The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

[stegner]

King KO'd him (and all subsequent GGs) in the third!

Not true-see aforementioned my last post. 

John Diefenbaker noted of Byng-King:

Mackenzie King then produced one of the most transparent falsehoods of any made in any generation of our country. He claimed that Canada was in the midst of a Constitutional Crisis, that the Governor General, Lord Byng, had acted on instructions from Downing Street inviting Meighen to form a government, and that he, Mackenzie King, would save the common people of our nation from colonial peril. King’s “challenge of imperialism” was so phoney it made Barnum look like an amateur. There was no substance in it, either in law or logic. 

Eugene Forsey:

“It is often glibly asserted that King’s victory in 1926 destroyed the reserve power of the Crown in Canada. But King was very careful to say, repeatedly, that there could be circumstances in which the Governor General would be justified in refusing dissolution.”

A 'dysfunctional parliament' ought to do the trick.

How is it dysfunctional though?  Is it dysfunctional in that no legislation is being passed?  No.  Is it conveniently dysfunctional in that Harper's defeat in the House is imminent and the PM wants to avoid this?  More likely. 

 

[stegner]

As for the GG, i'm sure it is not lost on her office that if she were to go against the advice of the PM, it would be seen by the public as one unellected official going against the decision made by an ellected one. Constituional powers or not, i'm sure even she sees the pitfalls.

Sure.  But if she does not follow Harper's request because the official opposition leaders convey to her that they do not want an election, this is not undemocratic.  As most Canadians did not vote Conservative.  If the opposition wants to get together and form a coalition there is nothing Harper can do.  This happened in Ontario in 1985.

 

[aesop081]

Sure.  But if she does not follow Harper's request because the official opposition leaders convey to her that they do not want an election, this is not undemocratic.  As most Canadians did not vote Conservative.   If the opposition wants to get together and form a coalition there is nothing Harper can do.   This happened in Ontario in 1985.

One word.....Quebec

 

[stegner]

One word.....Quebec

Please explain?

 

[aesop081]

Please explain?

What you want is for someone who represents the British Crown ( very popular in la belle province) and have her put in power a Party (which enjoys a really good reputation there) that a majority people in Quebec did not vote for ( remember that they love the BQ over there).

That is a can of worms that no one, the PM, the GG or even Dion wants to open.

 

[stegner]

I don't really think that matters.  Besides in the Spring 2005 Giles Ducceppe was calling for the Governor General to intervene and force Martin from power.

 

[Infanteer]

I have got news for you unwritten covention is part of the Constitution.  If you look at any intro to Canadian politcs textbook thay will tell you that the Canadian Constitution is comprised of legal documents and unwritten convention.  Don't believe me?  Try finding the position of Prime Minister in the Constitution Act, 1867 or 1982.  You will not be able to, as the PM is part of convention rather than any legal document. 

Thanks tips, I read that book too.  Infact, I still have all my textbooks from university in the office.

"Mixed up" was the wrong choice of words - "Seemingly ignorant of" was more what I was looking for.  Pull out all your fancy references to bedazzle us, but it doesn't change the fact that if the current Governor General tried to actually execute her legal powers, it would be a field day for all parties concerned; all these politically "easy" issues like Kyoto and Afghanistan would fall away for more post-1982 Constitutional wrangling.

Or maybe, seeing how all the parties suck these days anyways, some relish the excitement.  I'm all for it; I've long supported the idea of re-distributing the powers in Ottawa.

 

[stegner]

Thanks tips, I read that book too.  Infact, I still have all my textbooks from university in the office.

"Mixed up" was the wrong choice of words - "Seemingly ignorant of" was more what I was looking for.  Pull out all your fancy references to bedazzle us, but it doesn't change the fact that if the current Governor General tried to actually execute her legal powers, it would be a field day for all parties concerned; all these politically "easy" issues like Kyoto and Afghanistan would fall away for more post-1982 Constitutional wrangling.

Dude.  The current Governor General executes her legal powers all the time, in fact on a daily basis, on the advice of the PM and other Cabinet ministers.  The PM has no actual legal power, as the PM is not mentioned in the Constitution.  Of course the PM has incredible de facto power being the chief advisor to the Crown, which executes power on this advice.  The Governor General exercises formal governance within Canada and has the option to exercises her legal powers without advice (the reserve powers).  With respect to the Constitutional wrangling in the early 1980's, I think if you looked at the activities of Governor General Schreyer you would be most surprised.  Opposition parties can not tender exercisable executive advice to the Crown, unless they demonstrate they have the confidence of the House of Commons, which would necessitate a fall of the government and the appointment of a new one, either immediately or after an election.  So I would not worry about Kyoto and Afghanistan.  Avoid the textbooks with discussions about the GG-that's basic stuff for undergrads.  Instead, look at the works by the specialists in this field (i.e. Eugene Forsey, Norman Ward, David E. Smith & Edward McWhinney). 

 

[Infanteer]

Dude.  I'm really impressed with your knowledge of undergrad and graduate-level discourse in Canadian politics.

However, it still doesn't address the point I made.  Nothing changes the fact that the Prime Minister is elected by the citizenry to run the country.  When people vote for an MP, they are actually voting for a party that the PM is the head of.  I didn't vote for Dick Smalltown, who is representing the farm in Ottawa, I voted for Stephen Harper.  This is where his authority really comes from.  The Governor General does not get up in the morning and make decisions concerning the running of the country, she decides which dress she is going to wear to her function in _________<insert meaningless PR thing here>.

That is how the country works, irregardless of what was written in 1867 or 1982.  That is convention and that is what Edward was referring to earlier when he summed you up.  Throw a wrench into this and watch the knives come out in Ottawa.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Wow! It’s sure tough to come back to this thread after a few hours.

The big ‘scandal’ (or whatever) in the ’Byng King thing’ was that King wanted Byng to consult London in the issue – assuming, probably correctly, that Leo Amery (the colonial/dominion secretary in Baldwins’s cabinet) would be advise/direct Byng to give King his election, despite the issues. Byng demurred; he said that Canadians should decide Canadian political and Constitutional issues in Canada. King then turned the truth on its head and suggested that this was, somehow or other, the big, bad imperialists against the plucky little Canadians. It was a lie, even a big lie but it worked. But that had nothing to do with King’s KO in the third round: Byng was legally correct but politically wrong. Byng might have ‘won’ on points if King hadn’t won, decisively, at the polls. (It wasn’t really decisive but King got the most seats – reversing he 1925 situation – and was able to govern for a few years with the support of the minor parties, including the Progressives who later merged with Bennett’s Conservatives.)

The unwritten bits and ‘Constitutional conventions’ matter just as much, maybe more, than all the written bits. A lot of people don’t like that but that’s no never mind. There are ‘reserve powers’ related to the very real ‘royal prerogative’ – these cannot die unless or until we change the Constitution. Byng was correct: these ‘reserve powers’ should be exercised, in Canada, by Canadians. How these ‘reserve powers’ are exercised can be a significant political problem – for the GG and the PM.

We are long past the sage where any GG can make up the Constitution on the fly – this is the 21st not the 19th century. Now that we have a fixed election date law, the Constitutional conventions require the PM to have a ‘reasonable’ or, at least, ‘plausible’ excuse to demand an election before the fixed date despite not having lost the confidence of parliament. But, given such an excuse – and absent the sorts of circumstances that existed in 1926 - those same conventions require the GG to grant an election.

That's my opinion, anyway, and I've read all the references stegner provided and a few lot more.

 

[stegner]

That's my opinion, anyway, and I've read all the references stegner provided and a few lot more.

I am sure that we will continue to disagree on this, so let's just say you have your position and I have mine.  This is all very theoretical anyway.  Most likely the current GG will do whatever Harper tells her.  My concern though, is that Harper is ducking Parliament which is a minor breach of responsible government.  But meh not that big of a deal I guess-this kinda of thing has happened quite a bit.  I think everyone (political parties) wants an election at this point.  However, if all the opposition parties were to agree to a coalition government say theoretically as you read this email-what be your opinion be at that point Mr. Campbell on Harper's right to a dissolution?

Edited for grammar

 

[SeaKingTacco]

My concern though, is that Harper is ducking Parliament which is a minor breach of responsible government.

Not really- he still has to face the electorate.  They, we, us are the ultimate authority- not Parliament.

Harper rolls the dice- he may get more or less seats out of it. That's democracy.

And for the record, I would have just preferred that he recall Parliament and force a vote something along the lines of " Hey, what do think- do I still have your confidence or not?"  And then gone to the GG.

All this talk of hypothetical GG powers has been, frankly, fascinating.  And it's a rare shining example of good internet, where even when people disagree, the tone is respectful and lots of good stuff gets aired.  Good work all.  Even you, Stegner  ;D

 

[GAP]

Don Martin: Election means long-delayed retirement for veteran MPs
Posted: August 28, 2008, 5:43 PM by Kelly McParland
Article Link

The last Stetson-sporting MP is fading into the Alberta sunset, the richest MP returning to much greener pastures and the prime minister of dashed expectations retreating to his Quebec farm with its own six-hole golf course.

With a federal election call expected a week from today, it will be a long overdue blessing to some famed, infamous or plain ordinary workhorse MPs who have been impatiently waiting to be retired by the drop of a writ for a year or more.

But some of the nearly departed MPs deserve a passing mention before becoming parliamentary footnotes, even if their legacy was more force of personality than political impact.

Paul Martin: Never have greater expectations taken a more dramatic downturn than the rock star finance minister of the 1990s who become the falling star Liberal prime minister in late 2003.  If there’s a legacy or lesson from his 2.5-year stint as Prime Minister, beyond the folly of grasping at power without a plan for using it, look to the premiers. Heard them bellyaching about Ottawa’s lack of health care funding lately? Nope. That’s because Mr. Martin filled their coffers with long-range money and may have actually delivered on one pivotal promise, that being to deliver a heath care funding fix for a generation. For that, at least, Prime Minister Stephen Harper should be thankful.

Myron Thompson: The burly five-term southwestern Alberta MP with the signature white cowboy hat never entirely grasped the concept of political correctness, refusing to sugarcoat the hard-right views that made him a Rocky Mountain phenomenon. He could never be missed in a crowd but will be missed in the Commons as the friendly redneck with a voice like a gravel mixer who represented his voters well.
More on link

 

[Rodahn]

I for one, wish that the PM would just get on with it. Enough of the verbal diarrhea from all parties, and let the people of Canada decide what they want.

 

[Fraz]

News from CTV http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080829/harper_meeting_080829/20080829?hub=TopStories

Election date likely to be October 14
Updated Fri. Aug. 29 2008 5:13 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Officials in the Prime Minister's office say that Stephen Harper will likely call an election next week and send voters to the polls on Oct. 14.

These officials told The Canadian Press no decision has yet been made, but they indicated he will go to the Governor-General sometime between Sept. 2 and 7.

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe met with Harper Friday morning and said Harper "absolutely wants to call an election."

"It gave me an opportunity to see for myself that he absolutely wants to call an election even if it doesn't jive with his legislation and even if he has to cancel the (Sept. 8) byelections," said Duceppe.

Harper has sought meetings with all three opposition leaders to discuss whether they can agree on an agenda for Parliament's fall session -- set to begin Sept. 15.

"I asked him what the priorities of the government were -- it wasn't very clear," said Duceppe. Duceppe said Harper should be seeking common ground with the opposition parties instead of trying to trigger an election.

The Prime Minister's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, claims during the meeting Mr. Duceppe said he had no confidence in the government.

NDP Leader Jack Layton is supposed to meet with Harper Saturday but Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has said he can't meet until after the three scheduled byelections.

On Thursday, Conservatives launched their first campaign-style television ad.

Rather than attacking Dion, the commercial features Canadians describing what they like about Harper. It seems designed to portray a kinder, gentler side of the prime minister.

"Stephen Harper's the kind of person who knows where he stands. He's a straight up guy," says one man.

"He's doing a good job," another says. "He's the steady hand we need when the world's economy is so uncertain."

Dion has also stepped up his pre-election rhetoric. On Thursday, he portrayed his party as a champion of the arts during a campaign-style announcement in Montreal.

He pointed to Harper's plans to cut $45 million in arts and culture funding. He said a coming election would serve as a referendum on the arts in Canada.

With files from The Canadian Press

 

[Edward Campbell]

See this and this Globe and Mail story suggesting that we will go to he polls on 14 Oct 08.

Like others I wish Harper had engineered a proper defeat in the Commons about this time last year or, at least, in early spring.

That being said, I understand that he really needs to go now - before the economy gets worse, before Dion gains traction from the US campaign and so on.

If Harper loses or gets another minority I think he will have to resign, fairly quickly, and let someone else try.

If Dion wins I think DND and the CF slide, quickly, back to the end of the line.

 

[stegner]

If Harper loses or gets another minority I think he will have to resign, fairly quickly, and let someone else try.

Agreed.

If Dion wins I think DND and the CF slide, quickly, back to the end of the line.

I think he might defer defense policy to Ignatieff (or let's hope so).  Dion has to keep some of the big names happy.  I don't think Iggy's views on defense are significantly different than Harpers. 

 

[George Wallace]

If Harper loses or gets another minority I think he will have to resign, fairly quickly, and let someone else try.

If Dion wins I think DND and the CF slide, quickly, back to the end of the line.

Now the latest Polls have the Liberals and Conservatives neck and neck nationally, and the Liberals third, behind the Bloc and Conservatives in Quebec.  What I found interesting was that when people were asked who made the best PM, stats placed Harper in the lead, followed by Jack Layton, then Dion, Duceppe, and lastly May.

 

[dapaterson]

If Harper loses or gets another minority I think he will have to resign, fairly quickly, and let someone else try.

To the contrary, another Tory minority works well - it means the Liberals will draw from the old Tory playbook and have a messy regicide, leaving Caesar's corpse in the rotunda and an all but bankrupt party working to pay off its own debts, those of the last round of leadership hopefuls, and a new round of leadership debts.  Meanwhile, any delays or problems can be laid at the feet of the minority situation - "Imagine what greatness we could produce with a majority!".

The Liberals, even with another Trudeau after the fall of Dion (your choice as to whether that's actual or symbolic), have seen their traditional support wane and wither and would be in no position to rebuild.

As long as the Tories hold their ground or show some improvements Harper is safe - as long as the Liberals expend their energy in self-immolation... something they're showing a knack for.

 

[aesop081]

Well, this is the 3rd "i will be voting for Stephen Harper" ad i have seen on TV since getting home 45 minutes ago.......

Game on i guess !