Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The guardian of our democracy

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, January 4, 2011 11:29am - 266 Comments

Just before Christmas, Governor General David Johnston made an apparently caveat-free statement on the possibility of coalition government in a parliamentary system.

Johnston said Canada — like many democratic regimes — has had experiences with coalition-type governments in the past. “I think that most jurisdictions that have a system of first-past-the-post or proportional representation will from time to have time have coalitions or amalgamation of different parties and that’s the way democracy sorts itself out,” he said.

The Prime Minister has quibbled with the concept of coalition government on three counts. And as such there are three questions Mr. Johnston should be asked at the next opportunity.

1. Would a coalition government be illegitimate if it were formed after an election?

2. Would a coalition government be illegitimate if it included, or relied upon the support of, the Bloc Quebecois?

3. Would a coalition government be illegitimate if it did not include the party that holds the largest number of seats in the House of Commons?

Tags: coalition, coalition government, David Johnston, Governor General, house of commons, Parliament, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

LdKitchenersOwn

So, while we're generally agreed, I think, that Harper gets the first kick at the can after the next election, can I presume that we're also generally agreed that if the Tories are not in first place among the parties after said election, that Harper will resign immediately and give whoever came in first the first opportunity to form a government?
Richard Westgate

The 'coalition crisis' was precipitated by Harper quite soon after an election, and it would have been quite proper, if the government had lost that confidence motion, for the GG to invite the other parties to try to form a government that could obtain the support of the house. I don't believe that the only time this scenario could have played out must have been on the first confidence vote after the election – it would have been a matter of judgement on the part of the GG and her advisors.

I think that the mistake that Dion made was in broadcasting the intention of the opposition parties to bring down the government and form a coalition prior to their opportunity to do so. I never did understand why they would have held that fatal press conference while Harper still had the means to close Parliament. The time for an opposition coalition agreement to emerge is after the fall of the government. Then the proposition becomes a solution to an existing situation and avoids another election so soon after the last one. If the GG feels that there is merit in the coalition governing and it can obtain the confidence of Parliament, she could have permitted them to try. If the coalition fell apart within a few weeks, months, whatever, and the coalition allowed the government to be defeated on a confidence motion or a money bill, then she would call an election.

I guess the point is that the coalition only emerges once the government falls, not before. Big tactical mistake in my opinion.
McC_

quibble on number (3), since one can only demonstrate 'having the Confidence of the House' after the fact, I think the question would be something more like "Could a leader reasonably be expected to be able to command the confidence of the House"
Emily

If the Opposition has the numbers to form a winning coalition, and all agree, then by definition the govt will fall.

Which means they need a new leader.
McC_

nothing happens in Parliament "by definition" it has to actually happen in Parliament… for a Government to fall, Parliament must sit, a Confidence Question must be called and the vote must go against the Government. The situation is a little muddier immediately after an election before a new minority Parliament can sit, but only a little, as the convention is that the PM has the first right of refusal on continuing to be PM, so a few options are available to 'him': 'he' can call Parliament and show up with the GG to read a Speach from the Throne (like Harper did in 2008), 'he' can resign immediately (like Paul Martin did in 2006) or 'he' can do something 'in between' like Gordon Brown did in 2010.
Loraine Lamontagne

I totally agree. Which is why Mr. Harper should be asked during the next election campaign if he would refuse to negotiate a coalition arrangement were his party fail to gain a majority of seats in the HoC and fail to gain its confidence at the first opportunity. It could be that the opposition parties would all refuse to adopt the throne speech unless one or more of them have a say in it and seats in government.

Canadians need to know if their leaders are willing to cooperate to ensure the stability of the government of Canada.
jonatwitan

On point 2 Emily, I say fair enough, except: do you really see no difference between the Bloc being Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and, hypothetically, members of the Bloc holding cabinet positions?
Emily

Harper has no choice in the matter.

If no one will form a coalition with him, but they will with Ignatieff then Harper is out of office.
Dave

If the Parti Quebecois and, by extension, the Bloc can be trusted to actually run one of Canada's largest and most populated provinces without the government sending in the troops and initiating martial law in response to their election then I'm pretty sure we can survive having a couple BQ cabinet ministers (or, Senators).

If I were the leader making that decision I might be very selective as to which posts those were mind you; Foreign Affairs would definitely be off limits.
BCer in Mtl

But there weren't going to be any BQ cabinet ministers. Their part was only that they would not vote to bring down the the government formed by Libs & NDP, for a set period of time.