A King in all but name? An analysis of Canadian prime ministerial power
With today being Halloween and the impending release of the federal budget on Tuesday, November 4, I figured it would be a good time to discuss the spookiest topic I could think of, the powers of the Canadian Prime Minister.
What is the most powerful office in the world? Some may think of the American, Russian, or Chinese President, the General Secretary of the UN, or the Pope. Suppose you are particularly nihilistic about the importance of established institutions today. In that case, you may say that the CEO of Apple, Meta, Amazon, or Google are among the most powerful positions in the world. The Canadian Prime Minister is a mere footnote in the global arena when it comes to exercising power, both soft and hard.
Overall, that notion is true in a global sense; Canada is nothing but a middle power compared to the likes of America, Russia, and China. Even other countries like Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Iran exercise more influence globally due to their access to resources or technological importance, even with Canada having a bigger economy than all of them.
However, domestically, within the confines of Canada, the Canadian Prime Minister has more authority and power than the American President, the British Prime Minister, the French President, the German Chancellor, and any other Western leader when it comes to domestic political power. This has grave consequences for Canada if the wrong person were to come into power. Let’s explain those powers.
A Monarch on day one
When a new Prime Minister is sworn in by the Governor-General, there are very few checks and balances on their power. The opposition can talk and ask pointed questions all they want during question period, but if the Prime Minister’s party has a majority in parliament, there is nothing they can do but whine. Now, whining is important, and enough whining in parliament can turn public opinion against the Prime Minister. But what if the Prime Minister doesn't care about that? What if he/she doesn't care what 60 percent of the country thinks, so long as they have 40 percent that are ride or die? We are seeing democratic governments all around the world operate with impunity, even though they are loathed by the public. Now, surely the Prime Minister’s caucus could jettison the Prime Minister if they thought doing so would benefit them politically, right? Well, in Canada, party discipline is strictly enforced, and any MP can be removed from caucus for any reason.
This is not like America, where, although Democratic and Republican lawmakers are usually loyal to their party leaders, they can afford not to be so long as their constituents re-elect them in congressional elections and primaries. There are no party primaries in Canada, and Canada does not enable individual MPs to be celebrities the same way their counterparts in America are. Cabinet members are prominent, sure, but can your average Canadian name more than just one or two? Most voters who voted for the Liberals likely do not know who their MP is, but they know who Mark Carney is; that’s where their loyalties lie. So long as the PM can keep their loyalty, the head of government can do no wrong. Besides, even if MPs launch a coup against their leader under the Reform Act, since all major parties use a system of weighted popular vote to elect their leaders, as long as this leader is popular with party members, they can be voted back in and resume power, as well as purge the party ranks.
The Senate
The Senate has long been considered a joke in Canadian politics. The body, created to be a check on the House of Commons, is now a place where political careers go to die or where party loyalists can get a nice cushy job, office, and, after six years, a pension.
While the Senate was created to be more powerful than it actually is, the law states that the Prime Minister can go around the Senate if it gets in their way. The Prime Minister can appoint four to eight “bonus” Senators under Section 26 of the 1867 Constitution Act if the body gets too involved in the legislative process. It is basically a cheat code to move House bills through the chamber if needed. It has only been used once in history when Prime Minister Brian Mulroney invoked it to appoint eight additional Senators to get his Goods and Services Tax bill through parliament. The body at the time was packed with Liberals appointed by Prime Ministers Pearson, Trudeau, and Turner, and thus, was providing headaches to the Conservative Mulroney. However, with Section 26, he was able to get his plan through.
Since the body is also unelected, the Senate during this time also took a big PR hit due to getting in the way of the elected body, and thus, hindering democracy. While the Senate was technically operating the way it was designed to, as an equal branch of government, it's hard to see it having any legitimacy in the legislative process, given its current status. Thus, if the Senate decided to block legislation from the House again, I think most Canadians would be fine with the Prime Minister using this power. Nevertheless, it is still an awesome power for the Prime Minister to behold.
Power over the judiciary and the provinces
Canada’s provinces have a unique relationship with the federal government. While Ottawa controls areas like defence, foreign policy, and the overall immigration system, provinces hold major powers over health care, education, and natural resources. Quebec, for example, selects most of its immigrants under the 1991 Canada–Quebec Accord, operating within limits set in consultation with the federal government. It also administers its own pension plan, while Alberta continues to assert significant influence over national energy policy. This strong provincial autonomy — alongside movements for greater independence like Quebec’s — gives credence to the idea that Canadian provinces can wield more practical power in some areas than US states do.
However, that idea is a myth; the federal government and the Prime Minister can exercise a considerable amount of influence if they want.
The first way is through the courts. The Prime Minister has the ability to appoint members of not just the federal supreme court but provincial supreme courts as well. This can enable the Prime Minister to get judges they want on these courts, both federally and provincially, and thus use the legal mechanisms of the judiciary to bend them to his/her will. This is more power than the US President has, and we already see in America how much authority judges can have over the political discourse, and in Canada, this is no different. If anything, Canada is capable of judicial overreach more jarring than we see in America. Currently, there are checks in place that the Prime Minister can only appoint justices if they are approved by an “independent advisory board” made up of seven members, two of whom are appointed by the Prime Minister and another by the Minister of Justice, who themselves are appointed by the Prime Minister. But this board is not legally binding; it is strictly advisory, and the Prime Minister, if they want, can do away with it if they deem it a nuisance.
Another power is the power of disallowance. Under Section 90 of the 1867 Constitution, it states that “The provisions of this Act respecting the disallowance of Acts of the Parliament of Canada by the Queen in Council shall extend and apply to the disallowance of Acts of the Legislatures of the Provinces by the Governor General.” In other words, the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, can veto laws passed by the provinces. This could, in theory, make provinces slaves to the federal government and could make the Prime Minister a dictator of those provinces, not through shady political dealings, but rather open legal invocation of the Canadian Constitution. However, the power has not been used in decades. While its usage would likely trigger a firestorm politically around the country, it is still available for any Prime Minister at any moment.
Section 33
Lastly, the power that can give the Prime Minister the most authority is section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that the federal government, as well as the provincial governments, can override certain sections of the Charter if they deem it necessary, commonly known as the “notwithstanding” clause.
While there are limits on what a government can override, for instance, it cannot override democratic rights, mobility rights, and language rights; everything else is fair game. A Prime Minister could get rid of the right to an assembly, the right to a free and fair trial, the right to practice whatever religion one may want to belong to or not belong to, and even the right to protection against discrimination, both racial and religious. Provinces such as Quebec have used the notwithstanding clause to enforce laws such as banning religious symbols by public sector employees and promoting the French language. While not part of the Charter, the Emergencies Act passed by parliament in 1987 allows the Government of Canada to take drastic temporary measures to respond to public emergencies. However, what drastic and temporary means are up to interpretation, as Canadians saw with its use during the 2022 Trucker Convoy Protest.
What to do
Overall, the Canadian Prime Minister has an enormous amount of power and influence if he or she chooses to use it. While these powers have been largely theoretical, with the rising tide of authoritarianism creeping around the world today, it is not wise to assume that our leaders are not susceptible to those temptations, as others globally are. Democracy and freedom are not the norm when examining history; it's the exception, and how humans organize civil societies is not static. If it were, the richest places in the world today would be ones with serfdom, but that is not the case.
Governments, and people who make up those governments, can change, and they change not by accident, but often with the full backing of the people. Democracies don’t die for no reason; they die due to institutional rot and systematic failures from the democratically elected government. So far, Canada, despite its past failures and clear governmental loopholes, has survived decades with its democratic system largely intact. But it would be a bad bet to assume that this will last forever without clear vigilance and good governance.
