Here, the PM is by tradition the leader of the party that holds - or controls, if there ever were a formal coalition government at the federal level, as there has occasionally been at the provincial level - the most seats in the House of Commons. This is usually the case here, although minority governments are rare at the Federal level. The ruling Liberals are part of a coalition, even though they actually have enough seats to govern in their own right. Should something sudden happen to the Prime Miniature, then John Anderson, a leader of a minor party, would, as deputy PM, become PM. This has happened twice before.
If no party has an absolute majority, then the GG will commission the leader of the largest party and there will be a minority government. The convention that a PM should control both houses shriveled and died during the 1980s.
According to the Constitution (S64), a minister has three months to get elected (or appointed) to the House or Senate.
Aside, of course, from losing House votes of confidence during minority governments, only the governing party can remove the PM, and that can only be done at a leadership convention, to the best of my knowledge. Actually, a majority government can lose a vote of confidence too... this happened in 1941. However, we have no concept of a leadership convention. So they still have time to vote the PM out of office tonight. This last happened in 1996. I would think that the need for a leadership convention would make a PM far more secure and less at the mercy of his parliamentary colleagues.
The PM can also submit his resignation to the GG. Or, as demonstrated in 1975, the GG could sack the PM.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-02-02 12:04 pm (UTC)This is usually the case here, although minority governments are rare at the Federal level. The ruling Liberals are part of a coalition, even though they actually have enough seats to govern in their own right. Should something sudden happen to the Prime Miniature, then John Anderson, a leader of a minor party, would, as deputy PM, become PM. This has happened twice before.
If no party has an absolute majority, then the GG will commission the leader of the largest party and there will be a minority government. The convention that a PM should control both houses shriveled and died during the 1980s.
According to the Constitution (S64), a minister has three months to get elected (or appointed) to the House or Senate.
Aside, of course, from losing House votes of confidence during minority governments, only the governing party can remove the PM, and that can only be done at a leadership convention, to the best of my knowledge.
Actually, a majority government can lose a vote of confidence too... this happened in 1941. However, we have no concept of a leadership convention. So they still have time to vote the PM out of office tonight. This last happened in 1996. I would think that the need for a leadership convention would make a PM far more secure and less at the mercy of his parliamentary colleagues.
The PM can also submit his resignation to the GG. Or, as demonstrated in 1975, the GG could sack the PM.