Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Union vs confederacy compare
Comparing and contrasting union and confederacy
Union and confederacy compare and contrast
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Union vs confederacy compare
Canada utilizes a unique method of governing that is a fusion between federalism and parliamentary government to create a phenomenon known as Parliamentary Federalism. Federalism in Canada (and in most federal states) is “the distribution of powers between national governments and several constituent governments” (Verney, 1995). Interestingly, the Canadian model of governance was not built with federalism in mind, rather, Canada adopted the British Westminster Model of governance – which is a parliamentary system (Verney, 1995). Despite the adoption of the Westminster Model which was designed for a unitary state (a state governed by a single entity) – Canada went on to merge the traditional parliamentary system of the British and the concept …show more content…
In Canada, the Queen serves as the Head of State within the parameters of the constitution (Jones, 1993). In most constitutional monarchies a parliamentary governing system is employed and the duties of the monarch are strictly ceremonial or they may have reserve powers (Jones, 1993). In Canada specifically, the monarch has no direct effect on the governing of the country – but is represented by an appointed Governor General who has specific duties. In regards to Canada, the Queen reigns whereas the Prime Minister rules (Jones, 1993). For Canada, parliamentary federalism is a system that keeps the Canadian government accountable for its actions. As mentioned beforehand – the concept of responsible government is a notable feature of many parliamentary democracies around the world – including Canada (Aucoin, 2004)). The system of responsible government ensures that the government is responsible to the house of commons for any exercised power and in addition, the government can only continue governing if they maintain the confidence of members of parliament elected by Canadians [confidence convention] (Aucoin, …show more content…
In a Canadian context, the system of government was not created with federalism in mind, instead, Canada used to be a unitary state (Anderson, 2008). The emergence of Ontario and Quebec and then the later addition of more provinces and territories naturally led to the creation of a federal state (Anderson, 2008). Canada is a highly diverse nation built on multiculturalism and the needs and expectations of each province vary based on their demographic, geographic and psychographic data. Federalism in the Canadian context allows for provinces to address the needs of the population within their provincial jurisdiction (Speer, 2016). For an example, the needs of people in Nunavut are completely different than the needs of those living in Ontario (for an example, needs regarding climate [ex. snow removal], public transportation etcetera). This allows for provinces to meet the specific needs of their populations and to serve them as effectively as
Canada has had a long and storied history especially in the 20th century. A key part of this history is Canada’s road to autonomy. The first step on this road is Canada’s role in fighting and ending World War I. The second step is Canadian involvement in the United Nations’ early days to the mid 1950’s. The last step on the road to autonomy is the Constitution Act, 1982. These three moments in time form the backbone of Canada’s road to autonomy.
To draw a conclusion it is inevitable to highlight the significance change not only to Canada´s self-understanding, but also in the world´s appearance that the Statute of Westminster caused. It was the last of the Imperial Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain applicable to all dominions and therefore it marks the end of the great, superordinate British Empire which was one of the major forces throughout many centuries in history. Even though the Commonwealth technically remains, new autonomous countries were finally able to be more than just an extension of the the mother-country. Thus, many of them became remarkable powers with an own identity and own intentions on the world stage themselves, such as the country we live in, Canada.
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.
Mallory, J.R.. 1965. “The Five Faces of Federalism.” In P.A. Crepeau and C.B. Macpherson (eds.) The Future of Canadian Federalism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Dyck defines responsible government as a “form of government in which the political executive must retain the confidence of the elected legislature and resign or call an election if and when it is defeated on a vote of non-confidence”(432). Essentially this means that the executive branch of government, which is the Prime Minister and his office/staff, along with the
Firstly, the bicameral system started in the 17th century and has been set up in many countries since. This system is justified on its standard of checks and balances on the governing party. The members of the two houses are elected or appointed to their positions depending on what method the country decides on. Canada is one of the countries with a bicameral parliamentary democracy, which was modeled off of England’s House of Lords. (Supreme Court 2014, pg. 720) One of the important factors of the bicameral system is the upper house of Parliament called the Senate, which has a long history and distinctive structure within Canada.
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.
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
Canada is a strong and independent country made up of thirteen unique provinces and territories. However, it took great efforts for Canada to become the united nation it is today. The British colonies were facing many problems. One solution for these issues was for the colonies to come together and form one county or nation. There were a number of different factors that pushed the colonies of British North America towards confederation. Due to political deadlock, economic challenges and pressure from the United States, confederation was absolutely necessary for the well-being and progress of Canada.
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.
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 ...
The Prime Minister of Canada is given much power and much responsibility. This could potentially create a dangerous situation if the government held a majority and was able to pass any legislation, luckily this is not the case. This paper will argue that there are many limitations, which the power of the prime minister is subject too. Three of the main limitations, which the Prime Minister is affected by, are; first, federalism, second the governor general and third, the charter of rights and freedoms. I will support this argument by analyzing two different types of federalism and how they impact the power of the Prime Minister. Next I will look at three of the Governor Generals Powers and further analyze one of them. Last I will look at the impact of the charter from the larger participation the public can have in government, and how it increased the power of the courts.
Regionalism is a political ideology based on a collective sense of place or attachment, and is discussed in terms of Canadian society, culture, economy and politics (Westfall, 3). Canada is known internationally as a nation incorporating several multiregional interests and identities into its unification of culture. Its diverse population is comprised of numerous ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations and traditions; and all resides under one federal government. Ever since the founding of Canada, it has developed into regional cleavages and identities, based on various geographical topologies, lifestyles and economic interests (Westfall, 6). It is these characteristics which make it problematic for the federal government to represent all demands of its people on a national level. Regionalism is thus an issue within regards to political proficiency in the Federal government.
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.
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.