These circumstances came about because last week, Prime Minister Steven Harper's government introduced a fiscal package to the House of Commons that was what they called the first stage of their solution to help steer Canada through the upcoming financial crises. Instead of offering ways of stimulating the economy, they have proposed a series of spending cuts and taking away civil servants' right to strike. The opposition parties were so upset by this that they made it clear they would not support the bill, which means that the government would go down in defeat on a fiscal matter, necessitating an election. Knowing full well the opposition wouldn't force an election so soon after the last one, the government refused to back down, probably not believing that the three opposition parties could set aside their differences and form a coalition.
One of the major stumbling blocks towards forming the coalition is the question of who would be the Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal party, as they are just beginning the process of replacing the man who led them into the last election, Stephane Dion. While he is still the leader of the party, the leader of the NDP, Jack Layton, had made it clear that he would not agree to any deal that made Dion Prime Minister. As the vote on the fiscal package is imminent, the Liberals don't have time to hold a leadership convention, so they will have to pick someone from among the caucus to be leader. The question is whether or not the candidates running for the leadership would be willing to allow one of their number to become interim leader, and Prime Minister.
Initially the Conservative Party was going to hold the vote on this coming Monday, December 1st/08, but when they saw the way the wind was blowing they put it off until December 8th. They hope to use the coming week to convince the people of Canada that the rightfully elected government is being hijacked, and to sway opinion against the coalition. Unfortunately, the extra week will also give the Liberals and the NDP the opportunity to figure out a way to make it work. If the Liberals are able to appoint a new leader in that time (probably Michael Ignatieff),not only will this satisfy the NDP, but the appointment will also take some of the sting out of the Conservative party's spin against the coalition.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ Elliott
Interesting. The Conservatives were in control of the government, called an election, GAINED SEATS in that election, and yet could still lose power? Fascinating stuff.
2 - Richard Marcus
RJ
The key is that they didn't gain enough to have an outright majority of the seats - if, by banding together, the opposition can out vote any sitting government, they can force an election. What it comes down to is a reflection of the fact that none of the political parties have the complete confidence of the Canadian public.
In cases like these, coalition governments are sometimes better reflections of a country's mood and needs than a single party. In many countries coalition governments are quite commonplace as political parties very rarely win enough seats to have an outright majority in their parliament.
I'm not sure, but I think Canada is one of the few, aside from England obviously, where a coalition has to publicly announce how long they are willing to work together. That way there is a guarantee that the system won't descend into anarcy with a new government every three months which used to be common in countries like Italy.
I know it must seem strange to Americans, with your system of electing a leader separately from its party, but parliamentary governments are actually just as common, if not more so, than out right presidential ones. In fact many countries are a mix, although in those cases the president is usually more of a cerimonial position.
I'll let you know what happens on the December the 8th, if the Conservative Party is able to dodge the bullit or it we have a new government.
3 - Ruvy
I gotta laugh at all this, even though it is no laughing matter.
If only politics here were as dull as Canadian politics, Richard. This all sounds like one of the minor crises we face on a slow week.
Have a hot toddy and stay warm up there....
4 - STM
Richard, that's true democracy for you. That's why it's good to have the other, minor and not-so minor, parties in the House.
If you don't get enough seats, too bad - you don't govern effectively.
I don't think that governments have any right to ram through legislation without it being questioned in the house on the basis that they claim to have a "mandate" from the electorate.
Parties that don't with absolute certainty have the numbers needed to form alliances and voting blocs, which is the only way to hold a coalition together, shouldn't claim victory in the first place.
I'm a believer in the minor or smaller parties or independents "keeping the bastards honest". It's a great way to make sure unpopular or foolish legislation is watered or rethought entirely.
I don't know how it works up there, but do you still have a governor-general?
Last time such a thing happened in Australia, where one party controlled the house and the other the senate, the conservatives blocked supply of money in the senate and ground the country to a standstill (our system resembles the US system in form only, but the British in function and is parliamentary).
Voila! The Governor General, authorised to act in such crises by sending it back to the people in an election, despite the preferred option being that he/she doesn't, sacked the government a short time into its second term, a new election was called a few weeks later, and the electorate duly wiped the Labor Party off the face of the electoral map and elected a new conservative coalition government led by the Liberals (a misnomer that, as they're not).
I didn't agree with it at the time, but the Labor Party was doing some bizarre stuff and the whole constitutional crisis was of its own making.
Besides, there can be no better barometer of public feeling - remembering that parliamentarians are only elected as representatives of the people in parliament - to have the people throw out a lame-duck or unpopular government.
Rather than it being a problem, I see it as a plus for the parliamentary system of democracy.
If only your neighbours to the south had such a thing. They have to go to all the trouble of impeaching a president when they have problems. Nasty stuff.
Because of all the power vested in a President of the US, that's where they could benefit from having a King or Queen constitutionally obligated to have the people make the ultimate decision in dodgy situations, and not just because they'd get a better flag :)
Seriously though, simply, if a party isn't sure it has the numbers in the house for a regular voting bloc in coalition, then it has no right to govern nor to stake its claim to govern in the first place.
5 - Ruvy
do you still have a governor-general?
From the text of the article, Stan.
However, there is also the option that the opposition parties can go to the Governor-General of Canada, The Queen's representative, and ask her permission to form the government without a new election being called. Canada is a constitutional monarchy, with the Queen of England being our titular head of state. Both her role and the role of the Governor-General are strictly ceremonial, and they are not allowed to refuse a legitimate request by the opposition to form a coalition government.
6 - STM
One that can actually do something ... like sack a government and have the people make a decision.
7 - Dr Dreadful
Yeah, but apart from that, what does a Governor-General actually do.
I can't imagine that generally governing takes up all that much time.
8 - Ruvy
I'm hesitant to say much in such a situation even though I live in what purports to be a parliamentary democracy. Israel has a state president, which is supposed to be like a governor-general. The state president doesn't really do a whole lot (which is why the previous president got in trouble - he had time on his hands to chase women).
I'd imagine the governor-general of any commonwealth or dominion has the same power as the queen, DD. But the governor-general is smart to stay out of the spotlight of the tabloids and go fishing when he or she is not cutting ribbons and making speeches laden with generalities.
Let's hear from Richard, though. He is the beady eyed Canuck with the girl for a governor-general.
9 - Dr Dreadful
Not exactly the same power as the Queen, Ruvy, but he or she is the Queen's executive. Precisely what power the GG has in any given commonwealth probably depends on the constitution and/or laws of that state.
Nevertheless, it's generally agreed that John Kerr spectacularly overstepped his authority by dismissing the Whitlam government in 1975: especially since he apparently neglected to inform the Queen first - in the probably quite justified fear that she would promptly fire him.
With that sobering lesson from half a world away in mind, it's highly unlikely that Jean will do anything other than what the parties involved advise her to do.
10 - Richard Marcus
There has only been one time in Canadian history where a governor-general has refused a Prime Minister's request to call an election. That was back in the 1930's when Lord Bing (his wife's name, Lady Bing, now graces the annual NHL trophy for most gentlemanly player) refused to allow the Prime Minister to disolve Parliament so he could call a snap election in an attempt to win a majority. The result was the GG was called home in disgrace and an election was called.
So yes the GG is only a figure head - just like the Queen - and will only do what she is supposed to do under our constitution. If the the opposition are able to provide the required proofs of being able to govern she has no cause to refuse them.
There have been a couple of developments since I wrote this story on Sunday - the three parties have come to a tentative agreement - I think the NDP and the Liberals have agreed on a two year life with six NDP cabinet ministers and fourteen Liberals. The Bloc have promised not to vote against them on matters that would result in the house being disolved for a period of at least a year.
One thing that I hadn't been aware of when I wrote the article was that the Conservative party do have an out - as the governing party they can unilaterally close this session of the house and not recall it until February. It would make them look horrible for the time being, but if they did it the bill before the house would die without being voted on.
That would buy the Conservatives enough time to prepare a package with meanful stimuli for the economy so voting agaisnt could be construed as being politically motivated instead of
"In The Best Interests Of The Country". Also by the time they recalled the house the Liberals would be deeply embroiled in picking a new leader and wouldn't want to be drawn into an election until after that - which would be the end of May. Since nobody likes a summer election that means it would be fall 2009 at the earliest until one was called.
Do you really think the electorate would remember that Steven Harper and the Conservatives closed the house down in December/08 the following fall? Would they still care? Sure it would be a cynical gambal on the part of the Conservatives, but we're talking about politicians here....
By the way I agree, and it seems quite a few Canadians do to, a coalition government would be the best thing possible for the country right now, as it means there would be a much more representative government in power as it would be more than one party making decisions. In spite of their name the Liberals have always been associated with the business community in Canada, while the NDP and The Bloc Quebecois are concerned with social issues. So you'd have all bases covered.
I guess this was almost another post, but what the hell I give you a reall follow up when anything important happens - either the government falls or this seating of the house is cancelled.
It may be boring compared to Israel politics, but this is one of the first times I can remember that people are actually talking about politics in Canada - without swearing.
11 - Joseph
The one caveat I would add on the last comment about progroguing parliament (e.g., closing it down) is that the move would also be a request to the Governor General by the PM (the current conservative leader). Typically, the GG would accede to that request. However, in this case, that move would also be unprecedented as there has been no actual work done in the parliament that just sat. A tentative approval of the throne speech (the initial speech) was given, which typically outlines the objectives of the governing party for the session.
However, in this case, and in my opinion the root of the issue that caused this situation, the very next day the governing party gave an economic update that in many ways ignored or even contradicted the throne speech ideas outlined the previous day. It was a power-play pure and simple with a few poison pills thrown in at the opposition parties and NO addressing of the still unfolding economic crisis. It is that economic update speech that brought about this totally unprecedented situation.
My point is the GG could refuse to accept the request for prorogation of Parliament from the sitting PM if she felt (as is clear) that the only reason for the request was to save his government from certain defeat at the next sitting of Parliament scheduled for Dec 8.
So, just wanted to clarify that even that step is not entirely in the hands of the current PM. Either way, the GG will be asked to make several critical - and most unceremonial - decisions in the coming days. There is no course of action that does not run directly through Her Excellency.
And people thought Royalty was dead and Parliamentary procedures boring and predictable ; ).
12 - Joseph
Of final note on prorogation of Parliament:
1) The Coalition leaders today at their agreement signing and press conference went to great lengths to address that they would defeat the government at the next session of Parliament and that they could not state exactly when that would occur (tacitly acknowledging that the idea of prorogation was "floating" out there).
2) The sense thus far, though certainly subject to change, is that some conservatives might not think it wise to prorogue Parliament. They might think they have a better chance to argue for new elections or simply to work for some type of backlash at the next opportunity.
My sense if this succeeds is that the Conservative leader could soon find himself facing many questions within his own caucus, who by and large have stuck with him through his heavy-handed decisions and political maneuvers in the past. In this case, they may well decide he has vastly overplayed his hand. Bottom line - you might see the emergence of a rival in the rather rock-solid Conservative caucus of the past couple of years.
13 - STM
It's all relative Doc ... when G-G John Kerr sacked the Whitlam Government, it caused an uproar.
20-20 hindsight is a great thing, though, and forgetting the constitutional issues, it's now largely believed that he probably didn't have much choice but to put it back out there for an election.
In the subsequent election, Labor got a belting, and we got our country back - even though I didn't like the Liberal party's policies at the time.
14 - STM
Ruvy: "he had time on his hands to chase women".
Half his luck.
15 - Marcia Neil
Can a government be elected in Canada that does not automatically route constituent personal lives and locations to a foreign Queen? Repre-sentatives of 'the Queen' must necessarily address immigrant civil-rights issues in oft-frosty Canada, but an informal/secret network of nonvoluntary 'contacts' should be politically contested as potential or real interference.
16 - RJ Elliott
So. The Conservatives surged in popularity because the Liberals aligned themselves with a separatist party, and an unelected official of a foreign government told the Liberals to go pound sand. LOL @ Canada.
17 - STM
Why do dopey Americans have such a hard time understanding how this works, and accepting that it's actually a much fairer and far more representative system of democracy than their own bizarre system?
The Queen's representative fulfills the executive role that is fulfilled by the president of the US, but with way less power. Unlike a US president, there can be no interference in the running of parliament and a Governor-General (or the Queen in the UK) can't refuse a legitimate request of a Government on such matters by law and convention.
Only the government can make decisions regarding the running of the country. The Queen or her representative has no input and acts virtually as rubber stamd at executive level.
The whole point of the G-G not interfering is that to do so would undermine the basis of constitutional monarchy, which as a the first modern system of democracy has been running continuously for over 300 years - 100 years more than the US, so it has to have something going for it.
This current situation might be unusual one, but it guarantees that a government that can't govern won't govern.
Harper will almost certainly lose the no-confidence vote in parliament, have to call an election in the New Year and let the people decide or cave in and accept that the Opposition can form government.
Unlike in the US, this system virtually ensures that a lameduck government can be replaced according to the wishes of the people - not the wishes of the Queen - and usually at a new election, which can be called by a government any time in its term.
Imagine if Congress could have got up a no-confidence vote against the lameduck Bush administration, held early elections and replaced them about the time they started going pear-shaped?
Americans shouldn't be so smug. I - and millions of other observers - don't believe the US is a representative democracy any longer, if it ever has been, as the people have no power. It's democracy in appearance only. Even the electoral college is a nod to the idea that the great unwashed can't be trusted to elect a president.
Canadians should be forever glad that they and the British gave the US an absolute belting in the War of 1812 and aren't now a half-dozen states of the US.
18 - Ruvy
Stan,
I'm truly surprised I'm writing this - a defense of the American governing system....
First a bit of background for the great unwashed out there.
The American and Canadian governments are both modeled after the government of Great Britain - at two different times in its development. The American model is the model of a functioning king, parliament, and law lords. When King George III took the throne, he exercised the power of veto, and was an executive assisted by a prime minister and a series of other ministers. The Americans, in writing the constitution of 1787, took that model, and reworked it to fit a federal republic, embodying principles of divided powers that would supposedly keep politicians from combining to control the government. The authors of that constitution were unable to conceive of a country where real governmental power lie in the hands of an unelected and incompetent managerial class from corporations with limited liability. That is what America is now, and why it is not a democracy.
The Canadian model of government is taken from Great Britain after it was realized that George III was insane, and it was necessary to run a government without him. So his majesty's assorted ministers acted in the king's name, chaired by a prime minister. They developed motions of confidence to determine when a government had outlived its usefulness. By the time this system got sorted out in 1848, a young thing had taken the throne, and she seemed happy to allow the ministers the job of governing, while she romped under the sheets with her royal consort.
I'm simplifying a bit, of course, but I need to make the point that the healthier of the two systems has been the American one. The only problem was the development of the corporate state extra-contitutionally, and that has killed a very good model of governance.
19 - Jordan Richardson
This current situation might be unusual one, but it guarantees that a government that can't govern won't govern.
Bingo.
So. The Conservatives surged in popularity because the Liberals aligned themselves with a separatist party, and an unelected official of a foreign government told the Liberals to go pound sand. LOL @ Canada.
"Surged in popularity," RJ? Huh? Do you have a predilection to buying any spin with the term "Conservative" on it? When you consider that the "surge in popularity" for the Green Party doubled the "surge in popularity" for the Tories, I'm not sure your argument has much weight.
20 - STM
Ruvy, on occasion he did use veto but King George III's main problem as an anti-democratic force was that he exercised way too much influence in parliament through cliques and coteries.
However, that such an institution has survived - for another 200 plus years - is testament to how robust a model of governance this is.
The Canadian model of parliament, as are all the other models, are based on the British model that came into being in the late 1680s as a result of the Glorious Revolution and once and for all limited the power of the monarch and handed it to the people through their elected representatives in parliament.
That's no minor thing, mate.
George III was an aberration - like a bad president, determined to work his way around the loopholes in the laws and to flout convention (which under Britain's "unwritten" constitution IS law anyway).
However, to Parliament's credit, it managed to work around himn without the whole country falling down around their ears.
I produce as evidence the fact that around the time of Cornwallis's defeat, the newly elected parliament in Britain - the Government - which had been in faviour of peace with America decided not to continue the War against the United States. Sadly, it was by then too late for much goodwill to come from it, but it was done anyway.
George's influence in parliament began to wane from that time on, despite the best efforts of MPs like Banastre Tarleton, who was a veteran of that war (and a hated foe of the Americans).
It was during this period that the growing anger among the British populace over slavery led to the rise of William Wilberforce, the prime ministership of William Pitt (the younger, one of the greatest British PMs), and the start of abolition which had begun 20 yearsw or so earlier with rulings in the King's Bench court against slavery and culminated in the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act of 1808.
These were decisions of parliament, including the pursuit of peace with America, not of the king.
So you are not quite right in this Ruve.
Not aimed at you, but one of the problems I find in discussing this with Americans is that they have little understanding of the role of the monarch in British parliamentary-style democracy.
They still ask silly questions like, "Hey, ain't you still under the Queen".
The Queen's true role - and that of her representatives like the Governors-General in the commonwealth nations, are purely as rubber stamps who must by law and convention acquiesce to the will of the people.
Nothing is really that much different to how it was in 1688.
Having survived for that 300-plus years, you'd have to say it has something going for it.
21 - STM
And I still believe it to be a better system than that of the United States, where too much power is vested in the hands of one person - the president - and his unelected cabinet - and not enough in the elected representatives of the people - Congress and the Senate.
You'll never convince me Ruve. I believe the American system has been flawed from the outset and doesn't (mostly) represent the will of the people at all.
Obama's election is agood example of how it can, but too often it's not the case.
22 - RJ Elliott
"Why do dopey Americans"
Why do you dopey foreigners hate Americans so much?
"have such a hard time understanding how this works"
Oh, I understand how it works. And I understand that it's just ridiculous.
"and accepting that it's actually a much fairer and far more representative system of democracy than their own bizarre system?"
Yes, it's "much fairer" and "far more representative" to have an unelected official who is appointed by a foreign government deciding which political party gets to control government. LOL...
"The Queen's representative fulfills the executive role that is fulfilled by the president of the US, but with way less power."
Well, it must be comforting to know that an unelected official picked by a foreign government has "way less" power in Canada than the President has in the United States...
"Unlike a US president, there can be no interference in the running of parliament and a Governor-General (or the Queen in the UK) can't refuse a legitimate request of a Government on such matters by law and convention."
I guess the definition of "legitimate request" is kinda ambiguous though, amiright? Just ask Stéphane Dion!
"Only the government can make decisions regarding the running of the country. The Queen or her representative has no input and acts virtually as rubber stamd at executive level."
Yes, a "rubber stamp" who occasionally gets to decide which party controls the federal government!
"The whole point of the G-G not interfering is that to do so would undermine the basis of constitutional monarchy, which as a the first modern system of democracy has been running continuously for over 300 years - 100 years more than the US, so it has to have something going for it."
Cholera has been around for even longer. Bloody diarrhea really has something going for it!
"This current situation might be unusual one, but it guarantees that a government that can't govern won't govern."
Wait. I thought it was the Conservative government that couldn't govern, which was the argument for removing them from power. It looks almost as if no one is capable of governing Canada!
"Harper will almost certainly lose the no-confidence vote in parliament, have to call an election in the New Year and let the people decide or cave in and accept that the Opposition can form government."
A week ago, it appeared "almost certain" that the Conservative government would fall, and be replaced by a coalition government. But then that unelected official who was appointed by a foreign government stepped in and said "not so fast." Ain't sovereignty grand?
"Unlike in the US, this system virtually ensures that a lameduck government can be replaced according to the wishes of the people - not the wishes of the Queen - and usually at a new election, which can be called by a government any time in its term."
Key word: "virtually." (Unless that unelected official appointed by a foreign government says no!) And it's interesting to note that the "wishes of the people" seemed to indicate that they approved of the Conservatives, since that party GAINED seats in the election that was held less than two months ago. How can a six-week old government be a "lame duck?"
"Imagine if Congress could have got up a no-confidence vote against the lameduck Bush administration, held early elections and replaced them about the time they started going pear-shaped?"
Yes, imagine if we'd never fought the Revolutionary War and we still had unelected officials appointed by a foreign government telling us how to run our affairs!
"Americans shouldn't be so smug."
Look in the mirror. SRSLY.
"I - and millions of other observers - don't believe the US is a representative democracy any longer"
I - and millions of other Americans - don't give a shit what anti-American foreigners think about us.
"if it ever has been, as the people have no power."
The people have no power? Well, at least we have freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
"It's democracy in appearance only."
Yes, Diebold predetermines the winner every four years. Everyone knows that.
"Even the electoral college is a nod to the idea that the great unwashed can't be trusted to elect a president."
Tell me, are members of the Electoral College appointed by a foreign government?
"Canadians should be forever glad that they and the British gave the US an absolute belting in the War of 1812"
Canadians weren't Canadians then. They were British subjects until 1947. (And one could make the case, based on recent developments, that they still are!)
Also, it's interesting that despite the alleged "belting" the United States received, the result of the war was status quo ante bellum - with the exception of the end of impressment of American sailors by the British, of course.
Most interesting of all is that an Australian has such a hard-on over a war fought between the "Canadians" and the United States 190+ years ago. I'll bet you still believe the "militia myth" too.
"and aren't now a half-dozen states of the US."
I agree. That'd be like ten more Democrats in the Senate!
23 - RJ Elliott
"Surged in popularity," RJ? Huh? Do you have a predilection to buying any spin with the term "Conservative" on it?
No, I have a predilection to reading polls:
An EKOS poll suggested that support for Stephen Harper's Conservatives had risen during the course of the crisis, despite the testy atmosphere on Parliament Hill.
* Harper received 44% support from respondents. That's a surge from the 37.6% support the Conservatives gathered around the time of the federal election on Oct. 14
* Meanwhile, support for the Liberal Party fell two percentage points to 24%
* The NDP dropped four points to 14.5% support.
* 47% said that a Conservative government with Harper at the helm would be best for Canada during the economic crisis, compared to only 34% for the Liberal/NDP coalition.
A poll conducted by the Strategic Counsel landed the same results for Harper's Conservatives; strong showings that creep into majority territory.
* 39% of Canadians favor the Conservatives
* That's compared to 27% for the Liberal Party
* A startling 42% of Ontarians would support the Conservatives according to this poll, a province usually known for it's Liberal leanings.
* With the U.S. election still fresh in the minds of Canadians, 41% chose the Conservatives as the best party to tackle U.S.-Canada dealings.
Results of a COMPAS poll also show an increased support for the Tories.
* 51% support for the Conservatives
* 20% support for the Liberals
* In Ontario, Harper would be looking at a sweep with 53% of the vote against 24% for the Liberals and 10% for the NDP
* In fact, the poll even suggests that the Tories could be gaining on the Bloc in Quebec, with 32% support against the Bloc's 35%
When you consider that the "surge in popularity" for the Green Party doubled the "surge in popularity" for the Tories, I'm not sure your argument has much weight.
When you consider that the Green Party regularly elects ZERO members to Parliament, I'm not sure your argument has much weight.
24 - Dr Dreadful
No, I have a predilection to reading polls
A couple of months back, RJ, you seemed to have a predilection for reading only those polls which showed a certain Mr McCain to be doing better than it turned out he actually was. How did that work out for you?
25 - RJ Elliott
"A couple of months back, RJ, you seemed to have a predilection for reading only those polls which showed a certain Mr McCain to be doing better than it turned out he actually was. How did that work out for you?"
That's not exactly accurate, DD, but then that's not exactly surprising.
The following would have been closer to the truth:
"RJ read polls during the entire election campaign. He even posted them to Blogcritics when the campaign was tight, especially in August and early September. After mid-September, however, almost all the polls showed Obama far ahead, so RJ felt there was little point in continuing to post them. My name is 'Dr Dreadful' and I like to change the subject. Also I'm not a real doctor, I just play one on the interwebs."
Now - getting back on the actual topic at hand - would you care to cite some recent (within the last week or so) polls that show the Conservatives losing ground? Or did you already try to find such polls, were unable to do so (because they don't exist), and then decide to post something snarky to make yourself feel better?