Post election non confidence motion

Unless he prorogues parliament just before the confidence vote. I know, I know, that couldn't happen.

NO. Until the PM gets a Throne Speech passed he is essentially a caretaker PM with strictly curtailed powers. I suppose one thing Harper could do would be to stall recalling parliament for as long as possible after the election, but remember we have no budget and that at some point the government would not have any money with which to operate!

Well, I'm no parliamentary expert, but:

1. The PM can never prorogue parliament. Only the Governor-General can do that.

2. A new Parliament opens with the Speaker taking office, and the speech from the Throne. But what stops the G-G from proroguing Parliament before the vote is taken? You'll need to refer me to chapter and verse, otherwise you are all, once again, underestimating Stephen Harper.

You can't perogies Parliament until it has been called. When the  government was been defeated on a motion of non-confidence,ther were two options for the GG, see if someone else had the confidence of the House, which takes us back to the coaltion scenarios of 2008 and 2004, or grant the defeated governments  request for an election to see if it can win e confidence of the people through the election it requested.  Anything short of a majority and there is a prima facie case Harper has not done that, particularly as he has framed this election as a clear choice -either a majority for him or some sort of coalition. The case becomes stronger if he loses seats. e.g if the Conservatives drop below 130 seats, even though they may have a plurality, there is a clear sign he has been rejected. What is particularly important is if the majority of those elected as  Members of Parliament publicly express their lack of confidence in Harper or say they want to put him to the test in a Throne Speech. Ignatieff, though ostensibly rejecting a coalition, has said it will be up to Parliament.  Our best hope lies in the post-election positioning and negotiations. 

See the King-Byng affair as part of our history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byng-King_CrisisIn September 1925, William Lyon Mackenzie King, then Prime Minister of Canada, advised the governor general, the Lord Byng of Vimy, to dissolve parliament and drop the writ for a general election, to which Lord Byng agreed. In the subsequent election, Arthur Meighen's Conservative Party won 116 seats in the House of Commons to 101 for King's Liberals. Counting on the support of the Progressive Party, with its 28 seats, to overcome the Conservative plurality, King (who had lost his seat in the election) did not resign and remained in office as head of a minority government. Strictly speaking, this was not a coalition government, as the Progressives were not given any Cabinet seats and were thus not a part of the government.

....

With Byng remaining steadfast, King then, on 28 June, formally presented the Governor General with an Order-in-Council for the dissolution of parliament, which Byng declined to sign, on the grounds that the House of Commons should first be given the opportunity to decide if it could support an alternate government.[7] Thus, believing that he no longer had enough support to stay in office, King resigned, as per convention that requires a prime minister who has lost the support of the House of Commons to either step down or advise the governor general to drop the writ for an election. Byng then invited Conservative leader Arthur Meighen, who had been prime minister from 1920 to 1921, to form a government. Although many Conservatives privately preferred an election, Meighen believed he was bound by honour and convention to accept Byng's invitation. Meighen thus formed a new Cabinet, but made his ministers only "acting" ones; they were not sworn into office because the government still had to win a confidence vote in the House of Commons and, under the laws of the time, new ministers would have to seek re-election. The Liberals were furious, and were able to get the Progressives to join them in a successful drive to bring down the Conservative minority government, Meighen's government losing confidence by only one vote

Hasn't there already been legislation implemented so that the PM requires a majority vote in the House to prorogue?

Hey Stockholm. Remember 2008? Parliament opened November 18. No budget was presented. Instead, nine (9) days later, Flaherty tabled a financial statement. Before the House could vote non-confidence, the chief bootlicker Governor-General prorogued Parliament. It was reconvened about five weeks later, still with no budget, and lo and behold, that very same government has survived for more than three (3) years.

So, explain to me again, with chapter and verse, what Stephen Harper can and can't do.

I'm not saying he'll do this. I'm not saying it would serve his purposes. I am saying, with astonishment, that people are still underestimating him.

Thank you Unionist, I could not agree more with you. Just because something has not been done in the past does not mean Harper or whoever will not try it to keep power if he can.

Harper may have an ace-in the- hole with Governor General Johnson. This is a man who was a card-carrying partisan Conservative for many years. He also blatatnly ran interference for the Conservatives in narrowily drawing the terms of reference for the public inquiry examining Mulroney - Schreiber. In the hagiography that accompanied his appointment these things were largely unsaid. I have an uneasy feeling that the Mulroney matter was simply a rehearsal for his appointment.

Harper rarely does anything that is not aimed at his political advantage. In choosing Johnson he may well have been loooking forward to some future constitutional "crisis" in which he can obtain a dissolution of Parliamnet rather than lose power and run on a stabilty vs chaos platform.

Didn't King run on "King or chaos" in similar circumstances in 1926?

Thank you, Ken. That was precisely one of my two points: 1) It can be done. 2) Don't write Harper off.

The first news of Harper's intent to request prorogation was December 2 - and it was granted December 4. Please show me anyone here predicting prorogation before Dec. 2. No one predicted it - no one even saw it coming - to the best of my recollection. There wasn't much time for anyone to predict anything. All our discussion was about the coalition - the upcoming non-confidence vote - and what would happen after.

Correct. Stockholm is not alone in stating speculation as if it were law. Many so-called pundits were doing it in 2008 and since, and they were mostly wrong. When I ask for chapter and verse to justify pronouncements such as "you can't prorogue Parliament before the vote on the Throne Speech", of course the answer is silence.

Underestimation of Harper has been very destructive to this country over the past 5 years. Let's not continue down a wrong path, please.

I was talking about predictions once prorogation was brought up as the way to snuff the coaltion possibility. And once that was out on the table, people argued both ways. You will not find anyone knowledgeable who said simply that Harper cannot get his way.

So the situation in 2009 is not comparable to people saying now that if there is no majority, that a.] there must be a Throne Speech and confidence vote (there can be no prorgogue of a House that has not sat); and b.] that if the government loses the vote, they cannot get a new election out of the GG, and someone else will form government.

You saying that there are no laws one way or the other is pure formalism. There are no laws period. The question is degrees of precedence and room for different GG decisions. In January 2009 there was lots of room for the GG to choose. If we come to a GG choice after this election, there is no room for discretion.

Which is why I made my point that the real issue has nothing to do with the GG or GG choices at all. Unless Harper has dropped tons of seats, he will have lots of room for manouvering to get through a Throne Speech and Budget.

I'm not going to argue anymore with your extremist formalism Unionist: "since there are no laws carved in stone, then anything and everything is as likely or unlikely to happen as anything else."

Saying that this is the begiining of the end of democracy is a value judgement, not a prediction about likelihood.

Given the news out of Ottawa this AM, about  money spent in Conservative ridings and that there is a very good possibility Harper's government actions were illegal, I would say a post election confidence motion is highly likely.

It seems Sheila Fraser's report was supposed to be tabled April 5 regarding this perhaps illegal action of Harper's government, but because the government fell it could not be.  Guess Harper did not want to face Canadians with possible criminal charges levied against him so he made the budget unacceptable.

So....no wonder Harper wants a majority, he has to have one or his government will be gone.

Also wonder how this will play out on the campaign trail today, will the media cover it at all, or are they so far gone down the hell pit of anti-democracy that Canadians will hear nothing much?

ygtbk, not silly at all, and this is now at the core of what comes next, I feel, including any pretext to stall the GG's summoning a new session, if it can be gotten away with without outcry, and even then some.

This chicanery can continue almost indefinitely as well, can it not, there must be some way to bridge $ allowances if needed until Harper is more in the clear.

See footnote 131 for example, at http://www2.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/Document.aspx?sbdid=889ADBF1... , re indefinite length of delays.

The longer the delay before provoking a following non-confidence vote, the better the chance of a new election with a returned majority or stronger minority qua effective majority for Harper. Canadian goings on can't figure highly in international manufacture of pretexts, and I feel the real powers-that-be are somewhat impatient already somewhat to get their current man in, Ignatieff; for what it's worth, as Harper will do for them, after a fashion. But any stalling pretext will do, and all parties can even be expected to go along more or less quietly, as they can be expected to go along with extraordinary reconvening based on lies (eg re the isotope-lives-in-danger "crisis").

@D V - thanks very much for the link. So if I'm reading footnotes 127 and 131 correctly, could it really be March 2012 before Parliament sits again? It seems that they'd have to be back in session before that in order to pass a budget, but I don't know how much room there is to keep things running by way of Orders-In-Council.

The first prorogation was after a throne speech before a budget. The argument at the time was that he could do so because his speech from the throne had passed. If the throne speech does not pass the opposition get a kick at the can automatically.

The Cons are lying -- for example Moore when he says only the biggest party gets to form a government after an election. That is not true.

The government in power before the election automatically has a chance to meet the House first after an election. The concessions are not theatre on election night. They have purpose.

If everyone concedes then the remaining party gets first opportunity to meet the House. That is how it usually works. The biggest party usually goes first because the others concede but there is no requirement that they do so if they think they can win a vote and the bigger party can't. If they do not concede then the previous governemnt, as above, gets to try if they wish and then if they fail others follow. A new election is called if no party can survive a vote.

Harper, even if he got fewer seats than the Liberals could meet the House first if he wanted (as unlikely as that may be) but if he cannot pass a thrown speech the opposition leader would get a shot-- usually the official opposition but other parties can propose arrangements. For example if the BQ would support a Layton govenrment and not a Liberal led one then it is possible in theory that Layton as third party could govern as PM. However, it is highly unlikely that a party like the BQ would choose to condition support on the smaller party heading the government. In the end it comes to a vote in the Commons that decides who is legit not the teeny tiny mind of Harper and his liars.

Welcome to Babble by the way.

But there will not be a "motion of non confidence" after the election.

If there is no minority, the ball is in Harper's court. They have to put forward a Throne Speech. And since the Budget must come on its heels- the Throne Speech and the Budget will be a political package. Since the Budget is the tool the government has for getting support, that is where the practical action will be, even though it is technically the Throne Speech that needs to pass. Nobody is going to vote for the Throne Speech unless there is something in the Budget they will support.

Getting back to your statement- if the opposition parties are going to express non-confidence, they do it simply by not voting for the Throne Speech. And that's not just a 'technical' correction of what you put in the subject head- there is a world of difference.

And there will be lots of game playing, possibly including games of chicken [including between the opposition parties, who it is Incorrect to treat as a unit].... but the Governor General is not the biggest of them.

Only on Babble would it be considered rational to argue as if the extreme possibility that the GG might do anything Harper asks, is a major factor. But lets leave that bizarre argument aside.

The are all sorts of likely reasons that at least one of the opposition parties might rather let Harper continue governing. For example, just to name one: the Liberals make little or no gains and are internally immobilized.

These are by anyone's measure, far more likely obstacles to another government replacing Harper immediately after the election; than is the microscopic chance the GG will decide to save Harper from being replaced after losing a Throne Speech vote by calling a new election or whatever else is technically possible.

We already know how toothless it is to [suuposedly] make lif miserable for the minority Conservatives.

The contempt of Parliament ruling did not 'result in an election'. We were going to have an election- on what procedure was the only question.

And after the election- the choice is absolutely clear:

Either Harper is deposed immediately with the Throne Speech vote, or he is in indefinitely.... easily for another two and a half years. To boot: if that happens, Canadians will just completely tune out the cauterwailing after about Harper dishonest and undemocratic.

So what's the timing for all this to happen? End of May? End of June? Is there a hard limit?

And whatever the precise form of the government/governing arrangement, the Libs will be much more dependent than most minority governments on pleasing both the Bloc and the NDP. That vulnerability is going to militate towrads formal and relatively long duration governing agreements.... as much as was true of the aborted 2008 Coalition, without an actual coalition.

Not going to happen. Lots of reasons.

If they wan't go into government with Iggy as PM, they won't go.

Someone raised the possibility of Harper not calling the House intil March 2012.  That isn't possible because Parliament needs to pass a budget.  That said, I think Harper will have some amount of time before he would be forced to call the House.

That was me. And you're probably right, since I worried about the exact same issue wrt the budget. Having said that, does anyone know what the outer limits of an Order-In-Council are? We know that a money bill is always a confidence motion, but how much can you spend without actually asking Parliament?

Yup. Not claiming that it's likely - I just want to know where the edges are.

The Devine Tories got in trouble for financing the government by special warrants at the end of their term.  Eventually the Legislative Law Clerk (ie, the Legislature's lawyer), Marrilee Rasmussen wrote:

As I recall, despite their majority, the Conservatives were at risk of falling on a non-confidence motion, and so Devine prorogued the house June 18 before supply had been voted. Therefore, the government used special warrants to cover expenditures until they were defeated in October of that year. Despite there being just more than one quarter left in the fiscal, the new government chose to have the Legislature vote supply in a special December session rather than continueing the corrupt and possibly illegal practice of governing by special warrant.

Rumour has it that the Lieutenant Governor seriously considered the radical move of firing her Premier due to a number of abuses, including special warrants.

Seriously, a Grand Coalition should not be written off as a possibility.

Harper will win a majority and all of this will be moot. Ignatieff may also lack the will to govern if he loses this election and is looking for an exit (likely to Harvard) right-a-way. Beyond not being able to count on the support of the Canadian people, Ignatieff could not in that instance even count on the support (or loyalty) of his own party.

Ignatieff stepping down would be good for the party. But the Liberals will still need to do some actual opposing in the official opposition role this time if they ever plan on being a contender again.  They've been to the political right, and it's not working for them. And if current opinion polls are anything to go by, Canadians aren't buying what the LPC is selling. This is their reward for being a redundant conservative party. The once glorious phony majority days ended with the 2004 election. They will have to work for the next one. Low voter turnout again by the looks of things.

As for Ignatieff, if he can increase the Liberal seat count by, say, 10% over the 2008 result, he's probably safe. I doubt anyone in the LPC is ready to challenge him.

But this is different Malcolm. We're talking about The All Poweful Harper, and the puppets would just do his bidding.

One important point people should remember:

Every time Harper positions this election as a choice between a Conservative majority and a coalition, he LEGITIMIZES a potential coalition.

If the choice is between a Conservative majority and a coalition, then anything less than 155 seats for Harper can be spun as a vote for coalition.

The question is not what happens if Harper loses the first vote in the new house (an amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, likely). There is no question: Ignatieff is asked to form a goverment.

The question is, what happens leading up to that? After the 1985 election in Ontario, both parties bid for NDP support. The NDP would not have voted the PCs out if they had not reached a satisfactory agreement with the Liberals. The key elements were the two-year-term, and the program. Without a fixed term, the Liberals would have picked a fight with the NDP as soon as they were high enough in the polls to win a majority. So Ignatieff will have to negotiate with the NDP. The negotiations in December 2008 (see Brian Topp's book) were incredibly rushed by comparison with the 1985 Ontario negotiations, which were almost European in their calm tempo. When he says "no cabinet seats" the NDP might call his bluff: no cabinet seats, no non-confidence vote. Dion's team tried that briefly (see Topp's book) and backed down. To quote Harper "he did it once; he'll do it again." So who knows?

Especially since Harper will have way less than 50% of the votes.

During the debate last night Ignatieff hinted that a coalition is possible. He was addressing Harper when he made the remark that the party which has the confidence of the house will form the next government. Harper did not respond, to my surprise. 

Here's what was said Sept. 9 2004:

I gather Harper went beyond this at some point and said "there are options" but not, perhaps, Sept. 9. Anyone know when?

Harper would need to have the speech from the throne pass before he would be PM with the power to prorogue government. Let us just not let him get that far!