbaker help promote equality to the minority communities. . The minorities in this time period were the women, aboriginals, and immigrants. During his time as the Prime Minister, he was able to help protect the rights of this group because many of their rights were being abused by the society. Diefenbaker also helped the minorities to stand up for themselves and other groups. Diefenbaker was able to bring positive change to the minority communities by making an official Bill of Rights and appointing people of discriminated groups to the parliament while other members did not.
A Macdonald. 16 Aug. 2009. Canadian Prime Minister Quotes Policies. 29 May 2011 http://cgacommunications.com/bygeorge/?p=961>. Government of Canada. Legacy of Sir John A. Macdonald. 29 Apr. 2005.
There has been much speculation whether political parties have become too strong in American politics and if that is a good or bad thing. My belief is that political party power in the United States is just about right where I believe that there are some instances where political parties have been in situations where they have too much power and instances where it is moderate. First off, political parties are crucial to our democratic government because it is composed of a group of people that the constituents elect to represent their issues or achieve a common goal. Being part of a group that shares your common interests or goals is more powerful than tackling an issue by your self. It gives you more voice and power in government. Also, political
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.
Charles-Émile Trudeau was a Conservative, and several of his friends belonged to the Liberal Party. When his father’s friends were visiting at their Lac Tremblant cottage, Pierre was exposed to political debates and rivalries at an early age. He found politics interesting, but could not understand much of it. His father invested in successful several companies at the beginning of the...
Newman, Garfield et al. Canada A Nation Unfolding. Toronto: Mc Graw – Hill Ryerson Limited, 2000.
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...
system produces conflicts between the Congress and the President and promotes very outdated beliefs that stem from the Constitution. A vast majority of the American population has the stern belief that the Constitution does not need to be changed in any way, shape, or form. This belief, however, is keeping the country from progressing along with other countries around the world. These single parties are holding control of multiple branches of government at once and monopolizing the power during their respective terms. The government “faces an incapacity to govern since each party works as a majority party” and believes there is no reason for innovation (Dulio & Thurber, 2000). The two parties are seemingly always clashing about one thing or the other, making it difficult for things to get accomplished, and proves the thesis correct that the two-party system is ineffective for a growing country.
It was said that Canada’s MPs’ power is been minimalize completely by the Prime Minister (Kilgour, 2012 p.1). The reason for less restriction of party discipline is to give them the permission to vote according to the public and personal belief rather than under the influence of the party whip, which will result in freedom of vote for general public. The reason that members of parliament are there are that: they are the representatives of the sections; they are the voice of the people. In Canada we do not elect our MPs to be a puppet solely to be govern under the prime minister. Our country is a democratic country where there’s freedom of speech and freedom to vote. In reducing the hold on party discipline allows the governmental personnel to openly state their opinions without sparking an unnecessary controversy. Which will benefit both opposition and government in power to discuss the controversial debates and will speed up the process of decision making.
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.
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.
Bennet, P.; Cornelius J.; and Brune, N. Canada: A North American Nation. Second Edition ed. Canada: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1995.