Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.

[Molly]

JBG and Peter F.... you both seem to be missing the point of what a coalition IS. (It's not the first one in Canadian governments, by a long shot. This shouldn't be a difficult concept.)

One party is not bound to support legislation of another, and neither is supporting legislation merely inspired by themselves. BOTH are at the table, functioning, for that time, as a single party. They would be 'bound to support' legislation of their OWN construction. Both provide cabinet members; both caucuses participate.

The Bloc deal was a side agreement, for support on confidence issues, and not participation in the coalition.

The NDP under Romanow formed a coalition with the Liberal party in Saskatchewan a few years ago. It was not just an offering of confidence in the NDP. The entire Liberal caucus was in cabinet. JBG, the suggestion that the smaller party members would prefer they remained a rump in opposition leans to the notion that this is a team sport, rather than governance. The ideas and policies can be far, far, far more effectively expressed from cabinet than from a distant outpost on the opposition benches.

[jbg]

And you are correct. there was and election in 1911 and the next in 1917. I have no idea why that was so.

I would have to assume WW I.

and what, pray, would compel the parties involved to honour the agreement if they felt the agreement was no longer what they thought it was? The could back out at any time they liked.

Does the agreement have penalty provisions? I don't know.

of course they do -yet many do things that induce party leaders to not sign their nomination papers. Quite a regular occurence actually.

Forcing an election against the will of the party leader would certainly help in not getting those papers signed.

not at all. Conservatives 143 seats; Liberals 77; BQ 49; NDP 37. You do the math - apparently Harper forgot to.

Again, Why do you suppose Harper sought prorogation and not another election?

The GG's options were:

1. Drop the writ;
   
2. Find a way to give everyone time to cool off for a spell;or
   
3. Allow coalition
   

Given the cost of another election and the timing, I don't think the GG would have dropped the writ. As far as the coalition, there is at least a respectable point of view that I'm correct and constitutionally it would have amounted to sanctioning a coup. Maybe I'm wrong but this was certainly a valid question. An election would probably have been best but there isn't a snowball's chance the GG would have wanted two (2) elections in less than six (6) months.

[jbg]

JBG and Peter F.... you both seem to be missing the point of what a coalition IS. (It's not the first one in Canadian governments, by a long shot. This shouldn't be a difficult concept.)

The "Borden" or "conscription" coalition was the only prior Canadian federal coalition I am aware of.

One party is not bound to support legislation of another, and neither is supporting legislation merely inspired by themselves. BOTH are at the table, functioning, for that time, as a single party. They would be 'bound to support' legislation of their OWN construction. Both provide cabinet members; both caucuses participate.

If both are at the table functioning as a single party then they are bound to support each other's legislation. Unless you can explain why they wouldn't be.

The Bloc deal was a side agreement, for support on confidence issues, and not participation in the coalition.

Without the Bloc they could not have assured the GG of being able to form a "stable" government. Thus for all intents and purposes they were part of the Coalition. How would their largely separatist members felt about condominium with "Captain Canada" at the helm?

The NDP under Romanow formed a coalition with the Liberal party in Saskatchewan a few years ago. It was not just an offering of confidence in the NDP. The entire Liberal caucus was in cabinet.

Provincial politics is quite different and from what you're saying there weren't many Liberals to begin.

JBG, the suggestion that the smaller party members would prefer they remained a rump in opposition leans to the notion that this is a team sport, rather than governance. The ideas and policies can be far, far, far more effectively expressed from cabinet than from a distant outpost on the opposition benches.

I'd tend to agree normally but the parties involved, the NDP and the Bloc, are by their nature ideological rather than "big tent" parties. Different considerations apply.

[Molly]

"Does the agreement have penalty provisions? I don't know. "

Dissolution. The same penalty that applies to single party governments who are rife enough with internal disagreement to lose the confidence of the majority. NOT, NOT, NOT a 'coup', but the expression of the wishes of the majority of parliamentarians. Parliament is just plain NOT a republican enterprise, JBG. There is no ballot for 'prime minister', nor for preferred party. We elect representatives, JBG, not governments.

A new election, without some reason to believe that the outcome would change, would be an asinine waste of time, money and effort. Not only was it not 'the best', but should rightly be placed as the third priority option. Both other options would, and should, be tried first.

[Molly]

The 'conscription' coalition IS the only previous federal coalition government- as in: formed temporarily, post election, in order to govern- but then, there's only been 11 minority governments, and coalitions are a fairly extreme way of dealing with minorities. During off-hours, though, parties in Canada have been very good at joining forces, dissolving and rejoining some other party in order to realize an election victory. Just look at the historic party names: Unionist;Liberal-Progressive; Progressive Conservative; CCF-NDP; Alliance, and now Conservative all over again..... all are coalitions.

Coalition is very different from a commitment by one to provide temporary support to another. It's the difference between taking part in the decision-making, and not. It's the difference between forming a partnership with someone vs. hiring, or contracting their labour. It's not a small distinction.

It is the distinction between the Liberal/NDP coalition and the Bloc side deal. The Bloc took, and wanted no management role-- neither it's priveleges, nor it's responsibilities. It doesn't matter a jot to me which of those roles they had chosen-- I would have welcomed their participation in governance-- but it is a matter of FACT. If we are confusing a willingness to provide limited support with entering into coalition, then there have been 11 'coalition government' in Canada, including a Liberal/Conservative coalition in the last parliament, and not just that single one.

Your assertion that 'provincial politics is quite different' is simply false. In every parameter that matters, provincial governments operate identically to federal ones, right down to having a Lieutenant Governor to call the shots when the politicians can't get their acts together. And Saskatchewan is only the most recent, not the sole provincial coalition government to use for illustration.

Expand, if you will, on why you see ideology, rather than 'big tent' politics changing the realtive ease with which influence can be wielded outside caucus rather than in it. I don't follow.

[neutralguy]

Sadly people choose to believe what they want. It was pretty clear that the BLOC had no say on policy.

JBG and Peter F.... you both seem to be missing the point of what a coalition IS. (It's not the first one in Canadian governments, by a long shot. This shouldn't be a difficult concept.)

One party is not bound to support legislation of another, and neither is supporting legislation merely inspired by themselves. BOTH are at the table, functioning, for that time, as a single party. They would be 'bound to support' legislation of their OWN construction. Both provide cabinet members; both caucuses participate.

The Bloc deal was a side agreement, for support on confidence issues, and not participation in the coalition.

The NDP under Romanow formed a coalition with the Liberal party in Saskatchewan a few years ago. It was not just an offering of confidence in the NDP. The entire Liberal caucus was in cabinet. JBG, the suggestion that the smaller party members would prefer they remained a rump in opposition leans to the notion that this is a team sport, rather than governance. The ideas and policies can be far, far, far more effectively expressed from cabinet than from a distant outpost on the opposition benches.

[Alta4ever]

Sadly people choose to believe what they want. It was pretty clear that the BLOC had no say on policy.

Really no say, you say.....Why would they have signed the document, why would they want senators appointed, how could they not have a veto as their vote along with one or two conservatives against a bill would defeat it. The Bloc had a backroom say, otherwise why enter and sign the coalition document?

[jbg]

Really no say, you say.....Why would they have signed the document, why would they want senators appointed, how could they not have a veto as their vote along with one or two conservatives against a bill would defeat it. The Bloc had a backroom say, otherwise why enter and sign the coalition document?

The Bloc would have had plenty to say. As Progressive Tory so ably points out, they knew enough to harpoon the government once, in 2005, and to maintain a drumbeat of threats to do so, through 2004, 2005 and again in 2008.

Edited March 12, 2009 by jbg