Why Is The Prime Minister Have Held To Much Power

Since the ministry of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Canadians and political scientists have questioned whether the Prime Minister of Canada has held to much power, this has been considered a fundamental problem in Canada’s parliamentary system. This essay will examine the role of the prime minister, the effects of party discipline, the centralization of power to the prime minister, and assert that power has been concentrated into the hands of the prime minister, further weakening the role of parliament as a source of democratic input.

The Prime Minister of Canada is a position that is appointed by the Governor General of Canada. In most cases, the leader of the party with the most seats in parliament is invited to form a government. Although not

outlined in any constitutional document, the prime minister is responsible for the day-to-day management of the government, the hiring of government officials, assigning projects to government departments, and representing the federal government when interacting with provincial, municipal, and foreign governments . The prime minister also has the power to appoint cabinet ministers, advisors, senators, and supreme court judges. These appointments will usually be given to those who are inclined to embrace the views of the prime minister, especially in the selection of cabinet ministers and unelected government officials. Due to this, the prime minister will wield the most power in the executive branch so long as the appointees do not try to stir up opposition towards the prime minister.
Party discipline is one of the most potent tools the prime minister can use during a majority government.

In the Canadian parliamentary system, Members of Parliament are elected to represent their regional constituencies and advocate for the needs, wants and views of their constituents. Lamentably, party discipline has limited this role for many individual MP’s since they are given little independence when voting on bills introduced to parliament. Usually, MP’s vote the way the prime minister or party leader advises them to. This generates a problem for those MP’s who help to form a government as their right to hold the government to account is diminished. If an MP decides to break the status quo and does not act upon the prime minister’s wishes, their reputation within the government could be seriously affected. Party discipline allows the prime minister to further their agenda and most bills presented to parliament will only pass if the prime minister has a hand in creating the bill . The influence the prime minister has on the decision making of individual members of their caucus undermines the fundamental role MP’s have in representing the views of their constituents, ultimately centralizing legislative power into the hands of the prime minister while deteriorating the representation of a true

democracy.
Changes made to the structure of government over the years have given prime ministers the opportunity to centralize power into their own hands. Before the Trudeau era, the cabinet of Lester B Pearson was considered to rely on the party’s network to support discussion and debate . This prominent foundation of cabinet changed once Trudeau became prime minister. There were rarely any formal votes on prominent issues in the cabinet and his ministers were not given the privilege to confer independently. When Pearson was in power, his PMO consisted of around 40 staff members. Once Trudeau became prime minister, this number was more than doubled to 96 employees. This growth made the decision-making process exclusive to the PMO, actively bypassing cabinet and giving the prime minister more power . Bypassing cabinet would continue during the ministries of Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien. The Meech Lake and Charlottetown constitutional accords by Mulroney and the Verdun national speech by Chretien were both created by advisors with no details or consideration brought before cabinet . The actions by both prime ministers pulled federal-provincial issues towards the centre of government where decision-making was not handled by cabinet but by the prime ministers and their advisors within the PMO. It is concluded that this causes mistrust in the cabinet, provides the prime minister with more power, and undermines the democratic process as the decisions made by unelected advisors are unable to be held to account by parliament.
However, some do not think that the prime minister holds too much power.

The basis of this argument relies on the existence of inter-governmental and party competition. A prime example of this was the tensions between Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Finance Minister Paul Martin, and Liberal backbenchers. It was inherent that after 3 terms in office many members of the Liberal Party were tired of the prime minister’s hands-off approach in the dealings of ministerial departments and government. The party realized that this was not working, and a united cabinet was non-existent. His biggest opposer, Paul Martin, was able to gather the support of Liberal backbenchers and replace Chretien as leader of the party. Martin also won a minority government in the 2004 election. Chretien’s loss of power over the years was due to his lack of real organization in confronting his competitors . Although this opposing view is valid, it fails to mention that fact that if Chretien took advantage of the principle of party discipline over his government he could have avoided losing the confidence of his own party. By taking a hands-off approach to the way the government was run, Chretien disrupted what prime ministers had been doing in government for the past 35 years. Unfortunately, this contributed to his

downfall.
In conclusion, the overbearing power of the prime minister has truly affected the way our parliamentary system is governed within the executive and legislative branches. Top-down decision making by the prime minister and their advisors in the PMO have made it increasingly difficult for ministers to have an independent say on how their departments are run. Structural changes to the government by Pierre Trudeau not only centralized our government but set a precedent for future prime ministers. Giving the notion that it is acceptable to bypass cabinet when making policy decisions. Party discipline has diminished the fundamental responsibility for Members of Parliament to hold the government to account and vote on the confidence of their constituents. When party discipline is used ineffectively, a prime minister can lose control of their government and the confidence of their party members. It is safe to say that our parliamentary system has evolved to consentrate power to the executive at the expense of the legislature. Since the majority of that power falls into the hands of the prime minister, democratic input from the legislatiure is seen as a mere afterthought.