[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Onward, brave politicians (click to view)
Date: March 25, 2011
As I write this, the Canadian House of Commons just voted 156 to 145 to find the government of Stephen Harper in contempt of parliament, passing a motion of no-confidence that will now trigger an emergency federal election.

The contempt motion is a first in Canadian history, though it's far more scandalous in title than substance — which is really all the opposition parties care about. All the Conservatives are being specifically called out for is an alleged suppression of budget numbers from MPs who requested them. The opposition argument is that the Conservatives have racked up embarrassingly high tabs due to three specific spending initiatives: prisons, fighter jets, and corporate tax cuts, and are thus engaging in some manner of anti-democratic conspiracy to prevent these unflattering numbers from getting to the public. A serious charge to be sure, but ultimately a more technical, internal matter than the sort of grandiose crimes against the Constitution one might imagine from the colorful phrase "in contempt of parliament."

But this whole contempt business will be forgotten soon enough. The no-confidence motion passed today was merely a shallow pretext to force an election that every party apparently wants, though they don't dare admit it openly. I actually received a Conservative election flyer in the mail yesterday, long before the non-confidence motion was even tabled, which should give you some indication of how eager everyone is to get this show on the road.

The Conservatives are polling very high right now, and may be on the brink of finally, after so many tries, winning a solid majority of seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals are way, way, down, in contrast, yet leader Michael Ignatieff, who is not polling well either, probably figures this contempt of parliament thingie is his last best chance to scrape up a winning campaign issue. Iggy's really been pushing this narrative of the Harper regime as fundamentally tyrannical, corrupt, and anti-democratic as of late, with the hope clearly being that a negative, anti-Conservative campaign is the best way to distract voters from his own, otherwise not terribly engaging figure.

Talking of anti-democratic, the other elephant in the room is, of course, the idea of a "coalition government." Back in late 2008, as we may remember, then-Liberal leader Stephanie Dion tried to get the Governor General to fire Stephen Harper, and install a new government consisting of the second-place Liberals and fourth-place NDP. It would have been the first time in over 80 years that a governor general would have fired a PM mid-term, and would have been the first time in Canadian history, ever, that two parties, both fairly fresh from losing the most recent federal election, would be allowed to jointly form a government.

This proposal did not go over well with either with the public or the GG herself, and nothing became of it. Despite some drama, Stephen Harper stayed in power. The jury is still somewhat out as to the overall legitimacy of the scheme, constitutionally speaking, but strategically, it may have been a terrible blunder for Liberal PR. Just now, listening to Leader Ignatieff talk to reporters in the House foyer following the non-confidence vote, every single question was about a coalition, and whether or not the Liberals would try to pull the Stephanie Dion stunt again, should Harper once again be re-elected with only a plurality of seats.

Though he put up a mighty pretence of "being as clear as I can," Iggy didn't clarify a whole lot. I will "respect the verdict of the people" in the upcoming election, he said. If you want to know if a coalition government is constitutionally legitimate, "ask the Governor General." Again and again, Ignatieff stated that he wanted to lead a Liberal government, declaring that votes for the NDP or Bloc Quebecois were wasted, since they would only help keep Harper's Conservatives in charge. That's all well and good, but he never clarified if he believes another Harper minority is a legitimate "verdict of the people," or an illegitimate, undemocratic abomination that an NDP-Liberal plurality alliance would be justified in replacing.

I, personally, do not think coalition governments are constitutionally legitimate. In a common-law system like ours, where much of government practice is unwritten, and instead relies on precedent, I think the understood convention is pretty clear at this point that a one-party plurality in the House of Commons is the only legitimate place from where to draw a government. It might not be the tradition elsewhere in the world, but it's the way we do things here, and I'm very skeptical of any party that tries to invent new rules when the old ones become inconvenient to their pursuit of power.

I can still sympathize with Ignatieff, though. What the press wants him to say, at this point, is, "If Mr. Harper wins a plurality of seats in the House of Commons, no matter however narrow, I will personally drive to his house, shower him in kisses and rose petals, and wish him well on his third term as prime minister." Whether he actually believes in the legitimacy of a Conservative minority government or not (rumours are persistent that he actually disliked the Dion plan) it does come off as a kind of sad and pathetic thing to admit. Few politicians — especially ones as beleaguered and obviously unpopular as Ignatieff — ever want to paint vivid pictures of their impending defeat before the votes are even cast.

In any case, the whole issue might end up being moot. All available evidence (including my own personal projections, which I will post soon) suggests that the Conservatives will likely improve their seat count in the next election, further crowding out the combined Liberal-NDP caucus. The only scenario in which a Liberal-NDP coalition government would look even slightly legitimate, as opposed to desperate, would be if both parties managed to increase their tallies to the point where their combined forces actually comprised an honest-to-got plurality in the House that straight-up outnumbered the Conservatives. The only way this could happen, in turn, would be if the Bloc vote collapsed in some way. Otherwise, the seat-hogging of the third-largest party is likely to spoil the entire scheme. Even in Dion's day, a Liberal-NDP coalition needed Bloc support to survive, and many pundits argue it was this fact, more than anything else, that made the whole arrangement so very distasteful in the eyes of so many.

A losers' coalition of the Liberals and NDP? Maybe. A coalition of losers PLUS the separatists? Now you're just being silly.

[hurley_108]

Newsbot wrote:

I, personally, do not think coalition governments are constitutionally legitimate. In a common-law system like ours, where much of government practice is unwritten, and instead relies on precedent, I think the understood convention is pretty clear at this point that a one-party plurality in the House of Commons is the only legitimate place from where to draw a government. It might not be the tradition elsewhere in the world, but it's the way we do things here, and I'm very skeptical of any party that tries to invent new rules when the old ones become inconvenient to their pursuit of power.

Precedent says that the the Government stands with the confidence of the House. Every time a government has fallen, it has done so in the House. Never in the Seante. Yet that didn't stop Harper from bashing Dion over the head with threats to go to the polls if the then Liberal dominated Senate didn't pass legislation.

Even less formally than the rules of Government are the "rules" of party behaviour outside government, but there again Harper was out in front pushing the boundaries by launching unprecedented waves of attack ads against Dion and Ignatieff between elections.

Precedent says that the PM can call an election whenever he chooses. This was used to great effect by Chretien in the snap 2000 election, to much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Canadian Alliance. To his minimal credit, Harper then tried to end the practice by replacing precedent with (toothless) legislation and going to fixed election dates. But then in '08 he decided that precedent was more convenient and called a snap election of his own.

Precedent also says that one prorogues Parliament when one has completed one's legislative mandate and want to start afresh. Doesn't really say anything about using it to dodge confidence votes or shut down embarassing committees. But then again, Chretien prorogued FOUR TIMES (three for the conventional reason, one to bury an AG report) so it's okay, isn't it? Maybe precedent is now destroyed when it comes to prorogue.

To me, the Conservatives play by precedent when it is most convenient, and defy it when it is most convenient, and wouldn't have a leg to stand on in decrying a colaition government as illegitimate based purely on the precedent that we've never really had one.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Newsbot wrote:

I, personally, do not think coalition governments are constitutionally legitimate. In a common-law system like ours, where much of government practice is unwritten, and instead relies on precedent, I think the understood convention is pretty clear at this point that a one-party plurality in the House of Commons is the only legitimate place from where to draw a government. It might not be the tradition elsewhere in the world, but it's the way we do things here, and I'm very skeptical of any party that tries to invent new rules when the old ones become inconvenient to their pursuit of power.

I have a question for JJ (and anyone who has an opinion). If one wanted to change these unwritten rules to allow for coalition governments (or make any other change), what would be the appropriate way to do it. When these rules are explicitly written down in law, the answer is clear. The parliament could change the rules through its normal legislative process. But with unwritten rules and precedent it's not clear who has the right to change them and through what process.

Note that I'm not asking whether allowing coalition governments would be desirable. I'm only asking, if one wanted to do that, what would be the constitutionally legitimate way to do it?

[Murray_Smith]

Duceppe has by far the most badass appearance in this comic.

[CKASlacker]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Note that I'm not asking whether allowing coalition governments would be desirable. I'm only asking, if one wanted to do that, what would be the constitutionally legitimate way to do it?

Good question - about the only way I see it working is if a party that is not likely to win the election outright, nor even gain the most seats (ie. Ignatieff and the Liberals, say) were to make the statement that they intend to investigate the possibility of a coalition government post-election in the event that no other party was able to attain a majority. And make this quite clear -- either during televised debates or otherwise. Then they would at least have a clear mandate before the Canadian people to form a coalition.

As this did not happen with Dion's attempt, you can see why this left a bad taste in the mouth of many Canadians. It just seemed a little sneaky and ad-hoc.

[hurley_108]

The reason, as far as I can tell, that the party with the most seats is asked to form a government is no more complex than that it would presumably have the best chance of maintaining the confidence of the house, as it controls the largest fraction of that house.

There's nothining constitutionally illegitimate about two parties who together control a larger fraction of the house than the largest party forming a government. It just hasn't often happened.

Suppose the Conservatives win a plurality of seats, beating the Liberals by X seats. If the NDP beats the Bloc by X+1 or more (not going to happen, but bear with me), then the Liberals + NDP will be a majority. That coalition can maintain the confidence of the house, even though neither alone is the largest party. Nothing about this seems constitutionally illegitimate to me. But how would the public see it?

The current string of minority governments is the longest that Canada has known (Saturday, incidentally, will be the 2500th day since election day 2004), and there's no reason to think it won't continue for a while longer. If Canadians want stabillity, but can't figure out how to elect majorities, someone's going to have to break ground on coalition building.

[Unsound]

CKASlacker wrote:

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Note that I'm not asking whether allowing coalition governments would be desirable. I'm only asking, if one wanted to do that, what would be the constitutionally legitimate way to do it?

Good question - about the only way I see it working is if a party that is not likely to win the election outright, nor even gain the most seats (ie. Ignatieff and the Liberals, say) were to make the statement that they intend to investigate the possibility of a coalition government post-election in the event that no other party was able to attain a majority. And make this quite clear -- either during televised debates or otherwise. Then they would at least have a clear mandate before the Canadian people to form a coalition.

As this did not happen with Dion's attempt, you can see why this left a bad taste in the mouth of many Canadians. It just seemed a little sneaky and ad-hoc.

This. Although a coalition is absolutely constituional, it did seem a little sneaky the way they did it. If they made it clear before hand that it was a possibility I would have no problem with a coalition, but when it was an entirly new thing to Canada, as it was when Dion tried it, it can hardly be called the will of the people if none of the people knew it was a possibility.

[hurley_108]

Unsound wrote:

This. Although a coalition is absolutely constituional, it did seem a little sneaky the way they did it. If they made it clear before hand that it was a possibility I would have no problem with a coalition, but when it was an entirly new thing to Canada, as it was when Dion tried it, it can hardly be called the will of the people if none of the people knew it was a possibility.

While it's true they didn't pre-announce the possibility, Harper didn't pre-announce his intention to axe the per-vote subsidy either. We elect politicians to represent us. To do what they say, yes, but we can't expect them to do only that. They have to be allowed to adapt to situations that arise after the election.

What left a bad taste in everyone's mouth was the reliance on the Bloc. Democratically elected though they are, they are dedicated to the destruction of Canada as we know it, and that's not cool.

It's just a shame that the result of the whole sordid affair is that "coalition" is now a dirty word, and Ignatieff is now damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

[Thanos]

I'm still certain that any coalition that didn't result in the Bloc having de facto control over the entire country wouldn't have generated such levels of anger and hostility as the Dion attempt in late 2008 did. Whether the government or the opposition end up with Bloc support during votes is one thing. The Bloc being even an (allegedly) informal member of a governing coalition is simply unacceptable, period.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I don't have a real issue with coalitions, with 2 exceptions. A)Don't try and hide it or pretend it didn't happen in the first place. B)ANY coalition that involves the Bloc is unconstitutional. Quite frankly, the Bloc existing as a federal pary is unconstitutional.

[Quantum_Wizard]

CKASlacker wrote:

As this did not happen with Dion's attempt, you can see why this left a bad taste in the mouth of many Canadians. It just seemed a little sneaky and ad-hoc.

Yes, I can certainly see that. He seemed to advocate it only because it would have happened to favor him then.

[Quantum_Wizard]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Quite frankly, the Bloc existing as a federal pary is unconstitutional.

What part of the constitution does that break?

[DrCaleb]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Quite frankly, the Bloc existing as a federal pary is unconstitutional.

What part of the constitution does that break?

Members of Parliament must take the oath of allegiance.

Quote:

Je, [nom], jure que je serai fidèle et porterai une vraie allégeance à Sa Majesté la Reine Élisabeth II.

Quote:

I, [name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.

This is in conflict with the interests of the BQ.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/rese ... tm#failure

[Quantum_Wizard]

DrCaleb wrote:

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Quite frankly, the Bloc existing as a federal pary is unconstitutional.

What part of the constitution does that break?

Members of Parliament must take the oath of allegiance.

Ah, that is certainly interesting, but it's not clear to me that merely advocating separatism would constitute a breach of allegiance. Furthermore, before Canada's independence no MPs had been expelled from the parliament for advocating it, which seems to serve as a precedent.

At any rate, BQ MPs have not been determined by courts to be in breach of their oath, and this certainly matters much more than my, your or PublicAnimalNo9's opinion.