So, all Ottawa is agog over the possibility that the newly-elected Harper government will face its first confidence challenge on Monday.
Apparently, all the opposition parties cannot abide the details of the financial statement brought down yesterday by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.
And since all money bills are confidence measures, unless someone puts some water in their wine over the weekend, the government will lose a vote and have its plug pulled.
This does raise a ton of questions:
* Can the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois really get together on anything and defeat this government?
* If they do, would the governor-general really send us back to the polls so soon after the last election?
* Would she offer Stephane Dion the chance to become prime minister?
* Would the opposition only topple the government on the premise that Dion resigns, and Michael Ignatieff, the deputy leader, takes over?
* Is there anything in the constitution of the Liberal party that permits an unelected leader to lead the party into an election campaign?
* Would the Bloc really do anything to facilitate the Liberals returning to power?
If you know the answers to any of these questions, do let me know.
Meantime, if Monday's vote does topple the Conservative government, history of a different sort will be made.
It was newly-minted NDP MP Bob Rae that moved the motion to defeat the Joe Clark government in 1979. And it was Ontario NDP leader Bob Rae that did the same thing to Frank Miller's Conservative government at Queen's Park in 1985.
I've occasionally asked Rae in the past whether his days of toppling governments are over. And he's always said, "Nope. Some day, I'm going for the hat trick."
We'll see if Monday is Rae's day to score that hat trick.
The vote has been postponed until Monday December 8.
The King/Byng affair showed that while the GG has the authority to allow the second place party to form a government they do so at the peril of the office of the GG. For the Liberal and NDP coalition to gain majority (they only have 113 seats combined), they would need the guaranteed support of a party that has as its raison d'etre the separation of this country. The fact that a separatist party will be involved should not sit well. Not only with the GG but with the electorate of this country. It is quite sad really that this nonsense is even being discussed in the face of a mere fiscal update. To use the lack of economic stimulus as an excuse is laughable when this is all about those feeling entitled to their entitlements. That is, the party funding. You do this kind of childish behaviour in the lead up and aftermath of a budget, not a fiscal update. It's no wonder why Canadians are cynical of politicians when you've got the opposition behaving like bullying school children. And to think we just had an election on Oct 14 and now the opposition will have to justify to the electorate why they are leading us into another one over their subsidies instead of biting the bullet and making sacrifices like most Canadians.
posted by leaffan444 on 28 November 2008 at 9:17 PM
It is not the Opposition behaving like bullies, but Harper and his gang, who are so cynical as to use the economic crisis as an excuse to hurt the other parties financially and to restrict the right to strike of civil servants. Shame on the Tories. The Opposition is right to unite and overthrow this budding tyrant, just as the British Parliamentarians rose up against Charles I when he sought to rule without the authority of Parliament. Dpn't forget, Harper has, at most, the support of one-third of voters. Charles I found out what happens when you try to govern without the confidence of Parliament. He was convicted of high treason and beheaded. So Harper watch out.
posted by Boris on 28 November 2008 at 10:41 PM
As we found out with the Kyoto accord when Harper meets with the world he comes back untouched. Or 'touched'? I'm not sure but I do know that the pounce by the opposition parties is about his audacity to file a fiscal update with no mention of how Canada is going to spend to forestall economic crisis.
As for whether Dion could be PM the answer must be a resounding No. I cannot picture M. Jean wielding the reserve power of the GG to precipitate a constitutional crisis. She's political enough to hang a medal around Morgentaler's neck but not so brave to threaten the tenets of the responsible government that assures her position. Harper will have to request another dissolution if his government fails and we will all have to pay for another election. This is just not the same as when Ernie Eves became the unelected Premier of Ontario.
posted by Karen Krisfalusi on 29 November 2008 at 3:40 AM
"Plusieurs libéraux calculent que la gouverneure générale, Michaëlle Jean, n'accepterait pas la tenue d'autres élections en moins de six mois. Elle demanderait probablement à l'opposition de former un gouvernement de coalition. Stéphane Dion pourrait peut-être ainsi devenir premier ministre, du moins jusqu'à ce que le PLC se choisisse un nouveau chef en mai."
Trust Le Devoir to put out this kind of drivel. Hey, if she does do it I think Canadian's could bring charges against her for tyranny! To get political on abortion and then cause a constitutional crisis -- that would be an insane intrusion into the affairs of Canadians and it is understood by ALL CANADIANS in this day and age that the GG's job is fluff. Le Devoir can spew, but it's not true.
posted by Karen Krisfalusi on 29 November 2008 at 3:53 AM
In Karen's post, she refers to the GG using her reserve power to precipitate a constitutional crisis. She is mistaken. The GG's power of reservation refers to something completely different -- the power of the GG (or LG in a province) to "reserve" a piece of legislation by referring it to the Crown. This power (and the power of disallowance) while still "on the books" are thought to be null and void through disuse.
The responsibility of the GG to invite MP's to form a government is very much real and active. The GG does this after ever election! True, we seldom come across this kind of situation, but this doesn't make whatever Madame Jean does unconstitutional, illegal or (as Karen suggests) tyranny!
posted by brooklinresident on 29 November 2008 at 9:50 AM
If the government loses a non-confidence vote, and if the opposition parties are able to demonstrate convincingly that they are capable of forming a stable coalition government, then the GG would be right to offer them this opportunity. There would be nothing at all tyrannical about such a move - after all this is part of her job, which you, krisfalusi, see fit to refer to as "fluff". I admit that it would be more appropriate for an independent nation like Canada to do away with this last vestige of British Imperialism, and replace it with a Presidency along the lines of Germany's. Nevertheless, we do have a Governor-General, and she does possess certain residual powers. Although she rarely needs to exercise these powers, she has them and is in her rights to use them in the interests of the Canadian people. Alors, "Le Devoir" a raison, et tu as tort, ma petite.
posted by Boris on 29 November 2008 at 9:57 AM
Actually, brooklinresident, Karen is correct in calling these the reserve powers -- the term can be used interchangeably with personal prerogatives. It's confusing, I know, because you are correct to point out that the reserve power also refers to the ability to withhold royal assent to bills. Perhaps what you are referring to is called the power of "reservation", but I'm not sure.
Thank you, Boris, on your defence of the Opposition! Paul Wells has a great post on this over at his blog:
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/28/harper-plays-chess-while-rome-burns/
posted by The Fwanksta on 29 November 2008 at 12:16 PM
As well, you're completely on mark about the role of the GG in such a scenario. IF she can be reasonably assured that the coalition can form a stable government, then there's no problem with her handing over the reins. The problem many constitutional scholars see with King-Byng was that Meighen didn't really have any chance of governing in the long-term, so he shouldn't have been given the chance. The problem was also exacerbated by the fact that Meighen couldn't get his cabinet minister sworn in, because at the time it was convention that they had to run for re-election in order to accept a position in the cabinet, but he couldn't spare the seats.
However, I don't really consider the GG to be a vestige of British Imperialism any more than our Westminster system of government is. We still have a constitution "similar in principle to that of Great Britain", but that doesn't mean that the British have any say in how it works anymore. Same is with the GG: the Brits don't have any say in who we pick. The British role in the governance of Canada has slowly withered away over the years: with responsible government, with the Vice-regal Instructions and Letters Patent in 1878, with the Imperial Conferences leading to the Statute of Westminster in the late 1920s and 1931, and with the appointment of Vincent Massey in 1952, the first Canadian to fill the role -- a tradition that has continued. There's nothing British about it but the history.
posted by The Fwanksta on 29 November 2008 at 12:16 PM
And hehe, I forgot about the patriation of the Constitution!
posted by The Fwanksta on 29 November 2008 at 12:17 PM
La Belle Michealle, our 'Sista', took so long to deliver the throne speech (Kady O'Malley: "...her moment") that the MP's had to rise several times to iron the creases in their pants (ladies included). While we on this board may tingle with knowledge of what should or could happen I'm sure she's enjoying the spotlight too much to know what's going on.
posted by Karen Krisfalusi on 29 November 2008 at 1:22 PM
Thank you, Fwanksta, for that correction. Yes I did mean the power of reservation, and I'd never come across the prerogative powers called the reserve powers.
The word "crisis" is being bandied about. I'm not sure that it is a "crisis" (except if we are to take the original meaning of the word, which is closer to a "turning point" or "event".) All of this is potentially unusual -- yes -- but all within the norms of parliamentary government.
Karen -- you obviously have a hate-on for the GG but your arguments are classicly ad hominem. This is about her constitutional role and responsibilities, not her as a person. (And, BTW, I'm a fan of hers.)
posted by brooklinresident on 29 November 2008 at 1:55 PM
If Dion is out the door soon...
That could mean Ignatieff could get in through the back door...
merry-go-round
posted by ZorroIsGod on 29 November 2008 at 3:03 PM
brooklinresident, I would rather say your argument on this board was Ad homininum when you slurred me in GG's Powers and then when Fwanksta corrected you in Some Thought on the Situation you thanked him for the correction and slurred me again! At the risk of having to catalogue this again, idem, please drop your attacks on me. I have a different pov and if you don't like it, don't engage. thanks ever so much, Karen
posted by Karen Krisfalusi on 29 November 2008 at 9:49 PM
UBC Political Scientist Michael Byers asserted tonite on Global TV that it there the coalition government threat of today is constitutionally acceptable because 'it happened before'. Where do they get these people? There has never been a coalition of minorty parties. The ruling party either saw a huge exodus (The Great Coalition) and with all the others the minority shared cabinet power with the ruling party. In this case if Stephen Harper's government loses the confidence of the house he would have to request another dissolution and there would be another election, no question. If M. Jean were to exercise her reserve power in this instance this would create a constitutional crisis.
posted by Karen Krisfalusi on 29 November 2008 at 10:10 PM
All I can say is -- look up what an ad hominem argument was. I have not said anything personal about you -- only that I disagree with your point of view. My initial post was mistaken on a point of fact, and what that was pointed out to me, I thanked the one who corrected me. You, on the other hand, called the GG and "airhead". Enough said.
posted by brooklinresident on 30 November 2008 at 12:05 PM
Charles 1 was not elected by the people of England but put on the throne as the heir. Mr Harper was elected by 37% of the electorate. The electorate did not vote to have a coalition "overthrow" a duly elected government. In fact during the election campaign the Liberals rejected the notion of forming a coalition with the NDP because "they would economically ruin the country". This is hypocrisy and an attempt to usurp power through the backdoor. The opposition parties are acting at their peril. If this is such a "noble" cause the opposition has, then why not put it to the electorate? Because they'd lose and the Tories would get a majority. Enough said.
posted by leaffan444 on 30 November 2008 at 12:46 PM
You are correct when you state that Canadians did not vote specifically for a coalition overthrow. Neither did they vote for a minority government that would behave as if it had a majority, fail to act decisively to deal with the economic crisis, or use the economicic crisis as a means of bludgeoning the opposition parties and the unions to the point of impotence. Harper is acting in an arbitrary, dictatorial, totalitarian manner, and that was the meaning of my light-hearted comparison with Charles Stuart, you fool. Moreover, there is nothing hypocritical about the Liberals refusing to contemplate a coalition during the election, but proposing it now. The political situation has changed. We have a government that is not governing effectively, and which needs replacing quickly. Extraordinary conditions require extraordinary measures. Haven't you ever heard that mantra before, leaffan? Finally, there is no need for an election, because the opposition parties together have already received a huge mandate from the people - 62% in favour.
posted by Boris on 30 November 2008 at 2:39 PM
I think Mr. Harper went too far in his suggestion that we do away with the funding for political parties. Not that it shouldn't be done - why should the taxpayer pay for it? However, the screaming that is going on about no ideas being put forward to solve our current economical woes is political haymaking. I listened to a couple of economists recently who made the point that - as has Harper - to jump in with some quick fix right now may be exactly the wrong thing to do. We don't know yet what the U.S. is going to do and until we know that I really think it would be unwise to go ahead.
Does it make sense to offer the big 3 a pile of money and then have the U.S. offer something totally different and have our money disappear? Until the elephant next door makes a move, I think the mouse had better just keep his eyes and ears wide open to know which way to run. I think Harper is actually being wise while the rest of them are just trying to get us all excited. Certainly the best thing to do when there is turmoil is to calmly sit down and consider carefully what to do. I certainly don't trust the Liberals, NDP, or Bloc to do that right now.
posted by musicman on 30 November 2008 at 5:15 PM
The parties considering this "coalition" did NOT receive 62% of the vote. Combined they received 44.4%, hardly a mandate to govern when and how they see fit. Please don't include the Bloq as their 10% and their separatist tendencies will preclude them from being aparty to the formal coalition. The Greens don't matter because they have they have no seats and are therefore irrelevant in the discussion. And yes, it makes a huge difference when this coalition was rejected during the election campaign by one of the parties now proposing it.
The only ones acting like bullies are those that cannot handle the outcome of an election where they saw their precious selves resoundingly trumped and rejected by 73.8% of the electorate. And instead of doing the right thing and going back to the electorate they would rather seize it through the back door. This action by the opposition has absolutely nothing to do with the economic crises, it's all about politicians that feel entitled to their entitlements. This coalition has no cogent plan and presents no valuable alternative other than their constant vapid statements and yelping catcalls.
The people voted for a government that would deal with and handle the economic crisis in a way that was best for all Canadians. The economy of this nation, is far better off then the rest of the G20. You may fooling yourself but you are not fooling the majority of Canadians who will show this coalition exactly how they feel about back door dealings the first chance they get and give the Tories a majority.
posted by leaffan444 on 30 November 2008 at 6:09 PM
There is no reason to exclude the Bloc. It is my understanding that they will be supporting the coalition. The majority of the people did not vote for this government, as I have demonstated. They voted against them, and therefore, the Opposition parties have every right to unseat the Tories. Harper tried to do the same when he was in opposition. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
posted by Boris on 30 November 2008 at 10:32 PM
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, December 01, 2008
Here's how we got to the brink of another federal election, or perhaps a change of government without an election: The Conservatives were too clever by half and the opposition parties were too disingenuous by a factor of six.
Had I been in the Tories' shoes, I likely would have decided to do the same thing--i. e., use the need to pare back federal spending as an excuse to end taxpayer subsidies to political parties. No doubt, it seemed like a good idea at the time: Deal a crippling financial blow to your opponents, but tart it up as part of a larger effort to keep Ottawa from running a deficit.
What the Tories underestimated, though, was the absolute and utter shamelessness of the Liberals -- and to a lesser extent the NDP -- not to mention the willingness of most media to bite uncritically on the opposition version of events.
The Tories expected the opposition to be angry -- the Liberals and NDP, after all, rely on taxpayers for around two-thirds of their funding--but they never dreamed either party would be prepared to throw the country into a constitutional crisis over this issue.
In the past 14 months, the Liberals have threatened to bring down the government for the following: A withdrawal from the Kyoto environmental accords; the firming up (slightly) of our criminal justice system; immigration reforms that make it easier for officials to reject bogus applications; and the 2008 budget, which, at the time, the Liberals criticized for containing too
much spending. (Now, of course, the Liberals claim to be ready to bring down the Tories because they aren't spending enough. But that's what passes for deep thinking and consistency in the Liberal mind.)
And let's not forget the Liberals' Afghanistan volte-face. Last February, Stephane Dion said he was "absolutely unwavering" in his commitment to end our Armed Forces' combat mission in Afghanistan by February, 2009. If the government didn't commit to that target date, he and his caucus would pull the Tories down. Yet. two weeks after Mr. Dion's exercise in tub thumping, he and his party agreed with the Tories that the combat mission should continue into 2011.
In short, there has been no single principle the Liberals believed in strongly enough -- not the environment, not peace, not open immigration -- that they were willing to force an election. But threaten to cut off the nearly $8-million they extract from taxpayers each year to pay
for office, staff, propaganda, conventions and the like -- well, we have finally found the one hill on which they are prepared to die.
The week before the 2008 budget was to be voted on -- the budget the Liberals claimed was so detrimental to Canadians and to the economy -- they jammed the House of Common each day to rail at the Tories over the Chuck Cadman non-affair. When it came time to vote on the fiscal plan, though, only 11 of 94 Liberals showed up. Such was the level of commitment to their principles.
After the Tories announced on Saturday that they would climb down on the party funding issue, Ralph Goodale, the Regina Liberal MP, insisted "the political financing changes were never the issue" behind Liberal and NDP negotiations to form a coalition government. "The economy has always been the issue."
Oh, please. As the Liberals have shown during the past year and bit, there is no substantive issue greater to them than their own party's interests; no cause they would not advance to return to power and no issue they wouldn't jettison to avoid defeat. They even tried to deny ownership of the Green Shift in the final two weeks of the election campaign when it became obvious it was a stone lifejacket.
But threaten to cut off the subsidies that account for nearly 70% of their revenues and -- whoosh! -- they suddenly find their backbone.
If you are a Liberal, you can tell me that Stephen Harper overreached on party funding and got burned.
posted by leaffan444 on 01 December 2008 at 6:21 PM
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Don't have an account?
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Throughout my years at TVO, viewers have stayed in touch with me through letters, cards, faxes, emails, and phone calls. Here's another option: my blog. Through this forum, I'll let you in on some of what goes on behind the scenes of The Agenda. And I hope you'll send me your thoughts and constructive criticism on how we're doing as well.
The Agenda with Steve Paikin Allan Gregg in Conversation Big Ideas
Think Again
Interesting Times
Interesting time, to be sure. Possible shades of the 1926 King-Byng Wing-Ding (if Madame Jean were to refuse the PM's advice to call an election and, instead, invite someone else to form a government.)
Good questions you ask, Steve. A couple of comments:
- I think that if the opposition parties had some kind of accord (cf Ontario 1985) that laid out a plan for a new government for some period of time (at least six months of stability), the GG would be hard pressed to dissolve Parliament without giving someone else the opportunity to form a government.
- Even if the Liberal Party's constitution has something to say about an unelected leader forming a government (I doubt it does), this would be trumped by the exigencies of parliamentary government, which are constitutional. When the GG calls, you gotta answer! (What's more, if a PM were to die in office or suddenly resign, per force an unelected leader would become PM.) When
posted by brooklinresident on 28 November 2008 at 3:50 PM