Politics of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada
This article is part of the series: Politics and government of Canada

Executive (The Crown) The Sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II) Governor General (Michaëlle Jean) Queen's Privy Council for Canada Prime Minister (Stephen Harper) Cabinet
Legislative (Parliament) Senate Speaker of the Senate Government Leader in the Senate Opposition Leader in the Senate Canadian Senate divisions House of Commons Speaker of the House Government House Leader Official Opposition Leader of the Opposition Opposition House Leader Shadow Cabinet Parliamentary constituencies Elections Electoral system Last election
Judicial Supreme Court Chief Justice Lower Courts of Appeal Constitution British North America Acts Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Provinces and territories Lieutenant-Governors Premiers Legislatures Politics of: AB \| BC \| MB \| NB \| NL \| NT NS \| NU \| ON \| PE \| QC \| SK \| YT
Regions Political culture Foreign relations
Other countries • Politics Portal view • talk • edit

Canada is a constitutional monarchy and a Commonwealth Realm (see Monarchy in Canada) with a federal system of parliamentary government, and strong democratic traditions. Many of the country's legislative practices derive from the unwritten practices of and precedents set by the United Kingdom's Westminster parliament; however, Canada has evolved variations. Party discipline in Canada is stronger than in the United Kingdom, and more of the votes are considered confidence votes, which tends to diminish the role of non-cabinet Members of Parliament (MPs). Such members, in the government caucus, and junior or lower-profile members of opposition caucuses, are known as backbenchers. Backbenchers can, however, exert their influence by sitting in parliamentary committees, like the Public Accounts Committee or the National Defence Committee.

The political system under which Canada operates, known as the Westminster system, was enshrined by the British Parliament in the Constitution Act, 1867 (also known as the British North America Act), but the federal model and division of powers were devised by Canadian politicians. Particularly after World War I, citizens of the self-governing "dominions" began to develop a strong sense of identity, and in the Balfour Declaration, 1926, the British government expressed its intent to grant full autonomy to these dominions. Thus in 1931, the British Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster giving legal recognition to the autonomy of Canada and other dominions. Canadian politicians were unable to obtain consensus on a process for amending the constitution until 1982. Therefore, amendments to Canada's constitution required the approval of the British Parliament. Similarly, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain continued to make the final decision on legal issues until 1949, such as whether a woman could be appointed to the Senate (see Persons Case). As well, because of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and rulings of courts on legislation, Canada is becoming more like a constitutional democracy, as opposed to the parliamentary democracy of its design.

[edit] Majority and minority governments

Canadians vote for their local member of parliament only. The party leaders, who may become Prime Minister, are elected prior to the general elections by party memberships. Parties elect their leaders in run-off elections to ensure that the winner receives more than 50% of the votes. Normally the party leader stands as a candidate to be a Member of Parliament during an election.

The election of a local Member of Parliament (MP) gives a seat to one of the several political parties. The party that gets the most seats normally forms the government, with that party's leader becoming Prime Minister. Thus the Prime Minister is not directly elected as a Prime Minister by the general population, but must however win their riding to be a member of Parliament.

Canada's parliamentary system empowers political parties and their party leaders. Where one party gets a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, that party is said to have a "majority government". Through party discipline, the party leader, who is only elected in one riding, exercises a great deal of control over the cabinet and the parliament.

In a minority government, a party leader is selected to lead the government, however he or she can only do so with the support of other parties.

[edit] Political information (summary)

Organization of powers in Canada

[edit] Country name

conventional/legal name: Canada
official title (disused): Dominion of Canada

Further information: Canada's name

Government type: constitutional monarchy; federal parliamentary democracy

Capital: Ottawa, Ontario

Administrative divisions: 10 provinces and 3 territories*; Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories*, Nova Scotia, Nunavut*, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon Territory*

National holiday: Canada Day, July 1 (1867)

Constitution: Westminster system, based on unwritten conventions and written Constitution Act, 1982 (including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly the British North America Act, 1867).

Legal system: except for criminal law (under sole federal jurisdiction), it is based on English common law, except in Quebec, where a civil law system, centred on the Civil Code of Quebec and based on the Custom of Paris in pre-revolutionary France; accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, with reservations. See: Law of Canada

Suffrage: Citizens aged 18 years or older. Only two adult citizens in Canada cannot vote; the Chief Electoral Officer, and the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer.

[edit] Executive branch

Head of state: Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada (since February 6, 1952).
- Representative in Canada: Governor General Michaëlle Jean (since September 27, 2005).
Head of government: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (since February 6, 2006).
Cabinet: Ministers (usually around 30) chosen by the Prime Minister and appointed by the Governor General to lead various ministries and agencies, generally with regional representation. Most, but not all, will be members of the leader's own party in the House of Commons.

Further information: Cabinet of Canada

Elections: The Monarchy is hereditary. The Governor General is appointed by the Monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister for a non-specific term, though it is traditionally approximately five years. Following legislative elections, the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons is automatically designated by the Governor General to become Prime Minister.

Further information: Monarchy in Canada , Elections in Canada , Lieutenant-Governor (Canada) , and Premier (Canada)

[edit] Legislative branch

The bicameral Parliament consists of the Senate and the House of Commons; by definition, Parliament also includes the monarch. Currently, the Senate has 105 members, who are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister to serve until age 75. The Senate is frequently described as providing "regional" representation, and this was true, historically. It was created with equal representation from each of Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime region. However, it is currently the product of various specific exceptions, additions and compromises, meaning that regional equality is not observed, nor is representation-by-population. The normal number of senators can be exceeded by the Governor-General at the wish of the Prime Minister, as long as the additional Senators are distributed equally with regard to region (up to a total of 8 additional Senators). This power of additional appointment has only been used once, when Prime Minister Brian Mulroney sought to ensure the passage of a national sales tax. The House of Commons currently has 308 members elected by a plurality of popular votes in separate constituencies (ridings) for terms that do not exceed five years. The five-year term has been exceeded once when Prime Minister Robert Borden perceived the need during World War I. The size of the House and apportionment of seats to each Province is revised after every census, based on population changes and is based approximately on representation-by-population

Elections: direct plurality representation in House of Commons - last held January 23, 2006
Election results:

[discuss] – [edit]
**Summary of the 23 January 2006 Canadian House of Commons election results**
Party		Party leader	Candi- dates	Seats				Popular vote
Party		Party leader	Candi- dates	2004	Dissol.	2006	% Change	#	%	Change
	Conservative Party of Canada	Stephen Harper	308	99	98	124	+25.3%	5,374,071	36.20%	+6.59%
	Liberal Party of Canada	Paul Martin	308	135	133	103	-23.7%	4,479,415	30.17%	-6.53%
	Bloc Québécois	Gilles Duceppe	75	54	53	51	-5.6%	1,553,201	10.46%	-1.94%
	New Democratic Party	Jack Layton	308	19	18	29	+52.6%	2,589,597	17.44%	+1.75%
	Independents and no affiliation		90	1	4	1¹	-	81,860	0.55%	+0.05
	Green Party of Canada	Jim Harris	308	-	-	-		665,940	4.49%	+0.17%
	Christian Heritage Party of Canada	Ron Gray	45	-	-	-		28,152	0.19%	-0.11%
	Progressive Canadian Party	Tracy Parsons	25	-	-	-		14,446	0.10%	+0.02%
	Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)	Sandra L. Smith	69	-	-	-		14,151	0.10%	+0.03%
	Marijuana Party of Canada	Blair Longley	23	-	-	-		9,171	0.06%	-0.19%
	Canadian Action Party	Connie Fogal	34	-	-	-		6,102	0.04%	-0.03%
	Communist Party of Canada	Miguel Figueroa	21	-	-	-		3,022	0.02%	-0.01%
	Libertarian Party of Canada	Jean-Serge Brisson	10	-	-	-		3,002	0.02%	+0.01%
	First Peoples National Party of Canada	Barbara Wardlaw	5	*	-	-	*	1,201	0.01%	*
	Western Block Party	Doug Christie	4	*	-	-	*	1,094	0.01%	*
	Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party	Liz White	1	*	-	-	*	72	XX	*
	Vacant				2
Total			1634	308	308	308	-	14,845,680	100%
Source: Elections Canada Notes: Official candidate nominations closed January 2, 2006. Candidate totals cited above are based on official filings. Nominations were official on January 5, 2006. "% change" refers to change from previous election * indicates the party did not contest in the previous election. ¹ André Arthur was elected as an independent candidate in the Quebec City-area riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. He personally won 20,158 votes.

also see Canadian Senate

[edit] Political parties, leaders, and status

(By number of elected representatives in House of Commons)

Conservative Party of Canada - Stephen Harper (minority government)
Liberal Party of Canada - Stéphane Dion, leader (official opposition)
Bloc Québécois - Gilles Duceppe
New Democratic Party - Jack Layton
There are currently two independent Members, André Arthur and Garth Turner.

[edit] Judicial branch

Supreme Court of Canada, judges are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the Cabinet with parliamentary committee review.

[edit] Government departments and structure

Notable departments include Finance, Revenue, Human Resources and Skills Development, National Defence, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and Foreign Affairs/International Trade.

Further information: Structure of the Canadian federal government

[edit] Notable Crown corporations and other government agencies

International organization participation: ABEDA, ACCT, AfDB, APEC, AsDB, Australia Group, BIS, C, CCC, CDB (non-regional), Council of Europe (observer), Commonwealth of Nations, EAPC, EBRD, ECE, ECLAC, ESA (cooperating state), FAO, La Francophonie, G-7, G-10, IADB, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt, ICJ, ICFTU, ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, Inmarsat, Intelsat, Interpol, IOC, IOM, ISO, ITU, Kyoto Protocol, MINURCA, MINURSO, MIPONUH, MONUC, NAM (guest), NAFTA, NATO, NEA, NORTHCOM, NSG, OAS, OECD, OPCW, OSCE, PCA, UN, UN Security Council (prior/temporary), UNCTAD, UNDOF, UNESCO, UNFICYP, UNHCR, UNIDO, UNIKOM, UNMIBH, UNMIK, UNMOP, UNTAET, UNTSO, UNU, UPU, WCL, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO, Zangger Committee

Flag description: a red maple leaf centred on a Canadian pale: three vertical bands of red (hoist side), white (double width, square), and red, with a length twice that of its height.

Further information: Flag of Canada

[edit] Federal-provincial relations

Federal-provincial (or intergovernmental, formerly dominion-provincial) relations is a regular issue in Canadian politics: Quebec wishes to preserve and strengthen its distinctive nature, western provinces desire more control over their abundant natural resources, especially energy reserves; industrialized Central Canada is concerned with its manufacturing base, and the Atlantic provinces strive to escape from being less affluent than the rest of the country.

In order to ensure that social programs such as health care and education are funded consistently throughout Canada, the "have-not" (poorer) provinces receive a proportionately greater share of federal "transfer (equalization) payments" than the richer, or "have", provinces do; this has been somewhat controversial. The richer provinces often favour freezing transfer payments, or rebalancing the system in their favour, based on the claim that they already pay more in taxes than they receive in federal government services, and the poorer provinces often favour an increase on the basis that the amount of money they receive is not sufficient for their existing needs.

Particularly in the past decade, some scholars have argued that the federal government's exercise of its unlimited constitutional spending power has contributed to strained federal-provincial relations. This power, which allows the federal government to spend the revenue it raises in any way that it pleases, allows it to overstep the constitutional division of powers by creating programs that encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction. The federal spending power is found in s. 102 of the British North America Act 1867, now known as the Constitution Act, 1867. A prime example of an exercise of the spending power is the Canada Health Act, which is a conditional grant of money to the provinces. Delivery of health services is, under the Constitution, a provincial responsibility. However, by making the funding available to the provinces under the Canada Health Act contingent upon delivery of services according to federal standards, the federal government has the ability to influence health care delivery. This spending power, coupled with Supreme Court rulings — such as Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.) — that have held that funding delivered under the spending power can be reduced unilaterally at any time, has contributed to strained federal-provincial relations.

[edit] Quebec and Canadian politics

Except for three short-lived transitional or minority governments, Prime Ministers from Quebec have led Canada continuously since 1967. Quebecers have led both Liberal and Conservative governments in this period.

Prime Ministers are now expected to be fluent in English and at least functional in French. In selecting leaders, political parties give preference to candidates who are fluently bilingual.

Also, by law, judges from Quebec must hold three of the nine positions on the Supreme Court of Canada. This representation makes sure that at least three judges have sufficient experience with the civil law system to treat cases involving Quebec laws.

[edit] Bilingualism

One of the effects of Canada being bilingual is that the Prime Minister is usually able to speak in their second language and for many years Canada has had bilingual Prime Ministers.

The most striking example of what this can result in occurred when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister. He often said one thing to reporters in English and something that was different and actually contradictory in French. Even those that were not bilingual (and 17% of the country is considered bilingual and many more would be able to follow a simple conversation with reporters) were made aware of this in news coverage. However for those who could actually understand the difference it was quite striking. While Brian Mulroney was best known for doing this, other Prime Ministers have also been self-contradictory at times between their French and English comments.

[edit] National unity

Canada has a long and storied history of secessionist movements (see Secessionist movements of Canada). National unity has been a major issue in Canada since the forced union of the Canadas in 1840.

The predominant and lingering issue concerning Canadian national unity has been the ongoing conflict between the French-speaking majority in Quebec and the English-speaking majority in the rest of Canada, popularly referred to as "two solitudes". Quebec's continued demands for recognition of its "distinct society" through special political status has led to attempts for constitutional reform, most notably with the failed attempts to amend the constitution through the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord (the latter of which was rejected though a national referendum).

Since the Quiet Revolution, sovereignist sentiments in Quebec have been variably stoked by the patriation of the Canadian constitution in 1982 (without Quebec's consent) and by the failed attempts at constitutional reform. Two provincial referendums, in 1980 and 1995, rejected proposals for sovereignty with majorities of 60% and 50.6% respectively. Given the narrow federalist victory in 1995, a reference was made by the Chrétien government to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 regarding the legality of unilateral provincial secession. The court decided that a unilateral declaration of secession would be unconstitutional. This resulted in the passage of the Clarity Act in 2000.

The Bloc Quebecois, a sovereignist party which runs candidates exclusively in Quebec, was started by a group of MPs who left the Progressive Conservative (PC) party, and first put forward candidates in the 1993 federal election. With the collapse of the PCs in that election, the Bloc and Liberals were seen as the only two viable parties in Quebec. Thus, prior to the 2006 election, any gain by one party came at the expense of the other, regardless of whether national unity was really at issue. The Bloc, then, benefited (with a significant increase in seat total) from the impressions of corruption that surrounded the Liberal party in the leadup to the 2004 election. However, the newly-unified Conservative party re-emerged as a viable party in Quebec by winning 10 seats in the 2006 election, meaning that Quebecers' electoral choices are now more complex.

"Western alienation" is another national-unity-related concept that enters into Canadian politics. Residents of the four western Provinces, particularly Alberta, have often been unhappy with a lack of influence and a perceived lack of understanding when residents of Central Canada consider "national" issues. While this is seen to play itself out through many avenues (media, commerce, etc.), in politics, it has given rise to a number of political parties whose base constituency is in western Canada. These include the United Farmers of Alberta, who first won federal seats in 1917, the Progressives (1921), the Social Credit Party (1935), the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (1935), the Reconstruction Party (1935), the New Democracy Party (1940) and most recently the Reform Party (1989). The Reform Party's slogan "The West Wants In" was echoed by commentators when, after a successful merger with the PCs, the successor party to both parties, the Conservative Party won the 2006 election. Led by Stephen Harper, who is an MP from Alberta, the electoral victory was said to have made "The West IS In" a reality. However, regardless of specific electoral successes or failures, the concept of western alienation continues to be important in Canadian politics, particularly on a provincial level, where opposing the federal government is a common tactic for provincial politicians. Again, this is closest to the surface in Alberta where, for example, in 2001, a group of prominent Albertans (including future Prime Minister Harper) produced the Alberta Agenda, urging Alberta to take steps to make full use of its constitutional powers, much as Quebec has done.

Similarly, recent remarks made by Ontario's Premier Dalton McGuinty has spoken of a growing dissatisfaction with Canadian Confederation, especially with the fiscal imbalance that plagues the relationship between the province and the federal government. The province provides $23 billion CAD more to the federal government than is returned each year.

[edit] Political conditions

Paul Martin's Liberal Party won a minority victory in the June 2004 general elections. In December 2003, Martin had succeeded fellow Liberal Jean Chrétien, who had, in 2000, become the first Prime Minister to lead three consecutive majority governments since 1945. However, in 2004 the Liberals lost seats in Parliament, going from 172 of 301 Parliamentary seats to 135 of 308, and from 40.9% to 36.7% in the popular vote. The Canadian Alliance, which did well in western Canada in the 2000 election, but was unable to make significant inroads in the East, merged with the Progressive Conservative Party to form the Conservative Party of Canada in late 2003. They proved to be moderately successful in the 2004 campaign, gaining seats from a combined Alliance-PC total of 78 in 2000 to 99 in 2004. However, the new Conservatives lost in popular vote, going from 37.7% in 2000 down to 29.6%.

This was the first minority government in Canada federally since 1979-1980. That government, led by Joe Clark, lasted only seven months. The situation, however, was different from the current one. The Clark government was elected in part because many voters did not want to support the Liberal party, but they did not expect that the Progressive Conservatives would win enough seats for a minority government. In contrast, polls taken during the 2004 election showed that many Canadians wanted a minority government.

Minority governments are not always short-lived. While they have not generally lasted four years, there have been minority governments in the time before 1979 that were fairly stable and able to pass legislation. Minority government situations in Canada may become somewhat difficult to manage though, as in the past there were only three parties that had a significant number of seats in parliament (fourth parties were at times represented in small numbers), although the third party has changed over time. This meant an alliance between the governing and third parties would have a solid majority. Since the 1930s, the third party was usually the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation or later the New Democratic Party, which was created when an alliance was formed between labour unions and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. The Social Credit Party of Canada was the third party at times. Before this, there were other parties that had significant influence; such as the Progressive Party in the 1920s.

No such governing coalition was able to form in the 38th Parliament.

[edit] Party funding reform

Funding changes were made by the last Liberal government to deal with the issues of fair access to funding for parties running for seats in the federal parliament. Previously the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party had benefited the most from the system as they received much more business funding than two other parties, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois. The New Democratic Party traditionally got less funding from business, but receives a larger percentage of union funding than the Liberal and PC parties. This led to the net result of the previous system favouring parties that were more likely to get business contributions. There was no fifth party that was receiving much of its money in this manner, and the Green Party of Canada functioned mainly through personal donations. The NDP also had to depend in a greater manner on personal contributions. It should be noted that personal donations to federal parties and campaigns benefit from tax credits, although the amount of tax relief depends on the amount given. Also only people paying taxes receive any benefit from this.

A good part of the reasoning behind the change in funding was that union or business funding should not be allowed to have as much impact on federal election funding as these are not contributions from citizens and are not evenly spread out between parties. They are still allowed to contribute to the election but only in a minor fashion. The new rules stated that a party had to receive 2% of the vote nationwide in order to receive the general federal funding for parties. Each vote garnered a certain dollar amount for a party (approximately $1.75) in future funding. Because this system had not been use before approximations were made based on previous elections. The NDP received more votes than expected (its national share of the vote went up) while the new Conservative Party of Canada received fewer votes than had been estimated and has been asked to refund the difference. The Liberal party also likely received fewer votes than expected. Figures are not yet known, but it is believed they too will need to refund money. It should be noted that the province of Quebec was the first province to implement a similar system of funding many years before the changes to funding of federal parties.

Federal funds are disbursed quarterly to parties, beginning at the start of 2005. For the moment, this disbursement delay leaves the NDP and the Green Party in a better position to fight an election, since they rely more on individual contributors than federal funds. (The Green party now receives federal funds, since it for the first time received a sufficient share of the vote in the 2004 election.)

[edit] Additional impact

Federal ridings vary in competitiveness. Some are dubbed safe seats, such as Ottawa—Vanier, which has elected a Liberal MP every election for over 50 years. The changes to the campaign funding structure likely had an impact on voting, and certainly had an impact on electoral strategy.

Strongholds present two problems for less-competitive parties. The first is "strategic voting." in which supporters of less-competitive parties vote for the candidate of a party they prefer less, but which is more competitive. By doing so they might defeat the MP holding the "safe" seat, who they may prefer least of all. The second problem that of apathy. Supporters of less-competitive parties may not see the point in voting for their preferred party if their party's candidate has no hope of winning. But rather than casting a "strategic" ballot, they simply stay home.

However, under the new rules, the strategy of less-competitive parties became to persuade their supporters that votes for unsuccessful candidates would increase allocated funding. Often the amount was explained to the voters. So even if the seat was clearly safe, their voting would have a greater impact than it had in the past. The smaller the party, the stronger this argument became.

Even though the new rules likely had the most impact for smaller parties, this strategy was probably used by all parties to try to increase their percentage of the vote. For supporters of the party holding the safe seat, one could argue that even if their vote was not needed to secure the seat for the party, it still made a difference to party funding.

Commonly, two national debates receive nationwide coverage during an election, one in each official language. Both debates are broadcast in translation, so it is possible to watch either debate without a working knowledge of the language of the debate, although part of the meaning can be lost. People who are bilingual enough to understand both the English- and French-language debates without need of translation will get a better idea of the substances of the two debates and the differences between them if they decide to watch both debates.

Currently only the parties represented in Parliament participate in the debates. The Green Party, however, has argued that it should also be allowed to participate. Its share of the vote has increased greatly, due in part to the new funding formula, in part because it ran in many more ridings than in previous elections (it nominated candidates in every riding in the 2004 and 2006 elections), and in part to increased popularity. Thus the argument goes that if there is sufficient national support to earn official recognition as a party (i.e., one that is granted funding based on getting 2% or more of the national vote) it should also be allowed to debate on the same level as the other officially recognized parties.

Also, having received 6% of the vote in British Columbia and based on past precedent, the Greens will have a stronger case for being included in the debates in future elections. The Bloc Québécois was allowed to participate in debates on the basis of its support in Quebec - even before it had elected any MPs in a general election (the only Bloc's MPs at the time had either switched parties or won in by-elections). Furthermore, on the basis of anticipated support, the Reform Party of Canada was included in debates despite only having a single MP. Therefore, past party performance or number of seats is not how participants are chosen.

[edit] Determination of party funding for 2004 election

Because the new funding was based on percentage of the vote gained, an estimate was made towards how much each federal party would receive. All federal parties that had seats in the House of Commons were given funding. Because the Canadian Conservative party was new, estimates were attempted based on the votes for the old Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance party as the Conservative Party of Canada was a merger of the two parties. The amount the Conservative Party of Canada was given was above the amount it was estimated to receive and is expected to return the money. The Liberal party of Canada also received less votes than expected and is in the same situation. However some parties benefited from the new system. The NDP received less funding than the number of votes it received (it increased its share of the vote) and will receive additional funds to reflect this. For the first time the Green Party of Canada will receive direct federal funding in the next election as it was able to achieve the 2% vote threshold required (in British Columbia where the party was the most successful it garnered 6% of the vote). Impact on the Bloc Québécois funding (if they will need to return funds) is not yet clear but since it increased its share of the vote in Quebec (the only province it runs in) it is expected to be in a surplus position as well. In the future these numbers will be known ahead of time as they will be based on the previous electoral results.

[edit] Current issues

In March 2001, Bernard Landry succeeded Lucien Bouchard as premier of Quebec (see List of Quebec Premiers) and pledged to promote independence for Quebec and to hold another referendum on sovereignty. In the 2003 Quebec election, Quebecers elected the Quebec Liberal Party, and Jean Charest became premier, the first solidly federalist premier since the 1980s.

Advertising efforts by the federal government following the 1995 referendum led to alleged excesses by government officials; while the issue broke in the press in 2002, it came to full prominence after the Auditor's Report, causing the "sponsorship scandal". The Gomery Commission, and its subsequent reports, have continued the situation.

Currently, such issues as medicare, unemployment, housing, education, taxes, trade, and the environment preoccupy many Canadians more urgently than national unity. In October 2004, there was a health care summit where all the provincial premiers and territorial leaders participated that has resulted in a change in federal funding towards health care.

Only British Columbians have the ability to remove sitting members of the provincial legislature through recall election and initiative.

At 11:18 a.m., on February 6, 2006, Stephen Harper was sworn in as Prime Minister of Canada at Rideau Hall in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. That same day at approximately 11:22 a.m., Stephen Harper introduced his new cabinet, and they were sworn in before Her Excellency the Governor General.