Snap federal election within 2 weeks?
Chantal Hebert on the National's At Issue Panel on CBC last night had some very interesting news. 3 opposition MPs have a motion of privilege before Speaker Miliken right now demanding that he rule that it is an affront to parliament that the government is not releasing requested documents on the Afghan detainee war crimes issue. She said that the speaker is in a very tough spot. If he rules in favor of the opposition, Harper will declare that a confidence issue. The opposition can't leave a speaker who just ruled for them out to dry and so they will have to vote the governmetn down over the said confidence issue.
Do you think we could see a writ drop within the month?
Here is a link and snippet from Chantal's article:
But if he rules in favour of the opposition and orders the government to find a process that allows parliamentarians to be the judges of the balance between national security and accountability, the Speaker could set the ground for a spring election.
The opposition parties and, in particular, the Liberals are adamant that they are not seeking a snap campaign. But the matter is increasingly out of their hands and into those of the Speaker and, eventually, the Prime Minister.
No one who watched Harper in action over the time of the 2008 parliamentary crisis doubts that he would be sorely tempted to take his latest conflict with the minority Parliament to the people rather than bow to the opposition and the Speaker's will.
A campaign triggered by this showdown would stack a prime minister wrapped in the Maple Leaf flag and claiming that it is standing on guard for national security and the Canadian military against three opposition parties waving the more virtual standard of parliamentary democracy.
The last thing Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff needs is to spend his first campaign fending off Conservative assertions that he would be willing to give the Bloc Québécois - a party described by its leader as a resistance movement only last weekend - an inside track on national security matters.
On second thought, there is not a chance in hell that there will be an election over this but its fun nonetheless.
There is no doubt that the issue at hand -- parliamentary supremacy over the executive branch, and most particularly the Prime Minister's Office -- is a very serious one indeed.
If anything was worth going to the mat over in our democracy ti would be that, and it's something that more than simply social democrats could agree with.
There's little doubt that the Prime Minister will also go to his usual extremes to defend his position in the matter.
The Liberals are presently caught up in their delusion that they can return to a majority government (at least the ones making the strategic decisions right now are), and thus they are reluctant to do anything now to curtail their full enjoyment of the perqs of power later on (another reason to loathe business Liberals).
If their party does not go to the wall on this one, I will never forgive them. It is too fundamentally important.
Meantime, though, if Harper does sense their weakness, he could pull the plug. I would not discount that possibility at all.
I was chatting up an MP friend of mine on the weekend. He laid out exactly this scenario, before Hebert, so it is obviously in the mind of many. As I have stated, pointlessly a number of times, we are still on track for my prediction of fall of 2010, even though there is nothing going for that besides it is in the future so far.
Anyhoo -I came away from the conversation convinced enough that it was a strong possiblity to start making sure our ducks are in order in the riding. They are - nice nest egg in the bank, office space scoped out, the whole works. Not doing any spending, but this MP friend of mine is in a position to have a good sense of what the other parties are thinking, so it seemed prudent to at least set the alarm if not ring the bells.
My friend's sense is that we may be into an election before May that nobody really wants, but that there is really no way around if the Opposition sticks to fundamental ethics and the Conservatives don't cave- which seems unlikely. He also predicted the government would soon table a "flood" of documents to make it look like they were being nice, but that they would be really edited and just going through the motions. Nailed that one for sure.
the timing would work for my social calendar :-)
Watched Herbert state that last evening and I too thought she was spot on, our airwaves out here, no matter the channel, have been cluttered with Canada government advertisements, aka Conservative Party ads....and such I have come to believe this was the intention of Harper all along.
Prorogued parliament get peoples minds off of Afghanistan war crimes and focused his appearances at the Olympics, then come back and force the issue. The PMO has to have full control and this is the way they are going to do it....hopig that the snap election will keep people from realizing the constitutional crisis they have created.
But there is no actual motion of non-confidence before the house - so this puts Harper in a position of having to say he will call an election no one wants just so he can avoid divulging all the obviously incriminating evidence against him in the documents. This would leave the opposition this massive opening to say "we don't need to be going through this election. You had a choice Mr. Harper, you were given endless options and opportunities to turn over the incriminating documents - and you refused".
It looks like our head stooge has backed himself into another corner.
Here is a scenario I can see. What if the speaker rules in the opposition's favour and we start careening towards a constitutional crisis because the Tories refuse to back down and release the documents. What if the NDP says - we are willing to let Judge Iabobucci review the documents - but he has to be given a strict time limit. Right now he has no time limit and could take years if he wants. What if the NDP says that there must be a three month deadline for him to report - that would mean that he would give his decision in the summer and the Tories would have to deal with the fallout from the incriminating evidence in the documents BEFORE the next election.
But stock, Herbert explained last evening about the speaker's ruling , why he has to rule for the Opposition, and then Haprer making it a confidence motio.
Harper cannot retroactively make something a confidence vote three months after it took place.The motion in December demanded access to documents - no where did it says anything about confidence in the government or demanding an election. Governments fall as a result of confidence motions - not because the speaker of the house makes a ruling the government doesn't like.
I think that there is ZERO chance that Harper would simply call an election just like that since it would make it clear that he was pulling the plug on his own and then he would be making having an "Ignatieff moment" where instead of saying "Mr. Harper, you're time is up!" he would be in effect saying "Parliament your time is up!". I think he would instead try to go through the motions of having a confidence vote that he himself called and dare the opposition to vote against it.
I think that if we get into another chicken game like that - its up to Layton to be the only adult in the room.
Well crap, I wish I could view video's as I would look at last night's National At Issue Panel to see what it was exactly that she stated...she explained it as something to do with the Speaker's ruling, at almost the very end of the panel thoughts.
The article above does not detail exactly what she said last night.
I think that what Chantal Hebert was saying was that Harper could use an adverse ruling by the speaker as a pretext to set the wheels in motion to trigger an election. But there would still have to be wheels set in motion because Harper would have to find a way to avoid having it look like he was singlehandedly causing an election because he's hungry for more power - and that may be difficult for him to do. The last thing the Tories would want is an election fought on the issue of "do you think Harper is power hungry and manipulative?"
I think you're both right, because I think the sense of it was that subsequent motions intended to try and bring the government to account for non-compliance with the earlier motion could indeed be made confidence matters. So could a vote on finding ministers of the Crown in contempt of Parliament.
Would Harper pull the plug? I see Stock's point, but don't underestimate his ability to ramp it up into an issue of wanting to keep "the socialist and the separatists" from gaining access to state secrets or some crazy thing, especially if he senses weakness in the Liberals.
I think the detainee issue would be shoved into the background during an election. Harper could play it as "The opposition is forcing an election over this, and we didn't want an election but we have no choice..." continue spin and fire up a campaign that doesn't need to work hard to make Iggy look bad.
It'd be easier to deal with the potential fallout from the detainee issue as a fresh government.
The media has been full of good economic stories, too. So a snap election would take advantage of that. Obviously it's hard to predict how the economy will be six months from now. And the Libs are weak right now.
Actually OO, I think it was Coyne who said something along those lines about Harper using an excuse like not wanting "the separatists" to have access to national secrets, and the secrets of other nations, to bolster his position.
Wish I had not been reading and listening at the same time, but they had pissed me off over the whole Coulter ass kising that they did, so I was being half heartedly listening
Agree farmpunk... think it would get pushed aside if there was an election, which is why I believe now that Harper prorogued, to set attention elsewhere, if he did make it an confidence issue.
Like as if the "separatists" might take the information and call up some Taliban commanders and give them coordinates of where Canadian troops are stationed so they can then be killed???
Ya stock, it was certainly strange to me hearing that there is an issue with the Bloc seeing governmental papers. Or that an issue could be made over it.
I saw that At Issue panel too, and my recollection of the scenario is as follows:
1. The speaker rules that there is indeed an issue of privilege.
2. The government says "Meh", and one or more of the opposition MPs then introduces a motion to find the government in contempt of Parliament.
3. Harper declares this motion to be a matter of confidence, and its result determines whether there will be an election.
I am no expert in Pariamentary procedure, but that is my recollection of the hypothetical way an election could be provoked.
Ya, that's it they would have to make motion declaring a contempt of parliament, after the speaker's ruling, if there was non-complianece by Harper, and that he most certainly would make it a confidence motion.
If he wants to consolidate all the power in the PMO he has to do it this way.....and afterall it has worked in history before.
So if it's a confidence vote the opposition votes how? The Libs being the party with the deciding votes, unless the NDP and BQ are outfront opposed, which I imagine is the stance they'd take. Would the Libs back down?
well they could hardly do so if the speaker rules, but they may do so given they are culpable too.
This is kind of a detail, but I've been wondering why it does not come up. Harper doesn't make a big deal of the Iaccobucci review lately, but it is still the stock answe of how the issue will be resolved. But more than a week ago Iaccobucci said it would take him more than a year. His preliminary assessment was skeptical of whether it was feasible. But I've never seen that brought up since.
Actually now that you have indicated it, Kens, I think it is more than a detail, actually, especially the feasible nature of it. Because a constitutional crisis of this sort, where the legislature loses power, and the PMO gains it, or not, is extremely important. Thus IMV, it is feasible, and indeed a necessity.
...maybe even it is the most important detail, now that I have thought about it some more.
Perhaps that is why it is not coming up?At any rate this avenue really requires more dialogue and thinking. What do you see in it?
There are plenty of examples of this. To not have this as a central campaign message would probably be a mistake. We should also keep in mind that the Afghan detainee documents (while heavily censored) also point to even more egregious behaviour than turning over detainees for torture. Allegations have now surfaced that some detainees were likely summarily executed shortly after being turned over.
[aside] I heard a Toronto talk show host the other day suggesting that Toronto police should have summarily executed Craig Munro instead of bothering with a trial and the possibility that he would ever be released. (Monro was convicted of killing a Toronto police officer). The host pointed to "The Bridge", a new TV show produced by former Toronto police association president Craig Bromell. At the end of a recent episode, the police executed a kidnapper with the star's nod and wink. These are some of the implications of not challenging the government's policy. Taliban. Cop killers. Pedophiles. They're all the same, do not deserve fair trials and should be murdered on the spot. [/aside]
Polunatic, really is that not part of it all, the indoctrination of the public into accepting such "wild wild west" scenarios, that indicate life was better back then. Really as that is what this older generation of boomers grew up on, a steady diet of the wild wild west movies and TV shows and white man's supremacy. And their parents also, who are still alive and voting, through radio and TV.
Part of the reason why Reagan was so popular in the USA, IMV ....
Even "House" is no exception to such indoctrination shedding, and indeed as much I used to enjoy watching House I will no longer. Last season, the blond Dr, whatever his name is, murdered a African politician, as opposed to saving him, because he was a "bad" black African polictician. And they all closed ranks to protect him, after all, he did it for the good of the many.
These types subtle social cues, seeded into the viewing public's minds, through mass media, are readily accepted, by the many, as reality without any further thought, as to what it means and what the implications are.
The question is, are Canadians that indoctrinated enough, as of yet, that we will accept, not only a PMO challenge to our legislative constitution, but also war crimes being committed in our name?
I doubt very much that the majority has bought (back) into that mentality. Sadly, there are more than a few though who do lament for the "good old days" when everyone knew their place and there are even more who are just plain oblivious. That's partly why the release of those document is so important. They're too hot to be ignored.
That is where I see the problem.
Combining the 25% who want the good old days back, with those who want the power, and with those who are oblivious to what a transfer in power from the legislature to the PMO means, would perhaps mean that power will be able to be consolidated in the PMO.
And even if we went to an election over this and a whack load of people voted Liberal to try and keep Harper from getting this power, does not mean we would be free from this anti-democracy movement. Should the Liberals gain any form of power they would only follow in Harper's footsteps, now that he has cleared the way.
I don't have the link handy, but someone in the LPC said the Libs would reverse many of the changes made by Harper. That would probably be a campaign promise. I'll search for that link
ETA: My first search took me to Iggy's speech to the Toronto Board of Trade in 2009: http://www.liberal.ca/en/michael-ignatieff/speeches/16363_speech-to-the-toronto-board-of-trade
After an opening shot at "socialists" and "separatists", near the end he promises:
A Liberal government will grow our economy so we can invest in national early learning and childcare, for every Canadian child.
A Liberal government will grow our economy so we can improve our health care system, with a national strategy for health promotion.
And so we can help our seniors age with dignity, by securing pensions and strengthening the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
That's why we need growth. So that-
Every Aboriginal Canadian gets a world-class, not a second-class education.
Every new Canadian is empowered to build and serve our country.
And every farmer can make a decent living and hand their farm on to their children
We promise to make Canada a place where agricultural policies come from the farm, not from Ottawa.
Where artists get the support and the respect they deserve.
And where human rights like "equal work, equal pay" are protected.
I'll keep searching - it wasn't Iggy who said the Liberals would reverse Harper's changes, but a LPC MP.
And your point in saying this is what, boom boom?
That the Liberals make promises then do the opposite?
This is really an extension of a larger, long-term trend toward centralizing power in the "executive branches" and crosses all party lines. Bob Rae did it in Ontario. Some would say that David Miller did it in Toronto. Harper is taking it to uncharted extremes imho and moving the bar for everyone in the long term. He really does need to be stopped. The libs could be held in check by a stronger NDP and hopefully pressured to undo some of the worst con abuses. The Colombia flip flop shows yet again that the libs should not be trusted with a majority government.
Agree, the best thing for those living in Turtle Island at this point in time, and perhaps for a long time to come, is a minority government.
I meant that there are Liberal MP's who want Harper's changes undone, and have said so publicly.
'kay, but I do have a memory you know....can anyone say NAFTA? The Red Book, National Day Care.... and yet nadda and we have a Count leading the Liberal Party.
Yes, I'm aware of all that. Why anyone identifying as a "progressive" belongs to the Liberal Party nowadays is beyond me.
Like as if the "separatists" might take the information and call up some Taliban commanders and give them coordinates of where Canadian troops are stationed so they can then be killed???
That's just propaganda that the "useful idiot" knee-jerk Con. supporters will flood Letters to the Editor in newpapers, radio airwaves on call-in talk shows, and fill the ears of their friends, neighbors and anyone in listening range with ad nauseum in the hopes that the Cons. will get a majority.
The question is, are Canadians that indoctrinated enough, as of yet, that we will accept, not only a PMO challenge to our legislative constitution, but also war crimes being committed in our name?
The problem is that Harper is rewriting history. He does not use the term "war crimes". Nobody does. The closest Jack Layton, Bob Rae and Ujjal Dosanjh come is to talk about violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Harper wraps himself up in the flag of phony nationalism and makes it a false "You are either for us (the troops) or against us, (ie., support the Taliban "terrorists".)
That is all part of indoctrinating the masses frmsldr, and it has long been perfected, how do you think Hitler went from being arrested and jailed for an attempt to take over of Bavaria by the military, to being elected?
That is all part of indoctrinating the masses frmsldr, and it has long been perfected, how do you think Hitler went from being arrested and jailed for an attempt to take over of Bavaria by the military, to being elected?
That is why I am convinced Hitler's Mein Kampf is Harper's political bible.