Psy 315 Week 4 Research Paper

Pierre Elliot Trudeau was arguably one of the most vivacious and charismatic Prime Ministers Canada has ever seen. He wore capes, dated celebrities and always wore a red rose boutonniere. He looked like a superhero, and often acted like one too. Some of the landmark occurrences in Canadian history all happened during the Trudeau era, such as patriating the constitution, creating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the 1980 Quebec Referendum. However, it is Trudeau’s 1969 “white paper” and the Calder legal challenge which many consider to be one of his most influential contributions to Canadian history.

“Gens du pays, c 'est votre tour, De vous laisser parler d 'amour”, those were the only words to be heard across the arena, as Rene Levesque, then Prime Minister of Quebec delivered his speech on the defeat of the Sovereignty Association Referendum. His speech, “À la prochaine fois” (“Until next time”) was one that he hoped to never deliver during his lifetime. On May 20th, 1980, the long awaited referendum that would lead to negotiations with Canada for the province, Quebec, resulted in a resounding no, with a 59.5% vote. (Lévesque, 1980) The defeat marked a resounding blow and stalemate to Levesque’s hopes of establishing an independent Quebec and defeating his long term rival, Pierre Trudeau. In an emotionally wrought campaign that swept the nation, the outcome of the referendum was determined by Quebec Prime Minister, Rene Levesque’s inability to manipulate ambiguous language where Trudeau succeeded, swaying the largely uncertain voters in favour of the federalists. Though the two principles of the respective sides contradicted each other, and was thus, the underlying cause of the referendum, it was the personal nature of the conflict between Trudeau and Levesque coupled with the manipulation of language that would ultimately influence the results of the referendum.

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

With his announcement on August 2, 2015 Prime Minister Stephen Harper set in motion a 78-day election campaign, one of the longest and quite possibly the most expensive in Canadian history (Maloney, 2015). The structural constraints posed by the first-past-the-post electoral system, and the institutional constraints of the parliamentary system and campaign spending legislation were all potentially beneficial to Harper and the Conservative Party, but his underestimation of strategic voting and the power of social media, combined with his use of polarising debates and the decision of many popular incumbent Tory MP’s not to run, led to his party’s downfall and the creation of a Liberal majority government. This essay delves deeper into the factors behind the Conservative Party’s loss in the October 2015 Canadian election, in an attempt to understand why they were unable to secure a fourth mandate and come out first-past-the-other parties.

The rise of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation in Saskatchewan during the 1930s and the early 1940s was one of the most significant political shifts in Canadian history. The election in 1944 heralded the defeat of the previously dominant Liberals and made the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation the main political force in Saskatchewan until the end of the twentieth century. However, this rise was not just due to the success of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation's rhetoric; in convincing the population that the Liberals and Progressive-Conservatives were too closely aligned with the current and economic and political systems. The rise was also due to political missteps, on both the part of the Liberals and Progressive-Conservatives,

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.

This research paper hopes to be an exploration of the similarities of Pierre Trudeau and Justin Trudeau’s electoral platforms and policies in the topics of culture, foreign policy and affairs, and equality and answer the question of how both Trudeau platforms have worked, or will work towards similar goals. Policies by Pierre Trudeau in this paper will have been carried out, whereas policies by Justin Trudeau will be those that have been carried out, or those that were included in his relatively recent electoral platform that have not been started or finished.

Furthermore, populism plays an imperative role in Alberta’s political culture. In fact, Stewart and Archer (2000) maintain that “Alberta politics is leadership politics… encouraging direct, populist links between the leader and the public (pg 172-173). Hence, Prentice’s decision to receive Wildrose floor-crossers, as well as make hazardous public statements may have annulled the possibility of a populist link between Albertans and his leadership. Furthermore, it is important to note that while positive perceptions of Prentice were faltering amongst Albertan voters, the Progressive Conservative’s campaign strategy was to portray the party leader as front and centre. This was despite the growing disaffection of Albertan voters towards Prentice. Therefore, the strategy undertaken by the Progressive Conservatives’ jeopardized their party’s support, and contributed to the election’s drastic

Thinking that this would satisfy almost everyone, Levesque anticipated a lot of support; however, he’s never been so wrong. On May 20, 1980, 90% of Quebec voters came out to cast their vote. 59.5% votes were against the sovereignty-association and the referendum became lost. To try and fix what was broken, the government came up with the Meech Lake Accord. In 1985, there were many political changes that occurred in Quebec and federally. Federally, Trudeau was replaced by Brian Mulroney. In Quebec, Moderate Liberal Robert Bourassa was replaced by Rene Levesque. Mulroney promised when he got elected, that he would bring Quebec into the Constitution (the supreme law in Canada). He held many meetings to talk about the constitutional problems. In April 1987, there were constitutional changes made that satisfied Quebec’s concerns and both the PM and 10 provincial premiers agreed to these changes. This happened at Meech Lake, near Ottawa. Some of these changes included that all provinces were able to nominate candidates, opt out of federal cost sharing, have the right to veto any constitutional change, and that Quebec would be seen as a “distinct society”, with their own legal, culture and language

Harper’s ideology lies in the belief that the most effective way to govern is by promoting certain behaviors through financial incentives. He seems to propose multiple social-conservative policies advantaging a particular category of Canadians, the traditional two-parent families. His policies such as “income splitting, home renovations, child-based transfers, increased tax-free savings accounts” have fundamental dogmas that preserving traditional beliefs to “at least marginally advantage stable, two-parent families” is most fitting for the prosperity of Canadians. Trudeau carries out a more progressive agenda, focusing on benefiting those who need it the most. He has a slightly different approach to governance, as he believes that “the best thing government can do is not design service-based programs but instead give money to those in need”. To express his philosophy he introduces policies that gear towards allocating benefits according to “the number of children in a family and income”. Trudeau’s ideology contrasts Harper’s in the sense that Trudeau believes giving generous benefits to Canadians who need it is more practical than universal benefits to all families, even the stable ones. Mulcair’s ideology differs significantly from the other two leaders due to his slight, left-winged, socialist approach. He proposes a “large-scale subsidized day

The Liberals have been known to “campaign left and govern right”. They hold a respectable economic record from 1997 all the way to 2006. Between these years, Canada enjoyed eight years of financial surplus’. The conservatives were elected in 2006. The Canadian government, following 2007, suffered from 8 years of consecutive economic deficit.

“Old Habits Die Hard: “New” Ontario and the “Old” Laurentian Consensus”, tells a similar story from a different perspective. Starting off, Alberta, rather than Ontario, is listed as the country’s agenda setter (Old Habits 2013). There are a few factors contributing to this switch; first off, free trade agreements made Canadian provinces much less reliant on each other, which negatively affected the power Ontario previously held. This power then shifted with the near simultaneous shrinking of the manufacturing industry in Ontario and growth of the economy in the west. However, this change is not altogether negative; other provinces have now had a chance to find their strengths. Similarly, it is now Ontario’s opportunity to find its place in this new structure. Unfortunately, Ontario’s has been fairly quiet in previous conversations about federal policy has a negative effect, both on a provincial and national level; provincially, the Ontarian voice is now considered with less validity than other provinces. At the same time, there is a national effect in that the outcome of the conversation has potentially been altered by the lack of

The political atmosphere in Canada during this whole time was definitely ready to change. Too many men who were not at war but returned to or simply left in Canada ended up smoking, drinking and gambling too much. As a result, women were pressured to clear up the unproductive part of their society. Then, politicians were pressured to offer solutions to help these new women-voters so the people trying to work in politics could win their votes. In other words, people will vote for the men helping the women achieve their goals. Tobins Norris was elected in Manitoba because he wanted to increase education, ban alcohol, help worker’s conditions and include citizens’ control over politicians: all things the Canadian women wanted at the time. The

Canada has been an independent nation for over 150 years, so it makes sense that there has been numerous changes in the government, since the government has to reflect its society, and as time changes so does its government. However, some ideologies do not believe it should change in order to keep up with its time. Oxford Dictionary states that the definition of an ideology is “A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.” There are various forms of political ideologies; conservatism and liberalism are being brought up for discussion about what makes conservatives and liberals so different in Canada. Throughout the years, the Canadian government has rotated between liberalism and conservatism, these ideologies share some similarities; however, it can be argued that the significant differences are their political, social, and economic views.

Canada’s history is rich with leaders willing to bring change. Terry Fox and Maurice Richard are two different notable Canadians who both had similar historical significance and leadership abilities. This essay will be addressing their historical significance through the quantity of lives they affected across the country and the durability of the impacts still evident today, and their leadership ability of displaying determination by showing resilience in the face of adversity.