tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post5426815918577177673..comments2023-10-10T10:34:10.843-06:00Comments on The Nexus of Assholery: A Matter of ConfidencePatrick Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04592482865332628189noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post-21011074785483917162009-01-25T21:46:00.000-07:002009-01-25T21:46:00.000-07:00Great analysis, Patrick. I definitely feel that t...Great analysis, Patrick. <BR/><BR/>I definitely feel that there need to be clearer rules on motions of confidence and how and when they can be declared, particularly since it seems right now that any government bill that is defeated automatically entails a confidence vote. One could argue that Stephen Harper has abused this convention with the sheer number of bills he declared to be confidence motions, which put Stéphane Dion in the Catch-22 position of either abstaining, voting against the government and triggering an election, or otherwise propping the government up. Any one of these actions could, of course, be spun to Harper's advantage. <BR/><BR/>This problem also leads to the very strict party discipline we have in Canada, much more so than in other countries with parliamentary systems. Critics from both sides of the political spectrum, such as Canada West Foundation director Roger Gibbins and Canadian nationalist Mel Hurtig have both harshly criticized this tendency, particularly for stifling dissenting voices. <BR/><BR/>In conducting research for a term paper for one of my graduate classes back in 2005, I distinctly remember the Newfoundland newspapers I was reading criticizing the Newfoundland MPs for not standing up for their province in its debate with the Paul Martin government over the Atlantic Accord. Similarly, Gibbins criticized the party discipline for again stifling regional voices within political parties-this contributes to the perception that the Liberals, for instance, only catered to their strongest bases in Central and Eastern Canada, while any Western MPs that were elected were forced to toe the line and didn't represent their constituents interests in Ottawa so much as Ottawa to their constituents. <BR/><BR/>In a 2004 pamphlet Gibbins co-authored with fellow Canada West Foundation author Robert Roach, <I>Building a stronger Canada : Taking action on Western discontent</I>, they proposed having several different types of votes. I can't quite remember the details, but things like the budget and other significant money bills would always be confidence motions, while even if government bills in much more routine business like immigration reform or vehicle safety standards were defeated, the House could continue without resorting to a confidence motion. <BR/><BR/>While people such as yourself and Christopher Moore, editor of <I>The Beaver</I>, have suggested electing the Governor General, I'm rather leery about the implications that would arise from it. <BR/><BR/>I'm no fan of the monarchy, and would be quite pleased to see it gone and the Governor General become an entirely Canadian institution with no connection to the British Crown, but at present the Governor General only exercises her powers on the advice and prerogative of the prime minister. If she is elected directly, the Governor General suddenly acquires a level of legitimacy her office hasn't had in Canadian politics for decades. <BR/><BR/>What happens, for instance, if there's gridlock between a Conservative prime minister and a Liberal Governor General? Is the Governor General a partisan position? If not, who will run it? What will be the extent of their powers, and under what circumstances can they use them? What happens if they refuse the PM's request for dissolution and an election, and instead call on the opposition to try and form a government? What if they refuse to give final assent to government legislation? <BR/><BR/>As it stands now, royal assent is basically a rubber stamp, and requests for dissolution and elections cannot be rightly refused. But an elected Governor General could claim a popular mandate to justify whatever actions they take. Can the office now suddenly be used for open political purposes, whereas before it's typically served for ceremonial purposes?<BR/><BR/>If we were to go down this route, we'd need to specifically ensure that the Governor General's powers were clarified or otherwise limited to, perhaps, a ceremonial role. Otherwise, we risk ending up with an unpleasant muddle of confusion between the offices of the prime minister and a suddenly reinvigorated Governor General, who could easily use his or her position in ways entirely new to Canadian politics, or otherwise a throwback to the 19th century. <BR/><BR/>In the U.S., the president is both head of government and head of state, with clearly defined roles that set out what he can and can't do. In European countries like Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom, the head of state is a monarch who reigns but does not rule, with all the actual policy decisions and actually running the country being left to the head of government and his/her party. <BR/><BR/>Again, I'm not opposed to getting rid of the monarchy-in fact, as a Canadian nationalist, I'd be quite pleased to do so. I'm just saying we'd probably need to overhaul the actual functions of the Governor General if and when we go this route.Jared Milnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07553795678274087372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post-89758421661794955132009-01-25T21:42:00.000-07:002009-01-25T21:42:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jared Milnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07553795678274087372noreply@blogger.com