• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Tory minority in jeopardy as opposition talks coalition. Will there be another election?

Perhpas a little remeidal constitutional law would be in order:

Archilochus said:
we do not have "Freedom of speech"

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
 
dapaterson said:
Perhpas a little remeidal constitutional law would be in order:

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Thank you for proving my point. We do not have the Freedom of speech. We have expression, opinion, and thought, but we do not have speech. When Canadian's state that we have the freedom of speech it makes me shiver a little inside about how much Canadian's have learned about our country's system from American television.
 
Archilochus said:
Thank you for proving my point. We do not have the Freedom of speech. We have expression, opinion, and thought, but we do not have speech. When Canadian's state that we have the freedom of speech it makes me shiver a little inside about how much Canadian's have learned about our country's system from American television.

Freedom of expression is a more broader term that encompasses freedom of speech.  It has the same spirit as the Article in the American Bill of Rights.

Nice try though.
 
Here, for those with a historical turn of mind, is a pretty fair brief summary of the constitutional convention issue, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081205.wcoessay1206/BNStory/specialComment/home
Peace, order and good government

GERALD OWEN

Globe and Mail Update
December 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM EST

''Unwritten laws," such as conventions of the Constitution, have a strange way of generating a lot of writing. Those conventions rise to the surface in any minority government, and they have done so especially in the past 10 days of Canadian politics.

The fact that constitutional conventions — such as the rules and practices on who decides on dissolving Parliament, and when — are not formulated in one authoritative document is not a mere perversity, odd as it may seem to have rules that no court can enforce or even interpret.

They have their purposes. They are much like principles of international law: understandings and practices that nation-states usually accept, in the absence of a world government or international courts that can enforce their decisions. International law, for example, provides guidelines for a world in which war is entirely possible.

Civil war is entirely possible, too; national governments can become weak, and conflicts among classes, regions, ethnic groups, religions, parties and even branches of government can lead to anarchy and violence. Canada's constitutional conventions emerged from civil wars and revolutions, mostly in Britain, but also here, out of rebellions and the struggle for responsible government. They are attempts to express a consensus, in order to prevent disagreements from getting out of hand.

The phrase "conventions of the Constitution" is a 19th-century formulation, but assertions and understandings about what is, or is not, constitutional go back much farther.

Three phases of English history left resonant precedents. The first was the conflict between the proverbially bad King John and the barons, leading to a settlement in Magna Carta in 1215, but continuing as a struggle between the next king and Parliament until 1265.

A second constitutionally disturbed era began after the Tudor monarchs, who knew how to manipulate and intimidate their Parliaments, were succeeded by the Stuarts. The parliamentary opposition to King James I became intense in the 1620s. To grossly simplify, Parliament's position was a renewed assertion of "no taxation without representation" — a principle already well on its way to being established in Magna Carta, though now mainly associated with the 18th-century English settlers on the North Atlantic seaboard who pursued this theme enthusiastically.

In 1628, James's son and successor, Charles I, lost patience and suddenly prorogued Parliament, saying, "I owe an account of my actions to none but God alone." Prorogation is a scheduling matter, though, in 1628 as in 2008, it meant playing for time. But it is not basic to the character of the regime, as dissolution is, which is why the principles about when to prorogue, and not to, are ill-developed.

Prorogation carries a strong echo this week, but the cases of Charles Stuart and Stephen Harper differ greatly (not only in that Charles, an outstanding collector, had far greater feeling for the arts). A year later, the King took a counter-revolutionary step, dissolved Parliament and did not summon another for 11 years, the longest gap ever, a time known as the "personal rule" of Charles I. In 1640, with Presbyterian Scotland in revolt, he could find no other way of raising new money than to convoke a new Parliament, which turned out to be the longest ever. Civil war broke out, and Parliament's victory soon morphed into the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell. After a show trial, Charles was beheaded. The "Long Parliament" did not quite peter out until 1660, a shadow of itself.

The conflict continued, however, through the reigns of Charles's two sons, the second of whom, James II, was deposed in the Revolution of 1688 (often called "glorious"), which declared the King to have constructively abdicated, in favour of his daughter Mary and son-in-law, William of Orange. This agitated period did not quite end until the second attempt to restore to the throne Charles' descendants failed in 1745.

The third, almost non-violent phase from which our current conventions of the Constitution evolved began when King George III (reigning from 1760 to 1820) tried to reassert royal power, with mixed success, in times that were shaken by the American and the French Revolutions.

In 1783, George made the second-last monarch-initiated dissolution. He had dismissed one cabinet and called upon William Pitt the Younger to be prime minister, who lacked, or soon lost, majority support in the Commons. The King was not a democrat, but he resorted to the people, and Pitt won the election of 1784. In the end, this royal victory amounted to an important democratic precedent.

In 1832, the passage of the "great" Reform Bill of 1832, which substantially expanded the electorate, involved a nearly revolutionary constitutional crisis, in which, with misgivings, King William IV accepted the advice of his Whig (or Liberal) ministers. (Joseph Howe's peaceful attainment of responsible government in Nova Scotia and the rebellions of 1837 in Central Canada were all part of the same reform movement.)

Two years later, King William thought the Whigs had lost the people's support. At William's invitation, the Tory leaders, the Duke of Wellington and Robert Peel, formed a government, and in 1835 the King dissolved Parliament so they could get a majority in the Commons. This move backfired; the Whigs' popularity rebounded and they won the election.

A little later, the young Queen Victoria was educated by Lord Melbourne, her first prime minister (whom she loved as if he were her father), in Whig views of the political order, which in many ways still prevail.

The second editor of the Economist, Walter Bagehot, wrote a brilliant book in 1867 called The English Constitution, in which he said that Queen Victoria still had the power to dissolve Parliament in theory, "but it has passed so far away from the minds of men, that it would terrify them, if she used it, like a volcanic eruption from Primrose Hill," (a mere 256 metres above sea level, in North London).

In that same year, the British North America Act (now called The Constitution Act, 1867) imported all this in a few words, giving Canada "a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom" —although the achievement of responsible government in the 1840s had already done the same thing.

Bagehot set out to describe the way British government and politics actually worked, not to lay down doctrines; on the contrary, he tried to liberate his readers from existing constitutional theory. But his sparkling observations helped real practice harden into new doctrine.

The King-Byng controversy of 1926, in Canada, was an argument about how to apply the conventions around the power to dissolve Parliament. It is quite germane to the present crisis. Like Mr. Harper's party today, Arthur Meighen's Conservatives had more seats in the Commons than any other party. Most Canadians now expect the party with the largest number of MPs to form the government, and many think that this is required by democracy; that belief may eventually take strong enough hold to become a convention of the Constitution.

But more is not necessarily most, or more than half, and a mere plurality can be quite ineffectual, as Mr. Harper may or may not find on Jan. 26, 2009.

In 1926, Lord Byng, the Governor-General, made a mistaken judgment about the viability of a Meighen government, and W.L. Mackenzie King did very well out of expressing great outrage in the election that followed, winning a working Liberal majority, thanks to some Liberal-Progressives.

Byng's error seems obvious in hindsight. Nonetheless, it is an advantage of conventions, as opposed to legal rules, that a governor-general has some leeway and discretion, with powers held in reserve, to assess who will really be able to get things through Parliament.

Conventions of the Constitution may seem to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, as if they were understandings and practices because they are in fact understood and practised. But in his 1885 book Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, A.V. Dicey, an academic lawyer, managed to pinpoint their practical force. Though conventions of the Constitution (a phrase he coined, as far as I know) cannot be the basis for lawsuits, if they are not adhered to, Parliaments would not pass budgets, so that governments would stop working; police and soldiers would desert, not having been paid, and previously law-abiding citizens would stop paying taxes. Anarchy would break out.

Thus, liberty depends on powers that expire, such as our taxing and spending measures.

We no longer need a consensus among great landowners, small landowners, bishops, merchants and so forth, but any society has groups with the potential of breaking apart: regions, classes, ethnic groups and political parties. Some conflicts are too big to be settled by lawsuits and judicial interpretation of written laws, so there is need for accepted rules based on some sort of balance of power, analogous to that which preserves times of comparative peace in international affairs.

While the prospect of civil wars and revolutions is fortunately remote, there is always a possibility that a volcano may erupt on Parliament Hill. And we have constitutional conventions to preserve us.

It is quite true, as many here have opined, that a coalition could be a wholly legal and proper alternative to the current Conservative minority government and Constitutional convention allows Her Excellency Michaëlle Jean to call on Stéphane Dion to try to form a government before she drops the writs for yet another general election. But, as Owen pointed out, the essentially American view that the voters must have the final say is gaining strength in Canada – perhaps enough strength that no governor general will dare to appoint a new government that has not been selected by the people at a general election.

Most Canadians now expect the party with the largest number of MPs to form the government, and many think that this is required by democracy; that belief may eventually take strong enough hold to become a convention of the Constitution.

An interesting question becomes: how long is long enough? How long must a government manage to stay in power before another general election is a reasonable option – no matter the costs?

It seems pretty clear to me that the time for coalition making is during the first few weeks of a new parliament. When, as now, there is a minority government there is an opportunity for the opposition parties to defeat the government early on: after the Throne Speech – which this parliament did not do this time, or on the first budget or spending bill , and then form a coalition and take power. But most observers, I think, envision that process occurring in the first few (less than ten) weeks of a new parliament, not after, say, three and a half or four months.

It seems to me that if the Conservatives offer a reasonable budget, with some, immediate stimulus - a budget that gets general approval from the informed economic commentariat, and it is then defeated on the budget vote, having been in office for, say, nearly four months (the budget debate requires four (not necessarily consecutive) days) then the GG may, reasonably, decide that a coalition is unlikely offer much of anything better and she may, therefore, call another election – one with a campaign running from early Feb until mid Mar.

In my view it is time for Canadians and their governor general “expect the party with the largest number of MPs to form the government” unless opposition parties can offer a clear and viable alternative during the first few weeks of a new parliament. This may mean that we will have more elections for a while – until Québecers decide to accept a fair share of their responsibility for governing their country or, if they ever grow some backbone, decide to form a new one – but it will be the most democratic solution and Constitutional conventions do evolve so it will also be legal and proper.

 
Rodahn said:
Actually Dion was elected, as were Layton and Duccepe, now if it were May on the other hand. What people seem to forget is that the PM's office is filled by the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament (for the most part). The Canadian system does not elect a PM.

I must admit though, that there is a tendency for people to vote along partisan lines.

Perception is reality, as the aphorism has it.

The people perceive that the "democratic" solution is to allow the party with most seats to form government.
The people perceive that the "democratic" solution is have another election when the government falls.

Just as the people perceive (according to Bagehot's observation in Owen's piece that Edward posted) that the monarch no longer has the power to dissolve parliament on her own whim.
Just as the people perceive that the monarch was subservient to the wishes of the Barons, and later the Commons and ultimately the Populace.

You cannot lead where the mob will not follow and just because you have a piece of paper or the advice of a lawyer, does not make it so.

PS, sorry Edward, forgot to thank you for posting that.

Cheers.
 
Rodahn said:
Actually Dion was elected, as were Layton and Duccepe, now if it were May on the other hand. What people seem to forget is that the PM's office is filled by the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament (for the most part). The Canadian system does not elect a PM.

I must admit though, that there is a tendency for people to vote along partisan lines.
Pehaps so, however, all the national advertizing was geared to electing party leaders...  Strong leader, Poor Leader yada yada.  I saw no TV adverising for my local candidate.  So I suspect most voted along party lines.  You know "Anything but Harper". 

Just because a coalition is legaly possible doesn't mean it is the moral or ethical thing to do.  A weird analogy here, but bear with me.  I am 50, it is "legal" for me to have sex with a 16 year old girl.  Is it ethical or moral? 
 
muskrat89 said:
Speaking isn't a form of expression?

???

"Freedom of Interpretive Dance" didn't scan so well, so we got "Freedom of Expression" instead.

Mind you, on a personal level, I find enumerative lists of freedoms philosophically troubling, as they suggest that freedoms are granted; I prefer to view the social contract as limits being imposed - those impositions should be enumerated.  Or, in simpler terms, tell me what's prohibited, not what's permitted.

 
eurowing said:
Just because a coalition is legaly possible doesn't mean it is the moral or ethical thing to do. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral
mor⋅al

–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

eth⋅i⋅cal

–adjective
1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession: It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.

Setting aside outright illegal acts, which these are not, morality and ethics are defined by the individual.   Your choosing to describe these acts as "immoral" and "unethical" does not make them so.

What if the tables were reversed and the Conservatives had formed a coalition to overturn a minority Liberal government.  Would it still be "immoral" and "unethical"?  Or would a Liberal act of pro-roguing then get those labels from you?
 
Michael O`Leary said:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral
Setting aside outright illegal acts, which these are not, morality and ethics are defined by the individual.   Your choosing to describe these acts as "immoral" and "unethical" does not make them so.

What if the tables were reversed and the Conservatives had formed a coalition to overturn a minority Liberal government.  Would it still be "immoral" and "unethical"?  Or would a Liberal act of pro-roguing then get those labels from you?
  I agree, morals and ethics are somewhat defined by the individual, however culture and upbringing play a part in determining those. 

Yes, I would still feel the opposition Tories (in the hypothetical scenario) would not have the "moral" authority to seize power so soon after an election.  Which I suspect is the problem many people have with the idea of the coalition.  It was too soon.
 
Another nit to pick...This issue of "the confidence of the house".

While it may the legal and traditional term are we really speaking of "confidence" at all?
It was ( i think ) very self serving of the opposition parties to invent a crisis attitude about the economy and to then declare ( to the effect that ) the Prime Minister doesn't grasp the reality of the situation.

This act has external consequences - markets go down - people become fearful - a less than optimal situation is made worse - to the detriment of Canadians.

This deliberate and cynical act removes any confidence I had in the liberal party of Canada. I think you could argue that this is the root of the erroneous  accusation of treason.

How could Canadians have confidence in a minority government so small that they need the support of a separatist party.

In my opinion the Bloc exists to distort the Parliament toward a separatist end.
It's regionalism distorts the action of Parliament.  It's ethnic nationalism distorts Parliament.
While not bending the letter of parliamentary tradition it certainly bends the spirit of our tradition. Ergo - to me - The Bloc is not an equal party to the other three.

Just because the opposition's actions conform to parliamentary tradition, they are not necessarily purely democratic.
 
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

I don't want to side track this thread too much but lets look at this in practice for a second.

Freedom of thought - Ok, no one from the government has figured out how to stop us thinking what we want. ;)

Freedom of belief - unless you happen to believe (as you are told by your religion) that homosexuality is a disease, then like Rev Boisson you can be ordered to never speak or write about your beliefs

That also takes care of freedom of opinion, and expression.

Oh, you also can't print certain opinions because they have been deemed to be "hate speech".  

In short we enjoy some of the above freedoms but enjoying some freedoms and calling that a demonstration of our "rights" in society is a farce.

Are they rights?  Perhaps in a limited sense.  Maybe the word that should be removed is freedom, we need a more restrictive word to convey the true nature of those "rights".  Perhaps permission, yeah, that's it..

b) granted permission for thought, belief, opinion and expression, including permission which has been granted for the press and other media of communication;
 
Flip said:
This act has external consequences - markets go down - people become fearful - a less than optimal situation is made worse - to the detriment of Canadians.

This deliberate and cynical act removes any confidence I had in the liberal party of Canada. I think you could argue that this is the root of the erroneous  accusation of treason.

Why yes, the Oppostion's actions certainly caused a nice crisis in the Canadian Stock markets with their little plan announcement didn't it? Seems to me that they created the very crises they claimed existed - or at least their own actions are what sent it to "crisis" level.

A crisis of their own making. Thank you Opposition Parties for that!! Bunch of dweebs.
 
Why yes, the Oppostion's actions certainly caused a nice crisis in the Canadian Stock markets with their little plan announcement didn't it? Seems to me that they created the very crises they claimed existed - or at least their own actions are what sent it to "crisis" level.

Vern! I haven't read anything of yours in ages! Nice to see!

A bit of a highjack I know.....
I think the correct message for a government to send would be;

Interest rates are low = good for manufacturing and productivity in general.
The dollar is low = good for manufacturing.
Energy costs are low = good for manufacturing.
Unemployment hasn't jumped too high just yet.

I think the conditions for Ontario's recovery are starting to emerge......In spite of the opposition!  >:D

The last thing the opposition can tolerate is an economy that recovers without government meddling!   That Canada is in better shape than the rest of the G20 must be horrifying... ;D

As for "crisis"? Crisis = Danger + Opportunity

 
Flip said:
How could Canadians have confidence in a minority government so small that they need the support of a separatist party.

In my opinion the Bloc exists to distort the Parliament toward a separatist end.
It's regionalism distorts the action of Parliament.  It's ethnic nationalism distorts Parliament.
While not bending the letter of parliamentary tradition it certainly bends the spirit of our tradition. Ergo - to me - The Bloc is not an equal party to the other three.

Just because the opposition's actions conform to parliamentary tradition, they are not necessarily purely democratic.

I don't remember to many conservatives complaining about that when they used the bloc to get their previous budgets through.  (with a little extra for Quebec of course) Nor did I hear them complain about regionalism when people from the west started voting for them because "the west needs a strong voice".   

In fact the Conservatives tried to do everything  this government ... err collation ... is planning to do. The only difference is that the collation is better at it.  I stumbled on collation because in fact the collation is now the majority force in Parliament.  This force should be allowed to take over the ministry positions and be allowed to actually get things done - because they can and the tories can't.
 
Zell_Dietrich said:
I don't remember to many conservatives complaining about that when they used the bloc to get their previous budgets through.  (with a little extra for Quebec of course) Nor did I hear them complain about regionalism when people from the west started voting for them because "the west needs a strong voice".   

In fact the Conservatives tried to do everything  this government ... err collation ... is planning to do. The only difference is that the collation is better at it.  I stumbled on collation because in fact the collation is now the majority force in Parliament.  This force should be allowed to take over the ministry positions and be allowed to actually get things done - because they can and the tories can't.

If they were better at it ...they'd be doing it now no?

Or at least Canadians would have put them in power to do it a mere 6 weeks ago ...

Funny thing is ... that didn't happen.
 
Zell_Dietrich said:
In fact the Conservatives tried to do everything  this government ... err collation ... is planning to do. The only difference is that the collation is better at it.  (The effort is under way.  Success has not yet been achieved)

I stumbled on collation because in fact the collation is now the majority force in Parliament.   (Yet to be demonstrated in a stand-up vote in Caucus, let alone the House).

This force should be allowed to take over the ministry positions (See previous)

and be allowed to actually get things done do things (Assumes that things need to be done - and if things do need to be done fails to take into account "Odds and Sods" willingness to obstruct the Government.)

- because they can will and the tories can't won't. (Assumes that the Tories wish to "do" things.  Many of us seem to wish won't  "do" things.)

Actually, to your last point, I am not convinced that even if the Tories wanted to "do" things, that they would be allowed.  

Jack wants money for the Big Three automakers and the Forestry industry to keep dues flowing into the CAW and the IWW which historically have funded his party.

If GM/Ford/Chrysler go belly up cars will still be made, autoworkers will still be employed, but in NON-union Toyota, Honda and Hyundai shops.  The only people that will ultimately be subject to longterm pain are the unions, the NDP and Jack.

And the Liberals if they continue following the drum of Jack's fellow socialist, if in the Fabian mode, Bob Rae.

Edited for legibility of colour.

And to add this comment to back up Vern.....

A couple of days ago I found myself laughing at Jack telling Harper to accept this with grace and not to create a fuss.....

I find this whole situation akin to Brutus demanding that Caesar stop squirming as he is getting blood on everybody's clothes.

Given the trend in the polls you lot seem to be in the unenviable position of having screwed the putsch and find yourselves running down the street after a bloodied Caesar with the mob angrily looking at you as to why you are disturbing the peace.

You now need to figure out how to catch him, and kill him, in plain view and blame him for non-existent troubles.

Best of luck with that.

 
Kirkhill,

Thank you for adding orange explanations for those who might have ESL issues.  "Planning to do" is 'future tense'. 

While I do understand your point about can/will can't/won't and do things/get things done I would like to point out that the Tories did try to do things - RIFF min withdraw reduction,  funding cuts,  removing right to strike for civil servants etc....  They tried and they would have failed. 

And if the big three go down,  there will be job losses and if people are unemployed how will they buy cars?  If they're not buying why build them? 
 
This photo should send chills up and down the spines of centrist liberals everywhere:
 
Back
Top