Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Earlier discussion

Can Jean deny Harper his election?

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 11:01 AM EST 04/09/08

Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Andrew Hume from Victoria, Canada writes: We hear a lot about Stephen Harper's strategic political intelligence. At the same time, it's clear to most observers that a Democratic US President may not be in the Conservatives best interest and could sway some Canadians to want to vote Liberal in seeking some 'political harmony' with the US should Barrack Obama win which may be prompting the Conservatives to go the polls early. Yet the November 2008 US elections have long been set....which begs one to wonder why the Conservative government brought in a fixed federal election date? Surely any political observer would have been able to assess that the Republicans were going to be trouble in 2008 - regardless of who was in the running for the Democrats. It seems the Conservatives have created this election date mess all on their own as a result of poor strategic long-term planning.
  2. BILL SHEAD from Canada writes: It seems to me that Prime Minister Harper gave up the 'virtually absolute discretion to determine the date of a general election' when the act fixing the date of elections came into law. At the very least, the fixed date legislation creates some doubt about the Prime Minister's powers in this respect. Since the act is new and 'untested' perhaps the Governor General should take at least some short time to formally consider other wise and independent counsel. Nevertheless, could whatever action the Governor General may take set a precedent for future actions by other governments (e.g., provinces with fixed date legislation and future federal PMs)?
  3. Sammy Whammy from conservative hypocrisy -- as wide and deep as the ocean, Canada writes: Patrick Monahan: Gerald good to hear from you, and thank you for the thoughtful comment. You seem to be raising an additional possibility or scenario that I did not consider in my essay. If I understand your argument, you are saying that the G-G can refuse the PM's request to dissolve Parliament but, instead of calling upon Mr. Dion to form a government, the G-G could call the House into session and force Mr. Harper to face a vote of confidence. I have a few problems with this suggestion. ...

    -----------------------------------

    Whereas I have a few problems with the way Prof. Monahan has chosen to reply to a strawman argument, rather than deal with Dr. Heckman's real question. Obviously the GG cannot force a resigning PM to seek the confidence of the House if he doesn't want it. Dr. Heckman can only have meant that the GG would ask another party or parties to attempt to govern.
  4. Ron Smythe from Kootenay Bay, Canada writes: I would think that Harper's advise to the GG may be illegal under his own law, and seeing as how there are differing opinions from the experts, The GG should ask the Supreme Court for a legal opinion before granting Harper's request.
  5. Stephen 62 from Vancouver, Canada writes: Prof. Monahan. You said a moment ago that if Stephen Harper were returned with the largest number of seats, but fell short of a majority, he would be entitled to remain PM and to try to form a new government, provided there was a reasonable prospect of his winning the support of one or more of the minor parties. But would that not also be the case if he were returned with fewer seats than the Liberals? That was the situation in which Mackenzie King found himself after the 1925 election. And I believe Jack Pickersgill urged St. Laurent in 1957 to do likewise when the Conservatives won the largest plurality of seats on the grounds that the Liberals might well have been able to remain in power with the support of the CCF, which had won 25 seats in the election.
  6. Tom Habib from Edmonton, Canada writes: In response to the suggestion that Madame Jean could refuse to dissolve parliament and order the House to reconvene, you state that "all [this] will do is postpone an election by a matter of weeks.... So I really cannot see the purpose that would be served by refusing the PM's request for an election."

    Perhaps I'm being a little cynical, but I can clearly see a reason why Mr. Harper would not want to delay an election by a few weeks: the US election. An Obama victory would probably not do much for Mr. Harper's fortunes, so all the more incentive for him to have the election in October.
  7. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: While I would like to thank Mr. Monahan for providing a response to my question, it does not answer it.

    I asked if the G-G is allowed to grant a minority government to a coalition made up of Dion & Layton. I understand perfectly that it would not be a majority government.

  8. Sammy Whammy from conservative hypocrisy -- as wide and deep as the ocean, Canada writes: Unfortunately, Professor Monahan did not deal much with the effects of the fixed election law. In particular, I wonder what he believes the purpose and effect to be of the specific provisions of the act that preserve the authority of the GG.

    Axiomatically, legislative provisions are supposed to be interpreted as having some effect. If the GG doesn't have discretion, then what did the act preserve? If it didn't preserve anything, did it not then create something?
  9. Emerys Abolferd from Vancouver, Canada writes: "Even if Dion and Layton teamed up they wouldn't have enough seats to form a majority. Their combined seat total is 125, which is 30 seats short of a majority. They would need Mr. Duceppe on board as well to form a government. There seems no possibility of that happening."

    Umm, why would Duceppe have to form government with Dion and Layton, they would have more seats than the Cons have now. They would just need to gain the Bloc's support in passing legislation and confidence votes, its not like the Bloc wants an election right now, anyone looking at polls knows that. Its pretty clear where Monahan's biases lye.
  10. Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: It stretches credibility to the limit when after 3 years of dysfunctional governing the Prime Minister now wants to call an election because "HE" thinks that Parliament is dysfunctional. Oh the benefits of living in a "Democracy".
  11. John Gzowski from Canada writes: Mr. Monahan's argument also seem to based in the idea that Dion will not be able to form a minority government alliance. Shouldn't that option be given him, and that choice given him, not made up for him in advance? Is that not reason enough for the GG to refuse to dissolve parliament. Since there is a possibility to form a minority or majority government, however unlikely, the GG should refuse to dissolve to allow Dion the chance to accomplish it. To refuse, the GG would have to make the decision that another government can't be formed on behalf of the other parties. Is that her role?
  12. true conservative from Canada writes: John Gzowski - the difference is that Meighen had more seats than King when Byng turned the govt over to the former - it was assumed that the party with the most seats would be govt. In this case, neither Dion nor Layton have said that they want to form a govt together and the possibility must have occurred to them by now. Yet both of them are only talking election.

    Also, with the question of why the Bloc must be part of the govt - I don't think that is what is being argued. I think the argument is that the GG doesn't know if the Bloc will support a Liberal-NDP coalition or automatically vote it down. Duceppe would have to make a public statement or send her a letter to that effect. Reading polls or tea leaves would be insufficient.
  13. Darcy Meyer from Canada writes: Dion should not be handed the PM position by the GG just because he MIGHT be able to make it work (as pointed out such a coalition is not reasonably likely to enjoy the confidence of the house). If Dion is going to be PM he has to earn it the old fashioned way, by winning more seats than anybody else in an election. If he was able to demonstrate he could maintain confidence in the house, through coalitions, then that arguement has merit, but that is not the reality and has not even been hinted at by any parties let alone endorsed.
  14. true conservative from Canada writes: Where the more interesting question - the one that people will be arguing for a long time, no doubt - is the definition of the word "dysfunctional". Does a PM that finds a HoC dysfunctional still enjoy its confidence? Can a dysfunctional Parliament have confidence in a PM - or does the dysfunction preclude the ability to form confidence? If a dysfunctional HoC can have confidence in the PM, then why is an election necessary, but if a dysfunctional HoC cannot have confidence in a PM - then what is the alternative to an election that the PM can no longer call?
  15. Ballin Munson from toronto, Canada writes: the "fixed date" in some ways should be not viewed any differently from a maximum term (which I believe is 5 years).
    In a parliamentary system, especially with a minority government, how can one reasonably presume that the government could live out the end until the fixed date.
    Summation? Either the law should be written so that it only applies to majority governments, or have and "out clause" which respects the fact that confidence can be lost by the house - even if tha means the governing party looses confidence in the house it presumable controls.
    Or you go to a republican type set - up. With rotating dates, and no matters being one of confidence (but then, the good old old party system would be weakened, we know NONE of them want that!).
    As for the next obvious choice, ask the next largest party to try to form a government, well that will not work with this house, and its' composition. Funny the only thing that unites the opposition parties more than their dislike of the conservatives, is their disdain for each other!
  16. Reynald the lucky from Canada writes: Legislated dates may work well with a majority government but with a minority government it is not really relevant as the minority will sink the government whenever the minority think they have a shot at a majority. So I just can't get too excited. As regards America, both parties have warts and either will act in their best interest not ours.
    Overall, I am satisfied with the record of the minority Conservative government so I am willing to give them a whirl at a majority. I am still recoiling from the recent history of the Liberal Party. There is no evidence to suggest the Liberal leopard has changed it's spots or it's values!
  17. true conservative from Canada writes: Ballin Munson - but then why have a fixed election date legislation at all - what purpose does it now serve? Moreover, what about the provincial govts that passed fixed election date laws - do they have the same loophole?
  18. Sasha Harpe from Canada writes: Aside from the GG, could parliment, either this one, or the next, find the PM in contempt of parliment?
  19. Michele K from Ottawa, Canada writes: Tom Habib from Edmonton, Canada wrote: In response to the suggestion that Madame Jean could refuse to dissolve parliament and order the House to reconvene, you state that "all [this] will do is postpone an election by a matter of weeks.... So I really cannot see the purpose that would be served by refusing the PM's request for an election." To which Tom responded: "Perhaps I'm being a little cynical, but I can clearly see a reason why Mr. Harper would not want to delay an election by a few weeks: the US election. An Obama victory would probably not do much for Mr. Harper's fortunes, so all the more incentive for him to have the election in October." I agree, Tom - I'm floored by Prof. Monahan's pragmatic answer to a legal question. What purpose would be served? Why, observance of our laws, of course. I also find it Prof. Monahan's, 'she can't say no to Harper because there's no precedent for it'. Precedent has to start somewhere, sir, and I would say that the present circumstances are indeed unique and perhaps precedent setting. The GG HAS the discretionary right to tell Harper 'no', and with due respect, I think Monahan confuses the likelihood of what will happen and what has happened in the past with what MUST happen now. Dr. X of Manitoba U (no disrespect intended) made a very good case for the GG sending Harper back to the House, and I think that in the present circumstances, this is exactly what the GG should do - earth-shakingly unprecedented as that may be.
  20. Ballin Munson from toronto, Canada writes: true conservative from Canada - sort of my point. Its' essentially a bad law. Its' calling for a cessation of sunlight in the evening, except of course if it is cloudy....which will happen sooner!!

    Anyway, what's all the fuss - the article points out its' been nearly three years, which I believe is a minority record (federally), and the government/PM has always controlled the timing. The previous PM - John Crouton - of three terms (which I believe was the shortest three consecutive majority governments) always called early elections...Funny, I think it is the left which doesn't like this government, and doesn't want an election to potentially throw them out? I don't get it. They want it neither way? Try selling burgers (Burger King) with that slogan!
  21. Michele K from Ottawa, Canada writes: In a nutshell, CAN the GG deny Harper 'his' election? Yes.

    WILL the GG deny Harper 'his' election? Not likely.
  22. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: Yes, but will the Office of the GG them go out the window?
  23. true conservative from Canada writes: Michele K - what that would amount to, though, is that Harper has to give a Throne Speech and then he can call an election.

    If the GG sends Harper back to Parliament and he gives the Throne Speech and the other parties pass it, then he has the confidence of Parliament and the GG was wrong to send him back to Parliament instead of calling an election. At which point, Harper can go back and say he wants an election. If the Throne Speech is not passed, then Harper doesn't have the confidence of Parliament and the GG was right to send him back, but now he lost a confidence motion and the GG has to call an election.

    The Throne Speech could be five words "Let's have an election, y'all!". That would be sufficient. In either outcome, the end result is an election.
  24. Darcy Meyer from Canada writes: Michele K....I think the problem with the scenario that the GG refuses the request and asks the PM to return to house to determine confidence (dysfunction) is that the PM is the one who advices the GG on that very thing, not the other way around. If the GG refused the request the PM would promtly resign, and we would have a constitutional crisis, because the GG would be telling the leader of the elected representatives how to govern, and that is not her role as she is to be "above the fray". If the PM can demonstrate and advise on the need for an election, she will comply.
  25. true conservative from Canada writes: Ballin Munson - I don't think the left is opposed to an election - I think they are trying to label Harper as another Chretien (Crouton as you put it). In Ontario, Peterson got nailed for the same thing - he called an election early because it he was polling well and got nailed for it. I think Layton, Dion and Duceppe are hoping for a parallel situation here and so they point out Harper's "hubris". Also, since the bad law was Harper's to begin with, it does beg the question on why the law was put into place.
  26. true conservative from Canada writes: Darcy Meyer - I don't think that the GG would be telling the PM how to govern - only telling him to govern.
  27. Darcy Meyer from Canada writes: true conservative from Canada writes: Darcy Meyer - I don't think that the GG would be telling the PM how to govern - only telling him to govern.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    I see what your saying, but if the PM's advice is to have an election in order to have effective governance (which is part of governence), and she refuses, she is basically saying "you don't know what your doing, we don't need an election", the PM would resign. If there was an alternative option for governence in the house she may be justified, but that is not the case currently.
    It is a can of worms scenario for sure. I don't think we want the Head of State to determine how this country is governed (and refusing dissolution on the advice of the PM is exactly that), and prefer that she acts on the advice of the elected representatives. In most cases that is the leader of the largest party as PM, or sometimes as a coalition leader PM.
  28. Darcy Meyer from Canada writes: "I don't think we want the Head of State to determine how this country is governed (and refusing dissolution on the advice of the PM is exactly that), and prefer that she acts on the advice of the elected representatives."
    I'd like to add to that point that if the elected reps abuse that power, and the PM is simply calling elections for political advantage, it is up to the electorate to hand out judgment at the ballot box.
  29. true conservative from Canada writes: Darcy Meyer - I understand what you are saying. It is a bizarre situation, nonetheless and I suspect that it will not bode well for the CPC.

    Unless, Harper doesn't ask for an election at all. All he said is that he would call an election if he doesn't meet with the opposition leaders before the 8th. Excluding the Greens, this requirement has been fulfilled. It is the opposition leaders that have come out saying that Harper is adamant on the election. Harper has said nothing, yet forced the opposition and the media to show their strategies.
  30. true conservative from Canada writes: Although, for the record, I don't think that Harper is capable of that kind of strategy. While it would be the best strategy, I think that fooling the opposition is beyond Harper.
  31. Ed Long from Canada writes: I do not agree with the Prime Minister announcing he will visit the GG to disolve Parliament outside the House.

    But, I also disagree with the PM sending an appointed advisor to brief the press after a pivotal meeting with the Lead of the Opposition and to attack the Opposition.

    Just me.

    Following the traditional script eliminates rumours, conjecture and resentment.

    If you want a majority, play your cards on the table and announce your own bids.

    Quite frankly, I am hugely disappointed in Harper's performance in the last month and the influence of his appointed advisors. Am I voting for a King and his court, or a viable political party with a leader as part of the team?
  32. Ballin Munson from toronto, Canada writes: True conservative - everyone makes the same misstake. Peterson lost the election, but ONTARIO got nailed, and hammered with an NDP government. Whatever replaces Harper would be disasterous. The Liberals need some more time out before they can return to their role as "NGP". Lets say another 40 years?
  33. Bruce O'Hara from Canada writes: I have a vague memory from high school history class. In a minority parliament, if the leader of the largest party feels unable to govern at any point, isn't the Governor General supposed to invite the next largest party - in this case the Liberals - to try to put together a governing coalition? Wouldn't that put the cat among the pigeons if it happened!
  34. Ballin Munson from toronto, Canada writes: wow this one died at 33.... hmmm just a bunch of dull policy wonks...not even really anyone of the usual looney lefties trying to link harper to an out break of dog kicking in botswana or a decline in nanimo bar production at community fund raisers....
  35. Sammy Whammy from East York, Canada writes: true conservative from Canada writes: Michele K - what that would amount to, though, is that Harper has to give a Throne Speech and then he can call an election.

    If the GG sends Harper back to Parliament and he gives the Throne Speech and the other parties pass it, then he has the confidence of Parliament and the GG was wrong to send him back to Parliament instead of calling an election.

    -------------------------------------------

    No, in that situation, the GG would have been right, because the basis for over-riding the law would be proven wrong -- no disfunction.
  36. Bill Woodcock from Canada writes: The crux of the entire situation is this. Should an election return a minority Harper government, will Harper be able to say the it will then be functional. We all know that the Liberal minority was fuctional only because they were supported by everyone but Harper's puppets. We also know that the CPC will never supporrt a minority by any other party.
  37. Upper Canadian born and raised in Western Canada from St Albert, Canada writes: I hope she denies him - what a waste of taxpayer's MONEY.
  38. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Interesting comment about the Ontario precedent. If Harper is re-elected to a minority and the Throne Speech, for example, doesn't pass, the G-G, according to our expert, would be obligated to ask the opposition to form the government. That is what I thought so it is good to hear that anything short of a majority for Harper could lead to a change in government without another election.
  39. Ballin Munson from toronto, Canada writes: Bill Woodcock - why is it that harpers' party members are puppets? Is everyone in the liberals a free thinker, able to vote their own will? I lived in a riding that was represented by the same liberal since before I was born, and he held the record for never having been quoted in Hansard. john crouton was notorious for enforcing party discipline, as he had learned from guys like marc lalonde, keith davey etc.

    Sounds like I was wrong earlier about the looney left. you also forgot to mention that harper probably doesn't believe in the easter bunny (mean man!, oh, i don't like him already, yuk!)
  40. jay bajaj from Toronto, Canada writes: Dear Madam Governor General: I heard Prime Minister Mr. Harper wants to dissolve the parliament and call an election. He needs your approval in doing so. But why does he want to do this and why should you allow this? Please don’t do this. This is a simple request from an ordinary Canadian Citizen. Just hear me out for a moment: Mr. Harper’s government did not face any no-confidence motion in the parliament or he lost any such motion. He is not forced to resign by anybody. So why does he want to dissolve the parliament? Besides Mr. Harper’s party does not have a majority in the parliament, and approving for such an action means you’ll be over looking the wishes of other parties, who together have more members of parliament than Mr. Harper’s party. Madam G.G., as I have seen in other countries, in such situations, a person of your stature normally calls the other parties in the parliament to see if they want to form a new government and run the country. It’s your right to do so—and it’s the right thing to do. An election costs a lot of money—tax payers’ money. Will the new election change the structure of our present parliament? I don’t think so. I’ll bet a loony with you on this. We will have the same minority parliament and perhaps five parties this time. So let’s not call an election right now and waste our money. If Mr. Harper can’t run the Govt. then he should resign and let somebody else run the country for the rest of the term. The cost of election will be around $300 millions, which is unnecessary right now. It’ll be better used for some unemployed or homeless people. Hope you will consider my request. I’ll be watching you. Best regards. Jay Bajaj
  41. true conservative from Canada writes: Sammy Whammy - I think it is generally accepted that the fixed election law is worth less than a space heater in he!!. The question is whether it is legal for the GG to refuse Harper his election. You have to consider the question in the context of the Parliamentary system before this law was proposed (cause, let's face it, nothing has actually changed).

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top