Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Political culture in canada
Justin Trudeau
To what extent is parliament sovereign
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Political culture in canada
Parliament made Bill C-51 through the proposal of the sitting prime minister. Stephen Harper, at that time, was the leader of the Conservative Party, which had also had a majority government since the 2011 election (Leduc 2012). The majority government is when a party wins more than half of the seats in the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, then the party forms a majority government. This allows the party to pass legislation or laws and maintain the confidence of the House of Commons to stay in power (Leduc 2012). Throughout the nine models that were encountered within the course, one model fits the position as the major model, along with another model, which can be seen as a minor model for this policy. The model that best fits …show more content…
The power that Prime Minister Stephen Harper had automatically given him the ability to go ahead to put a bill like Bill C-51 in motion. This illustrates an example of Gourevich’s argument of power within politics and how with such authority, things can be moved. With all the power Stephen Harper had, an unofficial collaboration with the Liberal Party was created in the voting session upon the bill, although the official announcement was made about a joining between the two parties. According to Gourevitch (1986), policies are developed out of coalition demands. The Liberal Party, at the time with the third most seats in the House, voted in favour of the bill (Whitaker 2015). Even though they felt the bill was at the expense of the rights of Canadians, they felt that such bill was needed for the safety of Canadians. This made it absolutely impossible for the opposition party, NDP, to vote against the bill. If there was not a majority government, the Conservative and Liberal coalition alone would still concur and the bill would be passed as a result. The policy went on to prosper due to the demands of dominant coalitions of politicians in the
They wanted the accompany to be equal and build up a social order of system. This would mean that there would be a democratic self-government. This would help so many Canadian during this time because the government didn’t see people as equals. This would be good for all Canadians during this time because everyone would be equal and not anything else.
To answer this, one must address the severity of the crisis, as well as the degree to which the War Measures Act would alleviate the situation. This proves to be an unexpectedly difficult task, as it is impossible to accurately capture the zeitgeist of such a turbulent time period without being subject to bias. However from a purely objective standpoint, the evidence clearly identifies that there was no insurrection, nor was one likely to take place. Trudeau relied heavily on galvanizing the risk that the FLQ posed to the Canadian public. However, this came to be a detriment to his case when the supposed danger was discredited. According to most authorities, the FLQ “was a collection of scattered, radical grouplets who communicated amongst themselves with great difficulty and apprehension”(Conrad et al). It is of course, rather difficult to carry out widespread insurrection without a cohesive unit to do so. Trudeau’s speech relied heavily on the notion that the FLQ posed a greater threat than they realistically did, and by the end of the crisis it was clear that his claims were null. However, Trudeau did not operate alone in his endeavors. The crisis was rapidly escalated in scale by local and national media alike. The media “Fed the notion of a hydra head conspiracy, unknown, unknowable, but of course infinitely dangerous”, an error that almost did more to aid in the FLQ’s influence over the country, than it did to call in any sort of justifiable action (Bothwell, 447-50). This combined with rumors of Quebec dissolving their government due to the “severity” of the situation, a rumor that was initially reported to be started by Trudeau (although it was enforced by numerous parties”) in order to gain the support of the public for the actions he was preparing to take (Clement). It is generally agreed upon that War
The inclusion of the Notwithstanding Clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was an invaluable contribution in the evolution of the liberal democratic state. Not an endpoint, to be sure, but a significant progression in the rights protection dynamic. Subsequent to its passage in 1982 it became the primary rights protecting mechanism, however, its raison d`etre was as a neccessary concession, the pivotal factor allowing the patriation of the constitution. Many legislators present at the constitutional conference in 1981 opposed in varying degrees the entrenchment of a "bill of rights" in the constitution. The premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, A preeminent liberal legislator at the time, recognized this potential document as an invitation to judicial review. He feared a conservative judiciary might hinder enlightened policies and sought authority beyond the ambit of an entrenched rights protection act. At the other end of the political spectrum opposition was in the form of an allegiance to parliamentary supremacy as expressed most notably by Sterling Lyon, the conservative premier of Manitoba. Imbedding section 33, commonly referred to as the Notwithstanding Clause, into the constitutional document alleviated these concerns to a degree that permitted their compliance. It is well established that the impetus for the Notwithstanding Clause was of a political nature. To insert this so inspired clause into an intended sanctuary from capricious legislative acts appears tantamount to allowing the fox to guard the chicken coop. Conceivably the same legislative majority that would create the laws abridging rights could exem...
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.
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.
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.
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.
This came to be known as the Sober Second Thought and allowed in-depth study and review on national issues by Senate Committees. (Supreme Court 2014, pg. 720) The Senate Committees are non partisan groups, which draw upon the knowledge of its members to provide careful studies on national issues. These Committees are made up of between five to fifteen senators ranging from prior positions of federal and provincial ministers, lawyers and business people, ethnic representatives, and former members of provincial assemblies. (Government of Canada, Senate Work) The three basic tasks that they must cover is to accept or change legislations, to study policy matters and offer improvements, and to asses the governments budget proposals. Popular studies that have been done were on unemployment, foreign affairs, the aging population, Aboriginal affairs, and matters concerning science and technology. Many of the studies lead to important changes in government legislation as they are able to make aware political, economic, and social concerns that aren’t always always expressed within the House of Commons. One example of Committee work was the 1982 studies by the Committee on Foreign Affairs on Canada- U.S. relations. (Government of Canada, How is the Senate’s Work Relevant to our Everyday Lives) In that study the senators presented a bilateral free trade
While having a legislative Union is preferable to him, it is not practical (Ajzenstat, 1999, 281). Like the American Founders, he acknowledged that not everyone has the same interests and values and it is not possible to eliminate these differences between citizens. The Canadian federal system instead has a legislative union while maintaining sectional freedom that comes with a federal union, with decreased threat of Factionalism because of the ensured protection of local interests. Both the Founding Fathers and Canadian Founders agree that it is best to protect as many local interests as possible because this provides lesser chance of a majority infringing upon a minority. Giving minorities avenues to express their interests and ensure their voices are being heard decreases the likelihood of Factionalism causing the breakdown of a
Spicer, Keith. 1991. Citizen’s Forum on Canada’s Future: Report to the People and Government of
Second, I will highlight three of Trudeau’s domestic policies and demonstrate how his political actions contributed to a unified Canada. These three examples are the Official Languages Act which helped to resolve the language issue; the Multiculturalism Act of 1971 which was aimed at promoting
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.
First, some background on the subject. Canada is divided into 308 ridings, and each riding elects one person to represent all the citizens in that riding. The party that wins the most ridings forms the government, and if that party has gained more than half the seats, as is usually the case, they form a majority and have the ability to pass any bill in the House of Commons that they wish, regardless of the opinions that other representatives have. This SMP system has remained unchanged in Canada since Confederation in 1867. On the other hand there is proportional representation, which is broken down into two main forms: Mixed Member Proportionality (MMP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV). MMP was first put into use ...
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.
..., & News, C. (n.d.). CBC News Indepth: The 39th Parliament - Harper at the helm. CBC.ca - Canadian News Sports Entertainment Kids Docs Radio TV. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/parliament39/quebecnation-history.html