Elect a minority? It gets complicated
If no party wins a clear majority Monday, the pathway to governance isn’t necessarily an easy one to grasp — unless you have an erudite understanding of parliamentary process and procedure.
With that in mind, here’s the rundown of what would happen if we ended up in a minority situation on the morning of Oct. 20.
First off, under constitutional conventions, in the case of a minority outcome the incumbent government is given first crack at demonstrating that it continues to hold the confidence of the House.
More important, at least for the purposes of this hypothetical, that would remain the case even if the Conservatives didn’t actually win the most seats.
It’s worth noting that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has said he would decline to do that, even if he was only “a couple of seats” behind. However, beyond reneging on his word, there would be nothing stopping Harper from attempting to form government.
The next step would entail convening a meeting of the House of Commons, a ritual for which there is no fixed deadline other than the charter requirement that it sit “at least once every 12 months.”
In this instance, that would mean on or before June 17, 2016. However, it’s unlikely that any incumbent prime minister would want to wait until the last possible moment to do so, as it might suggest a certain insecurity as to whether he or she would be able to survive that first confidence vote, which would likely take place within the next few days.
But it would be entirely within the bounds of accepted parliamentary protocol for that same incumbent prime minister to wait a few weeks — even a month or two — if he or she thought it would be possible to cut a deal with one of the other parties.
Even while those behind-thecurtains negotiations are underway, there would be nothing stopping those very same opposition parties from simultaneously starting their own discussions on possible powersharing arrangements that would allow them to propose an alternate scenario should the previous government go down to defeat.
That could mean a formal coalition, which generally involves a written agreement pledging support for a fixed period. The agreement would likely also spell out the conditions that each party would adhere to — for instance, which leader would serve as prime minister — as well as specific legislative or policy goals.
But in theory, it could also mean a simple promise by one party not to join forces with the ousted former governing party to bring down the minority government of the other party. Or, at least, not at the first (or subsequent) opportunity.
In any case, let’s fast-forward to the point where, despite failing to secure the support of either the NDP or the Liberals, Harper nevertheless asks the Governor General to ring the bell and summon MPs to Ottawa, puts forward a speech from the throne and is promptly defeated by the combined might of the other two parties.
At this point, Harper would be expected to head to Rideau Hall to either: a) submit his resignation; or b) ask for the just-established Parliament to be dissolved so he could try his hand at winning a clear majority.
Meanwhile, should they have managed to come up with some sort of power-sharing proposal to put forward for the Governor General’s consideration, the New Democrats and Liberals — and possibly the Greens or others if they won seats — would have the opportunity to do so.
The Governor General, in consultation with his team of constitutional, parliamentary and legal experts, would then decide whether to allow the newly formed coalition — formal or loose-knit — to attempt to demonstrate that it holds the confidence of the House, or accept Harper’s recommendation to throw it back to the electorate for a do-over.