Prime Minister Stephen Harper is not a true representative of the people. Neither an academic nor an average Canadian, Mr. Harper is, first and foremost, a political tactician. He climbed his way to Parliament Hill and the position of Prime Minister along with a minority government in 2006 and has, ever since, used all means necessary to keep that – ever striving for a majority, which was finally achieved in the spring of 2011. However, in 2008 Harper was the source of a prorogation crisis, in which he, out of fear of losing the confidence of the House and giving up his role for an unstable coalition government, requested to then-Governor General Michaelle Jean that Parliament be prorogued in an effort to stave off the coalition and create a fiscal update that will be acceptable to the House. Through this request and subsequent approval by Jean, Harper and Jean have been accused of undermining the Constitution and creating a democratic deficit in Canada.
The debate surrounding the 2008 prorogation crisis calls into question an abundance of topics such as the legitimacy of the Governor General, the nature of constitutional conventions, and the freedoms and lenience given to the Governor General on executive decisions. Furthermore, it could be argued that any prorogation decisions made by the Governor General are catch-22 in nature; in essence, if the request is denied, in the case of Harper in 2008, his government would have been defeated in a confidence vote and a questionable, arguably unstable coalition headed by Liberal leader Stephane Dion would have come into power. However, when the request was approved, it allowed Harper to, with lack of a better suited term, shirk his duties as Prime Minister of Canada and prolong the co...
... middle of paper ...
...ratic level of discretion on ministerial advice, any and all decisions made by them are generally catch-22 in nature. There will always be a negative consequence, or a large group of Canadians who feel as though there was a better alternative. Nevertheless, the Governor General takes that into account, as Michaelle Jean did in 2008. Jean also let Stephen Harper know that “she was not a rubber stamp for his request to shut down Parliament… [and] that it was within her constitutional discretionary power to turn him down,” (Franks 35). All the same, in the end Jean believed that the best course of action for Canada would be to keep Harper in power and stave off the confidence vote by means of granting prorogation – had Canadians truly not wanted Harper in power, one could argue that the results in the election barely a month earlier should have better reflected that.
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.
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 ...
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.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau was arguably one of the most vivacious and charismatic Prime Ministers Canada has ever seen. He wore capes, dated celebrities and always wore a red rose boutonniere. He looked like a superhero, and often acted like one too. Some of the landmark occurrences in Canadian history all happened during the Trudeau era, such as patriating the constitution, creating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the 1980 Quebec Referendum. However, it is Trudeau’s 1969 “white paper” and the Calder legal challenge which many consider to be one of his most influential contributions to Canadian history.
A more sudden, but perhaps equally profound event is the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whereas before the adoption of the Charter Canadian legislatures were supreme, having power without limit within their jurisdictions, they now have debatable supremacy within altered jurisdictions. Moreover, although no powers or rights have been explicitly ‘reserved’ to the people, supporters of the charter nevertheless appear to give Canadians hope that the possibility may exist.
... of their prospect. Until 1982, the power to amend the Canadian constitution thus would remain that of the parliament of Britain.
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.
For the MPs in Canada, party discipline is the core for their actions. For them, collective responsibility plays a big part in their agenda. As a party, they are held responsible for any decision that their party makes, and are expected to defend it at any given point of time. For a majority government, party discipline becomes an even more important issue as it is directly related to the term of the Prime Minister (PM). Under the rule of maintaining the confidence of the House, the PM must gain the support of the House in order to stay in his role. This is where high party discipline comes into place. With it, the PM will not have to worry about being dismissed by the Governor General. Should the high party discipline deteriorate and gives away into a low one, such as the one in the States, the government will be in a constant potential risk of collapsing into paralysis. Once the leader of the cabine...
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.
On February 21 and 22 of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to rule whether th...
Canada is known by outsiders to be a very peaceful country. But if you ask any Canadian they well tell you that is unfortunately not the case. For there is a large ongoing conflict between Canadians. The conflict is between the French and the English, or more specifically between Quebec and the rest of Canada. As a result of this conflict, along with some wrongdoing and propaganda. Quebec has considered and has gone as far to hold referendums over Separatism (Surette,2014). Separatism is that the province of Quebec separates from the rest of Canada to form its own country. Which would have immense effects on indubitably Quebec but also the rest of Canada (Martin, 2014). This report will focus on the root causes and origin of Quebec Separatism, the current state of Quebec Separatism and finally how we as a society can act towards Quebec Separatism.
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
...of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on the judiciary.
By the end, there was an agreement over adopting a federal government along with delegating responsibilities and powers to provincial authorities’ .But, as a federal system, Canada by contrast to United States had difficulties in distributing the power between the national, provincial governments and territorial governments, because only the first two entities enjoy the major power, and the other smaller entities have only those powers which are directed to them by the provincial government, the thing that made it increasingly decentralized to the point that it became the world’s most decentralized federal system in the world, so decentralization arise when there is a extensive sharing of authority, power, financial issues ,foreign affairs…etc between the different entities of the nation
To conclude, in the present Canadians are seeing change in PSE funding policies begin to come from the provinces. Due to the fact that “when Ottawa went against the grain and launched the Millennium Scholarship programs, provincial feathers, especially Quebec’s, were immediately ruffled,” provinces such as Quebec and British Columbia, among others, were motivated to “set up their own research funding agencies with the view to [maximize] the likelihood of obtaining funds from Ottawa,” (Bakvis 216). As for the legitimacy of cooperative federalism in Canada today, it seems as though executive federalism itself is turning largely paternalistic – at least in the sense of PSE. More often than not, in PSE funding, the federal government has taken the initiative while “one set of executives – those from provincial governments – was largely absent,” (Bakvis 218).