Beyond The Commons

 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

How late is too late?

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:53am - 74 Comments

At the risk of dwelling upon the Prime Minister’s words, it is probably worth noting all of the questions raised by Mr. Harper’s offhand remark last week about the December 2008 coalition—questions that might be asked of Mr. Harper and probably should be asked of the Governor General.

First, a useful reminder of events. The 2008 election occurred on October 14. On November 19, the House reconvened and the Throne Speech was presented. Eight days later, on November 27, the government presented its economic update. Shortly after, the Throne Speech passed the House.

On the evening of November 28, with that update facing mounting criticism, the Prime Minister announced that an opposition day scheduled for December 1, the following Monday, would be pushed back a week—thereby postponing a vote of non-confidence the Liberals intended to bring.

On December 1, the coalition accord was signed and Stephane Dion sent a letter to Michaelle Jean informing her of his ability to form a government. Three days later, on December 4, the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament and she granted his request.

All of which makes the Prime Minister’s contention that the opposition parties “waited too long” and were thus “too late,” all the more curious.

Firstly, it would be worth knowing what the Prime Minister meant by “too late”—how he defines “too late” and by what authority he does so. Is this based on his own reading of convention or is this informed by discussion with Michaelle Jean?

After the vote of October 14, Stephen Harper obviously remained Prime Minister. Only with his resignation or defeat in the House of Commons, could a coalition government have replaced him. Would he have resigned without facing the House if a coalition had formed the day after the election? Will he if such a coalition forms after any subsequent election?

In lieu of such a resignation, the only opportunity for the opposition parties to defeat the Conservatives in 2008 was on the Throne Speech. But barring such a resignation, and in lieu of any further explanation from Mr. Harper, there are at least three ways to read his suggestion that it was “too late” when the coalition accord was signed on December 1:

1. In failing to defeat his government on its Throne Speech, the opposition allowed Mr. Harper to employ the sort of procedural delays—rescheduling an opposition day, requesting prorogation—that ultimately undid the Liberal-NDP coalition.

2. In failing to defeat his government on its Throne Speech, the opposition effectively granted Mr. Harper the authority necessary to have his request for prorogation granted.

3. In failing to defeat his government on its Throne Speech, the opposition forfeited any claim to replace the Conservatives with a coalition government.

The first is merely tactical. The second and third options go directly to practice and execution of parliamentary convention—and they lay out standards that have not been publicly clarified or sanctioned by Governor General David Johnston, nor his predecessor Ms. Jean. Indeed, the third scenario seems particularly pivotal, drawing, as it would, a very clear line in the proverbial sand.

And so, again, there are questions that need be asked of Mr. Johnston.

1. If a prime minister, faced with both an opposition set on forming on a coalition and an impending confidence vote, requests prorogation, what impact, if any, would the passage of a Throne Speech have on the decision to prorogue Parliament?

2. If a coalition is formed and wishes to replace an incumbent government, must it defeat the government on the incumbent’s Throne Speech?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • canon70

    It's worth recalling this interview that Mr. Harper gave on the topic of coalitions.

    Solomon: So why did you write that letter to the Governor-General with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton saying in the event of a confidence vote situation do not call a snap election – are we to assume that therefore you're working to form a coalition?

    Harper: There seems to be an attitude in the Liberal government – that they can go in, be deliberately defeated and call an election – that's not how our constitutional system works. The government has a minority – it has an obligation to demonstrate to Canadians that it can govern. That it can form a majority in the House of Commons. If it can't form a majority, we look at other options, we don't just concede to the government's request to make it dysfunctional. I know for a fact that Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton and the people who work for them want this Parliament to work and I know it is in all of our interests to work. The government has got to face the fact it has a minority, it has to work with other people. http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/harper.html 2004-10-20

    • Mike T.

      But that was what was convenient for Harper to say at one time. At another moment, it was useful for him to say something different.

    • Thwim

      Yes, but that was them, this is now us.

    • Amateur Hour

      Why pull punches?

      Harper is a demonstrably dishonest person and an unworthy holder of public office.

      • TimesArrow

        Harper will be defined by future historians at best as a crass opportunist, and at worst what AH says.

      • Mr Irrelevant

        It seems silly and futile to try and point out supposed hypocrisy in our political leaders as though it has anything to do with their individual characteristics. Stephen Harper's position is: Stephen Harper should be in power. On that he is no hypocrite. And obviously, for Stephen Harper to remain in power, he can't just say it like that, because people don't like it even though we know that he and Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton and Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney and everyone except perhaps Joe Clark have/had the same position. They would all have said the same thing in the same situation.

        • TimesArrow

          So active deceit is ok because he can't speak the truth because then he wouldn't get what he wants – is that about right. And it's ok because everyone else except joe Clark would have done the same thing. Perhaps you could provide examples of those guys doing the equivalent? knowingly rationalizing your position from 5 years earlier merely to hold onto power is immoral full stop. Politicians do have a choice, just like you and i.

  • LoyalSubject

    The critical point to keep in mind here is the losers don't form governments. At the election of 2008 the Tories held 143 seats and Stephane Dion's Liberals had barely half that number, 77 seats. Furthermore Dion's claim to forming a viable government was dependent upon the Bloc. This alternative government was totally unacceptable to the large majority of loyal Canadians. The GG's job is protect the constitution and that is exactly what she did. It is to be hoped that our new GG would do the same.

    • McC_

      "The critical point to keep in mind here is the losers don't form governments." Except when they do. See Ontario, 1985; Israel, 2009; and, depending on how you count, perhaps the United States of America, 2000-01…

    • TJCook

      "The critical point to keep in mind here is the losers don't form governments."

      The implication being that a coalition is never constitutionally valid unless it contains the party that won the most seats. I haven't seen anything anywhere that supports your assertion.

      Also: "Dion's claim to forming a viable government was dependent upon the Bloc."

      Loathesome as they may be, the Bloc is composed of legitimately-elected MPs. There's no special category for separatists, although if you really want to refresh the separatist movement, one way might be to treat some Quebecers' federal representatives as some sort of second class.

      Besides that, of course, the Bloc wasn't part of the coalition. It only agreed to work with the proposed coalition for stability.

    • mhiggins

      Your comment is exactly why these questions need to be presented to the GG. There is actually no basis at all for your claim that losers don't form governments. I believe the GG would agree with this but until he gives his opinion, we'll never know, and Conservative supporters will continue to say this stuff as if it were established convention. And the reason I say Conservative voters and not anti-coalition voters is because I have a hard time believing that "the alternative government was totally unacceptable to the large majority of loyal Canadians." It so happens that a large majority of Canadians voted for the parties that were to be members of the coalition, and I think that most of the loyal ones were smart enough to understand that the temporary cease-fire agreement with the Bloc was not a document that would have doomed Canada to a separatist fate. The current government compromises with the Bloc frequently. This simply would have been an agreement to do so for a specified period of time.

      And what I really mean to say here is that the pro- v. anti-coalition legitimacy debate has aligned itself with the anti- and pro-Conservative positions respectively. And so that is why it would be very helpful for the GG to provide his non-partisan interpretation of coalition legitimacy.

      • hollinm

        Your desire to have the GG speak is not going to happen. He is suppose to stay above day to day politics. His decision would be taken in light of all the circumstances at the time. However, there is one protocol that has been established through time and that is normally the GG accepts the advice of his PM.
        You're wrong about what Canadians thought of the last coalition. They didn't like it and Conservative polling numbers went up to I believe 45%. This despite Quebec's support of the coalition.
        Once again few if any parties receive a 50% plurality in an election Particularly these days when there are five parties including the Bloc who takes most of the seats in Quebec. Chretien won a majority with 38% of the popularity vote. Votes are not fungible. Harper's party won the most seats and so gets an opportunity to form government.
        The Bloc signed an agreement to support the coalition for two years on confidence votes. However, there would be nothing that would stop them from withdrawing that support if they were not happy.
        Compromising with parties in a minority parliament is how it is suppose to work. It's hardly a coalition.
        .

        • mhiggins

          I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. I don't really take issue with anything you've said here. Some of it I don't understand.

      • hollinm

        hollinm continued…..

        The last coalition would have been a minority government again. How would that help the country. Instead of having one party trying to run the government you would have three. Given what happened that would have been a recipe for chaos

        • mhiggins

          I don't really care about the last coalition. I didn't explicitly support it at any time, and when it finally died it was a huge relief because Stephan Dion had turned it into a comedy of errors.

          What we're discussing here today is the theoretical parameters by which of a future coalition could be deemed legitimate.

          • hollinm

            It is a pointless discussion. We all have our views on what is a coalition government and when is it appropriate. There is no cookie cutter approach and I think that is what you are looking for. It all depends on the circumstances and the way the election turns out. The GG is not going to make a pronouncement more than he already has and the parties will lie through their teeths about their position on a coalition.
            Harper is entitled to his opinion as are the leaders of the opposition parties and the public. One opinion is as good as the next.

          • mhiggins

            I'm not looking for hard and fast rules. I do, however, think that it's very easy to disprove some of the positive assertions that are being made by the partisan anti-coalition crowd. I think that the GG, if pressed on the issue, would rationally agree with me too. We can never be totally certain in any circumstance that a coalition is the fairest and best possible solution for stable government, but we can be very certain about the falsehood of certain anti-coalition arguments.

          • hollinm

            As I mentioned to you before. It is wishful thinking to expect the GG to talk about politics. His office is above politics. Even if he could or was inclined to you are asking him to judge the outcome of an election before it even happens. If coalitions are a legitimate form of government and everybody says it is then it must be covered in the constitution, BNA or some other document. That would be your answer.
            It is one thing to say something is legal. It is quite another to say that the result has to be accepted by the people. We have many instances around the world where people do not agree with the outcome of an election and make their feelings known.

          • mhiggins

            It would not be asking him to judge the outcome of an election. It would be asking him if he agrees with the affirmative statements being put forward by the anti-coalition camp. The reason he should do this is exactly because these things are not "covered in the constitution, BNA or some other document." The burden is on Stephen Harper, and people making similar claims, to prove that a coalition is illegitimate in the situations they are describing. You'll find that they have no documented evidence to back up their theories. They are simply exploiting the fact that the Canadian public has no domestic experience with this scenario.

            Think of it this way… Inevitably, most anti-coalition reasoning is groundless and irrational, but the Government is going to push those theories anyway, and a lot of people will be convinced of their truth. So if it comes time for the GG to rule in favor of the evil coalition, he will face a popular backlash despite having done the most responsible and least interventionist thing for parliament and the constitution.

            This is why I think it is in the GGs and the country's interest that some of these false claims get smacked down before the election pie goes in the oven.

          • hollinm

            You may want him to bloviate on a coalition and what is or is not acceptable. It would be highly irresponsible because it would take the GG from a non political position into a political position which he is not allowed to do. You stated it yourself if he says one thing there will be an opposite view posted and on and on it will go. We need to let the election happen and then deal with the results whatever they may be. I think want upsets the pro coalition forces is that the tradition has been that the GG accept the advice of his PM.
            If somehow a coalition is appointed then I would submit they should be forced to put their platform before the Canadian people and an run off election take place. It would be expensive but it would truly evidence the will of the people. We have wasted money a lot of morre frivilous endeavours.

          • brooster2

            "It is a pointless discussion. We all have our views on what is a coalition government and when is it appropriate. There is no cookie cutter approach and I think that is what you are looking for."

            I agree. That is exactly why, similarly, it's pointless to demand that opposition parties state their positions on a coalition before the distribution of seats is known, as some commenters on these boards keep demanding.

          • hollinm

            I agree. However, if the losing parties decide to form a coalition which does or does not include the Bloc there should be another election for the Canadian people to decide if they want the coalition government or the Conservative party as government. The coalition should have to present a policy platform and obtains the support of the Canadian people.

          • mhiggins

            According to who? What document states this? There is nothing written that specifies the parameters by which a coalition may form the government in Canada. And so in the same way that it is the believer who must prove that there is a God (not the atheist who must prove that there isn't), it is those arguing against the concept of a coalition government that must offer proof. The evidence as it presently exists (beyond the convention that the incumbent and/or election winner gets first crack) allows for all coalition possibilities, and to deny this is, as Bob Rae wrote, a purely partisan tactic.

          • hollinm

            That was my previous point. The pro coalition forces state that a coalition is a legitimate form of government for Canada. Well they must get that information from somewhere or is it pure fantasy? There must be a document and I gave you a couple which may or may not talk about a coalition. If not then we are flying by the seat of our pants and its even more important the GG keep his own counsel and wait for the results of an election.

          • brooster2

            "…if the losing parties decide to form a coalition which does or does not include the Bloc there should be another election for the Canadian people to decide if they want the coalition government or the Conservative party as government."

            As long as a government, whether comprised of one party or a coalition, can command the support of the House, I don't believe there's any convention or precedent that says they must have another election.

            Coalitions in parliamentary democracies are, to my knowledge, never elected as an entity because they are an unintended and largely unforeseen consequence of the seat distribution. They are created after elections, through negotiation and accord among participating parties. The coalition in Britain, as the most recent example, is not going back to the people until or unless it falls like any other government through a vote in the House (or in the event it feels it's outlived its mandate).

    • Passing by

      Can you cite a single constitutional authority who agrees with your proposition that the only legitimate parliamentary coalition is one that includes the party that has more seats that any other party?

      All I'm looking for is one recognized authority who agrees with that proposition.

  • http://phantomobserver.com PhantomObserver

    I think what Harper meant was that the coalition idea *should* have been presented to the GG immediately after the election, to demonstrate that Harper *did not have the confidence of the House* despite having increased his seat count.

    • Thwim

      Except that the Throne Speech shows he did have the confidence of the House at that moment. The opposition parties saw the vote of Canadians, heard the throne speech, and had enough (perhaps begrudging) confidence to allow Mr. Harper to continue to set the agenda. Then he proceeded with the FU to Canada and lost that confidence.

    • hollinm

      Don't scare them with the facts on this board.

  • gottabesaid

    Yeah, you're right… we should go into this election with no idea what the ground rules are… we'll just sort the mess out later.

    • alfanerd

      Good point – in fact, and I rarely say this, I commend Aaron for asking these very pertinent questions. I would add that we ought to go into this election not just with an idea of what the ground rules are, but also with some idea of what the opposition parties' intentions regarding a coalition are.

      • McC_

        next door, Scott Feschuck has just proposed an answer from Harper's side (with a good joke about building a fort to boot).

  • alfanerd

    A point that seems to be entirely missed in all of this is the idea of a mandate.

    For example, in 2004 Paul Martin called an election, even though he had a majority in the House, and his term was not over, because he needed his own mandate. He did not want to govern with the mandate of Jean Chretien, as he rightly felt this was illegitimate and undemocratic.

    Such a coalition, if it should gain power, should be pressured to do the same thing – to call another election and run against Harper 1 on 1, to ensure it has the electorate's blessings.

    • McC_

      might have just been a slip, but you're conflating 'need' and 'want' / 'must' and 'ought'

      • alfanerd

        Yes, this is just part of our democratic tradition. It's not a law.

        • Mike T.

          It's you making up things, actually.

          • Blue

            While others engage in logical debate Mikey continues to use the only weapon available to him—his ability to revert to name-calling when he cannot respond sensibly.

        • Thwim

          And the mandate handed down by the voters was one where the government of the day needed to be able to maintain the confidence of the majority of the House. If Mr. Harper wishes to govern against that mandate, then *he* should have to call an election to attain his majority.

          • alfanerd

            And the mandate handed down by the voters was one where the government of the day needed to be able to maintain the confidence of the majority of the House.

            True. Which is why Harper backed down from his economic update and he was right to do so.

          • alfanerd

            And the mandate handed down by the voters was one where the government of the day needed to be able to maintain the confidence of the majority of the House.

            True. Which is why Harper backed down from his economic update and he was right to do so.

    • mhiggins

      I disagree. But that's because I'm not a fan of the "mandate" concept in electoral politics to begin with. Politicians are made to produce policy positions on every issue of the day, and in the heat of an election campaign they tend to land on the side of the issue that stokes their base the most. For example, Rob Ford was elected on the mushy but legitimate notion that Toronto City Hall needed a swift boot in the fiscal bottom. But he also said silly things during the campaign like the fact that he wanted to rip up all the streetcar tracks and replace them with buses. He won, but his mandate was not actually to rip-up streetcar tracks, because, as it turns out, people like streetcar tracks, but were willing to vote for Rob Ford anyway based on his general campaign message. So we still have streetcar tracks.

      Now apply this to a bunch of Federal parties within our parliamentary first past the post system. Until the GG actually gives authority to govern to the winning party, no party, or, you could argue, every party, has a "mandate". Therefore, a coalition is just a combination of mandates, with those non-essential aspects of the election platforms (such as ripping up streetcar tracks) taken out.

      • alfanerd

        Yes I know the mandate is an inherently vague concept. But it's real nonetheless. For example, Rob Ford can now sit at council and say we're cutting spending, and he'll be hard to oppose, because councilors know he has that mandate from the electorate. On the other hand if he proposes to rebuild the Gardiner expressway using only recycled plastic (silly example, I know), or some other large spending project, he would be very easy to oppose.

    • Twisted_Mentat

      Your "mandate" theory would probably hold more water if every, single Canadian was voting for the same person.

      Stephen Harper received a mandate to sit in the House from the constituents of Calgary Southwest. He received his mandate to lead the Conservative Party/become Prime Minister from the members of the Conservative Party. These are the only people Prime Ministers receive mandates from.

      • Blue

        Thank-you for reminding us of Parliamentary tradition in Canada—The leader of the winning party in the election then becomes Prime Minister.

        • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

          And you know that is not correct. After an election, the incumbent party has first crack. They may not have won the election. They might be able to command the confidence of the house, however. The party. Not the person.

      • alfanerd

        No sorry, but the mandate holds even in our parliamentary system. It's not my invention. It's a long standing Canadian democratic tradition. Martin had his "mandate" from his Montreal riding, but he wanted a national mandate to be PM. otherwise why would he call an election sooner than when he needed to. John Turner did the same thing when he replaced Trudeau as Lib leader.

        You can pretend that the current fictions of our electoral system are strict realities. Have fun with that.

        I can imagine you finding polls hard to understand : "why do people say they're voting for a party, they're voting for the local MP!!!!"

        • Twisted_Mentat

          "No sorry, but the mandate holds even in our parliamentary system. It's not my invention. It's a long standing Canadian democratic tradition. Martin had his "mandate" from his Montreal riding, but he wanted a national mandate to be PM. otherwise why would he call an election sooner than when he needed to. John Turner did the same thing when he replaced Trudeau as Lib leader."

          No, sorry, it doesn't. The concept of a "national mandate" is a political malapropism the Canadian media borrowed from American presidential races. Just because John Turner and Paul Martin "think" they need a mandate doesn't make seeking a mandate a constitutional reality. A Prime Minister has the authority to suggest an election to the Governor General at any point within a five-year frame after the previous election. Turner probably called the election because when he became Prime Minister he was neither sitting in the House of Parliament nor in the Senate. Since he also refused to run in a by-election or in a seat vacated by a fellow liberal, he called a general election. You know, so he could win a seat in Parliament. I don't know why Paul Martin would have called the snap election other than your hypothesis, but to be gracious here… two snap elections a long-standing tradition does not make.

          So have fun with your little fictions, friend.

          • alfanerd

            It goes back much further than Turner or Martin. Anyhow I never suggested it was a constitutional reality. I said it was a Canadian democratic tradition, and it is.

            Of course the coalition can ignore this tradition, but it would be very stupid of them to do so. Governing without the consent of the governed never ends well.

          • alfanerd

            It goes back much further than Turner or Martin. Anyhow I never suggested it was a constitutional reality. I said it was a Canadian democratic tradition, and it is.

            Of course the coalition can ignore this tradition, but it would be very stupid of them to do so. Governing without the consent of the governed never ends well.

  • Leo

    Here iis what the Brits did last May – calling another election does not appear to be a favourable outcome.

    IMPORTANCE OF QUEEN'S SPEECH ON 25 MAY

    A minority administration must show it has the confidence of the Commons, but the Queen's Speech does not have to be the deadline for negotiations between parties.

    The administration may put forward a slimmed down legislative programme which it believes is more likely to gain support.

    But if it loses the vote on the Queen's Speech this would be seen as a "no-confidence" vote and force its resignation.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/elect…

    • Leo

      cont'd

      EARLY SECOND ELECTION?

      If no agreement can be reached between parties and no government is unable to command enough support to get the Queen's Speech through parliament, there would be a need for a second election.

      However, party leaders may not be keen to go to the polls again unless the opinion polls indicate voter intentions have changed markedly. Parties would also consider the fact that another election would be costly financially.

      Ms Fox says "the country would not readily forgive them for forcing a second election", and says the parties, mindful of that, will be likely to strike a deal.

  • ADB

    I don't understand this mandate idea, and reject it as part of our democratic tradition.
    Martin may have wanted to have one, but as you note, he really didn't need one.
    (It would have been nice if he'd had a clear idea about what he wanted to do, though).
    I guess that if one party scores a massive win in a general election, then they do, effectively have a mandate to implement their party platform. But as will probably be noted, all that is required to form a government is to secure (and maintain) the support of the House of Commons, the members of which were elected democratically.
    Winston Churchill was without doubt one of the greatest British Prime Ministers and an inspired leader during WW2. But when he became prime minister in 1940, it was not by popular vote, neither he was the leader of the Conservative party. Rather he was seen as the pre-eminent figure within the sitting British parliament, who would be capable of securing support from all the political parties. (Ok,Ok, this was during a war I know but…)

    • Mike T.

      Conservatives in the last few years have tended to invent new concepts, on the fly, as it suits their needs, and present them as if they were a long established norms and democratic requirements.

      • mhiggins

        A mandate is not a made-up concept, but it is a fuzzy concept that is susceptible to abuse. I don't think it has a place in this particular debate. Paul Martin probably did want his own mandate, but Paul Martin wanting a mandate has nothing to do with the theoretical legitimacy of coalition governments.

        • Mike T.

          I agree that the concept of a mandate exists. The idea that it forces the practial application suggested by the poster above was the "made up" part.

        • Mike T.

          The time lapse seems to have eaten my reply. A while ago I meant to say that essentially I agree. The idea of a mandate exists of course, but that does not mean it must lead to the conclusion expressed by the guy who brought it up.

  • Emily

    This is just Harper's usual flim-flam with no basis in fact or practice.

    He can only get away with shuffling the walnut shells in a country where people aren't familiar with their own system. Canadians need a civics course.

  • hollinm

    You don't honestly believe that the Libs based on five years of polling could get a plurality do you? I assume you are talking about the letter that the opposition parties sent to the GG during the Martin government. The fact is none of us know what the composition would have looked like. The letter simply said the GG has options.
    If the Libs don't win more seats than the Conservatives and then try to form a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc all hell will bring out in the country. In fact there could be a constitutional crisis. If the Libs and the NDP try to form a minority government how will that change the political discourse and with the Conservatives in charge of the Senate there would be further gridlock.
    Unless the Libs and the NDP can form a majority government with just their own seat counts a coalition will not work. Maybe in Quebec but not in the ROC.

    • Mike T.

      See, none of this is actually true.

    • gottabesaid

      'If the Libs don't win more seats than the Conservatives and then try to form a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc all hell will bring out in the country.'

      Well, maybe if we get the ground rules figured out and act like big boys and girls, all hell won't break loose. Of course, since you're a Conservative partisan, you want to fearmonger the 'all hell breaks loose' angle as much as possible. Regardless, these ground rules will apply to parties and government long after you and I are done blowing smoke on comment boards.

      • hollinm

        I am not fearmongering. I am simply stating my opinion. While it may bother you that's how I feel. I believe the public would see a party who wins the majority of seats being shut out by the parties who did not receive as many votes as unfair.
        Canadians living outside of Quebec showed how they felt about the previous coalition when it included the Bloc informally and having them as part of a majority coalition would not go over well with those living in the ROC.
        If you believe that the political parties are going to play their hands before the election you are sadly mistaken.

  • LiveblogginJunkie

    If the answer to the 2nd question is yes then there is no need to ask the first question. You could change the first question to a more interesting question; 1. If a prime minister, faced with both an opposition set on forcing an election in an impending confidence vote, requests prorogation, what impact, if any, would the passage of a Throne Speech have on the decision to prorogue Parliament?

  • gottabesaid

    Let's face it — with the Bloc in play, majority governments will be difficult (though not impossible) to form. It's not a sure thing that a coalition government will be formed by somebody in the next 10 to 20 years, but I would say it's probable. And it could be the Greens, NDP and Bloc for all we know. Anyway, we should get the ground rules sorted out.

    • alfanerd

      Yep, and this is why Harper is pushing to kill the party subsidies – it will hurt the Bloc the most.

  • Dan F

    Missing the point here entirely. Precedent has been set quite clearly on what the GG is to do after a government is defeated on a confidence vote. When Joe Clark's governent was defeated in the house, the GG invited the leader of the opposition to immediately form a Government. The fact that he declined is irrelevant. The precedent had been set, that even without any coalition agreement in place, the invitation must be extended, even up to several months after the last election.

    • mhiggins

      Bingo.

  • ZestyMordant

    I think Harper sees anything that is not explicity written in law (including parliamentary conventions and traditions) as being completely irrelevant. Some people may not like it, but he has a point. If conventions and traditions are so important to how our system of government runs, then they should be legislated. Otherwise they will continue to be circumvented by the ruthless while others hyperventilate. I don't like it either, but there it is.

    So when Harper says that the coalition "waited too long", he's not referring to the coalition's formal right to form a government. Harper knows there is no law against it, and would not assume that parliamentary convention would stand in the way of a determined opposition just as he doesn't let it stand in his way.

    I think he's referring to the fact that he was given an opportunity to respond to their threat while still in power. If they voted down his throne speech while offering to form the government, there would be nothing he could do. Since they passed the throne speech and had to wait for an opposition day, they were too late – he had his oppportunity.

    • Mike T.

      If he meant that and only that he should have been clear at the time, and not said different things in similar situations in years past. When someone is naturally disingenuous they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

      I take your point regarding new rules, but it can be equally problematic to change everything all at one go (that's what America did, and you can't say they invented a perfect system!) Rules and procedure are really only as good as people's willingness to follow them. We need and deserve better politicians, not more rules.

      • ZestyMordant

        Of course it would be incredibly difficult to define parliamentary convention let alone legislate it. But as long as we depend on convention and tradition for our system of government, we don't have a system of government. We have a habit of government.

  • E_B_

    Hollinm says: "However, there is one protocol that has been established through time and that is normally the GG accepts the advice of his PM." I think the key word here is "Normally". The GG is not obligated to accept the advice of the PM.

    I thought as a young lad in school that we were taught that the Government/PM must maintain the confidence of the house. If confidence is lost the Government falls. At that point the PM informs/advises the GG. My understanding is that the GG is free to consult anyone he wants: parliamentary experts, constitutional experts, leader of the opposition, the milk man. Then he makes a decision.

    If the leader of the opposition believes he can form a government that can maintain the confidence of the house, he can say so to the GG. If the GG can be convinced of this, the opposition leader can be given the opportunity.

    I'm sorry, but I swear most of the people here seem to prefer the concept of an election every 6 weeks or so as opposed to a system that is already in place to handle minority governments.

    The fact that we have more than two political parties means this is a very important issue. To my understanding, it is clear what should happen. The GG has the ability to get us through this situation, without causing a crisis.

    • Leo

      Which is what the Brits did last year. Cons and Libs agreed to work together no matter what for the good of the country.

      EARLY SECOND ELECTION?
      If no agreement can be reached between parties and no government is unable to command enough support to get the Queen's Speech through parliament, there would be a need for a second election.

      However, party leaders may not be keen to go to the polls again unless the opinion polls indicate voter intentions have changed markedly. Parties would also consider the fact that another election would be costly financially.

      Ms Fox says "the country would not readily forgive them for forcing a second election", and says the parties, mindful of that, will be likely to strike a deal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/elect…

  • Passing by

    If I'm not mistaken, I believe the Conservatives govern by forming ad hoc coalitions of a majority of MPs, as needed. Why is that legitimate, while any other coalition formed by a majority of MPs, isn't?

  • alfanerd

    That's actually incorrect. It might be just a question of terminology, but there are important distinctions.

    A coalition is formal, and usually includes cabinet positions for the minor parties. Members of the coalition parties are formally part of the government.

    Harper right now has a minority, which means only that he needs the votes of some opposition parties to pass legislation. No members of the Liberals, NDP, Bloc have cabinet positions.

Previous

Next

From Macleans