Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Since the ministry of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Canadians and political scientists have questioned whether the Prime Minister of Canada has held to much power, this has been considered a fundamental problem in Canada’s parliamentary system. This essay will examine the role of the prime minister, the effects of party discipline, the centralization of power to the prime minister, and assert that power has been concentrated into the hands of the prime minister, further weakening the role of parliament as a source of democratic input.
The Prime Minister of Canada is a position that is appointed by the Governor General of Canada. In most cases, the leader of the party with the most seats in parliament is invited to form a government. Although not
…show more content…
In the Canadian parliamentary system, Members of Parliament are elected to represent their regional constituencies and advocate for the needs, wants and views of their constituents. Lamentably, party discipline has limited this role for many individual MP’s since they are given little independence when voting on bills introduced to parliament. Usually, MP’s vote the way the prime minister or party leader advises them to. This generates a problem for those MP’s who help to form a government as their right to hold the government to account is diminished. If an MP decides to break the status quo and does not act upon the prime minister’s wishes, their reputation within the government could be seriously affected. Party discipline allows the prime minister to further their agenda and most bills presented to parliament will only pass if the prime minister has a hand in creating the bill . The influence the prime minister has on the decision making of individual members of their caucus undermines the fundamental role MP’s have in representing the views of their constituents, ultimately centralizing legislative power into the hands of the prime minister while deteriorating the representation of a true …show more content…
The basis of this argument relies on the existence of inter-governmental and party competition. A prime example of this was the tensions between Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Finance Minister Paul Martin, and Liberal backbenchers. It was inherent that after 3 terms in office many members of the Liberal Party were tired of the prime minister’s hands-off approach in the dealings of ministerial departments and government. The party realized that this was not working, and a united cabinet was non-existent. His biggest opposer, Paul Martin, was able to gather the support of Liberal backbenchers and replace Chretien as leader of the party. Martin also won a minority government in the 2004 election. Chretien’s loss of power over the years was due to his lack of real organization in confronting his competitors . Although this opposing view is valid, it fails to mention that fact that if Chretien took advantage of the principle of party discipline over his government he could have avoided losing the confidence of his own party. By taking a hands-off approach to the way the government was run, Chretien disrupted what prime ministers had been doing in government for the past 35 years. Unfortunately, this contributed to his
William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada’s longest serving prime minister, is known for both the great contributions he brought to Canada and for the scandals he was involved in. The one event that makes him most famous to Canadians is the King-Byng Affair of 1926. During this event, Mackenzie King asked Lord Byng to dissolve parliament in order to force a new election as he had lost with a minority. Because King’s intentions were to regain a majority government, Byng refused out of distrust for King’s plans and King was replaced in power by the Conservatives. While William Lyon Mackenzie King’s actions were in accordance with all the laws regarding his power as Prime Minister, he acted for selfish reasons thus putting him in the wrong. Mackenzie King’s and Lord Byng’s histories will be quickly analyzed to understand their actions in the affair. Right after, King’s options and reasons for dissolving parliament will be analyzed. Thirdly, Byng’s options and reasons for refusing King’s request will be researched. Once enough evidence has been collected, the end results of this affair will be discussed and the conclusion as to whether or not King was right to go against responsible government will be made.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is attempting to further decentralize Canadian government with, what he calls, open federalism. This essay will begin with a discourse on the evolution of Canadian federalism, then exclusively compare Harper’s approach to the proceeding Liberal governments approach, and ultimately explain why Stephen Harper’s “open federalism” methodology is the most controversial form of Canadian federalism yet.
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
Even though he is remembered as Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau’s legacy did not start there. While his sixteen years as Prime Minister is said to be his greatest achievement, his reputation as a hard worker started after he graduated from the University of Montreal, when he landed a position as a desk officer for the Privy Council; he practiced law, specializing in labour and civil liberty cases –issues he later brought into focus of Canadians– from 1951 to 1961. During these years, Trudeau spent his time opposing the ‘Union Nationale’ government of Maurice Duplessis; he demanded both social and political change. “Trudeau sought to rouse opposition ...
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
Pierre Elliot Trudeau is perhaps one of the mostly widely recognized Canadian Prime Ministers. His contributions to the growth and progress of Canada stands forever engraved in the minds of all Canadians. Yet, in spite of his many contributions, Canadians share contrasting opinions of Trudeau. Frum (2011) says of Trudeau that “as a political wrecker, he was truly world class.” On the other hand, the results of a poll commissioned by the Harper government in 2013-2014 ranked Trudeau number one on the list of most inspirational Canadians . In this essay, I will provide an analysis comprised of three perspectives to support the argument that Pierre Trudeau’s impact on Canada was overwhelmingly positive because his legacy transcended politics.
It was said that Canada’s MPs’ power is been minimalize completely by the Prime Minister (Kilgour, 2012 p.1). The reason for less restriction of party discipline is to give them the permission to vote according to the public and personal belief rather than under the influence of the party whip, which will result in freedom of vote for general public. The reason that members of parliament are there are that: they are the representatives of the sections; they are the voice of the people. In Canada we do not elect our MPs to be a puppet solely to be govern under the prime minister. Our country is a democratic country where there’s freedom of speech and freedom to vote. In reducing the hold on party discipline allows the governmental personnel to openly state their opinions without sparking an unnecessary controversy. Which will benefit both opposition and government in power to discuss the controversial debates and will speed up the process of decision making.
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.
This essay has argued that there are many limitations that the Prime Minister is subjected too. The three most important are federalism in Canadian society, the role of the Governor General, and the charter of rights and freedoms. I used two different views of federalism and illustrated how both of them put boundaries on the Prime Minister’s power. Next I explain the powers of the governor general, and explained the ability to dissolve parliament in greater detail. Last I analyzed how the charter of rights of freedoms has limited the Prime Minister’s power with respect to policy-making, interests groups and the courts. The Prime Minister does not have absolute power in Canadian society, there are many infringements on the power that they have to respect.
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.
Citizens’ opposition to the Senate has reached a new height. It is clear that the Senate is no longer acceptable. The Parliament of Canada consists of Monarch, Senate and the House of Commons, every department is indispensable, or it will involve changes in policy. “The Senate in Canada has a long and diverse reform, it should back to 1874. At that time, the members of the House of Common did not allow each province to select its own Senators.”(Markarenko, J. (n.d.). Senate Reform in Canada. Retrieved September 23, 2017, from http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/senate-reform-canada) The existence of the Senate is still valuable, but the system of the Senate need to be reformed more reasonable because of the effective of the Senators, the prestige and capital of the Senator and the election method of the Senators.
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.
be necessary to take a brief look at the history of the office of the