Canadian Leader Shuts Down Parliament In Desperate Attempt To Stay In Power

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper suspended Parliament on Thursday to avoid almost certain defeat in a confidence vote _ an unprecedented move allowing him to retain power and confront Canada's flagging economy.

The Conservative leader won the approval of the unelected representative of the head of state for the power to shut down Parliament until Jan. 26, hoping to buy enough time to develop a stimulus package.

"Today's decision will give us an opportunity _ I'm talking about all the parties _ to focus on the economy and work together," Harper said.

Harper, whose party won re-election just two months ago, said a budget will be the first order of business when Parliament resumes.

Three opposition parties have united against Harper, charging he has failed to insulate Canada from the global financial crisis. The credit crisis and a global sell off of commodities have slowed Canada's resource-rich economy, and the finance minister said last week he expects a recession.

The parties, which control the majority of seats in Parliament, had scheduled a confidence vote for Monday in which Harper was virtually certain to lose _ a defeat that would have forced his government from power.

Liberal leader Stephane Dion said the opposition would continue to seek Harper's ouster unless he makes a "monumental change" in dealing with the economy and other parties.

"For the first time in the history of Canada the prime minister is running away from the Parliament of Canada," Dion said.

Story continues below

advertisement

The opposition was also outraged by a government proposal to scrap public subsidies for political parties, something the opposition groups rely on more than the Conservatives. Although that proposal was withdrawn, the opposition has continued to seek Harper's ouster, saying he has lost the trust and confidence of parliament.

Governor General Michaelle Jean, who represents Britain's Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, had the power to grant the unusual request to suspend parliament. Had she refused, Harper would have had two choices: step down or face the no-confidence vote.

Both Harper and Jean's spokeswoman declined to comment on the leaders' two-and-a-half hour meeting Thursday.

Robert Bothwell, director of the international relations program at the University of Toronto, criticized the move to suspend parliament.

"Canada looks terrible. It looks ridiculous. It makes nonsense of our constitution," he said, adding that the move set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for any prime minister facing defeat to follow suit.

Opposition politicians also blasted Harper's methods.

"I frankly don't regard his government as legitimate any more," said Liberal Bob Rae, comparing the move to something more commonly expected from a Third World country. "His government is there because he avoided the will of Parliament."

Opposition New Democrat leader Jack Layton called it a sad day.

"He's trying to lock the door of Parliament so that the elected people cannot speak," Layton said. "He's trying to save his job."

Analysts said a governor general has never been asked to suspend parliament to delay an ouster vote when it was clear the government didn't have the confidence of a majority of legislators.

Harper's Conservative Party was re-elected Oct. 14 with a strengthened minority government, but still must rely on the opposition to pass legislation.

The Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois, which together control a majority of parliament's 308 seats, signed a pact agreeing to vote this coming Monday to oust Harper and setting the structure for their proposed coalition government.

But infighting among the Liberals is casting doubt on whether the coalition will hold. Liberal Jim Karygiannis called his party's leader a disaster and said Dion should step down.

The opposition was embarrassed by Dion's televised response to Harper on Wednesday. Dion's English is awkward and his address was beset by technical woes. It was delivered almost an hour late and the fuzzy quality of the production had Canadian Broadcasting Corp. anchor Peter Mansbridge cracking: "It kind of looked like they shot it with a cell phone."

Harper needs the support of 12 opposition lawmakers to avoid being toppled in a confidence vote next month and some lawmakers will consider breaking ranks with their party after hearing from angry constituents.

"The issue," Wiseman said, "is whether can the Liberals hang together."

Comments

[Trittydi]

Shame on Governor General Michaelle Jean.
*

[DAE]

Looks like your PM just told you to "Go Canuck Yourselves"

[onelife1]

Can you imagine if Bush tried this....

[Trittydi]

He'd get away with it.
*

[eichler1]

Gingrich, though not president at the time, tried something similar and suffered the singular shame of being a sitting Congress member ousted from office in an election (very rare).

Bush II did something worse -- haven't your heard of the unitary executive theory?

[happylittlevegemite]

Question for the Canadian constitutional experts: Is there any provision in the Canadian constitution for the GG to dismiss the government and force a general election???? It happened in Australia in 1975 after a prolonged constitutional crisis (in albeit different circumstances)

[kimpea]

Yes! After a non-confidence vote (which is what Harper was facing), the GG has a number of options including REQUESTING a coalition government or calling a general election (even though we just had one). Here's a good article that outlines her choices: http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2008/12/05/7639686-sun.html

[sussex]

Here's a very good question and answer article on the constitutional process:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/547915

[lapoutlander]

Back a few decades in the eighties Canada nearly had a similar crisis where the upper house (senate) was Liberal and the lower house (Parliament) was Progressive-Conservative. And the Senate Liberals were unhappy about something (GST sales tax) and started delaying the bills. However in this case the PCs had an overwhelming majority in Parliament, were able to use emergency powers (the deadlock clause) to add more PCs to the senate and were able to force through changes in procedure such that the senate can no longer delay budgetary bills.
Had that not been resolved the then GG could have dissolved Parliament forcing an election even though no vote of non-confidence been possible due to the low numbers of the members of Parliament sitting for the Liberals and NDP. But I don't think the GG could have dismissed the Prime Minister given the likelihood the PCs would vote down any Opposition government.. No GG has ever dismissed a Canadian Prime Minister, but there were 2 close calls. In each case the Prime Ministers resigned to avoid the ultimate humiliation that dismissal would have meant for them.

[Parisian]

Harper is stoking anti-French sentiment in a bid to gain the support of Canadian rednecks and hold on to power. His actions will only increase (happily) support for the Bloc and even the PQ within Quebec.

[eichler1]

Hey, maybe Harper should have a chat with Sarah Palin. Looks like their political instincts are similar.

[sussex]

For fellow Canuck oldtimers, I would say that Harper is fuddle duddling while the economy burns. ;)

[craigbear]

Heh!

[Suzique]

All that happened was Parliament recessed a week early. It does not mean our government stops working. Most Canadians were very angry about this takeover attempt. It is an archaic law set out when Canada had two parties instead of four. It started when the government proposed all political parties eliminate public financial support. This being cut off from the trough put the coalition plans in motion.
These plans have been in the works for weeks. As the Queen's representative, the Governor General was right in suspending Parliament a week early. All three coalition parties have stated they will vot against the budget in January so it all happens again. The majority of Canadians want another election because it is not democratic to have a non=elected ruler shoved down our throats.

[sussex]

This crisis was precipitated by Harper's over-reaching arrogance. We had an election in October which resolved nothing because the electorate did not trust Harper sufficiently to award him a majority. Concerned Canadians do not favour another election costing another three hundred million dollars at a time when we will have to run a deficit to stimulate the economy. If Harper wants to retain power he will have to abandon his divisive, vindictive right wing agenda, as evidenced by his recently proposed and then hastily rescinded measures, and work for the good of all Canadians and not just his base

[Mangler]

A few things: Parliamentarians make up the House of Commons and from the Commons the government is formed. When Parliamentarians (ie MPs) no longer have confidence in the government, then the GG has two clear choices: allow for a fresh election or ask other MPs to form a coalition. This is part of our Constitution and is central to our Westminster model. And Canada has rarely had two political parties. Two dominant political parties, but not only two.

Proroguing to save Harper's political hide was a crass move and the GG was wrong to allow this. Proroguing should happen at the completion of House and Senate business (ie the "natural" end of a session) or in a time of emergency. Saving Harper when the House has lost confidence in his government is not an emergency. And one cannot evoke current economic conditions as constituting an emergency as the Liberal-NDP coalition are offering a detailed plan.

Check out Eugene Forsey's "How Canadians Govern Themselves". An essential read at this time when many Canadians do not understand how our constitution functions.

[Graceless]

In response to some of the points you made.

1. Proroguing Parliament does indeed mean that the government doors are locked. In the middle of an economic nightmare, our legislators have been locked out from doing their jobs.

2. If you are going to state that "most Canadians are very angry about the coalition", you need to provide evidence. As it stands, most Canadians are not Conservatives or else that party would have a majority. Most Canadians, as it stands, are left of center given that the combined elected seat totals indicate this. Most Canadians voted left of center. That much is fact.

3. I assume that by "archaic law" you are referring to the ability, when faced with a minority government, for two options. One, to let the minority government function as the government. Or two, for a coalition to form in order to form a majority. I don't quite understand where you seem to think that this is "undemocratic", given that one of the characteristics of a democratic government is "rule by the majority". If the majority of voters would be represented better by a coalition government, it is hardly undemocratic.

4. The insinuation that a coalition has been "in the works" is heresay and I ask that you provide evidence that none of the other media sources seem to have found or reported.

[AndrewInToronto]

For my fellow Canadians who wish to voice themselves to the Governor General, you can do so through:

[e-mail]

Attn: Her Excellency the Right Honourable MichaÃ"lle Jean

The salutation is: Your Excellency the Right Honourable MichaÃ"lle Jean

[canuck eh]

I, like most Canadians, am angry at the whole of parliament, no matter which side they support because economic issues are far more important than all this partisan bickering.

With a minority, Harper should never have propsed 1. Eliminating public financing for political parties or 2. Making it unlawful for public employees to strike. Though he has backed off on these two items, the opposition are ploughing aheas anyway.

Turns out the opposition parties have been planning a 'coup' for weeks, just waiting for a reason to jump in. This is ridiculous. The Bloc Quebecois (French separatists) cannot be trusted to support the coalition for 18 months. They would be continually threatening to withdraw unless they get more and more $$$$ for Quebec.

The Feds have already taken over billions of mtge-backed securities from the banks. While oil prices are lower, the oil-producing provinces are still in good shape. Ontario and Quebec are dependent on US exports. Canada has US Auto factories. We need to wait until we see what our contribution to the auto makers is before we decide on further stimulus. This is what the govt. is doing.

The Liberals are weak and leaderless; the New Dems are fiscal idiots. The Conservatives will give us the biggest bang for the buck in this economy.

I hope that Harper can play a more concilliatory tune before the end of January and bring enough Liberals back on side to put all this nonsense to bed.

[AndrewInToronto]

The Bloc signed on for 18 months, the NDP and Liberals for 30 months. This is a fact.

[MJinCanada]

"Biggest bang for the buck" ?

I disagree. We get screwed and they take our money too.

[PSM42]

Which turkeys are going to pay for these shenanigans? These turkeys. http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20081127_bailout_turkey/ Or call for Alex Doulis http://alexdoulis.com/

[Graceless]

Given that the three political parties formed the coalition (and in the case of the Bloc, as a signatory of formal support) in response to the lack of action regarding the economic crisis...

I think that it is clear that your claim for the "biggest bang for the buck" does not lie with the Conservative Party. It remains to be seen where it lies.

[MuchMadness]

Can any Canadians explain how a no-confidence vote works in the Canadian parliament? If the parliament votes no confidence, doesn't that mean that all the members of parliament have to stand for re-election in very short order?

What about the queen's governor general. Is that person the final authority on everything?

I don't understand why Britain keeps the monarchy and has the queen appoint bishops in the Church of England. Why do the people stand for it?

[YesWeCanada]

A vote of non confidence results in the dissolution of parliament and generally an election soon follows. The House of Commons, can be dissolved at any time by the Governor General, conventionally on the advice of the Prime Minister. If the government is refused confidence or supply, the Prime Minister must either resign and permit another member of the House of Commons to form a government, or else advise the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament. Also, the House of Commons automatically dissolves after five years, although no House of Commons has yet survived that long.

The coalition parties would have an opportunity to take their case to the Governor General. She might allow them to form government and avoid an election if they presented a strong enough case that they could supply a stable government.

[AndrewInToronto]

I'm wondering how you are feeling today, YesWeCanada. I was shocked and quite saddened. A prime minister which bans parliament and claims to want to defend democracy. No cart wheels today, alas.

[Graceless]

A vote of non-confidence can result in two things, although most are familiar with only one outcome. Which is, as you mentioned, an immediate federal election.

The GG does have the alternate option of asking the current elected members if there is any other party/group of members that has the support to lead, which would allow the coalition to step up and govern, splitting the formal posts amongst the parties. The coalition delivered a letter of intent early on to the GG to ensure that she knew ahead of time that they would not require an election to lead and would be seeking this lesser known secondary option.

The GG is not the final authority on all things parliamentary. The position is a figurehead, a nod to our history (most Canadians don't really care about the symbolic attachment), and the position can be called upon to make a decision regarding points of constitutional and parliamentary order. The GG did not suspend the parliament though. She granted the Prime Minister permission to do so, after hearing both sides of the issue and obviously believing that the Conservative Party had made the case for being able to. It was the PM who prorogued parliament, after having won that particular point of order from the GG.

It's a nuanced system, but even a quick read through wikipedia should give you a pretty decent understanding if you want to get more in-depth.

[MuchMadness]

I have read some about the British parliamentary system, which seems to have evolved rather than being created in the aftermath of a revolution by loosely united disparate states as the system of U.S. government was. Our constitution has flaws, but when the U.S. government performs poorly it is usually due to flawed politicians rather than flawed fundamentals in the governmental design. We do still have some constitutional flaws, though, like the electoral college. Still, I am happy that we have no monarch or monarch's representative in our system of government.

[Ibis3]

As to your second question, officially, the Queen of Canada herself is the final authority. The Governor General is her representative and is appointed to the position by her on the advice of the PM.

To answer your final question: How about I ask why the U.S. keeps the president and has him or her appoint SC judges?

Though there are some in Canada who are republicans, the country has a long tradition of loyalty to the Crown.

[MuchMadness]

The U.S. president does not "appoint" Supreme Court justices, he nominates them.
Not only the advice but also the consent of the U.S. Senate is required. The constitution also requires the consent of the senate to the appointment of all public ministers, consuls, and officers. The congress may vest certain appointment powers in the presidency alone or in the courts or in the heads of the executive departments, but it always retains the legal authority granted by the constitution to require its own consent.

[Interested Party]

This is the benefit our Parliamentary system, if the sitting government does not have a majority or a sufficient majority which then requires them to work with the opposition party or parties, as it is in this case. PM Harper did not receive a majority but was acting as if he did. The opposition parties correctly called him on measures he was trying to push through to ensure a more favourable climate the next time he called an election, which he can do when he wishes to do so. To me, the Parliamentary system is superior as the Prime Minister has to stand up and lead in the House of Commons and can be challenged by the Opposition Party. In the US, Bush and Cheney can hide away from the Congress and Senate and the public if he they choose, which they have done. I would suspect if US Presidents had to stand up and defend or explain their policies, the government you elect would be more accountable to the people who elected them not to Wall Street who bought them.

[MJinCanada]

The Governor General is also, in a way, there to set a gracious example. The GG is supposed to be non-partisan figurehead, someone who can present awards, do charity balls and other things without political baggage.

[BnDovr]

Love the Canadian system.. the parliament can fire the Prime Minster at any moment. We have a weak congress and a stupid president here. Together, they waged the dumbest war in the history of this nation and they also brought down the economy while the whole country is watching.



Go Canada!!!!!!

[sussex]

Also, a party can replace its leader at any time between elections in the parliamentary system. Such a decision led to the end of Margaret Thatcher's leadership in the British Parliament and Jean Chretien's in the Canadian Parliament Such an option might have kept Bush's Republican party from imploding so badly in the last election.

[pinnsy]

I am excited about a western separatist party and Stephen Harper has sure fanned the flames for one this last two weeks. I can hardly wait for the 4 western provinces to break away. I think the name should be British Saskitoba (British Columbia,Alberta,Saskatchewan,and Manitoba).The capital should be in Regina Saskatchewan as it wuld be quite central. The oil companies should be located with their head offices in the province they are working in (not just calgary). And the oil and natural gas employees should have to live in the province where they work (not just live in Alberta). I think that any nuclear plants should be in Alberta (as you screwed up your water and enviroment already). And I also think that any oil refineries in Saskatchewan must meet strict enviroment standards(due to global warming).-Not LIKE IN ALBERTA. We will have 5 political parties to vote for- the traitor liberals, the socialist N.D.P.s, the conservatives, the green party, and the separatist party. Look out western canada these bullies who cant get their way in Canada are looking for a new place to control. Provinces watch your backs. I look forward to working with you Stephen as I know that you reach across the aisle naturally instead of always trying to manipulate thins your way

[tuffymama]

Who does he think he is, Charles I or something?

Can't wait until he declares martial law . . .

[pinnsy]

I

[veganbilly]

dionshrug.gif did its job

[Graceless]

If I had to see that stupid photo one more time....