Barrel Strength

In granting Mr. Harper’s request to prorogue Parliament, Madame Jean has correctly interpreted her role, and taken the most appropriate action.

For those of you who missed it – Ted McWhinney, a Constitutional expert and former Liberal MP, appeared yesterday on CTV’s Mike Duffy Live with some cogent and helpful comments on the situation. McWhinney, who has advised a number of governments on constitutional impasses of this kind, said that as far as the GG’s options/responsibilities in this kind of situation, “There’s virtually no writing of any value – based on empirical studies from here or abroad. Constitutional law is 50 per cent rules, and 50 per cent high politics and a successful G.G. knows how to maintain that balance. Reading public opinion is crucial.”

He said the GG should make her decision in light of what provides the most political stability and that she is obliged in the first instance to take advice from her first minister, Harper – a view echoed by other constitutional experts I have seen interviewed this week, who all opined that it would be very peculiar for her to refuse to grant his request for prorogation, as long as he specified when a new session of Parliament would be opened and the timeframe was reasonable (BTW, in all of the hullabaloo, no one seems to have noticed that the House was scheduled to recess Dec 12 to Jan 26, so one week has been lost).

McWhinney also said it would be completely inappropriate for her to meet with anyone else other than the Leader of the Opposition (i.e. not with Layton), and any meeting with Dion could only be after meeting with the PM in order to explain her decision in person, if she wished to do so – she is under no obligation. He was adament that any kind of communication – much less ‘negotiations’ – with the opposition parties prior to giving a decision on Harper’s request for prorogation would be wholly incorrect.

McWhinney also said there “is a heavy burden” on the opposition to prove that they can form a stable coalition government. He said it’s important for the opposition to put an agreement down on paper, like they have already done, but said the agreement needs to be signed by the Bloc Quebecois in addition to the Liberals and NDP, otherwise there is no real guarantee of stability as the coalition is claiming. He called the current agreement “unsatisfactory,” on that account and on the fact that Dion would only be PM for four months before stepping down in favour of an unknown person at this point, so again indicating a lack of stable leadership for the country. Based on all this, he thought it highly unlikely that the GG would seriously entertain asking the coaltion to form a government at this stage.

McWhinney also made reference to a comparable situation in Australia in 1975, which had a sad outcome for then GG Bob Kerr when he decided to overreach his mandate. Kerr thought it advisable to play politics by going behind the back of Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and asking the opposition to form a government because the budget had been stalled in the Senate by opposition hacks for six weeks and the government would at some point be unable to pay its bills (the story is more complicated but that is the essence).

The news that Kerr had dismissed Whitlam immediately triggered protest demonstrations acoss Australia, and for the rest of his term as GG, Kerr was rarely able to appear in public without encountering angry demonstrations against him. Even worse, Labor party MPs and Senators refused to accept his legitimacy as GG, as did Labor parliamentarians in the states and territories, shunning all official functions where he was in attendance. He apparently took to the bottle, resigned early from the office of GG and lived abroad for the 14 yrs prior to his death to escape the vilification that both he and (sadly) his wife faced at home. McWhinney said that when he met Kerr living in Europe he was “a broken man”. It is a sad, salutory lesson of what can happen when an essentially honorary appointee oversteps his/her functions and presumes on the limited powers granted to the office.

Now that the uncertainty has diminished, things seem clearer.  One hopes that Harper will use the time to plot an effective strategy.  The next focal point will be the budget, which the Liberal-NDP-Bloc will have to vote against to overthrow the Conservatives.  If the opposition does not follow through by voting against the budget, without knowing its contents no less, then they will have blinked again and will never be taken seriously again.  Not that Dion is currently taken seriously.

The presented budget is likely to be all things to all people.  A high-spending, something-for-everyone , election-winning budget.  Voting against it will be (hopefully) electoral suicide.  Not voting against it will be political suicide.

Occasionally I find the views of my friend the Dark Lord to be worthy of a post in the august company of the whiskey swilling ranks of the BarrelStrengthians.
____________________________________________________
Folks:

I return from the country to find my e-mail box surprisingly bereft of
comments.

About what? The assault on the due process in political life.

What is happening here?

A cabal of shysters, socialists and separatists have figured that they can
achieve power by virtue of a quirk of constitutional antiquities.

Point 1:

As far as I know the Liberals and the NDP do not have the seats in the House
to outvote the Conservatives. Therefore, any prospective coalition must
depend on support from the Bloc Quebecois. As such, any coalition must
depend on the Bloc as a decision-making segment of the Federal Government.

For a Federal Government to invite the support of any party that has, as its
objective, the break up of Canada, into the decision-making process, is
nothing short of sedition.

The Bloc enjoys the support of Quebec voters, but represents no-one in the
nine other provinces of Canada. It does not present candidates or gain any
votes in nine out of ten provinces in Canada. Any federal coalition
inviting their support is inviting the destruction of Canada. Do we need
any other indication that the opposition is motivated by any other
consideration than that of immediate power, perhaps granted by a quirk of
political fate?

Thus, any coalition will be beholden to the votes of a party that has as its
avowed objective to break up the federation. This is sedition.

Point 2:

None of the opposition parties would have had the guts to do this if they
thought that they had to face the voters. They are banking on escaping an
election. They are depending on not facing election. They fear it. They
are intent on avoiding it.

Point 3:

The Governor General can avoid any problems by calling an election.

Point 4:

The Opposition found that they were no longer going to get free handouts
from the taxpayer. Their lifelines were being threatened because they
cannot get sufficient support from free citizens who would voluntarily
contribute to their respective political parties. In order to protect their
avenue of lucre, they sought to defeat the government. Protection of that
flow of taxpayers’ money was all that was required for the opposition get
visceral. However, their concern for maintaining their free money from the
taxpayers was far outweighed by their opposition to a new election. Oh, it
would cost money!

No amount of money is too great to ensure that the views of the elecotrate
are properly reflected in their government. No price is too high to pay.
Millions of lives have been given by Canadians to protect freedom and
liberty, here, and in many other countries. To claim that their concerns
about not receiving free money for their political parties are legitmate,
and to claim that an election, where the voters actually have a choice, is
not required, is to show their complete contempt for democracy.

Point 5:

As far as I know, Duceppe has not actually signed any deal in writing.
There is thus no deal, no coalition.

Point 6:

I urge all of you, regardless of your political predilictions, to pay
attention to the fact that usurping power in a democracy requires, in
matters of decency and honour, to seek a mandate. Any Canadian government
that invites the support of those who would break up the country, is
seditious. Should such a regime come to power, it would be a bastard
regime, illegitimate, void of all moral worth, and, if it should come to
power, must be defeated at the first opportunity.

Point 7:

I have just heard the Prime Minister’s speech–I felt it right, but lacking.
However, when I heard the appalling drivel from Dion, Harper’s speech
seemed stronger. My better half said that Harper’s holding his cards to his
chest. Maybe, she’s right. I hope so.

Point 8:

It’s time to stand up and be counted. This is a coup of the embedded Liberal
establishment to grasp power at any opportunity. Let’s remember, if they
want to bring in a new government, let them face the voters. Anything less,
is a descent to a banana republic.

The Dark Lord