Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What are the 3 levels of government and who is responsible for it
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
As a nation that identifies as a constituency, Canada is divided into 3 levels of government – each having to abide by the objectives of a responsible government (Brooks, p.169, 2015). As a citizen, it is normal to hold high standards and expectations inside the Canadian government; with these standards in mind, it is well as important to understand how our everyday lives are impacted by the three levels of government – federal, provincial, and municipal. The Canadian government has various responsibilities that must be satisfied through each branch. With these various duties, I not only expect the branches to honor the way decisions are made, created and/or interpreted/applied, but I as well expect them to comply with their assigned roles. I expect the federal level to implement plans to ensure public safety is in order, the provincial level to be accountable for health care and education, and the …show more content…
The federal level ensures public safety for all Canadian citizens during times of terrorism and natural disasters, reassuring individuals that their safety is a top priority. The provincial government provides an organized foundation for the education systems as they are able to assist and encourage individuals who are of age to attend school. At the same time, they ensure the health care system is being funded appropriately and is sustaining all necessary health related needs for citizens. Finally, the municipal government guarantees that waste management is taken into account and is being done so in a societal and environmentally cautions manor. The municipal level as well is sufficient when it comes to water regulation and treating and distributing water to households amongst a city. Overall, the Canadian government not only meets, but exceeds my expectations when putting into account the most important issues I believe they are
...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.
In conclusion, Canada is held strong with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As citizens know their rights and freedoms they can help change the shape of Canada by Charter Challenges. Changes move
Malcolmson, P., & Myers, R. (2009). The Canadian Regime: An Introduction to Parliamentary Government in Canada (4th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Newman, Garfield et al. Canada A Nation Unfolding. Toronto: Mc Graw – Hill Ryerson Limited, 2000.
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.
Our government’s predecessors have attempted to eradicate Canada’s first people, which is not only an insult to the indigenous people of the past, but to the present. This country did not start off as a joint endeavor of the two general groups of people that inhabited it during its birth, but decimation and forced assimilation of great traditions and people. The assimilation of a great culture, the destruction of oral histories, and the forced loss of language destroyed the chance trust. Only by teaching disgust towards that type of attitude and action, by not excusing it or attempting to justify, will begin a new age of
Throughout the early 1980’s Canadian society began being troubled by its relationship with Quebec, it seemed more isolated than ever. After being promised a deal following the separation referendum and not seeing any development, it appeared they were more bitter and angry than ever before. They could not be forced to sign the Constitution Act of 1982, therefore, there was much pressure for the federal government to come up with a quick solution to either lose Quebec or finally win them over. Brian Mulroney was elected in 1984 and made it his personal goal to unite Quebec with the rest of Canada. Mulroney planned on completing this task by opening up the constitution and meeting various requests Quebec had, along with repairing other flaws that seemed to be dragging the country down.
The Canadian constitution is bereft of democratic legitimacy; an alluring term for political democratic deficit. Over the past years, the unsuccessful attempts to reform its laws have made passing new bills and regulations almost an unreachable goal for every newly elected prime minister. This inflexibility in adapting new laws made the fundamental principles of the Canadian constitution known only by few reforms. The lack of democratic accountability in the Canadian parliamentary democracy is demonstrated not only in its electoral system, but also in its national parliament and at the federal level of its politics. Many reforms must be addressed in order to make the Canadian democracy healthier.
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...
Canada is an example of a nation with the question of a country wide unification among all its citizens on the table since the time of confederation in 1867 and even a few years prior. What some these factors that make Canada different from areas around it? How can a country that dominates such large land mass and that bares such vast cultural differences, be united? Can Canadians ever come to agreement upon the values they hold to be important? The debates of these questions continue to plague Canadian parliaments, especially when examining the differences between Canada and the province Quebec. Even though many argue and hope for Canada’s unity in the future, the differences in political socialization and culture present throughout the country creates a blurry vision of Canadian harmony and makes it extremely difficult to realistically vision Canadian unification. Is that, however, a bad thing?
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 United States government braces its power among three powerful branches, legislative, executive and judicial. These branches interact with one another to establish authority that is strong, yet equal to have power over the country. Each branch pursues certain responsibilities and duties to operate in an efficient and effective manner in which society upholds. The executive, legislative and judicial branches all interact amid each other to validate accuracy of the nation’s most powerful law of the land, the Constitution. It is important to know how these branches interact with each other to learn how a bill becomes a law. Reflecting on how the three branches promote a balance of power that is constructive to include the agendas and electoral roles that also plays a vast part in the government’s operation.
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.