Talk:Prime Minister of Canada

However valid the arguments in this article may be, they are not neutral. They are entirely intended to support one point of view - i.e. that the prime minister has too much power. Ezra Wax

Do you feel that it's a bit more neutral now? Please respond. Also... All Prime Ministers have lived there since Prime Minister Louis Saint Laurent. That's a bit awkward. We should be mentioning the year, not whose term it was. I was going to put down 1948, but for all I know, he could have only started living there towards the end of his term. --cprompt

I think it's still lacking in NPOV re: the power of the PM. For instance:

Over time, the role of the Prime Minister of Canada has undergone some modifications but he/she today has the most personal and absolute power of any elected leader of any full democracy in the world.

...this is true only by a strict reading of the constitution. Indeed, Canada's (essentially unicameral) parliamentary system combined with our world's strictest system of party discipline (outside of sham parliaments in various dictatorships), combined with the (deprecated) power of disallowment over the provinces, would suggest that the PM has near dictatorial powers.

In practise, however, the power of the PM is greatly restricted by the power of the provinces (Canada is one of, if not the, more decentralized federations going). It doesn?t mean a lot to say the PM can do whatever they want within the areas of federal jurisdiction when a lot of the most important stuff (health, education) is either held entirely by the provinces or only involves Ottawa to the extent that they write the cheques.

As for this whole bit:

Unlike the Presidental system of government used in such countries as the United States, an elected member of the Canadian House of Commons cannot vote in accordance with the will of his constituents.

How exactly does a representative vote 'accordance with the will of his constituents'? Canada has a first-past the post system remember. Mose of that members constituents likely didn't even vote for the member, and the idea that even a convincing majority of them will agree on anything is unlikely. Therefore, 'according to his/her own preference' would be much more realistic.

While Canada's strict party control does put individual members on a tight leash, it also prevents the type of pork-barrel politics that plague the US and many other democracies. Members (i.e. parties) are forced to consider the national, rather than the purely local, interest.

It's also arguably more democratic considering most voters have some idea what a party stands for, but absolutely nothing about a candidates personal beliefs.

When I have more time (exams!) I'll try and add some balance to this article. -- stewacide 08:22 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

---

The article says "In contrast to the British government, in which members of parliament have long tenure but Prime Ministers have relatively short tenures, the Canadian Prime Minister typically has a long tenure except in cases where there is a minority government."

Considering Thatcher and Blair, I don't think UK PMs have relatively short tenures. Vicki Rosenzweig 20:43, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Strictly there is no limit on the length of time a PM can serve, they just have to call an election every five years. Anyone disagree with this? DJ Clayworth

---

It says "The Prime Minister is also restricted by two usually powerless branches of government", but it only mentions one branch, the Senate...

---

The "Jr." (as in Paul Martin, Jr.) has been removed--ref. Chicago Manual of Style. When the elder member of a family dies, the "junior" designation is usually dropped. While there is a trend to keeping the designation in the U.S., it generally isn't done in Canada (check CBC or Globe and Mail websites if you need to confirm this). Sunray 04:20, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)

---

Canadian PMs do not appear to have long terms. Since 1970 Britain has had five PMs, while Canada has had 6 (not counting Martin). What is unusual is the extremes. Three of the Canadians had terms of ten years or thereabouts, while two had terms of less than 1 yr. Go figure. DJ Clayworth 06:56, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A bit of trivia: Actually it is three PMs since 1970 who had terms of less than one year: Clark, Turner and Campbell. Turner and Campbell replaced a retiring PM (Trudeau and Mulroney respectively) and then lost the subsequent election. Clark is unique. He led a minority government in 1979, but lost a non-confidence motion over the budget. An election was called and he lost. Sunray 21:56, 2003 Dec 19 (UTC)

I'd like to see the prime minister's salary on this page. Just for fun.