Crown, Parliament and executive power in Canada.
I stand corrected! Also, a very nice guy in person.
If you follow him on Twitter, you may have caught a flurry of activity last evening on this subject.
I'm going to ask the first question on behalf of some people in this newsroom who have been puzzling through the scenarios: How could it be possible for Stephen Harper to come in 2nd in terms of the seat count, but still remain prime minister?
(don't worry, we're going to our readers questions next)
Yes, the incumbent prime minister can choose to remain in office.
However, he could only stay in office as long as holds the confidence of the House after it meets.
And, it should be noted that all three leaders have seemingly indicated that they believe whichever party has the most seats should be given a first chance at testing confidence.
Indeed, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has given no indication he'd try to cling to power if he didn't hold the most seats.
So, PMSH has the right to meet the House first to test confidence, but has implied he wouldn't do so unless the Conservatives carry the most seats.
In theory though, how long could someone hold on... a confidence vote could be weeks? even months? (thinking Joe Clark's government here) away???
Right. As prime minister, he has the right to meet the House even if he has fewer seats, but PMSH has stated that he wouldn't.
It would depend. His government's ability to spend on new initiatives and meet unforeseen financial demands will dwindle in January, when the government can no longer rely on 'special warrants', ie exceptional funds drawn from the consolidated revenue fund while Parliament isn't sitting.
But in principle, the PM could choose to wait a bit longer, formally speaking.
Yes, Mackenzie King in 1925.
Wondering if it might be best to cover off a first principle here...
Having the confidence of the House means that the ministry wins a majority of votes on significant measures, such as the reply to the Speech from the Throne, the budget, or other major money bills.
The ministry (ie the government/Cabinet led by PM) can also declare that a vote is a confidence measure and the opposition can gather to declare non-confidence.
I'll follow up on that as it might unfold this fall: Does a new minority government HAVE to hold a vote on the Throne Speech? Seems to me I can recall times when it didn't come to a vote... or am I mistaken?
It would be fairly difficult to avoid a motion of reply, given past precedents:
The Leader of the Opposition could also move a motion in reply.
A formal coalition might happen if the LPC and NDP want a degree of certainty. They could follow the example for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the UK who formed a coalition government and had a specific agreement outlining what the conditions were.
However, it is equally if not more likely that a minority LPC or NDP government would attempt to govern on an issue by issue basis, or perhaps with a tacit agreement.
The difficulty with a formal coalition lies in having to distribute Cabinet positions and agree a common set of policies.
As for the Greens, it really depends on how many seats they have.
I'm going to release two very similar questions here:
Actually, make that three similar:
(I could have added more! One senses that this is the crux of the matter on the minds of many readers.)
Timing matters a great deal here. The literature this convention tells us that the GG is unlikely to accept a dissolution if six months haven't passed since the last election and there is another party or coalition that could hold confidence.
However, one could make the case for extending that six month period or perhaps shortening it. This is one of the reasons that the GG has discretion over dissolution requests. It's a matter of judgement and of weighing the situation at hand.
There's disagreement on this question. I'm in the no camp. My view is that the GG's role is not interpret the mood of the House. There are simply too many risks involved in doing so. The GG is better placed to be cautious and wait for the House to formally express itself.
However, the GG may need to consider dismissing a PM if that PM refuses to call back the House, say to pass a needed budget or in violation of the Charter.
Bu that would be a very, very extreme case and unlikely.
(I know it's a bit of a parlour game to imagine a tie on Monday night... but it's possible. Let's understand how the rules would kick in...)
Three things could happen. The incumbent PM would still be PM and could test confidence, probably after trying to see if a third party would support. Alternatively, the incumbent PM could resign if s/he knows that the tied party has the support of a third party. Thirdly, the party leaders could work it out amongst themselves after the election.
Specifically, the incumbent PM might figure out that two other parties intend to work together and s/he couldn't hold confidence, in which case the best course of action would be to resign.
Crown, Parliament and executive power in Canada.
I stand corrected! Also, a very nice guy in person.
Has this scenario ever happened previously in Canada: a second-place incumbent PM has remained in office?
If Harper wins a minority, how likely is it that Trudeau and Mulcair form a coalition? It would seem to mean that the minor coalition member would have to put his policy aside in favour of the main coalition member and that would have to have an impact in the minds of the minor party's voters in the future. If the race is this close, would it make more sense for whoever is closer to the PCs to court the Greens?
Question: If the CPC wins a minority and is defeated next year in a confidence motion in the House, would the GG be more likely to dissolve Parliament or invite a formal NDP-Lib Coaltion to form government?
What would the GG do if the party with a plurality sought to form government at the same time as the second and third parties sought to form government by coallition?