Constitutional dance?
Last year, after Michael Ignatieff unwisely declared that Stephen Harper’s time was up, the Prime Minister alleged that the opposition parties were planning to repeat their attempted “coup” (as the Economist magazine called it) after the election.
Not so, Mr. Ignatieff’s team whispered – their man was the last MP to sign the caucus letter. And, far from having reneged on his signature, he never supported the coalition.
For his part, Mr. Ignatieff stated that, if that were his intention, he could have already been prime minister. Which did not exactly shut the door. Nor was it quite true.
In December, 2008, Mr. Ignatieff’s goal was to replace Stéphane Dion. Once that was accomplished, he had to face a hard reality. In contrast to Jack Layton and Bob Rae, Mr. Ignatieff understood all along that the Governor-General was not bound to transfer power to the coalition without an election – an election the Liberals would likely have lost, thereby returning him to Cambridge, Mass.
After examining the proposal Mr. Ignatieff put forward last week to limit prime ministerial power in proroguing Parliament, there can now be no doubt about his true intentions. He is trying to prevent Her Excellency from blocking an election he might lose, while still winning enough seats to replace Mr. Harper in a coalition government.
[More]
Popularity: 5% [?]
Male, retired and the rest is of little interest to anyone. The site keeps me busy and if it helps others to stay abreast of daily events then my time is well spent.
jt Says:
Man, it just rots their socks not to be running the show, eh? Call an election you chickenshits. You got some better ideas on how to run this country, let’s hear ‘em. Then we’ll vote on whether we think that they are any good. That;s’s how it works, “Mister” Iggy. These guys are acting like the Gunpowder Plotters, more than political opponents. If you’re going to do all this maneuvering to get into power, why even have a vote? Call out the troops and take over. I’m sure that they’ll back you and then you can have your rigged election, with no one else on the ballot.
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 9:54 am
Joe Says:
I wonder who is the brain trust behind those two goofs. Should they propose a coalition it is likely the Bloc would not go along with them. If they should go it alone they would not have the votes. If they should succeed in getting the Bloc on board Harper would call an election which the GG would have no reason to not call. So Iffy and Jackass would be knocking on doors saying they endorse the Bloc throughout the ROC.
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 10:43 am
D.C. Says:
If the House rules were to be changed I think something along the line of this would be appropriate: “No coalition government could be formed until after an election is held.” This I think would force all parties to lay their cards on the table or in more vulgar terms: “put your money were your mouth is.”
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 11:17 am
ward Says:
While a coalition usurping an elected government – avoiding the electorate and installing itself into power – might be technically ok by the Constitution, it is not within the spirit of it, not by a longshot.
If it ever gets to the point where this happens, you can forget about ever having a minority government again in Canada.
The two (or more) losing parties would, immediately after the election results are announced, state they have no confidence in the winner of the election and as such are replacing them. The losers automatically become the winners.
Is that what the intent of the Constitution was?
The solution is to close the door to an end run on the electorate. If a coalition desires to take power, they can express no confidence in the current government, but this must trigger an election.
Any coalition must be elected as a coalition, not a banding together of seperate entities after the fact.
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 11:18 am
jema54 Says:
The people in western Canada would never tolerate a Federal gument run by a sepatista Blochead – Duceppe would always be the de facto Prime Minister of any left wing coup. Why don’t the three Bolshevik parties just join, have a leadership convention, choose a head honcho and go to an election? Let the chips fall where they may.
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Cunctator Says:
#4 – I am sorry that you do not understand how our parliamentary system works. The current government was not elected. You are not voting for a government, but rather for a member of parliament who belongs, in most cases, to a political party. The Conservatives just happen to have a plurality of the seats in the House of Commons and the leader was asked to form a government. If the Opposition, which has a majority of seats, decides that it no longer wishes to support Harper, and agrees to form a coalition of their own, it is not a usurpation. No election is required. Such a transition, should it ever occur, is entirely constitutional.
The problem is that we have a Governor-General who does not really understand her role, and political leaders (in this case, Harper and his party) who are quite willing (after all, it is their interest) to mislead the Canadian people as to what is/is not constitutional. Although I have always supported the monarchy, I am slowly (very slowly, mind you) coming to the opinion that we probably need a popularly elected Head of State who can act as a constitional referee in the way that the appointed GG’s cannot.
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Joe Says:
Actually Cunctator, “If the Opposition, which has a majority of seats, decides that it no longer wishes to support Harper, and agrees to form a coalition of their own, it is not a usurpation. No election is required. Such a transition, should it ever occur, is entirely constitutional.” is not true. Before the GG calls a leader to be PM coalitions etc are entirely legal, moral etc. Once the GG has called a PM the only legal and ethical way for the opposition to unseat him is to defeat him in a confidence motion and have an election. Any coalition that tried to do otherwise would be hanged drawn and quartered by the people of Canada.
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 3:02 pm
potato Says:
I think the Coalition would be without a mandate since their platform would not have been presented to the public for a vote. Their platform would be a mishmash of socialist compromises which nobody voted for since the vote would have been based on individual party platforms. So it would be an undemocratic venture, whether or not it is Constitutional.
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Cunctator Says:
#7 – I am sorry Joe but you are wrong, at least about what is constitutional. As to the quartering of politicians, well, that I cannot speak to.
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 4:05 pm
jt Says:
“Although I have always supported the monarchy, I am slowly (very slowly, mind you) coming to the opinion that we probably need a popularly elected Head of State who can act as a constitional referee in the way that the appointed GG’s cannot.”
Excuse me, but how Fwench! I’m partial to a Republic too, but styled after the successful one to the south of us, not a second rate imitation. Want to Indian leg-wrestle over it?
None of these “plotters” can field a regiment between them to do what they want to do. Nor would one of our “legal” ones serve them. They are illegitimate, if they can’t bring down the sitting government with a vote of non confidence and an election.
The fact that they do plot and solely because they didn’t like the outcome of the last election, then they will be perceived as “sore losers” and there is no consolation prize of saying: poof! we represent 62 percent of those who didn’t vote for the westminster style minority government that resulted from those same people not voting in numbers to BE THE PARTY OF GOVERNMENT, then they represent a “coup detat”, overthowing a legitimately elected government under our laws.
Illegitimate, no matter how they want to interpret things in their favour, with the aid of the complicit media. Personally, I’ll withhold taxes until these plotters disappear, because I don’t pay salaries to snivelling, sore losers or their damned partisan supporters in the civil service. Not in my contract. I’d sic the PPCLI on them if they persist. And that would be their job, too. Defending democracy!
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Jack Says:
Point: Harper can call an election whenever he chooses and there is not “thing one” the opposition can do about it. Chretien showed us that.
Here’s truth. The Governor General does not own the country — the PM does. Trudeau saw to that by way of our Constitution and so the official opposition serves at the whim of the PM and he can dissolve parliament anytime he wants.
How can he do that?
Because one phone call to the Queen can fire her and she can be replaced. The GG serves at the whim of the PM.
More points: “Yah but”…never mind. Harper has that power thanks to PET. And don’t mistake for a minute that he won’t use it if he needs it. He will because while he hears “lefty” views he is not buying this garbage spouted by “Iggy” for one minute and he’ll pull the pin when he is ready (which should be soon).
“Iggy” has a rope around his neck and Harper is at the “switch”.
Take that wherever you want. I’m certain Norm knows this stuff and knows that Harper holds the reigns just as Chretien did for a decade.
“Ya want it — ya got it.”
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
ward Says:
Cunctator you have made my point. It is technically constitutional and that technicality needs to be closed.
That is is even being discussed as an option illustrates just how desperate the opposition has become (and how accomodating the media can be).
It has not been done before and it would be terrible for such a precedent to be set.
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Joe Says:
What is not mentioned is that the coalition could not unseat the PM simply because the GG has to listen to Her Majesty’s Prime Minister. In other words PM can simply call an election and put it to the people and the coalition is dead in the water. The Prime Minister does not sit at the pleasure of the opposition he sits at the pleasure of the Crown and the Crown is bound to listen to the PM. Any other interference (changing PM at the opposition’s request} by the Crown would constitute a crisis like this country has not seen before.
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 9:13 pm
jema54 Says:
Well said, Jack.
Cunctator, the Troika coalition could never, ever take place because the defacto PM (Ducippe of the Blochead ilk)’ of the Troika was not on any ballots except in Quebec! Did you have a blochead choice on your ballot? The Bloc is a Party that exists for the destruction of Canada! Why would this country give traitors the reins of power? Think about what you are saying, for Heavens sake!
Posted on February 3rd, 2010 at 2:57 am
ward Says:
Cunctator: you said
”
#4 – I am sorry that you do not understand how our parliamentary system works. The current government was not elected. You are not voting for a government, but rather for a member of parliament who belongs, in most cases, to a political party. The Conservatives just happen to have a plurality of the seats in the House of Commons and the leader was asked to form a government. If the Opposition, which has a majority of seats, decides that it no longer wishes to support Harper, and agrees to form a coalition of their own, it is not a usurpation. No election is required. Such a transition, should it ever occur, is entirely constitutional.”
Your explanation would presume then that any group of MPs, regardless of their political affiliation, could band together and replace the elected government without going through the electorate.
Does this strike you as what the Constitution intended? Your arguement defends such actions.
Posted on February 3rd, 2010 at 3:59 am
ward Says:
And as a follow up thought, if I were a very wealthy person perhaps I could persuade 150 MPs to take such action for say – 2M apiece (plus whatever they could plunder once taking power – of course my investment as well would be returned many fold)
Posted on February 3rd, 2010 at 4:02 am
jema54 Says:
Bingo! You have the number Ward @#16. Always follow the money in any dirty deal.
Posted on February 3rd, 2010 at 4:44 am