what does stephen harper control?
534943
I'm scared too,he controls much less than he thinks he does.\nTo say that he would keep our guys over in Afghanistan or another year even if the house voted against sending them for two,isn't dictatorship what they are over there to stop?\nHe doesn't control his emotions,he doesn't have any of his own to control,I saw him take his kids to school,bid them good by with a handshake like he would give Tony Blair.\nI hope he won't last the summer.
959067
Prime Minister does not have the overwhelming power that the president does.. the prime minister can be kicked out anytime by a simply majority vote of non confidence.. the president is there for the length of his term, no matter what.. \nAlso, prime minister is  responsible to his parliament and can't get away with things like.." I am the decider and I will do what I please"  President can work separately of congress and pretty much anyone if he takes it into his beady little head.. speaking of Bush here!  Not a shining example of president by any means.
403015
i don't like conservative governments..we already have 2 very stupid conservative governments that are about to start the 3rd world war ( US and Iran) .... i don't think he is going to be a good prime minister although i should admit he is very cute!...anyways,,,i think in case of war he will send our troops to the war zone...and this could cost us a lot! not only tax money,,,but this will improve the risk of terrorist attacks on Canada
227048
control!!\nthat is the key
779749
This government has had policies in place for years that can place any person under the control of the authorities .\nGet use to it .
1167357
Similar governments have similar effects, and similar control by the public.  Both Canada and the US have an elected representative form of government, just like England.  The people elect those politicians that most closely represent their point of view.  We then trust those politicians to vote, as we would want them to.  It doesn't always happen in that way though.\n\nOne difference between our government and the Parliamentary form of government is how the leadership is determined and who is government’s leader (the President or the Prime Minister).  A Prime Minister is elected from the ruling party, but a coalition (some sort of agreement) has to be made with the other parties.  If a majority of the Parliament no long wants the Prime Minister to rule (like after and election and a change in ruling parties) then a new vote can be called for and the Prime Minister can be replaced.\n\nIn the United States the only way the President can be changed is when there is an election (once every four years) or when the President performs an illegal act and is convicted in an impeachment trial.\n\nIf the United States had a Parliamentary form of government then the two houses would elect the President and he (or she) would only be in power as long as his party held the majority of power in both houses.  When President Reagan was in his second term the Democrats held power in both Houses of Congress.  This caused some difficulty between the Executive Branch and the Legal Branch.  If the US used a Parliamentary system then President Reagan would have been forced out of power and a new, and Democratic President (who would have to come from one of the Houses of Congress) would have been elected.\n\nOur founding fathers decided that it was more important to have a strong and independent President so they made his election directly responsible to the people, and gave him strength to resist a strong Congress.  Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.  Ronald Reagan was one of our best presidents, especially in his second term when he made the Democratic controlled Congress tow the line and submit a balanced budget.  He couldn’t have done this in a Parliamentary form of government, because the Democrats would have removed him.
379824
"The Liberal Party of Canada (French: Parti libéral du Canada), colloquially known as the Grits (originally "Clear Grits"), is a Canadian federal political party positioned around the centre of the political spectrum, combining a generally progressive social policy with moderate economics. The party has been frequently dubbed "Canada's natural governing party", since it was in power for most of the twentieth century, and starting with Wilfrid Laurier in 1896 every leader of the party has served as Prime Minister of Canada. The party has formed the Official Opposition in the Parliament of Canada since February 2006."\n\n"The Shadow Cabinet (also called the Shadow Front Bench) is a senior group of opposition spokespeople in the Westminster System of government who together under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition (or the leader of other smaller opposition parties) form an alternative cabinet to the government's, whose members shadow or mark each individual member of the government. Members of a shadow cabinet are often but not always appointed to a Cabinet post if and when their party gets into government. It is the Shadow Cabinet's responsibility to pass criticism on the current government and its respective legislation, as well as deciding where amendments to the legislation are necessary."\n\nThat's what I found from a search. Hope it helps.
655233
the liberal minister, playing the buffet of believe and science\n\nthe fundy is at least able to play the game of make believe to its logical extreme
213758
Canada, like the US, operates in a federal system so you really need to specify if you are referring to national, provincial, local or what.....Canada uses proportional represenation which means coalition government under a Prime Minister.  You should be able to find more information at this link
975832
What do you mean by control?  The government should protect them.
223297
well it is my personal opinion that the voters of Canada will realize that they made a big mistake when they elected Stephen Harper. His short term will simply be him taking social steps backwards and grooming Alberta. i think that he will screw up so bad that the liberals will get back in and the NDP will form the opposition. The new Conservative party will go the way of the PC's
228449
Stephen Harper\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada
535043
Although I am a Liberal I have to admit Harper is a refreshing change.  The Liberals have gotten complacent and just a little to comfortable in their roles.\n\nDon't get me wrong, I don't trust Conservatives and know that they are very sneaky.  However I do feel that they will fight to look really good and in that time they will do some good things for the country.  We just can't leave them in power too long.
481639
Harper has only been elected a few short months so it is not possible to compare or judge who is the better leader.\nI was not a Harper voter, but so far I must say he is taking a tight reign and I have no complaints.
909486
Well let's see republicans control the Judicial, legislative and executive branch and he is the leader of the republican party. Who could be responsible?
539009
Well, what can I say? The PM is a simple guy at heart but, he too has to deal with politics and politicians.\n\nThere ought to be done something.
884202
The Queen has the right to be consulted, informed, and has the right to warn and advise the Prime Minister.\n\nHer authority is subtle, built first upon the fact she has been personally informed by every PM since Churchill's last term.\n\nShe also has vast knowledge of the intricacies off the British governmental system, something the Prince of Wales also has, and Prince William is being trained in. This depth of knowledge has more than once tripped up a PM.