[s-d] Some fascinating, live, real-world nomic

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Figured some of you might be interested to know about the current political
situation here in Canada, which is giving rise to a good deal of debate
about constitutional law, constitutional convention, and constitutional
precedent.

No one really knows what the Rules really call for, or if they call for
anything in particular.

I'd like to be able to point you to a really good article discussing the
finer points of the debate, but I've only found a single author who does
this well, and he writes in French. A really good article he wrote recently
discussed all relevant precedent he could find (still pretty scant), both
from Canadian politics and other British-style parliamentary systems.
Instead, I'll point you toward an article that's sort of ok and not really
thorough:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/01/steve-janke-michaelle-jean-s-conundrum.aspx(note
that the National Post has a reputation as being a wee bit right of
centre, and a lot of what they write about the Bloc Quebecois is a little
unfair, I'd say)

In brief, here's the situation:

We had a federal election in October. The Conservatives, under Stephen
Harper, were re-elected with a stronger mandate than they had before, but
they still hold only a minority of seats in the House of Commons (something
like 146 out of 308, to the Liberals' 75 or so, to the Bloc Quebecois' 49,
to the New Democratic Party's 35 or so). The Liberals, under Stephane Dion,
got pretty much their worst result ever, given that this party tends to
govern Canada pretty much all the time. Dion announced that he would step
down in May as soon as the Liberals find themselves a new leader.

Last week, the Conservatives' Minister of Finance presented his economic
plan, which the three opposition parties roundly denounced as containing no
measures aimed at dealing with the current economic crisis (they were also
steamed about provisions in the plan to scrap their public campaign
financing, ban strikes in the public sector, and do away with the current
pay equity (gender-based) program). All opposition parties announced that
they would oppose the economic plan. Since passing this plan requires a
confidence motion for the government, a defeat on this matter would mean the
fall of the Harper government.

Then, the three opposition parties started hinting at the formation of a
coalition that could take power and hold the confidence of the House, in the
event that Harper's government goes down. By now, they signed and presented
a document to the Governor General (more on her later) ascertaining that
their coalition would be stable for something like 18 months. It would be an
official Liberal-led coalition (Stephane Dion would get to become Prime
Minister after all) with some NDP members of cabinet. The Bloc Quebecois
would support them with their votes, but by principle refuses to officially
join the coalition or hold any cabinet posts (Gilles Duceppe (leader of the
BQ) and Stephane Dion make for REALLY REALLY REALLY strange bedfellows). The
Conservatives would be left out in the cold as the Official Opposition.

The current opposition was scheduled to have a crack at defeating the Harper
government on Monday this week, but the opposition day has been carried
forward by Stephen Harper to next Monday. His party has backed down on the
most controversial aspects of the economic plan (e.g. campaign financing,
strike-busting) but the opposition still claims he has lost their
confidence.

A lot of what happens from hereon in may depend on the Governor General. She
is the Queen of England's official representative in Canada, our Head of
State, and is appointed on the advice of our Prime Minister (I know, I know,
how backward). It's a largely symbolic position, currently held by Michaelle
Jean, a former newsreader who was appointed by the last Liberal PM. Now, all
of a sudden, looks like she'll have some actual decisions to make, which is
where the whole constitutional hoo-haw begins.

Harper is going to make a televised address tonight, and is likely to ask
the Governor General to end the current session of Parliament (which would
prevent him from being defeated till Parliament starts up again in January).

 - Whether the Governor General is bound to accept such a request from a PM
who has clearly lost the confidence of the house, but has not yet lost a
confidence vote in the house, is uncertain.

In the event that Harper's government is defeated, the GG has another
decision to make:
- She could refuse Harper's resignation, essentially ordering him to go back
to the House and just govern, dammit.
- She could dissolve Parliament, as Harper would likely request, and cause
another election to be held.
- She could, given how recent the last election was, offer the coalition the
chance to govern if they can prove they have the confidence of the House.
This has happened before, in the 1920s, and also in some other Parliaments,
including Ontario's in the 80s.

This all makes for a whole lot of constitutional wrangling at the moment. No
one really knows what the power of precedent and of convention actually is
supposed to be. And, it seems to me, it also makes for a lot of "making up
rules on the fly" to suit the political purposes of whoever is making them
up.

Agora was right. Canada is a nomic.

BP
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss