Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Canada's House of Ill Repute
The National Post (via Andrew Coyne) ^ | May 14, 2005 | Michael Bliss

Posted on 05/14/2005 9:45:19 AM PDT by Allan

Canadians ought to realize that this week's breakdown of their Parliament is far more serious than any of the thuggish revelations from the Gomery commission. 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 of Commons.

In some countries at some times in their history, a situation like this would lead to citizens taking to the streets in protest. Instead, even those Canadians who notice the situation are content with the thought that it will probably only last until Thursday. Surely a few days of unconstitutionality can't matter.

But they do matter immensely, both for their immediate implications, and as precedent. 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. The British Columbia election has nothing whatever to do with the affairs of the Parliament of Canada. The visit of the Queen, a constitutional monarch whose activities are absolutely ceremonial and apolitical, cannot possibly in the 21st century take precedence over the need to resolve an impasse in our elected Parliament.

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. A government that has been shown to be unable to govern has stated that it will continue to stand in contempt of Parliament for the first three days of next week, but will finally face an explicit test of confidence on Thursday.

The problem with this strategy is that the unconstitutional delay in scheduling the vote of confidence saps it of its legitimacy. If the ministry, which is also manipulating all the levers of power every day it clings to office, wins the vote on Thursday the opposition will have every right to cry foul and continue to contest the government's legitimacy. It will almost certainly paralyze Parliament. At the very least the government's strategy is creating parliamentary bitterness and distrust such as we have never seen in the modern history of Canada. At worst, we are creating the kinds of precedents involving the erosion of our Constitution that in other countries have been initial steps on the road to dictatorship...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: adscam; canada; corruption; coup; dictatorship
The author, Michael Bliss, is a highly regarded Canadian historian.
1 posted on 05/14/2005 9:45:20 AM PDT by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Shermy; Mitchell; ARridgerunner

ping


2 posted on 05/14/2005 9:45:55 AM PDT by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allan

Hugo of the North (Chávez)


3 posted on 05/14/2005 9:54:07 AM PDT by Texaspeptoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allan
If the ministry, which is also manipulating all the levers of power every day it clings to office, wins the vote on Thursday the opposition will have every right to cry foul and continue to contest the government's legitimacy.

The Liberals in Canada are displaying the same kind of behavior as we are witnessing from the Democrats here in the States. These parties are totally self-absorbed and regard themselves as beyond the law, above even country.

There is only one cure for this kind of behavior. They need to be squashed. Like a bug.

4 posted on 05/14/2005 10:00:16 AM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01

No, they need to be voted out and kept out. It is a worse punishment.


5 posted on 05/14/2005 10:53:58 AM PDT by bookworm100
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: backhoe; fanfan; GMMAC; albertabound; Clive; goldstategop; Cicero; ConservativeStLouisGuy; ...

ping


6 posted on 05/14/2005 11:33:21 AM PDT by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allan; All
Crosslinked:

ADSCAM: Click the picture-


7 posted on 05/14/2005 11:38:40 AM PDT by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: backhoe; fanfan; Mitchell; Shermy; ARridgerunner
From Andrew Coyne's Website
the best site to follow what really is happening in Canadian 'politics'.

The real Adscam mystery

Where did they get the cash? Not the money -- we know where they got that. They got it from us: millions and millions and millions of dollars of public funds, awarded in secret, without tenders, invoices, or documentation of any kind, to a clutch of well-connected firms that did no work in return except to funnel a percentage of it back to the ruling party, by a combination of donations (legal) and kickbacks (illegal), or by employing Liberal “volunteers” to do party work. The total amount of public money siphoned into Liberal coffers by such means may never be known, but it is certainly in the millions: Jean Brault’s services alone are estimated to have been worth over $2-million.

That much is known. But we enter uncharted waters as we learn how this pelf was distributed: in cash. At first it was just a colourful footnote: $5,000 left on a restaurant table here, $10,000 stuffed in an envelope there, while talking of the Choo Choo Man and White Head. But as the days passed and the testimony progressed, we learned that these were not isolated transactions by fringe characters: cash was, it seems, the preferred medium of exchange of the Liberal Party of Canada, including senior members of the party hierarchy. Two former executive directors of the Liberals’ Quebec wing have now testified to giving or receiving great big wads of cash, in amounts that stagger the imagination: not just envelopes but suitcases full, as much as $200,000 at one go. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars were allegedly distributed in this way, to dozens of people -- that we know about.

We know why they did this: to escape detection. What’s not clear is how. Where does anyone get their hands on $200,000 in cash? You can’t just walk into a bank and cash a cheque for $200 grand, in small bills please, unmarked, and be sure to scramble the serial numbers, won’t you? Even if you make a lot of little withdrawals, there are bound to be questions asked. There are laws about these things. To scrape together that kind of cash without attracting attention, you have to draw from a large number of separate and unrelated sources, and do so in a way that does not leave a paper trail of its own. Or you have to know the kind of people who can do that for you.

As crooked as they seem to be, I somehow doubt that even Liberal party executives possess those kinds of skills. The picture of Marc-Yvan Côté -- a former provincial cabinet minister -- nervously spending the night with a suitcase stuffed with hundred-dollar bills before handing them out to candidates at a campaign rally in Jean Chretien’s riding is more comic than sinister. Likewise, I doubt Jacques Corriveau, cultured man that he is, would have been taught at the choir recitals and art openings he frequents how to convert the millions he received in federal contracts into the massive sums of cash he is alleged to have distributed. So I can only conclude that they outsourced the job. But to whom? Who has that sort of expertise? Who does business that way?

But enough of that. Here’s another, entirely unrelated question: Why was Daniel Dezainde so deathly afraid of Joe Morselli? Mr. Dezainde is the former head of the Liberal Party in Quebec who testified he was told Mr. Morselli, to whom he was introduced shortly after taking the job, was “the real boss” of the party, and that whatever he did, he should not cross him. Sometime later, having had the temerity to do just that, he found out why: though the precise wording of Mr. Morselli’s alleged threat -- “I declare war on you” -- is susceptible to various interpretations, the meaning Mr. Dezainde took from it was enough to persuade him to go over his life insurance, phone several friends advising them what to do “if anything happens to me” -- and to seek RCMP protection before he gave evidence. Just the memory of it, years after the fact, caused him to break down on the witness stand. I have it on good authority that Mr. Dezainde, a veteran of Liberal party politics, is not a man of faint constitution.

Yet Mr. Morselli, an unimposing man who is, at a guess, in his sixties, would seem to present a less-than-threatening figure. How did Mr. Dezainde imagine he could threaten his life? Why did he make jokes with a co-worker about who should be the first to start their car? It can’t have had anything to do with that incident in 1989 when Mr. Morselli’s car exploded in his Montreal driveway. After all, Mr. Morselli was the intended target of that attack, not the assailant. Could have happened to anybody.But enough of that. Here’s another, entirely unrelated question: Did anyone ever follow up on this story, of which I was lately reminded, from the Ottawa Citizen of September 8, 2000:

“Organized crime mobs are targeting Parliament and other Canadian institutions in an attempt to spread corruption and political instability, says the new head of the RCMP.
During a remarkably candid news conference, Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli said yesterday that criminal groups are focusing on Parliament, the courts and other institutions with the aim of "destabilizing" the political system.


8 posted on 05/14/2005 12:00:04 PM PDT by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Allan; GMMAC; Pikamax; Former Proud Canadian; Great Dane; Alberta's Child; headsonpikes; ...
PING

Please let me know if you want on or off the Canada/Adscam ping list

Click on the link for details on the Monday rally

Take Back The Hill

9 posted on 05/14/2005 12:34:01 PM PDT by fanfan (" The liberal party is not corrupt " Prime Minister Paul Martin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fanfan
Well, I guess since Canada is in the process of turning into a banana republic, the traditional question must be asked: Who will the army follow? A little far fetched at this stage, but the liberals are already trying to capitalize on the incapacity or death of conservative MP's. Once a government starts thinking that such means are justified to stay in power, it is only a matter of how many steps they need to take.
10 posted on 05/14/2005 1:23:15 PM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Truth29
Who will the army follow?
The Queen, perhaps?
A little far fetched at this stage, but the liberals are already trying to capitalize on the incapacity or death of conservative MP's. Once a government starts thinking that such means are justified to stay in power, it is only a matter of how many steps they need to take.
It's fairly farfetched, I hope - because precisely the loyalty of the army could scarcely be taken for granted by a leftist government which has no more affinity for the military than our Democratic Party does. Which lack of affinity, frankly, was a signal reassurance to me when the 2000 election approached and the thought ocurred that x42 had by then flouted so many laws and traditions that one would have to wonder about his leaving office of his own volition.

But I think that even if the army were reliable it is, with special thanks to the current governing party in no small measure, not big enough for the job. The Canadian government could not readily sustain itself in the face of lack of pollitical legitimacy in both London and Washington. Canada could in such case simply fracture, with provinces either choosing independence or (if seriously threatened) asking for Statehood or Puerto Rico-like Commonwealth status.


11 posted on 05/14/2005 1:45:45 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Allan
I've never seen a Canadian ministry attempt to remain in office after the House withdrew its support. The Paul Martin Liberals have established a new precedent.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
12 posted on 05/14/2005 1:50:26 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allan
Great post...nothing like a no nonsense article about just how badly the politics and politicians of canuckland have ignominiously deteriorated....power breeds contempt and insanity...this ignorant colonist from the west colonies says Mr. Dithers is living proof of that assertion ..EH!!
13 posted on 05/14/2005 1:51:07 PM PDT by bc boy (socialists are on suicide watch in canuckland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I've never seen a Canadian ministry attempt to remain in office after the House withdrew its support.

Not just Canada.
This is a new first for a 'Westminster style' parliament.

14 posted on 05/14/2005 2:08:31 PM PDT by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Truth29
Well, I guess since Canada is in the process of turning into a banana republic, the traditional question must be asked: Who will the army follow?

During the '95 referendum some of us worried about exactly that.

15 posted on 05/14/2005 4:47:31 PM PDT by fanfan (" The liberal party is not corrupt " Prime Minister Paul Martin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

What happens when Alberta or Quebec declare independance? Will they fight, and if so how?


16 posted on 05/14/2005 5:35:57 PM PDT by rasblue (What would Barry Goldwater do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rasblue
Will they fight, and if so how?

A Canadian fight? Are you kidding?

17 posted on 05/14/2005 5:37:22 PM PDT by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Allan

Oh I forgot, Canadians aren't maure enough to stand up for themselves in a constructive manner. My bad.


18 posted on 05/15/2005 4:58:05 PM PDT by rasblue (What would Barry Goldwater do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson