Barrel Strength

In this past week an email exchange among Barrelstrengthians became heated. Our occasional contributor Oban took the view that the Governor General should refuse to allow the Prime Minister to prorogue (suspend) Parliament until the New Year, which would give the Conservatives enough time to draft a budget.

Oban felt that the government should fall and be replaced by the Liberal- socialist-separatist coalition immediately after Monday, December 8th, without an election.

The Dark Lord responded. This posting records their exchange. In the meantime, Oban has been encouraged to repent and turn to Jesus, or spend his holidays reading Edmund Burke.
_____________________________________________________

The Dark Lord writes:

Oban has raised some interesting points, and given us his lawyer’s interpretation. Here is his full text:

“I fail to understand the position taken by the GG. I am surprised she didn’t confer with the opposition parties before granting the prorogation.

“I find it constitutionally suspect to grant prorogation when the Government faces a confidence vote in the House. A more soundly grounded GG might have been very reluctant to grant prorogation under such circumstances, and a poor constitutional precedent has been set respecting the requirement that the Government have the confidence of the House.
“Under what constitutional theory is Harper operating? I have yet to see an articulation that is consistent with the requirement that the Government be formed from those who enjoy the confidence of the House.
He might be able to save the Government if he resigns, but I doubt he will. This likely means either coalition rule or an election.
I think in constitutional terms, the coalition must be given the opportunity to form a Government and face the House.

The underlying constitutional fact is that the people elect a Parliament, not a Government. The GG asks the party with the largest number of seats to form a Government. The Conservatives were given that opportunity. That Government has lost the confidence of Parliament. As there seems to be a workable majority that will support an alternate Government, the GG is constitutionally bound to call on Mr. Dion to attempt to form a Government.”

It seems to me that the important points raised by Oban are basically as follows:
1. I fail to understand the position taken by the GG.
2. I find it constitutionally suspect to grant prorogation when the Government faces a confidence vote in the House.
3. I think in constitutional terms, the coalition must be given the opportunity to form a Government and face the House.
4. The underlying constitutional fact is that the people elect a Parliament, not a Government. The GG asks the party with the largest number of seats to form a Government.
Let’s consider these points, in reverse order. Firstly, it is true that in a constitutional monarchy the people elect a Parliament, not a Government. But this is the legalistic bare bones of the structure, not even a complete skeleton—it does not tell us of the nature of the political reality in its fullness. People may elect members of Parliament, but they vote for parties, policies, personalities and other things. The Parliament is not just the mechanistic sum of the votes when it comes to the Governor General making a decision. If it were, there would be no need for the Governor General to make a decision, indeed no need for a Governor General.
As Ted McWhinney said on TV, the Governor General must consult constitutional law, but must also (50%, I think he said) consult common sense and the general political atmosphere of the nation at the time.
Just yesterday, two very interesting poll results were announced. One showed that 61% of the electorate opposes taxpayers’ money going to subsidize political parties. Chalk up one for the Tories. This is one of the issues that so incensed the Liberals and Bloc in particular. The Opposition claim that this is an “assault on democracy” is pure humbug. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The other poll showed fully two-thirds (68% nationally and even higher in the nine English-speaking Provinces) want a new election rather than the appointment the coalition should the Government be defeated in a confidence vote in the House. Again, this bodes surprisingly well for the Tories.
Secondly, “the coalition must be given the opportunity to form a Government and face the House.” Must it? If, after the return of Parliament at the end of January, the Government is defeated in a confidence vote, and the Prime Minister advises a new general election, and if these numbers remain the same, I think the Governor General would be strongly advised to accede to the Prime Minister’s advice and call an election. After all, if it is abundantly clear that electorate will not stand for the appointment of this cabal, let the voters speak.Thirdly, why is it “constitutionally suspect” to grant prorogation? Since prorogation is a royal prerogative (these days the advice of the Prime Minister) it needs no other justification-–that’s what prerogative is.

Given that a week in politics is a long time, six weeks can be an eternity. While the number of seats and parties in the House will be exactly the same at the end of January, the political atmosphere may be wholly different, especially if the Tories incorporate some opposition planks in the Budget, no matter how absurd they may be. At least then the Opposition will have to accept some responsibility for the Budget.

Even then, if they bring down the Government, the Tories have their campaign ready made for them—simply the photo that appeared on the front page of National Post showing Layton and Duceppe shaking hands and smiling, with a befuddled Dion grinning supinely behind them. It hardly needs the caption—Vote Conservative!
But the Coalition would in that event evaporate like the dew on a summer’s morning. Can you imagine them campaigning together? Step aside Spitting Image!

They depend entirely on avoiding an election. The raison d’être of this so-called coalition is to achieve power without facing the voters. It has no basis otherwise; indeed, it is the only way such a conspiracy could flourish. It is a sleight of hand trick to let Liberals and socialists slither into power. And the fact that they have to depend on those who would tear up the Federation shows how bankrupt they are. The NDP should change its name to the New Anti-Democratic Party, and the Liberals—well, they crave power more than a junkie craves heroin.

This is nothing like a regular party coalition such as the Liberal/Country party coalition that existed in Australia for a long while, or the Christian Democrats and Free Democrats in Germany. It is an agreement between the Liberals and the NDP with 114 seats, considerably less than the Tories’ 143, and an underhand “agreement” with the Bloc, a party that is committed to breaking up the Federation at the first opportunity. Clearly, this troika does not have as its foremost objective the benefit of Canada—the Bloc has openly stated that their prime concern is to ensure only the passage of that legislation that serves Quebec’s interests.

There’s nothing wrong in that in itself, but there is everything wrong when such a party is given veto power over the Federal Government when it has never presented candidates or sought votes in all Provinces, has never given a thought for furthering the interests of this nation as a whole, and has no legitimacy in nine of the ten Provinces of Canada.

During the next few weeks, many questions must be asked of the coalition: what agreements were reached with the Bloc; what quid pro quo was given, etc? Will the Bloc have Cabinet ministers? If not, then why is a group of 114 MPs given power solely on the basis that the Bloc will…what exactly?
It seems that the electorate will simply not stand for a cabal of socialists and separatists taking over without a vote. So let them bring down the Government: I think they have vastly underestimated the distaste the voters have for inviting the Bloc to have a veto over the Federal Government of whatever stripe. This will not be lost on the Governor General.

So fourthly, well, is it more clear now why the Governor General took the decision she did?
The Dark Lord