Canada has been under the ruling of a Constitutional Monarchy for the past five centuries, with Queen Elizabeth as head of state. This topic has led to extreme controversy throughout our nation, as Canadians side with the monarchists or the republicans. This has been a rising debate in recent decades, whether or not preserving ties to the British are beneficial, recent polls suggest that the nation could be split 50-50 or worse. Canada making the decision to separate from the British, would be irresponsible. Why inflict disarray upon our country to fix something that isn’t broken? The Monarchy is a splendid part of our cultural heritage, the repercussions of severing British ties would be detrimental and the Queen’s embedding in our constitution …show more content…
is irrevocable, therefore Canada without the Monarchy would be a lesser place. "I think it's a part of our national identity and it represents all of Canada and Canada's history. It's non-political, non-partisan and a symbol for everyone in Canada.” In Canadian history and heritage, the Monarchy is a significant, unifying symbol and connection. This system is rich in symbolism, with a history of continuous monarchical rules stretching back centuries. Therefore, we should not fear the ties we have with the royals, rather embrace the culture and history. Even though these topics are continuously debatable, the monarchists do have the upper hand. Removing the Monarchy would require a constitutional amendment, with a lack of political momentum, this goal is currently out of reach and in the distant future. To diminish our relationship with the Queen and replace it with a republic system, would require a revolution.
What are we going to gain from a conversion of governments, besides an unnecessary dilemma for very little benefit? The governor general and the lieutenant governor of a province requires consent of Canada’s ten provinces and the federal Parliament, in order to make a change in our system. Achieving this constitutional consensus, would be an unimaginable political struggle. It would be understandable to make this kind of modification, if Canada's monarchical head of state were causing serious problems and there was much to gain in this breakup, however this is not the case. In contrast to unpopular, disruptive politicians, the Queen and her family are uplifting and positive role models. Even though the Queen is referred to as simply a figurehead, her role in Canada’s government system is …show more content…
crucial. The ties Canada holds to the British throne are undeniably evident, from the Queen’s image on our stamps and money to the ceremonies of our parliamentary system.
The Prime Minister of Canada, who governs on the “Queen’s behalf,” passes laws using her name and authority. Such as “Her Majesty would like this,” or “Her Majesty requests that,” whereas the Queen is really impartial to the situation. For the reason, some Canadians question the relevance of the Queen’s position in Canada, the Constitution limits her powers in government therefore, she is generally considered as a figurehead only. “The Crown, as an institution, is woven into every line of our constitutional order.” The root of all executive power is the Crown. It is the foundation to our system of laws, Commons, Senate, our courts and legislatures. It is the basis of our system of land tenure, of an impartial civil service and of the Indian treaties. During times of crisis, when it is unclear whole holds the democratic authority, the Queen (or her representative, the governor general) plays a critical role, using her powers and authority to prevent usurpations. After all this evidence, the Crown is still in trouble in Canada. Secure as this position may be in law and impactful to our nation, it continues to lack the affection and loyalty from the people that it rightfully
deserves. Imagine the constitutional turmoil Canada would undergo to change government systems. The Monarchy links us to our past and looks to the future. “It celebrates our British heritage, which gave us continuity, stability, the rule of law, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech, from arbitrary arrest, equality before the law, our judicial and commercial systems.” As Canadians, our connection to the British is something that should bring us honor and fulfillment, not distress and debates. The Queen’s power is a reminder of the hard-fought victory of parliamentary democracy, a struggle won by gradual reform. The Monarchy is a treasured component of Canadian history, removing ties to the British would lead to mayhem within our nation and the Queen’s impact on our government system has proven to be highly beneficial, therefore Canada needs the Monarchy.
In conclusion Canada gained independence because of a series of events that took place during the twentieth century. If it hadn’t been for these events, Canada to this day might have been a part of the British Empire. Through discussion on the Chanak affair we signalled that we wanted autonomy. Through our hard work and lives, the world knew we had the ability to stand alone as a strong nation. While, our international reputation of being a “peacekeeping” country the right to stand as an independent self-governing nation. But finally through the Canada Act, we stood solely independent from our Empire. It is obvious that the twentieth century provided us with great chances to become an independent strong nation.
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 between the British Empire and its dominions always was significantly distinguished through the strong ties which people connected to the mother-country of Britain. However, as always in history changes were about to happen as each dominion urged to become more and more independent. The end of this process is marked by the Statute of Westminster passed in 1931 which granted the former dominions full legal freedom and established legislative equality between the now self-governing dominions of the British Empire. Therefore, the Statute of Westminster is one of the most remarkable acts in Canadian history as it set the road to the development of Canada in which we live today.
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.
Stevenson, Garth. "Canadian Federalism: The Myth of the Status Quo." Reinventing Canada: Politics of the 21st Century. Ed. M. Janine Brodie and Linda Trimble. Toronto: Prentice Hall, 2003. 204-14. Print.
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.
Organizing a topic as diverse as Canadian history into periods is challenging. Canadian history spans hundreds of years, covers events from varying points of views, and contains dimensions of culture, theme, and politics. To understand how to organize history logically into periods, it is helpful to refer to Canadian history sources.
Quebec has struggled with a need to be maitres chez nous “masters of their own house” (Young, 1998). Many attempts at resolving Quebec's issues has resulted in tensions from both sides. Because Quebec has a strong national identity, and do not define themselves as strictly Canadian, Quebec is seen as difficult, unyielding and discontented. Quebec's separation perhaps is inedible and the future of Canada questionable. Canada without Quebec will bring about many complications and whether there is a rest of Canada (ROC) after Quebec a major challenge. Western alienation and the lack of representation in federal affairs will be a factor; moreover, past actions and historical events may have turned Canada into a time bomb, and the deterioration of the provinces the only sulotion. How First Ministers react to Quebec's sovereignty regarding economic factors, political structure, and constitutional issues will be of great importance. Whether emotional issues will play a major role in decision making is subjective; however, it is fair to say that it will be an emotionally charged event and it could either tear apart the ROC or fuse it together. Placing emphasis on investigating what keeps Canada together is perhaps the key to Canada's future, and salvaging a relationship with Quebec.
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.
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.
Canada is known by outsiders to be a very peaceful country. But if you ask any Canadian they well tell you that is unfortunately not the case. For there is a large ongoing conflict between Canadians. The conflict is between the French and the English, or more specifically between Quebec and the rest of Canada. As a result of this conflict, along with some wrongdoing and propaganda. Quebec has considered and has gone as far to hold referendums over Separatism (Surette,2014). Separatism is that the province of Quebec separates from the rest of Canada to form its own country. Which would have immense effects on indubitably Quebec but also the rest of Canada (Martin, 2014). This report will focus on the root causes and origin of Quebec Separatism, the current state of Quebec Separatism and finally how we as a society can act towards Quebec Separatism.
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.
Canada and Quebec have always been in conflict from the confederation of 1867 to the Supreme court judgement on the secession of Quebec in 1998. Quebec faces several challenges in terms of constitutional relations with the rest of Canada. Quebec is seeking a special status to preserve and protect its culture and language, while the rest of English-speaking Canada accepts the view of provincial equality. There have been attempts to recognize Quebec's concerns through constitutional amendments, but these attempts have not lived up to Quebec's expectations and for the most parts have failed. Quebec has threatened Canada throughout history with separation from Canada. These threats have not been ignored, the rest of Canada realizes the devastating impact economically and politically if Quebec did separate but they cannot reach a compromise. Canada has as tried to encourage Quebec not to separate from Canada. In 1995 Quebec held its second referendum on sovereignly and the separatists narrowly lost the province wide. The province brought the case to the Supreme court of Canada to rule on the legal guidelines of unilateral secession under Canadian and international law, in the end some say the federalists (those not wanting to separate) came out on top. In this essay I will discuss the various historical attempts made by government to keep Quebec a part of Canada. I will also attempt to explain the impact of the Supreme Court Ruling on the Quebec secession. Many argue that the federalist won in the decision but that statement is debatable. Both Quebec and the rest of Canada won in the ruling. I believe that English Canadians should spend some time getting to know their French neighbors and vice ...
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.