Federal politics, here and next door

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 19/10/2024 (698 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

This article was prompted by a challenge from a reader to explain how Canada’s cabinet-parliamentary system compares to the U.S. presidential-congressional system in terms of limiting potential abuses of power. The prospect of a Donald Trump victory on Nov. 5 and a Poilievre victory sometime in the next year motivated the query.

The constitutional orders of the two countries are fundamentally different.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy based on a cabinet-parliamentary system, in which authority is concentrated in the hands of the prime minister and cabinet who are in theory held continuously answerable and accountable to Parliament.

In contrast, the U.S. is a republic based on a presidential-congressional system which involves a complex division of authority and checks and balances which disperses power between the president and Congress.

Both countries have a Supreme Court which rules on the constitutionality of legislation and executive actions.

In Canada executive leadership is divided between the governor general (GG), as representative of the Crown, who serves as the ceremonial head of state, and the prime minister, who is the political head of state. In exceptional circumstances the GG may act as a guardian of the constitution, blocking the abuses of power by governments.

In the U.S., the president is the single executive serving as both the political and ceremonial head of government. Loyalty to the country versus loyalty to the incumbent president can become confused in the public mind.

In Canada, the prime minister is not directly elected, except as one of 338 MPs in the House of Commons. Instead, after a general election the leader of the party with the greatest number of seats in the Commons is invited by the GG to form a government.

In contrast, the president is elected by the public, but with the countrywide popular vote being filtered through an institution called the electoral college, which in the current political circumstances means that votes cast in six to seven competitive states determine who becomes president.

Prime ministers remain in office only so long as they enjoy the confidence of a majority in the Commons (not the appointed Senate) for a period not to exceed five years. In theory, the government can be defeated at any time. In practice, party discipline means this almost never happens when there is a majority government. A law exists which provides for fixed date elections every four years but “loopholes” mean that prime ministers still have control over the timing of elections.

The president is elected for a fixed term of four years, there is no provision for removal by a vote of confidence in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, both of which are elected separately. There is provision for impeachment of a president for serious crimes through a complicated procedure involving both houses of Congress.

A president removed through impeachment can also be indicted, face a trial and be subject to penalties. A recent Supreme Court ruling, however, determined that a former president enjoys legal immunity for his official actions, which seems like an untenable principle in a democracy which presumes no person is above the law.

Both national leaders appoint cabinets, but their roles are different.

In Canada cabinet members, who must be elected MPs, are called ministers, and they are legally responsible for the departments they lead. The cabinet is meant to be a forum for collective decision-making on public policy. Critics maintain, however, that over the past six decades, prime ministerial rule has gradually replaced cabinet government. Constitutional requirements mean than no prime minister can completely ignore cabinet.

A presidential cabinet is comprised of secretaries who lead departments, but those individuals cannot be in Congress. This means that the president can recruit talent from all backgrounds and regions, compared to a prime minister who must choose from elected MPs. Issues flow more automatically to the president than to a prime minister. Cabinet meetings in the U.S. are infrequent and take place more for optics than as meetings to formulate policy.

In both countries, legislation, including tax and spending measures, must be approved by both houses of the two national legislatures.

In Canada, approval of the throne speech outlining the government’s legislative agenda and approval of the budget are considered votes of confidence which determine the fate of a government. The political significance of votes on individual bills is less clear. In majority government situations, because of party discipline, the parliamentary process is predictable, with bills and budgets passed largely unchanged.

However, since the emergence of a multi-party system, minority governments have become common (11 since 1957). This somewhat constrains prime ministers. Minority governments do not necessarily mean paralysis in the parliamentary process, as witnessed by the recently terminated supply/confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, which delivered some significant policy initiatives.

In contrast, the United States is more prone to deadlock arising from “divided government,” situations in which one of only two major parties holds the presidency while the other controls either or both houses of Congress.

Compared to their parliamentary counterparts, congressional parties are less unified, with more representatives and senators acting independently to defend regional interests and to promote their own policy preferences. The president has a veto to block bills he considers unconstitutional or unwise.

Critics complain that divided government favours brokered deals and prevents timely, bold measures. Presidents frequently blame Congress for lack of action on major problems. Given their power over Parliament, prime ministers cannot so easily seek to evade accountability in this way .

In both countries, unwritten norms of behaviour are meant to put informal “guardrails“ on the exercise of power. Adherence to such norms requires self-restraint by both prime ministers and presidents.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba.