Coalition Government
|
|
Coalition Government
Is a coalition government (such as the one proposed in the winter of 2008-2009) “legal” and does it fit within the Canadian concept of “democracy”?
Yes.
The question of who forms the Canadian “government” at any given time is a question of how the members of parliament organize themselves: it can be a majority, a minority or a coalition. When Canadians vote in a general election, they do not vote for a Prime Minister, nor do they vote for a government. Instead, Canadians vote for a member of parliament (“MP”) to represent their riding in Ottawa. Each MP gets a “seat” in the House of Commons. In all, 308 MPs are chosen.
The Prime Minister is actually appointed by the Governor General (“GG”). The GG, as the representative of the Queen, who, technically, is Canada’s head of state (in other words, the PM is not the head of state). The Prime Minister then chooses from among the MPs to appoint the members of the Cabinet.
As noted on www.thetyee.ca:
The Constitution Act of 1867 doesn't even mention the prime minister or political parties. MPs are everything.
How MPs organize themselves is entirely up to them. This is why two MPs are able to currently sit as independents; there could just as easily be 308 of them. Most MPs have organized themselves into groupings known as parties. This simplifies the process of forming government but doesn't change the constitutional pre-eminence of individual MPs.
There is just one basic requirement: The government must at all times enjoy the confidence of the majority of MPs in the House of Commons.
In other words, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet can only remain as the “government” of Canada for as long as they have the support of a majority of the MPs.
What exactly is a coalition government and how is it different from a majority government?
If the majority of MPs are from one political party, the government is said to be a “majority” government. In such a case, it is generally expected that government will at all times enjoy the confidence of the majority of MPs in the House of Commons. To help this process, the GG generally appoints as PM the leader of the political party that controls more than half of the seats in the House. However, when there is a “free vote”, it is still possible – even in a majority – for the government to lose the confidence of the majority. That would normally trigger an election.
If no party has the majority of seats there is, instead, more than one potential government. In such a case, the GG has to choose as PM the MP that is most likely to be able to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons.
- a) In such a case, it is usually the leader of the political party who has the largest number of seats in the House (even though that number is not a majority). This is what occurs in a minority government. This is what occured in 2008, and the leader that was chosen was Stephen Harper.
- b) However, it is possible, for example, for more than one party to partner together to create a larger number of MPs. This is known as coalition. In other words, a coalition government is a government with cabinet ministers from more than one party.
Both a minority government and a coalition government need the support of more than one party to form a government, because in both cases no one party has a majority of seats in the House of Commons.
That being the case, if, for example, in 2008, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc had formed a coalition, the GG may have appointed an MP from the coalition as the PM (had that occurred, that would likely have been Stéphane Dion, as he was leader of the party with the next highest number of seats at that time).
However, regardless of whether a government is a minority or a coalition government, if the government loses a vote in the House of Commons (thereby losing the “confidence of the House”), the GG must act. Generally, s/he would either call an election, or try and find someone else who will have the confidence of the House, and make that MP the PM instead.
Was the coalition government proposed in the winter 2008-2009 a coalition between the Liberal and the NDP or the Liberals the NDP and the Bloc Québecois?
It was a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP. Although these two parties could have formed a coalition between just the two of them, if they had done so, they would not have had a majority of seats. In other words, they would have been a minority coalition government (and one with a smaller minority of seats than the Conservative minority that existed in the early fall of 2008). As a result, in order to greater ensure that they would be able to maintain the confidence of the House, they asked for the “support” of the Bloc Québecois.
This means that The Bloc merely formally agreed to support the coalition (in other words, not vote against it) for 18 months. However, as the Bloc would not have had any seats in the new Cabinet, it was not officially a part of the coalition.
Previous Canadian governments, including the Conservatives, have attempted similar, albeit less formal arrangements, with the Bloc in the past. Remember, given the emphasis on MPs, there is no other way for a minority government to govern other than with the support of MPs outside of its own party.
Adapted in part from: www.gauntlet.ca.
In the Canadian parliamentary context, what would it mean for a particular political party to have a “veto”?
The Canadian Oxford Paperback Dictionary (Don Mills: Oxford University Press, 2000, at page 1172) defines “veto” as a “constitutional right to reject a legislative enactment.” In other words, if, in the Canadian parliament, if a party had a veto, that party would be able to reject a bill of the government, regardless of how many other MPs have voted to the pass bill – even if a majority of the other MPs voted for the bill.
This being the case, there is never a formal veto power in the Canadian House of Commons. In any given situation, if majority of MPs vote “yes” for a bill, that bill will pass and become law (upon passage by the Senate and Royal Assent).
Therefore, when there is a majority government, unless there is a free vote, when the ruling party proposes a bill, that bill will pass, as the majority of MPs will vote “yes” for the bill. It does not matter if all of the other MPs (meaning those not from the ruling party) in the House vote against the bill. Majority wins.
If, however, there is either a minority government, or a coalition government, it is impossible to pass any bill without the support of the MPs of more than one party. Although this is not a “veto”, it does provide some power to opposition parties (this is the nature of a minority government). By definition, if a particular party has only a minority of MPs, it cannot pass a bill on its own – to pass a bill, the consent of the majority of MPs is required. As a result, in such a situation, more than one party can have the power to stop a bill.
An example from the 40th Canadian parliament (December 2008).
- In the 2008 federal government there were 308 MPs: 143 Conservative, 77 Liberal, 37 NDP, 49 Bloc, and 2 independents.
- As a result, in order for a bill to pass, 155 “yes” votes were required.
- With these numbers, assume for the moment that the Conservatives had attempted to pass a bill.
- On their own, they could not have done it (they have only 143 votes’ not 155).
- Also assume that the Liberals, NDP and all independents voted against this bill (total: 116). The passing of the bill would depend on the votes of the Bloc: if all Bloc MPs voted for the bill, it would pass; if all Bloc MPs vote against the bill, it would not pass.
- Although, in the above scenario, the Bloc arguably has some power, this is not a “veto” power, as the majority, whatever it is, would still win.
- This would only be a veto power if the Bloc had the power to cause the bill to fail despite there a being a majority of MPs who had voted for the bill.
Under the coalition government proposed in the winter 2008-2009, would the Bloc Québecois have had a veto on every vote and all legislation?
No.
Under the proposed coalition of winter 2009-2009, the Bloc Québecois would not have had a veto. In fact, quite to the contrary, under the terms of the coalition, the Bloc agreed to vote in accordance with the Liberals and the NDP in the first 18 months of the term of this coalition government (if it had occured). This, in effect, guaranteed that the Bloc will not vote against what was being passed, thereby maintaining the unity of the group of MPs forming the majority in the House of Commons.
See Also
For more information, see these other Canadian Legal FAQs.
External Resources
- The Tyee
- The Gauntlet
- The Parliamentary Cycle
- Davison, Charles B. Prorugation- A Powerful Tool Forged in History. LawNow November-December 2009. 13-15
This page was last updated in January 2010.
Back