Canada's Impending Constitutional Crisis

[August1991]

Jeffrey Simpson, of all people, came to the same conclusion I did about what will likely happen next based on Harper's options:

His options now would seem to be a) persuade the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament only three weeks after a Speech from the Throne, hoping to gain time to manoeuvre; lose the confidence of the House but persuade the G-G to dissolve Parliament and call an election.

G & M

It's very possible that the GG will refuse Harper's request to prorogue parliament. It's also possible that even if she prorogues parliament, she may refuse Harper's request to dissolve parliament and hold new elections (presumably after losing a budget vote in late January).

Harper wants to have elections, preferably after a budget vote. In all likelihood, the GG is going to refuse that request and instead turn to Dion to form a government.

If the GG defies the request of a PM, we have the makings of a constitutional crisis.

----

One solution for Harper is to entice a few MPs to cross the floor for some comfy fur. It's been tried before.

Edited December 2, 2008 by August1991

[mjp]

thing is

alot of the people that forgot their ID or did not vote due to ID problems, won't make the same mistake twice. that could be a million or two more voters right there.

and those seats that were gained by the con's could be toast.

[g_bambino]

If the GG defies the request of a PM, we have the makings of a constitutional crisis.

I'm not really sure why it's a constitutional "crisis". Everything is working quite within the bounds of the constituton.

[August1991]

I'm not really sure why it's a constitutional "crisis". Everything is working quite within the bounds of the constituton.

The two precedents are Whitlam-Kerr in Australia (as was raised on another thread) and King-Byng.

I'm hypothesizing a very possible scenario in which the GG either refuses to prorogue parliament or she refuses to dissolve and call elections.

Who has the right to say that parliament is not working and we need new elections? The GG herself may get sullied by this situation. Her husband's political opinions are likely to become part of teh debate.

[fellowtraveller]

I'm starting to wonder if the GG will acknowledge that the coalition is inherently unstable, and therefore unable to provide the stable govt required. She'd also have to wonder what exactly precipitated this 'loss of confidence'. It obviously wasn't a loss of conficdence by the Candian people, who just re-elected the govt with an increased mandate.

That leaves one option, which is to dissolve and have another election.

I wonder if Ms Jean will be influenced by the separatist sentiment in her past life.

[Argus]

The two precedents are Whitlam-Kerr in Australia (as was raised on another thread) and King-Byng.

I'm hypothesizing a very possible scenario in which the GG either refuses to prorogue parliament or she refuses to dissolve and call elections.

Who has the right to say that parliament is not working and we need new elections? The GG herself may get sullied by this situation. Her husband's political opinions are likely to become part of teh debate.

There really is no requirement upon her to do anything other than whatever she feels is optimal. She could, as someone said, forget who, refuse Harper's resignation, and tell them all to work together. The only way that would work, however, would be if she warned the Liberals that after widely consulting with many knowledgeable people she did not feel the coallition was either likely to be stable for long, or in Canada's best interest, and that consequently, if they couldn't agree to play together better, she would dissolve parliament and call elections. Presumably Harper would be chastened and less arrogant and far less likely to confront the opposition after this, and we might actually see a somewhat cooperative goverment.

[Rue]

I again am with G Bem on this. There has been no constitutional or legal crisis anyone who suggests there is, is engaging in hyperbole.

Harper was free to do what he did. He gambled. His mistake was mixing two seperate issues, the funding of political parties with the over all economic plan issue.

Was he that stupid or was it deliberate. Some say he acted in the heat of the moment and was being stupid others say he was being deliberate.

I believe had Harper stood up in Parliament and said in a frank and non confrontational tone that we are headed for hard times, and his team would have to wait until Obama's is in place before a proper plan could be implemented, people would have understood.

Instead he chose to do two things. deliberately add a cost cutting measure as to funding political parties he knew was giving all three of the other parties the finger. Had his proposal been passed all three political parties would have become bankrupt. He knew that. It was deliberately insulting and provocative and there is no excuse for it. Why he did that we will never know. Some say it shows his thin skin and the nasty side of him.

What we do know is by attaching that to the economic issue, he handed the three parties a death sentence and when you corner any animal and threaten its life as he did of course they will fight back with every means available.

In regards to the economy if he felt it was too early to do anything until he met with Obama then say so and sit and be calm. Harper however spoke with 2 sides of his mouth. One the one hand he told everyone to be calm and wait for Obama, but then in the next breath does what-has Flaherty signal they will start selling off government assets in a depressed market? What kind of message is that? The message about civil servants not being able to strike what was that? Does anyone think the civil service or any union right now is in the positition to strike? Why the slap at the civil service union which is already weak and down and out? Why slap something when its down?

Why tell people losing their jobs and homes that the government is not ready to stimulate the economy but it is willing to cut services to assure there is no deficit? It was manhandled. The same cuts could have been done very quietly. Instead Flaherty stood up and taunted people. It was pure Guy Guardino Mike Harris's crony now advising Harper and Flaherty completely contradicting what Haper had said and engaging in Mike Harris politics-divide and conquer-in bad times find bad guys to blame, i.e., civil servants, the other political parties.

I do not think Layton or Dion should be leading this country. A coalition of a lame duck Liberal leader with Ignatieff and Rae chomping at his butt and the ego maniac Jack Layton who can not shut up even at a press conference is not the recipe for a government but Harper has no one but himself to blame for it.

He chose to be rude and give not just the other parties, but all Canadians the finger. He is still having tantrums about not winning a majority and if he thinks a weak coalition for a few months making a mess of things will back lash into getting him his majority he is wrong. The moderates in his party, the so called Paul Martin Liberals and Red Tories that frequent the left and right wing of their respective parties are fed up. They do not want socialism anymore then they want social creditism disguised as Canadian conservatism.

The vast majority of us want someone in the center who can balance common fiscal sense with compassion for the economically displaced. We do not want extremism to either side. That is why the majority of us are divided as to who we voted for.

That is why ironically now all of you who wanted a government based on popular representation have precisely the kind of coalition building such schemes require.

We have become Italy. Great. Don't get me wrong I love Carla Bruni and all Italian women, but this unstable coalition building and extremist butt heads I do not like.

[jdobbin]

One solution for Harper is to entice a few MPs to cross the floor for some comfy fur. It's been tried before.

The coalition can try the same thing.

[jdobbin]

Presumably Harper would be chastened and less arrogant and far less likely to confront the opposition after this, and we might actually see a somewhat cooperative goverment.

I've said repeatedly that he doesn't show any indication of backing down. Many Tories on the blogs are now attacking the Governor General in advance of the decision she has to make to give cover for what might come next. This go for the throat attack is how the party thinks when they run down the Governor General.

[jdobbin]

Who has the right to say that parliament is not working and we need new elections? The GG herself may get sullied by this situation. Her husband's political opinions are likely to become part of teh debate.

The Governor General is already being furiously attacked on the Tory blogs for being a separatist out to destroy Canada.

[M.Dancer]

I'm not really sure why it's a constitutional "crisis". Everything is working quite within the bounds of the constituton.

My thoughts exactly.

[Smallc]

I'm starting to wonder if the GG will acknowledge that the coalition is inherently unstable, and therefore unable to provide the stable govt required. She'd also have to wonder what exactly precipitated this 'loss of confidence'. It obviously wasn't a loss of conficdence by the Candian people, who just re-elected the govt with an increased mandate.

That leaves one option, which is to dissolve and have another election.

I wonder if Ms Jean will be influenced by the separatist sentiment in her past life.

1. Harper has to keep the confidence of the House while in government and we know why he lost it.

2. Quit bashing the Vice Regal.

[Moonlight Graham]

thing is

alot of the people that forgot their ID or did not vote due to ID problems, won't make the same mistake twice. that could be a million or two more voters right there.

and those seats that were gained by the con's could be toast.

I highly doubt the ID problem was a pro or a con for any particular party. I'm sure voters who didn't bring their ID's were fairly evenly distributed among the different party supporters.

[jdobbin]

2. Quit bashing the Vice Regal.

It is the latest tactic of the Conservatives. Question the legitimacy of the Governor General as a person and as a position.

[Smallc]

It is the latest tactic of the Conservatives. Question the legitimacy of the Governor General as a person and as a position.

Ironically, questioning the established system isn't very conservative at all.

[blueblood]

It is the latest tactic of the Conservatives. Question the legitimacy of the Governor General as a person and as a position.

The tories can call in the top regal, hell we're in unprecedented political times, why not go for broke?

[August1991]

I again am with G Bem on this. There has been no constitutional or legal crisis anyone who suggests there is, is engaging in hyperbole.

There has been no constitutional crisis - so far.

But we have all the ingredients for one in a few days. What if Harper asks that the GG progue parliament and she refuses? What if Harperasks her to dissolve parliament and call elections and she refuses?

I concede that these are hypothetical "what if" questions but there is the very real possibility that they will arise.

Harper has said that he will use every legal means to prevent the coalition taking power and he most likely believes that he can win an election. OTOH, I think Jean's advisors will say that parliament should be given more time to work.

-----

The King-Byng affair is illustrative. King wanted an election. Byng refused. Meighen formed an unstable government that soon collapsed. King won a majority in the ensuing election.

Edited December 2, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

The tories can call in the top regal, hell we're in unprecedented political times, why not go for broke?

Sure, why not have her arrested when she gets off the plane and call for the military to support the Tories.

[johhny]

There has been no constitutional crisis - so far.

But we have all the ingredients for one in a few days. What if Harper asks that the GG progue parliament and she refuses? What if Harperasks her to dissolve parliament and call elections and she refuses?

I concede that these are hypothetical "what if" questions but there is the very real possibility that they will arise.

Harper has said that he will use every legal means to prevent the coalition taking power and he most likely believes that he can win an election. OTOH, I think Jean's advisors will say that parliament should be given more time to work.

-----

The King-Byng affair is illustrative. King wanted an election. Byng refused. Meighen formed an unstable government that soon collapsed. King won a majority in the ensuing election.

The GG most definate will refuse she will stare that putts in the eye and say " 2 strikes your out buddy, if you don't want to do your job pack your bags".

[mjp]

whats funny is it was not the liberals raided by the rcmp this past year was it.. so what is it that the conservatives are doing that is illegal, and why???

as for this the GG will not take us to the polls, and if she does, it will be a longer election of 5-7 weeks if over Christmas... look what happened to the liberals in 2006 with that. Tons of documents got leaked and people were able to see what the liberals were about... This will happen again if we have a long election. and I guarantee you more crap would come out about the con's.

The CPC plan is to discredit everyone and try to look good, fact is harper wrote a letter to the GG to join with the NDP & the Bloc. So if they were doing the same thing, but how are trying to distance themselves from the truth and the facts on record.

The Con's would rather we believe the lies instead of the truth. Fact remains people are watching this. Those that watch politics all the time, know for a fact that the CPC members do their best to hide or twist the truth to how they see fit.

The constitutional crisis would be if any of the members elected violated their oath of office they swore at the last election. If any of them broke their oath then they should be removed.

The crisis is the CPC would rather put out more lies and BS, and I think Canadians are seeing through it. They are starting to see it..

After all Alberta lost one of their CON seats to the NDP I believe it was in the last election...

[g_bambino]

It is the latest tactic of the Conservatives. Question the legitimacy of the Governor General as a person and as a position.

And that's what the Labor Party did in Australia after the Governor General dismissed Gough Whitlam as his PM in 1975; as Whitlam famously said: "Ladies and gentlemen, well may we say 'God Save the Queen', because nothing will save the Governor-General." What cowardice.

[fellowtraveller]

I do not think Layton or Dion should be leading this country.

Neither will. Do the math, Duceppe will be making all the big decisions.

It is the latest tactic of the Conservatives. Question the legitimacy of the Governor General as a person and as a position.

Nothing 'latest ' about it. Madame Jeans background is public knowledge and the controversy over her separatiste sentiments were questioned when she was anointed.

You guys are going to hate her if she does not appoint Monsieur Lame Canard to the job that Canadians rejected him for at the ballot box just a few weeks ago.

[jdobbin]

Neither will. Do the math, Duceppe will be making all the big decisions.

Just like he would have if Harper's deal went through in 2004? Why didn't you burn your Tory card then? Treason! Why didn you vote for Harper after he granted "nation status." Treason!

Nothing 'latest ' about it. Madame Jeans background is public knowledge and the controversy over her separatiste sentiments were questioned when she was anointed.

What cowardice I have been seeing in the attacks on the Governor General. Personally, if she calls an election, I won't react with anywhere near the frothy mouthed anger that I see from the extreme right wing.

In my view, we were headed for an election before May anyways with Harper calling it.

[fellowtraveller]

Just like he would have if Harper's deal went through in 2004? Why didn't you burn your Tory card then? Treason! Why didn you vote for Harper after he granted "nation status." Treason!

You are a dishonest person, that much has become clear in the last few days.

In 2004, the NDP, CPC and Bloc tried to force an election.

In 2008, the NDP, Liberals and Bloc are trying to negate the results of an election.

[Smallc]

In 2004, the NDP, CPC and Bloc tried to force an election.

He's not dishonest, your just wrong.