Canadian constitutional crisis erupts

A constitutional crisis has erupted in Canada after Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper convinced Governor General Michaëlle Jean to suspend (or prorogue) Parliament until January 26. Harper took this action to put off a no-confidence vote that his minority government was almost certain to lose.

The Seattle Times has the one of the best discussions of the situation I've seen so far, including a sidebar with information about Canada's parliamentary form of government. A fuller discussion is provided by Wikipedia. And there is also an excellent analysis by historian Bob Beal at globeandmail.com..


Here's how the crisis developed. Early this week came the news that a coalition of Canadian political parties had moved to topple the recently elected minority government of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. To the best of my understanding, the way that you get a "minority government" is when one party wins more parliamentary seats than any of the others, but not an absolute majority. This party can form the government if other parties don't form a coalition government that has more total seats than they do.
Several issues are at stake in the current crisis. First, the budget that Harper's finance minister submitted to Parliament failed to include any stimulus program to bolster Canada's weakening economy. According to Wikipedia, the proposal also would have suspended the right of federal employees to strike and right of women to take pay equity issues to court. Furthermore, the proposal would have eliminated public funding for political parties. Because Harper's wealthy Conservative Party has much greater access to private funds, this was seen as a direct attack on the opposition parties.

This inspired the Liberals and the New Democrats, with support from the separatist Bloc Québécois, to call for a no-confidence vote. This step could have allowed the Liberals and New Democrats to force Harper and the Conservatives from power and form a new coalition government without holding a new election.

Now, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth as the official head of state. The queen's official representative in Canada is the governor-general, a post currently filled by a fascinating woman named Michaëlle Jean. In theory, the governor general has some serious reserve powers -- to summon or dissolve parliament, to withhold assent from laws (something like a veto in the US), to dismiss the prime minister. In practice, the governor general's powers are mostly ceremonial.He or she does summon or dissolve parliament, but at the request of the prime minister.

Michaëlle Jean has played a key role in the current crisis, and I think it's useful and interesting to get to know a little bit more about her. According to Wikipedia, as a child, Michaëlle Jean fled Haiti with her family to get away from the dictator François Duvalier. The family settled in Canada. Ms. Jean has a bachelor's degree in Italian and Hispanic languages and master's degree in comparative literature from the University of Montreal.  She has studied at several Italian universities. While a student, Ms. Jean worked at a women's shelter for many years, and later helped establish a Canadian network of shelters for women and children. She's been involved with organizations that help immigrants come to Canada. Before her selection as governor general, she worked as a journalist, broadcaster, and filmmaker. Among other things, Wikipedia describes her as the first black, the third woman, and the second person in an interracial marriage to serve as governor general.

In short, Michaëlle Jean seems like an unlikely person to help Conservative Stephen Harper retain control of government in the face of organized opposition from Liberals and New Democrats. What's up with that?

As Bob Beal describes it:

A governor-general has never refused a prime minister's request for prorogation [suspension of parliament], or put conditions on it. But prorogations are usually very routine affairs. No prime minister has ever asked for one when he faced an imminent confidence vote. That could be seen as asking the governor-general to interfere to the extent of cancelling or delaying the exercise of the most basic right members of the House have, to express confidence or non-confidence in a government.

Well, I'm no expert on Canadian politics, but I can think of two reasons Her Excellency the governor general may have decided to prorogue parliament in this circumstance.

One is that the situation is controversial and seems to have split the country along political and geographic lines. Might have Michaëlle Jean seen this action as a sort of middle course between dissolving parliament and calling new elections (which would seem to favor the Conservative position) and allowing the Liberal/NDP coalition to form a new government? The governor general is supposed to play a neutral, non-partisan role, and Ms. Jean has emphasized bringing all Canadians together.

My hunch would be that a more likely explanation comes from the history of Michaëlle Jean's appointment to the position of governor general. She comes from a French-speaking country, and is married to a French speaker. When former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin recommended Mme. Jean for the post, she was accused of favoring independence for French-speaking Quebec, and even of having friends among separatist terrorists. In response, she issued a statement affirming her full support for a united Canada.

In the current crisis, the separatist Bloc Québécois holds the balance of power. While not actually joining the government, the Bloc Québécois has promised to vote to allow the Liberal/NDP coalition to to take power. Without this support, the coalition would not have enough votes to form a government. According to the Wikipedia article on the crisis:

The Conservative Party's reaction to the formation of the coalition was to frame the parliamentary impasse as a national unity crisis.^[41] In the House of Commons, Conservative MPs referred to Dion as a "traitor" for forming a "separatist coalition".^[42] Although the Bloc Québécois had agreed to support the coalition only in matters of confidence, the Conservatives suggested that the Bloc would have considerable influence in creating policy. Harper stated in his address to the nation that "Canada's government cannot enter into a power-sharing coalition with separatists."^[43]

Could Mme. Jean still feel she needs to bend over backwards to avoid even the appearance of favoritism to an arrangement that might favor the Quebec sovereignists?

The short answer is, I don't know. But as Angry Black Bitch points out,  we in the United States are not the only show around, "Canada also has some of the best political theater in North America!" (And thanks to ABB for the post that clued me in that the Canada situation had morphed from a controversy into a crisis.)