Article content continued

All three leaders appear to believe we live under a kind of presidential system, in which the people vote for the prime minister directly. It is understandable they should think so, given our overly personalized, leader-obsessed modern politics. But as a matter of constitutional fact, it is nonsense. We do not elect prime ministers, or governments. We elect Parliaments.

While the formal power to bestow the title of prime minister resides in the Queen (via the governor general), the real power is in the hands of the MPs we elect, who sustain or oust ministries by granting or withholding their confidence in them (the Queen being bound by convention to respect their wishes). It may be obvious, after an election, which party leader is most likely to command the confidence of the House, and in most cases it is true that has been the party with the most seats. But there is no rule to that effect.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or

Likewise, should a government be defeated in the House, it does not automatically follow, as Harper appears to believe, that fresh elections should be called. Again, the King example is instructive. When it became clear that King’s efforts to hold together a majority had failed, the governor general, Viscount Byng, rather than dissolve the House as King demanded, called upon the Conservatives to try their hand. That is how our system works.

There is some disagreement amongst constitutional scholars on this, but in our view, Byng was right: the governor general would be entitled under certain circumstances — if a government were to fall after only a short time in office and if he were persuaded that another leader would command the confidence of the House — to call upon that leader to form a government, rather than call new elections.