Canada's Impending Constitutional Crisis

blueblood · December 3, 2008

If he is doing so, then Harper is the one creating any constitutional crisis, using the monarchy and constitution as a political tool. I suspect the Queen would not stand for it, knowing that her prime minister has lost the confidence of the House, and ignoring that message from her commons would go against the essence of parliamentary supremacy and responsible government.

The deal is that a big part of the house is hell bent on destroying Canada. That's his out. If it was the Liberals and NDP, Harper can only go to the GG and that's it. Having the bloc in this mix, gives him justification to go over the GG's head (then there is the GG's alledged issue with seperatists). Harper would definetely be creating a constitutional crisis, but he's got a case to take to the court of public opinion.

Smallc · December 3, 2008

The deal is that a big part of the house is hell bent on destroying Canada.

That's a complete falsehood.

blueblood · December 3, 2008

That's a complete falsehood.

Did you not watch MDL today, watch it on CTV.ca. They have Gilles Duceppe saying this is a big step forward for quebec and a big step for seperation. Hmm, a case for the queen if you ask me.

Smallc · December 3, 2008

Did you not watch MDL today, watch it on CTV.ca. They have Gilles Duceppe saying this is a big step forward for quebec and a big step for seperation. Hmm, a case for the queen if you ask me.

Ok, we all know what the Bloc wants, but to say that's what the other parties want.....

capricorn · December 3, 2008

Ok, we all know what the Bloc wants, but to say that's what the other parties want.....

Optics, my boy, optics.

Smallc · December 3, 2008

Optics, my boy, optics.

People may be mad about the Liberals and the NDP working with the Bloc, but very few of them will believe they want to break up Canada.

August1991 · December 3, 2008

Some people won't believe it no matter how many times they see it. How many reports from CTV, the National Post, the Globe need to be posted to show that in 2004, Harper had signed support from the Bloc to have power turned over to him if they all brought the government down.

That is false, Dobbin.

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!

The agreement between Harper, Layton and Duceppe and 2004 is fundamentally different from the current agreement in the coalition.

Here is what they wrote in 2004:

Excellency,
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.

Leader of the Opposition

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.

Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.

Leader of the New Democratic Party

G & M

That's it, that's all. There was no division of a cabinet, no understanding about policies. The Bloc had no right to vet all proposed policies. There was no advance approval of the Speech from the Throne or a budget.

Here's how Harper answered the same accusation from Layton in the House of Commons today:

Layton: "I didn't hear any of this high and mighty language and moral indignation from the PM when he signed a document along with myself and Mr. Duceppe a few years ago and sent it to Prime Minister Paul Martin.
...

Harper: "Mr. Speaker in an internal letter today the BQ leader says the coalition the will take control of control of the administration of the federal state. We will have the creation of a mechanism of permanent consultation empowering the BQ on every matter of importance notably concerning the adoption of the budget.

"This Prime Minister, this government, this party has never and will never sign a document like that."

National Post Edited December 3, 2008 by August1991

August1991 · December 3, 2008

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.

The circumstances are different and the person of the GG is also different.

Michaelle Jean does not enjoy the same popularity or respect in Canada as Kerr did in Australia. She was appointed by Martin and shge used to work for R-C. Her husband has never really made plain that he is a federalist. Her nomination was highly controversial.

If Jean decides not to follow the advice of a sitting PM, then we have a constitutional crisis. I don't know if that is the direction in which Harper wants to take this.

blueblood · December 3, 2008

The circumstances are different and the person of the GG is also different.
Michaelle Jean does not enjoy the same popularity or respect in Canada as Kerr did in Australia. She was appointed by Martin and shge used to work for R-C. Her husband has never really made plain that he is a federalist. Her nomination was highly controversial.

If Jean decides not to follow the advice of a sitting PM, then we have a constitutional crisis. I don't know if that is the direction in which Harper wants to take this.

If she doesn't grant an election either on Sept. 8th, or on the 26th/27th of January I wouldn't be surprised if Harper goes to the Queen about this. He has a good case. If I were Jean, I would be thinking about my job and my reputation.

g_bambino · December 3, 2008

The deal is that a big part of the house is hell bent on destroying Canada.

The Bloc MPs are, as unfortunate as it may be, MPs like all the rest in the House; their vote of confidence counts as much as the others.

g_bambino · December 3, 2008

Michaelle Jean does not enjoy the same popularity or respect in Canada as Kerr did in Australia.

Governors General do not, however, operate on popularity.

noahbody · December 3, 2008

If I were Jean, I would be thinking about my job and my reputation.

She's likely more concerned about her marriage.

blueblood · December 3, 2008

The Bloc MPs are, as unfortunate as it may be, MPs like all the rest in the House; their vote of confidence counts as much as the others.

"This is a step to improve Quebec, this is a step to improve sovereignty" Hmm. they still want to break up the country.

Their votes of confidence may count, the GG has a mess on her hands if she grants this coalition gov't power.

Smallc · December 3, 2008

Their votes of confidence may count, the GG has a mess on her hands if she grants this coalition gov't power.

There will be a mess no matter what happens.

August1991 · December 3, 2008

Governors General do not, however, operate on popularity.

Depending on circumstances, yes they do. Even the Queen had to acknowledge the death of Princess Diana and grant her a state funeral.

----

In this case, I simply don't know what Jean will do. I suspect that she might ask these four boys to apologize to one another and then go back to the sandbox to play together nicely. Fat lot of good that will do, though.

g_bambino · December 3, 2008

Depending on circumstances, yes they do. Even the Queen had to acknowledge the death of Princess Diana and grant her a state funeral.

Well, there's tradition and then there's law, but I see your point.

bluegreen · December 3, 2008

In this case, I simply don't know what Jean will do. I suspect that she might ask these four boys to apologize to one another and then go back to the sandbox to play together nicely. Fat lot of good that will do, though.

I don't think it meaningful to focus on the person of the GG, it's the office that counts. The Conservative government currently enjoys the confidence of the house. That means that a request to prorogue would almost certainly be granted, because it would be within the Governments rights to request it. If the GG failed to do so, then I suspect we would be headed for republican status pretty quickly, and it would be a crisis. I'm not prepared to indulge in rhetoric, or pursue this highly unlikely outcome.

Whether there is a motion of no-confidence or not,I do not think that there will be a crisis if she refuses the Prime Ministers request to dissolve Parliament and call an election for one simple reason. The government is in the minority, and the GG would have every reason to believe that an alternate government could be formed that would enjoy the confidence of the house. This obviates the need for an election. There were not one, but two quite recent elections, and there is definitely an alternative to an election. Please remember that we are talking about the very first moments of government here.

Whatever happens, I believe that bringing the personal circumstances of the GG into the discussion is inflamatory, incidental, and somewhat slanderous. I doubt that she would take the guardianship role she holds lightly. Her position exists solely for the purpose of doing the right thing in this, and like circumstances, and I am prepared to believe she will do right by her adopted country.

Smallc · December 3, 2008

I don't think it meaningful to focus on the person of the GG, it's the office that counts. The Conservative government currently enjoys the confidence of the house.

Though that is true, the facts are complicated by the letter that the opposition sent to the Governor General.

bluegreen · December 3, 2008

Though that is true, the facts are complicated by the letter that the opposition sent to the Governor General.

I think that the GG may take note of any letters sent, but the legal basis for the governments existence lies in the fact they enjoy the confidence of the house. That the house is apparently ready and willing to withdraw that confidence ought to be pertinent when considering a request to dissolve Parliament, but I do not think it is so relevant when the government simply means to enjoy the normal priviledges, such as to prorogue the house.

Oh dear, I'm not sure about the legal grounds here. Still, it seems reasonable doesn't it? I'm certainly not interested in anybodies partisan advantage here. The fact is that we live in a representative democracy, and the arcane rules of Parliament are what will govern. If there's a gap in the practical application of these rules, it is time to set a precedent. I will bet any taker that the Governor General will make her decisions in a very finely reasoned decision. I think that we will all be able to look back on this and be proud of the institution of GG. Unless of course we are so blinkered by partisan considerations that we don't care about the future of our institutions. History will decide, not this forum.

g_bambino · December 3, 2008

The Conservative government currently enjoys the confidence of the house. That means that a request to prorogue would almost certainly be granted, because it would be within the Governments rights to request it.

Yet, a prorogation of parliament would mean the first session of the 40th parliament would have achieved absolutely nothing; financial matters would not be dealt with for months. I suppose, though, that the Governor General's job is only to make sure government is continuous, not make policy-related decisions, and the repercussions of offering the advice to end this parliamentary session would fall squarely on Harper's head.

[copyedited]

Edited December 3, 2008 by g_bambino

bluegreen · December 3, 2008

Yet, a prorogation of parliament would mean the first session of the 40th parliament would have achieved absolutely nothing; financial matters would not be dealt with for months. I suppose, though, that the Governor General's job is only to make sure government is continuous, not make policy-related decisions, and the repercussions of offering the advice to end this parliamentary session would fall squarely on Harper's head.
[copyedited]

Yes and no, Prorogation would mean no new legislation. Doesn't mean that government ceases. Orders in council, etc. Lots and lots could get done. Don't forget that the CPC had no intention of doing much until a spring budget anyway. Repercussions would surely fall on Harpers head though.

g_bambino · December 3, 2008

Yes and no, Prorogation would mean no new legislation. Doesn't mean that government ceases. Orders in council, etc. Lots and lots could get done. Don't forget that the CPC had no intention of doing much until a spring budget anyway. Repercussions would surely fall on Harpers head though.

Oh, of course government doesn't cease to function; I didn't mean to infer that it would. It was more budgetary legislation I was thinking about; but, you're right, it does seem that the plan was to introduce such measures in the new year anyway. Perhaps proroguing parliament would be the best course for Jean to follow, should her prime minister offer that advice, that is. Would this "economic update" that triggered this whole affiar not then die on the order paper?

charter.rights · December 3, 2008

Yet, a prorogation of parliament would mean the first session of the 40th parliament would have achieved absolutely nothing; financial matters would not be dealt with for months. I suppose, though, that the Governor General's job is only to make sure government is continuous, not make policy-related decisions, and the repercussions of offering the advice to end this parliamentary session would fall squarely on Harper's head.
[copyedited]

And if the GG approves the coalition and Harper objects he will throw us into an unrecoverable position and a constitutional crisis that could last for years.

I think the reality is that when the GG decides what to do, it is final. If Harper wants to take it to the Queen, then the decision of the GG will stay until such time as the Queen makes a move. Either way Harper will be doomed.

I would say again that Harper was given a mandate in the last election to "lead" the country. That includes asking the opposition to move on legislation and to compromise to achieve that end. The electorate did not give Harper or the Conservatives the right to "govern". Only a majority has that right. So his attempts to bully his way through this next session are really the beginning of an end for him.

His only saving act would be to make a deal with the Liberals to keep this parliament going as is. It would take a huge drop in his ego to achieve it but I believe it is about the only way that this country can survive the present crisis it is in.

g_bambino · December 3, 2008

And if the GG approves the coalition and Harper objects he will throw us into an unrecoverable position and a constitutional crisis that could last for years.

She could only consider the coalition option after a vote of non-confidence had taken place. If that's done, Harper can do nothing about it; he must either resign or be dismissed. What happens then - election or coalition - would be the Governor General's choice.