It is hard to know if those resolutions will hold up, if the choice is calling another election - that may be the the incumbent’s advantage: it may annoy the electorate into voting back a majority.
Alternatively, forming a government under whichever party leader has the most votes may cement them in the public’s mind as the next incumbent to form a political dynasty - to the detriment of the other party. Why set oneself up for another’s success?
It will be a tough, and interesting, situation. I personally have no idea what will happen.
The point is, there is a clear choice other than simply calling another election. The GG should first see if another party leader can maintain a confidence and supply agreement with another party, and therefore hold the confidence of the majority of MP’s in the house.
This is how our system works. The GG needs to explore this option before calling another election.
A Harper minority will not be able to hold the confidence of a majority of MP’s, however a Liberal or NDP minority may be able to.
If the NDP or Liberals go back on their word, and support a Harper minority, my prediction is that they would get completely wiped out in any subsequent election.
There haven’t been many opportunities for Canadians to be fans or opponents of coalitions. If you are thinking about the last one threatened that happened a month and a half into a term and included the separatist BQ, then that is not a fair example.
I mean, we’re only four years removed from a minority government that operated under an informal agreement of support instead of a coalition. This isn’t all that hard to figure out.
So Conservative candidate Rick Dykstra may have entirely by accident bought a shitload of overpriced vodka for a bunch of underage girls:
Now of course this is a licensed establishment and the staff are supposed to be checking IDs at the door so this can’t really be Dykstra’s fault. And I’m sure his presence at the nightclub was part of some important matter before Parliament. And his staffer offering one of the girls lifetime VIP service (when she is of age) if she would forget that any of this happened was a complete miscommunication. He was probably trying to tell her she should be first in line when she’s old enough to vote. Maybe he described that as being a very special VIP club and she obviously misunderstood.
Where I strongly disagree with the Harpers is that I believe that person is a citizen, provided that the person had not obtained citizenship by fraud. Not a probationary citizen. Not a second class citizen. Not a revocable citizen until he or she can prove that he or she is not a citizen of some other country. Not a probationary citizen until he or she can prove that his or her parent was not a citizen of some of the country.
Time for the Harpers to stop taking away Canadian citizens’ citizenship, and instead have Canada deal with its criminals.
It’s pretty outrageous. The minister just needs “reasonable grounds to believe” he’s a dual citizen. Yeah, I am sure all these other countries want us handing them our terrorists because the minister “reasonably believes” they’re not our problem.
I am rather disappointed and surprised at the number of people I know who think C-24 is perfectly okay, though not at all surprised at the number who cannot articulate a good reason why we need it (a number presently at zero.)
I think that’s because the supporters are embarrassed to say what they really think; That only people “like us” should be real citizens, and “those people” should just be thankful we let them stay to do menial jobs.
Insert dog whistle here.
Harper is doing a masterful job of whipping up support from bigots and other nasty people.
So please defend taking away a born and raised Canadian’s citizenship away. And no “well it won’t happen to me” is not a defense. I’d also love to hear why you expect other countries should take our criminals.
I don’t believe there’s any provision for taking away the citizenship of a person born in Canada.
They’re not taking our criminals; we’re deporting them back to a country with which they also hold citizenship.
If I committed an act of terrorism and placed pressure cooker bombs in Rogers Centre, for example, that killed and maimed dozens of people, I would deserve to be charged, serve out my sentence in Canada and be exported to the UK and never allowed to return.
I have no problems with that, because I sure as hell would never consider such a path.
If this deters others from coming to Canada, gaining citizenship, and doing similar things then I’m all for it.
ETA: We’re not sending them back for a parking ticket.
You know who would like to take our home-grown terrorists? ISIS, or any number of terrorist organizations throughout the world. Since that would probably not be a good thing, the Harpers also withhold passports for national security reasons (be it either our nation or some other nation) – see [Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act, SC 2015, c 36, s 42](Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act, SC 2015, c 36, s 42), on the quite reasonable assumption that letting terrorists travel outside of Canada will come to no good.
Now here’s the thing. If someone is a convicted terrorist with a bee in his or her bonnet against Canada, which would be safer for Canada: keeping them locked up in Canada, or letting them loose in some other nation where they can share their knowledge, experience and bitterness with other potential or actual terrorists? Which would be safer for Canada: keeping them under surveillance so as to sniff out other terrorists in Canada, or losing track of them once they are no longer in Canada? Quite simply, the Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act is based on “Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.”
Giving Canadian terrorists the boot runs contrary to the purpose of the Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act. Quite apart from the issue of establishing second class citizens – even Canadian born and raised second class citizens, the exile amendment to the Citizenship Act puts Canada at greater risk of terrorism than were terrorists simply to be incarcerated and monitored in Canada. The amendment is both dumb and nasty. Joe McCarthy would be proud.