Why Harper & Duceppe are doing good for Canada

[August1991]

When this "crisis" started, I realized that both Duceppe and Harper had no choice but to demonstrate clearly to Martin that they commanded the House. They had to use every rule or procedure possible. They have so far done well.

This is good for Canada because they are setting an important precedent. Indeed, it may be one of the most important precedents in our parliamentary history. If they succeed finally in forcing a dissolution of parliament, then it will be complete.

In the future, it will be clear that a government cannot at will continue to govern, deciding alone when to hold a confidence vote.

Opposition parties (and even governing party members) often want to censure a government without forcing an election. Such votes should not make a government fall.

But opposition parties expressly now want to force an election and the government is defying them. The opposition parties have no choice but to prevent this. The alternative precedent is unthinkable.

Whatever one's opinion of Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe or Paul Martin, this situation is clarifying an important issue in parliamentary procedure. Harper and Duceppe are doing the right thing.

[Bro]

Problem is,the press,or[ liberal communication network as it is now],might not report it in the same manner.They[the liberal party and press] believe their corruption is not the problem,but that anyone who objects to it is the problem.Only in a liberal Canada,eh!

[Guest eureka]

That is absolute nonsense, August. The traditons and procedures for non-confidence votes are well established. They have been so for centuries.

In Britain, it can only be on a money Bill. In Canada, too except that we now have days alloted to the opposition where thay can make such moves.

There is no precedent possibility here unless it is for the subversion of Parliamentary democracy.

Harper and Duceppe should be impeached and imprisoned for their obstruction of government.

[The Terrible Sweal]

In the future, it will be clear that a government cannot at will continue to govern,  deciding alone when to hold a confidence vote.

That might be important to establish, if it were not already completely established and respected. The Bloc and Tories are arguing speciously that a procedural motion should be treated as a confidence question.

That's not a good precedent. It's sacrificing principle to expediency.

[Bro]

Better to leave the crook in your house to see what else he can pilfer.No reason at all to speed up the process of getting him out of your house.

[Pateris]

That might be important to establish, if it were not already completely established and respected.  The Bloc and Tories are arguing speciously that a procedural motion should be treated as a confidence question. 

That's not a good precedent.  It's sacrificing principle to expediency.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The simple THREAT of such a procedural motion in 1926 was enough to have a prime minister resign. Now the fact a government has lost such a vote means he doesn't?

I think the precedent is clear.

In the name of God, go.

[August1991]

Having given more thought to this question, I think Clarkson should intervene.

Here's why. For the precedent to have full force in the future, it should be the GG that calls to account the sitting government by either dissolving parliament or asking Harper to form a new ministry.

The Liberals should have presented a confidence motion already. They haven't. The only thing preventing the Liberals from governing now is the ability of the Tories and BQ to command the House.

The opposition has put all the cards on the table and all that is required is for the GG to play trump. It would be crystal clear that when a motion passes, intending to test confidence, then the government must be tested formally almost immediately.

Anything less than this and there would be some ambiguity about what constitutes a legitimate government.

Will Clarkson do this? I think so. Here's why:

Henry Kissinger famously initialed Richard Nixon's resignation letter for the simple reason that Kissinger has a big ego. Kissinger knew that his initials would appear on a particularly historic document.

Now then, who knows the names of the GGs before or after Byng? I don't.

Clarkson has a big ego and given the opportunity to become part of history, she'll take it. The Sponsorship Scandal will become known as the Clarkson Dissolution.

I'm notoriously bad in making predictions so I'll hedge my bets. I'll say I've got a 70% chance of being wrong.

----

As an aside, ordinary Canadians lost a great man in Eugene Forsey. More than anyone, I would like to know his opinion right now. Some people are difficult to replace.

[Pateris]

As an aside, ordinary Canadians lost a great man in Eugene Forsey. More than anyone, I would like to know his opinion right now.  Some people are difficult to replace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Peter MacKay quoted Forsey in the house this morning - clearly pointing out that Forsey's opinions on confidence in the 1960s and 1970s would indicate that the current government should resign post-haste.

[The Terrible Sweal]

August, you seem to be arguing that the opposition should have the discretionary power to make any vote a confidence vote. I think that would be an unattractive prospect.

[August1991]

August, you seem to be arguing that the opposition should have the discretionary power to make any vote a confidence vote. I think that would be an unattractive prospect.

Indeed they should. Absolutely. It is quite another matter whether the motion passes or not.

It is the House itself that must define what constitutes confidence. If there is any ambiguity, then the Government must submit immediately to a formal confidence vote for which there is no ambiguity. If the Government refuses to do this, then the GG must replace the government or dissolve Parliament.

TS, imagine the contrary. A PM could govern in defiance of the House by the simple expedient of redefining what constitutes a confidence vote.

It would be tantamount to giving me the right to redefine the meaning of "theft" while standing in a bank I do not own.

[Guest eureka]

You are redefining "theft" here. You want it to include the stealing of democratic process.

We would have a pretty kettle of fish if, any time there was a minority government, an opposition coalition could redefine the definition of "confidence."

That definition is, and should be, cast in stone. There is no ambiguity and Forsey would spin in his grave if he knew of the attempts to use his name to distort Parliamentary process.

[geoffrey]

I don't see how a motion declared a confidence motion by the majority in the house can be questioned. What ever happened to democracy. The majority of Canadian's, through their representatives have now asked the government to resign, and they are refusing this.

[August1991]

We would have a pretty kettle of fish if, any time there was a minority government, an opposition coalition could redefine the definition of "confidence."

eureka, we would have a far worse kettle of fish if, any time we had a government, the cabinet could redefine the definition of "confidence". For heaven's sakes, think, eureka.

Any coalition with a majority of votes in the House of Commons is, well, the expression of representative democracy in a parliamentary system.

I don't mean to dramatize but there are important principles that should not suffer ambiguity.

[Guest eureka]

There is a crucially important issue, August, and I suggest that you think about it. The issue is Parliamentary Democracy and support for it.

Issues of non-confidence are subject to time tested procedure. There is no ambiguity about that. Any deviation from that is a usurpation of Parliament's authority. Harper and Duceppe are close to sedition in their actions.

Harper ( we can expect nothing better from Duceppe) reminds me of the old Tom Lehrer song in relation to the thread title. "The Old Drug Peddler, doing good by doing well."

He is producing hallucinations in all those who swallow his opiate. He is doing well for himself only.

[August1991]

Issues of non-confidence are subject to time tested procedure.

They are not, eureka. The cases referred to are rare. A few in Canada, Australia.

Our Parliament is now establishing a precedent that may provide a reference in NZ or the UK. The issue of the precedent is how long a government can exist without the clear support of a parliament. I'd say a matter of days at most.

Let me explain. Typically, we think of the government and Parliament as synonym. They usually are. But they are fundamentally different institutions.

eureka, you seem to think that we have a government and it should be able to function. I say we have a Parliament and it should decide.

There is no ambiguity about that. Any deviation from that is a usurpation of Parliament's authority. Harper and Duceppe are close to sedition in their actions.

Usurping Parliament's authority? OMG!

Parliament's authority is decided by majority vote in Parliament. That is the essence of representative government.

How can any coalition with a majority in Parliament be accused of "usurping Parliament's authority".

In civilized monarchies, the ultimate guarantor of the rule of law and protection of subjects is the monarch. If I were President of Canada right now, I know what I would do. I would oblige PM PM to test his authority in Parliament.

IMV, that is what Adrienne Clarkson should do.

[I Miss Trudeau]

eureka, we would have a far worse kettle of fish if, any time we had a government, the cabinet could redefine the definition of "confidence". For heaven's sakes, think, eureka.

To be fair, the government has not done that, and no one here as suggested that they ought to be able to. You're flogging scarecrows, August.

Really all I am getting out of your posts here, August, is that you seem to think that YOU ought to define what is and what is not a vote of confidence.

Edited for quote format

[August1991]

To be fair, the government has not done that, and no one here as suggested that they ought to be able to. You're flogging scarecrows, August.

Really all I am getting out of your posts here, August, is that you seem to think that YOU ought to define what is and what is not a vote of confidence.

I'm someone sitting at a computer in Montreal. My definition of a vote of confidence is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Nor do I think that the Martin Liberals are on the verge of establishing an extra-parliamentary government.

I simply mean that our MPs and the GG are establishing an important precedent: how long can ministers make decisions and sign cheques, exercise power, when their government does not have the approval of Parliament.

When you tell your bank to cancel the credit cards, for how long can your kids, ex-husband or ex-wife continue to use them?

I don't mean to be dramatic but some basic principloes seem to be confused here.

[Guest eureka]

A precedent, August, can only be established by a legal decision that is itself subject to appeal. Should we send this to the Supreme Court and wait for a decision. That would give us another year or two of this government.

A precedent is not established by bowing to the wishes of a monomaniac like Harper and a worm like Duceppe. Precedent is there and it says that Parliament can only be defeated on a confidence over a Money Bill. There has been nothing else but procedural manoeuvring on other occasions. Obviously, and with sense the Liberals and NDP prfer to make this Parliament function until a proper occasion.

It is most definitely usurping Parliament's authority to try to prevent it from functioning and to force its dissolution over a pretext. The Conservatives and the Bloc are attempting, not to follow Parliamentary convention but to undermine Parliament for personal gain.

The "coalition" may have a majority. It behooves them to use it constitutionally.

In any civilized society the "ultimate guarantor" is the Rule if Law. Therefore, the opposition "coalition" should observe that Rule and follow the law with respect to Parliament. Parliament should most certainly decide. It should do so in the way that it was constituted to do not as Harper and Duceppe would like for this one occasion.

[Pateris]

Precedent is there and it says that Parliament can only be defeated on a confidence over a Money Bill.

ACTUALLY Eureka... that precedent was set at Westminster in the 1970s. Prior to that other votes were often considered confidence. However, the Labour government in Britain in the 1970s "rewrote" the rules so that only Money Bills could be considered votes of confidence.

In Australia, other votes are still considered votes of confidence. And if you look at CANADA's history, motions and bills unrelated to money HAVE been considered confidence issues that have both saved and brought down governments.

I feel it is completely dictatorial for the government to postpone Opposition days simply to avoid a motion of non-confidence.

Instead of calling Paul Martin "right honourouble", methinks the title Despot is more fitting.

[cybercoma]

August, you seem to be arguing that the opposition should have the discretionary  power to make any vote a confidence vote.  I think that would be an unattractive prospect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the shoe were on the other foot, I'm certain you would find it an absolutely wonderful prospect. If it meant getting the Conservatives out of power ASAP, because they were unlawfully using YOUR money that you made from working your butt off, I can't see you having a problem with it.

Maybe I'm wrong.

[Guest eureka]

It was not, Pateris. The use of non-confidence motions originated in the UK in 1782 and, since then, has formalized through convention to votes on Bills that the Government needs to pass in order to govern. i.e. money Bills.

There have been only two Biotish P.M.'s defeated on such procedures: Baldwin & Callaghan. Callaghan's defeat in the 1970's was on a Money Bill.

Some countries, Italy and Japan come to mind have undegone great political instability precisely because the use of non-confidence motions has not been limited so.

The Weimar Republic was another and we all know what that led to - a Harper clone who was quite a nuisance to the world for a time.

About the only way a government could be defeated on other than a money Bill that I can conceive is where the Motion would be brought by members of the Cabinet's own party or coalition (in the case of a minority government.)

Other modern Parliamentary systems have rules written into their Constitutions and have, as with Germany, had to amend their Constitutions to avoid the chaos that this extension that Duceppe and Harper are trying to forge, would bring.

[kimmy]

It's all gimmickry. I think that the start of this war of gimmickry was when the Liberals used their own gimmickry to reschedule opposition days to prevent a real non-confidence motion from being brought forward. They were patting themselves on the back for their cleverness at that tactic, but in fact it's what started this mess. Harper's immediate response-- within a day or two-- was the procedural amendment that precipitated the current shenanigans.

-k

[August1991]

It's all gimmickry.

It's not gimmickry at all.

Michael Bliss has a column in today's National Post which Andrew Coyne has posted on his blog here. I urge all to read it.

Canadians ought to realize that this week's breakdown of their Parliament is far more serious than any of the thuggish revelations from the Gomery commission. As of this weekend, we are in the historically unprecedented situation of having a Prime Minister who is clinging to office by recklessly disregarding the fundamental principles of our democracy. It is a shocking act of proto-tyranny, which justifies the extreme resort of intervention by the Governor-General.

I am not writing this lightly or with any knowledge of or involvement in any party's strategy. Nor do I think that most Canadians understand or perhaps even care about the complexities of the constitutional imbroglio that has unfolded since the opposition began defeating the government in the Commons last Wednesday. Canada this weekend has a government clinging to office against the repeatedly expressed wishes of a majority of the democratically elected members of the House of Commons.

In some countries at some times in their history, a situation like this would lead to citizens taking to the streets in protest.

Like Bliss, I'm surprised at the nonchalance of Canadians.

[kimmy]

I'm not surprised at the non-chalance of Canadians. The non-chalance of Canadians is as surprising as the sun rising (yet AGAIN! that thing is so amazingly consistent!)

I just think the Liberals' arbitary decision to reschedule opposition days was the real cause for upset here. There does seem to be a legitimate process in place for the opposition to put forth a non-confidence vote, and it appears that process was derailed at PM PM's whim.

I notice you have a kitty in your profile! What a handsome little guy! I'm going to put my kitty on my profile too.

-k

[Guest eureka]

Why would anyone read Bliis? He is a lightweight think with acute ideilogical bias in a profession that demands objectivity and impartiality.

This situation is serious but it is the undermining of government by the opposition that is serious.

Frankly, I am growing tired of the crassness that is displayed by all those who want to support the games of Harper and Ducette. That includes those on these fora who either are a lot less intelligent and knowledgeable than I had thought, or are completely indifferent to the fate of the country and to the maintaining of the gains of centuries of struggle.

Is nothing sacred to them. Is democracy itself subservient to their petty party affiliations?