The LA Times has done me the favor of correcting my somewhat innacurate description of how a Prime Minister comes to power in Canada:
A Nov. 25 commentary incorrectly stated how the prime minister is selected in Canada. Under the Canadian Constitution, the governor general — the personal representative of the reigning monarch of the Commonwealth Realm — appoints as prime minister the leader of the political party that has the most seats in the House of Commons, the lower house of Canada’s Parliament.
Thanks, but I’m still not sure I understand this completely yet. So the Conservatives got the most seats in the House of Commons? I thought we had a ‘Minority Government’, where Parliament could override any of Harper’s initiatives (kind of like the somewhat tenuous majority that the US Democrats have in Congress, which was, of course, the subject of that Op. Ed.). The Governor General is “personal representative of the reigning monarch of the Commonwealth Realm”? Does that mean the Queen? I don’t believe that Her Highness Queen Elizabeth chose Michaëlle Jean to be her representative. Who did, then? My fellow Canadian bloggers, help me out here…
a minority government only means that the party with the most elected seats has less than 50% of the total seats in the house. example: there are 301 seats, so a majority government would have to have 151 or more elected MPs. in the absence of that simple majority, the party with the most elected MPs is declared the minority winner.
it’s clear as mud, really.
Ready to be more confused?
What you need to remember is we aren’t a 2 party country like the US. They are correct in that the Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the most seats. However, since there is more that 2 parties competing in the elections; they may not have 50% of the seats. If you have more than 50% of the seats, then you have a Majority Government, and the oppositions parties can squawk all they want, but what you decide goes. This was the position that the Liberals were in most of the past years, but not when they formed their last government.
There can also be a situation where the leading party has, let’s say, 40% of the seats, the second party has 30%, the third has 20%, and the remaining 10% is other parties and/or independents. In this case, the party with 40% of the votes has the most seats, and their leader is appointed Prime Minister; however they have a Minority Government and must ensure that another party will vote with them for each bill they wish to pass. This makes for a lot of negotiation, and allows the party that agrees to work with them to get some of their views and policies injected into the legislation.
In the modern world, the Governor General is a figure-head. Long ago, he would have actually have been appointed by the Monarch; as he would have had to be a true representative of the Monarch as communication from Britain would have taken weeks or months. Today, even Britain is a democracy, and the Governor General in each former colony is actually selected by the local government. This is fine, as it is largely a figure-head position.
So when the current GGis to be replaced, the Prime Minister will tell the Queen who they want to be the replacement, and the Queen will rubber stamp it. Though selected by the current ruling party, the GG does not answer to them. In the Queen’s place, the GG will accept a PM’s resignation, which he would be expected to do if he suffered the embarrassment of losing a vote of confidence in Parliament, as this is meant to indicate that he can no longer form a government as Parliament will not accept his leadership. Additionally, the GG asks the winning party’s leader if he would be so kind as to form a government and lead the nation. The Prime Minister then appoints the other Ministers, such as Minister of Defense, Minister of Finance, etc.
Oh… and while the opposition is all the people that aren’t part of the party with the most seats, the “Leader of the Opposition” is the leader of the party with the second most seats. He/she then selects “Shadow Ministers” from the opposition; where a specific person is assigned to be the critic of each Minister.
Thanks, Heather and Gregg. Once I remembered that there are 3 parties (Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP) all jockeying for seats, it became easier to understand how one could have the largest slice of the pie but yet still be less than a 50% of all. I daresay if the Greens get a stronger representation this could get even more complicated, with temporary alliances and consensus-building being the order of the day in all cases.
As for the Governor General — in retrospect, that portion of the ‘correction’ feels like a wonky dictionary definition as a reaction to the more vague description I gave.
Reminds me of those people who argue about the fact that Nancy Pelosi will now be the third in line to run the US, should WPIUSH and Sharpshooter Cheney be out of power for some reason or another (where are the Mars Attacks Aliens when you need them!)
There is more than 3 major parties, don’t forget the Partie Québécois, who have actually been the ones the minority government Conservatives have relied upon a few times.
Just as the Conservatives brought down the minority Liberal government as quickly as they could; don’t be surprised to see the same very soon now that the Liberals have elected a new leader. They will probably make a move as soon as they figure they stand a chance at winning an election.
The politics involved there are that when you lose a vote of confidence like the Liberals did, you are expected to dissolve your government and call an election. If you win, you’ve proven yourself; and even if you again only have a minority, the opposition will likely not challenge you for a while as that would just enrage the voters. However, if you lose, then the party leader is expected to resign; which is why we have been watching as the Liberals elect a new leader. Unfortunately for Paul Martin, as he had to resign because he didn’t lead the Liberals to a victory; however the loss is probably much more his predecessor’s fault. His shot at glory came at the wrong time.
I share David’s confusion over the Canadian system of government, even though I’ve been subscribing to Maclean’s magazine for nearly two years. Reading Canadian history books hasn’t solved the problem either.
Can anyone suggest a book that explains it all? Perhaps something like a high school textbook?