Canada's coup d'etat: Opposition parties join to overthrow gov't (Part 2)

[Fake Boris]

nm

[KrazyHorse]

Yet another article by Mr. Spector:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/02/f-vp-spector.html

I have sent a request for clarification to the CBC's ombudsman. I will post whatever reply I receive.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I already read yours, dude. Along with the bio of the guy. And did a search for further references.

Right now I'm up to 3 uncorrelated sources (newspaper, textbook, first comment in Mr. Spector's globe&mail article)

I can't find any further sources which back your claim. Can you find any which were not written by Mr. Spector? I will accept offline sources as well.

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
(as long as they are part of the public record I should be able to get them at the library)

How about the CBC?

Same guy. More detail of the arguments.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/02/f-vp-spector.html

Advice to the GG: let the people decide

Last Updated: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 | 1:03 PM ET Comments351Recommend407By Norman Spector, special to CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is said to be examining his parliamentary options to delay the day of reckoning for a crisis that he brought upon himself and the country.

However, if his government is defeated on Monday, when the next confidence vote is scheduled, he will have to decide whether to request dissolution and an election from the Governor General. Last week he indicated he would do just that. But Harper may change his mind upon further reflection.

For example, he may conclude that the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition, with the backing of the Bloc Québécois, will be disastrous for the Liberal party over the near term and will eventually land the Conservatives a majority government.

Or, should the coalescing opposition find favour with Canadians and agree not to run candidates against each other, he may conclude that he cannot win an election at this time.

The GG's dilemma
Another reason Harper may decide not to request dissolution is that it would place Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean in a very difficult position.

Only once in Canadian history — the so-called King-Byng affair in 1926 — has a governor general denied a prime minister's request for dissolution and an election. Adrienne Clarkson's musings about what she would have done had Paul Martin lost the confidence of the House were just that, musings.

The fact that Harper, as Opposition leader in 2004, tried to dethrone Martin by signing a memo of understanding with the NDP's Jack Layton, simply leaves him open to accusations of hypocrisy — the same charge that can be levelled against the Liberals who took the contrary position back then.

But it does not change the powers of the Governor General. No one is suggesting that Her Excellency does not have the authority to deny a request for dissolution. However, since the circumstances this time are different from King-Byng, the Governor General also has the discretion to accede to such a request as well.

And let's not forget either that the only time the GG's power was used this way in the past led to the crisis of 1925-26 and a rather nasty election.

A question of legitimacy
Because the circumstances then were so different, the precedent most often cited these days is the 1985 accord that brought Liberal David Peterson to power in Ontario, supported by the NDP.

In discussing this incident, however, few people mention that then Conservative premier Frank Miller did not request dissolution after he was defeated on his inaugural throne speech.

Indeed, in his letter of resignation, Miller suggested that Peterson would be able to gain the confidence of the legislature and that he should be asked to form a government. The Lieutenant-Governor accepted that advice.

That situation was different, too, in an important way: Peterson's Liberals were just four seats shy of Miller's Conservatives and could govern with the direct support of one party, the NDP, which had, incidentally, offered its same formal conditions to the Tories (though probably not very seriously).

How Gov. Gen. Jean could possibly decide now that a coalition led by an interim leader and so lacking in democratic legitimacy could provide stable government to Canadians is beyond me.

On October 14, Canadians selected a minority Conservative government. While more people voted for the three opposition parties than for Harper, no one voted for the coalition that it is being proposed; indeed, all three parties explicitly denied during the campaign they would ever consider it.

If Jean were to decide to hand power over to a Liberal-led coalition under Stéphane Dion, many Canadians would feel that this is precisely the outcome they rejected barely two months ago.

Conservative voters would be furious. Many Western Canadians would feel that the government had been stolen from them. Outside Quebec, there would be strong resentment against a party dedicated to breaking up Canada having such a key supporting role in governing the country.

An uncomfortable position
We also shouldn't overlook the fact that Michaëlle Jean was appointed to her position by former prime minister Paul Martin and therefore the optics of her restoring Liberal rule would be terrible.

Critics would not just stop there. At the time of her appointment, she also held French citizenship, which she wisely renounced in the ensuing controversy.

There was also considerable controversy over whether she and her spouse, Jean-Daniel Lafond, had harboured separatist sympathies; in his case at least, few of those who know him believed the denials.

Having written three supportive columns in the Globe and Mail in the thick of the controversy surrounding her appointment, I believe now that it would be in her personal best interest and in the interest of the office of Governor General to accept the prime minister's request for an election to clear the air, should that be his choice.

More important, I also believe it would be better for Canada if this were the case.

An election, while costly, would present Canadians with a clear choice between Stephen Harper's Conservatives and the coalition being proposed by the three opposition parties.

The alternative is the very real possibility of a paralyzing political-constitutional crisis in the midst of an international recession.

In an interview ten days ago in La Presse, the Governor General was asked whether her relations with Prime Minister Harper were "generally good." She replied: "They are what they must be between a governor general and a prime minister. That's to say: mutual respect. Because this is part of respect for democracy. The people choose their government."

Let's hope for the sake of Canada that Her Excellency keeps that principle at the forefront of her deliberations in the coming days.

Despite what you may wish to think, I am not a lone voice howling into the chinooks in Alberta.

[KrazyHorse]

Boris, don't you understand that if the exact combination of factors which make up this situation did not previously occur then there are no precedents and the G-G can do whatever NYE decides it is she should do?

[KrazyHorse]

Thanks, NYE. Already posted that link.



Don't you find it a bit strange that the only one to make this claim is Mr. Spector? And that he has multiple articles based on this point?

I am beginning to sense an unpleasant aroma around Mr. Spector on this issue.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Do you have any precedents of a coalition to exclude the plurality from power?

Seriously, why does this matter?

Honestly, if a majority in the commons decides to elect someone PM, I see nothing illegal or underhanded. Now doubts about Dion's leadership are another matter...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Perhaps you should read mine.

It is written by a columnist for the Globe and Le Devoir. He describes exactly the circumstances that I have read of elsewhere.

Note also, from your textbook

This is one of the few cases in Canada's majoritarian system where change in party government has occured without an election.

I challenge you to find another.

I really thought that would be widespread knowledge by now.

Macdonald, Ontario, 1871
Taillon, Quebec, 1887
Gardiner, Saskatchewan, 1929
Miller Ontario, 1985

There are many more cases in other Commonwealth countries.

[KrazyHorse]

I recall NYE yowling on a few years about how much he hated the overarching power of the PMO relative to the Commons. And pointing out again and again that Canadians elect MPs, not PMs.

I find it a bit strange that his tune has changed now that Commons has aligned against Harper.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I really thought that would be widespread knowledge by now.

Macdonald, Ontario, 1871
Taillon, Quebec, 1887
Gardiner, Saskatchewan, 1929
Miller Ontario, 1985

There are many more cases in other Commonwealth countries.

Thank you for doing my work for me. I have other things to do.

[KrazyHorse]

The reason Harper is asking for a proroguement is because he knows that (based on far better scholarship than that displayed in this thread) there is no way in hell anybody but a hugely activist governor general would grant a dissolution of Parliament under these circumstances.

I expect that the Governor General, when the prorogue is requested, will grant it under the following conditions:

1) That Parliament will reconvene in the near future
2) That when it reconvenes the government will table a motion or the opposition or will be given a chance to table a motion which will act as a test of the confidence of the Commons in the Harper government
3) That in the interim Mr. Harper will not request from the Queen the dismissal of Ms. Jean

[KrazyHorse]

Personally, I think Harper should take this like a man. Table a confidence motion tomorrow. When defeated, walk into the Governor General's house and request a dissolution of Parliament. When denied this, walk directly outside and give a thunder and lightning resignation speech. Promise to sit in opposition and hold Mr. Dion's feet to the fire, and place himself on the side of the electorate, saying "don't worry: we'll have our day soon enough". Hammer Dion EVERY DAY for using "trickery" to subvert the will of the electorate.

[Asher]

The problem is, the next time we have an election, Dion will be out of the picture already and Ignatieff (probably Ignatieff) will simply shrug and go "it wasn't my idea, I didn't want to do it, it's not my fault!" and the Canadian public will say "oh,okay" and we'll be back to the Liberal rule we're all used to and loathe.

[KrazyHorse]

a) Then the Canadian public will have been democratically deceived. I thought you were all in favour of democracy

b) Mr Ignatieff will presumably be forced to vote with these motions if he wants any chance of winning the nomination of the Liberals. It will be a mite uncomfortable for him to explain why he voted for it when he didn't want to do it

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I recall NYE yowling on a few years about how much he hated the overarching power of the PMO relative to the Commons. And pointing out again and again that Canadians elect MPs, not PMs.

I find it a bit strange that his tune has changed now that Commons has aligned against Harper.

The parties.

My problem is the power of the parties over MPs.

The PMO is the 800 lb guerilla of the circus due to the added power of patronage.

Were Liberal, NDP, and Tory MPs able to vote freely, I would have no problem whatsoever with a combination of MPs backing change in government without election in this case. They are not.

Something very bad is about to happen if Dion and Layton have their way, and I'm not about to stand on principle as the band plays on. and the ship hits the iceberg.

I want an election. I think I am on the side of the angels.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I really thought that would be widespread knowledge by now.

Macdonald, Ontario, 1871
Taillon, Quebec, 1887
Gardiner, Saskatchewan, 1929
Miller Ontario, 1985

There are many more cases in other Commonwealth countries.

MacDonald?

Taillon was a caretaker trying to keep a majority party from power, was he not?

Gardiner could be interesting to discuss if you want to bring on the details.

Miller has been addressed, at length and ad nauseum.