Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Canada's Parliamentary System
There is an excellent argument discussing our parliamentary system in regards to the current political upheaval on The Star's page.
God I love politics!
Stephen "Nixon" Harper has started the typical Conservative response to any threat: Shelling out piles of cash to air radio and television attack ads against anyone he perceives as a threat. Remember any other regime that used mind games and propaganda to control it's citizens? I can think of a few.
Here's a revelation: according to the ads, a coalition between parties, and asking the governor general to excercise her constitional rights to ask the leader of the opposition to form a new government without an election is "undemocratic." Doing so with the involvement of the BQ is "a matter of national unity," and, "a deal with the devil." The quotes are all from former PM Harper.
How interesting, then, is the letter presented below:
If Harper's plan in that letter to the GG had worked as he hoped there would have been no election. He was trying to get the GG to refuse to dissolve parliament, which then results in her inviting the Opposition to form a government.
Just like we have now.
In the case that we have, today, the correct procedural steps have been taken. You don't wait for an election call, form a coalition, have the election, then see who gets to form the government. That's not the process. You'd do something like that if you were going to formally merge the parties. This isnt a merger. It's an alliance, temporary until the next election.
The process is this:
Old government goes to the GG and asks her to dissolve parliament. She either agrees or asks the Leader of the Opposition to form a government. In *most* cases, she agrees. In *all* cases where the government is a majority, there's not even a point in asking the Opposition: They don't have the seats to form a stable working government.
An Election is called and executed.
If one party shows a clear majority of seats, they are asked by the GG to put together a Cabinet, to put forth someone as PM, and to form a government.If there is no clear majority, the incumbent party (the last government) is asked if they can form a stable, effective government. They can do so on certain grounds: If they have the most seats in the minority, and if they have the support of a majority of Parliament. This is important. The party that forms a government in a minority situation *has* to be sure that they can win a confidence vote. That means that they're going to need votes from one or more of the other parties.
This is the point at which a coalition like ours will probably be created, if it's going to happen at all. This is why it's not a shock that Layton was talking to the BQ about a possible coalition "before the Financial Update! We have it on tape!" That's meaningless, if he wasn't talking about a coalition on Election night, or even before, then he *wasn't doing his job.*
If a coalition can be agreed on *before* the incumbent PM can agree to form a government, and the coalition holds a majority of seats *they* will be asked to form a government.
Assuming, as per usual in Canada, that there is no Coalition announced, the former governing party will form a government. They still need votes from the opposition parties. If they don't get those votes, and fail to pass a confidence measure, like the Throne Speech, or a new budget, or an Economic Update, then the Prime Minister must ask the GG to dissolve Parliament. She can refuse, and ask the Opposition Leader if he can form a government.
At this precise moment we find ourselves between voting on the Throne Speech, a confidence measure that passed, and voting on the financial update, which Flaherty insisted on calling a confidence measure - and which the Opposition parties find, collectively, that they cannot support. They have announced that they will vote against it, and have openly announced that they have reached a coalition agreement, that they would like a chance to present to the GG. They've announced this publicly and early - it's a good move on their part, because the GG now knows that she has some options when the PM comes to request proroguing or dissolution. In light of the fact that parliament has sat for only 2 weeks, that there was an election only 5 weeks ago, that *no* major business has been resolved, and that the only reason to prorogue *now* is to dodge a defeat, she could very likely go with the coalition.
Another point that people are bringing up: "Why didn't they form the coalition, or merge the parties, before the election instead of splitting the votes?"
Here's why:
You don't vote for a coalition. You vote for a local MP. You also don't vote for PM. Stephen Harper was not elected PM, he was elected MP for the riding of Calgary Southwest. Period.
After you elect a bunch of MP's - a "parliament" that parliament goes to work doing things like selecting a PM and a Cabinet, and forming the Government and the Opposition.
Our votes have nothing to do with who becomes the PM, the Government, or the Opposition.
Our votes say "we want this person in Parliament, to look after our interests." That's it. Now, as part of looking after our interests, obviously we want him to win a spot in the Government. We, the voters, elected every single member of the coalition, on the understanding that we wanted them to do anything they could to form the government. Forming a coalition of 2 parties (without permanently merging) and arranging the support of a 3rd, for a clear majority of all confidence votes is a perfectly legitimate use of our votes. It does *not* mean that NDP voters might as well have voted Liberal, or vice versa. They haven't merged. People that voted NDP are getting what they voted for: NDP members in Government. Same with the Liberals. The BQ involvement is more like backup: They have agreed not to defeat the government formed by the 2 coalition parties, without becoming part of the Government themselves. After the current session of Parliament, or upon termination of their Coalition Agreement, they will remain separate parties.
Just for reference, here is a copy of the Coalition Accord set up by the Liberals and NDP
Here's a revelation: according to the ads, a coalition between parties, and asking the governor general to excercise her constitional rights to ask the leader of the opposition to form a new government without an election is "undemocratic." Doing so with the involvement of the BQ is "a matter of national unity," and, "a deal with the devil." The quotes are all from former PM Harper.
How interesting, then, is the letter presented below:
Which is it, Mr. Harper?September 9, 2004
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, C.C., C.M.M.,
C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A1
Excellency, As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that,
given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to
support some part of the government’s program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together
constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe
that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as
constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and
consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely, Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party
If Harper's plan in that letter to the GG had worked as he hoped there would have been no election. He was trying to get the GG to refuse to dissolve parliament, which then results in her inviting the Opposition to form a government.
Just like we have now.
In the case that we have, today, the correct procedural steps have been taken. You don't wait for an election call, form a coalition, have the election, then see who gets to form the government. That's not the process. You'd do something like that if you were going to formally merge the parties. This isnt a merger. It's an alliance, temporary until the next election.
The process is this:
Old government goes to the GG and asks her to dissolve parliament. She either agrees or asks the Leader of the Opposition to form a government. In *most* cases, she agrees. In *all* cases where the government is a majority, there's not even a point in asking the Opposition: They don't have the seats to form a stable working government.
An Election is called and executed.
If one party shows a clear majority of seats, they are asked by the GG to put together a Cabinet, to put forth someone as PM, and to form a government.If there is no clear majority, the incumbent party (the last government) is asked if they can form a stable, effective government. They can do so on certain grounds: If they have the most seats in the minority, and if they have the support of a majority of Parliament. This is important. The party that forms a government in a minority situation *has* to be sure that they can win a confidence vote. That means that they're going to need votes from one or more of the other parties.
This is the point at which a coalition like ours will probably be created, if it's going to happen at all. This is why it's not a shock that Layton was talking to the BQ about a possible coalition "before the Financial Update! We have it on tape!" That's meaningless, if he wasn't talking about a coalition on Election night, or even before, then he *wasn't doing his job.*
If a coalition can be agreed on *before* the incumbent PM can agree to form a government, and the coalition holds a majority of seats *they* will be asked to form a government.
Assuming, as per usual in Canada, that there is no Coalition announced, the former governing party will form a government. They still need votes from the opposition parties. If they don't get those votes, and fail to pass a confidence measure, like the Throne Speech, or a new budget, or an Economic Update, then the Prime Minister must ask the GG to dissolve Parliament. She can refuse, and ask the Opposition Leader if he can form a government.
At this precise moment we find ourselves between voting on the Throne Speech, a confidence measure that passed, and voting on the financial update, which Flaherty insisted on calling a confidence measure - and which the Opposition parties find, collectively, that they cannot support. They have announced that they will vote against it, and have openly announced that they have reached a coalition agreement, that they would like a chance to present to the GG. They've announced this publicly and early - it's a good move on their part, because the GG now knows that she has some options when the PM comes to request proroguing or dissolution. In light of the fact that parliament has sat for only 2 weeks, that there was an election only 5 weeks ago, that *no* major business has been resolved, and that the only reason to prorogue *now* is to dodge a defeat, she could very likely go with the coalition.
Another point that people are bringing up: "Why didn't they form the coalition, or merge the parties, before the election instead of splitting the votes?"
Here's why:
You don't vote for a coalition. You vote for a local MP. You also don't vote for PM. Stephen Harper was not elected PM, he was elected MP for the riding of Calgary Southwest. Period.
After you elect a bunch of MP's - a "parliament" that parliament goes to work doing things like selecting a PM and a Cabinet, and forming the Government and the Opposition.
Our votes have nothing to do with who becomes the PM, the Government, or the Opposition.
Our votes say "we want this person in Parliament, to look after our interests." That's it. Now, as part of looking after our interests, obviously we want him to win a spot in the Government. We, the voters, elected every single member of the coalition, on the understanding that we wanted them to do anything they could to form the government. Forming a coalition of 2 parties (without permanently merging) and arranging the support of a 3rd, for a clear majority of all confidence votes is a perfectly legitimate use of our votes. It does *not* mean that NDP voters might as well have voted Liberal, or vice versa. They haven't merged. People that voted NDP are getting what they voted for: NDP members in Government. Same with the Liberals. The BQ involvement is more like backup: They have agreed not to defeat the government formed by the 2 coalition parties, without becoming part of the Government themselves. After the current session of Parliament, or upon termination of their Coalition Agreement, they will remain separate parties.
Just for reference, here is a copy of the Coalition Accord set up by the Liberals and NDP
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
More Politics.
I'm finding it to be utterly appalling how few people seem to understand how our electoral system works - and more appalling how many of them post statements like "a coalition government is violating the will of the people!" in their ignorance of how the system works.
They're embarrassing themselves. And most embarrassing is the fact that Prime Minister Steven "Nixon" Harper is either just as ignorant, or is using people's ignorance of the system to feed their paranoia.
There's a really good article, on CTV.ca, about how a party goes about forming a government, and the duties of the Governor-General. But here is the relevant bit, for our current situation:
Note the last part of that. "If there is a reasonable possibility that the next-biggest party can get the support of the House, the Governor General can invite the Leader of the Opposition to try and form a government."
That's whats happening now. The House has lost confidence in the government. The government does not have the support, in parliament, of the majority of seats. In any confidence vote, the government will lose. When the government loses a matter of confidence, it must be dissolved. At that point the Governor General can either call an election, or ask the Leader of the Opposition if he is prepared to form a government. If he can prove that he has the support of Parliament, he can do so. By forming a coalition with other parties, or by establishing a formal agreement with them, the Leader of the Opposition can state that he has the support of Parliament. In our current case, it would give the coalition another minority government, but with the BQ supporting it, they will control a majority of seats.
To those that say "Yes, but Dion is stepping down!" there is one simple answer: Doesn't matter. He is currently Leader of the Opposition. It complicates things slightly, down the road: he'll need to be replaced, but it's a fair bet that his replacement will be someone that's privy to the agreements being developed right now.
Another petty argument I've seen is "but they're bargaining with separatists." This is the most hypocritical of all: Steven "Nixon" Harper tried to recruit BQ support when *he* planned to try to oust the Paul Martin minority in 2004. For him to decry the coalition for succeeding where he failed is totally ludicrous. Yet another attempt by the PM to stir paranoia.
People are saying that the coalition is against the will of the voters, or that the conservatives "won" the election. Not according to the numbers. First off, in Canada, the only definitive "winner" in an election is the leader who controls a majority of seats in the House of Commons. Since it is a well established principal of Canadian politics, it is perfectly legal for 2 or more parties to agree to work together. In fact, that happens in each and every minority government: the current PM managed to hold a minority government together for 2 years simply because the other parties *chose* to work with him. Had they not, then at the first confidence vote ( throne speech, first budget, fiscal update, some other matter of confidence) the government would lose the vote, and that results in dissolution of the current sitting of parliament, which brings us right back to the GG asking the leader of the opposition if he feels he can form a working government. So, in the last election, the other parties allowed the conservatives to form a government. If Harper were as smart as people accuse him of being, he would have approached the NDP and the 1 elected independent, and formed his own coalition: It would have given him a majority with 155 seats. In our current parliament we have 4 parties out of the 16 registered federal parties represented. We elected 308 people to sit in the House. It is up to those 308 people to determine who will form the government. It is *not* up to the voters. Now, those 308 people will have received some guidance on what we, as voters , desire in a government. The first, and most obvious, is party affiliation. But in a minority situation, not one party has the support of a majority of those 308 people. In fact, in this election, the most any one party had was 143. Since they are the incumbents in the election, they were asked by the GG to form the government. But as we've seen since, they did not have the support of the rest of parliament. They are unable to win a confidence vote. This is an established fact. At this point in time it is the PM's duty to resign and allow the Leader of the Opposition to try his hand at forming a government. Not resigning is, to use Steven "Nixon" Harper's own word ... "undemocratic."
What's broken about our system are the "party" rules. We elect a local representative who is supposed to speak for his riding in Ottawa, as if we were there ourselves. Yet when he gets there, in most cases, he's gagged by party unity rules. He must toe the party line, or face expulsion from the party. That means he'd end up sitting as an independent. Which means that he'll draw minimum funding, minimal office space, no staff, no research assistance, etc. This is just wrong, if anything in the setup of our parliamentary system is undemocratic, this is it. Regardless of party affiliation, our representatives *should* be allowed to speak the will of their constituents. It'd certainly liven up Question period.
Now, the last thing I want to touch on is the illegal taping and release of a confidential conference call between the members of the NDP caucus. My lord, what was that conservative MP thinking? Has he never heard of Watergate? The argument that he was invited to take part in the call is nothing more then obfuscation. He knew full well it was a mistake, he's *got* to know which caucus he's part of. If he doesn't I don't want him making decisions that affect my country, thank you very much. And he makes it even more obvious by recording the call. Did he come on the line with "Hey, guys, I know I'm a conservative, and you're NDP, but do you, like, mind if I tape all this?" He would have been shouted out of the call. And then for the PMO to release this like "Wow! Look how proud of ourselves we are, we have an illegally obtained recording of the NDP closed meeting!" Um. Hold onto that, it'll be handy as evidence in the criminal case.
Ask yourself this: If this guy got one "mistaken" invitation, how many more are there that haven't been exposed? How long has the conservative party been eavesdropping on the other parties. A President was driven into obscurity over a similar moral breach. What makes Harper think he's untouchable?
They're embarrassing themselves. And most embarrassing is the fact that Prime Minister Steven "Nixon" Harper is either just as ignorant, or is using people's ignorance of the system to feed their paranoia.
There's a really good article, on CTV.ca, about how a party goes about forming a government, and the duties of the Governor-General. But here is the relevant bit, for our current situation:
If election results hand a party opposed to the sitting prime minister and
his Cabinet a clear majority, the Governor General's job is simple. After the
outgoing Cabinet resigns, all the Governor General has to do is call on the
leader of the victorious party to choose new ministers.
Once they are approved and formally appointed by the Governor General, the handover of power is said to be complete.
The transition is complicated, however, if no party emerges with a clear majority. In that case, the incumbent Government has two choices.
It can immediately resign, leaving an opening for the Governor
General to invite the leader of the next-largest party to form its own
Cabinet.
Because voluntarily relinquishing power is a rare occurrence in
politics, the more likely outcome is for the sitting Cabinet to stay in office
and test its mandate in the House of Commons.
Such a government is known as a minority, because it does not automatically enjoy the support of most members in the House.
It can test the waters, however, and hope that it can patch together support of other party's membership to get its bills passed. If the Cabinet fails the test on a motion of censure or a confidence vote, it then has no choice but to resign.
But that doesn't automatically mean voters will be called back to the ballot box.
If there appears to be a reasonable possibility that the next-biggest party can get the support of the House, the Governor General can invite the Leader of the Opposition to try and form a government.
Then if that government also fails to draw the confidence of the House, the Governor General could grant requests for another vote.
Note the last part of that. "If there is a reasonable possibility that the next-biggest party can get the support of the House, the Governor General can invite the Leader of the Opposition to try and form a government."
That's whats happening now. The House has lost confidence in the government. The government does not have the support, in parliament, of the majority of seats. In any confidence vote, the government will lose. When the government loses a matter of confidence, it must be dissolved. At that point the Governor General can either call an election, or ask the Leader of the Opposition if he is prepared to form a government. If he can prove that he has the support of Parliament, he can do so. By forming a coalition with other parties, or by establishing a formal agreement with them, the Leader of the Opposition can state that he has the support of Parliament. In our current case, it would give the coalition another minority government, but with the BQ supporting it, they will control a majority of seats.
To those that say "Yes, but Dion is stepping down!" there is one simple answer: Doesn't matter. He is currently Leader of the Opposition. It complicates things slightly, down the road: he'll need to be replaced, but it's a fair bet that his replacement will be someone that's privy to the agreements being developed right now.
Another petty argument I've seen is "but they're bargaining with separatists." This is the most hypocritical of all: Steven "Nixon" Harper tried to recruit BQ support when *he* planned to try to oust the Paul Martin minority in 2004. For him to decry the coalition for succeeding where he failed is totally ludicrous. Yet another attempt by the PM to stir paranoia.
People are saying that the coalition is against the will of the voters, or that the conservatives "won" the election. Not according to the numbers. First off, in Canada, the only definitive "winner" in an election is the leader who controls a majority of seats in the House of Commons. Since it is a well established principal of Canadian politics, it is perfectly legal for 2 or more parties to agree to work together. In fact, that happens in each and every minority government: the current PM managed to hold a minority government together for 2 years simply because the other parties *chose* to work with him. Had they not, then at the first confidence vote ( throne speech, first budget, fiscal update, some other matter of confidence) the government would lose the vote, and that results in dissolution of the current sitting of parliament, which brings us right back to the GG asking the leader of the opposition if he feels he can form a working government. So, in the last election, the other parties allowed the conservatives to form a government. If Harper were as smart as people accuse him of being, he would have approached the NDP and the 1 elected independent, and formed his own coalition: It would have given him a majority with 155 seats. In our current parliament we have 4 parties out of the 16 registered federal parties represented. We elected 308 people to sit in the House. It is up to those 308 people to determine who will form the government. It is *not* up to the voters. Now, those 308 people will have received some guidance on what we, as voters , desire in a government. The first, and most obvious, is party affiliation. But in a minority situation, not one party has the support of a majority of those 308 people. In fact, in this election, the most any one party had was 143. Since they are the incumbents in the election, they were asked by the GG to form the government. But as we've seen since, they did not have the support of the rest of parliament. They are unable to win a confidence vote. This is an established fact. At this point in time it is the PM's duty to resign and allow the Leader of the Opposition to try his hand at forming a government. Not resigning is, to use Steven "Nixon" Harper's own word ... "undemocratic."
What's broken about our system are the "party" rules. We elect a local representative who is supposed to speak for his riding in Ottawa, as if we were there ourselves. Yet when he gets there, in most cases, he's gagged by party unity rules. He must toe the party line, or face expulsion from the party. That means he'd end up sitting as an independent. Which means that he'll draw minimum funding, minimal office space, no staff, no research assistance, etc. This is just wrong, if anything in the setup of our parliamentary system is undemocratic, this is it. Regardless of party affiliation, our representatives *should* be allowed to speak the will of their constituents. It'd certainly liven up Question period.
Now, the last thing I want to touch on is the illegal taping and release of a confidential conference call between the members of the NDP caucus. My lord, what was that conservative MP thinking? Has he never heard of Watergate? The argument that he was invited to take part in the call is nothing more then obfuscation. He knew full well it was a mistake, he's *got* to know which caucus he's part of. If he doesn't I don't want him making decisions that affect my country, thank you very much. And he makes it even more obvious by recording the call. Did he come on the line with "Hey, guys, I know I'm a conservative, and you're NDP, but do you, like, mind if I tape all this?" He would have been shouted out of the call. And then for the PMO to release this like "Wow! Look how proud of ourselves we are, we have an illegally obtained recording of the NDP closed meeting!" Um. Hold onto that, it'll be handy as evidence in the criminal case.
Ask yourself this: If this guy got one "mistaken" invitation, how many more are there that haven't been exposed? How long has the conservative party been eavesdropping on the other parties. A President was driven into obscurity over a similar moral breach. What makes Harper think he's untouchable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)