Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[ToadBrother]

As far as I can see, the "constitutional crisis" was that the opposition parties feared losing their slice of public funding.

Parliament picks the government. While there is very little actual precedent for the Sovereign or GG of any Commonwealth country asking another party to form a government, it has happened a few times. What there is no precedent for is using the Sovereign's prorogue power to escape a Confidence Motion. No matter how you slice this, Harper shut down Parliament to evade its will.

[ToadBrother]

It was his party that decided to try to do an end-run around an election where his party, albeit under other leadership, was drubbed, and snatch victory from the gullet of defeat.

And one more time for the more slow witted in the class; the people choose the Parliament, Parliament chooses the Government.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This is the reason I don't agree with first past the post. I think everyone should have representation in the legislature. Party politics have stripped equality from Canada, turning it into benefit of the majority of a specific party.

First past the post is a misnomer. What that really means is the guy with the most votes wins, and there is no real viable alternative to a democratic majority. Proportional representation could result in the removal of a winning candidate in a riding just to balance a national popular vote, that would not be fair to the constituents who in their majority selected a representative.

This is how it is suppose to work if the majority of the house can decide on an alternative.

No it isn't. The most numerous partisan faction goes to the GG and asks to form a government. The leader of that partisan faction is not determined by the House of Commons by any stretch of the imagination.

Why?

To prevent corruption and promote agendas.

They arn't, they are nominated, the Queen can say no, especially if her privy councillors recommend it to her. There are many many privy councillors to do this if they so opted.

They? You mean the British Parliament, which by intent of the Statute of Westminister is specifically prevented from doing this.

Do you think the majority of a vote should hold absolute executive power unchecked for a term of 6 years? I don't.

Of the Senate, which should be used in an auditor General type of role, yes.

The PM isn't in charge of the Senate, the senate much like the house manage their own business. The senate is there to help the commons make good law and add some credentials and quality to the commons, eg. experience and capability and stability, people don't need to hold onto their seat if they are in there for life.

Yes but that means nothing when the PM appoints these people at their own discretion.

Much like the speaker of the house of commons, the speaker of the senate is appointed by the house.

Under the current system yes, but I have said why I think that is wrong. The Governor General should be both the Leader and the Speaker of the Senate and that position should be an elected one.

Why a term of years?

Same answer as with the PM. Elected officials need to steered away from corruption and assisted in pursuing public agendas.

I'm most certainly not. The owner is the Monarch, that being the head of state. The GG is head of Government, and the PM is leader of the government. The role of the PM is to manage the government, not manage the country, that is the GG's role. The role of the Monarch is to insure just rule.

The Monarch is already effectively removed from the political process in all but name. They serve as a rubber stamp for the most part. If your idea of managing the country consists of living on a golf course and meeting foreign officials, then you are of course entitled to your opinion but I choose to believe that is not managing a country. Simply signing on a dotted line to pass legislation into law for an absentee monarch simply doesn't cut it for me. I want more from someone on the public dime that just that.

There is an order of presidence, although the PM ain't the top of that chain.

Yet the PM should be as the leader of government, and a deputy should be as well.

The CEO only oversees how the management team does, and to provide updates to the boards, makes announcements they are more of a CEO/President of the Company. They generally only act to advise or make corporate decisions which effect company operations. Eg. calling for new stockholders elections, steping in to create strategic task forces, or resolving an arguement in the board room. Yes definately the GG.

U have no idea who you work for but the CEO of my company is a hands on kinda guy. Nothing escapes his micro-management. This is what the PM currently does and it is not something I am in favour of at all.

I think that is a constitutional challenge for sure, why would you want to get rid of your most experienced and capable employees?

Do you really think that the Senate is where our most experienced and capable employees are? Give your head a shake! Tommy Hunter, Mike Duffy? Not all of these folks meet that criteria at all, or should I say not many at all.

The GG does have things within their job description.

Like meeting foreign officials and living on a golf course waiting to sign something for somebody else?

The senate does have things to do, but I think that both houses are being under used. However, I don't know exactly what quantity of communications they receive, so I can't say for sure, how under tasked they are.

The Senate gets two jobs, one of their own design and one that the Commons shovels over there. That needs to change, the Senate needs to hold the purse strings and serve as accountants and auditors for the most part. Legislation that comes from the Commons should simply get an official nod after an audit.

Well that is what the Human resources manager is suppose to do, that is why each department has a deputy who is suppose to run the department. Sometimes you have parliamentary secretaries who arn't actually managers / ministers. The role of the minister even then is to act as eyes and ears to improve department operation - not push partisan objectives to reshape the department for partisan political processes, but instead for board decisions not a segment of that board.

This is why there are thousands of government employees and a monster size bureaucracy. People watching people ? Big brother rules and the citizens pay for this system. Each and every elected representative should have a position of responsibility and authority within the government regardless of partisan affiliation. Ever hear the Harry Trueman phrase "The buck stops here."

I said he nominates, he does not appoint.

When you do the selection process and you do the nominating, and you own the guy holding the rubber stamp, then what you are doing is appointing. Who are you trying to kid?

Sure, they are suppose to come from those provinces. The crux is, if they live in that provience, then how are they going to get to the senate meetings? Perhaps we need more use of video conferencing in parliament?

They get to Ottawa by skateboard if they want. But I would suggest that they rent a place there like everybody else.

I think the Monarch should be able to represent themselves, should they so choose.

They already have that "right" should they chose to exercise it.

I think public input is a good idea, but a public election could be problematic if direct representation. I do think that the public should be able to appoint a chancellor of state though, but only with oversight, not executive or legislative power. The courts are suppose to fill this role but being partisan it is problematic. Issue of course with a public chancellor is that they can only represent public opinion, not necisarily public interest in mind of hidden information, eg. national security issues. So I think that the chancellor should be able to act on some laws but nothing concerning national security issues, the constitution, courts, legislature etc..

The Governor General / Leader of the Senate, should represent neither public opinion or public interest, but instead serve as a fiscal/legal watchdog for the government.

Oddly you could even see a bloc quebeqois chancellor if the party supporters all fell behind it.

Certainly, if that was the will of the House of Commons.

I think the legislation should be tried and quashed if it doesn't fit the articles, that is why legislation should also get sent to the supreme court - technically though.. ascension is judicial oversight if the queen / gg actually insured it was constitutional - technically though this has to be the supreme court or the queen, I'm not aware the GG is head of the courts (even though they have presidence, the royal perogative doesn't rest with the GG as far as I'm aware, unless this was one of the powers transfered by the letters patent)

All legislative efforts currently are vetted for compliance with the constitution.

Actually if you read my platform/ policy I think that the courts should be elected, and even chosen. I think a total revamping of the courts would be in interest of justice, but I don't trust a sole majority system, I also don't support sole partisan intersts that is why I have an alternative model that removes the direct partisan and majority rule, instead to impower the individual rather than the mob.

Where is you platform/policy ?

well this isn't how it works currently.

Of course it isn't! Another thing that needs to be changed.

Or do we produce our environment?

A little of both I think.

How so?

Both the House of Commons and the Senate can be organized in such a way so as to comply with all legal aspects of incorporation, in so doing they would of course be crown corporations owned by the people, operated by the government.

Senate committees

Not merely committees but instead functional systems of audits and accountings, holding the purse strings for the House of Commons.

[waldo]

Kady O'Malley has upped her game since hiring on with the CBC

she provides insight/commentary that negates the Harper Conservative talking point concerning "Senate Obstructionism"... as in, "it's not the Senate's fault"

graphic showing the real legislative impacts of this latest Harper Conservative perogy run: Legislation Progress Chart

[myata]

Parliament is supreme, not the people.

I'd like to think that in a real democracy, the people, their will, is supreme, and the Parliament is the sole legitimate representation of that will.

The point here is not that the people were deprived (the polls demonstrated pretty lukewarm support for the Coalition), but rather that Parliament itself, to a greater part by procedural games and by the party system as it stands, is being rendered irrelevant.

I.e. the minority faction in the Parliament has interfered with, and ultimately subverted, the will of the elected House via manipulation of archaic and undemocratic ploys inherited from (very) old ages of the political system. In that way, people themselves were deprived of their will, and ultimately, left in contempt of, because the will of their only legitimate representation in this system has been ignored and subverted via use of undemocratic means.

It would not require a new system to correct things, it would simply require MPs show some backbone, refuse to co-operate with backroom deals and take back the business of governing the country from a small cabal centered around the PMO, and the shadow PMOs that govern the opposition parties. The Liberals pretty much did that, it was largely angry Liberal MPs (in part mad that Dion was still trying to hang on after he clearly no longer had the confidence of the Liberals, and in part because getting in bed with the Bloc and the NDP seemed a worse fate that losing another election) who scuttled the plan. Wouldn't it have been something if those Tory MPs would have forced Harper away from the prorogation and showed that they still could be the true power, and not a small group of advisers centered on the Prime Minister. We would have ended up with the same situation, but at least Parliament would have sent the message to the leaders "you govern only because we say you do."

While having more politically active, independently thinking MPs would certainly be a great benefit to our democracy, the outdated parts of political system also needs to be updated. There's no need to keep these old ploys and tricks whose only use has been to give the government in power instruments to hang on to the control even if/when they lost the confidence of the elected House and should, by all notions democratic, plain and simply clear the way.

[myata]

And a hint for some naive (or obtuse, deliberately or otherwise) posters here, on the difference between Chretien's and Harper's prorogations. In his terms Chretien's government held a majority in the elected House. They could command the pace of the Parliament's work simply because the people have elected Liberal MPs to hold the majority in the House. The use of prorogation in such situation was not much more than a technical formality (which I still do not advocate). The majority in the House could as much have voted to suspend its work, clear the legislation tray, etc.

Harper's act is of course very much different, because, as we all know, he does not have the majority of the House just yet, and his use of propogation is nothing short of interfering with, and subverting the will of the majority of the elected House. This is nothing short of disguised by rhethorics, but nonetheless very real step number two down the slippery slope of erosion of responsible democracy in this country. There's only one more step left to a government claiming (as this one sometimes does already, as e.g in the AECL affair, or military complaints commission & prisoners) that independent oversight, the media and the Parliament are nothing but hurdles and obstacles to its efficient operation. Which would be the final condition of evolution (or degradation, depending from point of view) of the democracy.

I said already that I do not advocate the use of these undemocratic ploys by whoever, that even majority government should not be able to escape public scrutiny and responsibility before the elected House, and the country should move toward a modern, open and transparent political system with effective independent checks and balances, and meaningful role of the elected House at all times. It's either that, or the countdown to some government, may be not even very distant one, attempting to push the limits of their power and absense of any meaningful controls of their actions even beyond the existing pathetic condition.

[ToadBrother]

I'd like to think that in a real democracy, the people, their will, is supreme, and the Parliament is the sole legitimate representation of that will.

We live in a representative democracy. The peoples' will does not directly translate into governance. And that's a good thing. The Athenian Republic taught us the dangers of direct democracies.

I.e. the minority faction in the Parliament has interfered with, and ultimately subverted, the will of the elected House via manipulation of archaic and undemocratic ploys inherited from (very) old ages of the political system. In that way, people themselves were deprived of their will, and ultimately, left in contempt of, because the will of their only legitimate representation in this system has been ignored and subverted via use of undemocratic means.

They do this only because the rest of Parliament lets them. Nothing stopped the other parties from voting No Confidence upon Parliament's return at the end of January of last year. They didn't, because they too, in their own way, are caught up in the miasmic party system which seems to have little to do with actually governing, and everything to do with achieving government, or not, based solely on what the polls of the day say. If the other parties had, in January, still thrown Harper out, it might have meant an election, but it would have sent the message not only to Harper but Government's forever after that Parliament is not to be toyed with. But the extremely short term agenda of "keep the seats we've got" means that the opposition parties have effectively cut themselves off at the knees.

While having more politically active, independently thinking MPs would certainly be a great benefit to our democracy, the outdated parts of political system also needs to be updated. There's no need to keep these old ploys and tricks whose only use has been to give the government in power instruments to hang on to the control even if/when they lost the confidence of the elected House and should, by all notions democratic, plain and simply clear the way.

There are appropriate uses for all these "tricks". Prorogation is intended as a means of recessing a Parliament. Now perhaps we can redefine the prorogation, but that would, very likely, require a constitutional amendment of some kind, because that is a Reserve Power of the Sovereign. What might be possible is to require Parliament to vote on whether it is prorogued or not, which probably would require only updating of Parliamentary procedure.

Edited January 6, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

Its about the documents being hand over to the committee on the torturing, which would show McKay and the military lied.

Now that would be a stupid reason to prorogue parliament. The documents aren't going to disintigrate between now and the beginning of March.

[g_bambino]

Harper shut down Parliament to evade its will.

Evade, but obviously not escape. As you've noted, Harper also got a bit of a free ride due to a lack of restraint and fortitude on the part of the opposition leaders.

[eyeball]

We live in a representative democracy. The peoples' will does not directly translate into governance. And that's a good thing. The Athenian Republic taught us the dangers of direct democracies.

Fair enough but we're still stuck with the dangers of representatives translating their will into governance.

We've been stuck with this problem ever since the fall of the Athenian Republic as near as I can tell.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Fair enough but we're still stuck with the dangers of representatives translating their will into governance.

We've been stuck with this problem ever since the fall of the Athenian Republic as near as I can tell.

The solution to that particular problem is found within the concept of direct democracy. The Swiss model being the only functional example to date.

[ToadBrother]

Evade, but obviously not escape. As you've noted, Harper also got a bit of a free ride due to a lack of restraint and fortitude on the part of the opposition leaders.

Never before in the modern history of our Parliamentary system, anywhere in the Old British Empire or in those Commonwealth Nations that still retain the Monarch and the Westminster system has a government in a minority (or hung parliament) situation used the Royal Prerogative to Prorogue as a means to evade the will of Parliament to test its confidence. We can fault the Opposition leaders in many ways, but the primary evil was not there's, but Harpers. Now admittedly that particular problem will disappear when a majority government returns, and the will of Parliament is synonymous with the will of the ruling party, but let's just say we have another ten years of minorities. It doesn't matter whether it's Liberal or Tory, simply put, it is poisonous to the supremacy of Parliament to have a government which is losing the confidence of the House abuse a Reserve Power to avoid its fall.

Edited January 6, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

The solution to that particular problem is found within the concept of direct democracy. The Swiss model being the only functional example to date.

And the Swiss are in something of a unique situation, and one that can still lead to some pretty questionable results (ie. the minaret plebiscite).

[ToadBrother]

Fair enough but we're still stuck with the dangers of representatives translating their will into governance.

We've been stuck with this problem ever since the fall of the Athenian Republic as near as I can tell.

It is always a trade off. To avoid a direct democracy becoming some form of mobocracy there needs to be a sort of "governor" between the popular will and the exercise of power. That means MPs are supposed to be free to vote, and not necessarily be slaves to their constituents. The up side of this freedom is that every four or five years, on average, we get to stand our MP up and demand he justify his actions.

Part of the problem is the party system, which stands between that sacred trust between an MP and his constituents, and part of the problem is that Canadians have become exceedingly lazy and apathetic, and don't seem to bother communicating with their representatives. To some extent I actually feel sorry for MPs. The lack of interest in most ridings means their constituents leave them rudderless. Believe me, if an MP got five thousand angry letters, phone calls and emails demanding an explanation on a decision he or his party made, we might see a change in the balancing point between duty to party and duty to constituency. But as it is, from what I have heard, for the most part, at least for my riding, my MP receives communication mainly from the local cranks, and people generally only contact their MP if they need some help navigating some esoteric aspect of the bureaucracy, which is to say most people never communicate with their MP at all.

[DannyBoy17]

Interesting article today from Mercer:

There's a very good reason why the word prorogue doesn't come up that often in our society. Why would it? The word has absolutely no resonance with anyone in Canada because the notion that you can shut down anything for months at a time is a total fantasy. That's the thing about life; it's relentless. If you are an adult and live in the real world, proroguing isn't on the agenda, in much the same way levitating isn't.

God knows I love the idea of proroguing. Everyone in Canada has lain in bed and prayed for the elusive snow day. The idea that while you slept, the heavens opened up and dumped so much snow on the ground that the front door can't open and the school bus just can't come. We all remember snow days and that glorious feeling that the deadlines, the tests, the irritating people, the routine and the responsibilities could be avoided for one entire magnificent day with no consequences whatsoever. And if you didn't do your homework, or you were heading into what you knew was going to be a world of hurt, a snow day meant you dodged the bullet.

But snow days happen to children. If you are an adult, it doesn't matter how much snow falls – you still have to get to work and you still have to shovel the walk. Snow days don't apply to adults unless you happen to be the Prime Minister of Canada, who with one phone call has the ability to give every member of Parliament two months off.

We elect these men and women to travel to Ottawa and represent us in the House of Commons. Well, forget that notion – it's old-fashioned and democratic. Welcome to Canada 2010 – we embark on a brand-new decade as a country that has taxation without representation.

It is ironic that while Parliament has been suspended, we remain a nation at war. On New Year's Eve, we greeted the news that five Canadians were killed in a single day with sadness but not surprise. We are at war because, ostensibly, we are helping bring democracy to Afghanistan. How the mission is progressing is open for debate but this much is certain – at present, there is a parliament in Afghanistan that it is very much open for business. Canada has no such institution.

In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai's government faces fierce opposition at every turn. Many of his cabinet choices have been rejected in a secret ballot by the more than 200 parliamentarians who sit in the legislature. Simply closing it down and operating without their consent is not an option; to do so would be blatantly undemocratic or at the very least downright Canadian. If Mr. Karzai suspended the legislature on a whim, we might be forced to ask the question why Canadians are dying to bring democracy to that country.

Stephen Harper doesn't have that problem. Our Parliament has been suspended for no other reason than the Prime Minister simply can't be bothered with the relentless checks and balances that democracy affords us. He doesn't want to have to stand in the House of Commons and hear anyone question him on any subject. I don't blame him. Parliament is filled with jackals, opportunists and boors. The problem is, like it or not, they were elected.

I also don't blame the Prime Minister for wanting to keep his ministers out of the spotlight. This is a man who could argue that he is Canada's greenest PM simply because he's the only one who has gone out of his way to give potted plants key portfolios.

The problem is, he is the one who appointed cabinet and like it or not, they are supposed to be accountable. A minister's job is not to hide in his or her riding; it is to be accountable in Ottawa – or at least that was the promise.

This Prime Minister has gone from the promise of an open, accessible and accountable government to a government that is simply closed.

It is too bad that prorogation isn't something that our soldiers had in their arsenal. When faced with the order to head out on a foot patrol in the Panjwai district of southern Afghanistan, to risk their lives to bring democracy to that place, wouldn't it be nice if they could simply prorogue and roll over and go back to sleep? Soldiers don't get that luxury. That is afforded only to the people who ultimately order them to walk down those dangerous dusty roads in the first place.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/proroguing-is-for-children-and-stephen-harper/article1420026/

I think he makes some solid points. The problem is, I don't think most Canadians know how to spell Prorogue, let alone what it means. It's a word that isn't commonly used. I just don't see why they would prorogue now - there is no good reason to and plenty of reasons not to.

[myata]

What might be possible is to require Parliament to vote on whether it is prorogued or not, which probably would require only updating of Parliamentary procedure.

I would subscribe to that, as it would remove the possibility of abuse by a minority faction, as demonstrated by Harper's government. I would also suggest a procedure for GG to consult with the elected House, as well as PM, in case of non confidence situation. This already would amount to a meaningful democratic evolution of our system.

Any takers (Liberals, NDP, Greens and the Bloc)?

[ToadBrother]

I would subscribe to that, as it would remove the possibility of abuse by a minority faction, as demonstrated by Harper's government. I would also suggest a procedure for GG to consult with the elected House, as well as PM, in case of non confidence situation. This already would amount to a meaningful democratic evolution of our system.

Any takers (Liberals, NDP, Greens and the Bloc)?

Technically the GG can already do this. It's just that it's been a long time since a GG has asked another party to form a government in lieu of an election. The last time it happened anywhere in the Commonwealth was the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis, and the last time before that was our very own King-Byng Affair back in 1925.

The situation doesn't happen all that often, because it requires the right set of circumstances, which doesn't happen in Westminster parliaments with any great frequency. Interestingly enough, there is some suggestion that the next general election in the UK may produce a hung parliament (what they call a minority), so maybe we'll see yet more madness in our system of government.

[capricorn]

It was the governments fear for being replaced that created a constitutional crises.

The bill was delayed and the public funding taken off the table. The bill was delayed again when it became apparent that taking public funding off the table was too late to stop the train that left the station.

Seeing that Harper overplayed his hand, his leadership at risk and the Conservative government no longer a sure thing, that Mr Harper created the constitutional crises.

Regardless of how the Prime Minister got himself into the mess, he got himself out of it and created the "Constitutional Crises" which came and went.

Yes, no argument, the government wanted to stay in power. But voting no confidence on the government's fall economic statement would have triggered an election that the opposition didn't want. The coalition was hatched mainly because of this fear of going into election and the revulsion at losing the public funding. The opposition was effectively cornered. Had there not been a move by Harper to discontinue funding to political parties, it's conceivable the coalition would never have been formed and most possible the opposition would have, once again, let the government have its way.

There are many good reasons why the public subsidy for political parties should be eliminated, as the government intends, but none of them holds water at a time when Canadians expect politicians to put their interests ahead of petty partisan politics.

Instead, the Conservatives have been naked in their use of the economic crisis as an opportunity to plough salt around the ruins of the once mighty Liberal Party of Canada.

Not surprisingly, the opposition parties say they will resist being mugged by the Conservatives, with the result that as early as Monday, the government could lose a confidence vote in the House of Commons.

Heaven forbid that we are all back on the election campaign trail next week, but the opposition parties have indicated they will vote against the government’s implementation legislation, with the result that the Governor-General could conceivably be called in to adjudicate on this made-in-Ottawa crisis. There were even rumours Thursday night that the NDP and Liberals were holding informal discussions about forming a coalition government in the event they bring down the Tories.

Of course, the imponderable is how many Liberals will actually be in the chamber of the House of Commons when the Conservative proposal comes to a vote.

One Liberal MP said that there is no enthusiasm to fight another election under Stéphane Dion and that many Liberals will conveniently find a reason to be absent from Ottawa on the day of the vote.

The parliamentary impasse stems from the fiscal update announced by Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, in the House of Commons on Thursday, which confirmed that the government intends to end the $1.95 per vote subsidy political parties get from taxpayers next April. He pointed out that parties will continue to get reimbursed for much of their election spending and Canadians will still receive a tax credit on their donations to political parties. But he said that since Canadians pay their own bills, so should political parties. “There will be no free ride for political parties. There never was. The freight was being paid by the taxpayer. This is the last stop on the route.”

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/27/john-ivison-wrong-time-to-cut-party-funding.aspx

(my emphasis0

[g_bambino]

Never before in the modern history of our Parliamentary system, anywhere in the Old British Empire or in those Commonwealth Nations that still retain the Monarch and the Westminster system has a government in a minority (or hung parliament) situation used the Royal Prerogative to Prorogue as a means to evade the will of Parliament to test its confidence. We can fault the Opposition leaders in many ways, but the primary evil was not there's, but Harpers. It doesn't matter whether it's Liberal or Tory, simply put, it is poisonous to the supremacy of Parliament to have a government which is losing the confidence of the House abuse a Reserve Power to avoid its fall.

All true. I merely reiterate that Harper could have been destroyed by the opposition when parliament reconvened. Alas, as we've discussed, party politics obviously made them decide otherwise.

[jbg]

And one more time for the more slow witted in the class; the people choose the Parliament, Parliament chooses the Government.

I am not slow-witted. My point is that the CPC rose from 127 to 143 and I believe the LPC dropped from 99 to into the 70's. As you said the people choose the Parliament. Surely, the trend was in favor of the CPC and the "coalition" was in essence, therefore, a coup.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Who knows the answer to this question...I don't

If opposition members show up in Ottawa and are inside the House of Commons, during a period of time in which the Parliamentary Session has been prorogued, and some agreement is reached between the elected members of the House Of Commons, could such agreement constitute grounds for the the standing government to be removed from office and a replacement of that government be undertaken with a group representing the majority of Canadians?

[g_bambino]

I am not slow-witted. My point is that the CPC rose from 127 to 143 and I believe the LPC dropped from 99 to into the 70's. As you said the people choose the Parliament. Surely, the trend was in favor of the CPC and the "coalition" was in essence, therefore, a coup.

But you seem to be willfully forgetting about the existence of the NDP and the Bloc. Their MPs count, too, and their participation made the events of December 2008 anything but a coup.

[ToadBrother]

I am not slow-witted. My point is that the CPC rose from 127 to 143 and I believe the LPC dropped from 99 to into the 70's. As you said the people choose the Parliament. Surely, the trend was in favor of the CPC and the "coalition" was in essence, therefore, a coup.

First of all, the whole notion of a "coup" is an unlawful seizure of power. Nothing the erstwhile Coalition tried to do was unlawful. It has happened before, though it's been over 80 years since the last time a GG asked another party to form a government without an election. So, we can pretty much dispense with the inflammatory and utterly false claim that what the Coalition was attempting was a coup.

Secondly, regardless of the direction of the public will, the electorate does not select the government. Parliament does. Your claim that somehow the fact that the CPC got some seats and the LPC lost some seats indicates some unique kind of minority situation has no foundation whatsoever. The Conservatives were still in a minority, so whatever point you're trying to make appears to be little more than a non sequitur. It is very clear that if the will of the electorate is taken into account, the majority of Canadians did not want the Tories to form a government (the numbers, ignoring votes to the Greens, other minor parties and independents comes out 53.72% in favor of the parties that would have made up the Coalition to 37.65% in favor of the Tories). In other words, even on the fallacious point you are trying to make, you can't justify it.

To put it simply, and to reitarate, the coalition was not a coup (it is Constitutional). What's more, Harper had been working on precisely the same stunt during the Liberal minority, and for the same reason, because it is constitutional, if pretty rare.

[ToadBrother]

But you seem to be willfully forgetting about the existence of the NDP and the Bloc. Their MPs count, too, and their participation made the events of December 2008 anything but a coup.

Even if the popular will was against the Coalition (which it was), the popular vote is more or less meaningless in our system, save that 40% represents something of a magic number for being the tipping point after which a party is more than likely going to form a majority. What the Coalition tried, and what Harper had tried to engineer a few years earlier, while perhaps unpopular and maybe even unorthodox, was perfectly constitutional, and thus completely legal, and thus not a coup. The use of the word is inflammatory, and utterly without foundation, and thus, to put it in the vulgar parlance, is pure, unadulterated bullsh*t.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Even if the popular will was against the Coalition (which it was), the popular vote is more or less meaningless in our system, save that 40% represents something of a magic number for being the tipping point after which a party is more than likely going to form a majority. What the Coalition tried, and what Harper had tried to engineer a few years earlier, while perhaps unpopular and maybe even unorthodox, was perfectly constitutional, and thus completely legal, and thus not a coup. The use of the word is inflammatory, and utterly without foundation, and thus, to put it in the vulgar parlance, is pure, unadulterated bullsh*t.

So if the opposition parties show up on the 25th of Jan, what will or could happen?