Sshit. My apologies.
Prorogue from Parliament’s user manual: http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_d_prorogationparliament-e.htm
I forgot to mention one of the main effects of ending a session of Parliament: all pending business (motions and bills) “die on the order paper” and have to be reintroduced if they are to be considered, as if Parliament had been dissolved. However, I think there’s a procedure for reintroducing bills at the same stage that they had been at before Parliament was prorogued.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 5: “There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.” http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html
Hell… theoretically, she could refuse any of the options given her and tell them to go try to make a go of it again.
That’s my fantasy scenario - that she summon Harper, Dion and Layton to her residence and say “I won’t call an election. I won’t give the reins of government to a separatist party. You boys shake hands and apologize and tell me how you’re going to play nice!”
Given the current circumstances, and the evidence that the “coalition” parties were planning to topple the Conservatives regardless of the proposed budget, my gut tells me that by this time next week, we could very well be looking at your fantasy scenario. The sketchy nature of the BQ participation makes it that much more likely. I guess we’ll see… my gut has been wrong before.
RickJay, you know perfectly well that not only would it violate constitutional convention for the Governor General to act as though a party in Parliament is incompetent to support a government, it would also be the easiest possible way of catapulting sovereignist support in Quebec.
“OMG the Queen’s representative is blocking a coalition that 76% of Quebecers support, because it would need the support of the MPs that we elected!”
Is that really what you would want, a week before a Quebec provincial election?
Yes, she could do that. I hope that she doesn’t, for I would prefer that the majority of the MPs of the House of Commons be permitted to form a government, rather than have a minority government propped up against the majority’s will. My position is regardless of political affiliation, for I don’t care which party it is – if a government is not suported by the majority of the elected MPs on confidence matters, then I think it should fall. that way the ruling party, of whatever colour it might be, will have to either do better in elections and win a majority, or it will have to consider the opposition’s wishes when trying to legislate from a minority position.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 5: “There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.” http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html
While we are looking at wierd and wacky possibilities that in weality simply never will come to be, consider how a ruling party could play with the democratic rights sections of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Theoretically, a PM could pop by once a year and then prorogue, over and over, until five years were up and an election had to be called. Even the five year cap could be ignored if the ruling party could round up a two-thirds vote and say they were apprehensive about an insurrection (which they would certainly be facing if they had been playing hide and seek with annual prorogues for five years).
Indeed, I think we’re GD worthy. I started a thread there because it never occurred to me to look here first.
This business of a minority government falling at the hands of a majority coalition points out something that I quite like about our Parliamentary system.
At its heart, we have people in out communities who run for office. They may be of one political affiliation or another, or may switch from one to another, or may have no affiliation at all, but ultimately they simply stand up as community representatives for election, we pick the ones we want to represent us, and off they go to Parliament.
Once they are sitting in the House, it is not that one political party has the ultimate authority. Instead, it is that the majority of the elected MPs decide between themselves what will be done in Parliament. Sometimes it happens that the majority of MPs are members of a particular party. Sometimes it happens that a majority of MPs are not members of a particular party, and we end up with a minority or coalition government.
The nice thing about this is that rather than monolithic political parties bumping up against each other, we have a system in which first and foremost each individual elected MP primarily represents his or her community and is responsible to that community, rather than being primarily responsible to a political party. A party can kick an MP out of caucus, but not out of the House. It remains up to the electorate to decide who sits in the House.
Because our MPs are elected to their seats as individuals, we have a system in which the majority of MPs rules, with that majority being formed by individual MPs, each working for the people who voted for him or her. They may form parties, but ultimately their right to vote for us arises out of their being elected as individuals. That way, regardless of political affiliation, it is possible for a majority of elected MPs to form a government, rather than for a particular party affiliation form a government against the will of the elected MPs.
Looks like the coalition has approached the GG, and is shooting for the 8th for a non-confidence motion: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html
The CBC pointed out that proroguation is done through the Governor General, and she is permitted to refuse it – in fact, more or less certain to refuse it with a vote of no confidence on the table.
Sorry I haven’t been contributing, but I’ve been reading this thread with interest. I think I’ll start breathing again sometime next Monday…
What part of “fantasy” was hard to understand?
You have to see the difference between facts and opinions. You’re allowed to say the Bloc MPs (or even Bloc voters, if you want) are bastards and do not belong in your view of Canada; that’s your opinion. But if you say they hate Canada, you’re attributing ideas to them, ideas that they do not hold.
There seems to be this idea in English Canada that Quebec sovereigntists “hate Canada” and this is what I’m trying to correct. Do you want Canada to merge with the US? No? Then does this mean you hate the US?
Well, it is a mundane thing. This “political crisis” isn’t going to turn into an armed revolt, nobody is going to die because of it. It’s just the normal working of parliamentary government. If we were in Belgium, we wouldn’t even post about our political crises on the SDMB until government had been deadlocked for six months. 
It may also be quite pointless, if it doesn’t actually lead to any change in government. I don’t know what’s especially “Canadian” about it.
Yes, I would also like the Bloc to actually start doing some governing. As I’ve said, I see them as a regionally-based, provincial rights party, and they have the potential to be so. Actually, I believe that’s even what they started as in 1990, but before 1993 they’d become resolutely sovereigntist and saw their goal as defending Quebec’s interests until independence. I’d like them to actually try to push Canada into a direction that would make Quebec and the other provinces… well, not independent, but sovereign in almost all regards.
I just don’t see why someone so virulently opposed to separatism would want to hand them free ammunition, that’s all. It seems an odd thing to fantasize about.
Fantasizing about a threesome is all well and fine, but when the threesome is the Liberals, the NDP and the bloc, well that is an odd thing to fantasize about.
I dunno. Stéphane Dion isn’t bad looking for a politician, and Gilles Duceppe has very piercing blue eyes (which were on just about every lamppost in Montréal prior to the election.)
Then again, given my orientation, you’d have to throw in our Governor General to get me interested at all, and even then, it might be a bit odd.
You certainly have the Conservative party spin down perfectly. You weren’t perchance listening to “As It Happens” on CBC tonight were you? You sound like the guest they had on from Harper’s cabinet.
Personally, I liked the clip they played of Harper talking about the potential for scary socialists to take over the country. He sounded like John McCain crossed with Sarah Palin.
I don’t listen to the CBC. I avoid their crap as much as humanly possible, except maybe for the non-Leafs hockey game on Saturday nights.
“Scary socialists” could very well do for Canada what they damn near did to Ontario just a few short years ago. Then again, I don’t think the Liberals would allow a full-on NDP agenda, so its hardly a serious concern. Having some blend of the Grit and NDP economic platforms which effectively tries to bankrupt the western-dominated oil and gas industry to prop up the failing Ontario manufacturing sector isn’t out of the question, however. AND it has the virtue of having been done before! Trust me; Harper’s paranoia about what could happen to national economics under a more left-wing umbrella is well-founded and not the sort of scare-mongering speculation done by the McCain/Palin ticket.