Political crisis in Canada?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
81

Allow me to answer your question with another question: If Dion and everybody else couldn’t beat Harper last time, when they had the chance, what makes you think they could beat him in another election? The simple fact remains that the only party out there right now that has any hope of effectively leading this country is the Conservatives. The rest are hopelessly bogged down with leadership questions and general lack of credibility. I’ve seen a number of people indicate that the nation sent a clear message that the Conservatives do not have a mandate to go about their business unhindered by deals with other parties. I would put it to you that they sent an even stronger message to the other parties that their services as the national leaders are not currently wanted. If the Liberals could only pull half of the ridings that the Conservatives did (give or take), in what insane universe does anyone think that means Canada wants a Liberal running the show – especially when they can’t even decide which one will be the leader in the proposed coalition. If they’re that messed up right now, how could that possibly be better for the nation than the current Conservative minority, which has an uncontested leader and a workable plan?

Something else to consider where the GG’s decisions in the next week are concerned: if she pisses off the wrong people by exercising her powers as GG, choosing one group over another, and that grouop eventually wins a majority, we could be looking at the elimination of that position entirely. Just like the Senate filibuster at the start of Mulroney’s time in office, if Jean makes the mistake of actually acting as the person in charge, rather than just a figurehead, Canadian politicians may suddenly realize that they no longer require a Governor-General (of course, the Senate came to their senses and backed down, rather than lose their cushy little patronage appointments). Yet another piece of the dangerous little game being played out right now…

82

You’d have to think Michaelle Jean wouldn’t have a lot of trouble getting Constitutional scholars on the phone. When the Governor-General leaves a message, people usually return the call. She’s a smart woman and is doubtlessly consulting with experts already. Frankly, she will be given no ideal option, but I am 100% certain she’ll make as principled and informed a decision as is possible, and you can’t ask for more than that.

Well, of course it might. Again, there’s nothing illegal about it (nor should there be; featherlou’s suggestion is unworkable, undefinable, and ridiculous) but that doesn’t mean the coalition can’t be morally and ethically illegitimate.

A few posters in here are employing the famed Bricker defense; “It’s legal, so there’s nothing wrong with it.” Something can be legal and still be wrong.

I would suggest that if someone is so blinded by partisanship that you think separatists are preferable to any one of the major Canadian political parties, who - even if you disagree with them - at least want to improve Canada as a nation-state, that person needs to take a step backland ask themselves how far down the partisan rabbit hole they’ve gone. The Bloc Quebecois is a party specifically designed to breaking up this country. If you don’t believe me, it’s right on their Web site. They’ll do everything in their power to make the government unstable and unworkable. Any party - Liberal, Tory, NDP, Green, anything - that invites the Bloc into a de facto coalition loses my vote until every single member of the party at the time of coalition is retired or dead. I think the NDP utter fools, but I’d much rather see a majorioty NDP government than any government that gives override power to the Bloc Quebecois.

And I’d be saying the same thing if the NDP had formed a minority government with 140-odd seats, and the Tories and Liberals were planning on handing de facto veto power to the Bloc.

We are, sadly, at a nadit in Canadian politics. The Prime Minister has boned himself, totally and utterly, with a move so arrogantly stupid you’d think he was a professional football player. The Opposition plans to take advantage of the boneheaded move by appointing a Prime Minister to govern for several years with no mandate from the populace by working a deal with separatists. I can’t imagine how things could get worse, but somehow I have the awful feeling that they will.

83

Now that the letter from the opposition leaders is being drafted and the decision has been made to have Dion lead the team, the next question is going to be how bloody minded Harper will be to stay in control. In theory, he can remain in power for up to a year by proroguing Parliament. That would have real (as well as political) consequences – no supply bills, hence no ability to act on the economic front. On the other hand, since he has no will to act on the economic front until January 27, he could prorogue now (with no real legislation on the table, so no cost in getting stuff done) and avoid any confidence vote until that time. In the meantime, he could keep the propaganda machine rolling on the illegitimacy of any government other than his own. I believe that would be reprehensible, the most egregious abuse of Parliament since the Pipeline Debate.

But I don’t put it past him.

84

See two posts above where I said I couldn’t see how it could get worse, but had an awful feeling it would? Well, after I wrote that, I swear to God, I went to some of the big newspaper sites and read online about how they might prorogue Parliament. It only took thirty seconds for me to find out things might be worse. I’m just flabbergasted. I came back to add something about it but you beat me to it.

If he actually did this it’d result in an instant non-confidence measure and a new election on return, and a catastrophic, crushing defeat at the ballot box. They’d be lucky to finish third. No PR agency on earth will save them. Barack Obama couldn’t save them. Jesus Christ wouldn’t be enough.

Given how stupidly he’d acted to get to this point, he just might try it.

85

From my perspective, it’s more than legal, it’s inherent to the system that we have. There are three premises here:

– Parliament is paramount.

– Members of Parliament are equal.

– The Government serves at the will of the House.

The strength and the curse of parliamentary democracy is that coalitions form based on the needs of society. In majority Houses, those coalitions take place within a single party. In minority situations, the coalitions take place between groups who see a need to come together, sometime in spite of major differences in principle.

In this case, There are three parties who believe that government intervention is sometimes efficacious, and more than that, sometimes vital to the welfare of society. There is one group outside that coalition that holds a deep belief that government is inherently the enemy of freedom and that it must be restrained at almost any cost. The three members of the coalition appear to agree, for the sake of the common good, to put aside their very real visions of the optimal political structure of the society because, by doing so, they can improve how that society works. When the threat of Bennett Buggies goe away, they can go back to debating the structure of the country.

That’s not Bricker-esque. It’s pragmatic and – I believe – admirable.

86

I think you’re misreading the motivations of the three coalition parties. They’re not in it for the common good; they’re in it because one party has power right now and they want it for themselves. The coalition began to take shape long before the budget announcement, if we are to believe the taped conversations the Tories have leaked. It has nothing to do with the common good and everything to do with usurping powerand forcing an agenda on the nation that the nation already voted down in the last election.

I would also suggest that there is no way in hell that a group of schmucks such as are in the three coalition parties could possibly keep it together for more than a couple months before collapsing in a muddled, twitching heap and forcing yet another election. I suppose the upside of that sort of result is that the elctorate might be sufficiently motivated to elect a majority and create a little federal stability at long last, but that’s just a little optimistic speculation on my part.

87

I’m kind of late to the party here, but I just got this in my email:

Opposition parties have reached a tentative deal that would see Liberal Leader Stephane Dion take over as interim prime minister, and pump billions of dollars into the economy. A confidence vote in the Tory government is still expected next Monday.

CBC has this.

88

“Harper got a standing ovation from Conservatives as he took his place in the Commons with two notable exceptions - Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Trade Minister Stockwell Day.” :confused:

This might get buried in the news cycle because there are more important issues but I haven’t seen the footage. Is this accurate? Did the rest of the Cabinet give a standing ovation except for Day and Nicholson? Because that’d be interesting.

Toronto Star Link

89

Were you this upset with the Tories when they passed a number of their supply bills with Bloc support in 2006?

90

No, for the same reason I wasn’t upset with the Liberals for passing bills with Bloc support in 2004-2005. I would not be upset if a minority NDP government, were that to happen, to pass the odd bill thanks to BQ support. As I said earlier in the thread, agreement on one bill here and there is a matter of course. Forming a government dependent upon Bloc support - a de facto coalition, and please do not pretend it is anything but - is something else, and it doesn’t matter what party does it. My position is abundantly clear and totally consistent.

91

Can someone explain prorogation to me in a Canadian context? I’m quite fuzzy on the concept.

92

Stopping the current parliamentary session and restarting another fresh session with new direction and priorities. New throne speech too, I believe.

93

Actually, I believe that in this case it would involve ending the current parliamentary session, and not starting the next one until the Constitution demanded it. The opposition can’t pass a motion of no-confidence if Parliament is not in session.

But as Rick said, doing so would be crazy stupid.

94

I was trying to find some answers on this and I’m having a surprising amount of trouble figuring out the conditions and lengths a prorogation can theoretically go. You’d think this would be easy to figure out, but brother, it’s not. If anyone has a better resource than I can find, please provide some information.

95

So it would essentially be shutting down the federal government, like a kid who swears he’ll hold his breath and turn blue until he gets his way?

ETA: How do they just end the parliamentary session suddenly? Or would they wait until this session ends according to schedule?

96

A prorogation can be of any constitutionally permitted length (i.e. up to one year). It causes a new session of Parliament to start, with a new throne speech. It must be distinguished from a parliamentary break, which happens normally at Christmastime and in summer, and does not cause a new session of Parliament to start.

Swallows, yes, all the more so because no budget has been passed and one must be adopted by Parliament for the government to raise money or authorize it to be spent, as this cannot be done by Order in Council. If Parliament were prorogued until January, no new spending measures could be authorized, such as a stimulus package or changes to the tax system, until that time. Of course, any attempt to raise or spend money via Parliament is the equivalent of a confidence measure: a loss, called denial of supply, has the same effect as a vote of no confidence.

97

The Governor General, on the advice of the PM, can prorogue Parliament at any time.

Edit: It would be shutting down the legislature. The executive and judicial branches of government would of course continue on, but anything that would require Parliamentary approval could not happen.

98

Think of it as a vacation, but one where when you come back to work, you sweep almost all of your paperwork (bills) off your desk and start fresh, rather than picking up where you left off.

Once elected, the Members of Parliament get together in a big room an Ottawa (the House of Commons in the Parliament building), where for a period of time the debate and vote on bills. This period of time in which the MPPS are sitting in Parliament is called a session of Parliament. There are often several sessions of Parliament betwen elections, with Parliament being prorogued, or on vacation, between sessions.

Once the vacation, or prorogue, is over, the MPPs get back together in the House and return to chewing on each others’ shins. Note that proroguing Parliament is simply taking a break for a while, rather than calling an election.

What is of concern is that the government can prorogue Parliement for up to a year if it wants to, so there is concern that rather than letting go of the reins of power now, Harper may chose to delay the transfer of power by sending the MPPs off for vacation for a year. Such a move would result in a true constitutional crisis, for it is one thing to take a vacation for a while, and quite another to close up shop for a year just when we are entereing a major economic crisis.

The Crown (being part of Parliament – the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Crown) through the Governor General would have to consider what should be done to keep Parliament functioning, and then act accordingly. Since to my knowledge no Canadian government has ever shut down Parliament and gone on a year long vacation when faced with an overthrow, the Governor General would not have an established precedent to follow, and therefore whatever her decision might be, one side or another could take issue with it.

IMHO, I doubt if Harper would be so stupid as to force a true constitutional and economic crisis by shutting down (proroguing) Parliament for a year rather than hand over power to the group of elected MPPs who outnumber his elected MPPS.

99

Nitpick: That’s MPs, not MPPs. MPPs are Members of Provincial Parliament.

100

By constitutional convention, the Governor General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. If he advises that Parliament be prorogued for up to a year, she is supposed to obliges.

She is also supposed to ensure that Parliament functions, so it is possible for her to disolve Parliament and call an election, or for her to ask another group of MPPs to form a government, but if she were to do this without the Prime Minister requesting it, there would be one hell of a constitutional crisis, for although she would be following the majority of the MPPs, she would be breaking the tremendously strong constitutional convention being supposed to do what the Prime Minister advises.

Although this may seem very messy, I think it is a good thing. I don’t want anyone, regardless of political affiliation, to be able to ignore the majority of MPPs and shut down Parliament for an extended period during a crisis, based on a technicality that was never intended for that purpose. That, in my opinion, would be to cross from democracy to dictatorship.