In Canada, the type of government it should have is a monarchy. Although, there are many benefits and disadvantages to a monarchy, there are many drawbacks to having a republic government. Canada is a theatre, in which every citizen played a significant role. Of this grand production, the monarchist is a playwright who tampers with the script to give Canada the benefits, while giving the nation it’s own independence.
Monarchy is a form of government in a state, in which an individual has sovereign power. The ruler is known as the monarch, which refers to the head of state or ruler of a monarchy (Makarenko, 2007). The majority of monarchs can hold the position for their lifetime; however, their authority can be transmitted in two avenues, they either abdicate the throne or pass away, and in most cases, their families succeed them (Makarenko, 2007). There are two different types of monarchy: absolute and constitutional monarchy (Makarenko, 2007). Absolute monarchy is when the monarch has complete control, while constitutional monarchy is when the monarch is recognized known as the head of state, but with certain constraints (Makarenko, 2007).
Republic is a form of government, in which the people and their elected representatives hold power (Makarenko, 2007). It is an alternative to the monarchy, which focuses on the “hereditary royal lineage” ((Makarenko, 2007). The people of state with the republic government play a significant role in many decisions (Makarenko, 2007). Some examples of this are participating in elections and reforming certain things (Makarenko, 2007).
The form of government that Canada orchestrated is commonly known as a constitutional monarchy (Makarenko, 2007). This includes formal authority given to the ...
... middle of paper ...
...me minister who is the controller. We see this in many examples, such as when the prime minister tells the representative when to dissolve parliament. Nevertheless, the Canadian government may seem dependent on monarchial approval, in reality the true authoritative power lies within the Parliament; the monarch is merely a figurehead. . Another reason why keeping the constitutional monarchy is because it preserves and honours the historical process of becoming the country we are today. As well, it makes sure that the elected head is not the head of state. Thus, keeping powers of government distributed equally.
Keeping the monarchy system in Canada has many benefits to it. There are many disadvantages to the monarchy and a republic government. Thus, the Canadian government should remain a monarchy. If nothing is wrong it, then there is no real reason to change it.
...ment dissolved after having the head of state pass a vote of non-confidence in Meighen. This time, Byng accepted to dissolve the Parliament and elections were called. Because the Conservatives campaigned the fact that the Liberals were corrupt and the Liberals campaigned on Canadian rights and how the British should not be able to interfere with how Canada wanted to rule itself, King’s Liberals won the next election and went back into power. Though these events are all facts of what happened, King had several options to choose from before asking to dissolve Government.
In conclusion Canada gained independence because of a series of events that took place during the twentieth century. If it hadn’t been for these events, Canada to this day might have been a part of the British Empire. Through discussion on the Chanak affair we signalled that we wanted autonomy. Through our hard work and lives, the world knew we had the ability to stand alone as a strong nation. While, our international reputation of being a “peacekeeping” country the right to stand as an independent self-governing nation. But finally through the Canada Act, we stood solely independent from our Empire. It is obvious that the twentieth century provided us with great chances to become an independent strong nation.
Is Canada a nation or has its control just switched empirical hands? As Professor Hutcheson asked, did Canada go from "Colony to Nation or Empire to Empire?" This question has greatly influenced Canada's changing identity since her birth as a British colony with Confederation in 1867 to the present day. The purpose of this essay is to critically analyse the shifting Canadian identities between the years 1890 to 1960. The objective is to illustrate Canada's transforming identity by using the novels The Imperialist by Sara Jeanette Duncan, Barometer Rising by Hugh MacLennan, and Fifth Business by Robertson Davies and to connect the stories of each of these works of fiction to the varying political, economic, and social issues of their times. Each book is written by a prominent author, and portrays an accurate reflection of the demanding political, economic, and social concerns throughout the late nineteen and first half of the twentieth century of Canadian history. All of the novels reflect Canada's peripheral view of the world, as opposed to a central point of view, because throughout its history Canada has always been perceived as a secondary player. As George Grant says in his literary piece Lament for a Nation, Canada is "a branch plant society" , meaning Canada is controlled by another power. The essential question is where has Canada's loyalties traditionally lay and how has this shaped the Canadian identity. The Imperialist by Sara Jeanette Duncan, written in 1904 reflects a very British influenced Canada. At this time, Canada is still a British colony under British rule, and the people of Canada are very content to consider themselves British. The novel predominately ill...
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.
This great country known as Canada, is governed smoothly because of the agreements and rules that have been in place since the beginning of confederation. The Canadian Constitution is one example of these rules. The Canadian Constitution is not just one single documentation, it is a collaboration of documents that make up one enormous document (Dyck 261). The six basic principles of the constitution are: responsible government, federalism, judicial review, the rule of law, constitutional monarchy and democracy; which all helped to shape the Constitution and therefore Canada (Dyck 266).
...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.
The Prime Minister in Canada is the head of government and is appointed by the Governor General. Canada is the northern neighbor to the United States, and the Queen of England is its head of state. These powerful countries being so closely tied to Canada makes it a major player on the world stage, and gives considerable power to its Prime Ministers.There have been twenty-two Prime Ministers, with John Diefenbaker being the thirteenth, serving from 1957-1963, and Pierre Trudeau the fifteenth, who served 1968-1979 and again 1980-1984. Diefenbaker was a progressive conservative, a right-center group associated with British imperialism. Trudeau was part of the Liberal party of Canada, one that focused on individual freedom, ironic considering Trudeau was the only Prime Minister to enact the War Measures Act during peacetime. Domestically, these two Prime Ministers have done much in terms of protecting and growing a modern Canada. There are many ways these leaders' domestic policies were similar, such as helping to create an equality among Canadians, and many ways in which they had opposing policies, such as their policies regarding French-Canada.
are legitimate laws that people follow and there has been no dictatorship yet! Canada is a stable
Currently, Canada remains the world’s second largest country, full of vast and rich resources from all corners of the nation. None of the accomplishments and achievements that Canada has made to date would have been possible without Confederation. Without intense pressure from the Americans, and without the common goal that a few men shared of unifying a country, Canada would not be the strong, free, independent and united nation that it is today.
It is cold hard fact that Canadian government is not entirely democratic. The question remains of how to deal with this. Canadian government, as effective as it currently is, has major factors in their system that have a negative effect on Canadians. Our current voting system favors the higher-populated provinces and creates a tyranny of the majority. Our Senate is distinctly undemocratic as it is an assigned position. Our head of State, the Prime Minister, holds too much power. Unless we resolve these issues, our government will remain far from a perfect governing 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.
In the contentious world of politics the actors at times find themselves at an impasse, unable to move forward between their conflicting visions. In these moments the courts may be asked to mediate between the different levels of government by providing constitutional or legislative advice. These scenarios can become perilous because since the courts must provide insight on issues that are political without stepping outside of its jurisdiction. Regardless of their dangers, however, I would argue that the reference instrument has proven to be a valuable tool in preventing political chaos. In the Patriation Reference and the Quebec Secession Reference the courts ++++---In order to illustrate the importance of reference cases in the Canadian system, despite their shortcomings, I will first look at the history of the advisory mechanism with a view to explain the roll of the courts. I will then look at the constitutional perspectives the courts took in several reference cases, especially the Patriation Reference and the Quebec Cessession Reference. In the next section I will explore the ways in which the courts opinions in these cases impacted Canadian federalism to determine the constitutionality of their advice. Finally I will explore the eventualities of a system without reference cases to demonstrate why they are so important. Attention will also be paid to the reference system of the United States in order to provide a comparative view. I will argue that in reference cases the Supreme Court takes on an important role as a mediator between political actors, however, the Court must act with caution as these are perilous grounds where suggestions can cross into political territory. – Indeed, political actors can abuse the system, >re...
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.
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.
The present monarch of the Great Britain is the Queen Elizabeth the Second, who came into power after the death of her father the King George the Fourth, in 1952. Substitution of the monarch into the forehead of the monarchy must be in accordance with the laws of succession and inheritance principles enshrined in the laws throughout the system. Moreover, it also must be in accordance with customary law and principles of birth right. There is a condition of belonging to the Church of England and the composition of its prescribed promise of a Westminster Abbey.