Canadian here. About the Queen (RIP)... It's like when you move away from home as a young adult. Your Mom is still your Mom, but she is not in charge of you anymore. At the same time, you still tend to do what she says, and you borrow stuff from her sometimes, and take advice. She is not actually in charge of you ar anything you do, but you still check in and call her Mom.
Great explanation (says a citizen of the U.S.). I wish we were a part of the Commonwealth. Having that relationship to the Crown, and the Commonwealth, would be a good thing for the U.S. and the Commonwealth. Of course, I don't know many folks who think like me.
I'm not sure you understand the Queens Relationship with Canada. She is Queen of Canada in her own right, that is to say her union with Canada is a personal one. So she's not Queen of the United Kingdom reigning over Canada with Canada being subservient to the UK, She is Queen of Canada independent of her role as Queen of the UK. Likewise for New Zealand, Australia and several others, so one has the British Crown, The Canadian Crown, The New Zealand Crown and the Australian Crown all separate from and independent of each other but existing in the same person.
Members of the royal family can also be patrons or commander in chief of different military regiments in Canada. When Harry left royal duties, he also lost any Canadian regiments he was Commander in chief of. I imagine that it was the same in other commonwealth countries.
Wich is why I wounder why so many Trymp supporter belive the ellection was cheated. Since its the republican who were in charge. In canada, those in charge to supervise the election can't even vote.
The fact that elections CAN by run differently based on the party currently in power sounds insane to me, to be honest. How can anyone think that isn't constantly being exploited?
that is until Harper rigged the elections of 2011 and 2015 with illegal robocalls on election day to non con voters. and replaced the heads of CSIS the RCMP elections Canada and the civilian oversite of CSIS 4 days after the 2011 election. i know this cause i got one of the robocalls myself.
as a canadian, love the fact that you're trying to educate yourself on your neighbours. One thing about the US being so powerful is that other nations out of necessity need to understand American institutions/history to some degree, whereas that pressure isn't felt in the US so kudos to you for doing the research!
Although it needs to be said: nearly all of the English-speaking countries the US is closely allied with are run in more or less the same way. Even Ireland's government is largely the same, less the monarchy (they have a president who is similarly powerless).
The prime minister appoints a new senator only when a seat becomes vacant. It is a lifetime appointment (must retire by age 75). We don't get a whole new senate everytime there is a new prime minister/government. Just thought maybe that was a bit unclear. ✌️🇨🇦
BUT...Sometimes, they don't get replaced when they retire. I forget what it was that Brian Mulroney wanted the Senate to do, but after analyzing which way each Senator would vote he realized he would be about 8 votes shy. Then he got the idea of finding out how many Senators Canada is allowed. He discovered there was room for something like 12 more Senators. So, he packed the Senate with his pics, and thus was able to have the Senate pass whatever it was he wanted to get passed. Then those Senators hung around for 20-30 years.
If a government is in power long enough they can effectively load the Senate with those of like political leaning. Senate reform has been a simmering issue in Canada for decades. Many would like to see an elected Senate but it’s a constitutional issue and difficult to do.
@@mikew.to1 Sorry to tell you that, but since 2015, the process to choose new senators changed: Ottawa, Ontario, December 3, 2015 - In order to bring real change to the Senate, the Honourable Maryam Monsef, Minister of Democratic Institutions, with the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, announced today the establishment of a new, non-partisan, merit-based process to advise on Senate appointments. Under the new process, an Independent Advisory Board on Senate Appointments will be established to provide advice to the Prime Minister on candidates for the Senate. The Independent Advisory Board will be guided by public, merit-based criteria, in order to identify Canadians who would make a significant contribution to the work of the Senate. The criteria will help ensure a high standard of integrity, collaboration, and non-partisanship in the Senate. The Government is moving quickly to reform the Senate, recognizing its fundamental role in the representation of regional and minority interests in the legislative process. The new, independent appointments process will contribute to creating a less partisan and more effective institution to serve Canadians.
I believe that like the house of Lords the senate members although usually affiliated with a political party , as members they do not need to chase political votes or follow the party line, can be more independent and act in the best interests as they see it of the country rather than any political party. My understanding of an elected second chamber, is that you often have a situation where each chamber is majority controlled by opposing parties that put the political agenda of that party ahead of the best interests of the country (appreciate not always the case).
Hum, my suggestion would be to change it to be based on the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method but otherwise remain unchanged. Basically, depending on how many seats parties already have and how many votes they had you can determine what party should get a seat to achieve greater proportionality. The exact proportionality would change from election to election and seat to seat. Then the exact representative could be elected from that party on the advice of the prime minister as usual. Occasionally small parties would be due a seat, but the exact representative would still be someone that the prime minister feels he or she can work with from said party, leading to moderates from the more extreme parties being represented. But other voices then just the big ones would still be heard there. Education and other qualifications can also be taken into account when picking the representative given that it's a long term job. On the whole, I think that would make things better over time and stop issues with one party stacking their own representatives there. So if one party gets 30% of the total votes in the election, one gets 20%, one 15%, one 12% and one 3% for instance and the makeup from earlier is day 25%, 22%, 18%, 10% and 5% then whatever party is the furthest from what they *should* have if the result where 100% proportional would get that seat. But the governor general on the advice from the prime minister would still decide who from that party gets the job. Does that make sense? The seats would just be nudged towards more proportionality over time, rather than changing overnight. And if no one reaches 75 years old in a election term then no seats are given. If a seat is given to a party the prime minister doesn't like it could be given to someone old in the hope that the death is replaced soon in a better election result too. But yeah... Part of the advantage of such a system is that it would reduce the spoiler effect when people vote honestly for smaller parties, as sure, their vote is spoiled in the house of commons, but perhaps it'll have a impact in the Senate. So you may feel a little bit more inclined towards protest votes etc.
Fun fact. Kiefer Sutherland’s grandfather Tommy Douglas was the leader of one of Canada’s political party and he is responsible for our free health care.
I, in my young adult life, worked for my MP in Ottawa. When Tommy died, my MP got two spots at the memorial service. Since his wife was back in the riding, he asked me if i wanted to go. It was one of my most memorable time working on the Hill. Stay safe, stay sane, be well
He was not a member of the NDP and was responsible solely for healthcare in the province not the entire country. He was head of the CCF and the liberals brought in universal healthcare with the cooperation of the other provinces , healthcare being a provincial concern, and premiers.
I went to the door of Tommy Douglas' birth home in Falkirk, Scotland back in 2019. It was lovely to see his influence on Canadian culture recognized in his birth nation.
They kind of glossed over the fact that Canada (and any other "English Law" nations such as UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc) have many political parties. For example Canada has around 5 major political parties, however that number changes from time to to, but 5 is usually the minimum. Also, it is illegal to prevent any forming of political union in Canada, which are called "Fringe Parties" . So we occasionally see the Communist Party of Canada or even smaller, but still legally legitimate parties.
that has nothing to do with the governance model of democracy. There are several models of the democracy concept. Canada is a parliamentary model, the US is a republic model. The number of parties is not relevant.
Prime Minister sits in the house of commons and participates when parliament is in session. Better than having the PM off in an ivory tower like president.
This form of government is older than the American system, and can allow for a minority government. This forces cooperation with the other parties. Imagine cooperation being mandatory to run government in America. 😉
I would disagree with the idea that the Westminster system is older than the US System, they’re both offshoots of the same British Constitutional System in the 18th Century that went in very different directions. The US President basically has the Powers the UK Monarch did in the 18th Century. A veto on laws but needing a legislature to enact them, the legislature needing to give money to run the government, the President/Monarch Administering the Government and Appointing Ministers from outside the congress with the Congress/Parliament having an Impeachment power, all of those are things the UK Monarch had in the 18th century that the American Presidency Maintains, a big part of the American Revolution is that they were “Restoring their rights”, as in, establishing the rights that had already been established in the UK in the Glorious Revolution, in the American colonies there was a strong feeling they didint have the same rights as those in the home country, and the American system of government was set up to re establish them. Why the American declaration of Independence is filled with greivances about existing rights in the UK being violated in America. Overall, the American Government and especially the american presidency is very similar to the UK Constitution at that time. Meanwhile, the 19th century in the UK brought with it the firm establishment of government being responsible primarily to the House of Commons and thus needing the confidence of the House, and the gradual elimination of the Monarch’s political Powers. So I would argue that the American System technically could be argued to be the older one, or at least both are offshoots of the same system.
@@WanukeX as the basis of the English parliamentary system could be argued to to have origonated with the Magna Carta of 1215 .There is no argument of presedence
But the canadian system how it is was drafted together FORMALLY in 1867, so yes the American government is older than the canadian government, by almost 100 years actually, my family have been in New France since the early 1600s (had to show my ancestry for metis citizenship) for a LONG time Canada was a colony and governed as such
The big difference is that in Canada, the Head of State and the Head of Government is not the same person. In the US they are the same person. I prefer our system in Canada.
Not only do we have a politically neutral Head of State but Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces in Her Majesty. Also, when being sworn in as a Canadian Citizen you do not pledge allegiance to our flag or our nation, but to Her Majesty.
Our Senate is different from yours in one major aspect too, which helps it work so well. We are much less polarized politically and the Senators appointed are not professional politicians. They are experts in their own field, most of whom are often already known across Canada because of their professional accoomplishments. We have several former journalists (who were on the national stage), police chiefs, doctors, lawyers, musicians, astronauts, athletes, university professors, and the list goes on. These people actually do represent Canada as a whole because for the most part, they represent all walks of life. The PM also has to run and get elected in a riding. So this person iss not only the PM but is also an MP (member of parliament) who has to look after his/her constituents. If the PM does not win his/her riding, another MP will give up their seat so that the PM will have a seat in the house of commons but he will also have to look after those constituents.
The Senate in Canada is much less powerful than in the US. They don't pass legislation in the sense that Americans think of it. The House sends up a Bill. The Senate can basically send it back with recommendations if they have serious problems with it. They usually don't.
Their appointment not being tied to an election cycle can also help let senators be more independent rather than just toeing party lines which makes this style of senate act better as a secondary government, I'm not too familiar with what mechanisms we have for removing senators though in the event of extraordinary events
@@Phynellius You have to do something egregiously bad to get kicked out of the senate, like missing too many sittings or having racist letters on your government-provided website.
Yes. It's important to recognize that the Prime Minister is also an MP (Member of Parliament) elected by the riding that he represents. The current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is the elected MP for the Montreal riding of Pompineau, in the province of Quebec. When Canadians go to the polls for a federal election, Justin Trudeau's name will not appear on any ballot in Canada, except the ballots cast by the residents of Pompineau. Justin Trudeau has been elected by the Liberal Party members to be the party leader, therefore he became the Prime Minister.
I have always felt that the greatest failing of the u.s. education system is a lack of knowledge of the rest of the world that you live in. Your videos are a perfect example of this.
I agree. Most of european countries and Canada have basic understanding on how other democratic system work all over the world and I do believe it help them to improve their own system to be better and better by taking some pros and cons of everyone, while in the US it is very traditional and stick to the constitution wrote long time ago. ( english is not my 1st language and it is not an easy subject to talk about so sorry for mistakes).
@@eze3922 It is true in my provinces their is actually an election that's going on right now, and we often hear politician say. They did that in Norway or in Danmark and we want to import that here.
YESSSS Exactly, we have to learn about USA (Canada/UK is the first country to invade the US and burn down the original White House) but it goes to show how the American system still doesn’t teach anything outside of USA
We here in Australia have a Governor General. As do the other 14 countries in the Commonwealth Realm. They perform all the duties of the Queen in their respective countries because, hard to believe, but Lizzie can't be in all our countries at once. The UK doesn't have a Governor General because they have no need for one. The Queen is already there to do the job. So really although on paper the Queen is our Head of State, in practice the Governor General is instead.
At 15:29 i had to pause to say this : My father is a provincial court judge, the difference between American judges is in Canada judges do not need to be elected! How can a judge be fair in America if they need to be elected every 4 years? In Canada if you become a judge it's until you decide to retire ! 72 or 75years old i believe is the maximum. Hope that helps :)
Elected judges are subject to the public they serve. The public can punt a corrupt judge in short order. In Canada they "appointed" by the club they belong to and hold power until the club receives enough pressure to remove the Magistrate. You could be waiting a long long time to get rid of corruption in Canada's legal system, as the boyz club is secretive and unelected. We have a plethora of asinine Magistrates in this country. Look at the corruption over those punitive, infantile decisions in Alberta , Manitoba etc. over religious rights and freedoms.
@@pistachoo. That is my exact point!!! Look at the corrupt justice that apointed a special master for TRUMP!! She needs elections!!! It's not funny !! and btw my father a Canadian judge says the exact same thing you did!! HOW CAN YOU BE IMPARTIAL? OR FAIR.....
The legal system is actually fairly different in principle because the separation of federal and provincial powers are very very much more clear cut than in the US. I wonder if there is a video that explains it because it’s fascinating. The provinces are very much more independent than a US state is in most non-criminal matters.
This video was very high-level and missed a lot of interesting details about how our government works here in Canada and some of the more interesting differences between Canada and the US. Here's a big one: Because Canada has more than 2 parties at the federal level, it is possible to have.a very split parliament where no one party has a majority. One of the interesting implications of this is that at ANY time, some of the smaller parties can "team up" on a key vote to force a new election to happen. We call a government that has less than 50% of house of commons members being from one party a "minority" government. Some Canadians dislike minority governments, because they find it to be chaotic that at any time there could be a whole new election - but I personally like it because it means that not enough Canadians felt comfortable enough to give the keys of the country entirely to any one of the parties that were running, so now the parties had to negotiate and make deals and compromises if they wanted to stay in power. Sometimes you even get a cabinet with members from more than one party during a minority government, because one or more of the parties that didn't win the election will say "put some of our people into the cabinet or we will force another election".
If the people no longer trust the government and enough people feel that way, they can write ( for free), email or phone their m. p or m. p. p . to tell them to vote non- confidence on a major bill and that vote will cause the dissolution of parliament and cause an election to be called.
@@barbarae-b507 i wish it were thar simple here right now. We unfortunately have a minority government of which the two parties no one wants to run the country have teamed up making the opposition parties vote of no consequence and the phone calls and letters pointless
@@xcarolynx2002 That unfortunately is true. Unfortunately, the political parties have just not presented us with other leaders who are competent enough. I certainly don’t understand it. Trudeau is worse than his dad was and he was very bad.
@@barbarae-b507 I have heard he was. I would like to have faith and hope in the new Conservative leader but i am just not sure i guess time will tell. From what i have been able to learn and research he does have some WEF “plants” within the party so that’s not good. If that is true i hope that they get very publicly found out and kicked out of the party.
Some things that aren't entirely obvious, the Official Opposition isn't "The Losing Party" it's the party with the second most members in the House of Commons. This is an important distinction, because Canada has more than two parties So: Party A might be in Power for two terms, but Parties B and C could each be the Official Opposition for separate terms. Additionally, if the lead party has less than half of the seats in the house of Commons, the other parties can work together in collaboration to pass their own laws without needing the support of the leading party. (Also, Members of Parliament aren't obligated to vote on party lines, so laws that aren't popular with the entirety of the leading party might still pass if those MP's break ranks.)
"Despite"? Three of the top five countries on that index are monarchies. Five in the top 10. That strongly suggests constitutional monarchy is a help, not a hinderance.
Canada just as Britain is a Constitutional Monarchy. Which means the monarchy is ceremonial and no longer makes the laws. They simply sign them into law. They can send a law back to the legislature for revision twice, with suggestions to make it better. The legislature can take the suggestions or send it back unchanged. The third time GG or the monarch has to sign it into law.
@@barbarae-b507 The monarchy of neigher country is just ceremonial. Constitutionally, the monarch holds all power of government. Typically, that power is "lent" to the politicians. However, the sovereign _can_ use the power themselves to protect the lawful, democratic system from politicains who try to abuse the Crown's authority.
The Canadian Senate really isn’t influenced THAT heavily by the current Prime Munster, as each PM doesn’t actually appoint that many senators, since any past ones can stay until they turn 75. The current government only appoints a new senator when one of the existing ones retires (typically when they turn 75). So rather, it’s a smorgasbord of Senators appointed by many PMs over the years.
The big difference between the Cabinet in the US and Canada is that the Prime Minister's Cabinet is chosen from people who have been elected to the House of Commons (referred to as a Minister with Portfolio i.e. The Minister of Trade, The Minister of National Defence etc.) where in the US the Presidential Cabinet is not selected from the House of Representatives and is instead chosen from the Private Sector or Government Bureaucracy.
We became partially-independent (with most of the foreign policy decisions done by the UK) in 1867. We became self-governing in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster (we were granted some freedom in doing our own foreign policy). A lesser known fact is that Canada became fully independent in 1982 with the drafting and passing of our own Constitution.
Still laws need to be signed off by an appointed representive of the throne - which is done mostly automatically, but when that person gets power frenzied... it's dangerous.
@@HockeyRiveNord The governor general doesn't represent a chair. Regardless, the role of the monarch and viceroy is not some kind of proof Canada isn't independent. You need to learn some Canadian civics and constitutional history so you can become aware of which country's monarch actually reigns over Canada.
@@mariosportsmaster7662 It's not "besides that". In ALL ways, Canada is a sovereign nation. TheSahio just has no clue about the existence of the office of King of Canada. Nearly a century after independence and so many dumbasses _still_ think Canada's a colony.
@@HockeyRiveNord Even the Monarch and therefore the Governor General can only send legislation back with comments or suggestions twice on the 3rd time they must sign it. Same for the Lt. Governor of provinces.
Hi, Tyler! I'm really enjoying your videos as an armchair Canadian - It's great to see Americans take an interest in their neighbour! I'm a former legislative assistant in Canada's Parliament, and there's so much I'd love to help you expand upon! Hopefully, you get a chance to see this!
I've been going over several of your videos about Canada lately, and glad you've taken such an interest in our country and culture. I think we all tend to get very excited when people try to learn about us. So it's nice to see so many videos of you sponging up the syrup. :)
Thanks for being interested in our history and government! Canadians always appreciate when Americans go out of their way to learn about us, because we know everything about you! It's nice to be thought of 🥰
When things are done "by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister," it always means the PM makes the decisions. In our constitutional monarchy, the sovereign or his representative must act only on the advice of the elected government.
@@bayousbambino427 which is true, however, the GG rarely does this (never from my understanding) because the next step is the PM appoints a new GG. There would have to be a quite significant incident for a GG to say no to a request from the PM.
If I'm remembering my grade nine social studies class correctly, the first governor general actually made a conscious choice to agree to whatever the Canadian government approved because he wanted their newfound independence to mean something.
I really like you doing these videos about Canada. It’s so often assumed that the US and Canada are near-identical nations, but there really are so many differences under the surface. I love seeing it from your perspective.
The difference is in Canada bills are passed that are for most part good for the people while in the US bills are passed for what is best for the donors. This is why I said the US is not a democracy.
Wrong. In the USA bills are passed for the good of the people by one party and for the good of big corporations and the billionaires by the other party.
@@reindeer7752 Wrong, both parties pass bills for the good of big corporations and billionaires. One just tosses a few scraps to the masses as an afterthought.
The Canadian Senate is what you call the House of Lords in Britain, we don’t call it Lords because basically we don’t have Lords. Just like Britain we do not directly elect our Prime Minister, We elect MP’s from our district and the party with the most elected MP’s. Their elected leader becomes our Prime Minister. Most Commonwealth countries follow Britain’s parliamentary system. Whenever an official event occurs that requires the presence of the Governor General he/she is treated as if the Queen herself is present. The Union Jack is flown along with the Maple Leaf and both O Canada and God Save the Queen are played.
FYI… Lords, also known as Peerage, make up part of the House of Lords. 26 bishops of the Church of England sit in the House of Lords and Lords Temporal include life peers, excepted hereditary peers elected under the House of Lords Act 1999 and remaining law life peers. Not really like our House of Commons members but serve the same purpose.
@@annecaminer2988 I was talking about the Canadian government. Our Senate is modelled after Britain’s House of Lords. Obviously we don’t have any peers of the realm……no lords, no members of the Church. Our PM suggests the choices and the Governor General appoints them. I’m not sure how our House of Commons differs much? The MP’s are voted for by the people in a general election. The party with the most seats forms the government ( Canada has five official parties ) The Party in charge elects their leader, who then becomes our PM.
If you have any doubt as to whether Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada, take a look at any Canadian coin and their $20 bill. The Canadian throne is not the same as the British one, we just share the same monarch (as we do with Australia, New Zealand and many other Commonwealth countries). The union is a personal one; not a political one. I know it always comes as a shock to US citizens when they discover that much of English-speaking Canada was populated after 1781 by Americans who were loyal to their King (George III). French-speaking Canadians preferred law and order to the anarchy on offer in the South and they refused to join the American rebels in 1776; the two colonies of West and East Florida also remained loyal to the King (something else I suspect you weren't taught in school either !)
@@reindeer7752 Juan Ponce de León found the fountain of youth in St, Augustine Fla how is that for your Spanish Explores of Florida that is why the area from Jacksonville down to St. Augustine is called the first coast. Oh and btw II was born in Canada.
From a practical perspective, the Canadian Senate operates almost like a think tank for the elected government. Legislation being proposed in the House of Commons passes through the Senate for review and recommendation and although the Senate is not populated by elected representatives it is possiblele that they could block a bill from becoming law.
It's an interesting balance. The senate can technically strike down bills, but doing so improperly could result in the senate being reformed or abolished. Same with the Governor General. Blocking bills without a really good reason would be the fastest way to remove the monarchy in Canada
@@dickiewongtk It cannot be rejected a third time. It is passed into law without senate approval because the senate is not a democratic body but an appointed one
Canada and the US both have systems that are based on the UK Westminster model, but different eras. The biggest differences have to do with the powers in the legislature and the head of state. The US broke away from the UK when the UK was less democratic. The president replaced the King/Governor General and is head of government and head of state. As an elected official, he has a lot of power. The Queen/Governor General are not elected, so they have lots of nominal power, but cannot use it unless there is a crisis. Advice to the Queen/Governor General is essentially an order. In the 1970s in Australia, there was a constitutional crisis that was brought on by the GG not following the PM's advice. The same could happen here, but I think all vice-regal appointees in the realms took lessons from that crisis. The PM is similar in role to the house majority leader except that he is the head of governement, rather than third in line like the house majority leader is in the US. The roles of head of state and head of government are seperate in Canada. As mentioned earlier, the president is both in the US. The Senate, is the upper house in Canada like the US, but it isn't elected. It serves as a brake on the next government. As you mentioned, it's appointed by the GG. Its role is to be a consultative body free of the pressure of electoral politics. The Senate has the power to block a bill but the House of Commons can overrule. It is based on the UK House of Lords where the aristocracy could veto what the commoners in the H of C passed. Even the UK has evelved out of that mindset. One final thing that is confusing is that while Elizabeth II is the Queen of England, she is also the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica etc. She's basically has a full time job as the Queen of England and part time jobs as Queen as the other realms. The Governors General in federal states like Canada and Australia, Governor in unitary states like New Zealand does the full-time work in her absence. In Canada, probably Australia too, their are Lieutenant Governors that perform the same role as the Governor General in the provinces and not the territories. She dresses differently as Queen of each realm and wears different military & honours insignia. We can choose our own monarch, but don't. It will be interesting to see what happens if the UK ditches the monarchy. Canada will have a monarchy as long as the UK does because the constitution makes it all but impossible to do due to its requiring unanimous consent of every province and the federal government. As a poli sci grad and someone who works in a policy role in government, it seems so trivial. Thanks for pointing out how complex and confusing this stuff is.
One thing to add the benfit of not having both chambers of the government being elected means we don't have stalemate like you get in the US. The senate is very much just their as place of reflection as you said. This means if the two house can't agree the senate will almost always deferred to actually elected body the house.
Just to let you know, the house CANNOT overrule the senate. The senate can block bills forever, with zero mechanism to bypass or ignore the senate in any circumstance. Having said that, by convention, the senate will eventually defer to the will of the house of commons.
@@trentrobinson5413 That's not totally true. Section 26 of the Constitution Act, 1867 permits the Crown to appoint up to eight senators as was done in 1989 as the GST Bill made its way through the Senate. The Liberals had the majority and with the temporary Senators the bill passed the Senate. It's true that the House of Commmons technically cannot overrule the Senate, the Governor General cannot refuse advice of the PM making the flooding of the Senate a defacto overrulling of by the House of Commons. It was the first use of that section of the Act and to the best of my knowledge, the only time.
From my history lessons from middle school... Canada's first Governor-General was handed a bill he didn't want to sign. After a lot of hemming and hawing, he finally signed it because he didn't want to provoke a constitutional crisis as the first act of _any_ Governor-General of Canada.
So, here are a few of the ways the Canadian government works differently. 1/ Since the Prime Minister represents the party with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, he (or she - we've had one woman so far) has to be able to get along with the Party and the members of Parliament. A Prime Minister can't go rogue. 2/ The government represents the largest number of seats in the House of Commons NOT the majority of seats. While the parties prefer to have majority governments - Canadians are more likely to elect minority governments, which is where the largest party does not have a majority of seats and has to rely on a third or fourth party in order to pass laws. Which leads to... 3/ There's a preference to have elections every four years. Unless there are very exceptional circumstances a government has to call an election after five years. There's no minimum amount of time. Since 1962 there have been 19 elections rather than 15. 10 of them were minority governments. Minority governments rarely last for four years - sometimes the party supporting the government will pull out in the hope of improving their number of seats in a new election but more often the government will call an election early in the hopes of getting a majority. 4/ A big difference in thought between Canadian and American politics that struck me with your reference to checks and balances blocking laws. We want the government to work - even when people we disagree with get into power. But our preferences are that the parties not push personal agendas. ie. Same sex marriage was approved by the Federal government after the majority of the Provincial governments, the Supreme court, and the polls indicated majority support. When a political party tries running against something that has majority popular support they'll lose support for being divisive. 5/ I haven't seen it mentioned. Canada is a binational state. Quebec uses the Civil Code from France rather than the Common Law used in the UK, the USA, and English Canada. Any services provided by the Federal government MUST be available in both French and English. In practice, high level Federal politicians and civil servants have to be French/English bilingual. ie Justin Trudeau is a first language French speaker who is fluent in English. 6/ This is something becoming more important. The quickest growing demographic in Canada are the Aboriginal peoples, currently at 5% nationally and on track to be majorities in several provinces in a couple of decades.
@@hotjanuary Trudeau has faced several votes of confidence. As unpopular as Trudeau is the Conservative Party is too socially extreme for 74% of Canadians so voters hold their noses. e,g the Conservative ran on a platform of reporting un-Canadian activities to a government hotline.
@@gwine9087 why should I? His transgressions started when he cut down the fair vote movement at its knees (after being sleezy about stealing the votes from the NDP). His own party, the consulted public, and the consulted professionals agreed proportional representation was a good idea going forward. But Trudeau thinks there’s an “I” in democracy.
I'm Australian. Our system is similar to the Canadian. Main difference here is the appointment rather than election of senators. We have preferential voting and 12 senators per state. This means dominant political parties aren't so dominant- minorities get members as well. And two territories get two senators each. The house of reps has 150 seats with single members. The preferences have very much less effect with only one winner per seat.
I loved the "lightbulbs going off" as you analyzed a new piece of information then quickly pieced it out. You would definitely have a great time talking with a bunch of us Canadians over a beer (one of our beers, of course). Instant subscriber here from East Coast Canada
Dont give him too much of our beer, after a while he wont be able to handle it and speak properly. Remember, their "regular" beer is our "light" beer. LOL
Dude, I love your eagerness to learn. Some advise though. Forget everything you have been told about America inventing democracy. It didn’t! Your political system was based on the system in the U.K. the founding fathers took everything they liked in the British system and tweaked it as necessary. Every commonwealth country has a Westminster style parliamentary system of government. They all have parliamentary systems with mainly ceremonial heads of state. This is the big difference with the US and France. Your Heads of State is the head of Government feather than a figure head of the state. You essentially elect a king every 4 years.
No. A monarch is almost exclusively , by definition, a hereditary position not an elected one. A king or queen, until modern figure heads, had absolute power.
@@reindeer7752 not at all. Many monarchs in the past were elected to their position not by popular vote by all the people but from amongst the nobility. Their sons were by no means guaranteed the crown but it frequently did pass to them and then over time it became routine.
I can't believe you're trying to defend that statement. We don't have nobles. The people elect the president. It is never a hereditary postion. The president does not have absolute power. There is a 4 year term limit at the end of which there is another election and then he/she is out.
@@reindeer7752 The English/ British monarchs were rarely absolute. Some were near absolute but were unable to impose taxes at will and had to at least give people charged with a crime a trial. Also from the reign of Edward 11 they were required to govern through the council thus, introducing accountability to the government.
The glaring difference between the Canadian version of the 'Westminster Parliament system (similar to Britain and the rest of the British Commonwealth) and the American Republic is that its Executive system is not unitary, Presidential, but divided between the Governor General and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has considerably less power than the US President. Executive Orders are sometimes issued by the government. These are rare and used to face emergencies. Ex Orders are issued by the PM and his Cabinet and have temporary standing which must be cross-examined and ratified by the House to become permanent. The Gov Gen is our official head of the armed forces, not the PM and is the authority on declarations of war. The PM can be dethroned by their own party far easier than the President when they lose the confidence of their party. The new leader becomes PM. The Gov Gen holds the power to send back legislation to the House for review and modification, up to 3 times. This power has not been exercised often, it is rare but is on the books. This is still significant because splits the executive power. This guards against dictatorship by not putting all the Executive powers in one office. The Senate cannot kill a bill from parliament, but can send it back to the House of Commons for revision. The Senate has only three referrals back to the House before it must also pass the bill. The Gov Gen signs the bill turning it into law. Our appointed Senate is modelled on the British House of Lords, much reduced in power compared to the American Senate. Effectively, the House of Commons IS the Sovereign Authority, but is has to work with the Senate and the Gov Gen to function.
Another big difference between American and Canadian systems is the tight limitation on party donors, and donations. This reduces the influence of the rich and powerful on government. But we have problems still with undue influence on the government from the rich and entitled. Lastly, there is a broader spectrum of political viewpoints in Canada which is represented by 4-5 political parties covering Left Socialism to Right wing revanchists.
Debatable on which head of government has more power. I didn't think of executive orders, but a Prime Minister doesn't need any house or senate approval to appoint cabinet ministers or judges. Also if they have a majority in the house of commons there is very little stopping them from passing anything. Pros and cons to each system
I like how Taylor is amazed when anything is the same as the American system. Canada's system is based on the English system. The US was governed by England before the Revolutionary war. There system was originally based on the English system too.
The difference between President and Prime Minister is that President is elected to his job directly. Prime Minister is just the leader of the majority party. Which means that if he is doing a crappy job his own party can remove him and appoint someone else. Also, if the other two opposite parties think he is doing a really bad job they can pass a vote of non confidence and force the leading party to elect another leader.
"crappy job his own party can remove him and appoint someone else." Wrong. The party in power looses a non-confidence vote it triggers a general election. It does nothing to cause a party leadership change. That is up to the party involved by a party convention.
You need to watch some Rick Mercer when he goes to colleges/universities and asks people about all things Canadian. For example, ‘Canada had just legalized staples, do you have any words.’ The one woman he asked congratulated Canada for the effort. There are a ton more. Sending elders out in the ocean on an iceberg, too funny!
Very interesting to see your perspective on Canada and our political system. Parliamentary democracy is very different in some ways and very similar in others. In reference to Senate appointments, since Senators appointments are long lived a sitting Prime Minister only has a say in the replacement for an outgoing Senator who has retired, reached their expiry date😉, or been removed from their position, so that tends to keep balance in the makeup of the Senate here. It is also a bit different in that many appointed Senators are not politicians many are famous or noteworthy people with expertise or reputations that serves the government that appoints them. The downside is that there is also the potential for these near lifetime appointments to be used to payoff favors or repay party hacks who have done service to the appointing party in some way. The upside of this is that once appointed a responsible person of integrity doesn't have to worry about pandering to public opinion to get re-elected every four? years. Another aspect that would probably seem unusual to you is that the PM has his or her position only as the head of the Party forming the government, and to form a government their party must have a clear majority of seats in the House or make a deal with a lesser party for support to do so. In these situations where no party has a clear majority, called a minority government, it is possible for the government to fall in a vote of non-confidence and an election be called prematurely, if the other parties are so dissatisfied that they join together to defeat them. It would be kinda like if your President's job was tied to the results of your House elections, and he had to run again if the House flips.
One big difference with how we elect our House of Commons compared to the use House of Representatives is that we do not have Gerrymandering. Boundaries are not drawn by the current ruling party. An independent commission is the only one who can draw them. We don't have those crazy Escher shapes like in the US that allow parties to end up with something like 6 out of 8 Congressional Seats while only getting 30% of the vote.
I'm sorry ... you think we don't have any gerrymandering here? An independent commission may propose the shape and make-up of ridings but let's not pretend those proposals aren't altered as they pass through the house of commons for final approval.
@@chrisgleave3602 the evidence supports the previous comment over yours and the last time these changes were made was during the previous governments term not the current one
The thing with the Senate here in Canada it is made up of members from mostly two parties as well since they are the only two parties to have formed governments so fat but it is very unusual for the Senate to block any bill passed in the House of Commons. So if the was a Liberal government with the Senate at the time having a majority of Conservative members they would not stop bills from passing even if they disagreed with the bill. In Canada that would cost that party the next election.
Another great one Tyler. Hi I too enjoyed this Learning experience I'm with you making commentary throughout only adds to the entertainment value. Congratulations on the success.
Queen Elizabeth is the head of Canada's government but this is purely a symbolic position, a holdover from the monarchy system of many years ago. Senators are appointed rather than elected, and cannot be fired because this makes them immune to political influence. They are appointed by the Prime Minister and the appointment rubber stamped by the Governor General. In other words, in theory they are appointed by the Queen but in practice her representative automatically approves the government's choice. Senators are usually senior politicians and bureaucrats and they keep their job until they age out or, may resign due to ill health. They are supposed to be a mature second thought on all new laws, to protect the country if the commons gets carried away and passes an unjust law. In practice the Prime Minister and commons will not risk making fools of themselves by passing a law unless they know the Senate is ok with it.
@@geographyinaction7814 When we just had an election and the government is defeated. It happened recently that 3 opposition parties were to propose to the GG to form a coalition : PLC + NPD, with support of the Bloc Québécois, even if PCC has more seats.
FYI Cabinet members do not have to be sitting MP's. The government is decided by the party with the most seats. ie most like-minded MP's. The Leader of that party becomes Prime Minister. This is why we have something called a Minority Government.
To clarify a couple of things: Canada's Head of State is King Charles III, King of Canada, represented by the Governor-General. 15:33 Re: Supreme Court, "Absolutely the same." There are some major differences that weren't mentioned in the video because it wasn't meant to be comparative. Firstly, the way US Supreme Court Justices are appointed is very political, with the justices' political views dragged through endless amounts of public questioning. In Canada, the judges' political views aren't discussed when they're appointed. Secondly, not only are US Supreme Court Justices not required to be judges, they're not even required to have graduated from law school. Canadian Supreme Court Judges must have already served as judges in a superior court or have been a member of the bar of a province or territory.
One of the simplest ways to compare Canada's government system to the U.S. is that in U.S., the executive and legislative branches are separate and distinct. While in Canada, those branches are combined. Someone much smarter than me could probably explain the pros and cons of each. However, Canada lacks the "checks and balances" built into the U.S. system.
LOL We didn't give up our Queen. She is only a figure head at this point, but she is definitely important. We love our British roots. That's why we didn't settle in the United States. Mary Simon is the first Indigenous Governor General. She works with Justin Trudeau (our PM).
Prior to the repatriation of our constitution in 1982, Canada's highest court of appeal was actually not the Supreme Court of Canada, but the Privy Council in Britain. It was rare that any matters were taken up for Canada by the Proxy Council, but it did exist. That was one of the last things (along with making changes to the Canadian Constitution) that were not fully in the hands of Canadians prior to this.
Queen Elizabeth II is the head (symbolic head) of a few countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). However, these countries have their own parliament and the United Kingdom parliament has no power over these countries parliaments. In other words the United Kingdom and few other countries share the same monarch. However, the monarch has symbolic power while the real power lies with each country's democratically elected parliament.
I was born as a Canadian citizen. I was talking to the same class that the government General of Canada is a representative of the king or queen of England. That if any point that the government general or the king of Queen of England decides that the government of Canada is off the rails. Legally speaking by doing something that is not considered a democracy . Then legally they can take over and rule the government for a period of six months until there's another election called. This is known as the claws of emergency action by the king or queen of England. This was set up as a safety net for the government as part of their independence and the 1960s and the 1984 agreement respectively.
This is little known but actually true. The Monarch is to stop any overthrowing of the government that is democratically elected, if a coup is attempted and set up a temporary government until a new election can take place and the new democratically-elected government can be formed.
One very big difference is that in Canada The Queen (now King) (represented by the Governor General) is our Head of state, and the Prime Minister is Head of Government. Having these two entities separate means that it is easier to hold governments accountable, because if there is a vote of non-confidence in the House, the Governor General can call an election. Another big difference is the length of time an election campaign lasts - usually 6 weeks - I think the longest was 11 weeks which caused sone controversy. In the US, the election cycle seems interminable. Thank you for your interest, Tyler, I really enjoy your videos.
You seemed to imply that Canadian Senators are entirely composed of one political party at any given point in time. Senators serve until age 75, and are only replaced when they pass away, retire or resign. So, any new senators added during a particular government are typically from the party in power, all the existing senators who were appointed during other governments still continue to serve. The current government only adds to the senate as seats become available.
Because Canada's population is tiny and The USA's is huge and way more diverse. The republican party wants even more power given to the states where it serves their ultra- conservative interests. Yes, its BS.
Some fine points here. The PM only gets to appoint Senators as vacancies open up. Each province and territory has a set number of Senators and they serve until they're 75 or they resign, so vacancies are rare and periodic. It's not like the PM gets to wipe the slate clean and pick over a hundred of these folks... her or she might get to appoint half a dozen or so at most during his or her tenure. In terms of the cabinet, Ministers are analogous to Secretaries in the US cabinet. except that by convention in Canada, Britain, Australia, etc., they generally have to be elected to the House of Commons/Representatives, rather than simply appointed by the President as in the US. They're responsible to the House in a way that the strict separation of powers in the US doesn't recognize or even permit.
13:30 Ministers of the Crown - essentially who becomes the minister for each government branch, ie minister of health, minister of finance, minister of transportation, etc...
Can't see any reason why an American would have money from Canada, Australia or New Zealand unless they visited there. I have been to all three, though, and the coins of Oz and NZ are gorgeous.
The Canadian Senate aka the Upper House is considered the "sober second thought". Because of the system of appointments and term length, it's extremely common for the Senate to be populated by senators appointed by the previous government. By the time the majority has shifted (a process that takes years as individual senators age out), the party is power usually has changed. The nature of the system generally keeps it antagonistic towards the ruling party in the Lower House.
Yes in the US you would call them Secretary of Defense while in Canada they would be called Minister of Defense. The big difference is in the US they are appointed while in Canada they are picked from elected members.
One thing to remember, there isn't always a 'reigning' party. Canada is a multiple party system, there are more than 2 parties. So, you can have a 27-25-24-24 split. The party with 27 would have their leader as prime minister, the party with 25 would be the opposition, and the other two parties would still exist, but would also be powerful, because the leading party would need one of their parties support to push through anything that needs a vote. Often in this minority government position, two parties would temporarily merge (until the next election) to form a majority, so things could actually get done. This also fosters some cooperation between members, since opponents one day could turn into party members the next.
It's really important to understand that the monarchy in Canada, and it's representative in the governor general, are strictly figureheads. They play a tiny role in passing legislation but they really have no power to make a decision about it one way or the other because that is decided democratically through the other levels of government. Canada's government is what is known as a constitutional monarchy ; The queen and governor-general may advise the prime minister, but they have no real power over the prime minister and other members of parliament because they are all elected by Canadian citizens. The governor-general ends up playing quite an important ambassadorial role however.
They have very real power over the prime minister, actually. The monarch holds ALL power; it's right in the Constitution Act 1867. Hence, the PM has to go to the monarch or viceroy all the time to get a bill approved, an order-in-council signed, a judge, senator, or ambassador appointed, or a declaration of war. Yes, the conventions of constitutional monarchy and responsible government constrain the monarch and governor general to almost always following the direction they get from parliament and Cabinet. However, the power remains theirs and, in constitutional crises, or when the PM is telling the Crown to do something that will upset the constitutional, democratic system of government, the King or GG can use their power on their own.
@@bayousbambino427 yes I think I stated that elsewhere in this conversation. They do have that role to play but that power is limited to very specific circumstances, which must apply before it can be exercised. The Monarch is the safety barrier, for example, should someone attempt a coup ( which almost happened this year in Canada ).
@@nancysiciliana3387 That's right. I was mostly agreeing with you in my last comment, except for that one point, which I hadn't seen you mention elsewhere.
Tyler a useful way to think about this is Canada's federal government is based on the structures of the British government. They (UK) have the Sovereign, House of Lords, and House of Commons. Their House of Lords is our Senate, but we retained the British style of appointment. In the UK, the Sovereign is the head of state and by ceremony, signs bills into law, asks leaders of parties to form Government, etc. In Canada, because the Sovereign cannot be physically present, the Governor General plays the role and is the representative of the Sovereign. So basically, Canada has a Westminister model parliamentary system, which other British Commonwealth countries also possess. If the US did not have its revolution of independence, it would have most likely had a House of Commons, had a prime minister, a House of Lords, and a Govenor General. The House of Commons would have a Hansard - the written record of the proceedings. Canada also possesses a written constitution, in which the UK does not. Before this Constitution, any fundamental changes to the Canadian system required final sign off from the UK Parliament. The 1984 repatriation of the Canadian Constitution allowed an amending formula that did not require the UK Parliament to sign off on. What this shows you is the long but unbroken relationship Canada has had with the UK and the British Crown. Canada slowly evolved into an independent country, retaining political structures and traditions of the UK, as well as the ceremonial role of "the Crown" as the Sovereign.
I guess one of the big differences between the U.S. system and the Canadian system is that under the Canadian system of government, the Prime Minister is also a sitting member of the House of Commons. That advantage to this is that he/she are there in the house to answer questions about bills, government policy, etc.. In a minority government situation, this is where the government of the day has the most seats in the house but not the majority of the seats in the house, the government of the day must compromise on policy and bills in order to keep themselves in power. A minority government is my personal favourite as it forces the government to be a bit more open to ideas than it otherwise would in a majority government situation.
My God did this person ever take a History course in his lifetime. I did and I learned about US history but again our education system is miles ahead of the US.
Well, its a lot easier to educate a country with a miniscule population compared to the USA and with a much more homogenous population. The USA is still struggling to overcome the disparity in education due to former segregation. The USA also has far more immigrants from far more nations, many of whom have limited English skills. Teachers in states close to Mexico have to teach bilingually. I have seen education deteriorate sharply in my lifetime for a variety of reasons, but currently, in particular the republican party wants to destroy the public school system because its too liberal (evil socialist), doesn't force their religious views on children and thinks teaching the truth about slavery and atrocities against indigenous people makes white children "feel bad about themselves." Some schools have even removed, The Diary of Anne Frank." Combine that with never wanting to fund schools or pay teachers well.
A little snarky, but is it really worse than the dozens (hundreds?) of American commenters schooling the rest of us with their superiority complex? One person's truth...
@@reindeer7752 I will agree the US has far more immigrants in numbers but by percentage the US is 15% while Canada is 21%. Our education system accounts for this diversity as well. This is why we don't have school payer anymore or religious studies that just focus on Christianity. Yes there are still private schools for that but they are not large in number. Also since French and English are the official languages of Canada there are bilingual studies offered in every province in Canada.
@@zwhtan Yes I came across a little snarky there. Sorry about that. But I do get frustrated with Americans not having the knowledge of the rest of the world that I believe they need in order to make informed decisions. This is not all of their fault and is due to the priorities of their education systems and the lack of their NEWS media doing doing their jobs a swell. The needed information is on the internet but Americans have a lack of trust in that source of information as well.
You have to keep in mind the prime minister doesn’t appoint the senate members each election. Similar to the Supreme Court, once appointed it is for life(well 74), so a PM may only get to appoint 1 or 2 on even none in his term. A senate may be more favourable to one party for some time before a future PM gets to appoint a new senator or 2 to change the balance.
Since Canada hasn’t had a civil war, school shootings are a rarity here, people voice their governmental concerns in a (largely) legal and respectful fashion, people tend to work WITH the elected government until an election either renews or replaces a governing party, and Canada doesn’t really hold any imperialist agenda unlike the USA, I’ll take the Canadian system over the USA’s any day of the week! USA has been a nifty, but ultimately failed experiment... just based on the fact that the USA elected a sociopath to its highest office in 2016.
The other comment is that the Prime Minister doesn't do appointments outside Parliament. The US president sometimes gets a secretary of department from Congress but they are his appointees. Whereas parliament cabinet members are part of the houses
@@MrBonners Having observed your government for the past 22 years, I'd have to say calling your Repubic a "form" of democracy is a bit of a crap-shoot! Get rid of the electoral college and you'll be a lot closer. Peace and Love from Canada
Trust me dude. You are not an average American man. You are interested in and understand a whole lot more about Canada than prob 90% of Americans. You're really funny too. Really enjoy your videos, keep them coming.
The United States was originally founded as a "Constitutional Republic" instead of a pure democracy. This means that the U.S. is made up of 50 states (and some territories) with their own individual sovereignty (a republic) with a national or Federal Government that oversees major needs of all such as the military, mail service, printing money, etc.), but only with the powers allocated to it in the Constitution. All powers not allocated to the Federal Government in the Constitution fall to the individual states, and thus the people. Had the Constitution not been structured in this way by the Framer's, the original constitutional document would have failed and not ratified by the original 13 states legislatures, all with their own unique identities and needs. Had that happened, the U.S. geography today would be made up of a multiple of tiny nations with multiple ethnic origins, that would resemble the European Continent. As a Constitutional Republic, the U.S., through its resources and the individuality of its citizens, became the greatest nation in the world for freedom and choice, not to mention the standard of living we all enjoy.
There is no such thing as a pure democracy. A republic is a governing model of the democracy concept, there are other models. The number of states in a republic is irrelevant to being a republic, can be any number. There are several models of a Republic, the original was the Roman Republic. France is a Republic much different then the US. There are many republics in various structural forms in the world. The democracies of the British Commonwealth are a parliamentary system constitutional democracies. Also with various structures on the concept. The explanation on this video is very over simplified and misleading.
For the Senate, the Prime Minister can only advise the appointment of a senator when a vacancy opens up. In other words, when a new Prime Minister is elected, there is 0 change to the Senate. The PM only advises when a senator ages out, resigns, or gets voted out by the Senate itself (which has never happened). Basically the Senate is populated with members that were appointed under the advice of previous PM's. This basically ensures no radical changes in the Senate, and helps to avoid parties from gaining a power advantage. We also rely on the Governor General to vet the PM's candidates and prevent any party having power in the Senate. 59 of our 88 current senators are non-partisan/independent/unaffiliated. Picking candidates is extremely important, but also dangerous for a PM. Since there is no law that obligates the seats to be instantly filled when they become vacant, they tend to stay open for a while. Any PM would want to fill as many of the seats with people loyal to the ruling party, but since our Senate is mainly independent, that would be seen as an attempt of an extreme power grab, and show corruption. The governor general wouldn't appoint party loyal candidates either, or would maybe allow one or two. Only 15 senators are tied to the conservative party, and 14 tied to the liberal party. These are the 2 dominant parties (in the house), so attempts at disrupting the Senate's equilibrium is a bad move. PM's will usually recommend only 1 or 2 independent candidates so they don't look weak and indecisive, but also to keep from wasting time vetting so many people, while running the risk that by recommending too many(trying to fill all the seats), will backfire due to the possibility of a bad egg or two. Good or bad picks can make or break a pm in the next election.
One thing worth noting in a parliamentarian system is that not being the biggest political party doesn't mean that you've "lost". Indeed you may win an election while losing voters and being smaller then another party as long as you have a coalition with members from other parties that overall had more representatives in the legeslature then any other coalitions (ideally more then half of the legeslature, although that's not always a requirement depending on the country).
The Canadian Senate is kind of like the Supreme court of US in it's composition(but not the role). Those who leave are replaced by the current leading party. So it's a cycle. And their length of seat makes it that it can be more conservative, or more liberal, and that even if the leading party is the opposite. Also they cannot be removed per say, so they have freedom of voting, non affiliate to the parties.
One thing that should be understood about the Canadian senate is that the prime minister (nominally the governor general, but effectively the prime minister) appoints a senator only when a vacancy arises in the senate. That can mean a senator reaches the constitutionally mandated retirement age of 75, or a senator dies or decides to retire. Thus a new prime minister does not immediately set out to appoint all 105 members of the senate.
Two important things that were brushed over: Yes, the prime minister appoints senators (Technically governor general but it's really the PM) however, since senators serve until they're 75, a prime minister rarley does. So, the senate represents views and ideas of many past prime ministers from different parties. I say different parties, but there's really only two when it comes to the senate because although Canada has multiple parties, only two have ever had the most seats in the house of commons. It's also important to note, senators don't have to be previous politicians. Second, since Canada does have multiple parties, a minority government can form (The current Liberal government with Justin Trudeau is a minority). This is when the party with the most seats does not have the majority of seats. This means that for any bills to pass the house of commons, two or more parties have to agree on it. It's also important to note that any member can introduce a bill whether they are a member of the party with the most seats or not. This means with a minority government, it's possible for a bill to be passed even if the party with the most seats does not agree with it.
The prime Minister only can suggest new appointments for openings in the senate. Because the term limit is age 75, an opening doesn't often open up, so it is not very common for any one prime minister to add too many new appointment suggestions for the senate.
With the Canadian senate, you still have senate members serving from years before the current PM was elected. The longest serving member of the Senate is George Fury who was appointed in 1999 by then PM Jean Chretien. Fury will be retiring from the Senate next year.
The choice for a Senator is aimed at choosing apolitical candidates. The few times this was not followed there has been a backlash and the person is usually not appointed.
I grew up learning that the Queen is mostly just a figurehead... while there is a Governor General, its complicated. The Governor General is basically the 'go between' between the Canadian Government and the monarchy. And yes you are correct, it is basically a formality.
14:57 - the “Loyal” Indicates Loyalty to the Constitution and Monarchy. The US “Opposition”, or as you call them “Minority” in their legislatures are also technically a “Loyal Opposition”, they Oppose the Party in the Majority, but Are loyal to the Constitution.
You're right about royal assent being a formality, in case you were still wondering. After the revolution which established (more or less) the current British/Canadian/Australian etc. form of government in 1689, the royal veto was used only once, in 1708, and hasn't been used since. The Canadian and British constitutions are weird because they partly rely on tradition. For example, the queen has the power to veto laws, but by convention isn't allowed to use that power. How is that different from not having that power to begin with? It isn't!
the federal electoral seats is based on population. so the province of ontario and quebec have the largest seats for the house of commons. so most candidates tend to visit those provinces the most.
the main thing to remember is that there arent 2 parties, there are 5+ parties and all the seats even if only 1-2 or even 3 seats are won by a party, they are there in the parliament and they do have a say to the votes on decisions. Sure it wont make much of a difference but it can, think of the butterfly effect
No our senate has members of both main parties in it. In fact our prime minister has made it so that those related to his party are actually seen as independent which is how it should be imo.
5:54 Correct - the Gov. General's appointments to the senate is on behalf of the Queen and is more of a rubberstamp or a formality - he/she acts on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. So in essence they're really appointed by the Prime Minister.
The Canadian senate is not heavily influenced by the “current” prime minister because the senators are appointed essentially for life, they might be senators for 20-30 years. This means the senate is filled with just a few senators per prime minister over thirty to forty years. Eg. A present senator of maybe 65 years old might have been appointed back in 2000 by the prime minister then. They are usually selected by their long time involvement in their communities, and are also required to represent certain regions of the country in a balanced formula.
You might notice that the Queen or Governor-General does not have a veto like the president. The Governor-General can advise, encourage or slightly delay legislation. Similarly the Senate can advise and send legislation back to the House of Commons for reconsideration. The House of Commons has the ultimate decision. These actions plus the Loyal Opposition amounts to the "checks and balances" in Canada.
The President vetoes bills all the time in the US while it is a very rare thing for it to happen in Canada since the Governor General is mostly a position of ceremony.
Not really. From George Washington to the present 1, 518 bills have been vetoed. 112 of them have been over-ridden by Congress (2/3 majority of both houses required). In recent history the figures are Carter -13, Reagan -39, Bush -29, Clinton -36, Bush -12, Obama-12, unmentionable -10 and Biden 0 so far.
Not sure it proves your point. A little under 10,000 bills were introduced in Congress last year. Only a few hundred passed. Biden didn't veto any. I have no idea how this compares to the Canadian parliament. I suspect you don't either, but perhaps you can find out.
@@reindeer7752 All bills brought before parliament in Canada usually pass after some amendments are made. The ones that don't pass are the private members bills that are usually brought forward by the parties not in power and even some of these get passed as well. It is extremely rare for the Prime Minster to veto a bill because he is the leader of the party that introduced the bill in the first place. Also with a private members bill that passed in the house of commons and the Senate approved as well he may be replaced by the party if he vetoed such a bill.
Ah, there's the difference. Bills are introduced routinely by both parties in the USA, so its logical that a president would be more likely to veto a bill introduced by the opposite party. The term you used, "private" sorry, can't remember the wording now, is new to me.
When it comes to the Monarchy in Canada it is now mostly symbolic, since 1931's Statute of Westminster. The Statute of Westminster is a British law that was passed on 11 December 1931. It was Canada’s all-but-final achievement of independence from Britain. It enacted recommendations from the Balfour Report of 1926, which had declared that Britain and its Dominions were constitutionally “equal in status.” The Statute of Westminster gave Canada and the other Commonwealth Dominions legislative equality with Britain. They now had full legal freedom except in areas of their choosing. The Statute also clarified the powers of Canada’s Parliament and those of the other Dominions.
As a Canuk, I say thank you for taking the time to learn about and present our system of governance. It certainly needs some serious fixing (as does America!), but we are getting there!
Canadian here. About the Queen (RIP)... It's like when you move away from home as a young adult. Your Mom is still your Mom, but she is not in charge of you anymore. At the same time, you still tend to do what she says, and you borrow stuff from her sometimes, and take advice. She is not actually in charge of you ar anything you do, but you still check in and call her Mom.
That is honestly one of the best analogies I’ve heard and very practical.
Very good explanation!
What a fantastic description!
Perfect
Great explanation (says a citizen of the U.S.). I wish we were a part of the Commonwealth. Having that relationship to the Crown, and the Commonwealth, would be a good thing for the U.S. and the Commonwealth. Of course, I don't know many folks who think like me.
I'm not sure you understand the Queens Relationship with Canada. She is Queen of Canada in her own right, that is to say her union with Canada is a personal one. So she's not Queen of the United Kingdom reigning over Canada with Canada being subservient to the UK, She is Queen of Canada independent of her role as Queen of the UK. Likewise for New Zealand, Australia and several others, so one has the British Crown, The Canadian Crown, The New Zealand Crown and the Australian Crown all separate from and independent of each other but existing in the same person.
She is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Members of the royal family can also be patrons or commander in chief of different military regiments in Canada. When Harry left royal duties, he also lost any Canadian regiments he was Commander in chief of. I imagine that it was the same in other commonwealth countries.
@@barbarae-b507 Colonel-in-Chief. There's only one Commander-in-Chief 😉
You are right. My mistake. I was pointing out that other members of the royal family are involved with military patronage.
@@barbarae-b507 no worries! 😃
One HUGE difference between us. In Canada, elections are run and supervised by non-partisan bodies, not the political party in power
Wich is why I wounder why so many Trymp supporter belive the ellection was cheated. Since its the republican who were in charge. In canada, those in charge to supervise the election can't even vote.
The fact that elections CAN by run differently based on the party currently in power sounds insane to me, to be honest. How can anyone think that isn't constantly being exploited?
@@Dominodude55 Yeah, that's a major problem in countries whose systems allow it (notably, South Korea). Causes all kinds of trouble.
that is until Harper rigged the elections of 2011 and 2015 with illegal robocalls on election day to non con voters. and replaced the heads of CSIS the RCMP elections Canada and the civilian oversite of CSIS 4 days after the 2011 election. i know this cause i got one of the robocalls myself.
And, the chief and deputy returning officers (those in charge of running the election) are the only people not allowed to vote in Canadian Elections.
as a canadian, love the fact that you're trying to educate yourself on your neighbours. One thing about the US being so powerful is that other nations out of necessity need to understand American institutions/history to some degree, whereas that pressure isn't felt in the US so kudos to you for doing the research!
Although it needs to be said: nearly all of the English-speaking countries the US is closely allied with are run in more or less the same way. Even Ireland's government is largely the same, less the monarchy (they have a president who is similarly powerless).
The prime minister appoints a new senator only when a seat becomes vacant. It is a lifetime appointment (must retire by age 75). We don't get a whole new senate everytime there is a new prime minister/government. Just thought maybe that was a bit unclear. ✌️🇨🇦
BUT...Sometimes, they don't get replaced when they retire. I forget what it was that Brian Mulroney wanted the Senate to do, but after analyzing which way each Senator would vote he realized he would be about 8 votes shy. Then he got the idea of finding out how many Senators Canada is allowed. He discovered there was room for something like 12 more Senators. So, he packed the Senate with his pics, and thus was able to have the Senate pass whatever it was he wanted to get passed. Then those Senators hung around for 20-30 years.
If a government is in power long enough they can effectively load the Senate with those of like political leaning. Senate reform has been a simmering issue in Canada for decades. Many would like to see an elected Senate but it’s a constitutional issue and difficult to do.
@@mikew.to1 Sorry to tell you that, but since 2015, the process to choose new senators changed:
Ottawa, Ontario, December 3, 2015 - In order to bring real change to the Senate, the Honourable Maryam Monsef, Minister of Democratic Institutions, with the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, announced today the establishment of a new, non-partisan, merit-based process to advise on Senate appointments.
Under the new process, an Independent Advisory Board on Senate Appointments will be established to provide advice to the Prime Minister on candidates for the Senate. The Independent Advisory Board will be guided by public, merit-based criteria, in order to identify Canadians who would make a significant contribution to the work of the Senate. The criteria will help ensure a high standard of integrity, collaboration, and non-partisanship in the Senate.
The Government is moving quickly to reform the Senate, recognizing its fundamental role in the representation of regional and minority interests in the legislative process. The new, independent appointments process will contribute to creating a less partisan and more effective institution to serve Canadians.
I believe that like the house of Lords the senate members although usually affiliated with a political party , as members they do not need to chase political votes or follow the party line, can be more independent and act in the best interests as they see it of the country rather than any political party. My understanding of an elected second chamber, is that you often have a situation where each chamber is majority controlled by opposing parties that put the political agenda of that party ahead of the best interests of the country (appreciate not always the case).
Hum, my suggestion would be to change it to be based on the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method but otherwise remain unchanged.
Basically, depending on how many seats parties already have and how many votes they had you can determine what party should get a seat to achieve greater proportionality.
The exact proportionality would change from election to election and seat to seat.
Then the exact representative could be elected from that party on the advice of the prime minister as usual.
Occasionally small parties would be due a seat, but the exact representative would still be someone that the prime minister feels he or she can work with from said party, leading to moderates from the more extreme parties being represented.
But other voices then just the big ones would still be heard there.
Education and other qualifications can also be taken into account when picking the representative given that it's a long term job.
On the whole, I think that would make things better over time and stop issues with one party stacking their own representatives there.
So if one party gets 30% of the total votes in the election, one gets 20%, one 15%, one 12% and one 3% for instance and the makeup from earlier is day 25%, 22%, 18%, 10% and 5% then whatever party is the furthest from what they *should* have if the result where 100% proportional would get that seat.
But the governor general on the advice from the prime minister would still decide who from that party gets the job.
Does that make sense?
The seats would just be nudged towards more proportionality over time, rather than changing overnight.
And if no one reaches 75 years old in a election term then no seats are given.
If a seat is given to a party the prime minister doesn't like it could be given to someone old in the hope that the death is replaced soon in a better election result too.
But yeah...
Part of the advantage of such a system is that it would reduce the spoiler effect when people vote honestly for smaller parties, as sure, their vote is spoiled in the house of commons, but perhaps it'll have a impact in the Senate.
So you may feel a little bit more inclined towards protest votes etc.
Fun fact. Kiefer Sutherland’s grandfather Tommy Douglas was the leader of one of Canada’s political party and he is responsible for our free health care.
The NDP. Before that he was the Premier of Saskatchewan.
I, in my young adult life, worked for my MP in Ottawa. When Tommy died, my MP got two spots at the memorial service. Since his wife was back in the riding, he asked me if i wanted to go. It was one of my most memorable time working on the Hill.
Stay safe, stay sane, be well
He was not a member of the NDP and was responsible solely for healthcare in the province not the entire country. He was head of the CCF and the liberals brought in universal healthcare with the cooperation of the other provinces , healthcare being a provincial concern, and premiers.
I went to the door of Tommy Douglas' birth home in Falkirk, Scotland back in 2019. It was lovely to see his influence on Canadian culture recognized in his birth nation.
I think that “free” should be in quotes. But it’s fun when people do think we have free health care.
They kind of glossed over the fact that Canada (and any other "English Law" nations such as UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc) have many political parties. For example Canada has around 5 major political parties, however that number changes from time to to, but 5 is usually the minimum. Also, it is illegal to prevent any forming of political union in Canada, which are called "Fringe Parties" . So we occasionally see the Communist Party of Canada or even smaller, but still legally legitimate parties.
Imagine the canzuk nations coming together. Hopefully it become a reality. 🇨🇦🇦🇺🇳🇿🇬🇧
Really we have 4 major players, but imo that's still sufficient and better than just two parties.
that has nothing to do with the governance model of democracy. There are several models of the democracy concept. Canada is a parliamentary model, the US is a republic model. The number of parties is not relevant.
Prime Minister sits in the house of commons and participates when parliament is in session. Better than having the PM off in an ivory tower like president.
@@MrBonners You obviously have never heard of or no the power of a minority Government.
This form of government is older than the American system, and can allow for a minority government. This forces cooperation with the other parties. Imagine cooperation being mandatory to run government in America. 😉
I would disagree with the idea that the Westminster system is older than the US System, they’re both offshoots of the same British Constitutional System in the 18th Century that went in very different directions.
The US President basically has the Powers the UK Monarch did in the 18th Century. A veto on laws but needing a legislature to enact them, the legislature needing to give money to run the government, the President/Monarch Administering the Government and Appointing Ministers from outside the congress with the Congress/Parliament having an Impeachment power, all of those are things the UK Monarch had in the 18th century that the American Presidency Maintains, a big part of the American Revolution is that they were “Restoring their rights”, as in, establishing the rights that had already been established in the UK in the Glorious Revolution, in the American colonies there was a strong feeling they didint have the same rights as those in the home country, and the American system of government was set up to re establish them. Why the American declaration of Independence is filled with greivances about existing rights in the UK being violated in America. Overall, the American Government and especially the american presidency is very similar to the UK Constitution at that time.
Meanwhile, the 19th century in the UK brought with it the firm establishment of government being responsible primarily to the House of Commons and thus needing the confidence of the House, and the gradual elimination of the Monarch’s political Powers. So I would argue that the American System technically could be argued to be the older one, or at least both are offshoots of the same system.
@@WanukeX as the basis of the English parliamentary system could be argued to to have origonated with the Magna Carta of 1215 .There is no argument of presedence
@@alpearson9158 maybe the seeds for it yes
But the canadian system how it is was drafted together FORMALLY in 1867, so yes the American government is older than the canadian government, by almost 100 years actually, my family have been in New France since the early 1600s (had to show my ancestry for metis citizenship) for a LONG time Canada was a colony and governed as such
The big difference is that in Canada, the Head of State and the Head of Government is not the same person. In the US they are the same person. I prefer our system in Canada.
The role of Head of State in Canada is not a political one, not occupied by a politician, so it is probably a better way to do things.
Not only do we have a politically neutral Head of State but Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces in Her Majesty. Also, when being sworn in as a Canadian Citizen you do not pledge allegiance to our flag or our nation, but to Her Majesty.
@@clarissathompson As did the Bloc Québécois 😂
@@dominiquebeaulieu 😂
@@clarissathompson so canada is not country ...than so what is it Queen owes everything including you
Our Senate is different from yours in one major aspect too, which helps it work so well. We are much less polarized politically and the Senators appointed are not professional politicians. They are experts in their own field, most of whom are often already known across Canada because of their professional accoomplishments. We have several former journalists (who were on the national stage), police chiefs, doctors, lawyers, musicians, astronauts, athletes, university professors, and the list goes on. These people actually do represent Canada as a whole because for the most part, they represent all walks of life.
The PM also has to run and get elected in a riding. So this person iss not only the PM but is also an MP (member of parliament) who has to look after his/her constituents. If the PM does not win his/her riding, another MP will give up their seat so that the PM will have a seat in the house of commons but he will also have to look after those constituents.
The Senate in Canada is much less powerful than in the US.
They don't pass legislation in the sense that Americans think of it.
The House sends up a Bill. The Senate can basically send it back with recommendations if they have serious problems with it.
They usually don't.
Their appointment not being tied to an election cycle can also help let senators be more independent rather than just toeing party lines which makes this style of senate act better as a secondary government, I'm not too familiar with what mechanisms we have for removing senators though in the event of extraordinary events
@@Phynellius You have to do something egregiously bad to get kicked out of the senate, like missing too many sittings or having racist letters on your government-provided website.
Yes. It's important to recognize that the Prime Minister is also an MP (Member of Parliament) elected by the riding that he represents. The current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is the elected MP for the Montreal riding of Pompineau, in the province of Quebec. When Canadians go to the polls for a federal election, Justin Trudeau's name will not appear on any ballot in Canada, except the ballots cast by the residents of Pompineau. Justin Trudeau has been elected by the Liberal Party members to be the party leader, therefore he became the Prime Minister.
I have always felt that the greatest failing of the u.s. education system is a lack of knowledge of the rest of the world that you live in. Your videos are a perfect example of this.
i agree on this point.Most Americans are ignorant on world history.
I agree. Most of european countries and Canada have basic understanding on how other democratic system work all over the world and I do believe it help them to improve their own system to be better and better by taking some pros and cons of everyone, while in the US it is very traditional and stick to the constitution wrote long time ago. ( english is not my 1st language and it is not an easy subject to talk about so sorry for mistakes).
@@eze3922 It is true in my provinces their is actually an election that's going on right now, and we often hear politician say. They did that in Norway or in Danmark and we want to import that here.
YESSSS Exactly, we have to learn about USA (Canada/UK is the first country to invade the US and burn down the original White House) but it goes to show how the American system still doesn’t teach anything outside of USA
Because they take an ethnocentric approach.
We here in Australia have a Governor General. As do the other 14 countries in the Commonwealth Realm. They perform all the duties of the Queen in their respective countries because, hard to believe, but Lizzie can't be in all our countries at once. The UK doesn't have a Governor General because they have no need for one. The Queen is already there to do the job. So really although on paper the Queen is our Head of State, in practice the Governor General is instead.
Well, if Santa can do it...
The royals still make occasional visits to the commonwealth countries but has a representative there so that they don’t have to.
The Queen is dead, the King is currently 73, about average life expectancy (in UK) for his age. Such is the cycle of life.
The UK may not have a governor general, but it does have counsellors of state who do the monarch's job in his absence.
So in other words, a lot of waving and wasting tax payer money.
At 15:29 i had to pause to say this : My father is a provincial court judge, the difference between American judges is in Canada judges do not need to be elected! How can a judge be fair in America if they need to be elected every 4 years? In Canada if you become a judge it's until you decide to retire ! 72 or 75years old i believe is the maximum. Hope that helps :)
Wait. Judges in the US have to run for office?! How on earth can they remain impartial?
Elected judges are subject to the public they serve. The public can punt a corrupt judge in short order. In Canada they "appointed" by the club they belong to and hold power until the club receives enough pressure to remove the Magistrate. You could be waiting a long long time to get rid of corruption in Canada's legal system, as the boyz club is secretive and unelected. We have a plethora of asinine Magistrates in this country. Look at the corruption over those punitive, infantile decisions in Alberta , Manitoba etc. over religious rights and freedoms.
@@pistachoo. That is my exact point!!! Look at the corrupt justice that apointed a special master for TRUMP!! She needs elections!!! It's not funny !! and btw my father a Canadian judge says the exact same thing you did!! HOW CAN YOU BE IMPARTIAL? OR FAIR.....
I thought judges were appointed in the US.
@@haleycourtepatte1675 Oh please!! Read a book... Can't fix stupid im sorry
The legal system is actually fairly different in principle because the separation of federal and provincial powers are very very much more clear cut than in the US. I wonder if there is a video that explains it because it’s fascinating. The provinces are very much more independent than a US state is in most non-criminal matters.
This video was very high-level and missed a lot of interesting details about how our government works here in Canada and some of the more interesting differences between Canada and the US. Here's a big one: Because Canada has more than 2 parties at the federal level, it is possible to have.a very split parliament where no one party has a majority. One of the interesting implications of this is that at ANY time, some of the smaller parties can "team up" on a key vote to force a new election to happen. We call a government that has less than 50% of house of commons members being from one party a "minority" government. Some Canadians dislike minority governments, because they find it to be chaotic that at any time there could be a whole new election - but I personally like it because it means that not enough Canadians felt comfortable enough to give the keys of the country entirely to any one of the parties that were running, so now the parties had to negotiate and make deals and compromises if they wanted to stay in power. Sometimes you even get a cabinet with members from more than one party during a minority government, because one or more of the parties that didn't win the election will say "put some of our people into the cabinet or we will force another election".
Until you run into the situation we have to today.
If the people no longer trust the government and enough people feel that way, they can write ( for free), email or phone their m. p or m. p. p . to tell them to vote non- confidence on a major bill and that vote will cause the dissolution of parliament and cause an election to be called.
@@barbarae-b507 i wish it were thar simple here right now. We unfortunately have a minority government of which the two parties no one wants to run the country have teamed up making the opposition parties vote of no consequence and the phone calls and letters pointless
@@xcarolynx2002 That unfortunately is true. Unfortunately, the political parties have just not presented us with other leaders who are competent enough. I certainly don’t understand it. Trudeau is worse than his dad was and he was very bad.
@@barbarae-b507 I have heard he was. I would like to have faith and hope in the new Conservative leader but i am just not sure i guess time will tell. From what i have been able to learn and research he does have some WEF “plants” within the party so that’s not good. If that is true i hope that they get very publicly found out and kicked out of the party.
To quote Will Fergusson Canada's motto should be "united we stand; divided, we somehow seem to muddle through"
Great quote
Some things that aren't entirely obvious, the Official Opposition isn't "The Losing Party" it's the party with the second most members in the House of Commons. This is an important distinction, because Canada has more than two parties So: Party A might be in Power for two terms, but Parties B and C could each be the Official Opposition for separate terms. Additionally, if the lead party has less than half of the seats in the house of Commons, the other parties can work together in collaboration to pass their own laws without needing the support of the leading party. (Also, Members of Parliament aren't obligated to vote on party lines, so laws that aren't popular with the entirety of the leading party might still pass if those MP's break ranks.)
Despite being a monarchy, Canada regularly ranks higher than the United States on the democracy index
constitutional monarchy, that is why.
"Despite"? Three of the top five countries on that index are monarchies. Five in the top 10. That strongly suggests constitutional monarchy is a help, not a hinderance.
Canada just as Britain is a Constitutional Monarchy. Which means the monarchy is ceremonial and no longer makes the laws. They simply sign them into law. They can send a law back to the legislature for revision twice, with suggestions to make it better. The legislature can take the suggestions or send it back unchanged. The third time GG or the monarch has to sign it into law.
@@barbarae-b507 The monarchy of neigher country is just ceremonial. Constitutionally, the monarch holds all power of government. Typically, that power is "lent" to the politicians. However, the sovereign _can_ use the power themselves to protect the lawful, democratic system from politicains who try to abuse the Crown's authority.
Queens role is symbolic. Not a constitutional monarchy like spain or the UK
The Canadian Senate really isn’t influenced THAT heavily by the current Prime Munster, as each PM doesn’t actually appoint that many senators, since any past ones can stay until they turn 75. The current government only appoints a new senator when one of the existing ones retires (typically when they turn 75). So rather, it’s a smorgasbord of Senators appointed by many PMs over the years.
The big difference between the Cabinet in the US and Canada is that the Prime Minister's Cabinet is chosen from people who have been elected to the House of Commons (referred to as a Minister with Portfolio i.e. The Minister of Trade, The Minister of National Defence etc.) where in the US the Presidential Cabinet is not selected from the House of Representatives and is instead chosen from the Private Sector or Government Bureaucracy.
Cabinet members can be from the Senate. Stephen Harper did this once.
@@JohnBayko He did and was criticized for it.
obelisk21 - Good to know.
Well. The US cabinet can be anyone as long as they’re a US citizen without a criminal record but does have to be approved by the US senate.
@@JohnBayko actually that has been done more than once by both main party's
We became partially-independent (with most of the foreign policy decisions done by the UK) in 1867. We became self-governing in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster (we were granted some freedom in doing our own foreign policy). A lesser known fact is that Canada became fully independent in 1982 with the drafting and passing of our own Constitution.
Still laws need to be signed off by an appointed representive of the throne - which is done mostly automatically, but when that person gets power frenzied... it's dangerous.
@@HockeyRiveNord But besides that, in all matters of state, we are independent to make our own decisions.
@@HockeyRiveNord The governor general doesn't represent a chair. Regardless, the role of the monarch and viceroy is not some kind of proof Canada isn't independent. You need to learn some Canadian civics and constitutional history so you can become aware of which country's monarch actually reigns over Canada.
@@mariosportsmaster7662 It's not "besides that". In ALL ways, Canada is a sovereign nation. TheSahio just has no clue about the existence of the office of King of Canada. Nearly a century after independence and so many dumbasses _still_ think Canada's a colony.
@@HockeyRiveNord Even the Monarch and therefore the Governor General can only send legislation back with comments or suggestions twice on the 3rd time they must sign it. Same for the Lt. Governor of provinces.
Hi, Tyler! I'm really enjoying your videos as an armchair Canadian - It's great to see Americans take an interest in their neighbour! I'm a former legislative assistant in Canada's Parliament, and there's so much I'd love to help you expand upon! Hopefully, you get a chance to see this!
I've been going over several of your videos about Canada lately, and glad you've taken such an interest in our country and culture. I think we all tend to get very excited when people try to learn about us. So it's nice to see so many videos of you sponging up the syrup. :)
We have more than just two parties and when the government is a minority, the other parties can have power.
Thanks for being interested in our history and government! Canadians always appreciate when Americans go out of their way to learn about us, because we know everything about you!
It's nice to be thought of 🥰
Agreed! He really engaged with the information too
When things are done "by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister," it always means the PM makes the decisions. In our constitutional monarchy, the sovereign or his representative must act only on the advice of the elected government.
Unless that advice threatens to destabilize the constitutional, democratic order. Then the monarch or viceroy can say no.
@@bayousbambino427 which is true, however, the GG rarely does this (never from my understanding) because the next step is the PM appoints a new GG. There would have to be a quite significant incident for a GG to say no to a request from the PM.
If I'm remembering my grade nine social studies class correctly, the first governor general actually made a conscious choice to agree to whatever the Canadian government approved because he wanted their newfound independence to mean something.
technically a real opposition can be made , it just isn't often done.
I really like you doing these videos about Canada. It’s so often assumed that the US and Canada are near-identical nations, but there really are so many differences under the surface. I love seeing it from your perspective.
The difference is in Canada bills are passed that are for most part good for the people while in the US bills are passed for what is best for the donors. This is why I said the US is not a democracy.
Wrong. In the USA bills are passed for the good of the people by one party and for the good of big corporations and the billionaires by the other party.
@@reindeer7752 Wrong, both parties pass bills for the good of big corporations and billionaires. One just tosses a few scraps to the masses as an afterthought.
The Canadian Senate is what you call the House of Lords in Britain, we don’t call it Lords because basically we don’t have Lords. Just like Britain we do not directly elect our Prime Minister, We elect MP’s from our district and the party with the most elected MP’s. Their elected leader becomes our Prime Minister. Most Commonwealth countries follow Britain’s parliamentary system. Whenever an official event occurs that requires the presence of the Governor General he/she is treated as if the Queen herself is present. The Union Jack is flown along with the Maple Leaf and both O Canada and God Save the Queen are played.
FYI… Lords, also known as Peerage, make up part of the House of Lords. 26 bishops of the Church of England sit in the House of Lords and Lords Temporal include life peers, excepted hereditary peers elected under the House of Lords Act 1999 and remaining law life peers. Not really like our House of Commons members but serve the same purpose.
@@annecaminer2988 I was talking about the Canadian government. Our Senate is modelled after Britain’s House of Lords. Obviously we don’t have any peers of the realm……no lords, no members of the Church. Our PM suggests the choices and the Governor General appoints them. I’m not sure how our House of Commons differs much? The MP’s are voted for by the people in a general election. The party with the most seats forms the government ( Canada has five official parties ) The Party in charge elects their leader, who then becomes our PM.
@@cheryla7480 never said you weren’t only elaborated.
@@cheryla7480 never said you weren’t only elaborated.
@@annecaminer2988 Thanks for explanation. God Bless.
If you have any doubt as to whether Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada, take a look at any Canadian coin and their $20 bill. The Canadian throne is not the same as the British one, we just share the same monarch (as we do with Australia, New Zealand and many other Commonwealth countries). The union is a personal one; not a political one.
I know it always comes as a shock to US citizens when they discover that much of English-speaking Canada was populated after 1781 by Americans who were loyal to their King (George III). French-speaking Canadians preferred law and order to the anarchy on offer in the South and they refused to join the American rebels in 1776; the two colonies of West and East Florida also remained loyal to the King (something else I suspect you weren't taught in school either !)
I went to school in Florida. We were taught much more about the Spanish in Florida than you probably know.
There is a throne in the Senate chamber for the Queen.
@@reindeer7752 The Spanish were the first explores on the West Coast Of North America. Several Islands in BC have Spanish names
@@reindeer7752 I doubt that very much we in Canada learned even about the Spanish explorers
@@reindeer7752 Juan Ponce de León found the fountain of youth in St, Augustine Fla how is that for your Spanish Explores of Florida that is why the area from Jacksonville down to St. Augustine is called the first coast. Oh and btw II was born in Canada.
From a practical perspective, the Canadian Senate operates almost like a think tank for the elected government. Legislation being proposed in the House of Commons passes through the Senate for review and recommendation and although the Senate is not populated by elected representatives it is possiblele that they could block a bill from becoming law.
And have when they see government overreach. Like Herr Trudulfs censorship bill.
It's an interesting balance. The senate can technically strike down bills, but doing so improperly could result in the senate being reformed or abolished.
Same with the Governor General. Blocking bills without a really good reason would be the fastest way to remove the monarchy in Canada
But only twice. If the same bill reaches the Senate a third time in must be passed.
@@fergusmallon1337 What can an average Canadian do if the bill is rejected the third time? Armed rebellion?
@@dickiewongtk It cannot be rejected a third time. It is passed into law without senate approval because the senate is not a democratic body but an appointed one
Canada and the US both have systems that are based on the UK Westminster model, but different eras. The biggest differences have to do with the powers in the legislature and the head of state. The US broke away from the UK when the UK was less democratic. The president replaced the King/Governor General and is head of government and head of state. As an elected official, he has a lot of power. The Queen/Governor General are not elected, so they have lots of nominal power, but cannot use it unless there is a crisis. Advice to the Queen/Governor General is essentially an order.
In the 1970s in Australia, there was a constitutional crisis that was brought on by the GG not following the PM's advice. The same could happen here, but I think all vice-regal appointees in the realms took lessons from that crisis. The PM is similar in role to the house majority leader except that he is the head of governement, rather than third in line like the house majority leader is in the US. The roles of head of state and head of government are seperate in Canada. As mentioned earlier, the president is both in the US.
The Senate, is the upper house in Canada like the US, but it isn't elected. It serves as a brake on the next government. As you mentioned, it's appointed by the GG. Its role is to be a consultative body free of the pressure of electoral politics. The Senate has the power to block a bill but the House of Commons can overrule. It is based on the UK House of Lords where the aristocracy could veto what the commoners in the H of C passed. Even the UK has evelved out of that mindset.
One final thing that is confusing is that while Elizabeth II is the Queen of England, she is also the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica etc. She's basically has a full time job as the Queen of England and part time jobs as Queen as the other realms. The Governors General in federal states like Canada and Australia, Governor in unitary states like New Zealand does the full-time work in her absence. In Canada, probably Australia too, their are Lieutenant Governors that perform the same role as the Governor General in the provinces and not the territories. She dresses differently as Queen of each realm and wears different military & honours insignia. We can choose our own monarch, but don't. It will be interesting to see what happens if the UK ditches the monarchy. Canada will have a monarchy as long as the UK does because the constitution makes it all but impossible to do due to its requiring unanimous consent of every province and the federal government.
As a poli sci grad and someone who works in a policy role in government, it seems so trivial. Thanks for pointing out how complex and confusing this stuff is.
One thing to add the benfit of not having both chambers of the government being elected means we don't have stalemate like you get in the US. The senate is very much just their as place of reflection as you said. This means if the two house can't agree the senate will almost always deferred to actually elected body the house.
Just to let you know, the house CANNOT overrule the senate. The senate can block bills forever, with zero mechanism to bypass or ignore the senate in any circumstance.
Having said that, by convention, the senate will eventually defer to the will of the house of commons.
@@trentrobinson5413 That's not totally true. Section 26 of the Constitution Act, 1867 permits the Crown to appoint up to eight senators as was done in 1989 as the GST Bill made its way through the Senate. The Liberals had the majority and with the temporary Senators the bill passed the Senate.
It's true that the House of Commmons technically cannot overrule the Senate, the Governor General cannot refuse advice of the PM making the flooding of the Senate a defacto overrulling of by the House of Commons.
It was the first use of that section of the Act and to the best of my knowledge, the only time.
From my history lessons from middle school... Canada's first Governor-General was handed a bill he didn't want to sign. After a lot of hemming and hawing, he finally signed it because he didn't want to provoke a constitutional crisis as the first act of _any_ Governor-General of Canada.
@@trentrobinson5413 think you should reflect on your post as the senate cannot prevent the passing of a bill but can only slow it down
So, here are a few of the ways the Canadian government works differently.
1/ Since the Prime Minister represents the party with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, he (or she - we've had one woman so far) has to be able to get along with the Party and the members of Parliament. A Prime Minister can't go rogue.
2/ The government represents the largest number of seats in the House of Commons NOT the majority of seats. While the parties prefer to have majority governments - Canadians are more likely to elect minority governments, which is where the largest party does not have a majority of seats and has to rely on a third or fourth party in order to pass laws. Which leads to...
3/ There's a preference to have elections every four years. Unless there are very exceptional circumstances a government has to call an election after five years. There's no minimum amount of time. Since 1962 there have been 19 elections rather than 15. 10 of them were minority governments. Minority governments rarely last for four years - sometimes the party supporting the government will pull out in the hope of improving their number of seats in a new election but more often the government will call an election early in the hopes of getting a majority.
4/ A big difference in thought between Canadian and American politics that struck me with your reference to checks and balances blocking laws. We want the government to work - even when people we disagree with get into power. But our preferences are that the parties not push personal agendas. ie. Same sex marriage was approved by the Federal government after the majority of the Provincial governments, the Supreme court, and the polls indicated majority support. When a political party tries running against something that has majority popular support they'll lose support for being divisive.
5/ I haven't seen it mentioned. Canada is a binational state. Quebec uses the Civil Code from France rather than the Common Law used in the UK, the USA, and English Canada. Any services provided by the Federal government MUST be available in both French and English. In practice, high level Federal politicians and civil servants have to be French/English bilingual. ie Justin Trudeau is a first language French speaker who is fluent in English.
6/ This is something becoming more important. The quickest growing demographic in Canada are the Aboriginal peoples, currently at 5% nationally and on track to be majorities in several provinces in a couple of decades.
“A Prime Minister can’t go rogue.” Did Trudeau get the memo?
@@hotjanuary Trudeau has faced several votes of confidence. As unpopular as Trudeau is the Conservative Party is too socially extreme for 74% of Canadians so voters hold their noses. e,g the Conservative ran on a platform of reporting un-Canadian activities to a government hotline.
@@hotjanuary Give it a rest.
@@gwine9087 why should I? His transgressions started when he cut down the fair vote movement at its knees (after being sleezy about stealing the votes from the NDP). His own party, the consulted public, and the consulted professionals agreed proportional representation was a good idea going forward. But Trudeau thinks there’s an “I” in democracy.
@@hotjanuary Cry me a river.
I'm Australian. Our system is similar to the Canadian. Main difference here is the appointment rather than election of senators. We have preferential voting and 12 senators per state. This means dominant political parties aren't so dominant- minorities get members as well.
And two territories get two senators each.
The house of reps has 150 seats with single members. The preferences have very much less effect with only one winner per seat.
I loved the "lightbulbs going off" as you analyzed a new piece of information then quickly pieced it out. You would definitely have a great time talking with a bunch of us Canadians over a beer (one of our beers, of course). Instant subscriber here from East Coast Canada
Dont give him too much of our beer, after a while he wont be able to handle it and speak properly. Remember, their "regular" beer is our "light" beer. LOL
@@Timien after doing some damage to a two-four, he'll be talking like a Newfoundlander
@@joerichards2658 Eyes-Bye Eh!
Dude, I love your eagerness to learn. Some advise though. Forget everything you have been told about America inventing democracy. It didn’t! Your political system was based on the system in the U.K. the founding fathers took everything they liked in the British system and tweaked it as necessary. Every commonwealth country has a Westminster style parliamentary system of government. They all have parliamentary systems with mainly ceremonial heads of state. This is the big difference with the US and France. Your Heads of State is the head of Government feather than a figure head of the state.
You essentially elect a king every 4 years.
No. A monarch is almost exclusively , by definition, a hereditary position not an elected one. A king or queen, until modern figure heads, had absolute power.
The ancient Greeks "invented" democracy (A Greek word).
@@reindeer7752 not at all. Many monarchs in the past were elected to their position not by popular vote by all the people but from amongst the nobility. Their sons were by no means guaranteed the crown but it frequently did pass to them and then over time it became routine.
I can't believe you're trying to defend that statement. We don't have nobles. The people elect the president. It is never a hereditary postion. The president does not have absolute power. There is a 4 year term limit at the end of which there is another election and then he/she is out.
@@reindeer7752 The English/ British monarchs were rarely absolute. Some were near absolute but were unable to impose taxes at will and had to at least give people charged with a crime a trial. Also from the reign of Edward 11 they were required to govern through the council thus, introducing accountability to the government.
The glaring difference between the Canadian version of the 'Westminster Parliament system (similar to Britain and the rest of the British Commonwealth) and the American Republic is that its Executive system is not unitary, Presidential, but divided between the Governor General and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has considerably less power than the US President. Executive Orders are sometimes issued by the government. These are rare and used to face emergencies. Ex Orders are issued by the PM and his Cabinet and have temporary standing which must be cross-examined and ratified by the House to become permanent. The Gov Gen is our official head of the armed forces, not the PM and is the authority on declarations of war. The PM can be dethroned by their own party far easier than the President when they lose the confidence of their party. The new leader becomes PM. The Gov Gen holds the power to send back legislation to the House for review and modification, up to 3 times. This power has not been exercised often, it is rare but is on the books. This is still significant because splits the executive power. This guards against dictatorship by not putting all the Executive powers in one office. The Senate cannot kill a bill from parliament, but can send it back to the House of Commons for revision. The Senate has only three referrals back to the House before it must also pass the bill. The Gov Gen signs the bill turning it into law. Our appointed Senate is modelled on the British House of Lords, much reduced in power compared to the American Senate. Effectively, the House of Commons IS the Sovereign Authority, but is has to work with the Senate and the Gov Gen to function.
Another big difference between American and Canadian systems is the tight limitation on party donors, and donations. This reduces the influence of the rich and powerful on government. But we have problems still with undue influence on the government from the rich and entitled. Lastly, there is a broader spectrum of political viewpoints in Canada which is represented by 4-5 political parties covering Left Socialism to Right wing revanchists.
Debatable on which head of government has more power. I didn't think of executive orders, but a Prime Minister doesn't need any house or senate approval to appoint cabinet ministers or judges. Also if they have a majority in the house of commons there is very little stopping them from passing anything. Pros and cons to each system
@@Spiragon except of course that almost all cabinet members are also elected MP's and cronies from outside the house are infrequent
I like how Taylor is amazed when anything is the same as the American system. Canada's system is based on the English system. The US was governed by England before the Revolutionary war. There system was originally based on the English system too.
The difference between President and Prime Minister is that President is elected to his job directly. Prime Minister is just the leader of the majority party. Which means that if he is doing a crappy job his own party can remove him and appoint someone else. Also, if the other two opposite parties think he is doing a really bad job they can pass a vote of non confidence and force the leading party to elect another leader.
"crappy job his own party can remove him and appoint someone else." Wrong.
The party in power looses a non-confidence vote it triggers a general election. It does nothing to cause a party leadership change. That is up to the party involved by a party convention.
You need to watch some Rick Mercer when he goes to colleges/universities and asks people about all things Canadian. For example, ‘Canada had just legalized staples, do you have any words.’ The one woman he asked congratulated Canada for the effort. There are a ton more. Sending elders out in the ocean on an iceberg, too funny!
Love Rick Mercer, guy is brilliant
Very interesting to see your perspective on Canada and our political system.
Parliamentary democracy is very different in some ways and very similar in others.
In reference to Senate appointments, since Senators appointments are long lived a sitting Prime Minister only has a say in the replacement for an outgoing Senator who has retired, reached their expiry date😉, or been removed from their position, so that tends to keep balance in the makeup of the Senate here. It is also a bit different in that many appointed Senators are not politicians many are famous or noteworthy people with expertise or reputations that serves the government that appoints them.
The downside is that there is also the potential for these near lifetime appointments to be used to payoff favors or repay party hacks who have done service to the appointing party in some way.
The upside of this is that once appointed a responsible person of integrity doesn't have to worry about pandering to public opinion to get re-elected every four? years.
Another aspect that would probably seem unusual to you is that the PM has his or her position only as the head of the Party forming the government, and to form a government their party must have a clear majority of seats in the House or make a deal with a lesser party for support to do so. In these situations where no party has a clear majority, called a minority government, it is possible for the government to fall in a vote of non-confidence and an election be called prematurely, if the other parties are so dissatisfied that they join together to defeat them. It would be kinda like if your President's job was tied to the results of your House elections, and he had to run again if the House flips.
PJF Too - Good explanation.
One big difference with how we elect our House of Commons compared to the use House of Representatives is that we do not have Gerrymandering. Boundaries are not drawn by the current ruling party. An independent commission is the only one who can draw them. We don't have those crazy Escher shapes like in the US that allow parties to end up with something like 6 out of 8 Congressional Seats while only getting 30% of the vote.
I'm sorry ... you think we don't have any gerrymandering here? An independent commission may propose the shape and make-up of ridings but let's not pretend those proposals aren't altered as they pass through the house of commons for final approval.
@@chrisgleave3602 Have you actually looked at the maps for Canadian districts? There's nothing like the crazy shapes found in the US.
@@chrisgleave3602 the evidence supports the previous comment over yours and the last time these changes were made was during the previous governments term not the current one
@@alpearson9158 lines are re-drawn every 10 years. They're working on the next assignment right now based off the most recent census.
You should react to ‘Canada explained to Americans’ by Tom Brokaw!
13:47 having “Cabinet member“ as your rank sounds very subordinate and vague so “minister of the Crown“ is more accurate
The thing with the Senate here in Canada it is made up of members from mostly two parties as well since they are the only two parties to have formed governments so fat but it is very unusual for the Senate to block any bill passed in the House of Commons. So if the was a Liberal government with the Senate at the time having a majority of Conservative members they would not stop bills from passing even if they disagreed with the bill. In Canada that would cost that party the next election.
Another great one Tyler. Hi I too enjoyed this Learning experience I'm with you making commentary throughout only adds to the entertainment value. Congratulations on the success.
Queen Elizabeth is the head of Canada's government but this is purely a symbolic position, a holdover from the monarchy system of many years ago.
Senators are appointed rather than elected, and cannot be fired because this makes them immune to political influence. They are appointed by the Prime Minister and the appointment rubber stamped by the Governor General. In other words, in theory they are appointed by the Queen but in practice her representative automatically approves the government's choice.
Senators are usually senior politicians and bureaucrats and they keep their job until they age out or, may resign due to ill health.
They are supposed to be a mature second thought on all new laws, to protect the country if the commons gets carried away and passes an unjust law.
In practice the Prime Minister and commons will not risk making fools of themselves by passing a law unless they know the Senate is ok with it.
symbolic until shit happens
@@dominiquebeaulieu Like what? I have never seen an instance in my life where the Queen had any formal powers in Canada.
@@geographyinaction7814 When we just had an election and the government is defeated. It happened recently that 3 opposition parties were to propose to the GG to form a coalition : PLC + NPD, with support of the Bloc Québécois, even if PCC has more seats.
@@geographyinaction7814 thé GG is the referee (arbitre).
previous GG's have questioned some appointments and sometimes the outside voice is heeded
FYI Cabinet members do not have to be sitting MP's. The government is decided by the party with the most seats. ie most like-minded MP's. The Leader of that party becomes Prime Minister. This is why we have something called a Minority Government.
To clarify a couple of things:
Canada's Head of State is King Charles III, King of Canada, represented by the Governor-General.
15:33 Re: Supreme Court, "Absolutely the same." There are some major differences that weren't mentioned in the video because it wasn't meant to be comparative.
Firstly, the way US Supreme Court Justices are appointed is very political, with the justices' political views dragged through endless amounts of public questioning. In Canada, the judges' political views aren't discussed when they're appointed.
Secondly, not only are US Supreme Court Justices not required to be judges, they're not even required to have graduated from law school. Canadian Supreme Court Judges must have already served as judges in a superior court or have been a member of the bar of a province or territory.
The video was published when Queen Elizabeth was still alive.
@@_jeff65_ No kidding
One of the simplest ways to compare Canada's government system to the U.S. is that in U.S., the executive and legislative branches are separate and distinct. While in Canada, those branches are combined. Someone much smarter than me could probably explain the pros and cons of each. However, Canada lacks the "checks and balances" built into the U.S. system.
LOL We didn't give up our Queen. She is only a figure head at this point, but she is definitely important. We love our British roots. That's why we didn't settle in the United States. Mary Simon is the first Indigenous Governor General. She works with Justin Trudeau (our PM).
Prior to the repatriation of our constitution in 1982, Canada's highest court of appeal was actually not the Supreme Court of Canada, but the Privy Council in Britain. It was rare that any matters were taken up for Canada by the Proxy Council, but it did exist. That was one of the last things (along with making changes to the Canadian Constitution) that were not fully in the hands of Canadians prior to this.
Chase O'Hara - Good to know.
Queen Elizabeth II is the head (symbolic head) of a few countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). However, these countries have their own parliament and the United Kingdom parliament has no power over these countries parliaments.
In other words the United Kingdom and few other countries share the same monarch. However, the monarch has symbolic power while the real power lies with each country's democratically elected parliament.
much more then a 'few'.
@@MrBonners 14 (apart from the UK).
omg your entire channel is just so wholesome!
I was born as a Canadian citizen. I was talking to the same class that the government General of Canada is a representative of the king or queen of England. That if any point that the government general or the king of Queen of England decides that the government of Canada is off the rails. Legally speaking by doing something that is not considered a democracy . Then legally they can take over and rule the government for a period of six months until there's another election called. This is known as the claws of emergency action by the king or queen of England. This was set up as a safety net for the government as part of their independence and the 1960s and the 1984 agreement respectively.
This is little known but actually true. The Monarch is to stop any overthrowing of the government that is democratically elected, if a coup is attempted and set up a temporary government until a new election can take place and the new democratically-elected government can be formed.
One very big difference is that in Canada The Queen (now King) (represented by the Governor General) is our Head of state, and the Prime Minister is Head of Government. Having these two entities separate means that it is easier to hold governments accountable, because if there is a vote of non-confidence in the House, the Governor General can call an election. Another big difference is the length of time an election campaign lasts - usually 6 weeks - I think the longest was 11 weeks which caused sone controversy. In the US, the election cycle seems interminable.
Thank you for your interest, Tyler, I really enjoy your videos.
Oh boy I guess him not knowing what the term Sovereign means shouldn't be to surprising.
You seemed to imply that Canadian Senators are entirely composed of one political party at any given point in time. Senators serve until age 75, and are only replaced when they pass away, retire or resign. So, any new senators added during a particular government are typically from the party in power, all the existing senators who were appointed during other governments still continue to serve. The current government only adds to the senate as seats become available.
the biggest difference is Laws in Canada are NATIONAL for the most part unlike America's State by State BS.
Because Canada's population is tiny and The USA's is huge and way more diverse. The republican party wants even more power given to the states where it serves their ultra- conservative interests. Yes, its BS.
Not in health matters, that is a Provincial jurisdiction.
Some fine points here. The PM only gets to appoint Senators as vacancies open up. Each province and territory has a set number of Senators and they serve until they're 75 or they resign, so vacancies are rare and periodic. It's not like the PM gets to wipe the slate clean and pick over a hundred of these folks... her or she might get to appoint half a dozen or so at most during his or her tenure. In terms of the cabinet, Ministers are analogous to Secretaries in the US cabinet. except that by convention in Canada, Britain, Australia, etc., they generally have to be elected to the House of Commons/Representatives, rather than simply appointed by the President as in the US. They're responsible to the House in a way that the strict separation of powers in the US doesn't recognize or even permit.
Didn't you do a vlog reaction on the difference between the UK, England and Great Britain where it explained the Queen on Canadian money?
We can't be sure the order in which he filmed, edited, and released these videos, he may not have posted them in the order he reacted to them.
13:30 Ministers of the Crown - essentially who becomes the minister for each government branch, ie minister of health, minister of finance, minister of transportation, etc...
Have you never looked on the back of Canadian (or Australian or New Zealand etc etc) coins? Or many of their banknotes? There is Queen Liz!!!!
Can't see any reason why an American would have money from Canada, Australia or New Zealand unless they visited there. I have been to all three, though, and the coins of Oz and NZ are gorgeous.
The Canadian Senate aka the Upper House is considered the "sober second thought". Because of the system of appointments and term length, it's extremely common for the Senate to be populated by senators appointed by the previous government. By the time the majority has shifted (a process that takes years as individual senators age out), the party is power usually has changed. The nature of the system generally keeps it antagonistic towards the ruling party in the Lower House.
Yes in the US you would call them Secretary of Defense while in Canada they would be called Minister of Defense. The big difference is in the US they are appointed while in Canada they are picked from elected members.
Ahem. Minister of DefenCe
@@mileitman Both spellings are correct.
Or in French it would be with an s.
One thing to remember, there isn't always a 'reigning' party. Canada is a multiple party system, there are more than 2 parties. So, you can have a 27-25-24-24 split. The party with 27 would have their leader as prime minister, the party with 25 would be the opposition, and the other two parties would still exist, but would also be powerful, because the leading party would need one of their parties support to push through anything that needs a vote. Often in this minority government position, two parties would temporarily merge (until the next election) to form a majority, so things could actually get done. This also fosters some cooperation between members, since opponents one day could turn into party members the next.
It's really important to understand that the monarchy in Canada, and it's representative in the governor general, are strictly figureheads. They play a tiny role in passing legislation but they really have no power to make a decision about it one way or the other because that is decided democratically through the other levels of government. Canada's government is what is known as a constitutional monarchy ; The queen and governor-general may advise the prime minister, but they have no real power over the prime minister and other members of parliament because they are all elected by Canadian citizens. The governor-general ends up playing quite an important ambassadorial role however.
They have very real power over the prime minister, actually. The monarch holds ALL power; it's right in the Constitution Act 1867. Hence, the PM has to go to the monarch or viceroy all the time to get a bill approved, an order-in-council signed, a judge, senator, or ambassador appointed, or a declaration of war. Yes, the conventions of constitutional monarchy and responsible government constrain the monarch and governor general to almost always following the direction they get from parliament and Cabinet. However, the power remains theirs and, in constitutional crises, or when the PM is telling the Crown to do something that will upset the constitutional, democratic system of government, the King or GG can use their power on their own.
@@bayousbambino427 yes I think I stated that elsewhere in this conversation. They do have that role to play but that power is limited to very specific circumstances, which must apply before it can be exercised. The Monarch is the safety barrier, for example, should someone attempt a coup ( which almost happened this year in Canada ).
@@nancysiciliana3387 That's right. I was mostly agreeing with you in my last comment, except for that one point, which I hadn't seen you mention elsewhere.
Tyler a useful way to think about this is Canada's federal government is based on the structures of the British government. They (UK) have the Sovereign, House of Lords, and House of Commons. Their House of Lords is our Senate, but we retained the British style of appointment. In the UK, the Sovereign is the head of state and by ceremony, signs bills into law, asks leaders of parties to form Government, etc. In Canada, because the Sovereign cannot be physically present, the Governor General plays the role and is the representative of the Sovereign.
So basically, Canada has a Westminister model parliamentary system, which other British Commonwealth countries also possess. If the US did not have its revolution of independence, it would have most likely had a House of Commons, had a prime minister, a House of Lords, and a Govenor General. The House of Commons would have a Hansard - the written record of the proceedings. Canada also possesses a written constitution, in which the UK does not. Before this Constitution, any fundamental changes to the Canadian system required final sign off from the UK Parliament. The 1984 repatriation of the Canadian Constitution allowed an amending formula that did not require the UK Parliament to sign off on. What this shows you is the long but unbroken relationship Canada has had with the UK and the British Crown. Canada slowly evolved into an independent country, retaining political structures and traditions of the UK, as well as the ceremonial role of "the Crown" as the Sovereign.
Queen Elisabeth II is head of state of Canada...
And many other Countries.
I guess one of the big differences between the U.S. system and the Canadian system is that under the Canadian system of government, the Prime Minister is also a sitting member of the House of Commons. That advantage to this is that he/she are there in the house to answer questions about bills, government policy, etc.. In a minority government situation, this is where the government of the day has the most seats in the house but not the majority of the seats in the house, the government of the day must compromise on policy and bills in order to keep themselves in power. A minority government is my personal favourite as it forces the government to be a bit more open to ideas than it otherwise would in a majority government situation.
My God did this person ever take a History course in his lifetime. I did and I learned about US history but again our education system is miles ahead of the US.
Well, its a lot easier to educate a country with a miniscule population compared to the USA and with a much more homogenous population. The USA is still struggling to overcome the disparity in education due to former segregation. The USA also has far more immigrants from far more nations, many of whom have limited English skills. Teachers in states close to Mexico have to teach bilingually. I have seen education deteriorate sharply in my lifetime for a variety of reasons, but currently, in particular the republican party wants to destroy the public school system because its too liberal (evil socialist), doesn't force their religious views on children and thinks teaching the truth about slavery and atrocities against indigenous people makes white children "feel bad about themselves." Some schools have even removed, The Diary of Anne Frank." Combine that with never wanting to fund schools or pay teachers well.
He’s taking steps to learn stuff he wasn’t taught…go easy
A little snarky, but is it really worse than the dozens (hundreds?) of American commenters schooling the rest of us with their superiority complex? One person's truth...
@@reindeer7752 I will agree the US has far more immigrants in numbers but by percentage the US is 15% while Canada is 21%. Our education system accounts for this diversity as well. This is why we don't have school payer anymore or religious studies that just focus on Christianity. Yes there are still private schools for that but they are not large in number. Also since French and English are the official languages of Canada there are bilingual studies offered in every province in Canada.
@@zwhtan Yes I came across a little snarky there. Sorry about that. But I do get frustrated with Americans not having the knowledge of the rest of the world that I believe they need in order to make informed decisions. This is not all of their fault and is due to the priorities of their education systems and the lack of their NEWS media doing doing their jobs a swell. The needed information is on the internet but Americans have a lack of trust in that source of information as well.
You have to keep in mind the prime minister doesn’t appoint the senate members each election. Similar to the Supreme Court, once appointed it is for life(well 74), so a PM may only get to appoint 1 or 2 on even none in his term. A senate may be more favourable to one party for some time before a future PM gets to appoint a new senator or 2 to change the balance.
Since Canada hasn’t had a civil war, school shootings are a rarity here, people voice their governmental concerns in a (largely) legal and respectful fashion, people tend to work WITH the elected government until an election either renews or replaces a governing party, and Canada doesn’t really hold any imperialist agenda unlike the USA, I’ll take the Canadian system over the USA’s any day of the week!
USA has been a nifty, but ultimately failed experiment... just based on the fact that the USA elected a sociopath to its highest office in 2016.
And the fact the same sociopath can be reelected again.
And sociopaths are elected in other world governments as well and it is foolish to think Canada is immune
The other comment is that the Prime Minister doesn't do appointments outside Parliament. The US president sometimes gets a secretary of department from Congress but they are his appointees.
Whereas parliament cabinet members are part of the houses
No Canada is a democracy the US is not. Just because you get to vote doesn't make you a democracy. There is more to being a democracy than that.
The US is a republic, one of several models of the democracy concept.
@@MrBonners Having observed your government for the past 22 years, I'd have to say calling your Repubic a "form" of democracy is a bit of a crap-shoot! Get rid of the electoral college and you'll be a lot closer. Peace and Love from Canada
Trust me dude. You are not an average American man. You are interested in and understand a whole lot more about Canada than prob 90% of Americans. You're really funny too. Really enjoy your videos, keep them coming.
The United States was originally founded as a "Constitutional Republic" instead of a pure democracy. This means that the U.S. is made up of 50 states (and some territories) with their own individual sovereignty (a republic) with a national or Federal Government that oversees major needs of all such as the military, mail service, printing money, etc.), but only with the powers allocated to it in the Constitution. All powers not allocated to the Federal Government in the Constitution fall to the individual states, and thus the people. Had the Constitution not been structured in this way by the Framer's, the original constitutional document would have failed and not ratified by the original 13 states legislatures, all with their own unique identities and needs. Had that happened, the U.S. geography today would be made up of a multiple of tiny nations with multiple ethnic origins, that would resemble the European Continent. As a Constitutional Republic, the U.S., through its resources and the individuality of its citizens, became the greatest nation in the world for freedom and choice, not to mention the standard of living we all enjoy.
There is no such thing as a pure democracy. A republic is a governing model of the democracy concept, there are other models. The number of states in a republic is irrelevant to being a republic, can be any number. There are several models of a Republic, the original was the Roman Republic. France is a Republic much different then the US. There are many republics in various structural forms in the world. The democracies of the British Commonwealth are a parliamentary system constitutional democracies. Also with various structures on the concept. The explanation on this video is very over simplified and misleading.
For the Senate, the Prime Minister can only advise the appointment of a senator when a vacancy opens up.
In other words, when a new Prime Minister is elected, there is 0 change to the Senate. The PM only advises when a senator ages out, resigns, or gets voted out by the Senate itself (which has never happened). Basically the Senate is populated with members that were appointed under the advice of previous PM's. This basically ensures no radical changes in the Senate, and helps to avoid parties from gaining a power advantage. We also rely on the Governor General to vet the PM's candidates and prevent any party having power in the Senate.
59 of our 88 current senators are non-partisan/independent/unaffiliated.
Picking candidates is extremely important, but also dangerous for a PM. Since there is no law that obligates the seats to be instantly filled when they become vacant, they tend to stay open for a while.
Any PM would want to fill as many of the seats with people loyal to the ruling party, but since our Senate is mainly independent, that would be seen as an attempt of an extreme power grab, and show corruption. The governor general wouldn't appoint party loyal candidates either, or would maybe allow one or two.
Only 15 senators are tied to the conservative party, and 14 tied to the liberal party. These are the 2 dominant parties (in the house), so attempts at disrupting the Senate's equilibrium is a bad move.
PM's will usually recommend only 1 or 2 independent candidates so they don't look weak and indecisive, but also to keep from wasting time vetting so many people, while running the risk that by recommending too many(trying to fill all the seats), will backfire due to the possibility of a bad egg or two. Good or bad picks can make or break a pm in the next election.
One thing worth noting in a parliamentarian system is that not being the biggest political party doesn't mean that you've "lost".
Indeed you may win an election while losing voters and being smaller then another party as long as you have a coalition with members from other parties that overall had more representatives in the legeslature then any other coalitions (ideally more then half of the legeslature, although that's not always a requirement depending on the country).
The Canadian Senate is kind of like the Supreme court of US in it's composition(but not the role). Those who leave are replaced by the current leading party. So it's a cycle.
And their length of seat makes it that it can be more conservative, or more liberal, and that even if the leading party is the opposite.
Also they cannot be removed per say, so they have freedom of voting, non affiliate to the parties.
One thing that should be understood about the Canadian senate is that the prime minister (nominally the governor general, but effectively the prime minister) appoints a senator only when a vacancy arises in the senate. That can mean a senator reaches the constitutionally mandated retirement age of 75, or a senator dies or decides to retire. Thus a new prime minister does not immediately set out to appoint all 105 members of the senate.
Two important things that were brushed over:
Yes, the prime minister appoints senators (Technically governor general but it's really the PM) however, since senators serve until they're 75, a prime minister rarley does. So, the senate represents views and ideas of many past prime ministers from different parties. I say different parties, but there's really only two when it comes to the senate because although Canada has multiple parties, only two have ever had the most seats in the house of commons. It's also important to note, senators don't have to be previous politicians.
Second, since Canada does have multiple parties, a minority government can form (The current Liberal government with Justin Trudeau is a minority). This is when the party with the most seats does not have the majority of seats. This means that for any bills to pass the house of commons, two or more parties have to agree on it. It's also important to note that any member can introduce a bill whether they are a member of the party with the most seats or not. This means with a minority government, it's possible for a bill to be passed even if the party with the most seats does not agree with it.
The prime Minister only can suggest new appointments for openings in the senate. Because the term limit is age 75, an opening doesn't often open up, so it is not very common for any one prime minister to add too many new appointment suggestions for the senate.
With the Canadian senate, you still have senate members serving from years before the current PM was elected. The longest serving member of the Senate is George Fury who was appointed in 1999 by then PM Jean Chretien. Fury will be retiring from the Senate next year.
I love your reactions to things that just are in Canada. BTW - the head of state is the King, the GG is His representative in Canada. Very nice video.
The choice for a Senator is aimed at choosing apolitical candidates. The few times this was not followed there has been a backlash and the person is usually not appointed.
I grew up learning that the Queen is mostly just a figurehead... while there is a Governor General, its complicated. The Governor General is basically the 'go between' between the Canadian Government and the monarchy. And yes you are correct, it is basically a formality.
Mich F - Agree.
I grew up singing "O Canada" every morning to a portrait of the Queen.
14:57 - the “Loyal” Indicates Loyalty to the Constitution and Monarchy.
The US “Opposition”, or as you call them “Minority” in their legislatures are also technically a “Loyal Opposition”, they Oppose the Party in the Majority, but Are loyal to the Constitution.
You're right about royal assent being a formality, in case you were still wondering. After the revolution which established (more or less) the current British/Canadian/Australian etc. form of government in 1689, the royal veto was used only once, in 1708, and hasn't been used since. The Canadian and British constitutions are weird because they partly rely on tradition. For example, the queen has the power to veto laws, but by convention isn't allowed to use that power. How is that different from not having that power to begin with? It isn't!
the federal electoral seats is based on population. so the province of ontario and quebec have the largest seats for the house of commons. so most candidates tend to visit those provinces the most.
the main thing to remember is that there arent 2 parties, there are 5+ parties and all the seats even if only 1-2 or even 3 seats are won by a party, they are there in the parliament and they do have a say to the votes on decisions. Sure it wont make much of a difference but it can, think of the butterfly effect
No our senate has members of both main parties in it. In fact our prime minister has made it so that those related to his party are actually seen as independent which is how it should be imo.
I am canadian and I learnt how my government system works thanks to you. Thanks dude.
Canadian...with a big 'C', learned.
didn't pay much attention in the basic grades did you?!
5:54 Correct - the Gov. General's appointments to the senate is on behalf of the Queen and is more of a rubberstamp or a formality - he/she acts on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. So in essence they're really appointed by the Prime Minister.
The Canadian senate is not heavily influenced by the “current” prime minister because the senators are appointed essentially for life, they might be senators for 20-30 years. This means the senate is filled with just a few senators per prime minister over thirty to forty years. Eg. A present senator of maybe 65 years old might have been appointed back in 2000 by the prime minister then. They are usually selected by their long time involvement in their communities, and are also required to represent certain regions of the country in a balanced formula.
You might notice that the Queen or Governor-General does not have a veto like the president. The Governor-General can advise, encourage or slightly delay legislation. Similarly the Senate can advise and send legislation back to the House of Commons for reconsideration. The House of Commons has the ultimate decision. These actions plus the Loyal Opposition amounts to the "checks and balances" in Canada.
The President vetoes bills all the time in the US while it is a very rare thing for it to happen in Canada since the Governor General is mostly a position of ceremony.
Not really. From George Washington to the present 1, 518 bills have been vetoed. 112 of them have been over-ridden by Congress (2/3 majority of both houses required). In recent history the figures are Carter -13, Reagan -39, Bush -29, Clinton -36, Bush -12, Obama-12, unmentionable -10 and Biden 0 so far.
@@reindeer7752 You see it happens all the time. Your comment backs up what I said. 518 is a lot compared to Canada.
Not sure it proves your point. A little under 10,000 bills were introduced in Congress last year. Only a few hundred passed. Biden didn't veto any. I have no idea how this compares to the Canadian parliament. I suspect you don't either, but perhaps you can find out.
@@reindeer7752 All bills brought before parliament in Canada usually pass after some amendments are made. The ones that don't pass are the private members bills that are usually brought forward by the parties not in power and even some of these get passed as well. It is extremely rare for the Prime Minster to veto a bill because he is the leader of the party that introduced the bill in the first place. Also with a private members bill that passed in the house of commons and the Senate approved as well he may be replaced by the party if he vetoed such a bill.
Ah, there's the difference. Bills are introduced routinely by both parties in the USA, so its logical that a president would be more likely to veto a bill introduced by the opposite party.
The term you used, "private" sorry, can't remember the wording now, is new to me.
When it comes to the Monarchy in Canada it is now mostly symbolic, since 1931's Statute of Westminster. The Statute of Westminster is a British law that was passed on 11 December 1931. It was Canada’s all-but-final achievement of independence from Britain. It enacted recommendations from the Balfour Report of 1926, which had declared that Britain and its Dominions were constitutionally “equal in status.” The Statute of Westminster gave Canada and the other Commonwealth Dominions legislative equality with Britain. They now had full legal freedom except in areas of their choosing. The Statute also clarified the powers of Canada’s Parliament and those of the other Dominions.
As a Canuk, I say thank you for taking the time to learn about and present our system of governance. It certainly needs some serious fixing (as does America!), but we are getting there!