Paul Martin: The #1 Choice
Unfortunately the King had to leave the building, no i’m not talking about Elvis but the 21st Prime minister of Canada; Paul Martin. He was then replaced by the leader of the Conservative party Stephen Harper. Paul Martin was a great Prime Minister compared to Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper was boring, mean and selfish. He lost the Country billions. Martin on the other hand brought Canada to places we've never been.
There were many many good things that Paul Martin did for our country while he was in charge. From the start we knew Paul Martin was here for the people. As Finance Minister Paul Martin was able to help those with lower incomes to stay off of welfare by increasing tax credits to others. This helped many families in keeping houses and buy food and clothes for their children. He also passed
…show more content…
Paul Martin was extraordinary with the spending of Canadian dollars. 1998 was the year he finally erased the $42 billion deficit created by Prime minister Jean Chretien. Martin was very familiar with spending and not spending in order to help Canadians as he had been Finance Minister for 10 years under Mr. Chretien. The wise money man of Mr. Martin also spent $41 billion to help increase the Canadian health care. This was known as the health care accord. This was something Canadians had never seen before. This act showed Paul Martin cared for the people living in his country and that everyone would live healthier under his watch
In conclusion the evidence clearly shows that Paul Martin was the better Prime Minister for Canada. Brought so many good things to the people in order for our country to do well. Stephen Harper cared only for the money and that the corporation did well. This is not what a good leader does. Paul Martin is the better choice for each and every
One of Mel Hurtig's mentors was George Grant. Foresaw the selling out of Canada and spoke about in his book Lament for a Nation which was published in 1965. He said as Mel quotes him in his own book:
"I didn't know at first that there were two languages in Canada. I just thought that there was one way to speak to my father and another to speak to my mother." -- Louis Stephen St. Laurent. As the second French Canadian prime minister of Canada, Louis St. Laurent had a very influential role to Canada. St-Laurent became prime minister in 1948, after a selection authorized by a Liberal Convention. He was a well-respected prime minister and was given the name "Uncle Louis" for reshaping and improving Canada as an international well-known country. Actions and policies, including the Trans-Canada Highway Act, the joining of Newfoundland and the St. Lawrence Seaway, were introduced by St-Laurent to impact Canada into a more developed country with a better and more advanced economy and establishment.
“Just watch me.”Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau said in 1970. He meant it as he fought to keep Quebec a part of Canada. Not only did he do that, he managed to be prime minister for 16 years, as well as being Canada’s youngest leader at the time. He brought greater civil rights to Canadians, Quebec citizens mainly. His charismatic personality matched his innovative ideas, that enhanced Canada for the better. For his entire political career, not only did Canada watch him, the whole world watched him change the country for the better. He made a radical change to Canada by championing the idea of officially implementing bilingualism. Trudeau was a trailblazer from the moment he was elected.
Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson was a prominent figure in Canada in the 1960s. Pearson was Canada's most significant post WWII prime minister because of his government's many innovations that still benefit Canadians today. He fostered Canadian nationalism, which continues to the present day, promoted equality throughout Canada – equality that now thrives as part of Canada's identity – and he introduced many social services that are still implemented today.
During the worst depression years in Canada, there were many people who tried tirelessly to get Canada out of the crisis she was in more quickly and efficiently. William Aberhart and his group of supporters had a plan that they were sure could help and even end the depression and its horrible effects. His theory was if a twenty-five dollar cheque was given monthly to each family, it would alleviate their financial fears and jumpstart the economy. Having confidence in his idea, he went to share it with both political parties. Unfortunately, both parties rejected the idea; saying money would only become more worthless. Even after running and being elected as Premier of Alberta, the resolution was not accepted because of the overwhelming responsibility towards the federal government.
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.
Pierre Trudeau is the greatest Canadian of the twentieth century due to the fact that he declared Canada’s independence from Great Britain, he abolished the death penalty, and he created the Official Languages Act, making our nation entirely bilingual.
The younger Trudeau reminds the audience how his father came back to politics after his retirement from it for the Lake Meech and Charlottetown Accords, and again ties it to reminding Canadians of their incredible capabilities. But he passes the torch of responsibility on regular Canadians when he says, “But he won’t be coming back anymore. It’s all up to us - all of us - now”. By including himself as a current holder of this responsibility, he invites other Canadians to stand alongside him to continue the revolution of love. His final words on his father, quoting Robert Frost’s poem, is a beautiful final image, inspiring the audience to follow in Trudeau’s devoted footsteps.
There are many more examples of conflicts between Trudeau's thoughts and his actions. For instance, Trudeau has always been uncomfortable with excessive state intervention in the economy. For this reason he has consistently opposed the imposition of price and income controls. But this did not stop him from deciding, in 1975, that a lack of responsibility on the part of business and labour necessitated the introduction of a controls system. Trudeau has spoken of the need for a shift of emphasis in Canadian society from consumption to conservation. And yet, he allowed energy-conservation measures in Canada to fall far behind those of the United States. More than a few times, Trudeau has insisted that it is our moral obligation as Canadians to share our wealth with poorer nations. Nevertheless, he still reduced foreign-aid spending and even put a protective quota on textile imports from developing countries. Trudeau has written about the importance of consensus in government. But again, this did not prevent him, on more than a few occasions, from entirely disregarding the consensus of his cabinet ministers on a given issue, preferring instead to make the decision on his own.
he had a Prime Minister who was really a man of purpose who will last
“I need a hit song!” It was that plea, uttered by Dion DiMucci, which prompted Dick Holler to write Abraham, Martin, and John, a song for Dion to perform. Dion was a recovering heroin addict and he desperately needed a hit song to reestablish himself in the music business. Abraham, Martin, and John did just that, reaching number four on the Top 100 hit song list.
William Lyon Mackenzie King was one of the greatest prime ministers in Canada, although he did not give a fascinating speech or had an exciting image and supported few radical policies . King’s opinions were very strong and would not be changed no matter what. No one could influence King and this was shown through his leadership during the Great Depression and the election in 1930.
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.
...ents and therefore opposed to provinces having more control than federal institutions. Brian Mulroney, to Trudeau, was upsetting the balance of power that existed through the provinces and federal government. The federal government should be the supreme power among the provinces, and Mulroney was about to flip the controls. That being said, Mulroney thought he was still keeping with Trudeau’s vision of a “just society” by giving the provinces more say in what happens to them. Mulroney examined what Trudeau had previously expressed as possible agreements between the provincial and federal governments and found Trudeau was sabotaging Mulroney’s plans only because Trudeau could not stand to watch another Prime Minister succeed at what he had failed to do. Whether this is true or not, it is obvious the battle for the Meech Lake Accord was won by Trudeau in the end.
This allowed him to continue to act as Prime Minister. After a series of scandals, King lost the progressive party’s support. Because the Prime Minister was worried the would lose his position in a vote of non-confidence he asked Julian Byng to call an election so that he would have a chance at remaining the Prime Minister . The Governor General refused, instead giving the position of Prime Minister to Arthur Meighen, the Conservative leader that had won the election. King says that the actions of Julian Byng were undemocratic and uses the situation to gain the support of the voters in the 1926 election: “King took advantage of the situation to argue that he, the elected Prime Minister of Canada, had been overruled by the representative of the Crown. Britain was interfering in the affairs of a country”(King-Byng, n.d, para 4). If a situation like this were to happen again, it would end differently. If Canada had another prime minister that desperately grasped at power despite the fact that he didn't actually have a seat in parliament or the support of parliament but this time had the full support of the Governor General, they could be in power for a very long