Ministers do not have to be MPs. I think it is to our benefit as a country to move away from the convention that all ministers are MPs. Maybe. I dunno.
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.
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.
- A Simple Guide to Electoral Systems
- What is First-Past-The-Post (FPP)?
- What is Proportional Representation (PR)?
- What is a Citizens’ Assembly?
- Why referendums aren't necessary
- The 219 Corrupt MPs Who Voted Against Advancing Electoral Reform
Related Communities/Communautés Associées
Resources/Ressources
Official Organizations/Organisations Officielles
- List of Canadian friends of Democracy Bluesky
- Fair Vote Canada: Bluesky
- Fair Voting BC: Bluesky
- Charter Challenge for Fair Voting: Bluesky
- Electoral Renewal Canada: Bluesky
- Vote16: Bluesky
- Longest Ballot Committee: Bluesky
- ~~Make Votes Equal / Make Seats Match Votes~~
- Ranked Ballot Initiative of Toronto (IRV for municipal elections)
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
Are you just learning about our system now?
All of the opposition could also band together to make May the Prime Minister
It's not a precedent -- this has already happened several times. John Turner was PM in 1984 without having a seat. Mackenzie King won an election and became PM all while not being an MP in 1926. He was even a seat-less PM for a couple of months again in 1945.
Prior to the convention of standing for election soon after becoming PM being a hard-and-fast thing, John A. McDonald was in a similar position at Confederation in 1867, and so were two more 19th-century PMs, Abbott and Bowell.
Given the way that the Conservatives blew several conventions out of the water last time they were in power (proroguing Parliament inappropriately, and refusing to allow a coalition second crack at forming a government after an election) I agree it would be a good idea to make this a law. But ringing an alarm bell over Carney specifically is a bit too much. The Liberals are already talking about which back-bencher will resign and Carney run: somewhere in the West Island of Montreal looks like a likely candidate as they are super-safe Liberal seats.
this is not the first time this has happened. John Turner was also appointed PM (after Pierre Trudeau stepped down) while not being an MP or senator. He also dissolved parliament 9 days after being sworn in, which is what Carney is likely to do too, I believe.
not saying it right or wrong, just that it's happened before.
not saying it right or wrong, just that it’s happened before.
Thanks for this piece of information. It's still a dangerous precedent that is being set.
precedent
I mean the earlier example says that this isn't the precedent.
It happened before.
It is actually quite common in the British Westminster tradition we follow.
The earliest being William Pitt the Younger in 1783 who became prime minister at just 24 years old before securing a seat in Parliament. He won a by-election soon after assuming office.
Edit: the commenter changed their comment, so my response might not make sense
I hope you aren't suggesting we should infringe upon constitutional conventions, to limit any particular political party from coming into power...
I don't think that is healthy for the rule of law
I merely added an example that showed that convention exists longer than your original post implies.
Better to have no seat than no brain.
I understand you are saying this now, but violating constitutional conventions is dangerous:
- We must respect all laws, even unwritten ones, to be unconstitutional is to be uncanadian.
- This sets the precedent that, well any unelected person could be put into the PMO, which has more power (comparatively) than an American president.
- There's no rules for "brain", so this further sets up the possibility of both no seat and no brain.
-
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.
-
Not a precedent. This has happened quite a few times before.
- 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.
- 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.