The Prime Minister of Canada has an integral role within the Canadian parliament. In the political Parliamentary system of Canada, the Prime Minister wields the executive responsibility. He is accountable for an assortment of administrative, managerial, and supervisory decisions in effect across the country. The executive role is the branch of government that is generally responsible for creating laws, and enforcing the regulations to ensure these laws are observed.
The Prime Minister is the Head of Government in Canada. Almost always, the Prime Minister is also the leader in the House of Commons, the assembly of ‘common’ people elected by the population to run government. Multiple steps are required to select a Prime Minister. First, there must be a vote of party members at a national convention that decide who will be their leader. If their party is already in power, or holds the majority of seats within Parliament, the chosen leader will assume the role of Prime Minister immediately. If not, the leader must lead the party through a successful election process to become Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is not elected directly by the entire population through the election. He or she is elected in an indirect manner when his or her party wins an election with the most seats in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister can lead the country for a maximum of five years before another election. However, historically and by tradition, most will call an election within four years depending on their perceived standing among the voters. If after four years, they feel that they are still held in high regard by the general public, and it is probable that they will maintain or enhance their power in government, the likelihood of calling...
... middle of paper ...
...ion will lead to defeat of the government. These proposed changes, proportional representation, lowering the voting age to sixteen and initiating a congressional system are unnecessary at this time as the system within Canada has the acceptance of the majority of the population.
Works Cited
Ballard, E. J., & Suedfeld, P. (1988). Performance ratings of Canadian prime ministers: Individual and situational factors. Political Psychology, 9(2), 291-302.
Janet McFarland. (2009). Single national regulator? The Globe and Mail, pg. B.3.
Nesbitt-Larking, P. (2004). Political psychology in Canada. Political Psychology,
25(1), 97-114
Nicholas Kohler and Colin Campbell with Steve Maich (2006) 18-year-olds too Immature to Vote, Studies Suggest.
Larry Johnston (2008) Politics: An Introduction to the Modern Democratic State, Third Edition, Chapters 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9.
King’s biggest act that clearly shows him to be an unfit and ineffective Prime Minister of Canada was his “5 cent speech”. King made his speech during the 1930s – start of The Great Depression- the speech basically articulates that King would give relief money to only those provinces with Liberal-provincial government, and the speech also states that King won’t give a “5 cent piece” (Chong, 2002) to the provinces with a Conservative provincial government. This shows how he only favors those who support the Liberals, and not the good-will of Canada as a whole. In fact, in the beginning of the Great Depression- when the stock market crashed- he was reluctant to even acknowledge that there was an economic crisis. King believed that the great depression was just a temporary crisis that would solve its self in a matter of time, and that the good times of the 20s would return. King didn’t realize the scale and the severity of the crisis and he let the crisis get out of hand by delaying to take action, but when he finally decided to take action to help the provinces in need. Instead of King helping all who are in need, he decides to choose who he wants to help-provinces with a liberal government. This exclusion of the other provincial governments – conservative- show that King in no means wants to help Canada as a country and this is contrary to what an effective ...
Dye, Thomas R. , L. Tucker Gibson Jr., and Clay Robinson. Politics In America. Brief Texas Edition ed. New Jersey: Pearson, 2005.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau Published in 1968, Federalism and the French Canadians is an ideological anthology featuring a series of essays written by Pierre Elliot Trudeau during his time spent with the Federal Liberal party of Canada. The emphasis of the book deals with the problems and conflicts facing the country during the Duplessis regime in Quebec. While Trudeau stresses his adamant convictions on Anglophone/Francophone relations and struggles for equality in a confederated land, he also elaborates on his own ideological views pertaining to Federalism and Nationalism. The reader is introduced to several essays that discuss Provincial legislature and conflict (Quebec and the Constitutional Problem, A Constitutional Declaration of Rights) while other compositions deal with impending and contemporary Federal predicaments (Federal Grants to Universities, The Practice and Theory of Federalism, Separatist Counter-Revolutionaries). Throughout all these documented personal accounts and critiques, the reader learns that Trudeau is a sharp critic of contemporary Quebec nationalism and that his prime political conviction (or thesis) is sporadically reflected in each essay: Federalism is the only possible system of government that breeds and sustains equality in a multicultural country such as Canada.
...n of their cabinet, while others may choose to create a new political path without consulting the views of their party. Mellon thinks that the Canadian government is under dictatorial scrutiny, whereas Barker contradicts this belief. The idea of a prime-ministerial government is certainly an over exaggeration of the current state of Canada. There are too many outside and inside forces that can control the powers the Prime Minister of Canada. Furthermore, there are several outside sources that indicate a good government in Canada. The United Nations annually places Canada at the top, or near the top of the list of the world’s best countries in which to live. These outcomes are not consistent with the idea of a one ruler power. Canada is not ruled by one person’s ideas, suggestions, and decisions, but by government approved and provincially manipulated decisions.
Research has brought about an abundance of reasons why youth are becoming less engaged in the political process. Education, absence of political knowledge, the media and family influence, indifference to election campaigns, inadequate amount of change, and lack of motivation are all possible factors in influencing the youth voter turnout.
However, the proposed systems must be thoroughly examined for their compatibility with Canada’s needs and their ability to resolve the issues outlined in this paper. From distortion in representation to Western alienation and to making the voices of minorities heard, the new system must also ensure that Parliament fulfills its role in representing, legislating, and holding the government. More importantly, after the current government abandoned its promise on electoral reform, it is important for researchers and future governments to build on the knowledge acquired by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform as well as previous experiences of the provinces with electoral
Dye, Thomas R., L. Tucker Gibson, Jr., and Clay Robison. Politics in America. Ninth ed. Vol. 2. New York, NY: Longman, 2011. 337. Print.
Trying to apply new reforms to the Canadian constitution has been no easy task. The mixture of the parliamentary/monarchy powers denies the citizens’ direct participation in the government’s decision-making process and does not allow the existence of a complete, free democratic system. A true democracy simply cannot fully exist with a restricted monarch selecting type of government and any reforms must be applied to make Canadian constitutions’ laws based on democratic principles. The deficiency of the Canadian electoral system decreases the level of democracy in the Canadian constitution. Canadian citizens are known for being active in political matters whether it relates to them specifically or not.
Proportional representation is almost always acknowledged as the fairest electoral system. With this in mind, many still reject a mixed member proportional system. Critics argue that the current method has produced a stable and effective government, while MMP would create an ineffective government. Wiseman feels that since Canada has been consistently stable, our electoral system does not need to be changed. Hiemstra and Jansen disagree with the plurality system that is currently in place for it does not produce fair representation and devalues citizen’s votes. Canadians must make a choice between the value of effectiveness and the values of justice and equity. Although a switch is not anticipated in the near future, Canadian citizens can hope that it is at least in the minds of many voters and on the discussion list of the government.
Frist, federalism is the division of power between the provinces and the federal government (Cutler 2010, 3). As well, Federal systems tend to be made up of multiple parts, which do not necessarily work together (Brock 2008, 3). There has been an increase on the study of federalism in recent years, which has created a more in-depth look at how federalism impacts the government. (Farfard Rocher 2009, 294). There are two aspects of federalism and both of them put limitations on the influence of the prime minister. The first is called political asymmetry; this encompasses the various attitudes of the different provinces such as the culture, economic, social and political conditions and how it shapes the relationship between the provincial and federal governments (Brock 2008, 4). This can create a problem for the federal government because it means that they may ha...
Democracy is 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 (Democracy, n.d.). Canadians generally pride themselves in being able to call this democratic nation home, however is our electoral system reflective of this belief? Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy that has been adopted from the British system. Few amendments have been made since its creation, which has left our modern nation with an archaic system that fails to represent the opinions of citizens. Canada’s current “first-past-the-post” (FPTP) system continues to elect “false majorities” which are not representative of the actual percentage of votes cast. Upon closer examination of the current system, it appears that there are a number of discrepancies between our electoral system and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Other nations provide Canada with excellent examples of electoral systems that more accurately represent the opinions of voters, such as proportional representation. This is a system of voting that allocates seats to a political party based on the percentage of votes cast for that party nationwide. Canada’s current system of voting is undemocratic because it fails to accurately translate the percentage of votes cast to the number of seats won by each party, therefore we should adopt a mixed member proportional representation system to ensure our elections remain democratic.
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
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004. Romance, Joseph. Political Science 6 class lectures. Drew University, Summer 2004.
Jones, W. T. Masters of Political Thought. Ed. Edward, McChesner, and Sait. Vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947.
Canada has a central government designed to deal with the country as a whole. Things like national defense, banking, currency, and commerce are controlled by the central government. All other matters are left to the provinces to deal with. Such as education, hospitals, and civil rights are responsibilities of the states. The Canadian Parliament consists of two houses. Their Senate is made up of 104 members who serve until the age of seventy-five.