Hi, please see attached 6 powerpoint slides numbered two-eight. In each powerpoint there are three questions to answer and everything you need in order to answer the questions can be found in the respective powerpoint. Each discussion forum meaning all three questions need to be 250 words in total, each discussion forum has 2 classmates posts you will need to reply to in about 100-150 words. Please see below the classmates’ posts for each discussion forum. APA format. No plagiarims or use of AI tools.
Lecture Two- Forum two- 1 classmate post:
First classmate:
1.Viewing the constitution as a set of broad guidelines in need of constant updating aligns with a perspective that emphasizes flexibility and responsiveness to evolving societal norms and challenges. This approach suggests that while the original intent and principles of the constitution should be respected, they may need to be interpreted in light of modern circumstances and values. This viewpoint sees the constitution not as a rigid document but as a framework that can adapt over time to ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness in governing a dynamic society.
2. The enhanced role of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) due to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be seen as a positive development from a perspective that values the protection of individual rights and liberties. The Charter provides crucial safeguards against government overreach and ensures that laws passed by parliaments align with fundamental rights. The SCC’s ability to strike down laws that violate these rights serves as a check on legislative power, promoting accountability and upholding the rule of law. This judicial oversight helps maintain a balance between majority rule and minority rights, preventing potential abuses of legislative authority. Therefore, while judicial activism should be monitored to avoid undermining democratic processes, the Charter’s impact in reinforcing constitutional protections is generally viewed as beneficial in safeguarding civil liberties and promoting a just society.
3.The definition of a constitution as the fundamental rules governing a country highlights its pivotal role in establishing the rule of law and setting boundaries for government powers. It ensures that all individuals, including leaders, operate within these established rules, emphasizing that no one is above the law. While constitutions are formal, written documents, they require interpretation and occasional amendment to remain relevant over time. Judicial review, where courts strike down laws inconsistent with constitutional provisions, is essential in defending these foundational principles and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the constitution. Thus, constitutions serve as vital frameworks for stable governance and the protection of fundamental freedoms in society.
Lecture three- Forum three- 2 classmates posts:
First classmate:
1.For Prime Minister Trudeau on federal-provincial relations, focusing on working together closely (cooperative federalism) makes sense. This means respecting each province’s authority while teaming up on important issues like healthcare and infrastructure.
2.In Alberta, people worry about fair treatment from the federal government. They’re concerned about funding differences, environmental rules affecting their economy, and wanting more say in how resources are used. These worries are fair because they reflect real differences in needs and priorities across Canada. To fix them, there needs to be fairer sharing of federal money, policies that consider each region’s needs, and open talks to find solutions that work for everyone.
3.Quebec using the “Notwithstanding Clause” to pass laws on language or religious symbols shows its strong desire to protect its unique culture and language. This approach is controversial because it can override individual rights protected by Canada’s Charter. Moving forward, discussions should focus on finding a balance between cultural preservation and individual freedoms, making sure any limits on rights are fair and follow Canada’s laws while respecting Quebec’s cultural rights.
Second classmate:
Which of the historical strategies regarding federalism discussed above (see slides 9 and 10) makes the most sense for us to adopt today if any? How would you advise PM Trudeau to proceed regarding federal-provincial relations? Personally, I believe Canada would benefit from continuing with a system of decentralized asymmetry in its federal structure. This approach delegates responsibilities to provinces and territories, giving them greater control over policies tailored to each province’s specific needs. By adhering to the diversity of each province, federal symmetry would hinder intergovernmental decisions aimed at meeting these needs, potentially providing equal but not equitable resources. Instead, asymmetrical federalism would enable Canada to accommodate the unique needs and contexts of each region, while the federal government retains some powers over responsibilities that are uniform across the country. This approach allows autonomy for regions while maintaining a cohesive national identity. Therefore, I would advise Prime Minister Trudeau to continue and expand on a decentralized open asymmetrical federalism in a collaborative fashion to minimize conflict and create unity. Embracing linguistic diversity, Indigenous identity, and economic priorities such as natural resource distribution are all positive aspects of this approach.
2. With reference to the discussion and link available on slide 16, what are some of the concerns that some Canadians in Alberta have about the present federal system? Are these concerns legitimate? What might be done to resolve them? The concerns that spurred the Alberta Sovereignty Act from being used for the first time were the implementation of Trudeau’s net-zero emissions power grid campaign, a noble cause for reducing emissions by ’40-45% by 2030′ (Canadian Climate Change Institute). However, this would mean that Alberta power companies would have to limit the use of their highly polluting natural gas-burning plants, a provision they supposedly can only reach by 2050. As electricity falls under provincial jurisdiction, Alberta is on grounds to pass a motion that identifies a specific federal program or legislation as unconstitutional or causing harm to Albertans. Some Albertans may call Canada’s intrusion a destructive overreach of Ottawa, while others might argue it is entirely necessary.
3.Offer a comment upon Quebec’s use of the “Notwithstanding Clause” (or section 33 of the Charter) with regard to language or religious symbols laws (see slide 17) Quebec recently implemented Bill 21, otherwise known as the Secularism Law or, formally, ‘An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State.’ Its purpose is to ensure Quebec’s secularism through four distinct facets: separation of state and religion, the state’s religious neutrality, the equality of all citizens, and freedom of conscience and religion. However, these are entirely hypocritical claims. Bill 21, among its other controversial measures, primarily targets Muslims residing in Quebec in professional occupations or otherwise. It blatantly hides behind the notwithstanding clause and its five-year extension period, which allows this law to restrict a person’s freedom of religion. In Chapter 3, Section 8 of Bill 21, it states, ‘Personnel members of a body must exercise their functions with their face uncovered… for security reasons,’ unless it is for health reasons, handicaps, tied to their function, or the performance of a task. Essentially, only religious face coverings are deemed a ‘security’ risk. According to Section 16 of the bill, any employment that doesn’t adhere to the conditions of the act is ‘absolutely null’ unless a person was employed before the act was instilled, effectively stalling any persons of visible religious diversity from entering the workforce. While I understand that Quebec wishes to create religious neutrality and maintain its distinct individuality, the way it is doing so is a violation of human rights and extremely disappointing for Canada.
4. Rene Levesque, a former Quebec Premier.
References
‘2030 Emissions Reduction Plan’. Canadian Climate Institute, https://climateinstitute.ca/reports/2030-emissions-reduction-plan/. Accessed 25 June 2024.
Bill 21, An Act respecting the laicity of the State, First Session, Forty-Second Legislature, (2019, chapter 12)
https://ccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2019-06-16-Bill-21-Passes-and-Becomes-Law.pdf
Lecture four- Forum four- 2 classmates posts:
First classmate:
1. Should the GG be ready to use “prerogative powers” (i.e. the power to recognize a new PM or dissolve parliament) even against the request of a sitting PM? Why or why not?
The Governor General (GG) should exercise prerogative powers cautiously and preferably in alignment with the sitting PM’s advice. These powers, such as recognizing a new Prime Minister or dissolving parliament, are traditionally exercised on the advice of the PM to uphold democratic principles and the will of the electorate. And it is directly opposing a sitting PM’s request could undermine parliamentary democracy and the elected government’s legitimacy. However, in exceptional circumstances where a PM’s actions threaten constitutional order or the public interest, the GG may need to independently assess the situation. This delicate balance ensures stability and the functioning of government while safeguarding against abuse of power.
2. Should we be concerned about the expansion of power in the hands of the PM (see slides 10-14 and links)? Explain. Which possible reforms to limit the PM’s power do you most support? Do you have other ideas about how to limit the PM’s power?
The concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister is concerning due to its potential for unchecked authority. The PM’s extensive powers in cabinet appointments, party leadership, and parliamentary control can lead to reduced accountability and democratic oversight. Reform measures should aim to rebalance power by limiting the PM’s unilateral authority. Empowering party caucuses with meaningful votes on leadership and cabinet appointments could foster internal accountability. Additionally, passing statutes requiring public debate before significant decisions, such as committing troops, enhances transparency. Electoral reform to encourage coalition governments and Senate reform for effective scrutiny are also viable options. These reforms promote a more balanced distribution of power, ensuring democratic governance and accountability in Canada’s political system.
3. In the photo: Mary Simon and Sir Robert Laird Borden
Second classmate:
1.While upon first glance the idea of the Governor General using prerogative powers sounds to be meant to give them them an upper hand on the Canadian government, it is an incredibly important tool in the event that a Prime Minister should want to act in contradiction to the ideals of the constitution as well as the will of society. Overall I don’t believe there is ever a situation in which a check on the power held by the government could be a bad thing, at the end of the day when a political position holds as much power as the office of the Prime Minister, we must remember the limits of said power.
2. I do believe the nation is already becoming very aware and increasingly concerned about how centralized power has become in Canadian politics with power very heavily inclined to the hands of the Prime Minister. I do believe we should be raising concern at how much power has become increasingly centred toward a single position as not only is it undemocratic to direct such a vast amount of power to a single office, but one of the main concerns of the Canadian people at the moment is a sense of inaction in many areas, people feel ignored by their government. Perhaps if powers were allocated to a variety of positions rather than a single one, concerns raised by the people would be addressed in a timely fashion in order for the everyday citizen to feel supported by their government.
Who Am I? 1: Governor General, Mary Simon
Who Am I? 2: Former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Laird Borden
Lecture five- forum five- 2 classmates posts:
first classmate:
One key issue with the Canadian Senate, is the lack of democratic legitimacy since Senators are appointed rather than elected, often reflecting the Prime Minister’s biases. Reforming the Senate to include elected representatives could enhance its democratic accountability. Additionally, modern reforms could address regional imbalances by adjusting representation to reflect current demographic realities, ensuring fair and proportionate influence for all provinces and territories. Introducing measures such as public hearings for appointments, fixed term limits, and diversity quotas would improve transparency, accountability, and inclusivity, aligning the Senate with contemporary Canadian values. On the other hand, the Senate often duplicates the functions of the House of Commons without adding substantial value, and its maintenance is costly. Abolishing the Senate could redirect resources to areas like healthcare and education.
The fact that Members of Parliament (MPs) in Canada voted with their parties over 95% of the time in the last parliament raises concerns about the health of the democratic process. On one hand, party cohesion and discipline can ensure a unified and consistent legislative agenda, making it easier to implement policies and govern effectively. This level of unity can be particularly beneficial during times of crisis or when strong leadership is necessary to navigate complex issues. However, such high levels of party-line voting can also undermine the principles of representative democracy. MPs are elected to represent the interests and views of their constituents, not just their party. When MPs consistently vote according to party directives rather than their own judgment or the will of their constituents, it can lead to a disconnect between the electorate and their representatives. This can diminish public trust in the political system and reduce the accountability of individual MPs.
The failure of individual MPs to “restore decorum” to House proceedings, despite their campaign promises, can be attributed to several systemic and cultural factors within the political environment. The increasing polarization of politics prioritizes scoring political points and defending positions over collaborative and respectful discourse. This makes it difficult for any single MP to influence the overall tone of the House, as broader party dynamics often overshadow individual efforts. Additionally, the strong emphasis on party discipline means that MPs are required to follow the party line, including in their behaviour and rhetoric. Efforts to restore decorum might be seen as secondary to maintaining party unity and advancing the party’s agenda, especially when heated exchanges and confrontations can be used to galvanize support and media attention.
The person in the picture is Jasraj Singh Hallan
second classmate:
1. Given the large dissatisfaction with the Senate, it is important to address key concerns through reforms rather than rushing toward abolition. Issues like unequal representation and redundancy could be tackled by changing the Senate’s structure and refining its role as a revising body. Electing Senators with expertise in law, health, or education, ensuring equal representation, and holding them accountable through fixed terms could inject fresh perspectives without compromising regional representation. Regardless of the path chosen—reform or abolition—this would be a lengthy, costly process demanding extensive debate to align the Senate with current Canadian needs and democratic ideals.
2. While party discipline can increase parliamentary processes, its use raises concerns about democratic health. Under party discipline, party leaders have considerable power, potentially overriding dissenting voices within their party. This could lead to unchecked legislative agendas and marginalize MPs who prioritize independent judgment over party loyalty. Despite its appeal for presenting a unified front, unchecked party discipline risks undermining democratic principles and the representation of diverse viewpoints, impacting both politicians and ordinary Canadians.
3. The current state of the House of Commons doesn’t allow for much display of integrity. In today’s media landscape, where attention spans are divided, politicians compete for the relevance of viral distractions. Controversial debates over fundamental issues like individual rights attract public attention, enhancing political visibility and influencing electoral outcomes. This competitive environment rewards provocative behaviour, overshadowing reasoned discourse. Moreover, defining acceptable conduct in the House remains controversial, balancing the need for change against preserving democratic debate and avoiding perceptions of bias or suppression.
Lecture six- forum six- classmates posts:
first classmate:
1. Televised public hearing before parliamentary approval of new SCC justices is so good for several reasons. First of all, it makes the process transparent, as it gives some general information and understanding to the public weather the new judges meet the qualifications for the position or not. Secondly, it courage’s the new judges in two different ways to perform well. First, they feel motivated being on public eyes, so they get more confidence and will try their best to prove themselves to the public. Secondly, they will avoid activities that make them look bad in public eyes. Therefore, being watched by public, they will feel some sort of pressure that will push them to perform according to law and peoples best of interest.
2. My opinion hasn’t changed, and I am still against “Notwithstanding clause.” While the use of “Notwithstanding Clause” may preserve Québec’s commitment to identity and cultural values within Canada, but it also raises the concerns of individual rights, balance of power between federal and provincial jurisdictions. It gives government the ability to override these fundamental rights, weakening the protection given by charter of rights, which leads to abuse of power and civil liberties may be compromised.
3. McLachlin was constantly emphasized on maintaining judicial independence and guaranteeing accountability to the public. In her interviews, she has always spoken about the balance between these two words, contending that the judges must be free to decide cases impartially and according to law, without any public, or political pressure. This response draws attention to fundamental principle of the judicial system. Judicial independence is important for judges to be able to make decision based on law, which also in return maintains public confidence in the impartiality of the court. Moreover, by addressing accountability, McLachlin understands the responsibility of the public, and makes sure that judges do not act in an unaccountable manner.
second classmate:
I think there should be televised public hearings before the parliamentary approval of SCC justices. The television serves as a key source of information, educating viewers on a variety of topics and imparting knowledge that helps both individuals and the broader society understand nuances. TV can provide insight into the country’s legal system.It would increase transparency and allow the public to witness the qualifications and suitability of candidates,enhancing accountability. Canadians would also learn about various kinds of crimes, legal rights, penalties, and other aspects of the justice system.
Being from Quebec, I have observed how some of my friends have been negatively impacted by the removal of religious symbols. In my view, implementing the “Notwithstanding Clause” infringes upon every right, especially when it comes to its implications regarding to our differences over the ban on religious symbols.
Beverley McLachlin, the former chief justice, made significant contributions to the SCC throughout her term. Her remarks about reconciliation with Indigenous peoples were particularly noteworthy.
Lecture seven- forum seven- 2 classmates posts:
first classmate:
While we do not have a simple two-party system (as in places like the U.S.), only two parties have dominated and continue to do so in Canadian federal elections. Why do you think this is so, and is it a good thing?
Despite using the First Past the Post system, we still see the domination of two parties similar to the United-States. I believe that it is due to human nature. Polarity is easier to digest, and there will always be two combatting parties. These two parties are opposites in their ideologies. It represents the division within Canada that we similarly see in the US. Smaller parties like NDP and the Green Party will be lumped with the Liberals since it appeals to the same or similar demographic. However, instead of voting for the smaller parties, they vote for the biggest two since they may feel as if they are wasting a vote. To reiterate, they feel as if voting for other parties waters down the voter’s impact. I don’t believe that this is a good thing, however I do not believe that it could be changed. There will always been two dominating parties.
Some worry about growing support for “populist” parties like the PPC here in Canada and often compare this development to larger movements in other countries (i.e. Trump in U.S.). Is there any reason for concern about the rise of parties like the PPC here in Canada?
The rise of parties like the PPC is concerning. Their ideologies cater to people who are reminiscing about a close minded and xenophobic Canada. They attribute Canadian values to racist and sexist ideologies. As for the populist school of thought, I believe that it will always be a part of our society. Many feel wronged by those in power, and to varying degrees. The elite and “bureaucracy” are easy scapegoats. There is concern for the rise of parties like these. More people will vote for far right (or left) populist parties as frustration from the current leader. These parties only seek to oppose the main parties and not look for a path forward.
With reference to one or more of the video clips linked on slides 14 and 15 (and your own previous experience or study), which party leader (or leaders) most successfully demonstrates what we can and should expect of people in their position. What makes a good or effective party leader?
Each video demonstrates different qualities of the party leaders. We should expect a calm, even tempered leader who can prioritize issues that are being brought to light when information is dumped onto them. They need to be able to see both sides of the situation and bring solutions that will bridge the gap. Although I do not agree with Pierre Poilievre, I do believe that his ability to remain clear cut and calm is refreshing to hear. However, I find that rather than targeting meaningful issues, he sensationalizes issues that the Trudeau government is facing. That is how he is gaining popularity- he is portraying himself as the relief from Trudeau. The other videos do portray the leaders in their best abilities. The best way to test a party leader is to watch how they act in the heat of the moment.
In the photo: Kim Campbell
second classmate:
1. Only two parties dominate Canadian federal elections, and this can be attributed to factors such as their historical strength and influence, the electoral system, and the culture of politics in Canada. The historical legacy of the two dominant parties, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, has established them as the leading contenders for government leadership. Whether this is a good thing or not can be subject to debate. On the one hand, a two-party dominance can lead to a lack of diversity in political representation and ideas, potentially leaving some voices unheard. On the other hand, it can provide stability and clarity to the political landscape, making it easier for voters to understand their choices and for the government to develop coherent policies.
2. The growing support for ‘populist’ parties like the PPC (People’s Party of Canada) in Canada does raise concerns for several reasons. Similar movements in other countries have led to political polarization, divisive rhetoric, and challenges to traditional democratic norms. The rise of such parties may indicate a shift towards more extreme or exclusionary political ideologies, which can potentially undermine social cohesion and inclusive governance. Therefore, the rise of parties like the PPC in Canada warrants careful attention and consideration due to its potential negative impacts on political discourse and societal harmony, thereby invoking a sense of concern in the audience.
3. Jagmeet Singh is a good example of someone who demonstrates what we expect from people in those positions. He listens to the voices of Canadians and speaks up for what he believes should happen. He has taken a stand for Canadians through many problems, like the financial situation in which he is trying to fight for the middle class. He will continue to do whatever he can to help Canadians. A good and effective party leader will always think for the benefit of Canadians and do whatever in their power to help their country grow.
Photo – Kim Campbell Former Prime Minister of Canada
Lecture eight-forum eight- 2 classmates posts:
first classmate:
In my opinion, Canada should change its electoral system to better reflect the real preferences of its voters. Based on the lecture, I learned that the current first-past-the-post system often results in a big difference between the percentage of popular votes a party gets and the number of seats it wins in Parliament. A clear example would be back in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections. Parties with broad national support, like the People’s Party of Canada, gained a notable share of votes but failed to secure any seats, while regionally focused parties like the Bloc Québécois won a number of seats with a similar vote percentage. In my opinion, this misrepresentation undermines the democratic principle of fair representation. Additionally, the current electoral system can discourage the election of minorities and women, as it does not promote a balanced and inclusive candidate list. If I were to change it, I would suggest leaning towards a proportional representation system, as it would ensure that every vote counts equally and that Parliament more accurately reflects the diverse views of the Canadian electorate.
In my opinion, to increase political participation in Canada, especially among younger people, I suggest making voting easier and more accessible. One effective way that I suggest is to introduce online voting, this will allow people to cast their ballots from their devices. Adding on, educational programs that teach the importance of voting and how the electoral system works can motivate young voters. Maybe an out of line suggestion, is making election day a national holiday or allowing voting over several days could also be helpful. Lastly, I suggest using social media platforms to encourage youth with campaigns and providing more information about the running candidates and their platforms can make politics more relevant and interesting to younger Canadians.
With regards to watching the video linked from slide 6, the video “The Psychology of Voting” discusses several factors that influence voting behaviour in Canada. I learned that these factors include personal values, party loyalty, and the appeal of party leaders. In my opinion, voters often consider their own economic situation and how party policies might affect them. Social influences like family, friends, and media also play a big role. Adding on, key issues like healthcare, the economy, and climate change can rock a voters’ decisions. From my understanding, understanding these motivations can help us better understand why we Canadians vote the way we do.
second classmate:
not post yet, will add it as soon as possible.
