Is the Prime Minister Too Powerful?

In Canada, the Prime Minister has too much power, some PM take advantages of this power while others do not. The Prime Minister is the head of the party with a plurality of seats in the House of Commons. Some of the things that the PM is responsible for are: summons and dissolves, decides of the cabinet make up, advising the governor general, etc. All of these responsibilities allocated to the PM give him the absolute power. First, the PM has the ability to choose when to end the session of the parliament or simply dissolve it. The PM could use this power for his advantages. For example, Stephen Harper asked Michaëlle Jean to suspend the Parliament because he knew that a coalition was formed against him and could even lead to new elections.

These sorts of powers would generally be associated with a President, not a Prime Minister.

Many people would like to believe that the president is the most powerful person in the world. However, the structure of America has put restraints on the president that a Prime Minister would not have. There are many differences between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. These differences include regulations, term of office, powers, and cultures. Throughout this paper you will learn that just being the leader of their country is about as similar as these two people get.

Firstly, Pierre Elliott Trudeau was a significant prime minister in the view of the fact that

The prime minister has a significant amount of power within the Canadian government. Some of the sources of the prime minister’s powers are the number of seats in the House of Commons he and his party has, his ability to give push/give priority to certain government agendas, and his ability to appoint different governmental positions. For a politician to hold the office of PM his party must hold the majority of the seats in the house; this means that by convention his party must be in solidarity with his decisions, which gives the PM’s the loyal support of his party. Another power of the PM is the ability to put forward government agendas that they believe should be prioritized. The PM also has the ability to appoint people who they believe

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.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has made some controversial decisions in key cases in Canada’s past. When looking at the Canadian Founders intent for Canadian Federalism, many scholars argue that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has done a bad job following the founders’ intentions and intentionally decentralized Canada. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council did fail in keeping in line with what the founders intended for Canada and may have even intentionally set out to decentralize the Canadian government, but this does not mean it had a negative impact on Canada. There are a number of cases that were seen by the JCPC that played a vital role in the decentralization of the Canadian government, yet

The checks and balances that the founders of our country put into place to limit the power of the executive branch have failed and allowed the Prime Minister to gather unprecedented and unchecked power. There is a need to establish or re-establish effective checks for the prime minister, at different steps along the policy making process. The traditional checks and balances on the executive branch have come from the house of commons, the senate, and the Governor General. These institutions are meant to work together to ensure that the country is being governed fairly and in the name of the people. However, over the last thirty years the power has been moving away from the legislative branch towards the executive. In a system where majority

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

The British Prime Minister has always had many powers which some would deem to be excessive. These include the power to: choose their election date; appoint members of the judiciary; appoint the archbishop of Canterbury; dismiss members of the cabinet and arrange committees and agendas. In a parliamentary system of government, the Prime Minister also has the power to appoint the executive without his decision having to be approved by the legislature as is

Key difference between presidents and prime ministers is the relationship between the branches of government (Heffernan, 2005:54) – is there a distinct separate executive branch from the legislature

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.

Not only will the prime minister have to maintain confidence within the house, they also must maintain the support from their party. The prime minister must then become more transparent and accountable to their party because now the MPs collectively have a voice. Debate will be greatly encouraged within the house and public policy can be more effectively scrutinized as the prime minister will have to thoroughly plan out his/her actions as a misstep might cost them the support of their party, and therefore their position (Jarvis and Turnbull, 2012). Without a proper and effective check, there is little to stop the prime minister from using his power to advance their interests. This contributes to an erosion of the democratic system in Canada

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.

The prime minister can determine the ministers in each ministry (Johnson, 2004). The head of government has certain degree of authority and freedom to delegate to its ministers, and it can lead the government to more stable political situation because fusion of power between the ministries and prime minister is achieved. Prime ministers can also nominate members of the cabinet but their functions are not just limited to advisory and consultative. The members must decide collectively broad matters of policy, involving foreign affairs, finance, and other issues of concern to the entire government (Hitchner, 1970). The collective body of cabinets reduces the role of prime minister and his executive power.