I have a question regarding confidence votes

[na85]

Okay, so forgive my ignorance but I thought I understood the rules regarding confidence votes until recently, and now I see I do not.

When a confidence vote fails, what are the criteria regarding dissolution of Parliament? I.e. when will the GG call an election, and when will she hand power over to the opposition without an election?

[Progressive Tory]

Okay, so forgive my ignorance but I thought I understood the rules regarding confidence votes until recently, and now I see I do not.

When a confidence vote fails, what are the criteria regarding dissolution of Parliament? I.e. when will the GG call an election, and when will she hand power over to the opposition without an election?

The GG has a bit of discretion when it comes to calling an election or allowing a Coalition gov't. over a non-confidence issue. There was much specualtion that Harper was told that if he failed to regain confidence, the Coaltion would have been allowed to form the gov't. Michael Ignatieff was never really comfortable with the Coalition, and I suspect that's one of the reasons he's allowing them to coast for awhile.

I just read Adrienne Clarkson's book and she discusses the Coaltion that Harper formed in 2004 with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton to oust Paul Martin at the throne speech. Apparently, Mr. Martin went to her to call another election. She refused since it had only been about 3 months since we were at polls. He was warned to fix it...he did, and bought a bit of time. However, if you click on the date in my signature, you'll see that six months later, Mr. Harper was still reminding Canadians that an election was not the only option if Martin failed.

According to Chapter 2 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

"Simply stated if the government is defeated in the House on a confidence question, then the government is expected to resign or seek the dissolution of Parliament in order for a general election to be called." That's what Paul Martin used but seeking it doesn't guarantee it. Ms. Clarkson refused.

"The confidence convention applies whether a government is formed by the party or the coalition of parties holding the majority of seats in the House of Commons, or by one or more parties holding a minority of seats. Naturally, it is more likely that the government will fail to retain confidence of the House when the government party or parties are in a minority situation. What constitutes a question of confidence varies with the circumstances."

Clear as mud yet?

[Molly]

LOL Yep. Clear as mud.

How about being a bit more specific in your question, na85.

The GG will generally 'accept the advice of her minister' (the PM), and precedent plays a huge role, but it's a judgement call, with smoothely functioning governance as the priority.

King-Byng describes the only previous minority coalition- a spectacular failure- but where there has been no activity since the last election, and no good reason to expect a new election to change the makeup of the house, it would take a more creative mind than mine to come up with any other alternative.

At this stage of the game, with a little more water under the bridge, if sending them back to patch up their differences didn't solve anything, she'd likely call an election rather than offer it to a coalition.

(I look forward to reading Jean's description of these events, when she is no longer GG.)

[Progressive Tory]

LOL Yep. Clear as mud.

(I look forward to reading Jean's description of these events, when she is no longer GG.)

So do I. One thing she mentioned that was interesting, so I checked; was that our Constitution doesn't mention the term 'Prime Minister'. He has no protection under our constitution. Weird. Also when you read the history of Canadian PMs they don't say 'elected' Prime Minister, but 'designated' Prime Minister. Only MPs are elected, but I think we already knew that.

Also besides the Byng affair, we've have Coaltion Governments before. "The Unionist Party was formed in 1917 by Members of Parliament (MPs) in Canada who supported the "Union government" formed by Sir Robert Borden during World War I....on October 12, 1917, Borden formed the Union government with a Cabinet of twelve Conservatives, nine Liberals and Independents and one "Labour" MP. "

[g_bambino]

So do I. One thing she mentioned that was interesting, so I checked; was that our Constitution doesn't mention the term 'Prime Minister'. He has no protection under our constitution. Weird. Also when you read the history of Canadian PMs they don't say 'elected' Prime Minister, but 'designated' Prime Minister. Only MPs are elected, but I think we already knew that.

Our constitution is made up of many conventions beyond the written documents, the office of prime minister being one of them. The Constitution Act 1867 states that Canada's constitution is to be similar to that of the United Kingdom, but in 1867 there was no mention of the prime minister in the British constitution either. In fact, the entire cabinet exists by convention; all that's laid out in the Constitution Act 1867 is that the Governor General shall appoint persons to the Queen's Privy Council to aid in the exercise of his or her executive powers. And that is why prime ministers aren't elected; they're appointed as privy councilors and then designated as the chief advisor to the Crown. Prime ministers are not presidents, much to Mr. Harper's chagrin, it seems.

_{[ed. to expand]}

Edited January 30, 2009 by g_bambino

[Higgly]

It is a genuine pleasure to read such a learned discussion.

[Molly]

Don't congratulate us heartily.

I said a 'stupid' up there, with regard to the King-Byng crisis.

(I'll let it stand and take my lumps...)

[na85]

Okay so let's say the Conservatives don't do their jobs and instead of fixing the economy the spend time trying to smash the Liberals, and then when the next "report card" comes around in a few months, it gets voted down.

The GG has the choice whether or not to ask the opposition to form a government or to call an election, but it's likely she'd call an election since so much time has passed?

[Smallc]

The GG has the choice whether or not to ask the opposition to form a government or to call an election, but it's likely she'd call an election since so much time has passed?

By convention, she would allow a coalition up to six months after an election. After 9 months, she almost has to dissolve parliament and call an election if the government falls. The time in between 6 and 9 months is a rather gray area.

[August1991]

This is a good thread and I don't disagree with posters here. na85, there are no hard and fast rules. It is fair to say that if the GG refused a request of the PM, then we would have a potential constitutional crisis. The again, neither the PM nor the GG probably wants such a crisis.

In fact, the entire cabinet exists by convention; all that's laid out in the Constitution Act 1867 is that the Governor General shall appoint persons to the Queen's Privy Council to aid in the exercise of his or her executive powers.

That's misleading. Legislation typically uses the term "Governor in council" to designate the Cabinet. The Cabinet often has authority to decide certain issues alone without reference to Parliament. For example, an Act of Parliament may establish the principle of paying unemployment compensation but the regulations (under Cabinet control) will determine the length of time one may receive these payments. Edited January 31, 2009 by August1991

[Topaz]

I don't think Iggy wants to be PM with a 85Billion gift from Harper. There's no way they are going to pay that off in five years. I think the Tories are going to ride Layton on the Libs voting for the budget to break apart the coalition even further. Just listen to them in the Commons talking to the NDP. Iggy has the Tories on probation and he has/had the coalition threat and I'm sure Harper is thinking how to get out of this. The only good thing about people losing their jobs is they get to watch these politicians in action on tv and realize what is happening to our country. Voter turnout probably will be greater in the next election, from voters watching the Commons.

[Molly]

Time is a factor and a guideline and something of a means to measure change, na85, but the biggest real factor is "How much has changed?".

An election over Christmas would likely have a nearly identical result to the one in October, so what value would it have? None.

One in February would definitely differ somewhat from October, but if the GG guesses that it would not be enough of a change to alter the dynamic in the HOC, then she would still see no merit in going back to the polls.

The same applies at 6 months or 9 or any other time... has anything changed enough that going to the polls would yield a different, hopefully more workable, dynamic in the house? If the answer is no, then an election would be valueless. If the answer is yes, then it's time to break out the campaign signs.

By the end of 9 months, it's reasonable to assume that there has been some shift, even without being able to point to any events. (And before 6 months, that not much has changed, even if one can point to some events.)

The conventions for the most part just quantify common sense without absolutely binding.

We are still pre-6 months, and there is urgency to the nations business, so if the budget was to fail, the opposition would get a shot almost as a certainty, but once there's a budget, I'd say we've had more than enough change to justify an election, so any confidence issue after that would likely send us to the polls, 6 months or not. (IMO)

Edited January 31, 2009 by Molly

[Progressive Tory]

We are still pre-6 months, and there is urgency to the nations business, so if the budget was to fail, the opposition would get a shot almost as a certainty, but once there's a budget, I'd say we've had more than enough change to justify an election, so any confidence issue after that would likely send us to the polls, 6 months or not. (IMO)

I agree. I think we'll see an election before we see a Coalition gov't, especially since the leader of that Coalition gov't doesn't really want it. He'd prefer an election; probably more than the Conservatives right now. They've still got a lot of fence mending to do.

[Keepitsimple]

The media has always blathered about the GG being guided by convention, precedent, history.......but what I have never heard from the lazy journalists is the fact that our Fathers of Confederation could never have foreseen a party like the Bloc - at best a regional party with no concern for the rest of Canada but at worst, a party whose goal is to take Quebec out of Canada. That said, the actual coalition of the Liberals and NDP make up a paltry 114 seats - far less than the 144 held by the Conservatives. Clearly, this makes for the unstablist of governments and one that will continually owe a debt to the Bloc.....and make no mistake - they will demand their pound of flesh. Duceppe has clearly stated that he would support the Coalition for 18 months - as long as it was in the interests of Quebec. In light of all this, the reality is that the GG could never allow the Coalition to assume power given her mandate of choosing a stable government that would govern in the best interests of Canadians.

[Smallc]

That said, the actual coalition of the Liberals and NDP make up a paltry 114 seats - far less than the 144 held by the Conservatives.

That wouldn't matter. The Governor General would simply need to see that the coalition could command the confidence of the house....and in regards to what you say about the Bloc....every MP is supposed to be there to serve a certain regional interest. Its true, the Fathers of Confederation probably didn't have separatists in mind, but the fact is, we can't pick and choose whose opinions we allow and respect.

[Keepitsimple]

That wouldn't matter. The Governor General would simply need to see that the coalition could command the confidence of the house....and in regards to what you say about the Bloc....every MP is supposed to be there to serve a certain regional interest. Its true, the Fathers of Confederation probably didn't have separatists in mind, but the fact is, we can't pick and choose whose opinions we allow and respect.

....and that is where I respectfully disagree. I think that our Constitution has a spirit and intent that should always form the underpinning of any interpretation.....and that intent never included granting power or influence to a party whose intent is to take a province out of confederation. Your point that every MP serves a regional interest is accurate but is only relevant in the context of a national party. The Bloc is a party representing only one region - and therefore it's badly needed "support" for the Coalition will be self-serving and NOT in the best interests of Canada. Ensuring "stability" and the confidence of the house goes farther than just counting the number of number of MP's voting for or against; the GG has to make a judgement as to whether the Coalition would be governing in the best interests of Canada. The Bloc providing "support" for 18 months as long as everything is in the best interests of Quebec is a time bomb. The fact that they are not officially part of the Coalition should tell you something. The Bloc does not want to be perceived in Quebec as being part of the Canadian government. That is not stability.

Edited January 31, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Smallc]

and that intent never included granting power or influence to a party whose intent is to take a province out of confederation.

The Bloc already has both power and influence. It exists in the Commons, its rights are protected under the constitution, and we cant simply ignore it. The Bloc represents constituencies with just under 5 million people and their representatives have to be allowed a say, no matter if we like their underlying motives or not.

[g_bambino]

Legislation typically uses the term "Governor in council" to designate the Cabinet. The Cabinet often has authority to decide certain issues alone without reference to Parliament.

I fail to see why it's misleading; the "council" in "Governor-in-Council" refers, of course, to the Queen's Privy Council, not specifically to the Cabinet. And the Governor-in-Council can certainly decide some issues without reference to parliament; I don't believe I said anything to the contrary.

[g_bambino]

Its true, the Fathers of Confederation probably didn't have separatists in mind, but the fact is, we can't pick and choose whose opinions we allow and respect.

I'm not sure that they would be so unfamiliar with the idea of separatists sitting in the House of Commons. There were people opposed to the union of the four Canadian provinces in 1867 who, after Confederation, were elected to the commons and thereafter worked to dissolve the federation they were against before it happened. They may not have numbered as many as the Bloc, but their cause was similar, nonetheless.