Very enlightening; thank you! On the PM not realistically sitting in the upper house by convention, there's an interesting comparison here to India, which has a modified Westminster system. The only key differences are that the constitutional head of state is the President, elected by an electoral college comprising members of both houses of Parliament and the state assemblies. Meanwhile, members of the upper house are elected by the state assemblies. All Indian PMs sat in the lower house (elected seat by seat like our Hoc), except one: from 2004 - 20014, PM Manmohan Singh, a PhD economist and an "accidental" politician (when he became finance minister in 1991 at the time of a macroeconomic crisis), who passed away recently, sat in the upper house. He once tried and failed to win a seat in the lower house. This was frowned upon by some, but there was nothing unconstitutional about it.
Along similar lines... what about the Cons getting a majority (or minority) and PP losing his seat in Parliment? Would he still become PM as leader of the party?
You miss the point. In a democracy the leader is elected by the country, not a group of delegates who were less than one percent of the eligible voters. I mean just because that’s how it’s done in Communist China, doesn’t mean it should be done here. He needs to call an election, now.
when ever I get a call :” who will you vote for as PM? “ I have to answer that neither candidate for PM is in my riding. Yet I can vote for a member of parliament. Unfortunately that member usually forgets about me after arriving in Ottawa, becomes a faithful follower of the party line. > I do not feel represented in parliament.
I have always understood that if the party leader didn't win their riding that someone would be asked (told politely) to give up their seat. I expect with an election imminent it would be easy to pick someone that was not running again and "give" him that seat. A coworker suggested JT's seat was obvious.
I think it's also worth questioning whether the next Prime Minister actually has a right to meet Parliament and test confidence.
Suppose the Conservatives and NDP reached a coalition deal like the one in 2008. Then, Harper was entitled to exercise his presumed confidence, regroup, and meet the House again. But if memory serves, the convention in the UK is—or at least some argue it is—that an outgoing Prime Minister has no right to name their successor and therefore, in the absence of a formal process to produce a candidate for Prime Minister, the monarch has to make the choice afresh. Again if I remember correctly, this happened as recently as the 1960s with the Conservative Party.
If it's true that an outgoing Prime Minister in Canada cannot Advise on a successor, does the Governor-General have to make a fresh decision? Would they not be bound to recognise (in this hypothetical with a coalition agreement) that Poilièvre was a better candidate to secure majority support?
Maybe the answer is no. Maybe the convention is that the leader of the (largest) government party is entitled to carry the presumption of confidence from their predecessor. The UK situation is different because they were actually relying on the Sovereign to pick their leader.
But if the answer is yes, then when we look at the situation that the Governor-General will be facing, where no leader has confidence, is it possible that they have the discretion to search for an appointee who will immediately Advise a dissolution? If she did, the new Liberal leader would almost certainly be the choice. But it would be a wild time.
Hopefully this becomes moot with the Libs losing a confidence vote soon after the Throne Speech when Parliament reconvenes and we (finally) proceed to a general election. It becomes less moot if the Dippers tear up their pledge to force an early election and instead support the Libs through until (or after) the October fixed election date.
Given the centralization of power in the PMO, if Mark Carney were to win the Liberal leadership, then during the Carney interregnum there would there be any legislators on the actual executive council? That’s a rhetorical question, sorry.
An excellent explanation. Clear and comprehensive. Thanks for doing this!!!
Very enlightening; thank you! On the PM not realistically sitting in the upper house by convention, there's an interesting comparison here to India, which has a modified Westminster system. The only key differences are that the constitutional head of state is the President, elected by an electoral college comprising members of both houses of Parliament and the state assemblies. Meanwhile, members of the upper house are elected by the state assemblies. All Indian PMs sat in the lower house (elected seat by seat like our Hoc), except one: from 2004 - 20014, PM Manmohan Singh, a PhD economist and an "accidental" politician (when he became finance minister in 1991 at the time of a macroeconomic crisis), who passed away recently, sat in the upper house. He once tried and failed to win a seat in the lower house. This was frowned upon by some, but there was nothing unconstitutional about it.
As a Canadian who doesn’t know our civics, I’d love to read more about how our government operates
Along similar lines... what about the Cons getting a majority (or minority) and PP losing his seat in Parliment? Would he still become PM as leader of the party?
Yes. He’d then run in a by election. Previously, governing party MPs have stepped down to allow it to happen quickly.
You miss the point. In a democracy the leader is elected by the country, not a group of delegates who were less than one percent of the eligible voters. I mean just because that’s how it’s done in Communist China, doesn’t mean it should be done here. He needs to call an election, now.
Thanks for the refresher Philippe!
when ever I get a call :” who will you vote for as PM? “ I have to answer that neither candidate for PM is in my riding. Yet I can vote for a member of parliament. Unfortunately that member usually forgets about me after arriving in Ottawa, becomes a faithful follower of the party line. > I do not feel represented in parliament.
Thanks for the info.
I have always understood that if the party leader didn't win their riding that someone would be asked (told politely) to give up their seat. I expect with an election imminent it would be easy to pick someone that was not running again and "give" him that seat. A coworker suggested JT's seat was obvious.
For those wondering, the two PMs to serve while in the Senate were:
John Abbott 1891 to 1892, and Mackenzie Bowell 1894-1896.
Excellent and succinct crash course in Westminster history. No mention of Magnum Concilium though!
Mea culpa for the magna carta absentia!
Fantastic as always!
I think it's also worth questioning whether the next Prime Minister actually has a right to meet Parliament and test confidence.
Suppose the Conservatives and NDP reached a coalition deal like the one in 2008. Then, Harper was entitled to exercise his presumed confidence, regroup, and meet the House again. But if memory serves, the convention in the UK is—or at least some argue it is—that an outgoing Prime Minister has no right to name their successor and therefore, in the absence of a formal process to produce a candidate for Prime Minister, the monarch has to make the choice afresh. Again if I remember correctly, this happened as recently as the 1960s with the Conservative Party.
If it's true that an outgoing Prime Minister in Canada cannot Advise on a successor, does the Governor-General have to make a fresh decision? Would they not be bound to recognise (in this hypothetical with a coalition agreement) that Poilièvre was a better candidate to secure majority support?
Maybe the answer is no. Maybe the convention is that the leader of the (largest) government party is entitled to carry the presumption of confidence from their predecessor. The UK situation is different because they were actually relying on the Sovereign to pick their leader.
But if the answer is yes, then when we look at the situation that the Governor-General will be facing, where no leader has confidence, is it possible that they have the discretion to search for an appointee who will immediately Advise a dissolution? If she did, the new Liberal leader would almost certainly be the choice. But it would be a wild time.
Thank You
So did we get 1867 because of 1837 or despite it?
Hopefully this becomes moot with the Libs losing a confidence vote soon after the Throne Speech when Parliament reconvenes and we (finally) proceed to a general election. It becomes less moot if the Dippers tear up their pledge to force an early election and instead support the Libs through until (or after) the October fixed election date.
Given the centralization of power in the PMO, if Mark Carney were to win the Liberal leadership, then during the Carney interregnum there would there be any legislators on the actual executive council? That’s a rhetorical question, sorry.
Thank you. I knew it was possible, but had no idea of the fascinating history behind it. Well done. 👍