this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
-6 points (33.3% liked)

Fairvote Canada

451 readers
152 users here now

What is This Group is About?/De Quoi Parle ce Groupe?

The unofficial non-partisan Lemmy movement to bring proportional representation to all levels of government in Canada.

🗳️Voters deserve more choice and accountability from all politicians.

Matrix Chat

Le mouvement non officiel et non partisan de Lemmy visant à introduire la représentation proportionnelle à tous les niveaux de gouvernement au Canada.

🗳️Les électeurs méritent davantage de choix et de responsabilité de la part de tous les politiciens.

Related Communities/Communautés Associées

Resources/Ressources

Official Organizations/Organisations Officielles

We're looking for more moderators, especially those who are of French and indigenous identities.

Nous recherchons davantage de modérateurs, notamment ceux qui sont d'identité française et autochtone.

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
-6
Mark Carney, who holds no seat, is being sworn in as Canada's 24th Prime Minister—By constitutional convention, a prime minister holds a seat in parliament… This is a dangerous precedent for the PMO. (en.wikipedia.org)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

While constitutional conventions "are not enforced by the law courts", this pretty much allows any unelected official to hold the role of Prime Minister.

We need to respect the law, including constitutional conventions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I understand you are saying this now, but violating constitutional conventions is dangerous:

  1. We must respect all laws, even unwritten ones, to be unconstitutional is to be uncanadian.
  2. This sets the precedent that, well any unelected person could be put into the PMO, which has more power (comparatively) than an American president.
  3. There's no rules for "brain", so this further sets up the possibility of both no seat and no brain.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

  1. Conventions are conveniences. There is no law against a seatless PM. The overriding requirement (again for practical conveniences sake) is that the PM command the confidence of a majority of the house. As it is more damaging to the conduct of business to have a non-functioning Commons than it is to have a non-member PM, the latter is preferable. By convention the PM then seeks election to a seat either by general or by-election.

  2. Not a precedent. This has happened quite a few times before.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago
  1. There are so many unwritten constitutional conventions. The UK example, literally doesn't have a written constitution. This point about constitutional conventions being conveniences are ridiculous.
  2. Even if it has happened a few times before, it further stretches the norms of how government operates -- better or for worse. I believe it is worse because it can open up: "no seat and no brain" scenarios.