Leave a comment below!
Unless Stephen Harper brought two motions of non-confidence last week, one of which was refused and which sparked this diatribe, you might want to reconsider. According to this news site:
"Prime Minister Paul Martin receives a standing ovation from his caucus following a budget vote on Parliament Hill in Ottawa yesterday. His minority Liberal government survived a confidence motion by a single vote."
Further, the Deputy Leader of the Conservative party in Canada does not appear to take the same apocalyptic view of things as you do: "Deputy Leader Peter MacKay said ..."To demonstrate that we are a modern, inclusive, national party that puts the country's interests ahead of partisan ones," MacKay said, while cautioning his party could still use one of its opposition days in the Commons to bring forward a motion of non-confidence in the government before the summer." (emphasis mine) cite
No, I haven't clicked on any of your links, I'm sorry to say. (Though I will.) But, being familiar with the Parliamentary system, I did realize immediately how serious it would be if the Opposition had been able to make a motion of non-confidence, and had had it refused.
It would be sufficiently serious that it would have made it into the national news (in Canada) and likely into the international news (not, naturally, in the US). And it hadn't.
Which means, I suggest, that your many links have somehow managed to get hold of the wrong end of the stick.
There were two motions to non-confidence, but yes, both were brought by Stephen Harper, both were won by the Liberal government, cite: "By a razor-thin margin, Paul Martin's minority government survived a confidence vote late Thursday, staving off a snap election. With the support of Independent MP Chuck Cadman, the House voted evenly 152 to 152 on Bill C-48, an amendment to the budget that adds $4.6 billion in social program spending and delays corporate tax cuts."
So, want to issue an update?
Michael Bliss, in the National Post:
As of this weekend, we are in the historically unprecedented situation of having a Prime Minister who is clinging to office by recklessly disregarding the fundamental principles of our democracy. It is a shocking act of proto-tyranny, which justifies the extreme resort of intervention by the Governor-General.
I am not writing this lightly or with any knowledge of or involvement in any party's strategy. Nor do I think that most Canadians understand or perhaps even care about the complexities of the constitutional imbroglio that has unfolded since the opposition began defeating the government in the Commons last Wednesday. Canada this weekend has a government clinging to office against the repeatedly expressed wishes of a majority of the democratically elected members of the House. [. . .]
The defeat of the Martin government on Tuesday came on a procedural, not a confidence motion, but it was such a clear sign that a majority of the House of Commons do not support the government that virtually all constitutional experts are agreed that an immediate test of the House's confidence was required.
Instead of doing this, the government proposed a nine-day delay, offering reasons for the delay so transparently bogus as to affront the intelligence of a 10-year-old. [. . .]
Paul Martin had a constitutional and moral responsibility to ascertain the confidence of the House of Commons on Wednesday. When he failed in this responsibility he was thumbing his nose at the conventions of responsible government and modern democracy. His government continued to disregard their constitutional responsibilities on Thursday and yesterday, leaving a frustrated opposition to demonstrate its lack of confidence repeatedly by taking control of parliamentary affairs in one vote after another.
I don't think I need an update.
I know a Swedish couple who some years ago moved to Canada because of work opportunity. They have recently returned not being able to endure what they call liberal Stalinism. They, of course, didn’t return to Sweden – which by now is almost a perfect totalitarian state, but to Denmark, where the people still cling, however precariously, to the remnants of old freedom.
So, dear American friends; watch Europe, watch Canada and be scared, very scared.
Paul: I don't think I need an update.
So, rather than investigate for yourself the recorded facts, you are content to assume as fact partisan ranting? You know, if you're going to accuse a parliamentary democracy of having broken, it would help to be able to provide evidence that it, you know, actually has.
Stephen Harper got to bring forward his motions of non-confidence: both were voted on: the Liberal government survived by a whisker: your rant is non-factual.
Bunk.
The authority of Martin's government was broken, yet he refused to allow a vote on no-confidence for several days. During that time he managed to coax a Conservative into an act of petty treachery . . . then he allowed the vote.
Ah, facts from you at last.
Were you accustomed to Parliamentary democracy, you'd realise that the manoevers you describe do not constitute the apocalyptic collapse of democracy.
Martin appears to have kept within the rules - a delay does not constitute a refusal, and if he can persuade a Conservative to switch sides and vote Liberal, that is her right in a free democracy. (I believe that it's even the right in the US Senate for senators to choose to vote against their party's line.)
Now, perhaps you'd care to blast Frist for threatening to break all the rules and all the tradition of the US Senate in declaring that the filibuster is unconstitutional? That is a terrific threat to democracy as it is traditonally understood in the US, rendering the minority party perpetually powerless to block majority decisions - yet I don't believe you've ever condemned it outright, still less used the kind of blasting language you've used here.
Martin kept to the rules, with a little reasonably harmless fudging having no permanent effect.
Frist is threatening to break the rules if a handful of Bush's nominees don't get confirmed like all the rest.
Curious that you condemn Martin, yet ignore Frist.
Martin was obliged to call for a no-confidence vote and he simply didn't do it, thus breaking the rules. Frist threatened to change the rules, but never did.
Paul: Martin was obliged to call for a no-confidence vote and he simply didn't do it
Except that he did, as I have pointed out to you, and you have admitted yourself to be true. So he didn't break the rules.
Frist threatened to change the rules, but never did.
Frist threatened to break the rule that it requires a 67-majority in the Senate to change the Senate's rules. No explosion from you.
I like to think I'm second to none in my disgust at contemporary Canadian politics, but, love them as I do, I think Messrs Bliss, Warren et. al. are being a little fevered in their apocalytpic constitutional criticsms. Martin kept the confidence of the House. Gotta deal with it. That he delayed a few days to allow certain politicians to sell their votes for messes of pottage is disgusting, but I don't think it qualifies as a Reichstag torching.
However, they are bang on in railing against widespread electoral cynicism and a "boys will be boys" reaction among the chattering classes, not to mention fear-mongering against the Conservatives, who run and hide rather than confront it. The problem is a national secular mindest that not only completely marginalizes social conservatives but also seems to have undercut any notion of principle in politics. "They are all crooks, so as long as I get mine, I'm content" is the driving ethos. There is some hope, but a very long way to go.
OTOH, we are North American and it is simply wrong to lump us in with European statism or elitism. Think of us as a somewhat duller MA or Upper Left WA, because that's where a lot of our political inspiration comes from. (Do you think we are clever enough to think it up all by ourselves?) Australia and especially NZ would be better comparisons. Mr. Hanki's tale of the Swedish couple fleeing totalitarian Canada for freedom-loving Denmark is charming, and would make a great story for Conservative candidates to tell on the hustings, but really!
...tale of the Swedish couple fleeing totalitarian Canada for freedom-loving Denmark is charming, and would make a great story for Conservative candidates to tell on the hustings, but really!
I would consider suggesting to the Swedish couple joining the blog and contribute with their story if not that they are now going through difficult period due to wife’s serious illness.
Mr. Hanski:
I have the greatest respect for you and your posts, but the general point you are trying to make can't be made from the experience of one couple. Canada has problems a-plenty, but it can hardly be described as Stalinist, liberal or otherwise. We've got quite a ways to go before we catch up with Denmark on the 'ol progressive, statist, amoralism meter. But we seem to be trying.
Mr. Burnet,
…the general point you are trying to make can't be made from the experience of one couple.
You are absolutely right about that.
I can perhaps say in my defense that although it seemed like that, I was not trying to make a general point really. I sent my puny “comment” chiefly because the Swedish couple’s story confirmed so well what I know, or rather think I know, about Canada. But you are right; it was more a gossip than an argument. Not terribly smart of me to send it in.
…before we catch up with Denmark on the 'ol progressive, statist, amoralism meter…
I am not really sure I understand that.
Mr. Hanski:
I simply meant to distinguish between concern over the direction things are going with the exaggeration of where matters actually stand today. Despite healthcare, social liberalism and a smug tranzi mentality in international affairs, the country still ressembles the States far more than it does any European country, a reality I find tends to be resisted with equal vehemance by the Canadian left and American right. 
Mr. Burnet,
... the country still resembles the States far more than it does any European country,
When I think how little, and progressively less, the States resemble the States it may not be such a good reason for optimism.
Mr. Hanski:
If I were optimistic, would I be tracking and posting on Cella's Review?
Does Mr. Burnet imply that I am not a optimistic man?
Mr. Burnet,
Well, not an easy question to answer unambiguously with either Yes or No.
But I have modified your question slightly and asked myself: “If I were pessimist, would I be tracking and posting on Cella's Review?”
Most probably not; as doing so would not only be utterly pointless, but also painful. Does it mean that I am an optimist? Probably no more than you are.
I don’t want to propose that both you and I reside in that “grey area” between optimism and pessimism. “Grayness” doesn’t really dispel ambivalence, it only adds to it. We wouldn’t be happy with that.
I think the closest to the truth is that we have hope.
And having hope means relegating both optimism and pessimism to matters of secondary importance.
(hmmm, …I hope you buy that…)
Mr. Cella,
Your comment must have arrived immediately before I have posted mine.
As a matter of fact I wanted to open my reply with "I hope Mr. Cella misses your mail".
I would of course be joking...
Mr. Hanski:
A noble sentiment, eloquently expressed. I do indeed buy that.
Mr. Cella:
No sir. You are an antidote for pessimism.
I do indeed buy that
Sold to the gentleman wearing the maple leaf logo T-shirt!
Commenting by HaloScan
