The Chuck Cadman Merged Thread

[sgf]

Since GG's have been very highly paid patronage posts for decades, and the then sitting GG was an ex journalist, I suspect Her Excellency was uncertain of what to do and unwilling to use the reserve powers inherent in the office.

What would being a journalist have to do with her being uncertain of what to do? What qualifications do you think would ensure a GG be certain of what to do and do you think the current GG is qualified?

Edited to add, there wont be any electiion until the Conservatives are doing better in the polls than they were when they won the last election.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

What would being a journalist have to do with her being uncertain of what to do? What qualifications do you think would ensure a GG be certain of what to do and do you think the current GG is qualified?

Edited to add, there wont be any electiion until the Conservatives are doing better in the polls than they were when they won the last election.

It doesn't matter how well they are doing in the polls they passed legislation that the election dates are fixed unless there is a motion of non-confidence that defeats them. Mr Harper cannot call an election until Oct of 09. The calling of an election is entirely in the hands of the opposition under this legislation. Of course the Government could introduce a confidence motion that is so outlandish that the Libs have to defeat them....but so far they've shown little appetite for that. They just let their own bill get defeated (on RESPs) so how ready are they to fight an election?

 

[stegner]

What would being a journalist have to do with her being uncertain of what to do? What qualifications do you think would ensure a GG be certain of what to do and do you think the current GG is qualified?

Indeed.  Thucydides-I think you should read Madame Clarkson's memoirs before you speculate.  If you had read her memoirs you would have seen that she knew her role better than most gave her credit for.  I applauded her term especially the consideration she gave the CF. 

The repeated assertions that "Harper abstained too" is becoming tiresome. How many times did Steven Harper and the CPC caucus abstain from a vote while in opposition? How many times has Mr Dion and the Liberal caucus abstained while in opposition? Get the point?

As is the repeated assertion that Dion is abstaining-after all you enjoy a Conservative government so just precisely why do you object to him supporting the government?  I do get your point, but I had one of my own that many have chosen to ignore.  How many confidence votes did Martin propose and how many did Harper propose as PM?  Do you get that point?  Harper had to abstain less because there were less confidence measures proposed under Martin.  But I agree enough with the abstaining debate let's stop it.   

It doesn't matter how well they are doing in the polls they passed legislation that the election dates are fixed unless there is a motion of non-confidence that defeats them. Mr Harper cannot call an election until Oct of 09.

 

Peter van Loan has contested that the new legislation prevents the government from calling an election.  The Conservatives assert that Harper is free to advise the GG to dissolve Parliament at any point and Her Excellency is free to oblige the PM. Any legislation that would hamstrung the ability of the GG to call elections would be unconstitutional. 


Um is it just me but have we gotten off topic.  Aren't we supposed to chat about Chuck Cadman on here?  In any event.

 

[sgf]

Back on Cadman, this article was in todays Herald

OTTAWA — Dan Wallace, one of a handful of people who might know who offered what to Chuck Cadman, is not available for interviews.

Mr. Wallace, a slim, sandy-haired, middle-aged man with a moustache and glasses, was Mr. Cadman’s executive assistant on May 17, 2005, when the terminally ill MP received two Conservative visitors in his Parliament Hill office.

That evening, Mr. Cadman told his wife that the two men had offered him a million-dollar life insurance policy if he were to vote to bring down the Paul Martin government. He told her that he had thrown the visitors out and that he was ashamed to be a member of the party.

Mr. Wallace, who now works for Conservative MP Kevin Sorenson, attended a committee hearing on Parliament Hill on Tuesday.

After the meeting, I approached him in the hallway outside the committee room where he and another man were waiting for an elevator.

"Mr. Wallace," I said.

He appeared not to hear me. "Dan Wallace?"

He moved to go down the stairs, without ever looking at me, and I followed him.

"Mr. Wallace, can I ask you a question?"

The elevator arrived. He got on and I followed him.

He got off the elevator.

"No, you can’t ask me a question," he said and made to go down the stairs.

I made to follow him, at which point he got on the elevator again. I stepped on.

"I’m going up anyway," I said, at which point he got off and I decided to leave him alone.

It is reasonable to conclude that the Tories have put the fear of God into Mr. Wallace.

Read the complete article here

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1044086.html

 

[JBG]

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Conservative folks want an election so Harper gets another mandate.  That is not as good for the country as it may or may not be for the Conservative Party.   Are Canadians stampeding on the grounds of Parliament, or the office of the MP's or in the streets demanding an election? Doesn't it bother you folks in your day to day lives all the peoples, strangers even, possibly tearing out their hair and crying, coming up to you saying gosh darn I wish there was an election? Well I think you have your answer of whether Canadian want an election.     

That's not the way people normally act.

Fair enough.  Though if you recall that the leaderless Libs were ahead of the polls were ahead of Harper.  If Harper had called an election when there was no Liberal leader or when Dion was very new there would have been backlash similar to the backlash Chretien got for taking advantage of Stockwell Day in 2000.   Harper who had complained rather much about this would have looked hypocritical had he taken advantage.     

It often happens in polling that people will say that they'd vote for "a Democrat" ahead of Bush (guess who won 2004 in spite of those polls) or "a Liberal" instead of Harper. Once you fill in the blank with a real person the choice becomes harder.

If it was truly a confidence vote the GG would have intervened.  A confidence vote is not a confidence vote until the GG accepts its a confidence vote even though it might be nothing less than a confidence vote.  Harper's attempt to involve the GG began before the May 10, 2005 vote though. 

I seem to recall it was a motion to schedule a money item vote and not a true confidence vote. In other words it was a vote to hold a vote, and I think the Speaker (not the GG but the Speaker makes that decision) correctly decided it was not a confidence vote.

They (the CPC) want an election badly but do not want to call it themselves.  That is why they have so many confidence measures. 

Under the "fixed election date" law my understanding is that the Government can no longer unilaterally "advise" a dropping of the writ. The Government must lose Parliament's confidence to deviate from the October 19, 2009 date.

Like it or not the Liberals are supporting the Conservative government that many of you enjoy so why are you complaining?  Given that Harper has capitulated to Dion on things like Afghanistan and other policies, the Liberals are a de facto Coalition partner as their support is contingent on Harper compromising.  Be patient though, by law there will be election sometime in Fall 2009.  Can you folks wait till then?   

Because the Liberals are making fools of themselves and, to the extent any outside Canada pay attention (as do I) they're making fools of the country.

 

[JBG]

It doesn't matter how well they are doing in the polls they passed legislation that the election dates are fixed unless there is a motion of non-confidence that defeats them. Mr Harper cannot call an election until Oct of 09. The calling of an election is entirely in the hands of the opposition under this legislation. Of course the Government could introduce a confidence motion that is so outlandish that the Libs have to defeat them....but so far they've shown little appetite for that. They just let their own bill get defeated (on RESPs) so how ready are they to fight an election?

I think the CPC has done their level best to promulgate bills that the Liberals would gag on. Their repeated abstentions, walk outs, sick outs etc. are comedic.

 

[stegner]

Under the "fixed election date" law my understanding is that the Government can no longer unilaterally "advise" a dropping of the writ. The Government must lose Parliament's confidence to deviate from the October 19, 2009 date.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=301407


Harper ready to ask GG to pull plug

If Senate stalls crime bill past March 1, spokesman says Prime Minister would ask Michaelle Jean to dissolve Parliament

Andrew Mayeda, Canwest News Service  Published: Monday, February 11, 2008

NP Network Blogs

Stephen Harper stands to speak during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion in the background.Chris Wattie/ReutersStephen Harper stands to speak during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion in the background.

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper is prepared to ask the Governor General to pull the plug on the minority Parliament and trigger a spring election if the Senate does not pass the government's violent-crime bill by March 1.

The House of Commons began debate Monday on a government motion calling on the Senate to pass the Tackling Violent Crime Act by the start of next month. If the Commons passes the motion and the Senate does not comply, the prime minister could ask Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to dissolve Parliament, said a Harper spokeswoman.

"It's a confidence motion, so that's still an option," said Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, the prime minister's press secretary.

It is the strongest statement yet that Harper is willing to force an election if the Senate does not yield to his government's agenda.

But some constitutional experts say such a move would conflict with a federal law passed last year setting fixed-election dates. Under the law, which was introduced by the Harper government, the next federal election is slated for October, 2009, unless the opposition parties defeat the government before then.

"One could make a very strong argument to the Governor General to refuse his request because he's violating his own law," said Errol Mendes, a professor of constitutional and international law at the University of Ottawa.

An attempt to force an election would also violate the constitutional principle of Senate independence, noted Mendes. The Commons has no authority to compel the Senate to pass legislation, he said.

"Confidence motions are basically about the government of the day retaining the confidence of the House, not the Senate. It has nothing to do with the Senate, which is why there has never in the history of Canada been a motion such as this."

Government officials beg to differ. Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan has said the fixed-election law doesn't prevent the prime minister from asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament.

"There is nothing in the law that takes away the Crown's traditional and usual prerogatives on this matter," he told reporters at a news conference to announce the motion last week.

The motion will be put to a vote as early as today, and is expected to pass. If the Senate then refuses to pass the bill by March 1, the two chambers of Parliament would be at a "clear impasse," Van Loan said last week.

It is not unprecedented for the Governor General to refuse a prime minister's request to drop the writ. The most famous case was in 1926, when then-governor general Lord Byng refused a request by William Lyon MacKenzie King. Byng instead asked Conservative Leader Arthur Meighen to form the government, but Meighen's government was quickly defeated.

But today, some constitutional experts believe Jean would have little choice but to drop the writ if approached by Harper.

"I don't see any constitutional problem at this point in time for the Governor General on the question of dissolving the House," said Ned Franks, professor emeritus of politics at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont. "The Parliament's gone on for two years and, historically, if a minority government has lasted that long, the Governor General doesn't raise any squawks."

In building its case for a possible snap election, the Harper government has referred to the 1988 election. Then-prime minister Brian Mulroney called the election after Liberal Leader John Turner asked the Senate to delay passage of Free Trade Agreement legislation.

But some observers question whether that is a valid comparison.

"It's a change of direction for Canadian laws on crime, but it's nothing near as momentous as the Free Trade Agreement," said Franks.

The Conservatives argue the Senate has been impeding the government's crime agenda for months. The Tackling Violent Crime Act actually repackages five crime bills that the government failed to get through in the last parliamentary session. Among other things, it would impose tougher sentences for gun crimes and raise the age of sexual consent to 16 from 14.

But the Liberals point out it was the Harper government itself that prorogued the last session in the summer, thus requiring the bills to wend their way through Parliament again. And they note the bill was introduced in the Senate on Nov. 29, and Parliament only recently resumed after a holiday break.

The Senate legal affairs committee, which is studying the bill, has extended its sitting hours and will likely meet during a parliamentary recess next week to fast-track the bill, said Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs. But she said it's "unrealistic" to expect the Senate to pass the bill by March 1.

"They clearly don't want their bill. If they wanted their bill, they clearly would give the Senate time to examine it," said Carstairs. "We have a constitutional responsibility to give it sober second thought."

POSSIBLE ELECTION TRIGGERS

Feb. 26: Finance Minister Jim Flaherty confirmed Monday he will table the government's annual budget on Feb. 26. The NDP and Bloc Quebecois have given strong indications they will oppose it, while Liberal Leader Stephane Dion says his party will wait and see. There will be up to four days of debate, though not necessarily on consecutive days, on the budget motion and any opposition amendments. The first confidence vote could come on the second day of debate, when MPs will vote on the first set of amendments.

March 1: Parliament is expected to pass a motion this week calling on the Senate to pass the government's violent-crime bill by March 1. If the Senate does not pass the bill by then, the prime minister could ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, on the grounds the Senate is impeding his government's agenda.

March 31: The government has tabled a motion calling for the extension of the Afghanistan mission until at least 2011, provided the government can procure additional equipment and convince its allies to commit roughly 1,000 more troops. The government has said it will put the motion to a vote before Prime Minister Stephen Harper heads to a NATO leaders summit in early April. Last week, government House leader Peter Van Loan said the vote could come "sometime" next month.

The government must also schedule seven "opposition days" between now and March 26. The opposition can use those days to introduce non-confidence motions that could topple the government.

Ottawa Citizen

Because the Liberals are making fools of themselves and, to the extent any outside Canada pay attention (as do I) they're making fools of the country.

Um okay...that is all very subjective and you have provided no concrete evidence.   

Once again this thread is about Chuck Cadman and once again have gotten a far distance from the topic at hand. Do we need to have a new topic?

 

[JBG]

Um okay...that is all very subjective and you have provided no concrete evidence.   

Once again this thread is about Chuck Cadman and once again have gotten a far distance from the topic at hand. Do we need to have a new topic?

I think that any attempt by Harper to have used Senate obstructionism as a grounds for an election would have been a stretch. On the other hand it would have triggered a beneficial constitutional crisis well beyond issues of fixed election law. As far as the connection to Cadman it's remote, except that Cadman-gate seems to concern the method by which the CPC came to power (ignoring Stronach-gate obviously). This thread seems to have morphed into a "Harper - whence he came where's he going" thread.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think that any attempt by Harper to have used Senate obstructionism as a grounds for an election would have been a stretch. On the other hand it would have triggered a beneficial constitutional crisis well beyond issues of fixed election law ...

Why and why?

Constitutionally, (according to the important conventional bit, not the second rate written bit) the GG's (queen's actually) Privy Council Committee (the cabinet) can only act for her so long as it has the confidence of parliament. Generally, it is the Commons' confidence that matters but, while I don't know of any cases where, in a Westminster style parliamentary democracy, an inter-cameral dispute has triggered an election* I'm not sure it's a "stretch" to think that the GG might well see it as a case of "her" government being unable to prosecute her (its) programme because it lacks the confidence of parliament.

I can see no "crisis" potential in any situation. The relative powers and duties of the PM and the GG are quite well defined, here as a result of the King-Byng thing, and more broadly and recently as a result of the 1975 Kerr-Whitlam dispute. The sovereign's power is undiminished but it may be still be constrained by the political needs of her PM.

The difficulty facing any PM is not the GG (although going to her/him may be a crap shoot and may, ultimately, depend on the GG's individual and even idiosyncratic reading of the real Constitution - the unwritten part); rather it is the people and their perception of the PM's motives. If, as in the case of Kerr-Whitlam, the PM is in a weak position then the GG's will, if it can be painted as being in the popular interest, can prevail but, generally, the people are most likely to give "their' elected representative the benefit of the doubt in most disputes with an appointed "sovereign." Thus, the calculation is of political practicality, not of constitutionality.

----------
* But Senate obstructionism was an issue in Australia in 1975

 

[stegner]

"Harper - whence he came where's he going"

What a delightful name for a thread 

The difficulty facing any PM is not the GG (although going to her/him may be a crap shoot and may, ultimately, depend on the GG's individual and even idiosyncratic reading of the real Constitution - the unwritten part); rather it is the people and their perception of the PM's motives. If, as in the case of Kerr-Whitlam, the PM is in a weak position then the GG's will, if it can be painted as being in the popular interest, can prevail but, generally, the people are most likely to give "their' elected representative the benefit of the doubt in most disputes with an appointed "sovereign." Thus, the calculation is of political practicality, not of constitutionality.

Bravo!  I could not have put it better myself. 

 

[JBG]

Why and why?

Constitutionally, (according to the important conventional bit, not the second rate written bit) the GG's (queen's actually) Privy Council Committee (the cabinet) can only act for her so long as it has the confidence of parliament. Generally, it is the Commons' confidence that matters but, while I don't know of any cases where, in a Westminster style parliamentary democracy, an inter-cameral dispute has triggered an election* I'm not sure it's a "stretch" to think that the GG might well see it as a case of "her" government being unable to prosecute her (its) programme because it lacks the confidence of parliament.

I can see no "crisis" potential in any situation.
The relative powers and duties of the PM and the GG are quite well defined, here as a result of the King-Byng thing, and more broadly and recently as a result of the 1975 Kerr-Whitlam dispute. The sovereign's power is undiminished but it may be still be constrained by the political needs of her PM.

Kerr-Whitlam was actually what I had in mind. In this case, though, the GG does not have the option of a "double-dissolution" or dissolution of the Senate as well as the HOC since the Senate is appointed. So a breakdown in the ability of the HOC/Senate to carry our "her" program as a result of a Senate meltdown would not be solved by an HOC election, unless the GG thought that the Liberals (the party dominating the Senate) would win.

In 1975, it was pretty obviously that Labor was going to lose to the Liberals (the Aussie analog to the CPC) so an election would have, and in fact did solve the problem. The reason why it would have some "crisis" aspects is that without a Senate restructuring (or as happened the Senate yielding) Canada's in uncharted waters.

The difficulty facing any PM is not the GG (although going to her/him may be a crap shoot and may, ultimately, depend on the GG's individual and even idiosyncratic reading of the real Constitution - the unwritten part); rather it is the people and their perception of the PM's motives. If, as in the case of Kerr-Whitlam, the PM is in a weak position then the GG's will, if it can be painted as being in the popular interest, can prevail but, generally, the people are most likely to give "their' elected representative the benefit of the doubt in most disputes with an appointed "sovereign." Thus, the calculation is of political practicality, not of constitutionality.

The use of the GG as a "deux ex machina" or outside force is a one-shot option, not readily repeatable. Just as Kerr or Byng on that point. My memory of 1975, from reading the New York Times, was that there was some fear that Whitlam would take AU down the "Fidel Castro road", i.e. never subject himself to an election. That was the subtext at the time. Remember, at that point in history, the trend was away from democratic rule, Chile, India and Turkey being then-recent examples. Greece, Spain and Portugal, in the process of returning to democracy, turned out fortunately to the straws in the wind for the eventual worldwide resurgence of democracy but at the time many were pessimistic about democracy's future. Nixon, Trudeau and others skirted democratic forms with some regularity. We cannot say that the Senate is obstructing things in Canada to the extent that the GG needs to start doing the heavy lifting. This GG would also be a bad choice for that job.

* But Senate obstructionism was an issue in Australia in 1975

See above. The Senate had virtually all of "supply", i.e. the budget, tied up. Given what was then 10% annual inflation continuation under old budgets was not workable.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

"It is reasonable to conclude that the Tories have put the fear of God into Mr. Wallace."

No, ....it would be reasonable, and in fact Stephen Maher is being an absolute stooge here, to assume that he is going to get subpoenaed and just like anyone with a brain would do, he saves it for the courts.

Just the fact a *cough* journalist wrote that line is pathetic.....

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
... there was some fear that Whitlam would take AU down the "Fidel Castro road", i.e. never subject himself to an election. That was the subtext at the time. Remember, at that point in history, the trend was away from democratic rule, Chile, India and Turkey being then-recent examples. Greece, Spain and Portugal, in the process of returning to democracy, turned out fortunately to the straws in the wind for the eventual worldwide resurgence of democracy but at the time many were pessimistic about democracy's future. Nixon, Trudeau and others skirted democratic forms with some regularity ...

With respect, that's arrant nonsense.

Comparing Australia circa 1975 to Greece or Portugal, or Trudeau and Nixon to Franco/Arias Navarro/Saurez is the equivalent of seeing "reds under the beds."

Trudeau may have been (was, actually) a nincompoop, and Nixon may have condoned dirty tricks for partisan political advantage (as did George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries) but neither, so far as my readings can tell, ever contemplated a de Gaulle like putsch.

 

[JBG]

With respect, that's arrant nonsense.

Comparing Australia circa 1975 to Greece or Portugal, or Trudeau and Nixon to Franco/Arias Navarro/Saurez is the equivalent of seeing "reds under the beds."

Trudeau may have been (was, actually) a nincompoop, and Nixon may have condoned dirty tricks for partisan political advantage (as did George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries) but neither, so far as my readings can tell, ever contemplated a de Gaulle like putsch.

I am about 7/8 of the way through Nixon's autobiography and I must respectfully and totally disagree with you on this one. At the time, the people who no longer believed in democracy were regularly quoting Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson's dictum that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact". Nixon's administration regularly engaged in break-ins and espionage against their political "enemies" as well as abuse of the IRS audit functions. As far as Trudeau, can you say "FLQ"? He virtually declared martial law in Quebec to stop a small, irregular, rag-tag and pathetic group. Democracy was on far shakier grounds than you realize back in the period 1965-1975.

 

[Old Sweat]

As far as Trudeau, can you say "FLQ"? He virtually declared martial law in Quebec to stop a small, irregular, rag-tag and pathetic group. Democracy was on far shakier grounds than you realize back in the period 1965-1975.
 

JBG, with respect your above statement is hogwash. I don't know your experience with the FLQ during the sixties and seventies, but I lived through it. You used the phrase "virtually declared martial law" which perhaps indicates some understanding of Canadian law. If not, there is no, repeat no, provision for martial law in Canada. What happened was that the Government of Quebec requistioned support from the Canadian Forces under Part XI of the National Defence Act. The acting Chief of Defence Staff was required to respond, but the level of support provided was based on his assessment. More or less at the same time, the forces were deployed in support of the RCMP to protect national assets in the National Capital.

In no case did the military call the shots; instead the forces acted in support of the civil authorities.

Now, things were very tense. A diplomat had been kidnapped, a provincial minister had been abducted and murdered and there was widespread civil unrest including a massive pro-FLQ rally in the Paul Sauve Arena. This was 1970, remember, and memories of Watts and Detroit were fresh in everyone's mind, while the troubles had started in Northern Ireland. In my opinion the governments of the day acted prudently and had wide spread support across the country.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Nixon's administration regularly engaged in break-ins and espionage against their political "enemies" as well as abuse of the IRS audit functions. As far as Trudeau, can you say "FLQ"? He virtually declared martial law in Quebec to stop a small, irregular, rag-tag and pathetic group. Democracy was on far shakier grounds than you realize back in the period 1965-1975.

Which is what I said: partisan political dirty tricks; but it is a huge, and totally unjustified leap, to equate that with the Greek colonels.

Like Old Sweat I was here for the '60s and '70s - thankfully we got over the real anti-democratic fantasies in the '50s, when the various and sundry lunatic fringes, including Duplesis in Canada, did remind us all of the need to be watchful of our 'leaders.'

 

[RangerRay]

Like it or not the Liberals are supporting the Conservative government that many of you enjoy so why are you complaining?  Given that Harper has capitulated to Dion on things like Afghanistan and other policies, the Liberals are a de facto Coalition partner as their support is contingent on Harper compromising.  Be patient though, by law there will be election sometime in Fall 2009.  Can you folks wait till then?   

Actually, I'm quite enjoying that the Liberals have retreated to Abstainistan.  The Tories are implementing their agenda because of it.  Everything I've read indicates that PM Harper would prefer that the government not fall until the fall of 2009.

However, were I a Liberal supporter, I'd be seriously pissed.  We have the official opposition stamping around, screaming blue-bloody murder about the government, yet they will not lift a finger to defeat it.  It makes them look foolish, which I quite enjoy.  ;D

 

[stegner]

However, were I a Liberal supporter, I'd be seriously pissed.  We have the official opposition stamping around, screaming blue-bloody murder about the government, yet they will not lift a finger to defeat it.  It makes them look foolish, which I quite enjoy.  Grin

As a Liberal supporter I am not too upset about the abstaining.  Heck most of the Canadian electorate abstains from voting come election time.  In the recent Alberta election (Harper's 'home' province) 66% of the electorate abstained.  Why should we expect any better from our representatives when we as voters are not much better.  What does grinds my gears are the parachute candidates that Dion has used.  BOOOOOO. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

As a Liberal supporter I am not too upset about the abstaining.  Heck most of the Canadian electorate abstains from voting come election time.  In the recent Alberta election (Harper's 'home' province) 66% of the electorate abstained.  Why should we expect any better from our representatives when we as voters are not much better.  What does grinds my gears are the parachute candidates that Dion has used.  BOOOOOO. 

Nor am I; keeping parliament alive and working is the best course open for both the Conservatives and Liberals right now. There is no issue requiring an election and Canadians seem to be telling the pollsters that they see little difference between the left and centre wings of the Conservatives and the centre and right wings of the Liberals – and neither do I. I think Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff could both serve in a national unity cabinet led by either Stephan Harper or Jim Prentice. Equally, I believe people like Bernier, Flaherty and MacKay could all serve in a national unity cabinet led by e.g. Martha Hall-Findlay.

There are some pretty socialistic Liberals and some pretty liberal (all that independent, individualistic, self reliant stuff) Tories – maybe ⅓ of each caucus? – but I cannot find too much to distinguish the policies that most Conservatives would find acceptable from those that would pass muster with most Liberals.

The current fairly rosy fiscal situation – annual surpluses being used to pay down the debt, etc – is the result of the combined efforts of Conservatives (Mulroney/Wilson who balanced the programme budget) and Liberals (Chrétien/Martin who tackled the deficit that remained mainly by cancelling the shared cost programme spending with Alberta, BC and Ontario). There is not much in either the law and order or foreign affairs portfolios to divide Conservatives from Liberals.

If the next government is, as I expect it to be, another minority then it will not matter much if it is Conservative or Liberal. Only back-to-back Conservative majorities or Liberal majorities under completly new management (none of Dion, Ignatieff or Rae) can, I think make the sorts of changes that I believe are necessary to restore Canada to some semblance of the status (social, economic and political) we held prior to 1967.

I hope we get back-to-back-to-back Conservative majorities because I think they have, broadly, a better view of what Canada should and can be than do the Liberals.

 

[JBG]

Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff could both serve in a national unity cabinet led by either Stephan Harper or Jim Prentice. Equally, I believe people like Bernier, Flaherty and MacKay could all serve in a national unity cabinet led by e.g. Martha Hall-Findlay.

There are some pretty socialistic Liberals and some pretty liberal (all that independent, individualistic, self reliant stuff) Tories – maybe ⅓ of each caucus? – but I cannot find too much to distinguish the policies that most Conservatives would find acceptable from those that would pass muster with most Liberals.

And why the need to go to a national unity government, which is typical of wartime or rep-by-prop? It's very suffocating as far as democracy.

If the next government is, as I expect it to be, another minority then it will not matter much if it is Conservative or Liberal. Only back-to-back Conservative majorities or Liberal majorities under completly new management (none of Dion, Ignatieff or Rae) can, I think make the sorts of changes that I believe are necessary to restore Canada to some semblance of the status (social, economic and political) we held prior to 1967.

I hope we get back-to-back-to-back Conservative majorities because I think they have, broadly, a better view of what Canada should and can be than do the Liberals.

Why couldn't a Conservative majority accomplish the same? Did the back to back to back LPC majorities of 1993, 1997 and 2000 make those changes?