Politics of Canada | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Polity type | Federalparliamentaryconstitutional monarchy |
| Constitution | Constitution of Canada |
| Legislative branch | |
| Name | Parliament |
| Type | Bicameral |
| Meeting place | Parliament Buildings |
| Upper house | |
| Name | Senate |
| Presiding officer | Raymonde Gagné,Speaker |
| Appointer | Governor General |
| Lower house | |
| Name | House of Commons |
| Presiding officer | Francis Scarpaleggia,Speaker |
| Executive branch | |
| Head of state | |
| Currently | KingCharles III represented by Mary Simon, Governor General |
| Head of government | |
| Currently | Prime Minister Mark Carney |
| Appointer | Governor General |
| Cabinet | |
| Name | Cabinet of Canada |
| Current cabinet | 30th Canadian Ministry |
| Leader | Prime Minister |
| Deputy leader | Deputy Prime Minister |
| Appointer | Governor General |
| Ministries | 30 |
| Judicial branch | |
| Name | Court system of Canada |
| Supreme Court | |
| Chief judge | Richard Wagner |
 |
|---|
 Category |
Thepolitics of Canada functions within a framework ofparliamentary democracy and afederal system ofparliamentary government with strong democratic traditions.[1]Canada is aconstitutional monarchy where themonarch is the ceremonialhead of state. In practice, executive authority is entrusted to theCabinet, a committee ofministers of the Crown chaired by theprime minister of Canada that act as the executive committee of theKing's Privy Council for Canada and are responsible to the democratically electedHouse of Commons.[2]
Canada is described as a "full democracy",[3] with a tradition ofsecular liberalism,[4] and anegalitarian,[5]moderate political ideology.[6][7][8] Extremism has never been prominent in Canadian politics.[9][10][11][12][13] The traditional "brokerage" model of Canadian politics leaves little room for ideology, but on occasion ideologically-based parties have won representation or even dominance at the provincial level, such as in the cases of theCo-operative Commonwealth Federation, theSocial Credit Party of Canada and theCommunist Party of Canada.[a][14]Peace, order, and good government, alongside anImplied Bill of Rights, are founding principles of the Canadian government.[15][16] An emphasis onmulticulturalism andsocial justice has been a distinguishing element of Canada's political culture.[17][18][19] Canada has placed emphasis ondiversity, equity and inclusion for all its people.[20][21]
The country has amulti-party system in which many of its legislative practices derive from the unwrittenconventions of and precedents set by theWestminster parliament of the United Kingdom. Thetwo dominant political parties in Canada have historically been theLiberal Party of Canada and the currentConservative Party of Canada (as well as its numerouspredecessors).[22] Parties like theNew Democratic Party, theQuebec nationalistBloc Québécois and theGreen Party of Canada have grown in prominence, exerting their own influence to the political process.[22]
Canada has evolved variations:party discipline in Canada is stronger than in the United States and United Kingdom, and more parliamentary votes are consideredmotions of confidence, which tends to diminish the role of non-Cabinet members of parliament (MPs). Such members, in the governmentcaucus, and junior or lower-profile members ofopposition caucuses, are known asbackbenchers. Backbenchers can, however, exert their influence by sitting in parliamentary committees, like thePublic Accounts Committee or theNational Defence Committee.
Canada's governmental structure was originally established by theBritish Parliament through theBritish North America Act, 1867 (now theConstitution Act, 1867),[23] but the federal model and division of powers were devised by Canadian politicians. Particularly after World War I, citizens of the self-governingDominions, such as Canada, began to develop a strong sense of identity, and, in theBalfour Declaration of 1926, the British government and the governments of the six Dominions jointly agreed that the Dominions had full autonomy within the British Commonwealth.
In 1931, after further consultations and agreements between the British government and the governments of the Dominions, the British Parliament passed theStatute of Westminster, giving legal recognition to the autonomy of Canada and other Dominions. However, Canadian politicians were unable to obtain consensus on a process for amending the constitution, which was therefore not affected by the Statute of Westminster, meaning amendments to Canada's constitution continued to require the approval of the British parliament until that date. Similarly, theJudicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain continued to make the final decision on criminal appeals until 1933 and on civil appeals until 1949.[24] It was not until 1982, with thePatriation of the Constitution, that the role of the British Parliament was ended.
Canada'segalitarian approach to governance has emphasizedsocial welfare,economic freedom, andmulticulturalism, which is based on selectiveeconomic migrants,social integration, andsuppression offar-right politics, that has wide public and political support.[25][26] Its broad range of constituent nationalities and policies that promote a "just society" are constitutionally protected.[27][28] Individual rights, equality and inclusiveness (social equality) have risen to the forefront of political and legal importance for mostCanadians, as demonstrated through support for theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a relatively free economy, and social liberal attitudes towardwomen's rights (likeabortion),divorce,homosexuality,same-sex marriage,birth control,euthanasia orcannabis use.[29][27][28][20][30] There is also a sense of collective responsibility in Canadian political culture, as is demonstrated in general support foruniversal health care, multiculturalism,evolution,gun control,foreign aid, andother social programs.[31][32][33][34]
| External videos | |
|---|---|
 "Is the Left/Right political spectrum outdated?" –Global News, 2019 (7:23 mins). |
At the federal level, Canada has been dominated by two relativelycentrist parties practising "brokerage politics",[a][37][38][39] thecentre-left leaningLiberal Party of Canada and thecentre-right leaningConservative Party of Canada (or itspredecessors).[40] "The traditionalbrokerage model of Canadian politics leaves littleroom for ideology"[41] as the Canadiancatch-all party system requires support from a broad spectrum of voters.[35][38][39][37] The historically predominant Liberals position themselves at the centre of the political scale,[42][43][44] with the Conservatives sitting on the right and theNew Democratic Party occupying theleft.[45][46][47] Five parties had representatives elected to the federal parliament in the2025 election: the Liberal Party who currently form the government, the Conservative Party who are theOfficial Opposition, the New Democratic Party, theBloc Québécois, and theGreen Party of Canada.
Polls have suggested that Canadians generally do not have a solid understanding ofcivics.[48] This has been theorized to be a result of less attention being given to the subject in provincial education curricula, beginning in the 1960s.[49] By 2008, a poll showed only 24 per cent of respondents could name the monarch ashead of state.[50] Likewise, SenatorLowell Murray wrote five years earlier that "the Crown has become irrelevant to most Canadians' understanding of our system of Government."[51] As John Robson of theNational Post opined in 2015: "Intellectually, voters and commentators succumb to the mistaken notion that we elect 'governments' of prime ministers and cabinets with untrammelled authority, that indeed ideal 'democracy' consists precisely in this kind ofplebiscitaryautocracy."[52] Instead under our election system, seats are allocated based on separate district contests; the prime minister is named by a party that holds majority of seats in the House of Commons or survives in that position by being supported by a working majority of multiple parties in the House of Commons; and governments remain in power only as long as they have support of a majority in the House, whether that group was elected by a majority of voters or not.
.jpg)
The function of constitutional monarchy is to personify the democratic state, to sanction legitimate authority, to assure the legality of means, and guarantee the execution of the public will.[53]
Canada is a constitutional monarchy, wherein the role of the reigningsovereign is both legal and practical, but not political.[54] Themonarch is formally vested with all powers of state,[55] which are in practice exercised only by the various institutions of government acting under the sovereign's authority.[56][57][58][59] The executive is thus formally referred to as theKing-in-Council, the legislature as theKing-in-Parliament, and the courts as theKing-on-the-Bench.[60]
Though the person who is monarch of Canada (currentlyCharles III) is also the monarch of14 other countries in theCommonwealth of Nations, he nevertheless reigns separately asKing of Canada, an office that is "truly Canadian" and "totally independent from that of themonarch of the United Kingdom or the other Commonwealth realms."[61][62] On the advice of the Canadian prime minister, the sovereign appoints a federalviceregal representative—thegovernor general (currentlyMary Simon)—who, since 1947, is permitted to exercise almost all of the monarch'sroyal prerogative; though, there are some duties which must be specifically performed by the monarch themselves (such as assent of certain bills). In case of the governor general's absence or incapacitation, theadministrator of Canada performs the Crown's most basic functions.
Royal assent is required to enact laws. As part of the royal prerogative, theroyal sign-manual gives authority toletters patent andorders-in-Council. The royal prerogative also includes summoning,proroguing, anddissolving Parliament in order tocall an election and extends to foreign affairs, which include the negotiation and ratification of treaties, alliances, international agreements, anddeclarations of war;[63] the accreditation of Canadian diplomats and receipt of foreign diplomats; and theissuance of passports.[64]
Despite the wide theoretical extent of the sovereign's powers, in actual practice the sovereign exercises them only through or with the advice of the Prime Minister andCabinet.[65][66] Within theconstitutional conventions of theWestminster system, the sovereign's freedom of action or personal choice in any area of governance is quite limited.[67][68]
ThebicameralParliament of Canada consists of three parts: themonarch, theSenate, and theHouse of Commons.
Currently, the Senate, which is frequently described as providing regional representation, has 105 members appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister to serve until age 75. It was created with equal representation from the three regions of Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes (originally New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, expanded in 1873 to include Prince Edward Island). In 1915, a new Western division was created, with six senators from each of the four western provinces, so that each of the four regions had 24 seats in the Senate. When Newfoundland and Labrador joined Confederation in 1949, it was not included in an existing region and was assigned six seats. Each of the three territories has one seat. It is not based on representation-by-population. The normal number of senators can be exceeded by the Governor General at the direction of the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister, as long as the additional senators are distributed equally with regard to region (up to a total of eight additional senators). This power of additional appointment has only been used once, when Prime MinisterBrian Mulroney petitionedQueen Elizabeth II to direct that eight seats be added to the Senate so as to ensure the passage of theGoods and Services Tax legislation.
The House of Commons currently has 343 members elected insingle-member districts in aplurality voting system (first past the post), meaning that members must attain only aplurality (the most votes of any candidate) rather than amajority. Theelectoral districts are also known asridings.
Mandates cannot exceed five years; an election must occur by the end of this time. This fixed mandate has been exceeded only once, when Prime MinisterRobert Borden perceived the need to do so during World War I. Aconstitutional amendment was passed, extending the life of the Parliament by one year, by the unanimous consent of the House of Commons. The size of the House andapportionment of seats to each province is revised after every decennial census, conducted every ten years, and is based on population changes and approximately on representation-by-population.
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(October 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Canadians vote for the election of their localmember of parliament (MP) only. A vote is cast directly for a candidate. Most candidates affiliate themselves to apolitical party, but candidates can run asindependents. The candidate in each riding who receives a plurality of votes (single member plurality or so-calledfirst-past-the-post system) is elected, whether or not they receive a majority of district votes.[69] An MP need not be a member of any political party. MPs may sit asindependents.
TheCanada Elections Act defines a political party as "an organization one of whose fundamental purposes is to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election." Forming and registering a federal political party are two different things. There is no legislation regulating the formation of federal political parties.Elections Canada cannot dictate how a federal political party should be formed or how its legal, internal and financial structures should operate.[70]
Most parties elect their leaders ininstant-runoff elections to ensure that the winner receives more than 50% of the votes. This happens atleadership conventions. Normally the party leader stands as a candidate to be an MP during an election. 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" and by itself has right to form the cabinet and pass laws. Through party discipline, the party leader, who if elected sits in only one riding, exercises control over the cabinet and the parliament.[71]
Historically, theprime minister and senators are selected by thegovernor general as a representative of the King, though in modern practice the monarch's duties are ceremonial. Consequently, the prime minister, while technically selected by the Governor General, is for all practical purposes selected by the party with the majority of seats (or the party that can get support from a majority of MPs). That is, the party that gets the most seats normally forms the government, with that party's leader becoming prime minister. The prime minister is not directly elected by the general population, although the prime minister is almost always elected as an MP within a single riding.
Often elections give one party a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, even if the party did not receive a majority of the vote. However, as there are usually three or more political parties represented in the House of Commons, often no party takes a majority of the seats. Aminority government occurs when no party in the House of Commons holds more seats than the opposition parties combined. However, for the new government to survive and to pass laws, the leader chosen must have the support of the majority of the House, meaning they need the support of the elected members of at least one other party. This can be done on a case-by-case basis, through a coalition government (which has only occurred once at the federal level, theUnionist government formed during the First World War) or through aconfidence-and-supply agreement (such as the one the Liberals and the NDP signed in 2022).
If a party in power does not get support of a majority of MPs in a vote in the House of Commons, the defeated ministry may choose to stay in office until defeated on a vote of confidence in the House, or it may resign. If it resigns, the governor general may call an election immediately or may ask the leader of an opposition party to form a government.[72] And again that new governing party has to aggregate support of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons, if it is to hold its position as governing party.
| This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(October 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
As a federation, the existence and powers of the federal government and the tenprovinces are guaranteed by the Constitution. TheConstitution Act, 1867 sets out the basic constitutional structure of the federal government and the provinces.[23] The powers of the federal Parliament and the provinces can only be changed by constitutional amendments passed by the federal and provincial governments.[73] The Sovereign is the formal head of state of the federal government and each of the ten provinces, but has no political role. The governments are led by the representatives of the people: elected by all adult Canadians at the federal level, and by the citizens of each province at the provincial level.
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.[74]
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.[74]
Particularly in the past decade, critics have argued that the federal government's exercise of its unlimited constitutional spending power has contributed to strained federal-provincial relations.[75][76][77][78] This power allows the federal government to influence provincial policies, by offering funding in areas that the federal government cannot itself regulate. The federal spending power is not expressly set out in theConstitution Act, 1867; however, in the words of theCourt of Appeal for Ontario the power "can be inferred" from s. 91(1A), "the public debt and property".[79]
A prime example of an exercise of the spending power is theCanada Health Act, which is a conditional grant of money to the provinces. Regulation of health services is, under the Constitution, a provincial responsibility. However, by making the funding available to the provinces under theCanada Health Act contingent upon delivery of services according to federal standards, the federal government has the ability to influence health care delivery.
Except for three short-lived transitional or minority governments, prime ministers fromQuebec led Canada continuously from 1968 to early 2006. People from Quebec led bothLiberal andProgressive Conservative governments in this period.
Monarchs, governors general, and prime ministers are now expected to be at least functional, if not fluent, in bothEnglish andFrench. In selecting leaders, political parties give preference to candidates who are fluently bilingual.
By law, three of the nine positions on theSupreme Court of Canada must be held by judges from Quebec. This representation makes sure that at least three judges have sufficient experience with thecivil law system to treat cases involving Quebec laws.[80]
| This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(October 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Canada has a long and storied history of secessionist movements (seeSecessionist movements of Canada). National unity has been a major issue in Canada since the forced union ofUpper andLower Canada 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. 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 theMeech Lake Accord and theCharlottetown Accord (the latter of which was rejected through a nationalreferendum).
Since theQuiet Revolution, sovereigntist sentiments in Quebec have been variably stoked by thepatriation of the Canadian constitution in 1982 (without Quebec's consent) and by the failed attempts at constitutional reform. Two provincial referendums, in1980 and1995, rejected proposals for sovereignty with majorities of 60% and 50.6% respectively. Given the narrow federalist victory in 1995, a reference was made by theChrétien government to theSupreme Court of Canada in 1998 regarding thelegality of unilateral provincial secession. The court decided that a unilateral declaration of secession would be unconstitutional. This resulted in the passage of theClarity Act in 2000.
TheBloc Québécois, a sovereigntist party which runs candidates exclusively inQuebec, was started by a group of MPs who left the Progressive Conservative (PC) party (along with several disaffected Liberal MPs), 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 lead-up 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. In the 2011 election, theNew Democratic Party succeeded in winning 59 of Quebec's 75 seats, successfully reducing the number of seats of every other party substantially. The NDP surge nearly destroyed the Bloc, reducing them to 4 seats, far below the minimum requirement of 12 seats forofficial party status.
Newfoundland and Labrador is also a problem regarding national unity. As theDominion of Newfoundland was a self-governing country equal to Canada until 1949, there are large, though uncoordinated, feelings of Newfoundland nationalism andanti-Canadian sentiment among much of the population. This is due in part to the perception of chronicfederal mismanagement of the fisheries,forced resettlement away from isolated settlements in the 1960s, the government of Quebec still drawing inaccurate political maps wherebythey take parts of Labrador, and to the perception that mainland Canadians look down upon Newfoundlanders. In 2004, theNewfoundland and Labrador First Party contested provincial elections and in 2008 in federal ridings within the province. In 2004, then-premierDanny Williams ordered all federal flags removed from government buildings as a result of lost offshore revenues to equalization clawbacks.[81] On December 23, 2004, premier Williams made this statement to reporters inSt. John's,
They basically slighted us, they are not treating us as a proper partner in Confederation. It's intolerable and it's insufferable and these flags will be taken down indefinitely. It's also quite apparent to me that we were dragged to Manitoba in order to punish us, quite frankly, to try to embarrass us, to bring us out there to get no deal and send us back with our tail between our legs.
— PremierDanny Williams[81]
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, and so on.), in politics, it has given rise to a number of political parties whose base constituency is in western Canada. These include theUnited Farmers of Alberta, who first won federal seats in 1917, theProgressives (1921), theSocial Credit Party (1935), theCo-operative Commonwealth Federation (1935), theReconstruction Party (1935),New Democracy (1940) and most recently theReform 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. For example, in 2001, a group of prominent Albertans produced theAlberta Agenda, urging Alberta to take steps to make full use of its constitutional powers, much as Quebec has done.
| This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(October 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Canada is considered by most sources to be a very stable democracy. In 2006,The Economist ranked Canada the third-most democratic nation in itsDemocracy Index, ahead of all other nations in the Americas and ahead of every nation more populous than itself. According to theV-Dem Democracy indices, in 2023 Canada was the 19th most electoral democratic country in the world.[82][83]
More recently, with the existence of strong third parties and first-past-the-post elections amongst other factors, Canada on a federal and provincial level has experienced huge swings in seat shares, where third parties (e.g. NDP, Reform) end up (usually briefly) replacing the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives or the Conservatives as the main opposition or even the government and leaving them as a rump. Such examples federally include the1993 federal election with the collapse of the Progressive Conservatives, and the2011 election leaving the Liberal Party a (temporary) rump along with Bloc Québécois. Other examples include the changes of fortune for the Alberta NDP during the province's 2015 and 2019 elections, and possibly the 2018 Quebec elections with the rise ofCoalition Avenir Québec taking government from the Liberals andParti Québécois.
On a provincial level, in the legislatures of western provinces the NDP often is the left-leaning main party instead of that province's Liberal Party branch, the latter generally being a rump or smaller than the NDP. The other main party (right of the NDP) is either the Progressive Conservatives or their successor, or the Saskatchewan Party in Saskatchewan.[84]
According to recent scholars, there have been four party systems in [Canada] at the federal level since Confederation, each with its own distinctive pattern of social support,patronage relationships, leadership styles, and electoral strategies.[85] Political scientists disagree on the names and precise boundaries of the eras, however. Steve Patten identifies four party systems in Canada's political history[86]
Clarkson (2005) shows how theLiberal Party has dominated all the party systems, using different approaches. It began with a "clientelistic approach" underLaurier, which evolved into a "brokerage" system of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s underMackenzie King. The 1950s saw the emergence of a "pan-Canadian system", which lasted until the 1990s. The 1993 election — categorized by Clarkson as an electoral "earthquake" which "fragmented" the party system, saw the emergence of regional politics within a four party-system, whereby various groups championed regional issues and concerns. Clarkson concludes that the inherent bias built into the first-past-the-post system, has chiefly benefited the Liberals.[87]
The rules governing the funding of parties are designed to ensure reliance on personal contributions. 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 income taxes receive any benefit from this.
The rules are based on the belief 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. 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. For the initial disbursement, 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 was asked to refund the difference.Quebec was the first province to implement a similar system of funding many years before the changes to funding of federal parties.[88]
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.[89]
In 2007, news emerged of a funding loophole that "could cumulatively exceed the legal limit by more than $60,000", through anonymous recurrent donations of $200 to every riding of a party from corporations or unions. At the time, for each individual, the legal annual donation limit was $1,100 for each party, $1,100 combined total for each party's associations, and in an election year, an additional $1,100 combined total for each party's candidates. All three limits increase on 1 April every year based on the inflation rate.[90][91][92]
Two of the biggest federal political parties in Canada experienced a drop in donations in 2020, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on the global economy.[93]
Ordered by number of elected representatives in the House of Commons
Leaders' debates in Canada consist of two debates, one English and one French,[94] both produced by a consortium of Canada's five major television broadcasters (CBC/SRC,CTV,Global andTVA) and usually consist of the leaders of all parties with representation in the House of Commons.
These debates air on the networks of the producing consortium as well as the public affairs and parliamentary channelCPAC and the American public affairs networkC-SPAN.
The Canadian government operates the public service using departments, smaller agencies (for example, commissions, tribunals, and boards), and crown corporations. There are two types of departments: central agencies such as Finance, Privy Council Office, and Treasury Board Secretariat have an organizing and oversight role for the entire public service; line departments are departments that perform tasks in a specific area or field, such as the departments of Agriculture, Environment, or Defence.
Scholar Peter Aucoin, writing about the Canadian Westminster system, raised concerns in the early 2000s about the centralization of power; an increased number, role and influence of partisan-political staff; personal-politicization of appointments to the senior public service; and the assumption that the public service is promiscuously partisan for the government of the day.[95]
| Party | Party leader | Candidates | Seats | Popular vote | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Dissol. | 2025 | Change from 2021 | % seats | Votes | Vote change | % | pp change | % where running | ||||
| Liberal | Mark Carney | 342[b] | 160 | 152 | 169 |  9 | 49.27% | 8,595,488 | 3,038,859 | 43.76% | 11.14pp | 43.91% | |
| Conservative | Pierre Poilievre | 342[c] | 119 | 120 | 144 | 25 | 41.98% | 8,113,484 | 2,366,074 | 41.31% | 7.57pp | 41.43% | |
| Bloc Québécois | Yves-François Blanchet | 78 | 32 | 33 | 22 |  10 | 6.41% | 1,236,349 | 65,276 | 6.29% | 1.35pp | 27.65% | |
| New Democratic | Jagmeet Singh | 342[d] | 25 | 24 | 7 | 18 | 2.04% | 1,234,673 | 1,801,675 | 6.29% | 11.53pp | 6.30% | |
| Green | Elizabeth May & Jonathan Pedneault | 232 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.29% | 238,892 | 158,096 | 1.22% | 1.11pp | 1.75% | |
| People's | Maxime Bernier | 247 | – | – | – |  | – | 136,977 | 704,016 | 0.70% | 4.24pp | 0.94% | |
| Independent and No Affiliation | 177[e] | – | 3 | – | | – | 39,498 | 7,017 | 0.20% | 0.01pp | 0.31% | ||
| Christian Heritage | Rodney L. Taylor | 32 | – | – | – | | – | 10,065 | 1,080 | 0.05% | | 0.46% | |
| Rhinoceros | Chinook B. Blais-Leduc | 29 | – | – | – | | – | 7,063 | 978 | 0.04% | | 0.41% | |
| United | Grant S. Abraham | 16 | New | – | – | New | – | 6,061 | New | 0.03% | New | 0.57% | |
| Libertarian | Jacques Y. Boudreau | 16 | – | – | – | | – | 5,561 | 796 | 0.03% | | 0.57% | |
| Marxist–Leninist | Anna Di Carlo | 35 | – | – | – | | – | 4,996 | 464 | 0.03% | | 0.25% | |
| Communist | Elizabeth Rowley | 24 | – | – | – | | – | 4,685 | 15 | 0.02% | 0.01pp | 0.36% | |
| Centrist | A. Q. Rana | 19 | – | – | – | | – | 3,314 | 2,666 | 0.02% | 0.02pp | 0.31% | |
| Canadian Future | Dominic Cardy | 19 | New | – | – | New | – | 3,123 | New | 0.02% | New | 0.27% | |
| Animal Protection | Liz White | 7 | – | – | – | | – | 1,301 | 1,245 | 0.01% | | 0.32% | |
| Marijuana (D) | Blair T. Longley | 2 | – | – | – | | – | 133 | 1,898 | 0.00% | 0.01pp | 0.09% | |
| Vacant | 4 | N/a | |||||||||||
| Total valid votes | 19,641,663 | 2,727,388 | 100.00% | – | – | ||||||||
| Total rejected ballots | 169,857 | 5,711 | 0.86% | 0.16pp | – | ||||||||
| Total | 1,959 | 338 | 338 | 343 | 5 | 100.00% | 100.00% | – | 100.00% | ||||
| Electorate (eligible voters)/turnout | – | ||||||||||||
| Note: Official results with two judicial recounts to be completed. | |||||||||||||
| Source(s):Elections Canada[98][99] (D) indicates a party deregistered before the next election | |||||||||||||
... most Canadian governments, especially at the federal level, have taken a moderate, centrist approach to decision making, seeking to balance growth, stability, and governmental efficiency and economy ... .
First Past the Post in Canada has favoured broadly-based, accommodative, centrist parties ... .
Social conservatives and the extreme right have had limited success designing the direction and policies of Canada's right-wing political parties.
Two historically dominant political parties have avoided ideological appeals in favour of a flexible centrist style of politics that is often labelled brokerage politics
Canada's party system has long been described as a "brokerage system" in which the leading parties (Liberal and Conservative) follow strategies that appeal across majorsocial cleavages in an effort to defuse potential tensions.
...most Canadian governments, especially at the federal level, have taken a moderate, centrist approach to decision making, seeking to balance growth, stability, and governmental efficiency and economy...
Domination by the Centre The central anomaly of the Canadian system, and the primary cause of its other peculiarities, has been its historical domination by a party of the centre. In none of the other countries is a centre party even a major player, much less the dominant....
 Links related to Politics of Canada | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
