2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute

The Liberals and the Green Party formed an agreement not to run candidates against their respective leaders and a national Anything But Conservative (ABC) campaign was created by Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams.

[8] On November 27, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty provided the House of Commons with a fiscal update, within which were plans to cut government spending, suspend the ability of civil servants to strike until 2011, sell off some Crown assets to raise capital, and eliminate the existing $1.95 per vote subsidy parties garner in an election.

Flaherty's update was ultimately rejected on the grounds that it lacked any fiscal stimulus during the ongoing economic crisis,[11][12] for its suspension of federal civil servants' ability to strike, for suspending the right for women to seek recourse from the courts for pay equity issues, and for the change in election financing rules.

[14] Labelling the absence of an economic stimulus plan as irresponsible and the removal of public funding to parties as an attack against democracy, the opposition threatened to topple the government by voting against the fiscal update.

[17] The leader of the Bloc Québécois, which held the balance of power in the 40th parliament, signed a policy accord with the other opposition parties and agreed to support the proposed coalition on confidence votes until at least June 30, 2010.

After the world wars, Progressive Conservative and Liberal minority governments relied on ad hoc voting arrangements with the NDP and the Social Credit Party to maintain supply instead of formal coalitions.

[28] Further, in response to the opposition's demands for an economic stimulus package, the Conservatives changed their plan to one in which a federal budget would be presented on January 27, 2009, instead of late February or early March.

[31] On November 30, the Conservatives released a secretly recorded private NDP conference call in which Jack Layton indicated that the groundwork for assuring the Bloc's participation "was done a long time ago".

The second was in 1926, during the King–Byng affair, when Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, already in minority government and having lost two votes that suggested he was likely to lose a third vote—one on a confidence question—asked Governor General the Viscount Byng of Vimy to dissolve parliament.

[39] One view held that, in applying the rationale relied upon by Byng to the matters in 2008, Jean would have been obliged to refuse advice to dissolve parliament within less than six months of the previous election,[39] unless Harper had a valid reason consistent with Commonwealth constitutional precedent.

However, the situation in 2008 was not identical to the one that unfolded in 1926 and so the precedent may not have been directly applicable: In the 1925 election, Arthur Meighen had emerged as the plurality seat winner and the Liberals had suffered an electoral rebuff, with King losing his own parliamentary riding.

In addition, former Governor-General of New Zealand Sir Michael Hardie Boys expressed the opinion that Byng had been in error in not re-appointing King as prime minister on the defeat of Meighen in the vote of confidence.

[41] Peter H. Russell, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto, suggested that if Harper had sought a dissolution, the Governor General would have had to consider carefully the reasonableness of the request.

In such a case, with a reasonably viable coalition available, Jean might then refuse Harper's advice to dissolve parliament (forcing him to resign under constitutional precedent), and invite Dion to form a government.

However, a prime minister advising prorogation when facing an imminent confidence vote, as well a governor general refusing or implementing conditions on such a request, would all be unprecedented in Canadian history;[50] "there is no precedent whatsoever in Canada and probably in the Commonwealth", Franks stated.

Harper's five-minute pre-recorded statement, televised nationally in English and French at 7 pm Eastern Time (ET),[55] outlined the steps the government had taken to address the economic crisis and attacked the Liberals for forming a coalition with the Bloc Québécois.

[69] Former Quebec premier Jacques Parizeau told Le Journal de Montréal that the deal was an "impressive victory", showing how powerful the Bloc Québécois is in federal politics.

[69] Political satirist and commentator Rick Mercer wrote, "The drama that played out this week was many things: unimaginable, embarrassing and, yes, it made our parliamentary system look like a laughingstock.

[72] The coalition leadership sent a letter to Jean—who was abroad conducting state visits to various European countries—informing her of the events, upon the receipt of which, Jean announced that she would cut her trip short and return to Ottawa "in light of the current political situation in Canada".

After consulting with the Prime Minister and other advisors for more than two hours, Jean granted Harper's request and parliament was prorogued until January 26, 2009,[73][74] with the Conservatives scheduled to announce the budget the following day.

[75][76] Near the end of her tenure as vicereine, Jean revealed to the Canadian Press that the two-hour delay in giving her decision was partly to "send a message—and for people to understand that this warranted reflection.

[80] He in 2012 also speculated that, though it was likely not "an overriding factor", Jean may have been concerned that, should she have refused Harper's advice, the vote of non-confidence proceeded and succeeded, and a new coalition cabinet was installed, the Conservative Party would launch a public campaign painting the new government and, by extension, the actions of the Governor General as illegitimate, creating "a crisis of confidence in Canada's political system".

[71] Most scholars indicated that the privacy of the meeting between Harper and Jean follows "the tradition of regal discretion [going] back centuries, to the era when Britain's Parliament was only a minor branch of government";[81] the practice protects the viceroy's necessary non-partisan nature.

[82] Lorne Sossin, professor at the University of Toronto and a constitutional law expert, offered a counter-opinion, stating that "it is simply not acceptable to have a closed door at Rideau Hall at moments like this",[83] citing that transparency is a necessity in democracy.

[83] Andrew Dreschel of The Hamilton Spectator stated proroguing parliament was the right move, imposing a "cooling-off period on the sweaty rhetoric and dank distortions that have been steaming up the political spectrum".

[88] In his book Harperland, published in late 2010, columnist Lawrence Martin quoted Kory Teneycke, former director of communication for the Office of the Prime Minister, as saying that, in the days preceding Harper's meeting with the Governor General, the option of appealing to the Queen was considered, should Jean decline prorogation.

[78] Four years later, Dr. D. Michael Jackson, former Chief of Protocol of Saskatchewan, observed that the whole affair quelled any suspicion of the utility of the Crown; it "portrayed the Governor General as an impartial umpire.

[111] A Léger Marketing poll of 2,226 people, conducted on behalf of Sun Media and released on December 4, showed a regional split on what should happen if the Harper government fell.

[113] An EKOS Research Associates poll of 2,536 people, conducted on behalf of CBC and released on December 4, showed that if an election were held the next day, the Conservatives would have received 44% of the vote, up from 37.6%; the Liberals 24%, down from 26%; the New Democrats 14.5%, down from 18.2%; the Bloc 9%, down from 10.5%; and the Green Party 8%, up from 4.5%.

[116] By January 12 to 14, 2009, The Strategic Counsel found the parties were back to more or less 2006 levels: CPC 36%, Liberals 29%, NDP 18% and it also shows the public now almost evenly split in terms of their attitude towards the coalition.