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.
With this in mind, many still reject a mixed member proportional system. Critics argue that the current method has produced a stable and effective government, while MMP would create an ineffective government. Wiseman feels that since Canada has been consistently stable, our electoral system does not need to be changed. Hiemstra and Jansen disagree with the plurality system that is currently in place for it does not produce fair representation and devalues citizen’s votes. Canadians must make a choice between the value of effectiveness and the values of justice and equity.
Many Canadians that I know, come Olympic time or another big world competition, rather that cheering for Canada, will cheer for their home country. A reason for this is because of our multicultural society. Because in Canada, Œ anything goes¹, there is no push to be Canadian. So they can do what they want and carry on with their cultural traditions. Because there is really no Canadian identity to begin with, it makes it all the easier for them to carry on as they wish.
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.
While this is a benefit for Canadian citizens, it is a drawbac... ... middle of paper ... ...r votes elect individuals who will represent their values and interests. While many will argue between whether a minority or majority government better represents Canadians, this essay has shown that regardless of the type of government, the Prime Minister is able to use his power to control his MP’s, media, and opposition members in order to fulfill a personal or hidden agenda. The sheer manipulation that is possible by a Prime Minister completely undermines the transparency and accountability of true democracy. References Jackson, D., & Jackson, R.J. (2002). Canadian government in transition (3rd ed.).
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.
Too most the British Monarchy in Canada’s government is merely regarded as ceremonial, symbolic and not something that actually holds power. Firstly, the British Monarchy’s power’s consists of just watching over traditions and seeing if there is an abuse in power. There powers do not affect the Canadian citizen’s life in any way. Secondly, in Canada the Monarchy’s biggest symbol is the royal family but most people consider more than 6 other Canadian symbols more important than the royal family. This sh... ... middle of paper ... ...f them, Canadians want to push forward and see change and new things and not to hold onto the colonial past.
Our combination of Anglophone and Francophone regions throughout our country and their ability to work together sets us apart from the rest of the world. Canada cannot function without Quebec just as Quebec cannot function without Canada. It has been said by many, that those who live in Quebec to want to separate because of their need and desire to have their own distinct culture and heritage. This is not a valid point because Canada's culture and heritage is largely defined by that of Quebec. Quebec separating from Canada would mean that Canada as a whole would lose that part of its history.
The first is called political asymmetry; this encompasses the various attitudes of the different provinces such as the culture, economic, social and political conditions and how it shapes the relationship between the provincial and federal governments (Brock 2008, 4). This can create a problem for the federal government because it means that they may ha... ... middle of paper ... ...ratic process but it at least protects the rights of Canadians and prevents all out domination the majority. 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.
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).