Liberal Democracy In Canada

One of the most misinterpreted aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the freedom of expression. Group organizations have misused this much too often. In the past, many extremist groups have misused this right to protect themselves. A great example is the Westboro Baptist Church. This church is one of the many groups across North America that uses the Charter to protect themselves. The Charter protects them even though their actions and messages are harmful and not beneficial to society. If the Charter was to recognize these groups as dangerous, they wouldn’t have the chance to misuse these freedoms. Also, the fact that if a Canadian citizen were to use the excuse of the freedom of expression to defend their actions, they wouldn’t

The necessity to limit the rights and freedoms of Canadians is illustrated and reinforced through the governments use of reasonable limits, ‘notwithstanding clause’ to limit individual rights and freedoms, and the occasional need for the government to have power extended above and beyond the limits prescribed in the Charter.

Understanding what it means to be “free” and determining whether Canada is indeed a “free’ country we can compare Brian Tamanaha’s four themes of liberty from “On the Rule of Law” to see if Canada shares similarities with that of what Tamanaha speaks of. In “On the Rule of Law” Tamanaha refers to the four themes of liberty, being political liberty, legal liberty, personal liberty, and institutionalized perversion of liberty, which he notes as characteristics of beneficial sacrifices that we give up as “free” individuals for personal security and social order. Living under laws can limit the full extent of freedom that we may have as people, but it can also be noted, that with no laws we are potentially a danger to ourselves and others. In modern society, primarily democratic societies, having no laws is simply not a reality so when we do give up our freedom, this exchange for stability must be beneficial to us and not an agreement to live under state oppression. Observing the way Canada is formed and while we are not entirely “free” living under Canadian laws, however, due to the country’s incentives taken to ensure that our basic liberties are secured it be seen that citizens indeed benefit from the sacrifices they make limiting their freedom, yet still being “free” to a certain degree. 1

By drawing to the discipline of Political Science, the article “Reinventing Canada-Stephen Harper’s Conservative Revolution” by Jordan Michael Smith discusses the power that prime minister Stephen Harper has in the Canadian Government. First, Smith argues that to some extend Harper holds a lot of power when it comes to developing foreign policies with other nations. Second, this article also analyses the privileges the Prime minister has in parliament as the head of state with a great amount of power. Lastly, some of Smith’s points can be criticized for their inconsistent biased approach, and the fact that some of his accusations on Prime minister Harper are solely based on his opinion.

“Canada is widely considered one of the best places in the world to live.” (The Globe & Mail, 2017) With its stable economy,cultural and religious diversity, wide variety of public services, and strong structure of government, the quality of life in Canada is undoubtedly amongst the best. Throughout the years, the Canadian government has developed into a system that provides liberty, diversity and equality for it’s people but this progression would have never taken place without the leadership of certain Canadian figures from history.

The phenomenon of entrenching the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not new to Canadian citizens, but it is a notion that is perceived in several ways. Many view it as a feature that disregards the fundamental right to democracy, an integral part of Canada’s political system. A functioning democracy is an important factor in providing citizens with the utmost rights and freedoms deserved. Society’s full potential is not being achieved if there are individuals who believe their principle of democracy is being violated. This violation nonetheless, true or not, should not be ignored.

The Canadian government takes the responsibility of providing a fair and just system into society. The Charter summarizes every critical right and freedom a Canadian beholds, which includes, Legal, Mobility, Equality, and Democratic Rights, also Freedoms of Association, Conscience and Religion, Peaceful Assembly, and Thoughts Expression Speech Media, are all part of how governance by the federal government creates order in our society. If a rule or law infringes on the individual fundamental freedoms or rights, it could be challenged and hopefully be justified.For instance, in the case of the communication barrier, the government neglected the needs of interpreters for deaf people and refused to pay for them. The British Columbia government infringed on the equality right of deaf people by refusing to provide interpreters for people with communication disabilities, claiming it would be a waste of taxpayers money. Robin Eldridge, (deaf person)needed interpreters for a doctor's appointment and Linda Warren had her first born child taken from her without consult or explanation. The Warrens and Robin Eldridge challenged the ruling due to their belief of a violation for section 15, equality rights.

Since its inception in 1982 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, very much like its primary architect Pierre Trudeau, has been one of the most celebrated yet controversial elements of Canadian politics and governance. Revealing how this dynamic emerged requires a nuanced understanding of the motivation behind the Charter and the techniques it employed to succeed. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, like the entire patriation process, was motivated by and mobilized support through, constitutionally enshrining democratic core values, multiculturalism and a sense of nationalism. However, it should not be seen as merely a symbolic gesture on the part of Britain and Canada or merely a strengthening of core values. Instead it was a fundamental reinvention of Canadian federalism that shifted power away from the provinces to the federal government and from the Parliament to the courts. This was accomplished by incentivizing provincial acceptance, developing common interests, and, as a result, formalizing a national identity where the protection and expansion of core values was encouraged as fundamental. This dynamic allowed the reinvention to, by and large, succeed.

Canadian democracy is a cornerstone to the shared identity of Canadians. The principles of democracy such as, individual rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of press are fundamental to Canadian democracy and identity. Without the fundamental ideas of democracy, the Canadian identity or the shared values that the majority of Canadians participate in would not exist. For it needs a foundation of constitutional rights in order to protect basic elements of society, which then allow for additional values to flourish. In the recent 2015 federal election, the Liberals, led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, ran upon the platform that the actions of the incumbent conservative government, led by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, were in stark

A Liberal democracy may take different constitutional forms, for example; Australia is a constitutional monarchy, an offset of a liberal democracy and it shares this form of government with the subject of this essay; Canada! Protection of Human Rights Canada is often regarded as a leading country regarding progressiveness and social justice, especially now with their current Prime Minister- Justin Trudeau. However, there are still many areas of inequality, primarily in the treatment of Indigenous people, specifically Indigenous women. Some topics of discussion relevant to Canada today are; − Indigenous rights − Abortion − Gender Equality THE MISTREATMENT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

The evolution of the democratic system in Canada has seen an increase in the power wielded by the executive within Canadian legislatures. This trend takes two forms. First, the authority wielded by the ‘first minister’ within the executive (White 2005, 31; Malloy 2004, 212). Second, the aggregate increase of cabinets since the eighteenth century (White 2005, 34). Despite this, there are some mechanisms in place to circumvent this situation. These include the concepts of ‘responsible government,’ which is to say that government is to be

This critical analysis will examine Donald E. Blake’s chapter, Electoral Democracy in the Provinces and Territories, in Christopher Dunn’s book, Provinces. This chapter discusses the “electoral procedures and outcomes in the provinces and territories as an indicator of the quality of democracy” (Blake 115) that Canadian provinces and territories demonstrate. Blake introduces this topic in the fourth paragraph of the introduction. It is a clear thesis statement of the focus and purpose of this chapter. The introduction of the chapter aims to establish a preliminary guide about the various electoral procedures from different provinces and territories. With a few examples, such as Quebec and Ontario’s government, and the Yukon

Canada and the United States are two of the largest and developed countries in the world. They share the same border, they both speak English, and they have similar cultures. However, they still have different areas consider of which countries serve better in the needs of its citizens. One way that America does better than Canada to its citizens is the freedom of

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms simply referred to as the “Charter”, is a significant document in regards to the Canadian constitution. Its primary aim is to uphold individual rights and freedoms and promote equality in administering justice. However, its passage in 1982 has led to increased controversies given that the Charter gives courts more power in interpreting its provisions while sidelining the legislature (Boyd 118). This means that the advent of this Charter was the end of parliamentary supremacy in Canada. As a result, the judiciary has been mandated to determine whether or not federal and provincial laws in Canada are in line with the Charter. The laws that contradict the provisions of this charter are removed from both provincial and federal policies given that they are deemed to infringe individual rights and freedoms. This has added more responsibilities to the judiciary in order for it to repeal certain laws that it considers unfit in relation to the Charter (Boyd 118). From a general point of view, the judicial decisions made with respect to the Charter from 1982 have worked to uphold the fundamental freedoms in section 2, the legal rights of section 7 to 14, and equality rights stipulated in section 15 as will be discussed below using different court cases. However, the courts sometimes encounter Charter challenges when dealing with important policies, especially when ruling in favor of a particular statue would undermine the purpose of the

This raises the question, would a form of PR, namely STV, be suitable as a Provincial electoral model in Manitoba? This author believes that although an STV system would result in a more diverse provincial legislature, forcing the traditional provincial brokerage parties to more fulsomely represent minority concerns such as Francophone and First Nations; the system can yield erratic results and open the door to single issue or fringe parties that would leave the legislature vulnerable to populism. I offer that the current SMP electoral system, with the emerging strength of third party influence in the Manitoban system, could be leveraged with policies such as mandated percentages of First Nations and Francophone representation in the legislature. This would allow the government to proceed with purpose whilst giving traditionally marginalized groups a guaranteed say in the legislature and, depending on the percentages and electoral results, perhaps even a balance of power.