Queen? In Canada? Since when?

Post Reply New Topic

No. Individual MPs can propose legislation too. The more moral questions are left to free votes, too. I agree, the PM has more power over legislation than the President, but that is mostly because executive powers derive from the legislative assembly -- the PM is, by default, the leader of the most powerful party in Parliament, so obviously he can pass laws easily.

An important difference is that where the US President can theoretically be impeached, the Canadian PM can truly be backstabbed -- by his cabinet, by his MPs. He can also lose his majority to by-elections. This is why he has to bribe his MPs all the time (see the last budget cuts: MPs' salaries and pensions are not cut, unlike everything else). The US President is elected for four years, and unless something completely exceptionnal happens, he will spend four years in office.

Individual MPs are very limited in what they can propose. For instance, no private member's bill can touch upon the government's spending power--only Ministers of the Crown are competent to introduce money matters. Furthermore, they must enter a lottery for the opportunity to present a bill--they cannot introduce one until their number comes up. Whereas Ministers can introduce legislation within their departmental competence at any time.

Finally, private members' bills get an hour of House time, which is generally insufficient to secure enactment. But the PM has the power to allocate enough House time to those bills he wants passed, and to starve all the rest of legislative oxygen.



Indeed, the loss of Confidence is the sword that hangs over the head of a Prime Minister. But these are the latent limitations on the power of a Prime Minister.

Depends on how you define "moral questions." For example, whether we extended our mission in Libya was not a free vote (as illustrated by there being only one descenting voice--Elizabeth May (Green)--and she claims that members of the NDP who wanted to oppose the extension thanked her for having the courage to stand up for her beliefs). And wouldn't you consider backing out of the Kyoto protocol a moral issue. After all, it will be the first time that Canada has left an international treaty and essentially shows that our government does not care about future generations (despite their BS). Similar issues arise for environmental laws, which are being repealed and changed en masse in the Budget Implementation Act, which I can assure you will not be a free vote. There are lots of things beyond abortion and gay marriage which can be considered moral issues, yet they still involve whipped votes.