Yes, you don’t have to be a member of the Commons to lead a political party - but being a leader of political party doesn’t entitle you to sit in Parliament. Layton didn’t sit in Parliament until he won a seat in the 2004 election.
Party leaders have to be fluent in both languages to have a hope of winning nationally. I can’t recall ever seeing a debate where a translator was used - that would be political suicide.
Quebec is the only province where the majority is francophone, but there are substantial numbers of francophones in other provinces, such as New Brunswick (the only officially bilingual province) and Ontario.
we have to!
Assuming nobody’s yet linked to it, this page gives a fairly detailed rundown of the functions of the three branches of the Canadian Federal government. In basic structure, it’s largely identical to the American system, except that almost all the powers held by the U.S. President are instead held by the Prime Minister, whose most direct American counterpart is the House majority leader.
So, figure Tom Delay, with control of the cabinet and the military and deciding who to nominate to the Supreme Court and to the office of the largely ceremonial Executive (our Governor General, your President) and the largely ceremonial Senate (we have 105 Senators, appointed until the age of 75, unlike your guys who are up for election every six years)… Our PM has proportionately far more power than the U.S. President, as long as his party holds the majority of seats in the Parliament. He’s restrained somewhat by the Senate and GG, who normally rubber-stamp things but occasionally can make nuisances of themselves.
Well, we watch a lot of Schoolhouse Rock.
By the way, the difference in our electoral process contributed to an initial lack of understanding up here about the whole Florida ballot issue, plus the debates about electronic vote-counting machines you folks had.
Since all we’re voting for in the election is our local MP, our ballots are very simple: paper, with the names of the candidates for the riding. As well, since we don’t have fixed election dates, our federal elections aren’t bundled with provincial elections, or municipal elections, or referenda.
You just go behind a cardboard shield, mark your single choice for federal MP with an “X” and put it in the ballot box. That’s it.
When the 2000 Florida debacle broke out, a lot of us up here didn’t appreciate at first how complex your ballots are .
this system pretty much parallels the British ‘Westminster system’ from which it was derived. A vote on the Motion that “This House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” occurs only when the opposition parties figure that the political situation is such that the government is likely to lose such a vote. This happened in Britain in 1979, when the Callaghan government lost a confidence vote by a margin of 1.
It’s worth noting that the Prime Minister has the option of deeming a vote on a measure which is an integral part of his Government’s program as “a vote of confidence,” too. This has no effect on Opposition members to speak of, but it puts the members of the majority, his party, on the line: “if you’re a loyal ____ist, you will vote for this measure … and if you expect political office, or to get some government structure built in your constituency, you’d better toe the party line.” Churchill did this with two controversial actions regarding his conduct of World War II, and got sustained in the British House of Commons by something like 580-30 each time.
Also, an Opposition may move a vote of no confidence that they know they’re going to lose, as a way of assessing declining public support for the Government. If enough majority members are put between a rock and a hard place by a well-chosen confidence vote, it becomes obvious that support for the incumbent Government is crumbling. What made Neville Chamberlain resign in 1940 was winning a vote of confidence, but by a majority of 81, when he should have gotten a majority of over 200 based on the party composition of Commons at the time. That told him that enough people were disgusted with his Premiership that he needed to quit. Attlee timed that motion perfectly to get him out.
Also, if
Please ignore that:
in my previous post; it came from the minority view of how the second paragraph should be worded, but was voted down. 
For those wanting the short dope on the major party breakdowns, it’s sort of like this,
Under a Conservative government you can be sure that the rich will get richer.
Under a Liberal government you can be confident that Liberals and their cronies will definitely do well.
Of course the New Democrats get to make all manner of wild ass election promises confident they’ll never have to live up to them.
The Green Party,
The Marijuana Party,
Independent Candidates and
The Rhino Party, are, pretty much, all the result of Canadian’s growing disenchantment with the choice of candidates, in a Frick or Frack sort of way.
Once again, the Dopers come through to teach me more about my country and its systems than I learn anywhere else. So, Northern Piper, you ready to run for PM yet?
[Chauncey Gardiner voice] I just like to watch… [/Chauncey Gardiner voice]
/me wants to see matt_mcl run again, and get named Minister of Something-or-Other (probably Urban Transport) in a Grit/NDP coalition government.
Another good information source is How Canadians Govern Themselves. For those south of the border, it includes a chapter on the differences between the US and Canadian systems.
Ditto for Polycarp’s comment on matt_mcl. I might even vote NDP if he was in my riding instead of people like Monia Mazigh.
Somehow, no one quite mentioned the most important difference between the US and Canadian system. It is perhaps more apparent to me as an American who has lived here for 37 years. Imagine that in order to run as a Republican, Arlen Spector had to have Bush’s approval and that Bush could, without giving any reason whatever, replace him by Rumsfield (who is not, I believe, a Pennsylvania resident). Do you think that under the circumstances, Spector would dare oppose Bush’s supreme court nominee? Suppose that Kennedy could have dispensed with the services of Strom Thurmond, just by saying so. Sure Thurmond could have won as an independent and probably won, but deprived of any power, placed on the DC garbage control committee without any seniority, etc. And in Canada, Independents almost never win. In a provincial election some years ago, a Quebec Liberal who had won something like 80% in his downtown Montreal riding was unceremoniously dumped, not because he had ever failed to support the Quebec premier, but because the latter wanted to parachute a friend into a safe seat. The displaced man ran as an independent and didn’t come close to winning.
Since individuals have reallly no power (they always vote a straight party line, for reasons given above) and could be replaced by automatons, people in effect vote for the party leader, knowing that whoever is leader of the winning party will govern as he sees fit for the next (usually) four years.
Incidentally, a party could theoretically stay in power for 6 years less a day. A parliament ends automatically after five years and the government can theoretically go without a parliament for up to, but not including, one year. In practice, this would be seen as an act of desperation and 4 years or maybe a bit more, is the practical limit.
When a new party leader is chosen, the practice is for the new leader to govern for a short time, like a half year, and then call an election to get his own mandate. Of the last three leaders who did this, one, the current PM came backwith a minority govenment, the one that fell yesterday, one reduced her party from a majority to just 2 seats and the party, the Progressive Conservatives never recovered, having been absorbed by the Reform Party (modeled on Ross Perot’s Reform party. (I know, they had changed their name to the Alliance, but so what?) (I also know that theoretically the parties merged but if you believe it was anything but a takeover, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.) This party would have joined the US in Iraq (even they are not dumb enough to do that now), they will likely join Star Wars (what a boondoggle that would be).
The single member constituency system has the result of badly skewing the results. A party that gets 40% of the vote will routinely win a majority of the seats. The Bloc won 54 seats last time, all in Quebec (of 75 available). Thus they had about 18% of the seats with probably about 10 or 12% of the vote. The NDP had, I believe, about 18% of the vote and go only 6% of the seats.
It is a lousy system, but so far it has not produced a George Bush (but let us see what Steven Harper, the Conservative leader, does if he forms the government. It is a given that there will be tax breaks for very rich and gobs of money spent on the military. Compared to that, a $200 million scandal seems like small potatoes. But I won’t be voting, so I guess I shouldn’t worry about it.
The Canadian Reform Party wasn’t modelled on Perot’s party. Preston Manning set up the Reform Party of Canada in 1987. The Reform Party elected its first MP in 1989- Deborah Grey.
Ross Perot didn’t start the U.S. Reform Party until 1992.
I can’t remember what year it was, but when Preston Manning was still helming the Reform Party, he began the French debate with “Je vay voo parlay en fron-say” and then did the rest in English.
Poor dear. When you’re making Alexa’s l33t Fr3nch sk1llz look good, you are in trouble.
I have nothing to add, but a big thank you to everyone who answered. I never knew about the political system to the north. Very interesting. Also good luck matt_mcl
-Otanx
Thanks to my hopefully soon-to-be-Right Honourable friend. 