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.
Canadian courts are public institutions and accordingly, courtroom occurrences should be public business. As one Supreme Court justice stated, “openness was to be the rule; covertness the exception.” It was further noted that at every stage of the process, the rule should be one of public accessibility and judicial accountability. Now, since free expression has been espoused by Canadians and enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , the openness principle has attained a constitutional basis. Advancement of the principle is made possible by the media, as news reports are the primary means by which the public obtains information about the courts. Hence, courts must be open to the media in order for them to be open to the public.
The structure of a parliamentary system is more logical ... ... middle of paper ... ...refore, in light of cause and effect, it is clearly demonstrated that through all these components Canada has been impacted in a positive way. By Canada using a parliamentary system with branches of government, it allows for roles and responsibilities to be shared amongst others, which allows for the benefit of seeing different aspects of things in multiple opinions of various people. In addition, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows for citizens to have rights and freedoms granting them the feeling of security and equality knowing that their rights and freedoms are guaranteed. As well as the notwithstanding clause which allows laws to be enacted when one’s certain Charter rights are infringed. Overall, with all these changes and systems Canada has developed to be a country popular for its freedom and equality, which has been the cause of its impacts.
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.
In “Strengthening Citizen Participation in Public Policy-Making: A Canadian Perspective” by Michael R. Woodford and Susan Preston asses how citizen participation and government accountability in policy-making are often at odds. It is not often that Canadians have been begrudged the opportunity to participate in public hearings, citizen polls and other consultative methods; however, the degree to which their voices have been taken into account often falls short. Policy-makers are not bound by citizen’s opinions ¬– unless it is a binding referenda – and yet public participation is said to help “reverse the growing democratic deficit, foster citizenship and community capacity, and promote responsive and effective policy decisions” (Woodford and Preston 346). These “improvements,” in practice, raises a larger question: should Members of Parliament be voting in accordance with party politics or those of their constituents? Since the effective inclusion of citizens opinions “requires that public administrators and policy makers be committed to genuinely considering [this] input in policy analysis and decision-making” (347).
Adopting MMP can create stronger voter turnouts, more personal campaigning, better individual representation, and better party selection. John Hiemstra and Harold Janson, are both in favour of a MMP electoral system. They understand that with the switch, the citizens will get more representation in parliament, their preferred choice will have some say in the House of Commons, and finally someone can be held accountable which creates a closer knit between citizens and Members of Parliament. Nelson Wiseman argues against the MMP system because he feels that there is nothing to be fixed in Canada. If the current system has been working well thus far, there is no need to change it.
All in all, multiculturalism is a controversial policy that has both advantages and disadvantages, but has proven to be a successful strategy in Canada. Multiculturalism has many positive effects, including but not limited to freedom of religion and beliefs, increased recognition of minority groups, closer political ties to other countries and so on. To begin with, individuals have liberty “to choose for themselves, without penalty, whether they want to identify with their specific group or not” (“Canadian Multiculturalism”). Through this statement, it is clear that assimilation is not enforced in Canada and choosing to become Canadian while retaining one’s own identity is encouraged. In addition, visible minority groups, such as those of Asian descent, have equal opportunities and rights to have their opinions heard.
Canada, being a soft power, uses its attraction, which takes precedence over pressures or payment because “when [a nations] policies are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others… [their] power is enhanced” (Michaud 433). This idea of Canada being a soft power is supported by the concept of values and principles. The shared values ideal reflects the idea of pluralism of values or ‘value pluralism’ based on the fact that there are so many thoughts, opinions and outcomes that are always facing Canadian people. There are some ideals, efficiency, equality, autonomy and non-violence that are of high importance to a large group of Canadians and lend themselves to elements of what seems to be shared values and this a window into democracy. Society is held together based on a group of factors which affect everyone as a group as well as individually: institutions, traditions, values, classes, markets and interest establish different levels of intertwining dynamics (Heath).
The Charter takes priority over other legislation because it is “entrenched” in the Constitution, it assures citizens of Canada fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, the right to move from one province or territory to another in Canada, legal, equality and language rights, and Aboriginal rights (section 1-34). The Charter additionally defends the individual and determines fairness during legal matters and especially in illegal situations. Canadians are secure against stubborn searches and seizures, and against police utilizing exorbitant force, even when a search or seizure is sanctioned by law. Citizens of Canada ... ... middle of paper ... ...ada and Egypt’s sovereignty are very different from each other. The constitution of Egypt states that “sovereignty belongs only to the people who shall exercise and protect it.
In spite of this claim, non-citizens should be allowed to vote because the right to vote offers immigrants a more welcomed chance to contribute in the decision-making processes that take place in Canadian legislature. Seeing that this legislature administrates the rights and freedoms of the immigrant populations, it would only be just if immigrants had the right to elect candidates who spoke on behalf of their best interests. Additionally, non-citizens should not be denied the freedom of speech and by denying them of their right to vote, non-citizens are inclined to feel both oppressed, silenced and ostracized. Most countries such as the US allow non-citizen to vote, and given that Canada publically embraces mottos of equality and multiculturalism, it would be in the nation’s best interest to allow non-citizens the right to vote. The non-citizens living in Toronto own thirty percent of the residences.