Canada's Impending Constitutional Crisis

[blueblood]

only in Alberta

CTV news claims otherwise, they have talk radio hosts from all over the country commenting that their listeners are livid.

[bluegreen]

Tory Brass is sitting pretty right now. Next election has enough ammo to sink the LPC, NDP, and Bloc. harper's tactics are working quite well, the canadian populace is in an uproar!

Congratulations! The country is in big trouble, massively split, very concerned about a political crisis of the first magnitude, which happens to coincide with their retirement savings evaporating in front of their faces daily, and, as you said, the Canadian populace is in an uproar. If this is the result of deliberate tactics, then your' compatriots don't deserve high office.

Oh sorry, you are jesting with me!

How could I possibly have taken seriously your contention that wilfully throwing away the office of Prime Minister, in the faint hope of triggering an election next year against a freshly invigorated Liberal Party with a new leader, was all in fact a brilliantly convoluted macchiavellian tactic? I apologise for being a kiljoy, and agree with you that Harpers crisis management is a poor substitute for a consultative minority government with a viable future.

[bluegreen]

And who says that this bizarre coalition reflects "common interests"? You? On what authority?

----

At its heart, this whole "crisis" apparently started because the Bloc was going to lose its $1.95 subsidy. Faced with such a prospect, Layton offered a way out.

Now then, is it in the "common interest" for political parties to depend on taxpayer's money?

----

I am always suspicion when people throw around terms like the "public good" or the "common interest". Usually, they are simply disguising their own particular interest in loftier chintz.

Good question, who said that our common interests had anything to do with a coalition government? Not me, you are misquoting me, and on what authority I might add.

It shouldn't need repeating here the nature of Harper's great gaffe. It was both the contents, and the fact of the provocations that were intolerable.

In this instance, the common interest I was referring to was the maintenance of stable governance, based upon the COMMON INTERESTS of all Canadians in these troubled times. Surely it cannot be beyond your comprehension that we share a common interest in stable government during an economic crisis? Are you truly so cynical that the public good doesn't exist for you? That's why we have government, and rules based society, because we recognize a common good in keeping the peace, civil society, collective security, etc.

What's the point of posting here if I'm pursuing my own parochial interests? I can do that best by working hard and smart at earning a living. I come here because I am motivated by an interest in public affairs, and because I care about the country in which my children will grow up. What are you doing here? If not the same, then don't waste my time. If for similar reasons, then spare me the rhetoric.

[William Ashley]

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS...

The change of government is totally legal, and follows convention.

Any crisis is being engineered by Harper and the Conservatives, and is doing nothing more than destabalizing Canada's economy.

SHAME ON HARPER SHAME ON THE CONSERVATIVES!!!!

first they try to trigger an election so soon after the last, now they are ruining the economy!

SHAME ON THEM!!!!

THEY SHOULD BE BROUGHT THROUGH ALBERTA, BOTH THE TAR SANDS AND CHICKEN FARMS FOR WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO CANADA!!!!

SHAME ON THEM!!

Edited December 3, 2008 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

CTV news claims otherwise, they have talk radio hosts from all over the country commenting that their listeners are livid.

Their conservative Radio listeners... or those paid by the party to try to create histeria over a completely legal action.

They should be locked up for fraud is what should happen, and sued for libel with half the dung that is coming out of their horses mouthes.

Spreading false information is against CRTC rules.

[blueblood]

Their conservative Radio listeners... or those paid by the party to try to create histeria over a completely legal action.

They should be locked up for fraud is what should happen, and sued for libel with half the dung that is coming out of their horses mouthes.

Spreading false information is against CRTC rules.

did your toaster tell you that?

[Smallc]

did your toaster tell you that?

Conservatives listen to AM radio, much more so than Liberals. People also tend to phone in when they're angry.

[blueblood]

Conservatives listen to AM radio, much more so than Liberals. People also tend to phone in when they're angry.

They should be locked up for fraud is what should happen, and sued for libel with half the dung that is coming out of their horses mouthes.

Spreading false information is against CRTC rules.

toaster comment or not?

[Oleg Bach]

Conservatives listen to AM radio, much more so than Liberals. People also tend to phone in when they're angry.

People who want to be informed listen to AM talk radio. It does not matter what stripe you wear. And it's not just the "angry" that participate - sometimes it's those who actually care about justice. Not to offend but it is a part of liberal and socialist human engineering to use the word ANGRY - when they want to marginalize someone standing up for their human and civil rights - How dare a person actually go against the collective utlitarian herd!

[blueblood]

People who want to be informed listen to AM talk radio. It does not matter what stripe you wear. And it's not just the "angry" that participate - sometimes it's those who actually care about justice. Not to offend but it is a part of liberal and socialist human engineering to use the word ANGRY - when they want to marginalize someone standing up for their human and civil rights - How dare a person actually go against the collective utlitarian herd!

And you listen to your toaster!!! Or is it the meds talking? Chalk one up to the multitude of inane and ridiculous posts. Do you think anyone listens to you?

[Smallc]

toaster comment or not?

Not. I listen to AM radio and I hear the callers that call in....there aren't many liberals.

[jbg]

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.

Whitlam-Kerr was the opposite situation. There, an elected Senate was refusing to move "supply" (or what you would call a money bill) Thus, the two houses were not working as a unified legislature, even though Whitlam still had the confidence of the HOC. The emergency was created by Whitlam's refusal to commit to any elections at all. Remember, during that era many democracies, such as India, experimented with one or another form of dictatorship.

In this case, Harper is eager to face the voters. After all, he did well. Dion didn't.

In my mind, Byng's decision not to call elections was questionable. Meaghan was basically put in as PM, albeit very briefly, in spite of Canadians' lack of support.

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.

Well, the first elections didn't work out well for Dion so instead of taking a mulligan, he wants to unilaterally reverse the results by forming a coalition of idiots as Carolyn Parrish would say losers.

[ToadBrother]

Whitlam-Kerr was the opposite situation. There, an elected Senate was refusing to move "supply" (or what you would call a money bill) Thus, the two houses were not working as a unified legislature, even though Whitlam still had the confidence of the HOC. The emergency was created by Whitlam's refusal to commit to any elections at all. Remember, during that era many democracies, such as India, experimented with one or another form of dictatorship.

In this case, Harper is eager to face the voters. After all, he did well. Dion didn't.

The ultimate issue here is whether the GG is going to be willing to call another election this soon afterwards. I think she would be on solid constitutional ground to say "No", but as always when a Governor General gets involved, the issue of Executive interference comes into play. Her Constitutional powers in this regard are quite large, and she has a lot more leeway than some folks are saying. At the same time, it has been the rule of our constitutional monarchy since the end of the Regency period that the Monarch or His/Her Vice-Regal representatives work almost always upon the advice her his or her ministers (the Cabinet in general and the Prime Minister specifically). There are all sorts of possibilities; proroguing Parliament and calling a new election probably the most firmly in the realm of "safe" actions (from the point of view of the Executive interfering as little as possible), but there are other potential outcomes; like removal of the Prime Minister (a position that's more a Parliamentary creation than a constitutional one anyways), asking Parliament to form a national coalition (justified by the economic crisis) and so forth, though I think those sorts of things are more constitutional theory than reality. But then again, that's how the Westminster system works, things are theoretical until someone finally actually has to do them.

The real problem here is that both the Conservatives and this coalition have backed themselves into corners that, even if they wanted to, they can't easily extricate themselves from. This is precisely the justification for the constitutional monarchy, that some events cannot be solved through political means, that political partisanship can create deadlocks.

I think the largest likelihood is proroguement, with Harper given a fairly short leash at what he can do until Parliament reconvenes in January. That will give him the chance to justify himself and salvage the situation. If he can't, then the government will fall, and whether the GG decides to invite Dion to lead a coalition government or call an election, she can justifiably say that she stayed within her powers and gave the government as much opportunity as it could expect.

[jbg]

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

Nope. In 2004 the Liberals called the election. In spring 2005 the CPC and Bloc tried to force one during April-May 2005 and the CPC-Bloc-NDP forced one with the non-confidence vote in November 2005.

A Yank straightening out a Canuck on dates?

[blueblood]

Not. I listen to AM radio and I hear the callers that call in....there aren't many liberals.

You didn't make the toaster comment, the quote under yours was.

[Smallc]

You didn't make the toaster comment, the quote under yours was.

Sorry.