The rise of the coalition has thrown the House of Commons into the spotlight. People who've never before been interested in Canadian politics are stopping me at work asking what the heck is going on in Ottawa. Therefore, I've decided to try to put aside my blatantly Liberal views in order to sort through the rhetoric coming out of Ottawa. Nevermind the ads coming from Conservative headquarters, even the media seems to be running wild. So here is the reality, the issues and the facts straight up. People are calling this a coup d'etat. They're saying the coalition is holding the House hostage. This is pure hyperbole, pure sensationalism.
After an election, the leader with the most support in the House of Commons is asked by the Governor General to form the government. That leader then forms the government and becomes Prime Minister. After the October election, Stephen Harper had the support of 143 Members of Parliament, more than any other leader. He was therefore asked to form the government and became Prime Minister.
While Parliament is in session, the Prime Minister must maintain the confidence (or support) of the House of Commons. Stephen Harper has lost the confidence of the House. The coalition, lead by Stephane Dion, now has more support in the Hosue than do the Conservatives. The coalition has committed to defeating the government because the government has lost the confidence of the House.
When a government loses the confidence of the House, the Prime Minister must go to the Governor General and ask her (or him) to dissolve the government. At this point the Governor General must ask if any other leaders can form a government (i.e. if any other leader has the confidence of the House). If there is no such leader, the writ is dropped and we have an election. However, if another leader can form the government, that leader becomes Prime Minister. The government will (either on December 8 or January 27) lose a confidence vote and the Prime Minister will be forced to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. At this point, the Governor General must ask Stephane Dion if he can form a government. He will say yes and will become Prime Minister.
However, the Governor General's duties in this case are not well defined. There really is no precident to tell her how to act. Traditionally, because the Governor General is not elected, she must take the advice of her top advisor (the Prime Minister). Stephen Harper will advise her to call an election. While there is no precedent for her to ignore this advice, her normal duty is to ask other leaders if they can form a government. Which decision the Governor General will make is unknown. She will have to consider the ramifications of: (1) having another election so soon, and (2) having a seperatist party as part of a coalition government. She must also decide if the coalition can reasonably form a stable government. We have a signed document showing that the coalition can form a stable government for at least 18 months, but the other two questions are still looking for answers.
The other issue that has arisen is the issue of proroguement. The Prime Minister may ask the Governor General to "prorogue" Parliament. To prorogue Parliament is to end the current session early. Stephen Harper wants to prorogue Parliament in order to buy his government time by avoiding a vote of confidence. The Governor General may refuse this request, but doing so would be unprecedented. The coalition is (as I write this) trying to convince the Governor General that, since Stephen Harper does not have the confidence of the House, she does not need to heed his advice. This is also completely unprecedented...
11:38am ET - Members of the Prime Minister's Office are telling the CBC that proroguation has been granted.
If this is correct, we will see the House of Commons shut down until January 26, 2009 and the government will fall on January 27, 2009. At that time, the Governor General will either allow the coalition to form the government or call an election for early March.
I hope this post, while long and boring, has helped clarify what has and may happen.
Constitutionally speaking, I agree with your understanding on the mudane menucia of how the parliamentary system works.
ReplyDeleteHowever, where you and I will strongly disagree is on the very legitimacy of the coalition that Dion and Company were seeking to put together. It is true that Dion, as leader (for now) of the party that has the next greatest number of seats would be asked if he can form a government, the fact that he won only 77 seats gives him no legitimacy to form a government. However, not even with the forth party's support can he sustain a working minority government. Therefore, he needs the support of all the non-Tory MPs to maintain his government.
It is in the legitimacy of the Coalition that I take the greatest exception to, because it has none. Dion and Layton ran clearly on a no-coalition option, and I don't think it's unreasonable for the voters to ask them to honour this request. Had the leaders even hinted at the possibility of a coalition, then perhaps it would be understandable. However, that wasn't the case.
To say that somehow Dion get muster up the support of the two other leaders into a coalition that would propel him into the Big Chair is equal having legitimacy from the voters is simply wrong. You can say that 62% of Canadians did not vote for Harper, but you also must agree that 74% did not vote for Dion, 80% did not vote for Layton and almost 90% (?) did not for the Bloc (for obvous, geographical reasons).
To say somehow that you can add up all their numbers and consider it a legitimate government is wrong.
But, I don't expect you to agree.
Dion was not good enough for the Liberals after the last election, but now the Liberals believe he's good enough for Canada? Give you head a shake.
First, Dion does not need the support of all non-Tory MPs, but, possibly excluding two independents, he has the support of all non-Tory MPs. That's precisely the point. Dion has the support of more Members of Parliament than does Harper. The person with the support of the greatest number of MPs becomes the Prime Minister. It is as simple as that. Am I wrong?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Harper duped an unelected figurehead into giving him an effective majority for the next two months even though he doesn't have the confidence of the House. This is a travesty. Harper, instead of governing in the House of Commons, has run from it.
Partisan politics aside, Harper has lost the confidence of the House. Whether we have another election or we have a coalition government is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is that Harper has lost legitimate claim to the post of Prime Minister.
"What is relevant is that Harper has lost legitimate claim to the post of Prime Minister."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, you believe that somehow Dion has the legitimate right to succeed him as Prime Minister. This is the same person whom the Liberal Party believes it not suited to run the party, yet is somehow qualified to lead a coalition and lead a country.
Wow. That's rich.
And incredibly stupid.
Does Harper have the confidence of the House?
ReplyDeleteDoes Dion have the confidence of the House?
Answer those questions honestly, then re-read your book on how the Prime Minister is chosen, and you will see my opinion, while potentially rich, is not even remotely stupid.
Your allegiance to our Constitution seems as limited as Harper and the GG's - "as long as it suits me!"
Does Harper have the confidence of the House? If you want to play this game, then the answer is "Yes". The only way a PM can lose the confidence of the House is by a vote; no vote, no loss of confidence. Tricky I know, but that's the way Constitutional conventions work. A signed letter from the three opposition leaders trying to pull a cabal and take down the sitting PM is not a show of confidence (it's a show of many other things, but not of confidence).
ReplyDeleteFurther to the point, even if the G-G disagreed with the PM and allowed the coalition to form a government, it would have absoutely NO legitimacy with the public. NDP supporters certainly did not give the NDP Party a mandate to form a coalition with their nemesis, the Liberals. Furthermore, the Liberals did not get a mandate to form a coalition with the separatist Bloc. While Constitutionally they could form a coalition government, it would be completely lacking of any shred of legitimacy.
To rely on a constitutional tactic (i.e. coalition) that hasn't been used since WWI borderlines on whether it should even remain constitutionally permitted (conventions can -- and have -- fallen into disuse). It is highly questionable that, in today's society, Canadians would accept a coalition government so soon after an election, an election that clearly said it did not want Dion/Liberals to be in power.
Furthermore, the G-G has the obligation to do what is right for Canada; allowing the Bloc to have an effective veto over confidence measures is not in the best interests of Canada. Knowing politics as well as I do, if the Liberals-NDP decide to do something and the separatist Bloc say they will only go along with it if Quebec gets $20 billion a year extra in spending, you know the Liberals-NDP would acquiese in order to continue governing. That's a veto power by another name.
No Prime Minister since WWI (perhaps ever) has had the dramatic combination of arrogance and ignorance of Stephen Harper.
ReplyDeleteTo say because a convention is old makes it wrong is just...wrong.
Pat, I haven't been this frustrated by your opinion in a long time. You're wrong and you're using every illogical excuse you can come up with to argue your point. The absolute fact is that, were the tables turned, you'd be making the same arguments I am.
They say time brings with it clarity. You'll be embarrassed to read your arguments 5 years hence.