It provides several elements that help in shaping our political frame. Elements such as the Constitution, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary branch are what define the current Canadian political system. Each branch has its fair share of duties and responsibilities in governing the state. The legislatures are responsible for making and amending laws, the executive have the responsibility of implementing those laws and day to day management of the government and finally, the judiciary which represents courts and judges that interpret and review those laws (Brooks, Lesson 11, slides 11-15). All of these aspects are powerful in the sense of running a constitutional monarchy in a democratic state like Canada.
The Senate of Canada is often referred to as the “upper house” of Canadian politics. This means that it has the final say in the passing of a proposed bill that has already been through the “lower house” (House of Commons). Therefore, the senate must also pass all federal legislation that has been passed By the House of Commons. Although the senate does have the final say in weather or not a bill will be passed or not, it is rare that the senate would ever veto a bill already passed by the House of Commons. However, the senate will often recommend changes to the proposed bill, send it back to the House of Commons and then pass it through.
Secondly, The Balfour Report allowed Canada to receive autonomy and gave Canada equal status with Britain for creating laws. (Cranny p.55/56) This was one of the biggest steps for Canada to become more self-sufficient. It makes more sense that the elected members would be in charge of running the country. After all, the citizens did not vote for British representatives to set the laws. It would have
Comparing Canada’s and the United States’ government system, we can see just how different they are from each other. With Canada, they have a responsible government, where the executive functions at will of the legislative body. This type of government is the best way to maintain stability, because if the government wants to create a bill, it has to be passed by the House of Commons. However if that bill does not pass, then the Parliament would have a vote of non-confidence. If they get a majority in favour of non-confidence, then the prime minister must call an election.
So in today’s discussion, let us ask ourselves this question: should the government of Canada make changes to its system? In Canada, the federal system is what makes up the framework in the structure of the country, along with the government. The federal system has a bicameral legislature that is comprised of two parliamentary houses, which are the House of Commons and the Senate. Let’s first take a look at the House of Commons that is considerably important, as it consists of the Cabinet and the prime minister. Because of these two powerful bodies, it makes the House of Commons a ruling body within the parliamentary system.
One of the biggest differences between Canadian and American government is that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and the United States is a type of democracy. Canada's head of state is the British monarch, who is represented in Canada by an official known as the governor general. The head of state chooses the Canadian head of government and the Prime Minister has the power to act as a restraint on the prime minister's power. The United States is different because there is no division between head of state and head of government. The American head of state is its president which elected for a four-year term by a national vote.
The first and fore most undemocratic factor is how the senators are appointed to office. They are not elected, as they should be in a democratic government, but they are appointed this position by the Prime minister. Often he appoints his senators to gain a majority so his laws may be carried out and also he or she may give this position of power as a patronage to loyal supporters of their party. The second reason is the misrepresentation of the provinces and territories in the senate. The senate elects people for the amount of population in the area so both Quebec and Ontario have more representation than the rest of the country, especially compared to the Northwest territories and the Yukon who only have on each.
The Parliament consists of the House of Lords and House of Commons -which include various party representatives. Lord Hailsham stated that the UK has an “elective dictatorship” implying that executive is able to dominate the legislature. It could be argued that parliament does control executive power because parliament has scrutiny features such as Prime Minister's Questions, Ministerial question time and select committees, which all make the government and its executive powers accountable for their decision making. However to some extent it could be argued that parliament does not control executive power effectively, due to the fact that the government naturally has an in built majority within the House of Commons, as well as that the whipping system and the ideology of ‘toeing the party line’ results in the executive powers having the ability to gain a majority of support from the House of Commons. Furthermore the increase in prime-ministerial or even ‘presidential’ government in the UK, with the leader of the executive having accumulated more power, makes it more difficult for Parliament to control executive power.
A presidential system is a system of government where the executive branch is led by a person who serves as both head of state and head of government. That person is usually elected and titled "president", but can also be an unelected monarch. In contrast to parliamentary government, a president normally has a separate source of authority from that of the legislature. This means the executive (president) is accountable to the people directly, not the legislature. Both Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) and Tony Blair (1997-2007) have been described by some commentators as Prime Ministers who, whilst in office, had presidential-like characteristics.
As a consequence, prime ministers have gradually institutionalised their involvement in policy. The view now, is that it is the prime minister, and not the cabinet, who dominates both the executive and Parliament. This happens because the prime minister is both the head of the civil service and the leader of the largest party in the Commons. As prime ministers have considerable authority in the management and controlling of cabinet, it is argued that cabinet has declined and so the power of the prime minister has increased. Prime ministers chair cabinet meetings, this enables prime ministers to harness the decision – making authority of the cabinet to their own ends.