Coalition and the BLOC

[Keepitsimple]

Back in 2008, there was talk of the Liberals and NDP forming a coalition with the "support" of the Bloc. The backlash from Canadians prevented the opposition from going to the Governor General to determine if such an arrangement was legal and whether in her opinion, it would result in a stable Parliament. I say "legal" from the perspective that the Liberals/NDP needed the Bloc's support - yet they were not part of the formal coalition. Assuming the next election ends with results similar to today, the Conservatives would outnumber the Liberal/NDP coalition 143 - 113 - clearly requiring the Bloc to be a major part of the Coalition. The "proposed" 2008 coalition did not include the Bloc - but the Bloc promised their support on money bills "as long as they were in Quebec's interest". Should any post election coalition be forced to include the Bloc and define exactly how the coalition would work?.....or is it acceptable to have the minority Liberal/NDP coalition run the country with the Bloc holding a veto over the money bills. How would the Governor General rule?

Edited June 7, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Shakeyhands]

well I can assure you she won't do Harper any favours this time round.

Interesting that Harper was willing to partner with the BQ, I mean his coalition proposal was "legal" right???

[Machjo]

I have a problem with saying that a coalition cannot be formed with a party that adheres to ideology X. First it will be separatists, then socialists, then liberals, and finally ze drem vil kum tru.

[Moonlight Graham]

The Bloc can suck it. So no.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Machjo]

The Bloc can suck it. So no.

Yup.. while we're at it, we could force MPs to undergo a purity test, whereby they'd have to answer a few questions about their beliefs, and if they don't meet certain criteria, the riding that voted for him get no MP.

[Keepitsimple]

I have a problem with saying that a coalition cannot be formed with a party that adheres to ideology X. First it will be separatists, then socialists, then liberals, and finally ze drem vil kum tru.

Then don't say it.

[ToadBrother]

Yup.. while we're at it, we could force MPs to undergo a purity test, whereby they'd have to answer a few questions about their beliefs, and if they don't meet certain criteria, the riding that voted for him get no MP.

1559 called and wants their Settlement back...

[bloodyminded]

1559 called and wants their Settlement back...

2004 called and wants this joke-formula back.

(Nice to hear from you, by the way, TB)

[ToadBrother]

Back in 2008, there was talk of the Liberals and NDP forming a coalition with the "support" of the Bloc. The backlash from Canadians prevented the opposition from going to the Governor General to determine if such an arrangement was legal and whether in her opinion, it would result in a stable Parliament. I say "legal" from the perspective that the Liberals/NDP needed the Bloc's support - yet they were not part of the formal coalition. Assuming the next election ends with results similar to today, the Conservatives would outnumber the Liberal/NDP coalition 143 - 113 - clearly requiring the Bloc to be a major part of the Coalition. The "proposed" 2008 coalition did not include the Bloc - but the Bloc promised their support on money bills "as long as they were in Quebec's interest". Should any post election coalition be forced to include the Bloc and define exactly how the coalition would work?.....or is it acceptable to have the minority Liberal/NDP coalition run the country with the Bloc holding a veto over the money bills. How would the Governor General rule?

I'll answer the last question first. The Governor General's job is not to determine which bloc of Parliamentarians who propose to form a government are the most ideologically pure. There's nothing in the constitution that bans the Bloc from being part of a government. If the Liberals and NDP formed a coalition with a commitment from the Bloc not to defeat them, then they could legitimately request that the GG give them a chance to govern (providing, of course, the Tories had either fallen due to a vote of no confidence or had lost so badly in the next election that Harper couldn't reasonably use his particular constitutional right to still claim the top-spot).

So far as I can tell, the reason the Coalition collapsed had nothing to do with popular support (after all, only seven or eight governments in the entire history of Confederation have ever enjoy 50%+ support at the polls). The reason it collapsed is because a fairly large minority of Liberals couldn't stomach Dion worming his way back into the leadership or a deal with the Bloc or even a deal with the NDP. In other words, external circumstances had little to do with the Coalition faltering and ultimately splitting up, which is the one reason I'm glad Harper did prorogue to evade the confidence motion (even though it's a terrible precedent).

The key issue about forming a government isn't ideological, and it certainly isn't about how popular the would-be government is. It's about being able to guarantee a stable, effective government. A Coalition that's splitting at the seams before it even has a chance to topple the current government and present itself to the GG is not what I'd define as a stable government. In the case of the UK, that was largely what killed the Labour-LibDem coalition. It required the support of a number of smaller regional parties (a couple outright separatist parties, sound familiar?) and would have been even less stable than the proposed Conservative-NDP-Bloc proposal put forward by Harper in 2006 and the proposed Liberal-NDP-sorta-Bloc proposal put together in 2008. In fact, the proposed Labour-LibDem coalition had an advantage over the Liberal-NDP-sorta-Bloc coalition in the fact that the sitting Prime Minister, even if he loses a lot of seats, still is given the first chance to form a new government, and even with that Brown knew the coalition he proposed would be far too vulnerable to internal dissent and couldn't last. He couldn't in any way go to the Queen and say "Yup, I can stay on."

At the end of the day, what we have now is what amounts to an unofficial Tory-Liberal coalition anyways. The Tories know they can't rely on the Bloc or the NDP, but they do know that the Liberals can be relied on, to a certain extent. We don't get the nice seamless coalition that the Tories and the LibDems in the UK have produced, but all they've done is shove the push-and-pull horsetrading and inevitable acrimony under the carpet and put a nice unified face on it all. We get to see the true picture of two parties pretty much locked together in a more open and honest light as both push each other's buttons, but never enough.

The other side to this is the notion that somehow the electorate wouldn't approve. As often as not an election isn't about electing a new government, it's about passing judgment on the old one. Who is to say, if the Coalition had managed to stay together, that it wouldn't be enjoying high polling numbers? I doubt it, but who knows. Since in our system no one really wins an election in and of itself, but rather manages to get enough seats (usually a majority) to make the argument to the GG that they can best form a government, elections are about rewarding or punishing the incumbent government. That being the case, the Coalition toppling the Tory government, no matter what people think of it at the time, can hardly be declared invalid because an Angus-Reid poll said "Most Canadians don't like this."

[Wild Bill]

The other side to this is the notion that somehow the electorate wouldn't approve. As often as not an election isn't about electing a new government, it's about passing judgment on the old one. Who is to say, if the Coalition had managed to stay together, that it wouldn't be enjoying high polling numbers? I doubt it, but who knows. Since in our system no one really wins an election in and of itself, but rather manages to get enough seats (usually a majority) to make the argument to the GG that they can best form a government, elections are about rewarding or punishing the incumbent government. That being the case, the Coalition toppling the Tory government, no matter what people think of it at the time, can hardly be declared invalid because an Angus-Reid poll said "Most Canadians don't like this."

Well, your argument satisfies the technicalities and legalities very well. However, any party would be a fool to rely only on those factors! What's the point of winning power for one term and then losing it for the next 3 or 4?

Any party strategist worth his salt is going to look at all the factors and decide if IN THE LONG TERM the consequences will be negative or positive! Essentially, your scenario is saying "We can legally take power today but we will likely lose the next several elections due to mainstream Canadian disapproval!"

Bet your boots TB that the Libs, NDP and even the Bloc have their own polls about this issue. They'd be fools if they didn't. If the polls said that Canadians would approve or at least not care the Opposition parties would have already formed their coalition!

I know myself that if any coalition of parties came to power that did NOT include the one party who won the most seats I would hold a grudge against those parties for a LONG, LONG time! Yes, and even ESPECIALLY if one was the Tory party!

The polls have consistently shown that there are at least enough other voters who feel as I do to make the opposition parties reluctant to go down that path.

[ToadBrother]

Well, your argument satisfies the technicalities and legalities very well. However, any party would be a fool to rely only on those factors! What's the point of winning power for one term and then losing it for the next 3 or 4?

Any party strategist worth his salt is going to look at all the factors and decide if IN THE LONG TERM the consequences will be negative or positive! Essentially, your scenario is saying "We can legally take power today but we will likely lose the next several elections due to mainstream Canadian disapproval!"

Bet your boots TB that the Libs, NDP and even the Bloc have their own polls about this issue. They'd be fools if they didn't. If the polls said that Canadians would approve or at least not care the Opposition parties would have already formed their coalition!

I know myself that if any coalition of parties came to power that did NOT include the one party who won the most seats I would hold a grudge against those parties for a LONG, LONG time! Yes, and even ESPECIALLY if one was the Tory party!

The polls have consistently shown that there are at least enough other voters who feel as I do to make the opposition parties reluctant to go down that path.

The issue I have with this is that it assumes that approval is a constant, that the bulk of those that disapprove (and it wasn't like it was 80% disapproval, I think at best in the low 60s, if memory serves) would continue to disapprove. Maybe you're right and maybe the Coalition could never have gained sufficient electoral support to live on. Mind you, even with a general satisfaction in the UK with the Cameron-Clegg Traveling Show at the moment, five years is a long time, even if that coalition can stay in one piece for the long haul.

I'm not arguing for the coalition. Quite the opposite, I thought it was an unwieldy beast. I'm saying that polls are moments in time, and the coalition didn't exist as an entity long enough to make many judgment calls. I think the NDP and the Bloc still want the coalition to come back to life, and generally they've become as hostile to Iggy as they are to Harper because they perceive Iggy (rightfully) as the chief obstacle to bringing the 2008 coalition back to life.

We can take some lessons from Britain. First and foremost, whatever the politicians were saying publicly, it's very clear that the electorate wanted a coalition, and, I think preferred a Tory-lead one to a Labour-lead coalition. Second of all, it showed that you have no business in the Westminster system of government openly discussing the matter until you're in a position to act upon it. I'm quite certain that LibDem ambassadors were talking to senior Conservative and Labour leaders in the days before the UK election, but it simply wasn't discussed openly, in part because however the coalition came together, obviously the parties would want as many seats as possible to bring to the table, and in part because it's just plain unseemly.

But I think the UK coalition is warming Canadian cockles:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20100608/poll-coalition-100608/

[fellowtraveller]

Before the GG 'ruled', there would have to be a vote of non confidence. In 2008, there wasn't one so comparing the OP scenario in the aftermath of an election does not apply directly.

I expect she would do the same as she did last time- be very reluctant to give any coalition power by fiat what they had just failed to achieve via the ballot.

Her duty is to look after the best interests of canada, and in 2008 her choices were to let the coalition take over, let Harper call another election or to do what she did- prorogue and let it cool off a bit. I doubt hten or now the certainty of having a separatist party in the coalition would make any difference.

If the colaiton wnats to take power, they need to do it ASAP, before any election. If they ran on the basis of forming a coalition after an election, they'd hand Harper an easy majority and likely kill the Liberal Party permanently.

Ignatieff recognized this risk, which is why he fled screaming from the last one.

[wyly]

Well, your argument satisfies the technicalities and legalities very well. However, any party would be a fool to rely only on those factors! What's the point of winning power for one term and then losing it for the next 3 or 4?

Any party strategist worth his salt is going to look at all the factors and decide if IN THE LONG TERM the consequences will be negative or positive! Essentially, your scenario is saying "We can legally take power today but we will likely lose the next several elections due to mainstream Canadian disapproval!"

Bet your boots TB that the Libs, NDP and even the Bloc have their own polls about this issue. They'd be fools if they didn't. If the polls said that Canadians would approve or at least not care the Opposition parties would have already formed their coalition!

I know myself that if any coalition of parties came to power that did NOT include the one party who won the most seats I would hold a grudge against those parties for a LONG, LONG time! Yes, and even ESPECIALLY if one was the Tory party!

The polls have consistently shown that there are at least enough other voters who feel as I do to make the opposition parties reluctant to go down that path.

don't we have a coalition party in office now? reformers and PC's

and talk of the Bloc being in government will never happen doing so destroys their credibility with their own voters Duceppe has said it will not happen, doing so would be contrary to their goal of not being part of Canada...

the Bloc may support a government of any coalition if it has a common interest with a coalition...

[wyly]

If the colaiton wnats to take power, they need to do it ASAP, before any election. If they ran on the basis of forming a coalition after an election, they'd hand Harper an easy majority and likely kill the Liberal Party permanently.

Ignatieff recognized this risk, which is why he fled screaming from the last one.

no party anywhere runs on a basis of being part of a coalition they all run to be the sole governing party...the idea that they must declare this beforehand is tory misinformation trying to frame the debate in Canadians minds as what is legal and what is not...

[ToadBrother]

Before the GG 'ruled', there would have to be a vote of non confidence. In 2008, there wasn't one so comparing the OP scenario in the aftermath of an election does not apply directly.

I expect she would do the same as she did last time- be very reluctant to give any coalition power by fiat what they had just failed to achieve via the ballot.

Her duty is to look after the best interests of canada, and in 2008 her choices were to let the coalition take over, let Harper call another election or to do what she did- prorogue and let it cool off a bit. I doubt hten or now the certainty of having a separatist party in the coalition would make any difference.

That's a complete misinterpretation of the events of November and December 2008. The GG never showed any reluctance. She did what was constitutionally required of her, and that was to act upon the advice of the Prime Minister. If the Government had been toppled and Dion had gone to Rideau Hall and said "I can lead a coalition government", the odds are very great that the GG would have asked him to form a government. Remember, in our system, neither the electorate or the Queen/GG picks governments, Parliament does. For the GG to refuse Dion the chance to form a government would itself come pretty damned close to creating a constitutional crisis.

If the colaiton wnats to take power, they need to do it ASAP, before any election. If they ran on the basis of forming a coalition after an election, they'd hand Harper an easy majority and likely kill the Liberal Party permanently.

Ignatieff recognized this risk, which is why he fled screaming from the last one.

I'm not in agreement with the doomsday proposal, but I think trying to win an election on the basis of "We'll hop in bed with Layton" would be ludicrous. However, if the Liberals were able to overtake the Conservatives in the election, and decided on some sort of a coalition agreement with the NDP, I think they could probably make it fly. Whatever they do, repeating the amateurish stunt of 2008 (largely inspired by an equally amateurish stunt by Harper in 2006), should be a no-go. A government that still has the confidence of Parliament has an enormous amount of power to interfere with any attempt to unseat it. Once a government has lost confidence, the only power it has is the caretaker powers afforded to it while the GG decides how best to give Canada a new government.

[wyly]

Whatever they do, repeating the amateurish stunt of 2008 (largely inspired by an equally amateurish stunt by Harper in 2006), should be a no-go. A government that still has the confidence of Parliament has an enormous amount of power to interfere with any attempt to unseat it. Once a government has lost confidence, the only power it has is the caretaker powers afforded to it while the GG decides how best to give Canada a new government.

I disagree it was no stunt...if the government loses confidence it's perfectly acceptable for a coalition to step up to the plate and offer to govern...it was acceptable when Harper tried it and it was equally acceptable when the Liberals and NDP attempted it...

[fellowtraveller]

no party anywhere runs on a basis of being part of a coalition they all run to be the sole governing party...the idea that they must declare this beforehand is tory misinformation trying to frame the debate in Canadians minds as what is legal and what is not...

Yet there has been plenty of discussion in the last couple of weeks about the CBC poll that asks that question about col;aitions, various combos and who would elad them?

The top choice was Libs plus NDP led by Layton, with a high approval rating.

it was acceptable when Harper tried it and it was equally acceptable when the Liberals and NDP attempted it...

You forgot to add the Bloc to the Lib/NDP colaition. I know that is a sore point with you, but you cannot make all those pictures of the three of them sdhaking hands and smiling go away.

I agree though that constituionally, their actions were perfectly legal. So were the actions of Harper soon after.

[wyly]

Yet there has been plenty of discussion in the last couple of weeks about the CBC poll that asks that question about col;aitions, various combos and who would elad them?

The top choice was Libs plus NDP led by Layton, with a high approval rating.

You forgot to add the Bloc to the Lib/NDP colaition. I know that is a sore point with you, but you cannot make all those pictures of the three of them sdhaking hands and smiling go away.

I agree though that constituionally, their actions were perfectly legal. So were the actions of Harper soon after.

the Bloc agreed to support the coalition but was not part of it, if I'm wrong please show me...Harper also approached the Bloc for support at his attempt at a coalition...

coalitions were always part of our systems checks and balances, what Harper did to avoid it was wrong in the spirit of our democracy using prorogation to avoid a confidence vote...

[fellowtraveller]

That's a complete misinterpretation of the events of November and December 2008. The GG never showed any reluctance. She did what was constitutionally required of her, and that was to act upon the advice of the Prime Minister. If the Government had been toppled and Dion had gone to Rideau Hall and said "I can lead a coalition government", the odds are very great that the GG would have asked him to form a government. Remember, in our system, neither the electorate or the Queen/GG picks governments, Parliament does. For the GG to refuse Dion the chance to form a government would itself come pretty damned close to creating a constitutional crisis.

Wrong.

The GG has NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT WHATSOEVER to take or act upon the advice of the Prime Minister. It is certainly the custom and tradition, but she has no requirement whatsover.

Your "if' has no constituional relevance, the events did not occur and she had no decsion to make on what the Coalitioon might want or not want. But she coulod see wahy was on the immediate horizxon from both sides, and did not like any of it.

Madam Jean had the three options, and Harper came a courting trying to sell the one he wanted most at that time- dissolve and run an election. He wanted that because the polls clearly showed the Coalition was massively rejected by the electorate, and he would gain a majority. She wasn't buyiong that, for two reasons - there was no non confidence vote(constituional basis) yet, and there had just been an election a few weeks prior, where Harper had won a mear majority.

She of course could not simply award govt status to the Coalition in the abscence of a vote in the House, and despite the protestaions of the Coalition that the country was on the verge of economic collapse, a claim which was a transparent pretext and which has been proven to be false.

I agree that IF Dion and Ducppe and Layton has presented themselves to her AFTER a vote, she would have likely been obliged to acknowledge them as such. But that never happened, because she took a third route- prorogation, buying time.

That was certainly not Harpers first choice, but it was better than the alternative of a confidence vote he would lose.

And I would bet money that many in the LIberal Party and especially Ignatieff recognized the massive political bullet he personally and the Liberals collectiveloy dodged. They be annihilated at the earliest opportunity. Note that Dion was gone with unseemly haste as leader immediately after the cnfidence vite died and prorogation ensued. That was no coincidence.

But none of that happened.

She did not like the postion of either side or the horrific acrimony.

[ToadBrother]

I disagree it was no stunt...if the government loses confidence it's perfectly acceptable for a coalition to step up to the plate and offer to govern...it was acceptable when Harper tried it and it was equally acceptable when the Liberals and NDP attempted it...

I think you need to reread what I wrote.

Essentially it boils down to this. If you give the government advance warning that you're going to unseat them and then offer yourself up to the Governor General as a new government, you're basically like the guy in a poker game that goes "Wow! Four Aces!"

By giving Harper the heads up, they gave him time to come up with a way to stave it off. The appropriate thing to do is to keep any negotiations very quiet, then topple the government, and at that point you can go to Rideau Hall and seek the GG's permission to form a government.

Both 2006 and 2008 stunts were amateurish because they ignored the most key aspect of our system of government, and that is that the government has the ear of the Governor General as long as it has the confidence of Parliament. There is simply no established means for any or all Opposition parties to sidestep the government and present themselves to the GG.

[Jack Weber]

I think you need to reread what I wrote.

Essentially it boils down to this. If you give the government advance warning that you're going to unseat them and then offer yourself up to the Governor General as a new government, you're basically like the guy in a poker game that goes "Wow! Four Aces!"

By giving Harper the heads up, they gave him time to come up with a way to stave it off. The appropriate thing to do is to keep any negotiations very quiet, then topple the government, and at that point you can go to Rideau Hall and seek the GG's permission to form a government.

Both 2006 and 2008 stunts were amateurish because they ignored the most key aspect of our system of government, and that is that the government has the ear of the Governor General as long as it has the confidence of Parliament. There is simply no established means for any or all Opposition parties to sidestep the government and present themselves to the GG.

I suppose the only problem with that is if it is really done on the QT,the optics look as if it's a nefarious plot to overthrow an elected government,even if it's legal?

[ToadBrother]

Wrong.

The GG has NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT WHATSOEVER to take or act upon the advice of the Prime Minister. It is certainly the custom and tradition, but she has no requirement whatsover.

Wha??? What the hell are you talking about? The Sovereign has been constitutionally required to act on the advice of government since the Glorious Revolution. You need to pick up a book on constitutional history. Charles I thought like you did, and lost his head. James II thought like you did, and lost his throne to his daughter and son-in-law.

The Bill of Rights 1689 removes the Sovereign's powers (and by extension His or Her Vice-regals) to unilaterally act save in a very limited number of exceptional circumstances.

Your "if' has no constituional relevance,

Of course it does. It's the foundational aspect of our system, the very reason that a Civil War was fought and a sovereign beheaded. Parliament is supreme.

the events did not occur and she had no decsion to make on what the Coalitioon might want or not want. But she coulod see wahy was on the immediate horizxon from both sides, and did not like any of it.

She had no choice but to follow the advice of the Prime Minister. One might argue that she could have invoked the Queen's Reserve Powers and refused the advice of a sitting Prime Minister who still had the confidence of Parliament, but do you know how many times that has actually happened in the last hundred years? Twice; the King-Byng Affair and the Australian Constitutional Crisis. In both cases they created serious constitutional crises. The Reserve Powers are only to be invoked in the most serious occasions. To defy the advice of Her Majesty's Prime Minister is that rare (and in the case of the Australian Constitutional Crisis, it's generally agreed that Kerr overstepped and really had no business dismissing Whitlam).

Madam Jean had the three options, and Harper came a courting trying to sell the one he wanted most at that time- dissolve and run an election. He wanted that because the polls clearly showed the Coalition was massively rejected by the electorate, and he would gain a majority. She wasn't buyiong that, for two reasons - there was no non confidence vote(constituional basis) yet, and there had just been an election a few weeks prior, where Harper had won a mear majority.

She of course could not simply award govt status to the Coalition in the abscence of a vote in the House, and despite the protestaions of the Coalition that the country was on the verge of economic collapse, a claim which was a transparent pretext and which has been proven to be false.

I agree that IF Dion and Ducppe and Layton has presented themselves to her AFTER a vote, she would have likely been obliged to acknowledge them as such. But that never happened, because she took a third route- prorogation, buying time.

That was certainly not Harpers first choice, but it was better than the alternative of a confidence vote he would lose.

And I would bet money that many in the LIberal Party and especially Ignatieff recognized the massive political bullet he personally and the Liberals collectiveloy dodged. They be annihilated at the earliest opportunity. Note that Dion was gone with unseemly haste as leader immediately after the cnfidence vite died and prorogation ensued. That was no coincidence.

But none of that happened.

She did not like the postion of either side or the horrific acrimony.

You're making this all up, I'm afraid. You have no idea what the PM and the GG said, because it's never been published, and if we ever know at all, it will be a goodly long distance. You spin a tale that is in part fabrication and in part a demonstration of your own ignorance of our system of government.

Harper very clearly went there to ask for a prorogation, an unheard of step... almost. An informative event, though not an identical situation happened in 1873 when Sir John A. Macdonald asked the Governor General, Lord Dufferin to prorogue Parliament to avoid censure over the Pacific Scandal. Dufferin agonized over this, ultimately even writing the British secretary of state for the colonies, Lord Kimberley, who basically through it back in his lap. In the end Dufferin obeyed the constitutional rule that has governed our system since 1689, and did as Macdonald asked (not that it did Sir John A. any good).

It is, my friend, these events that inform later ones. You can be sure that the GG received the advice of constitutional experts, and the decision of one of her own predecessors would have been an important fact in informing her own decision. The one thing we can be clear of is that you have no idea what the Governor General was thinking, what conditions (if any) she placed on the Prime Minister, and we certainly can be clear that you are incredibly ignorant of the constitutional settlement that paved the way for the Parliamentary supremacy that governs our country to this day.

[ToadBrother]

I suppose the only problem with that is if it is really done on the QT,the optics look as if it's a nefarious plot to overthrow an elected government,even if it's legal?

That's certainly how the Tories tried to spin it. To my mind, the few instances in modern times of governments in the Westminster system being replaced after a vote of no confidence or of intervention by the GG have demonstrated it isn't a good recipe for a stable government. The reality is that, in most Westminster countries, the experience with coalitions of any kind is relatively rare. The Tory-LibDem coalition in the UK may end up being the most successful example since the National Governments in the UK in the 1930s and during WWII... or not. What it has done, I think, has demonstrated the fundamental lie behind the Tory anti-coalition propaganda in 2008, which is why I suspect you're now seeing better polling numbers for some sort of coalition. It's ironic that our former colonial master may still be able to wield some substantial influence over our government even now.

[Keepitsimple]

I agree that it is legal for the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc to form a coalition. I'm still not so sure about the original format of the Bloc simply supporting a Liberal/NDP coalition as long as the money bills were "in the best interest of Quebec". While the GG traditionally takes advice from the sitting PM, I don't think she is beholding to simply take advice from the non-plurality party (i.e. The Liberals). I would think in such a case, the GG may be called upon to use judgement as to whether such a fragile coalition could ever work due to the unknown participation of the Bloc ("in the best interest of Quebec" can easily translate to blackmail).

But those are legal arguments. The practical side - as Wild Bill said - is that any coalition that includes the Bloc - and subsequently bows to the Bloc's demands (which will come without fail) - would surely pay the price for many years and may be the death knell for the Liberals. How sad that the Libs have to even consider such a move.

[ToadBrother]

I agree that it is legal for the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc to form a coalition. I'm still not so sure about the original format of the Bloc simply supporting a Liberal/NDP coalition as long as the money bills were "in the best interest of Quebec". While the GG traditionally takes advice from the sitting PM, I don't think she is beholding to simply take advice from the non-plurality party (i.e. The Liberals). I would think in such a case, the GG may be called upon to use judgement as to whether such a fragile coalition could ever work due to the unknown participation of the Bloc ("in the best interest of Quebec" can easily translate to blackmail).

Let's say the 2006 or 2008 attempts at a coalition with the Bloc in a supporting role had succeeded, and the government had fallen in a confidence vote. While in theory the GG has the choice to either call a new election or ask someone else to form a government, in reality the principle that Parliament picks the government almost always stands. If Parliament puts forward another party or coalition of parties that can form a government, it would be an extremely dangerous course not to give them the chance. The GG does not have the latitude you seem to think she does in this regard. There are sufficient precedents of parties with less seats than the defeated government forming a new government, even where there is no formalized coalition that I don't see how the GG could reasonably refuse Parliament in this regard.

But those are legal arguments. The practical side - as Wild Bill said - is that any coalition that includes the Bloc - and subsequently bows to the Bloc's demands (which will come without fail) - would surely pay the price for many years and may be the death knell for the Liberals. How sad that the Libs have to even consider such a move.

And yet the last six years have had plenty of bowing to Bloc demands. At the moment a peculiar and unsteady status quo has been reached whereby the Liberals basically form an unofficial, and very discontented, junior partner, but prior to that, the Bloc wielded considerable influence.

The fact of the matter is that whether we're in a formal coalition or in a vote-by-vote coalition, both the Liberals under Martin and the Tories under Harper have had to hold their nose at times to seek Bloc support. Again, Canadians don't elect governments, they elect Parliament, and Parliament, one way or the other, has to make it work, or fold up and try an election. The election route has proven very futile in dislodging the Bloc, so whether anyone likes it or not, the Bloc is a major force in Parliament.