Canadian Parliamentary System: Strengths, Weaknesses and Comparisons

This essay provides a comparative analysis of the Canadian parliamentary system and the US government structure. The author argues that the Canadian system, with its checks and balances, is well-suited for the country's political culture. The essay highlights the role of the Prime Minister, cabinet, Supreme Court, House of Commons, and Senate, discussing the potential impact of an activist Senate. The author's main argument focuses on the power structure of both governments, using the Canadian constitution and the McGrath report as primary sources. The essay explores the strengths of the Canadian system, such as its effectiveness with an activist senate. However, it also points out a weakness: the potential ineffectiveness of the parliamentary system when one party dominates both houses. The essay concludes by reflecting on the effectiveness of the Canadian parliamentary system, despite some challenges.

1
Name:
Course
Professor’s name
University name
City, State
Date of submission

2
Introduction
The parliamentary government theory in Canada has contrasted with the American
preoccupation of due process, diffusion of power and individual freedom. It is well suited for
the political culture of the Canadians through elaborate checks and balances systems. The
author notes that the elements of a parliamentary system is a limited review of the judicial
system, a strong cabinet that has power centralized in the hands of elected prime minister and
a more responsible government.1 In today’s government structure, the prerogative that were
held before by the Prime minister and his or her cabinet is now shared together with the
Canadian supreme court that is required to interpret the Canadian rights charter, the house of
commons and the senate that is usually an activist house controlled by the opposition and
checks the government.
The parliamentary system although popular Canada is where the executive is headed
by the Prime minister while the legislature is led by the opposition. In theory, a divided house
is impossible in the Canadian parliamentary system. If one party does not control both houses
then the senate may decide to block effective legislations if it decides to exercise its
constitutional powers. An activist senate may lead to an election where there is no provision
to override the powers or effective mechanisms of working out or solving short conflicts and
disputes.
Authors Main Argument
The authors’ main argument is the representation of the Canadian government as
compared to the American government power structure. It is effective comparison between a
1 Caramani, D. ed., 2017. Comparative politics. Oxford University Press.

3
divided government and a parliamentary system in Canada. Canadians have always leaned
towards the American political system. The author notes that federalism was one of the
aspects that Canadians were really attracted to from the American political systems in the last
century while in this century is the bill of rights.2 The power structure of both houses and the
leader of the executive that is the Prime Minister is the main argument in this article. The
author argues that a parliamentary system may not be effective if the two houses are
dominated or led by one party which may not lead to effective checks and balances. An
activist senate is needed in some cases led by a strong opposition.
Sources that the Author use
The author uses several sources in pitching the argument. The sources include the
Canadian constitution which is the main reference point. Other sources used by the author
include the McGrath report or the special report on Reforms on the House of Commons.
Strengths and weaknesses of the article
The strengths of the article shows the effectiveness of a parliamentary system led by
an activist senate as compared to federalism of the United States. It also shows how the
Laissez-faire voter registration approach, election financing methods and the ritualistic
conventions hold little attraction in most Canadians. There is little cause to worry of the
parliamentary system in Canada becoming congressional zed without significant party
organization and electoral law changes.
2 Clark, Terry Nichols. The new political culture. Routledge, 2018.

4
The weakness is that it is not clear in the structural effectiveness of parliamentary
system when one party dominates both houses. 3 Such was seen in 1988 when the Canadian
senate took the not so popular position of declaring that it would not pass the US-Canada free
trade in absence of an election forcing the government to seek fresh mandate from the people.
After the election, the free trade agreement between the US and Canada was adopted.
My thoughts on the article
It is a well-articulated article on the effectiveness of a parliamentary system in
Canada. Although the author does not bring into light how the challenges facing this system
are meant to be addressed in the long run, the system seems to be working with all
institutions effectively.
3 Rubin, Jean-Christophe Bedard. "Precedents in Canadian and American Constitutional Culture: A
Comparative Essay." PhD diss., University of Toronto (Canada), 2016.

5
References
1. Caramani, Daniele, ed. Comparative politics. Oxford University Press, 2017.
2. Clark, Terry Nichols. The new political culture. Routledge, 2018.
3. Rubin, Jean-Christophe Bedard. "Precedents in Canadian and American
Constitutional Culture: A Comparative Essay." PhD diss., University of Toronto
(Canada), 2016.