Non-Confidence Vote Averted in Canada
Prime Minister Harper Stops Coalition Vote by Proroguing Parliament
Dec 8, 2008
Canadians were shocked to learn last week that the three opposition parties formed some type of pact to dissolve Parliament and end the term of Stephen Harper’s minority government. When the details became public, a divisive debate ensued as to the ‘legalities’ of this action.
Unlike the United States, Canada is a “constitutional monarchy”, which means that its head of state is the Queen, like fifteen other countries of the British Commonwealth. When Canadians vote in their federal elections, they vote for their local representatives, who may or may not be part of a political party, although most candidates do get elected under a party banner. Canadians do not directly vote for its Prime Minister or even the leaders of the other political parties.
However, once the election is over and the votes are counted, parliament is called into session and the political party with the most seats faces parliament to test the confidence of the House. The leader of the winning political party becomes by tradition Canada’s Prime Minister.
In most cases, the party with the most seats has more than 51% of the seats in the House and can command confidence of the House without question. This is called a majority government, meaning when Parliament votes on a bill, the members of the governing party will support the bill and make it pass, even when the other parties in the House do not agree with the bill.
In the case of our most recent federal election, Mr. Harper did not win a majority government. In order to pass any bills, his party would have to work with at least one other party to pass any legislation. Minority governments force governing parties to work with other parties in order to survive a confidence vote in the House.
However, on tabling of the most recent economic statement, the Prime Minister could not find another party to support these measures, other than his own. The opposition wasted no time in forming a ‘coalition’. A confidence motion on this Statement was due to be held on December 1, 2008, but was delayed by Harper until December 8, 2008, with the hopes that Canadians would reject this coalition or it would fall apart before then.
Unfortunately, the coalition, which consisted of the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, with support from Bloc Quebecois, only solidified their stance. The leaders of the three parties signed an agreement that promised stability for at least another 18 months to 2 years with a solid economic program for Canadians. This agreement was signed and a letter from its proposed leader, Stephane Dion, was sent to Governor General Micheale Jean (who is the representative of the Queen for Canada’s Parliament).
This act was done in the event that a non-confidence vote passes and Parliament is dissolved that Canada’s Governor-General would have another option, other than to call an election – especially so soon after the last one. If the party in power loses the confidence of the House, the Governor-General has the power by convention to appoint another party or coalition of parties to form the government. This is legal and is practiced all over the world, especially where coalition governments are commonplace.
Canadians are split on the idea of a coalition. The Internet and websites are burning up with criticisms pro and con of this possibility, as well as Stephane Dion’s interim leadership. Harper, desperate to cling to power, did everything to avoid being voted down. He televised a broadcast to warn Canadians of the “evils” of this coalition, as well as discreetly tried to convince some Liberals to cross the floor to join his party. When these tactics were not working, he paid a visit to our Governor-General and asked to prorogue Parliament, which is to shut it down for a couple of months, until January when Harper is prepared to present a budget.
While proroguing Parliament is also legal, this was done for the wrong reasons. This was done by a Prime Minister afraid to face Parliament and be defeated by a non-confidence vote and be replaced by a coalition. This battle continues and will likely remain a factor when the House returns in January.
