We Have the Power, So Can You
You thought your politics were filled with The Drama, America?
The political parties in Canada are currently involved in a very dramatic power struggle.
Our three opposition parties (Liberal Party, New Democratic Party, Bloc Québécois) signed a deal this week which would have them topple the government of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and replace it with a coalition government run by them (or, more formally, run by the Liberals and NDP with Bloc support).
Those of you who've been following along here will recall that this is pretty close to what I described as an ideal arrangement, so you can imagine that I'm excited about this possibility...but to explain how this is possible in the first place for those more used to the American system, I should spell out the options in a parliamentary system.
In a country like Canada, which runs on the Westminster model of parliamentary governance, we don't vote directly for our Head of Government, but rather for our Member of Parliament, and the Prime Minister is typically the leader of the party with the most seats. In turn, our Head of State (Queen Elizabeth II, represented by Governor-General Michaëlle Jean) is separate and (being a monarchy, of course) not voted upon.
The United States, conversely, votes directly for the President as both Head of State and Government, and that person generally can't be removed from office outside of an election except through a few familiar constitutional means (death, resignation, and so forth).
Neil Macdonald has a good breakdown of what's happening from an American perspective, but basically, the Opposition is taking advantage of the fact that Harper's is a minority government and proposing that with their combined seat total, they can form a more cohesive government and gain the confidence of the House of Commons. By definition, the Conservatives do not currently enjoy such confidence, because that would require the support of...at least one of these other three parties.
After a vote of no confidence, such a proposal would go to the Governor-General and, if approved, could switch out the government without an election--the same way our Prime Minister changes without an election when the leader of the governing party is replaced.
Before such a vote could occur, however, Stephen Harper went to the GG and asked her to prorogue Parliament--call a timeout, if you will, which suspends the current session without dissolving it--and this morning, she agreed to do so until January 26, even though many thought that was a bad idea.
("I'm more pro-Wolverine, actually," quipped xandersgirl while we were talking about this last night.
"Well, it is quite the political gambit," I replied.)
The Governor-General's decisive role here puts her in a difficult position, and CalgaryGrit aptly described this as a "Kobayashi Maru" for her. Since she can't reprogram the simulation, there were only a couple of other options open to her:
Dissolve Parliament and Call an Election: "Wait a minute," you're asking. "Didn't you guys just have an election?" Why, yes, we did, less than two months ago. It may seem a little crazy to have another federal election before this Parliament has actually, you know, done anything, but it's not completely unprecedented to have two elections within a year in Canada, and some people (I'm looking at you, Norman Spector) feel this would be the best way to resolve this impasse. Besides, Elections Canada is apparently ready for this.
Accept the Coalition Government Proposal: Jean could've refused Harper and appointed the new coalition government under Prime Minister Stéphane Dion. Although this is constitutional, the GG traditionally accepts requests from the PM, and this sort of dismissal of a sitting Prime Minister hasn't happened since the "King-Byng Wingding" of 1926, in which Prime Minister Mackenzie King asked to call an election and the Governor-General of the time, Lord Byng of Vimy, replied with, "Not so fast, Mac," and handed power over to the Official Opposition.
As I said, various people think this is the way to go, including former Governor-General Edward Schreyer. (On a side note, I used to be an acquaintance of his son, Toban, whose house was recently destroyed by arson, so that family has other concerns on its mind at the moment...) This is still fairly likely to happen, since the Liberals don't foresee the Conservatives doing enough to change their minds.
In the meantime, Harper isn't living up to the principles of responsible government, choosing instead to delay the consequences of facing the House and wage a quasi-election campaign over the holidays to get his way, complaining about "socialists" (Sound familiar, Americans?) and "separatists" trying to stage a coup even though he attempted to do exactly the same thing in 2004 when the Liberals had a minority government and he was Leader of the Opposition.
It's a fascinating, yet frustrating, time to be a Canadian citizen.
The political parties in Canada are currently involved in a very dramatic power struggle.
Our three opposition parties (Liberal Party, New Democratic Party, Bloc Québécois) signed a deal this week which would have them topple the government of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and replace it with a coalition government run by them (or, more formally, run by the Liberals and NDP with Bloc support).
Those of you who've been following along here will recall that this is pretty close to what I described as an ideal arrangement, so you can imagine that I'm excited about this possibility...but to explain how this is possible in the first place for those more used to the American system, I should spell out the options in a parliamentary system.
In a country like Canada, which runs on the Westminster model of parliamentary governance, we don't vote directly for our Head of Government, but rather for our Member of Parliament, and the Prime Minister is typically the leader of the party with the most seats. In turn, our Head of State (Queen Elizabeth II, represented by Governor-General Michaëlle Jean) is separate and (being a monarchy, of course) not voted upon.
The United States, conversely, votes directly for the President as both Head of State and Government, and that person generally can't be removed from office outside of an election except through a few familiar constitutional means (death, resignation, and so forth).
Neil Macdonald has a good breakdown of what's happening from an American perspective, but basically, the Opposition is taking advantage of the fact that Harper's is a minority government and proposing that with their combined seat total, they can form a more cohesive government and gain the confidence of the House of Commons. By definition, the Conservatives do not currently enjoy such confidence, because that would require the support of...at least one of these other three parties.
After a vote of no confidence, such a proposal would go to the Governor-General and, if approved, could switch out the government without an election--the same way our Prime Minister changes without an election when the leader of the governing party is replaced.
Before such a vote could occur, however, Stephen Harper went to the GG and asked her to prorogue Parliament--call a timeout, if you will, which suspends the current session without dissolving it--and this morning, she agreed to do so until January 26, even though many thought that was a bad idea.
("I'm more pro-Wolverine, actually," quipped xandersgirl while we were talking about this last night.
"Well, it is quite the political gambit," I replied.)
The Governor-General's decisive role here puts her in a difficult position, and CalgaryGrit aptly described this as a "Kobayashi Maru" for her. Since she can't reprogram the simulation, there were only a couple of other options open to her:
Dissolve Parliament and Call an Election: "Wait a minute," you're asking. "Didn't you guys just have an election?" Why, yes, we did, less than two months ago. It may seem a little crazy to have another federal election before this Parliament has actually, you know, done anything, but it's not completely unprecedented to have two elections within a year in Canada, and some people (I'm looking at you, Norman Spector) feel this would be the best way to resolve this impasse. Besides, Elections Canada is apparently ready for this.
Accept the Coalition Government Proposal: Jean could've refused Harper and appointed the new coalition government under Prime Minister Stéphane Dion. Although this is constitutional, the GG traditionally accepts requests from the PM, and this sort of dismissal of a sitting Prime Minister hasn't happened since the "King-Byng Wingding" of 1926, in which Prime Minister Mackenzie King asked to call an election and the Governor-General of the time, Lord Byng of Vimy, replied with, "Not so fast, Mac," and handed power over to the Official Opposition.
As I said, various people think this is the way to go, including former Governor-General Edward Schreyer. (On a side note, I used to be an acquaintance of his son, Toban, whose house was recently destroyed by arson, so that family has other concerns on its mind at the moment...) This is still fairly likely to happen, since the Liberals don't foresee the Conservatives doing enough to change their minds.
In the meantime, Harper isn't living up to the principles of responsible government, choosing instead to delay the consequences of facing the House and wage a quasi-election campaign over the holidays to get his way, complaining about "socialists" (Sound familiar, Americans?) and "separatists" trying to stage a coup even though he attempted to do exactly the same thing in 2004 when the Liberals had a minority government and he was Leader of the Opposition.
It's a fascinating, yet frustrating, time to be a Canadian citizen.