Trudeau’s belief in “The Just Society” was clearly evident from his leadership campaign. However it would quickly emerge that Trudeau, and by extension his cabinet, had misjudged the public mood. While “The Just Society” might have been achievable, at its latest, at the end of the 1950s, by the end of the 1960s, it was impossible. The problem was, during both Trudeau’s leadership campaign and the 1968 federal electoral campaign, Trudeau misconstrued that it was “The Just Society,” rather than his own personal popularity with the electorate, that enabled the Liberal Party to win a majority government in 1968. As a result, Trudeau came into office in 1968 with the mistaken belief that he had approval from the Canadian public to enact his “Just …show more content…
Due to Canada’s electoral system favouring representation by population, and the bulk of Canada’s population being in Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec, meant that Trudeau’s electoral platform only really had to appeal the populations living in Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec; and it did. However, as Trudeau was about to discover to his cost, that appealing to Ontario and Quebec did not translate into universal appeal for “The Just Society.” While Trudeau also had several seats in British Columbia, his support across the Prairies was minute at best, where the contests were mostly between the Progressive-Conservatives and the New Democratic Party and left the Liberals largely shut out of the Prairie Provinces. Nevertheless, in the Liberal …show more content…
In keeping with the Keynesian economic philosophy, despite the continued focus on social programs, the spending was still justified on economic grounds. Already in 1968 it is clear that the government was concerned about inflation and stagnating economic growth. While the term: “Stagflation” was not yet coined; the Liberal government was desperately trying to prevent this unforeseen circumstance and was trying to recapture the economic growth that was the hallmark for the previous two decades. In stark contrast to the current neo-liberal philosophy, the Liberal approach to ensure future economic growth was to implement economic programs at the national level and have these programs government-directed and government-controlled. The importance that the national economy held in the Liberals’ political eye in 1968 cannot be overstated. The Minister of Finance, Edgar J. Benson’s, first budget speech in 1968 was incredibly detailed, looking at everything from life insurance companies to short and long-term economic outlooks and proposed resolutions for the House. However within this speech contains the serious problem that would cause havoc for the Liberal government, and indeed all of Canada, during the Liberals first term: a mounting deficit. The problem was that for the Liberals, in the modern era of the welfare state, there was no precedent for dealing with this fiscal
“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.
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...
The prime minister at that time, Mackenzie King, was unprepared to deal with the crisis at hand. His thoughts were that the depression was only a fluke, and that given time, the economy would prosper once more. King never answered the pleas for aid by his citizens, and told ...
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.
The post-war time was a period where major changes were occurring. After being involved in two international conflicts, Canada was ready to reestablish their economy. During this time, Canada had started working on ways to become stronger and reputable. It is evident that Canada had matured through the post-war era. Canada’s economic progress left a positive impact on the growth of the country as consumerism became popular, and economic ties with America became stronger. Moreover, the removal of racial and ethical barriers contributed to Canadian social affairs such as the huge wave of immigration and the baby boom. The Canadian government also had become more aware and involved in issues impacting Canadian citizens. Canada as a whole started identifying itself as an independent nation and participating in events that brought a positive reputation amongst them. These economical, social, and legal changes helped Canada mature into the country it is today.
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.
When the Great Depression occurred right around 1930, William Lyon Mackenzie King and his government did not respond strongly . Although the depression was evidently obvious, King believed that the economic crisis was temporarily and only patience was needed to overcome it . It took a while for King to realize how the depression was affecting the politics . King believed that welfare was a provincial responsibility and no one else’s . During the depression, all provinces wanted to increase the tax in Ottawa, but he did not understand the concept of it since other provinces were going to use the tax for themselves. King thought that it was necessary for the provinces to take initiative and increase their taxes . As the depression hit rock bottom many Canadians were unemployed. As Canada was changing right in front of his eyes, King’s perspectives did not show change. In one of his speeches he declared, “I submit that there is not evidence in Canada today of an emergency situation which demands anything of that kind” . King did not face with depression in the most orderly matter but he was a great Liberal leader, he kept the Liberals together when the Conservatives were falling apart and new political parties were developed to compete for the votes . During the depression, King held an election that was one of the most important events that occurred in...
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
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.
Harold Cardinal made a bold statement in his book, The Unjust Society, in 1969 about the history of Canada’s relationship with Aboriginal peoples. His entire book is, in fact, a jab at Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s idea of ‘the just society’. Pierre Elliott Trudeau made great assumptions about First Nations people by declaring that Aboriginal people should be happy about no longer being described as Indian. His goal was to rid Canada of Indians by assimilating them into the Canadian framework. Considered by many as a progressive policy, Trudeau’s white paper demonstrates just how accurate the following statement made by Harold Cardinal at the beginning of his book is : “The history of Canada’s Indians is a shameful chronicle of the white man’s disinterest,
The baby boom generation’s first memorable contribution to Canada was to raise the Canadian economy to a higher stage with the emergence of greater number of people with varying abilities. With the sudden increase in the population, more demands for more products and services were undoubtedly created, helping the economy to strive forward and advance Canada to be competitive in the global market. Before the baby boom period, Canada was suffering from the aftermath of the Great Depression. There was a lack of jobs and people did not have the sufficient funds to spend on any extra luxuries and this created a vicious cycle of economic crisis. However, due to thou...
Canada experienced the revolution of changing politics and new ideologies, it was a necessary wave
The Great Depression was not just a little event in history, hence the word “great”, but a major economical setback that would change Canada, and the world, forever. The word “great” may not mean the same thing it does now; an example of this is the ‘Great’ War. These events were not ‘good’ or ‘accomplishing’ in any way, quite the opposite, but in those times it most likely meant ‘big’. What made it big are many factors, both in the 20’s and 30’s, which can be categorized into three main points: economics, politics and society. With all these events, compressed into ten years, this period of economic hardship of the 1930’s truly deserves the title the “Great Depression”.
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.