Currently the PM doesn’t have a seat in the house. If he visited the house, he’d have to go to the visitor’s gallery.
It’s an interesting situation. The PM is the leader of the federal liberal party, but he’s not a member of parliament. But, does he need to be? Is the PM sitting in the house of commons just a tradition that nobody has challenged yet? Could the PM delegate things inside the house of commons to their deputy-PM and then do things like give speeches, attend diplomatic functions, etc.?
The US has a very different system where the president isn’t part of the legislative branch at all. But, typically presidents don’t twiddle their thumbs waiting for something to do. Being the head of state keeps most presidents busy. It makes me wonder if technically Carney could choose not to run for office, and just spend his time doing head-of-state things rather than legislative things.
By-elections, yeah. When one quits or dies or somehow leaves an office empty. That means that even if there’s no immediate election, there will be one for Papineau to replace Trudeau. Also, if there isn’t an election called right away, most likely another Liberal will quit in a riding where Carney will be elected easily.
But! AFAIK he could also just choose not to be an MP. He won’t, but I think technically he could.
He absolutely could remain PM without being an MP but I believe he then wouldn’t be allowed to actually sit or speak in the House which is obviously not ideal.
Is sitting or speaking in the house really such a big deal? Think about all the republics where there’s a president who isn’t part of the legislative branch. Does it hurt Macron? Sheinbaum? Lula?
I mean, question period is fun to watch, and it’s an important element of Westminster style democracies. But, would it hurt the PM not to be there? If the PM was giving a speech at an international summit on Ukraine at the same time as question period, which one do you think most news stations would cover live?
Especially when the PM’s party has a majority, does the PM really need to be there? Unless there are people from the PM’s party defecting, any legislation the government is pushing is going to pass. The PM him/herself doesn’t need to be there to ensure it passes.
It’s really a quirk of history that the PM is both the head of the legislative branch and the de facto head of state. Before the various reforms of the Westminster system, the monarch was the head of state and the PM was the head of the legislature. The king used to take a much more active role as the head of state. But over time the role became more ceremonial and the PM gained more power. Technically, the king is still the head of the Canadian armed forces. But, it has slowly become a purely ceremonial role.
I’d argue that head of state of a country the size of Canada is a big enough job that it could keep someone busy without their also needing to be the head of the legislative branch. By tradition, PM is also the lead MP, but would it really hurt them not to do that job too? Would it be better or worse for the country if the head of state focused on head of state things rather than split their time between head of state things and head of legislature things?
I don’t think it will change, and I don’t think it necessarily should change. It’s just interesting that the PM being an MP is just a tradition, not a rule.