Who Is In Charge?

[Argus]

You have a link to back this up?

WWWTT

Honestly, this is so fundamental a part of how our government works that if you don't know this you have no business even trying to discuss politics.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Seriously.....people don't know how the government works in Canada, but are experts on the U.S. ? Too funny !

Certain people. Most of us are well aware of how government works.

[cybercoma]

No I don't need a link, but you do if you want to back up your claim.

Parliament has been dissolved.

Therefore all those sitting in the lower house are no longer an MP and lose their titles.

We still have the upper house and they are now the sitting members of parliament whom direct the country.

WWWTT

Not to be insulting, but you need to brush up on how our government functions. The executive is still the executive until a new one is appointed by the governor general. The election does not dissolve cabinet. Stephen Harper is still the Prime Minister, until a new one is appointed.

[cybercoma]

Also, WWWTT, neither the Prime Minister nor any of the cabinet ministers are required to be members of parliament. They are by tradition and a Prime Minister who doesn't have a seat traditionally runs in the next byelection. However, there is nothing that requires them to be MPs.

[PIK]

I wonder if people realize that the 8 day tour of mulcair to campaign in southern ONT is paid for by us and trudeaus campaign trip out west was paid for by us. When the writ is dropped then the parties have to pay.

[The_Squid]

I wonder if people realize that the 8 day tour of mulcair to campaign in southern ONT is paid for by us and trudeaus campaign trip out west was paid for by us. When the writ is dropped then the parties have to pay.

Harper pays for everything on his own dime then?

[Big Guy]

So the un-cited consensus is that the old government is still in charge. We have 4 months to go before the election. So if something goes terribly wrong in the Middle East or a major terrorist attack happens in Canada then Harper will just unilaterally call out the troops or call a Cabinet meeting to do that.

How about if a week before the election, things are not going too well for the Conservatives then Harper calls parliament to sessions and releases $billions in "recession proofing".

At what point will (could) our military take "emergency measures" without having to consult a parliament?

If this same government is still in charge then what can (cannot) it do after a writ is dropped and an election campaign is taking place?

Remember that the GG (not an elected official) is our military Commander-in-Chief.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Big Guy

[On Guard for Thee]

So the un-cited consensus is that the old government is still in charge. We have 4 months to go before the election. So if something goes terribly wrong in the Middle East or a major terrorist attack happens in Canada then Harper will just unilaterally call out the troops or call a Cabinet meeting to do that.

How about if a week before the election, things are not going too well for the Conservatives then Harper calls parliament to sessions and releases $billions in "recession proofing".

At what point will (could) our military take "emergency measures" without having to consult a parliament?

If this same government is still in charge then what can (cannot) it do after a writ is dropped and an election campaign is taking place?

Remember that the GG (not an elected official) is our military Commander-in-Chief.

As has already been pointed out, the troops can be called out without parliament. Been that way for almost ever. An order in council is sufficient. Once the writs are dropped, ay bills, spending or otherwise "die" on the order paper. Those bills ca be reintroduced when the new gov. is formed, should they choose to do so. And BTW, it's 70 some days, not 4 months.

[Bryan]

So the un-cited consensus is that the old government is still in charge. We have 4 months to go before the election. So if something goes terribly wrong in the Middle East or a major terrorist attack happens in Canada then Harper will just unilaterally call out the troops or call a Cabinet meeting to do that.

Yes.

How about if a week before the election, things are not going too well for the Conservatives then Harper calls parliament to sessions and releases $billions in "recession proofing".

Seriously bad optics, but yes, he could do that.

At what point will (could) our military take "emergency measures" without having to consult a parliament?

The military never consults parliament. Opposition leaders may (or may not) be briefed on any deployments, but the house has no say. The PM sends them.

If this same government is still in charge then what can (cannot) it do after a writ is dropped and an election campaign is taking place?

Anything it could (or could not) do before. They are still the government, nothing has changed in that respect.

Remember that the GG (not an elected official) is our military Commander-in-Chief.

Technically. In practice, he does what he’s “advised” by the PM.

[WWWTT]

Also, WWWTT, neither the Prime Minister nor any of the cabinet ministers are required to be members of parliament. They are by tradition and a Prime Minister who doesn't have a seat traditionally runs in the next byelection. However, there is nothing that requires them to be MPs.

Back up you CLAIM with a link please.

Until then, your opinion has been noted.

Thank you!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Honestly, this is so fundamental a part of how our government works that if you don't know this you have no business even trying to discuss politics.

Thank you for your OPINION!

Please post a link to support your opinion.

Thanks in advance!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

So the un-cited consensus is that the old government is still in charge.

According to some members here, Canada is run by "consensus". No need to have anything in writing here, if Canada were to face some type of God forbidden peril, all Canada needs is about 4 posters from MLW to simultaneously agree, and we're good to go!

Obviously these posters have been scratching their freekin heads desperately looking for a link on this subject, come up empty handed, then decided to make insulting comments towards other posters who are only asking legitimate questions.

Poor debate tactic!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Deleted!

Edited August 4, 2015 by WWWTT

[The_Squid]

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=convention&doc=convention-eng.htm

In Canada’s Westminster form of government, convention requires that the Government command the confidence of the House of Commons at all times. While constitutionally a government retains full legal authority to govern during an election, as well as the responsibility to ensure that necessary government activity continues, it is expected to exercise restraint in its actions. This is often referred to as the “caretaker convention”. The rationale is that, following dissolution, there is no elected chamber to which the Government can be held accountable, and the Government cannot assume that it will command confidence in the next Parliament.

The conventional restriction limiting the extent to which the Government should exercise its authority applies whether it has lost a vote of confidence in the House, whether the Prime Minister has asked for dissolution on his or her own initiative, or whether Parliament has been dissolved in advance of an election date set by legislation. It also applies to the outgoing government during any post-election transition to a successor government. This caretaker period begins when the Government has lost a vote of non-confidence or Parliament has been dissolved. It ends when a new government is sworn in, or when an election result returning an incumbent government is clear.

This does not mean that government is barred from making decisions or announcements, or otherwise taking action, during the caretaker period. It can and should do so where the matter is routine and necessary for the conduct of government business, or where it is urgent and in the public interest – for example, responding to a natural disaster. In certain cases where a major decision is unavoidable during a campaign (e.g., due to an international obligation or an emergency), consultation with the opposition parties may be appropriate, particularly where a major decision could be controversial or difficult for a new government to reverse.

In short, during an election, a government should restrict itself – in matters of policy, expenditure and appointments – to activity that is:

1. (a) routine, or
2. (b ) non-controversial, or
3. (c ) urgent and in the public interest, or
4. (d) reversible by a new government without undue cost or disruption, or
5. (e) agreed to by opposition parties (in those cases where consultation is appropriate).

In determining what activity is necessary for continued good government, the Government must inevitably exercise judgement, weighing the need for action and potential public reaction, given the absence of a confidence chamber and the possibility that a different government could be elected.

Edited August 4, 2015 by The_Squid

[Smallc]

Back up you CLAIM with a link please.

Until then, your opinion has been noted.

Thank you!

WWWTT

This is simple stuff. Any person who commands the confidence of the House of Commons can theoretically be the Prime Minister. It doesn't even need to be a Canadian. There is no qualifier for the position.

[The_Squid]

This is simple stuff. Any person who commands the confidence of the House of Commons can theoretically be the Prime Minister. It doesn't even need to be a Canadian. There is no qualifier for the position.

We have had 2 PMs who were Senators and 1 that didn't serve in parliament who was briefly PM... the rest were all MPs and leaders of their party. Although a couple PMs who were appointed didn't hold office until they won a by-election...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada#Qualifications_and_selection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada

Edited August 4, 2015 by The_Squid

[Smallc]

We have had 2 PMs who were Senators... the rest were all MPs and leaders of their party.

That is the normal way things work, yes, but there is actually no limit on who can be PM, as the position is not outlined anywhere in law or in the Constitution. It could, theoretically, be a child.

[The_Squid]

That is the normal way things work, yes, but there is actually no limit on who can be PM, as the position is not outlined anywhere in law or in the Constitution. It could, theoretically, be a child.

I added to my post and included Wiki articles.

It's odd how many things are done by convention in our parliamentary system...

[Derek 2.0]

GG and the senate.

But that can change with some evidence.

A link is necessary here.

WWWTT

So you feel our Head of State is now also the Head of the Government...............Charles and Cromwell fought an uncivil war over such a case.

Do you have a link to support why it is you believe this?

[cybercoma]

Seriously, WWWTT, I'm surprised you didn't go and look this stuff up yourself instead of coming back here and being confrontational. This is common knowledge stuff. Why should I go and do research for you on something that you should already know?

[cybercoma]

That is the normal way things work, yes, but there is actually no limit on who can be PM, as the position is not outlined anywhere in law or in the Constitution. It could, theoretically, be a child.

It could be a monkey in a Fez hat, playing cymbals, if the monkey had the confidence of the House.

[WWWTT]

Seriously, WWWTT, I'm surprised you didn't go and look this stuff up yourself instead of coming back here and being confrontational. This is common knowledge stuff. Why should I go and do research for you on something that you should already know?

You made the claim that there are no requirements to be an MP.

Now an MP can be an senator where all the requirement is to be appointed by the GG.

The other MP would be a sitting member of the lower house where one must be ELECTED!

Being elected is an requirement!

Lower house of parliament is now dissolved.

Squid provided some helpful links. You failed to do so because they do not fit any of your claims. That simple bro.

You think you can start moving the goal posts around and make this a debate about who can be appointed PM now? Is this your debate tactic now that you failed to address the ACTUAL THREAD YOU ARE DEBATING IN?

WWWTT

Edited August 5, 2015 by WWWTT

[cybercoma]

You made the claim that there are no requirements to be an MP.

I never made that claim at all.

Now an MP can be an senator where all the requirement is to be appointed by the GG.

Uh, an MP can't be a senator without giving up their seat in the House of Commons.

The other MP would be a sitting member of the lower house where one must be ELECTED!

Being elected is an requirement!

Being elected is a requirement to being an MP. Yes. You're absolutely right. Being an MP is not a requirement to be the Prime Minister. We've had more than one in our history who didn't hold a seat when they were appointed by the Governor General.

Lower house of parliament is now dissolved.

Squid provided some helpful links. You failed to do so because they do not fit any of your claims. That simple bro.

If your post here is evidence of your understanding of my "claims" then you might want to have someone re-read them to you–slowly if necessary.

You think you can start moving the goal posts around and make this a debate about who can be appointed PM now? Is this your debate tactic now that you failed to address the ACTUAL THREAD YOU ARE DEBATING IN?

WWWTT

I addressed your completely stupid assertion that we no longer have a functioning government because an election was called. Perhaps you didn't take a fourth grade civics class or something. I don't know. But don't start throwing one of your tantrums now because you made yourself look like a tool. If you really needed to know the answer so badly, this website actually explains it on the main page. You don't even have to look far for it. Edited August 5, 2015 by cybercoma

[blueblood]

It could be a monkey in a Fez hat, playing cymbals, if the monkey had the confidence of the House.

Said monkey would probably be better than the whole lot running in the election as mps/party leaders lmao!!

[blueblood]

Also of note is to look at what happened to chretien. Paul martin had the confidence of the house for all intents and purposes and chretien had to throw in the towel. The MPs at the end of the day determine who is prime minister.