Big Daddy’s law and order point man hitches up his pants in his best John Wayne manner, saunters out into the street and draws a line in the sand.
Tories warn Senate to pass violent crime bill – or else
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has warned the Liberal-dominated Senate to pass the Conservative government's omnibus crime bill this month or face the prospect of an election.
Why I do believe that them’s fightin’ words, Rob. Or are they?
But Liberal senators bristled at the deadline, and it's unclear if the Tories can force an election over the matter. The move appears to be a tactic by the Conservatives to step up pressure on the Liberals in a renewed attempt to cast their political foes as soft on crime.
It comes amid speculation the Liberals might bring down the minority government over the coming federal budget or the Afghan combat mission - both of which are less attractive election issues for the Conservatives than the anti-crime bill.
Oh my … colour me shocked that Big Daddy is once again trying to control every-fucking-thing in his typical bully-boy manner. You know, there are support groups for control freaks – I’m sure you can find one in your area.
Nicholson told the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs Wednesday to do "whatever it takes" to pass Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act.
If that doesn't happen by the end of February, he said he will advise Prime Minister Stephen Harper that it's a confidence measure, "and I will put the matter in his hands."
But it's not clear how that would bring down the government since confidence rules don't apply to the Senate.
Ooopsie. Canada’s New Government™, kids, the party of law and order, transparency, accountability and making shit up for two whole years.
6 comments:
Gotta love a "law and order government" that doesn't actually understand, well, law.
Details, details ...
Well, a prime minister can dissolve parliament whenever he wants. I suppose if the Senate doesn't pass his legislation by his deadline, Harper can go to the Governor General and say, "I need to go to the people on this issue. Please dissolve parliament and call an election." Precident gives the Governor General little recourse to refuse.
What this is, however, is a matter of perception:
- Did the government "fall" on a "confidence vote"? No. You can either assume that the prime minister didn't get his way and had a tantrum like a whiny little baby, or you can assume that he genuinely felt so strongly in this that he decided to go to the people to get a stronger mandate. It all depends on which dueling spin-doctor wins.
- Does Harper's threat have any legal force? No. The Parliament Act clearly states that neither House can bully the other into submission. However, IF Harper had an election and came back with a stronger mandate, the senate would have a strong incentive to stop dragging their feet, lest they be seen as undemocratic obstacles to the will of the people. Again, it depends on which spin doctor wins.
Harper's not actually breaking any laws or anything. What he is doing is posturing, and counting on his posture to convince enough Canadians to give him the majority he wants. Whether Canadians will buy what he's selling remains to be seen.
That's interesting. So it's kinda like the Senate from the first three Star wars movies.
While I'm aware of it and have an idea how it works, I'm not really familiar with the parliamentary form of government since the American education system sucks. Hell I'm probably lucky I can read and haven't been indoctrinated into believing ID yet.
Being able to dissolve the Congress down here would be pretty damned handy about now considering how weak ineffective and pussified half of them are and how crooked, criminal and amoral the other half are. I imagine having that sort of ability would be something useful to stave off rebellion in instances where Congress is weak, ineffectual, cowardly, complicit, corrupt, criminal and amoral. I imagine putting it in the hands of one man (or woman) though could also cause problems with it being used for political purposes. Like I think if GWB decided to disband the Senate I'd have to take my lightsaber and flee to Sweden so i could immediately have an abortion on demand ( lol ).
All joking aside, basically somebody in the Gov says "No confidence vote" and the what? All Canadians vote on whether to disband or something?
I realize I could look this all up on wikipedia and stuff. But I've always found it's more interesting coming from people who actually see the topic in action. Of course, my Brothas and Sistas from the North, you could just tell me to RTFM and I'll shut up.
Long story short, e - the government, led by Big Daddy, designates a vote as being one of "confidence". This means that if the vote fails in the House of Commons, then the Governor-General dissolves Parliament and an election is called because the governing party has lost the "confidence" of the people.
Confidence matters don't apply to the Senate (the "sober second thought" arm of the government). So essentially, Big Daddy's trying to make an end run around the rules of parliament. Hence the "making shit up" part of my argument. Confused yet?
eh... slightly.
I would think that the ability to lose confidence in the government as you describe it would be relegated to the people, not somebody IN the government. Isn't that a conflict of interest?
Post a Comment