With the rise of democratic power in the world’s societies, comes also many problems that plague the citizens in those societies with regards of how the government uses and applies that democratic power. The structure of the Canadian government is an example, as are many other democratic organizations, of how despite the fact that the power is elected by the people of Canada, it also has created an unbalanced entity that creates somewhat of a disadvantage to the citizens. Within the fundamental documents that grant the people of Canada the rights and freedoms they are entitled to as well as outline the extent of the government’s power, also provide the government the ability to veto bills that were voted in by the population. In addition, the …show more content…
However, in Section 33, there exists the “notwithstanding clause”. Section 33 of the Charter allows the provincial government power to override rules over bills that have been deemed not suitable by courts. More specifically, it allows the power to override rulings on bills pertaining to violation constitutional freedoms and rights, such as the practice of a religion . Although the notwithstanding clause does not enable governments (federal, provincial and/or territorial legislatures) to deprive people of a Charter right or freedom, it does however protect the law that has been passed from being struck down and removed. Although it is not a permanent solution, this still demonstrates the fact that the government can suppress the freedoms and rights given to citizens by the Charter albeit not …show more content…
Here it sees another fundamental flaw that lessens the sense of democracy in our government. The Senate is recognized as the chamber of “sober second thought”, as it goes through in much finer detail bills that have been passed through the House of Commons . Although the Senate was created to counterbalance the partisan representation in the House of Commons with equal regional representation, Senators are usually sitting as members of political parties and therefore somewhat render the role of the Senate moot. As Senators are appointed members, they are selected from regions, as required, but are appointed specifically by the major party in power. This situation, put in context anywhere else is clearly a conflict of interest and furthers the problem that is present in the House of Commons, party
“The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within”. (Gandhi) A lawful and fair democracy is one that represents the people, where the will of the people is done not where the government’s will is enforced. Here in Canada we believe a democratic government is well suited for its people but like any other system it has its flaws. This country was a model democracy. Canada’s wealth, respect for legal, human and civil rights almost promises that this country has the potential to uphold a legitimate democracy. Reading headlines today concerning the state of democracy in Canada we can see how our political system is slipping. A democracy should uphold the rights of its people rather than the rights of a
The entrenchment of rights in the Canadian Constitution comes after long experience with a system of parliamentary supremacy. The American judicial tradition of treating the written constitution as fundamental law cannot have an instant Canadian counterpart. Thus, it does not follow that the Canadian courts will necessarily claim a role comparable to that of courts in the United States, nor is it clear that the representative bodies in Canada would tolerate such a judicial assertion of power. Opposition by government bodies to the Charter have already occurred in Canada, where the Parti Quebecois government of Quebec invoked the “notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” clause for the purpose of protecting their language laws from attack under the charter. This report will attempt to note some of the common and distinctive features of the text of the two constitutions as well as to how they differ.
In contrast to the Canadian parliamentary system, which has remained fairly static and unchanged since Victorian times, the Canadian legal system has undergone a tremendous evolution over the last century and a half. When looking at Canadian history in depth one discovers the repeated movement to take power from the superiors or the overruling and place it into the palms of the people. As seen through examples our western law (canadian law) has slowly branched off from the supremacy of God (mosaic law), to the supremacy of the monarchy (bristish law), finally to a realization of the importance of citizen participation in the creating, governing, and administrating of the laws (Greek law).
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important milestone in Canadian history. An effort through rigorous debate and compromise gave birth to this document that defines our collective values and principles by guaranteeing and protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. Prior to the Charter, there was no gurantee in Canada that rights and freedoms would not be taken away by legislation. The Charter also allows courts to render the constitutional duty so that any decisions made are consistent with those rights and freedoms. The Charter was established firmly in “The Constitution Act, 1982”, with the declaration of this act Canada escaped from the severe practice of concept of parliamentary supremacy. The Charter has an enormous effect on court’s decision power to award justice to important and debatable issues about policies that affect public. In awarding the verdict courts are not even reluctant to rewrite laws that violate the testament of the Charter. The judges have a duty to regulate the rulings of both provincial and federal governments which, disagree with the root value of Charter.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms upholds the individual rights of all Canadians. Agree or disagree with the following statement.
The electoral system in Canada is also known as a “first past the post” system. “First past the post” means the candidate with the highest number of votes wins the congressional seat, whereas the other candidates with a lower number of votes don’t get any representation. There are many cons to this system that will be highlighted throughout this essay. I will argue that the electoral system requires reform due to the discrepancies between the percentage of popular votes and the number of seats won. Canada’s electoral system has many problems and is not seen as fully democratic since it has provided poor representation for both candidates that win and lose. Candidates can win seats with less than 50% of votes, meaning that even if the majority of the nation, or province did not vote for the candidate they still win the election as they consume the highest number of votes among the parties. FPTP allows two people in different ridings to get the same number of votes with the outcome of one winner since the distribution of votes and seats are unequal. The system can also encourage strategic voting such as not voting for whom you think is the best fit but voting for the candidate that seems most likely to win in order to beat candidate you dislike. FPTP leads to an imbalance of power and has the potential for corruption.
The supreme court of Canada has overruled numerous laws put forward by the Harper government. In 2010, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper was opposed to the Vancouver Eastside supervised injection site. Stephen Harper took a conservative approach to the issue, he said that “we as a government will not use taxpayer’s money to fund drug use” (Rachlis, 2010). The Prime Minister did not recognize the potential benefits to Canadian society as he focused on budgeting, without recognizing the benefit to public welfare that would reduce disease, death and have a rehabilitative effect on participants of the program. Judicial decisions play an influential role in the provisions of the Constitution because their interpretation is essential to understanding and employing it. In this essay I will argue that the traditional role of the judges has evolved into having a determinative function of law, that allows judges to uphold citizen’s rights and preserve justice in Canada. Through analyzing judicial review, I will demonstrate how judge’s role is much more than an interpretation of law through exploring the idea of Charter proofing, integrating public opinion in decisions, production of common law and judicial activism that serve in creating a climate that is adaptive to new issues that may arise and free from arbitrary rule.
Did you know that the current leader of the New Democratic Party used to be a Liberal? Thomas Mulcair became the leader of the New Democratic Party after the death of Jack Layton. The New Democratic Party (NDP) is one of the major federal political parties in Canada. The NDP was formed in 1961 as the result of the merger of two different parties. There are numerous reasons why the people of Canada should vote for the NDP. Citizens of Canada should vote for the New Democratic Party because if elected, they promise to improve the environmental situation, provide better health care for Canadians, and improve the economy in Canada.
Canada’s friendly neighbor to the South, the US, has an electoral system that is composed of 3 separate elections, one of them deciding the head of state. The president elected by the people and he or she is the determining person of the country’s political system. In the US runs like a majority system” In Canada, however, elections are held slightly differently. Citizens vote for a Member of Parliament in a 308-seat house and candidates win not by a majority, unlike in the US, but by a plurality. This means that a candidate can actually win by simply having more votes than the other candidates. This method of representative democracy, in general, does not cause too much controversy in a global scope but has
The Canadian Prime Minister presents the illusion that this so-called democratic Canada is run by the will of the people and attempts to maintain this image, yet the truth is that the power stays
F.L. Morton examines the political impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by comparing pre-Charter practices to post-Charter developments in five different areas: judicial behaviour, public policy, interest group behaviour, federalism, and executive behaviour. Morton presents the Charter through its continuity and change, beginning with the move away from Britain’s “unwritten constitution” and distinguishing the doctrine as constitutional supremacy that still depends on public opinion. He argues that due to the Charter’s constitutionality, Canadian courts are able to have a more active and influential role in interpreting and enforcing the listed rights which is a negative development in Canadian democracy.
Good morning everyone. Today I will be covering David Docherty’s book Legislatures. The work covers various aspects of the functions, procedures and evolution of Canadian legislatures, both provincial and federal. The analysis undertaken by Docherty, as expressed in his own words, constitutes an audit of the existing legislatures and their procedures as they have historically operated as well as in their modern iterations.
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.
Since the Constitution Act of 1982, the Supreme Court has gained the power to be the final court of appeal for Canada and use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a way to interpret human rights in a new codified form. This new found capability, to rule whether or not a law was constitutional, puts much importance into a sole branch of government that remains unelected. For this reason, among many, the Supreme Court of Canada much show their transparency within their process or else risk accusations of judicial corruption (Gall, Makin, & Rémillard, n.d.). In other words, the Court must remain accountable to the people as is the rule of law to uphold the understanding of Canada as a Liberal democracy (Malcolmson, Bateman, Myers & Baier, 2016, p. 10).
In 2011, three legal and constitutional scholars, Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis and Lori Turnbull set out to write a book detailing what they believed to be obvious and egregious errors in the way in which the current form of responsible government as it was practiced in the Canadian federal government, fell short of operating within basic democratic parameters. Canada has a system that is based one the Westminster system, in which its the Constitution act of 1867 is influenced by British principles and conventions. “Democratizing the Constitution reforming responsible government” is a book that makes an analysis for the reform of responsible government in Canada. The authors believe that from the unclear rules, pertaining to the role and power of the prime minster foresees for a failing responsible government. In this essay the functions of the government , conventions of the constitution, the a proposal for reform will be addressed.