How I Triggered a Constitutional Crisis (And what to do next)
Ok. I’ll confess. I think I did it. So far as I can tell, I was the first one – anywhere – to float the idea of, after the election, having the government use the economic crisis as a pretext to repeal the public financing law as a way of crippling the opposition. I began putting the idea around, both in public and private, on the 26th of September. It’s certainly possible that someone else conceived of the idea independently – but it certainly flatters my vanity to think that they did not.
To begin: it’s the right thing to do on several grounds.
I fail to see why, in times of economic emergency, public money should be going to fund political campaigns. The argument that this is a “mean-spirited” cut or whatever, or is somehow a fundamental question of democracy is so much nonsense. Politicians aren’t morally entitled to money from taxpayers. And, if we’re going to be cutting spending (and we surely are) it makes sense that giveaways to political parties should be the very first thing cut.
It’s also the right thing to do because it would hurt the socialists – badly. Badly enough that they won’t be able to fight an election for years. The fact that what’s politically right and what’s morally right here are one and the same is a very happy coincidence indeed.
Alas, now the socialists – knowing how much they depend on looted taxpayer money for their survival – are talking about taking the desperate step of attempting to form a socialist-more socialist-separatist coalition. In effect, what they are planning is a sort of coup d’teat where, together, they will overthrow Canada’s elected government and seize power.
It’s likely that they won’t have the guts to do it. Instead, I suspect, they’ll posture and shout and then, in the end, a half dozen Liberal MP’s will conveniently absent themselves from the House of Commons on voting day. But, maybe not. Perhaps the opposition realizes how desperate their situation will be if they can’t take public money for themselves. Perhaps they’ll really do it.
Some will, of course, see this as a reason for a U-Turn. Many of them already deplore what they see as beastly unfairness and will be eager for a chance to retreat. There are always people who hesitate in delivering the final blow.
So here’s what needs to happen next: Harper needs to stay the course and to be prepared to act decisively when the moment comes.
The sequence of events over the next few days could play out like this:
1) The Opposition parties get their act together and announce that they’ve formed some sort of coalition, with some Prime Minister-designate.
2) The government is defeated in the House of Commons in the vote over the economic update.
3) Harper goes to the Governor-General and requests the dissolution of Parliament in preparation for a General Election.
Here’s where things get murky. The Governor-General has it within her right to refuse such a request and instead invite whoever else to attempt to form a government. This must, absolutely must, not be allowed to happen. Here is where we have to be bold.
We need good intelligence and we need rapid communications. The relationship between the Prime Minister, the Governor-General, and the Monarchy is a complicated one. The Governor-General is Constitutionally obligated to follow the advice of the Prime Minister – but they also have certain reserve powers – including the ability to dismiss the Prime Minister and invite someone else to form a government. At the same time, the Governor-General is the Monarch’s representative in Canada and is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister.
Over the weekend, we need to take the temperature. I can’t imagine that the opposition would go to all of this trouble in cobbling together a coalition without first sounding out Michelle Jean who, after all, was appointed by them. We need to read how likely she is to accept an opposition offer to form an alternative government. Such a move would be defensible in a Constitutional sense – there are examples of it occurring in both Canada and in other Commonwealth realms. But, obviously, it would be contrary to our interests.
So, here’s the other step that would need to be taken: if the Prime Minister believes that the Governor-General is likely to accept an opposition proposal to form a new government, then the Prime Minister should contact the Queen and advise her to dismiss the Governor-General immediately, a move that the Queen would be Constitutionally obligated to make.
Now, then, the question is: do we want to do this? The answer is simple: of course we do. Simply being prepared to do it means that the opposition is more likely to back down. And, as I pointed out when I originally proposed this idea two months ago, ending the giveaway of taxpayer money is likely to leave the Liberals (and possibly the Bloc as well) bankrupt. And, if they choose to fight an election… Well, let’s just say that I like Prime Minister Harper’s chances in a campaign fought on the question of whether politicians have a right to public money at the expense of widows and orphans.
To begin: it’s the right thing to do on several grounds.
I fail to see why, in times of economic emergency, public money should be going to fund political campaigns. The argument that this is a “mean-spirited” cut or whatever, or is somehow a fundamental question of democracy is so much nonsense. Politicians aren’t morally entitled to money from taxpayers. And, if we’re going to be cutting spending (and we surely are) it makes sense that giveaways to political parties should be the very first thing cut.
It’s also the right thing to do because it would hurt the socialists – badly. Badly enough that they won’t be able to fight an election for years. The fact that what’s politically right and what’s morally right here are one and the same is a very happy coincidence indeed.
Alas, now the socialists – knowing how much they depend on looted taxpayer money for their survival – are talking about taking the desperate step of attempting to form a socialist-more socialist-separatist coalition. In effect, what they are planning is a sort of coup d’teat where, together, they will overthrow Canada’s elected government and seize power.
It’s likely that they won’t have the guts to do it. Instead, I suspect, they’ll posture and shout and then, in the end, a half dozen Liberal MP’s will conveniently absent themselves from the House of Commons on voting day. But, maybe not. Perhaps the opposition realizes how desperate their situation will be if they can’t take public money for themselves. Perhaps they’ll really do it.
Some will, of course, see this as a reason for a U-Turn. Many of them already deplore what they see as beastly unfairness and will be eager for a chance to retreat. There are always people who hesitate in delivering the final blow.
So here’s what needs to happen next: Harper needs to stay the course and to be prepared to act decisively when the moment comes.
The sequence of events over the next few days could play out like this:
1) The Opposition parties get their act together and announce that they’ve formed some sort of coalition, with some Prime Minister-designate.
2) The government is defeated in the House of Commons in the vote over the economic update.
3) Harper goes to the Governor-General and requests the dissolution of Parliament in preparation for a General Election.
Here’s where things get murky. The Governor-General has it within her right to refuse such a request and instead invite whoever else to attempt to form a government. This must, absolutely must, not be allowed to happen. Here is where we have to be bold.
We need good intelligence and we need rapid communications. The relationship between the Prime Minister, the Governor-General, and the Monarchy is a complicated one. The Governor-General is Constitutionally obligated to follow the advice of the Prime Minister – but they also have certain reserve powers – including the ability to dismiss the Prime Minister and invite someone else to form a government. At the same time, the Governor-General is the Monarch’s representative in Canada and is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister.
Over the weekend, we need to take the temperature. I can’t imagine that the opposition would go to all of this trouble in cobbling together a coalition without first sounding out Michelle Jean who, after all, was appointed by them. We need to read how likely she is to accept an opposition offer to form an alternative government. Such a move would be defensible in a Constitutional sense – there are examples of it occurring in both Canada and in other Commonwealth realms. But, obviously, it would be contrary to our interests.
So, here’s the other step that would need to be taken: if the Prime Minister believes that the Governor-General is likely to accept an opposition proposal to form a new government, then the Prime Minister should contact the Queen and advise her to dismiss the Governor-General immediately, a move that the Queen would be Constitutionally obligated to make.
Now, then, the question is: do we want to do this? The answer is simple: of course we do. Simply being prepared to do it means that the opposition is more likely to back down. And, as I pointed out when I originally proposed this idea two months ago, ending the giveaway of taxpayer money is likely to leave the Liberals (and possibly the Bloc as well) bankrupt. And, if they choose to fight an election… Well, let’s just say that I like Prime Minister Harper’s chances in a campaign fought on the question of whether politicians have a right to public money at the expense of widows and orphans.
posted by Adam Yoshida at
11:18 PM
5 Comments
