Canada is a great democratic nation, but like all other countries it also has its own political flaws. Some aspects of the Canadian political scene are questionable for their slight violation against democratic norms. Many debates have taken place for the reforms needed in the Canadian political system, in order to make it more democratic.
The role the bureaucracy plays in Canada is immense. They are non-elected government officials that work under various different government departments, Crown corporations and agencies and regulatory tribunals. The bureaucracy also plays an integral part in Cabinet policy-making and implementation of policies. They offer advice and provide them with information about an issue. The ministers for government
…show more content…
departments are responsible for actions of their departments and answering to the parliament. The deputy ministers are appointed by the prime minister and have a higher ranking than a regular minister. They are appointed with consultation from the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet. The Senate was found by the Fathers of Confederation and was inspired by the British House of Lords. There are 105 senators in the Canadian Senate with Ontario and Quebec having the highest number of Senators. To qualify for the position of a Senator, an individual must be a Canadian citizen, at least 30 years of age, own property and live in the province they will represent in the Senate. The Senators are appointed by the Governor General who consults with the prime minister beforehand. Senators were originally allowed to serve for life, but an amendment was passed making it mandatory for Senators to retire at 75. The Senate was formed with good intentions and a strong purpose. The Senate is to serve the purpose of "sober second thought" on legislation before it became the law. Another role of the Senate is to give all provinces almost equal representation in the House of Commons as Ontario, especially minority groups. It was used as an incentive for other provinces to join confederation, specifically Maritime Provinces and Quebec. Their job description also includes perfecting legislation by fixing any technical mistakes and how to alter legislation to make it more effective. They also hold the power to introduce bills of their own. The Senators work on committee which are responsible for conducting investigations from issues such as terrorism to poverty. They meet when Parliament is in session in the Senate Chambers. The Senate has become a problematic part of the Canadian Parliament in the past couple of decades.
It has been under constant fire for several justifiable reasons. The Senators fail to represent the interests of their region or minority group, and this causes disconnect between the people and the Senate. The lack of multiculturalism seen in the Senate is also a cause of concern to many, since Canada is a diverse country it is only fair to have more people of different backgrounds in the Senate. Senators are seen as puppets of the prime minister, because the senators that are suggested to the Governor General by the prime minister are party supporters. The Governor General then appoints these individuals which defeats the purpose of the Senate completely because these Senators are more likely to work to the advantage of the prime minister rather than the people. The cost of keeping the Senate is a problem in itself. It is very costly to have a Senate. Many Canadians rightfully object to the amount of money put towards the Senate from their tax money, since they serve such little purpose in today’s political sphere. Their salaries compared to their work effort has a huge discrepancy. The Senators have been continuously criticised for only working about three months each year and missing days of …show more content…
work. I feel strongly that the Senate should be reformed rather than abolished completely. The Senate was created with good intentions, but has been abused by having their original purpose replaced with others. I think the most important part of reforming the Senate is allowing Canadians to elect the Senators instead of having the Governor General appoint them. In a democratic country, citizens should be able to choose someone who represents their region. Senators from different backgrounds and socio-economic status should be elected to represent the concerns of everyone. Their salaries should also be decreased, because they only work about four months in the year. The electoral system used in Canada to elect its members of parliament and prime minster is the first-past-the-post system. This system is a very straightforward and effortless way of electing a government. Canada is divided into 308 ridings also known as constituencies. In these constituencies, individuals are selected by their political parties to represent them, who later if elected are responsible for representing their constituency in the House of Commons. To win in the first-past-the-post system an individual must gain the majority of votes in their constituency. Each individual is only allowed to vote once by casting their vote through a ballot. This electoral system most commonly results in majority governments, although there have been minority governments in the past. In my opinion, I believe the first-past-the-post system gives an impression of being rational and a fair electoral system. However, it is also important to note that it is problematic because it fails to reflect the views of the citizens effectively due to the lack of its complexity. Many Canadians are under the impression that this means the individual needs at least fifty percent of the votes, but that is not true. For example, if there are three candidates in constituency and fifty people vote resulting in two candidates receiving sixteen votes and one candidate receiving eighteen votes. The candidate with eighteen votes would be declared the winner. The problem in this scenario is that the candidate has been elected without the majority of the popular vote and is the voice of a constituency where they only have the support of thirty-six percent of the constituents. By my reasoning, voter apathy is a result of the first-past-the-post system. It leads to voter apathy because it gives voters the impression that their vote will not make a difference in the end result. The lack of voter turnout then leads to creating an inefficient government that fails to address society’s needs and concerns which further leads to voter apathy. The cycle of voter apathy is almost unbreakable. However, many defend the first-past-the-post system by saying that it creates majority governments. The leading party in the House of Commons usually has more than fifty percent of the seats. In a majority governments, the Prime Minister and Cabinet have more control over creating policies and bills. Majority government may be a great result of this electoral system but minority governments have also been formed under this electoral system, which invalidates this argument. A better alternative to the first-past-the-post system would be the mixed-member proportional electoral system. In this system, the seats in the House of Commons would be doubled because an individual will cast two votes. The parties will also create a party list ranking all their candidates, which will be used to assign them to seats they win through the party vote. If a representative wins in their constituency they will be crossed of the party list. First an individual will cast a vote for the party of their choice and then another vote for the representative of their choice. The vote for the party would determine how many seats a party would get in the House of Commons. Whereas, the second vote determines which candidate will represent the constituents in the House of Commons. For example, if there are 100 seats in the House of Commons, 50 would be for the elected members of parliament and the other 50 would be for the percentage of votes that the party received. The party seats would be given to the members on the party list. If the blue party receives 15% of the votes and 6 of their MP's win electoral seats, the other nine seats given to the blue party will be filled with the first nine members on the list. The mixed-member electoral system creates a government that fully represents the voters. I feel strongly that reforming the current Canadian first-past-the-post electoral system to the mixed-member electoral system will create a positive change in the Canadian political scene.
The advantage of this system is that an individual can vote for a representative who they believe will work for their interest and not feel pressured to vote for a representative of their preferred of political party. There is no such pressure, because they are given two votes and one is to solely vote for the party they would like to see in power. The mixed-member electoral system would also result in the decrease of voter apathy because the voter can easily see how their vote makes a difference in the bigger spectrum of things. It would also make elections more appealing to voters due to its complex nature yet simple enough to understand. The simplicity of the mixed-member electoral system is how an individual is given the right vote for their preferred member of parliament and another vote for their choice of political party. The complexity of this electoral system is in the process of how seats in the House of Commons are assigned to each
party. The similarity between the first-past-the-post system and the mixed-member proportional electoral system is that they do not require the representative to achieve fifty percent or more votes in order to be declared a winner. However, the mixed-member proportional system makes up for this by giving a voter the choice to differentiate between the Member of Parliament and the party they want to see in power, giving them more control over who runs the country. There is no obvious perfect electoral system, but the mixed-member proportional system is more democratic than the first-past-the-post system.
The federal government is the national government of Canada. It includes the Prime Minister of Canada and cabinet, the Parliament of Canada, the federal courts and more than a hundred of departments and agencies which administer the day-to-day business of government. The federal government is involved in many aspects of Canadians’ lives. “It has exclusive jurisdictions on peace, order and good government, any form of taxation, international/interprovincial trade and commerce, communications & transportation, banking and currency, foreign affairs, militia and defense, criminal law and penitentiaries, naturalization, weights, measures, copyrights, patents, first nations, “residual powers, declaratory power, disallowance and reservation, and unemployment insurance and old age pensions”.
...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.
For a democratic country to thrive, they must have a proper electoral system in producing the party to oversee our government. Since its inception in 1867, Canada has been using the first past the post system during elections to decide their leading party. Although we have been using this system for an extended duration of time, the FPTP system is flawed and should be changed. The goal of this paper is to prove the effectiveness of shifting to more of a proportional system, while also exposing the ineptness of Canada’s current system. With other methods advancing and little change of the first past the post system, this system is becoming predated. A variation of the proportional electoral system is key because it empowers voters, increases voter turnout, and creates a more diverse environment. Canada should adopt a more proportionate electoral system at the federal level if we wish to expand democracy.
Stevenson, Garth. "Canadian Federalism: The Myth of the Status Quo." Reinventing Canada: Politics of the 21st Century. Ed. M. Janine Brodie and Linda Trimble. Toronto: Prentice Hall, 2003. 204-14. Print.
The spread of democracy has been one of the largest and most widely heralded trends in government worldwide – its prevalence and impact has been the subject of much political discussion and debate. In many cases, however, fewer observers focus on the electoral system used by the democratic governments themselves, which are in many cases equally important to the ultimate shape of the government formed. In general, the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system that is used in Canadian Federal Elections has excluded and prevented third parties from having a large impact on the national stage post-WWII, forcing a bipartisan system of government. Central to this paper is an analysis on how third parties, in this case minor broad-based parties
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.
...ment plays an important role in determining the relationship between its politicians and electorates. It also “[calculates] how votes are translated into seats of political power... it... also affects the party system, political culture, the formation of government and the structure of the executive” (Trac 5). Most importantly, candidates in an SMP system can be elected with minimal amounts of public support as they do not require a majority of the votes. To be elected to the legislature in the PR system, a candidate must have “at least 3% of the party vote across the province” (Ontario Citizens' Assembly 3). In contrast to the SMP system, the PR system better represents the views of the citizens, supports a stable and effective government, and is a simple yet practical voting system. It successfully caters to the needs of the voters, unlike the traditional system.
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. The ‘Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ allow Canada’s population to live a free and secure life. This is demonstrated through the fundamental freedoms, which permit the people to freely express themselves and believe in what they choose. Canadians also have democratic rights authorizing society to have the right to democracy and vote for the members of the House of Commons, considering the fact that the House of Commons establishes the laws which ultimately influence their lifestyle. The tools that are used to function a democratic society such as this are, mobility, legal and equality rights, which are what give Canadians the luxury of living life secured with freedom and unity. Furthermore it is safe to argue that ‘The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’, proves the exceeding level of efficiency that is provided for Canadians in comparison to other countries where major freedoms are stripped from their political community.
The issue of electoral reform has become more important than ever in Canada in recent years as the general public has come to realize that our current first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, formally known as single-member plurality (SMP) has produced majority governments of questionable legitimacy. Of the major democracies in the world, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the only countries that still have SMP systems in place. Interestingly enough, there has been enormous political tension and division in the last few years in these countries, culminating with the election results in Canada and the USA this year that polarized both countries. In the last year we have seen unprecedented progress towards electoral reform, with PEI establishing an electoral reform commissioner and New Brunswick appointing a nine-member Commission on Legislative Democracy in December 2003 to the groundbreaking decision by the British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly on October 24, 2004 that the province will have a referendum on May 17, 2005 to decide whether or not they will switch to a system of proportional representation. This kind of reform is only expected to continue, as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty decided to take BC’s lead and form an independent Citizen’s Assembly with the power to determine whether or not Ontario will have a referendum regarding a change to a more proportional system. There is still much work to do however, and we will examine the inherent problems with Canada’s first-past-the-post system and why we should move into the 21st century and switch to a form of proportional representation.
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.
Milner, Henry. First Past the Post? Progress Report on Electoral Reform Initiatives in Canadian Provinces. Ottawa: Institute for Research and Public Policy, 5(9), 2004.
Modern Bureaucracy in the United States serves to administer, gather information, conduct investigations, regulate, and license. Once set up, a bureaucracy is inherently conservative. The reason the bureaucracy was initiated may not continue to exist as a need in the future. The need or reason may change with a change in the times and the culture needs. A bureaucracy tends to make decisions that protect it and further it’s own existence, possibly apart from the wishes of the populace. It may not consistently reflect what might be optimal in terms of the needs and wants of the people. Local governments employ most of the United States civil servants. The 14 cabinet departments in the U.S. are run day-to-day by career civil servants, which have a great deal of discretionary authority.
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.
...d I believe that proportional representation would be the most effective system to further the goals of democracy. If we use the single member plurality system we automatically ignore and exclude the voice of the people who didn’t win the election in a first past the post method. On the other hand in the proportional system rather than all seats being given to the party with the most votes every party gets the seats equal to the amount of votes they were able to obtain. This would allow all the people who voted to have their ‘”voice” represented in the government even though the party they voted for did not end up winning the election. This would encourage and engage many citizens to become involved in the political process; who otherwise would be discourage to vote at the fact that even if they vote, if their party loses their vote would be useless.
Canada is not truly democratic because it has the Senate that supports the Prime Minister on every decision made, it uses First Past The Post (FPTP) that determines the leader based on each parties votes which is not the majority and it has a voter turnout that is low which shows that majority of the population don’t take part in voting. In a democracy the people rule which means that citizens have the right to vote, people have the right to run for office and majority rules. When a country is a democracy the opinion of the greater number should prevail, the rights of minorities will be protected, no one is above the law, all citizens have fundamental rights and citizens have a sense of responsibility to their community. However, there are