Scenario: Thirty-ninth Parliament

[FiveParadox]

Consider this scenario.

1. The Conservative Party of Canada receives the most seats in the House of Commons — 135 out of 308.
   
2. The Rt. Hon. Paul Martin of the Liberal Party of Canada decides to attempt to secure the confidence of the House, and continue to govern — and succeeds, with their 105 seats, the 32 seats of the New Democratic Party, and 21 seats from more left-wing members of the Bloc Québecois.
   
3. The Hon. Stephen Harper believes that, simply due to a plurality, he should automatically become Prime Minister, and that the Conservative Party of Canada should be named to the Government.
   
4. Her Excellency the Rt. Hon. Michaëlle Jean finds herself in the midst of a crisis, and calls a conference of the party leaders to discuss the situation in the House of Commons.
   
5. The NDP, the Liberals and a representative for the Bloc members supporting the current Government make it clear that the Liberal Government of Canada has the confidence of the House of Commons, and that the same would not be true with a Conservative ministry.
   
6. The Hon. Stephen Harper demands that, as the Leader of the party with a plurality, he be named Prime Minister immediately.

(a) Should the Governor General continue the term of the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin as the Prime Minister of Canada, due to the fact that he would be more likely to secure and hold the confidence of the House of Commons? Or,

(b) Should the Governor General appoint the Hon. Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada, because his party has the most seats in the House of Commons?

 

[Breakthrough2006]

In your scenario, if Paul Martin remains PM, you can kiss Alberta good bye pretty damn soon. Quebec will follow shortly after. Both would realize that no matter what they do, they will continue to be screwed by the Liberals.

The fact that there are people even bringing up this scenario proves how low the left will sink to run this country into the ground.

If you think the country is divided now, just wait and see what would happen in your scenario.

 

[Breakthrough2006]

How hypocritical would Layton look if he joined forces with the "corrupt" Liberals.

He has spent months telling us how they do not have the moral authority to govern yet he's willing to jump into bed with them at the first available opportunity.

With morals like those it's no surprise the NDP have difficulty breaking 20 seats.

 

[FiveParadox]

Only a Scenario

Breakthrough2006, this is only a scenario — although it is based on fact and history. In 1925, the late Rt. Hon. Mackenzie King governed with the aid of the Progressives, despite the fact that the Conservatives had more seats in the House of Commons. I am not asserting that the Prime Minister would exercise his right to attempt to govern, I am only suggesting a scenario, and possible choice and outcomes.

If this situation were to happen, though, then shouldn't the Prime Minister be allowed to continue to govern? If it was clear that the Conservatives would not hold confidence, then wouldn't a Conservative Government be defeated only days later on the Speech from the Throne?

But then again, is it unfair for the current Prime Minister to keep governing, even with the support of a majority of the House of Commons, if another party has been elected to the House with more seats than his own?

 

[Breakthrough2006]

The reason we are having these elections to begin with is because Martin already lost the confidence of the house. 2 scandals during the campaign later, and our politicians are going to tell Canadians that Martin has the confidence of the opposition. This is nonsensical at best.

This scenario may and I do repeat "may" have been acceptable if it were a regular elaction campaign not a loss of confidence election.

If the GG has trouble deciding, it would be better to have yet another election right away and I can guarantee you that the Conservatives would return with an overwhelming majority for the crap the other parties would have tried to pull.

 

[FiveParadox]

The Responsibility of the Governor General

An interesting argument, Breaththrough2006.

Keep in mind, however, that Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean is responsible for appointing a Prime Minister who, in her opinion, would be the most likely to secure and hold the confidence of the House of Commons. This is the convention that leads to the leader of the largest party always being elected in majority scenarios.

Also, if a subsequent election had to be held to reselect the Government, then would we not risk having no House of Commons in place in time to secure the supply needed to pay for public works? The Government cannot access the Consolidated Revenue Fund unless funds are appropriated and authorized by the House and the Senate.

But then again, would it be "undemocratic" for Her Excellency to appoint the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin? There could be two arguments for this. On the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition would have more seats than the Government and, therefore, one would think that the larger party would more likely govern; but on the other hand, if the governing party secures the confidence of more than one-half of the House, whereas the Opposition would be unable to, then wouldn't appointing the Opposition to govern be "undemocratic?"

 

[Finder]

Hon Jack Layton... lol. I know it won't happen. But hey he's my canidate

 

[Breakthrough2006]

Five.

If the Liberals win the "confidence" of the majority 6 weeks after an election was called due to the loss of confidence, it would be the last step needed to turn Canada into a Banana Republic.

 

[FiveParadox]

Elaborate

Breakthrough2006, rather than simply opposing everything that I say, perhaps you should offer an argument with some substance to support your opinion.

 

[Breakthrough2006]

I thought it was obvious Five. The party that wins the most seats and has the majority of Canadian votes should govern. That's called democracy. Seems pretty simple to me.

Would you agree with a CPC and Bloc Alliance to block a Liberal minority from governing if the Liberals pull off a minority?

Hopefully this will make my position clear as to how ridiculous it would be to deny the Conservatives a minority government.

 

[Jersay]

I thought it was obvious Five. The party that wins the most seats and has the majority of Canadian votes should govern. That's called democracy. Seems pretty simple to me.

Would you agree with a CPC and Bloc Alliance to block a Liberal minority from governing if the Liberals pull off a minority?

Hopefully this will make my position clear as to how ridiculous it would be to deny the Conservatives a minority government.

So a Conservative-Bloc(separatist) alliance.

Well at least it is well known that the Cons are conservatives as well.

Also, Breakthrough you talk about democracy. What if the Liberals and the NDP get elected as a minority. That is democracy in action. How can Quebec and Alberta cry like little babies and threaten seperation if it is democracy at work.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re-iterating my Position

Breakthrough2006, I think I may see where the problem lies; you may not understand the conventions that govern how the House of Commons is run. The scenario that I gave was not "breaking the rules" — according to convention, when there is a minority Government, even if the Government doesn't have enough seats, the ruling party has the first chance to govern. This has only been done once in the history of Canada, however.

In 1925, the Liberal Party of Canada lost the election by eighteen seats to the Conservative Party of Canada; however, by securing the confidence of the House of Commons with the aid of the Progressives, the Conservatives were forced to continue to serve as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

 

[Breakthrough2006]

Five. I'm aware that it wouldn't be breaking the rules but it would be highly unethical to do so since we have had many minority governments in the past that were not blindsided. The fact that it was a Liberal party that pulled this off in the past is not surprising at all given their record on ethics and morals.

Well at least it is well known that the Cons are conservatives as well.

Huh? Wouldn't the Libs be Liberals as well?

Also, Breakthrough you talk about democracy. What if the Liberals and the NDP get elected as a minority. That is democracy in action.

How is that possible since that is two seperate parties? You are talking about an alliance of the two parties. My response was if the Lib/NDP form an alliance to prevent a Cons minority, then you should be prepared to accept a CPC/Bloc alliance to overthrow a Liberal minority government. No matter what the results are of the election the CPC/Bloc seats will outnumber the Lib/NDP seats.

How can Quebec and Alberta cry like little babies and threaten seperation if it is democracy at work

As I stated above, democracy works for all, not just for the Liberals and NDP.

 

[Jersay]

So for an example, if the Liberals somehow, now it doesn't appear likely right now but if they can squeak out more seats than the Conservatives and are able to get an Alliance with the NDP, because it is true democracy at work the Albertans and Quebeckers cannot cry seperation because it is true democracy? Isn't it?

 

[FiveParadox]

However...

Yes, Breakthrough2006, I understand what you're saying, but I disagree.

If the Liberal Government of Canada were to receive another mandate as a minority, then it could not be "overthrown" by an alliance between the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc Québecois — in a minority situation, the prerogative to secure the confidence of the House before the Governor General would otherwise appoint the leader of the largest party is solely that of the governing party. The Leader of the Opposition, according to convention, would not have the right to do so.

:!: Edited to add...

If the combined vote for the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party and the members of the Bloc Québecois supporting the Government in the scenario amounted to more than fifty percent, then wouldn't they have every right to deny a mandate to the Conservative Party of Canada, if they had received less than half of the vote?

 

[Breakthrough2006]

Jersay, if the Liberals win more seats than any other party they won't need an alliance with the NDP since they will be able to form a minority government.

Yes, that would be democracy in action.

Five. Once again I know what the rules are. What I'm trying to get through to you is that as much as you would love to stick it to the Conservatives by blindsiding them with this unethical excercise, you would be outraged to high heavan if the tables were turned and the shoe was on the other foot.

In your scenario it is likely that the Libs and the NDP would still not have 50% of the seats in Parliament so even if they tried to pull this fiasco, the CPC and the Bloc would simply create a vote of non confidence and we will be back at the polls by the spring. I would love to see what Canadians would think of the Libs and NDP for putting us through two elections in two months.

This desperate attempt of holding onto power at all costs no matter what the voters say is precisely why the Conservatives need to win a majority. The Liberals have proven themselves to be the most corrupt party in the history of Canadian politics. They couldn't even make it through a 6 week campaign without being hit with 2 new scandals.

Layton and the NDP have propped up and supported Liberal corruption in the past and as such, I wouldn't put anything past the NDP either. Layton will support a corrupt government under the guise of "helping Canadians" and "getting things done".

 

[FiveParadox]

Listen to me!

Breakthrough2006, I am not a strategist for the Liberal Party!

This is a scenario! Nobody has said that the Liberals would actually attempt to keep power if they lose their plurality, and nobody has said that the NDP, or least of all the Bloc Québecois, would support a bid for confidence!

This is all purely theoretical, and for purposes of speculation only. For the love of God, stop bashing the Liberals; they're not actually trying to "steal" the Government from the Conservatives.

 

[the caracal kid]

If we respect traditions of the parlement, then we should respect them independently of which parties are on the "winning side" of said tradition.

 

[FiveParadox]

Agreed.

I agree completely, the caracal kid. If in the future, the Liberal Party were to win a plurality while the standing Government was Conservative, and the Conservatives secured the confidence of the House with some other party, even the Bloc Québecois, then I would respect the House of Commons.

If a majority of representatives of the House of Commons support a Government, even without a plurality, than a majority of Canadians, by proxy, are represented by such a Government. I would have no right to say "no."

 

[Colpy]

Re: Listen to me!

Breakthrough2006, I am not a strategist for the Liberal Party!

This is a scenario! Nobody has said that the Liberals would actually attempt to keep power if they lose their plurality, and nobody has said that the NDP, or least of all the Bloc Québecois, would support a bid for confidence!

This is all purely theoretical, and for purposes of speculation only. For the love of God, stop bashing the Liberals; they're not actually trying to "steal" the Government from the Conservatives.

Okay, I will say it.

The Liberals will do ANYTHING to stay in power, and, in this scenario, would try to govern. The NDP would support them in this endeavour, as they have already shown themselves to be political prostitutes, and not too bright about it either.

So, we would wind up with a government in name led by a tired, corrupt, arrogant, useless party which would be commanded in fact by a party who brags less than 20% popular support.

The only solution is obvious.

Give Stephen Harper a majority.

VOTE CONSERVATIVE