The Fight For A Greener Canada Case Study

The Canadian Confederation was the process of establishing a new government within Canada during the 1860s. This was when three British colonies became the four provinces that would join under one government called the Dominion of Canada which was formed on July 1st, 1867. The provinces in the Dominion consisted of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. This event in history became important to Canadian society and was a turning point that lead to the current Canada. Even with this knowledge, the question rises: Why was Confederation so important to Canada? What lead to it? Was it truly necessary in Canadian history? In this paper, the importance of the Canadian Confederation will be discussed through its context and the events and

In the year of 1867 the nation we know as Canada came into being. The Confederation in this year only came about after things had been overcome. Many political and economic pressures were exerted on the colonies and a federal union of the colonies seemed to be the most practical method of dealing with these pressures and conflicts. While Confederation was a solution to many of the problems, it was not a popular one for all the colonies involved. In the Maritime colonies views differed widely on the topic. Some were doubtful, some were pleased, others were annoyed and many were hopeful for a prosperous future.1

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 movement of Quebec sovereignty, if it were to be implemented, would have substantial consequences, not only on Quebec but also on Canada as a whole. For this reason, the movement should be challenged. It is ironic how much of Quebec advocates for independence, yet the effects would be economically detrimental. If Quebec succeeded in being granted independence, it “would need to negotiate with the rest of Canada about assuming its share of federal debt” (Ragan, Christopher). This additional debt, which would equate approximately to 154 billion dollars, would be equal to 92 percent of the province’s gross domestic product (Ragan, Christopher). Undoubtedly, this would shake Quebec’s fiscal stability. There is also the possibility of Quebec

As time goes on, some countries become more relevant in the global sphere while others start to fade away. Canada is a country that only becomes more relevant as time goes on. Since being granted full sovereignty, Canada has had a growing role as a major world player. Much of their international growth has to do with its close ties to the United States and the United Kingdom. However, the country has also undergone huge change and refocusing on a domestic level. With influence from both Europe and the United States, Canada has a very unique system of governing. This paper will focus on a few major areas of Canada. It will look into the history of Canada, the structure of its government, its politics, and many of the major issues it faces today.

government is not the only government that has power; provincial governments have a role in

In 1963 the Quebecois movement for greater sovereignty started upon the election of the Parti Quebecois with it’s Quebec first policies after its rise following the failures of the current government led by Brian Mulroney after his handling of the meech lake accord. Mulroney’s way of dealing with this was to win Quebec over through Canada’s “recogniz[ing] the province of Québec as a distinct society within Canada.” these were widely accepted amongst Canadians until people such as Pierre Elliott Trudeau began to speak out against because of all the federal power these reforms would take away and give to the provincial

Government set up for both mock and official confederation bill agreed in the placement of Ottawa's capital. Similarities end shortly, as the official bill enforced representative seats based on representation by population and the colonies economic value, to provide fair representation of the colonies and still have the Canada's hold power over the Maritimes in final decisions. Our class' mock bill, on the other hand, suggested set representational seats for the sole reason of the Canadian provinces exerting complete control over the Maritimes.

Opposing the belief that a dominating leader is running Canada, Barker brings up several key realities of the Canadian government. He gives examples of several “… instances of other ministers taking action that reveal the limits prime-ministerial power,” (Barker 178). Barker conveys the fact that Canada is not bound by a dictatorial government, “…it seems that the prime minister cannot really control his individual ministers. At times, they will pursue agendas that are inconsistent with the prime minister’s actions,” (Barker 181). Both inside and outside government are a part of Canada and they can remind the prime minister that “…politics is a game of survival for all players,” (Barker 188). Barker refutes the misinterpretation of the Canadian government by acknowledging that a prime-ministerial government existing in Canada is an overstatement.

In theory, the Parliament is the most important institution in the Canadian government and all members of the parliament are equal. The Prime Minister is supposed to be primus inter pares, meaning first among equals. But over the years, the cabinet has become more institutionalized and less departmentalized. Hence the Prime Minister’s power has increased over the years. Canada is the one of the most decentralized federations in the

Today, Ontario and Quebec have maintained their 24 member senatorial status. The four Western provinces have 6 members each. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick both have 10 seats. Prince Edward Island was given 4 out of the original 24 Maritime senators. Together, Newfoundland and Labrador have a total of 6 members. Finally, Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories stand in the equation with 1 senator apiece. Along with the Senate`s original intentions, the principle of equality between the provinces is evidently lost. The Senate primarily fails because it was formerly created to balance out the representation by population which lies in the House of Commons however currently only seems to reinforce it. In fact, Canada’s central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, account for 60 percent of the seats in the House of Commons and almost half of the seats in the Senate at 46 percent.5 The inadequacy of regional representation is emphasized as the Canada West Foundation clearly states: “Canada is the only democratic federal system in the world in which the regions with the largest populations dominate both houses of the national legislature.“6 With an unelected Senate that no longer fulfills its role of equal regional representation and a House of Commons grounded on the representation of provinces proportional to their population, the legitimacy of Parliament has become a

As the government continued to evolve Canada needed a set system of rules that allowed for analyzing of regulations and government principals. It was extremely important that the three branches of government powers were kept separate so that there would be no infringement on the roles of the legislative and judicial branches. Administrative law consists of rules and ideologies which regulate how governmental departments and their agencies establish and oversee laws, set benchmarks in how other government organizations or authorities should and must carry out their roles and establishes the powers of higher courts and how they control the powers they are given. Most importantly, it deciphers what procedures one must follow and what solutions

As the 20th century comes to an end, Canada is a transcontinental nation whose interests and representatives span the face of the globe and extend into every sphere of human behaviour. However this was not always the case. When the four colonies of British North America united to create Canada on July 1, 1867, the new country's future was by no means secure. Canada was a small country, with unsettled borders, vast empty spaces, and a large powerful neighbour, the United States. Confronting these challenges was difficult for the young country. Though Canada was independent in domestic matters, Britain retained control over its foreign policy. Over the next fifty or so years, Canada's leaders and its

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.

This is a country of different nations and each nation allowed a different territory. Under the BNA Act those expansive matters fittingly treated nationally, like defence and post office, were under the federal government, while controls over property, local issues, districts, and most private law matters went to the provinces. The setting of the constitution was a hierarchy system from the colonial office to provincial legislatures . The compact theory lets us believe, that the provincial legislature were the privilege voice and the means of the expression of the people of those provinces. The federal government does not represent a voice of Ontarian or people of Québec. Most Canadian, believe that provinces represent more closely the interest of each their own people than the federal government does.