Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Hang on. I'm thinking about the Spring of '05. I admit you were right about this particular incident. My apologies.
It still isn't the same. The Prime Minister can choose to dissolve Parliament at will. Why didn't Martin do so? The conditions aren't even close to being similar.
|
The PM cannot dissolve Parliament at will, that is why Harper and co. asked the GG to consider all options. Once a House is elected, that House is sitting unless there is not a functional government that can be sustained within that House. A sitting PM is still the PM until they are either defeated in a confidence motion or they relinquish power, this is why there were requests/thoughts in 1979 that Trudeau would try to hang onto power as a minority PM, despite the fact that Clark won.
The GG has a responsibility to see if a government can be formed from sitting members before they go to the electorate. This is why Martin backed down in 2004 and worked with the NDP. That is why Martin had 3 budgets in early 2005 because of his constant work with the NDP. In 04 he averted losing government and having the coalition go in by compromisng on his Throne Speech. He did this because he knew that the government could fall and that a coalition government could take its place. It is not the PM's prerogative for when an election takes place, that is the GG's decision. It just happens that virtually 100% of the time there is not a government in waiting in the House that has the ability to govern. If the GG is satisfied that there is a government in waiting in Parliament that can possibly provide a stable government, then the GG has an obligation to let that government govern until it falls due to a non-confidence motion.