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?
No comments:
Post a Comment