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.
There are Canadian citizens who thought that the Canadian government we have is perfect, citizens who believed that every aspect of the government was truly democratic, and citizens who believe that government could do no wrong. Truly this group of believers has been living a lie. In our Canadian system of government, large aspects within are far from democratic and need to be changed. Liberal-minded people will cry out for a change in order for government to serve the people better, and on the other hand the more conservative thinkers will argue that no change is needed because our government is efficient and considerate. However, our voting system, our Senate, and the power vested to the Prime Minister are far from democratic, do not meet the actual needs of the people and definitely need to be addressed.
In Canadian politics, a policy paper is referred to as a “white paper”. It does not imply anything racially related as many people initially assume. This 1969 white paper proposed the abolition of the Indian Act, due to the fact that it created circumstances which resulted in Aboriginals being treated differently than others within Cana... ... middle of paper ... ...special status for Quebec and any other province, yet he was willing to recognize the historic rights of Aboriginal peoples so long as recognizing did not entail the actual granting of special status. Like any politician, Pierre Elliot Trudeau made his mistakes. Aboriginal people also have their reasons to criticize him.
Quebec has threatened Canada throughout history with separation from Canada. These threats have not been ignored, the rest of Canada realizes the devastating impact economically and politically if Quebec did separate but they cannot reach a compromise. Canada has as tried to encourage Quebec not to separate from Canada. In 1995 Quebec held its second referendum on sovereignly and the separatists narrowly lost the province wide. The province brought the case to the Supreme court of Canada to rule on the legal guidelines of unilateral secession under Canadian and international law, in the end some say the federalists (those not wanting to separate) came out on top.
This decision created a stain upon the Trudeau administration as he had little to base his position on. Although the motion to enact the War Measures Act was democratically passed, Canada itself became a nation ruled in despotic manner: democracy had taken a step backwards as civil liberties were tarnished and national security took precedence.
Instead peace can be reached in one unifying set of values. It is true that French Canadians were discriminated against in the past. It is true that events such as the Red River Rebellion and Conscription Crises of 1917 and 1942 may have led Quebeckers to logically come to the conclusion that they were discriminated against and oppressed in Canada, and that at the time, the only way to be free from that oppression was to be a sovereign country on its own. However, that was what happened in the past. Since then, the Canadian government has realised the error of its ways and done all they can to promote equality between the English and the French...
In Canada, the government has formally recognized its historical wrongdoings, which is surely a positive step; however, what I would argue to be the marker for achieved reconciliation, is that Aboriginal peoples would hold a standard of living equal to that of the mainstream Canadian populace, and where the anger and animosity that exist between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals would have disappeared. Hope is not lost for the aboriginal plight, but if achieving socio-economic balance is the end goal, then evidently, there is much work to be done.
The reaction to a majority vote in Quebec and their subsequent succession. Quebec has struggled with a need to be maitres chez nous “masters of their own house” (Young, 1998). Many attempts at resolving Quebec's issues has resulted in tensions from both sides. Because Quebec has a strong national identity, and do not define themselves as strictly Canadian, Quebec is seen as difficult, unyielding and discontented. Quebec's separation perhaps is inedible and the future of Canada questionable.
4.3. Ethnic Cleavages Scholars largely debate cultural diversity as a cause of decentralization. “The provincial governments are strong in Canada because Canadians have distinctive needs and interests that cannot be accommodated within a single national government, and also because of Canadians actually want strong provincial governments and a relatively weak federal one” (Stevenson, “Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations” 90). This argument was strategically counter argued by sociologist John Porter in The Vertical Mosaic. “Even if it were true, it would not necessarily explain the power exercised by provincial governments” (Stevenson, “Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations, 91).
These two articles will help me support my position on the issue. Olthius and Townshend are in favour of native sovereignty within Canada based on historical and moral grounds. These authors believe there is a difference in perceptions between native and non-native Canadians regarding the jurisdiction over Canadian territory. In their essay, they write that Aboriginal people believe the Canadian state is oppressive and usurps the powers of Aboriginal people, while most non-aboriginals would be unlikely to question the status of the Canadian state. The essay contends that before European settlement, First Nations people had stability in their economic and political structures.