Posted by Wilson
on October 26, 2009, 11:45 am, in reply to "Re: Essay: My TA apparently knows very little about Canada's monarchy?"
Message modified by board administrator October 26, 2009, 11:53 am
"I would also like to kindly remind Wilson that according to the Constitution of Canada, we elect members to parliament, not governments or parties. The people who were trying to form a coalition government (just counting the Liberals and the NDP here) represented 44.44% of the popular vote, as compared to the Conservatives' 37.65%. I hardly see how if they were in a coalition together that they would not have won the last election. Don't be so against allowing parties to set aside their differences and co-operate from time to time, it works out in many European parliaments and enables parliaments to get more things done, faster."
I will have to kindly offer my rebuttal. Yes, the Constitution does not mention parties; however to ignore that party/leader identification is a prime motivator of some now is to ignore the facts on the ground. The Liberal party came out of that election with its worst defeat in living memory. To then hand them the reins of government(even if part of a coalition) would smack of partisanship(the GG having been nominated [alone I might add] by a Liberal government). It should be noted that the original reason a coalition was proposed was over measures introduced over party financing which were then withdrawn but the coalition remained with a new goal: economic measures.
Rhe fact that a coalition was suggested is not a bad idea and frankly the Conservatives attempts at portraying it as a "coup" was irresponsible. But they did not run as a coalition(or for that matter say they would consider it if the need arose) and there is some evidence this coalition would not have been stable. For instance how long after prorogation were the Liberals distancing themselves from the proposal? a week? two? This is a point of disagreement between my professor and myself in that I believe that the GG's responsibility is to ensure a STABLE government is in place not just a government. Had the coalition made it through their "christmas vacation" I'd be the first to say go for it. Sure I have my bias' on what coalition I'd like to see...
I'll reiterate that a short prorogation helped cooler heads prevail with minimum cost and discomfort.
Responses: