My son reminded me the other day that his Canadian relatives used to joke (even if not quite correctly) that Canada could have had English law, American know-how, and French culture, but instead, it got French law, English know-how, and American culture. And now it looks like it gets Italian politics, what with its too-many political parties. Although there was a federal Canadian election only six weeks ago (one in which the Conservatives won slightly less than half the seats in Parliament), that ‘minority government’ is on the verge of losing a ‘vote of confidence’ and if it does, then there could be another federal election in only a few more weeks. Or, the other parties in the Parliament could try to create a coalition to run the government.
Four things there worth explaining to the Americans:
1. No party won a majority of seats in the October election. There are five parties. They are/are called (neo?)conservatives/Conservatives; centrists/Liberals; separationists/P.Q.; environmentalists/Green; and progressives/NDP. The conservatives almost got a majority, but the other four parties, all of which are more center-ish, together have an actual majority of the votes/seats. To get to that majority, however, the Liberals, NDP, and PQ would all have to join forces. No other combination works.
2. The party who gets the most seats in an election is asked by the Governor General (whose office is largely ceremonial) to form a government. If that party (currently the conservatives) can get its bills passed, it holds the government and its leader is the Prime Minister. If it can’t, then the government falls.
3. When the government falls, the Governor General is informed and she can either call for another election (a ‘snap election’) or can invite the other minority parties to form a coalition government; a non-ceremonial function.
4. The four parties not currently in the government are to the left of the conservatives so there is potential for a coalition grouping, but the PQ’s raison d’etre is to have Quebec separate from Canada, which may make them an awkward partner in a national coalition government, but they could 'support' it without being an actual member of the coalition.
The conservative government bill that produced all this was, of course, the legislation that addressed the global financial collapse, which is clearly affecting Canada despite the contrary claims of Sunny Steve Harper. The problem with the bill, from the perspective of the other parties, is that it didn’t deal with the collapse. All it did was eliminate any financial subsidies for the political parties (a relative small dollar amount). The conservative response was to advise the opposition not to worry their pretty little heads about economic collapse because they’d get a real bill out to address the financial thing in the spring.
So, now Canadians await the next shoe fall. Harper has already withdrawn the subsidy-elimination legislation and has insisted that a comprehensive financial bill will be produced very shortly. It is always difficult to remember that Harper is, in fact, an economist, since he doesn’t talk as if he has any expertise in the area. It could be a few days, it could be a week, but some kind of do-over looks to be in the works.
Wouldn’t the GOP die to have that kind of opportunity, only six weeks after an election that they didn’t win by enough or at all?
Note: this post has been corrected from its original form in response to reader comments about several factual issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Canadian law is largely English law based, with an increading degree of influence from American law. Other than in Quebec, French law hardly features at all. Still, thanks for your perennially inisightful blog.
Sorry, but you're factually wrong on a three of your points.
1)The conservative party is called the Conservative Party, there is no more Progressive Conservative Party.
2) While the Governor General is the Queen's Representative, she was appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada, NOT "the Queen's government." What you are implying is that she is appointed by the British, this is not the case at all. Her powers are ceremonial, as she the Canadian representative of the Queen who is considered the "head of state." Other than in this instance, her duties usually include reading the throne speech, shaking hands with various dignitaries and cutting ribbons.
As for 4) you are largely correct, except that the Bloc Quebecois would not be a member of the coalition. They would simply vote for the Liberal-NDP coalition's confidence bills, should this happen. They would not get seats in Cabinet, thus they would not be part of the government.
While the stability of such a government is questionable, I'd point out that the main threat to the Bloc Quebecois is a Conservative resurgence in Quebec. During the last federal election they were under threat of being wiped off the map, but the Conservatives introduced a series of political proposals that were highly unpopular in Quebec, as such BQ voters who were flirting with voting NDP, Green, or Conservative in Quebec decided to vote Bloc in response. As such the, I think each of the opposition parties know they cannot be too unreasonable in their demands and will be willing to compromise, for perhaps 2 years or so until the next election takes place.
Why am i not surprised to hear that? the canadian relatives were always ready for a good laugh line, and i think they were all in toronto, not in quebec. so I appreciate the correction. (but do i have to give up the line?) and, you are more than welcome; thanks for reading it!
david, thanks for more corrections. i'm sorry to have to give up calling them 'progressive conservatives,' though. i think i thought the governor general was appointed by the queen because of the 'throne speech'--ie, i thought she spoke on behalf of the throne/the monarchy. (It is truly difficult to make sense of lots of things in a different political system and i appreciate people helping me get this stuff right.) surely, though the ability to decide whether to call a new election or form a coalition gov't isn't 'ceremonial'? re the pq: i thought the liberals were about to take over in the provincial elections? but, your explanation about the pq's role in the coalition would explain why the newspaper describes them as 'supporting' it, rather than being part of it. but why wouldn't they want something for their support, such as ministries? or, maybe the question is, what do they get for support instead of being a member?
Hopefully I didn't come across as short. I liked the joke you opened on, it kind of describes the absurdity of this situation, which is made worse without an iron clad law on when the Governor General can refuse the PM's request to call another election (i.e. within six months of an election, or something). Granted, I blame Harper because he's been so intransigent and unwilling to recognize that he was re-elected to a minority parliament, which requires compromise and competence.
On the GG, you're right in that she does speak on behalf of the throne and that power isn't ceremonial in this instance. But she only speaks on behalf of the Queen in the sense that she's the "Queens' representative in Canada." So technically, if the Queen visited Canada tomorrow, she would be the one Harper would have to go to - to say that he's lost confidence in the house and ask for another election. She'd have the right to see whether or not another another government can be formed with current members of parliament. A foreign GG actually did this in 1926, in what was called the King-Byng affair. Basically a minority Liberal government under Mackenzie King asked for another election, but GG Byng refused and invited opposition leader Arthur Meighen to form a government, but King's government lasted longer than Harper's. Also, the opposition couldn't form a credible government, so another election had to be held. Basically Byng looked like an unelected foreign interloper and no Govenor General ever tried to use their power again, which also led to Canada become a de facto independent country in 1931 - though this wasn't official until the Constitution was amended in 1982 (!).
So normally the GG would just agree to the Prime Minister's demands, but seeing as we just had an election a few weeks it would be highly annoying to have another one so soon. So the GG could just say no to Harper, and ask the opposition if they could form a government - which they are trying to imply that "yes we can." If they can have a formal agreement that would be different from the 1926 example, and somewhat similar to the 1985 Ontario. In the latter example the Ontario Liberals won less seats than the Ontario Progressive Conservatives in a minority parliament. But the Ontario PC's couldn't get support from parliament, so the Liberals signed an accord with the Ontario New Democratic Party to allow the Liberals to govern for 2 years without voting non-confidence in them. So basically the Ontario NDP played the role the Bloc would be playing now - I'll explain more next paragraph.
As for why the Bloc would support the coalition without being official members, they can't be official members. Their raison d'etre is Quebec seperation, so it wouldn't make sense for them to participate in the federal government. But, real politik concerns dictate that they're afraid of another election so soon. Also, the Liberal-NDP coalition would be weak, so if the coalition offers to move on Bloc priorities that all three parties could agree on (economic stimulus, environmental legislation, other stuff perhaps) they'd be willing to support it.
The Conservatives are probably going to try to de-legitimize and daemonize Michaëlle Jean by pointing out she's not elected and that she was appointed by a Liberal Prime Minister if she allows the coalition to take power. But frankly she'd only be doing the country a service by refusing to hold another election so soon after the last one in this global economic crisis.
Also, the GG does have the right to refuse the Prime Minister's request if his government is defeated so soon. Hell she could've done it before the last election too, though by convention she wouldn't have had any precedent to call on if she tried to do it then.
david, i still don't quite get it about the pq. after all, they are IN parliament, voting and all that; doesn't that constitute 'participat[ing] in the federal government'...at least in some sense that is at least equally illogical to their being a member of the coalition?
The fact that there even is a Bloc Quebecois (BQ) is illogical to some degree, yes. The PQ - ie. Party Quebecois has existed since the 70's and has ran in Quebec elections (and won a few times) since then as well. But they BQ has only existed since the early 90's, and is basically there to "protect Quebec's interests." Since it can never have any real power - in the sense that the BQ can. Sorry if this is confusing, it's one of the bizzare quirks about Canada. They're sort of like the Alaska Independence Party, but a centre-left-ish (though some of their members are right-wing) version that Canadians tolerate to a greater degree.
Basically the American system has separate legislative and executive branches. The Canadian system does not. So the Bloc would still be part of the legislative support for a Coalition, but they would not be the executive drivers (if you will) of legislation. It's ironic the Conservatives are attack on this point though, during the last minority, they needed Bloc support on a few confidence votes themselves as the Liberals and NDP voted against their proposals.
Sorry I should've said the BQ can never have any power in the sense that the PQ can. I'm making a lot of typos right now.
Post a Comment