Why Harper & Duceppe are doing good for Canada

[The Terrible Sweal]

Look up "lightweight" in a dictionary of historiography and you'll see a picture of Michael Bliss.

[cybercoma]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know what's tiresome? Your tirades about how parliament is being toyed with or even held hostage by THE MAJORITY of representatives that were democratically elected to defend their positions, which they are doing.

I know it's awfully difficult for you to come to terms with having the MINORITY of votes in the house right now, but it's a reality of the situation.

The majority of elected representatives want this government to pack its bags, but you...just like the liberal party...are clinging to the idea that a single party makes the rules.

If anyone is being crass here, it is you and the Liberal Party for completely ignoring the wishes of the majority.

[Guest eureka]

What is crass is your response. A single party does not make the rules: the rules have been made over centuries and should be observed. Your inability to think beyond your prejudices is not a reason to accept the deliberate subversion of Parliament.

There is far more at stake than your silly assumption that I must be a Liberal because I think that democracy is something worth keeping. Your talk of majorities in this situation is nothing short of idiotic. Majorities of any kind must observe the Rule of Law that has been invoked several times in these discussions.

Without that, there is social chaos.

[Hugo]

the rules have been made over centuries and should be observed.

So I assume you oppose same-sex marriage, then?

[August1991]

There is far more at stake than your silly assumption that I must be a Liberal because I think that democracy is something worth keeping. Your talk of majorities in this situation is nothing short of idiotic. Majorities of any kind must observe the Rule of Law that has been invoked several times in these discussions.

And one significant rule is that the government must have the confidence of Parliament. If you think about this, there is a sound reason for such a rule. Apart from soundness, I'll quote Bliss:

The defeat of the Martin government on Tuesday came on a procedural, not a confidence motion, but it was such a clear sign that a majority of the House of Commons do not support the government that virtually all constitutional experts are agreed that an immediate test of the House's confidence was required.

(My emphasis.) This is my understanding too.

It is the Liberal government that is breaking the Rule of Law. Or perhaps, from your perspective TS and eureka, a way to put this is: What Rule of Law gives the government the ability to avoid the confidence of the House? I am aware of no such Rule.

[ceemes]

As an ex-Progressive Conservative card hold, I can say with all honesty that Harper needs to be dragged out into the streets of Ottawa and shot down dead like the mangy, rabid, dieased dog he is.

The unholy alliance between the PQ and CA is just that unholy, or perhaps more telling. I've always suspected that the CRAP faction that shanghied the PCP were all about breaking up our wonderful nation and selling peicemeal to the US.

If those two arseholes force an election, I will once again hold my nose and vote Liberal.....not because I like the Liberals or believe that they are pure and noble, but because at this time in Canadian history, I view them as the lesser of two evils.

With a bit of luck, the CA will get so badly spanked in a forced election that the PC's can regain control of the party, and give Harper, Day and the rest of the Albertan Neo-Con Yankee wannabe crowd a swift and hard kick out the flippin' door. Till that happen, this small c Conservative will cast his single vote to the party most likely to keep the CA at bay.....just as I am going to cast it for the NDP on Tuesdays BC Provincial election.

[Guest eureka]

Actually, I do, Hugo, and I have given my reasons for that. It is hardly relevant to this discussion since it has nothing at all to do with the Rule of Law.

[Guest eureka]

The Rule of Law is not any written statute, Augusr. It is the principle that underpins the whole democratic process. In general terms, it, in the part that is relevant, requires members of the Legislatures to act according to established rules and conventions. It prohibits arbitrary behaviour and it is arbitrary behaviour that we are experiencing from the "Opposition" now.

There is no question that the government must have the confidence of the House. There is a proper way to test this and that is on the Budget debate or, on any Money Bill. That can be as simple as a procurement requirement.

If this opposition wishes to change the conventions that have brought stable governments in the past, then they should make their wish to infect us with the "Italian Disease" an election issue. They should also make their desire to fragment the country beyond recognition another issue. At least the Bloc is honest in this part of its aims. Harper et al. hide their purpose in policy papers that no one reads.

One such paper is the Healthcare policy that I have commented on a few times - a paper written by Harper and never rescinded except in vague expressions of support for Healthcare.

[Guest eureka]

The Rule of Law is not any written statute, Augusr. It is the principle that underpins the whole democratic process. In general terms, it, in the part that is relevant, requires members of the Legislatures to act according to established rules and conventions. It prohibits arbitrary behaviour and it is arbitrary behaviour that we are experiencing from the "Opposition" now.

There is no question that the government must have the confidence of the House. There is a proper way to test this and that is on the Budget debate or, on any Money Bill. That can be as simple as a procurement requirement.

If this opposition wishes to change the conventions that have brought stable governments in the past, then they should make their wish to infect us with the "Italian Disease" an election issue. They should also make their desire to fragment the country beyond recognition another issue. At least the Bloc is honest in this part of its aims. Harper et al. hide their purpose in policy papers that no one reads.

One such paper is the Healthcare policy that I have commented on a few times - a paper written by Harper and never rescinded except in vague expressions of support for Healthcare.

[kimmy]

The Rule of Law is not any written statute, Augusr. It is the principle that underpins the whole democratic process. In general terms, it, in the part that is relevant, requires members of the Legislatures to act according to established rules and conventions. It prohibits arbitrary behaviour ...

... like cancelling opposition days? Or bundling unrelated matters into "omnibus bills" for strictly political reasons?

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.

That seems rather melodramatic... does the fate of the country really rest on PM PM being able to extend his Reign of Error for a few more months? If our destinies are all in PM PM's hands... man, we're all screwed.

This is like watching Lord of the Rings and discovering that Frodo Baggins will be played by Eric Cartman. There's just no way that guy's going to be able to get the Ring to Mount Doom. We might as well start evacuating the Shire right now.

-kimmy

{really quite worried.}

{{or Pauly Shore as Luke Skywalker. Do you really think that goof is going to blow up the Death Star? Don't count on it.}}

[Guest eureka]

Precisely, Kimmy, and those should be election issues. The rest of your response is childish: the issue is too serious for that.

Let me put it in simple terms. Confidence of the House is expressed in support for the Government's programme. That programme is implemented through the Budget and supplementrary Bills. Anything else can be supported or defeated but the business of the country carries on. If the programme is not acceptable to the opposition, then it moves non-confidence on the occasion of the Budget debate.

The opposition is being opportunistic in this in preventing that business from being done and attempting to justify their behaviour with trickery. What the Liberals may or may not have done - it is yet to be proven - is entirely irrelevant. If they are guilty, then that must be dealt with at the appropriate time. In the meantime, Harper and Duceppe should shoulder their rsponsibilities to assist in the governance of the country.

[August1991]

Confidence of the House is expressed in support for the Government's programme. That programme is implemented through the Budget and supplementrary Bills. Anything else can be supported or defeated but the business of the country carries on. If the programme is not acceptable to the opposition, then it moves non-confidence on the occasion of the Budget debate.

You are suggesting that only supply bills can provide a test of confidence. That is false.

We have only had four governments fall through lack of confidence. Three (Diefenbaker, Trudeau and Clark) fell on supply bills and Meighen resigned after losing a motion of censure.

IMV, Pearson in 1968 provides the best example: he presented (and won) a motion of confidence purely to demonstrate that his government had the confidence of the House. Until the motion was passed, the government undertook no other business.

The opposition is being opportunistic in this in preventing that business from being done and attempting to justify their behaviour with trickery. What the Liberals may or may not have done - it is yet to be proven - is entirely irrelevant. If they are guilty, then that must be dealt with at the appropriate time. In the meantime, Harper and Duceppe should shoulder their rsponsibilities to assist in the governance of the country.

One could just as easily argue that the Liberals were opportunistic when they delayed Oppostion days. Indeed, that is the reason we are in this situation to begin with.

It seems to me that there should never be any doubt about a government's legitimacy. This is not something to be trifled with. That's why I gave the Pearson example above.

This is a good link: Observant Astronomer

If this opposition wishes to change the conventions that have brought stable governments in the past, then they should make their wish to infect us with the "Italian Disease" an election issue.

This is the first time such a situation has arisen in almost 140 years. I hardly think we should be afraid of the "Italian Disease" which, in any case, was not caused by "motions of confidence".

The Rule of Law is not any written statute, Augusr. It is the principle that underpins the whole democratic process. In general terms, it, in the part that is relevant, requires members of the Legislatures to act according to established rules and conventions.

Agreed. And by what convention or rule is the government functioning? Implicitly, PM PM accepts that something is wrong because the government will accept a confidence vote on Thursday.

[Guest eureka]

If the governing party chooses to present a motion of confidence, that is not the same proposition. Only supply Bills can give opportunity for an opposition to pass judgement on the government's programme.

Delaying opposition days is merely an attempt to sideline the mischeivous intent of the opposition. No motion of confidence should be presented on those days.

Of the four Canadian "precedents, three were on money Bills. The fourth, King & Meighen, the government was not dissolved on a confidence motion, King resigned because he also could not continue the business of the House. He could have continued but chose, instead, to fight an election following what would be a futile effort of Meighen to govern.

The "Italian Disease" is not equal to Canada not having a similar affair for 140 years. It is what will follow free-for-all of confidence motions in any minority situation. The Convention is there for good reason. Germany amended its Constitution to avoid this after instability began to creep into its system where minorities are common.

[August1991]

Of the four Canadian "precedents, three were on money Bills. The fourth, King & Meighen, the government was not dissolved on a confidence motion, King resigned because he also could not continue the business of the House. He could have continued but chose, instead, to fight an election following what would be a futile effort of Meighen to govern.

It was Meighen who resigned. Not King. Meighen had formed a government, Opposition Leader King introduced a motion of censure (not a supply bill), Meighen lost the vote on 2 July 1926 and then went to the GG (Byng) to dissolve parliament.

Incidentally, in that vote, one member voted although he had been paired. Meighen's government lost the vote 95-96.

I still think that the example Pearson is best although the Customs Scandal of the 1920s and King's behaviour ressemble our current situation.

There are simply not many precedents but there is the principle that a government must have the confidence of the House.

[Digby]

If i worked in parliment i would buy one of them big chains for my wallet that hooks to your belt .

Thats how much confidence id have in our goverment , i know what they are after.

[Guest eureka]

I think that King resigned after Byng refused dissolution. Byng then called on Meighen. I also think that the Pacific Scandal may have been closer, but who really cares.

The issue is still the same.

[August1991]

I think that King resigned after Byng refused dissolution. Byng then called on Meighen. I also think that the Pacific Scandal may have been closer, but who really cares. 

The issue is still the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are correct but that wasn't my reference.

On 25 June 1926, King's government had been defeated but not technically on a confidence motion. King went to Byng for dissolution which was refused. Meighen then formed a government but it was defeated on 2 July 1926 but not on a supply bill. Byng then dissolved parliament.

The point is that supply (money) bills are not the sole method of testing confidence. The few precedents indicate that a government must demonstrably have the confidence of the House. PM PM managed to put this off for 9 days - I still think 2 or 3 days should be the maximum.

Now, we will see whether this government has the confidence of the House on Thursday.

[Guest eureka]

I don't think of that as a precedent. The minority leader was asked to put a coalition together and dailed to do so.

That is somewhat different.

Thursday should prove to be interesting. I wonder, though, whether Harper and Duceppe really relish fighting an election after defeating the revised Budget. It offers much of what people have been complaining of not getting and, I think, would be well received by the public.

Duceppe, particularly, may have a hard time explaining to the electorate the rejection of things that his party is supposed to stand for and which will not be available in a Harper administration.

A Conservative minority government is almost an impossibility since there are no potential partners.

[August1991]

I don't think of that as a precedent. The minority leader was asked to put a coalition together and dailed to do so.

Both Meighen and King lost votes that were not formally confidence motions and both tendered their resignations to the GG.

Duceppe, particularly, may have a hard time explaining to the electorate the rejection of things that his party is supposed to stand for and which will not be available in a Harper administration.

The BQ will gain a few extra seats - perhaps 7 or 8. The Liberals will win seats in Anglo areas, west Montreal and Hull. The BQ is not voting against the government for electoralist reasons. (They have nothing to gain.) It is principle. It is impossible for the BQ to support this government.

I wonder, though, whether Harper and Duceppe really relish fighting an election after defeating the revised Budget. It offers much of what people have been complaining of not getting and, I think, would be well received by the public.

I suppose Harper would prefer to see the government fall on a motion of non-confidence. The Liberals would prefer defeat on a budget matter. This is just optics though.

Clearly, the Liberals would prefer to campaign on bons-bons. The Tories on scandal.

A Conservative minority government is almost an impossibility since there are no potential partners.

If the Tories get enough seats to require only one other party to have over 304, then they could pick and choose among BQ, NDP and Liberal.

I think the NDP will do well in the election, compensating for any Liberal losses outside of Quebec.

Thursday should prove to be interesting.

It's still a toss up. Either Cadman or Kilgour can make the government fall.

[kimmy]

Precisely, Kimmy, and those should be election issues. The rest of your response is childish: the issue is too serious for that.

"Precisely, Kimmy", and yet when the Liberals engaged in those actions we heard nary a peep from those who now furiously claim that the "rule of law" (in spirit if not in letter) has been challenged.

Can you blame me for thinking that the real source of this anger is partisan politics, not outrage over the rule of law?

Was the rest of my response childish? Flippant, perhaps... but the hysteria called for it, in my view. "The fate of the country"? "Centuries of struggle"? Come on.

If I really thought it was that serious, I'd be very concerned. If I really thought everything depended on Paul Martin ... well, I think the only rational response would be sheer mindless panic.

-k

[Hugo]

Actually, I do, Hugo, and I have given my reasons for that. It is hardly relevant to this discussion since it has nothing at all to do with the Rule of Law.

If you are arguing with us that precendent and tradition are sufficient justifications alone for continuing to do things the way they have always been done, then you should be aware that that argument can also be used for reintroducing slavery, denying the vote to all except landowning white males, or even just the monarch, excluding Jews from public office, etc.

I'm not implying that you support these things, just that tradition and precedent are very bad arguments for something. If something cannot stand on some merit other than how long it has been done for, it deserves to fall.

[Guest eureka]

The you will have to go a little deeper than flippancy. It astonishes me that so many can not see what is happening to Canada. I have tried to convey the extent of the weakness of the federal government: a weakness that exists nowhere alse, at least in any mature state. It doesn't seem to get through so steeped are people in the propaganda of the regionalists.

[Guest eureka]

I am not arguing with you at all, Hugo. This is too serious an issue for pedantry or scholastic debate.

You may recall that I put forward the "Living Tree" argument for Constitutional interpretation. That dose not mean that precedent and tradition are cast aside. It simply means that intent is to be considered and changing conditions. Precedent is everything unless there is compelling reason to think that the precedent no longer fits the times.

Where it does fit, then it is the base for judgement. That is what Law is all about.