Thank God

At first it was exciting. I was into it. I thought - Man, why didn't we do this two years ago?

Then, it came to me - what the fuck were we thinking? How can we simultaneously prop up our competition on the left - legitimizing them, while giving the competition on the right another kick at the "entitlement" debate. It was not very well thought out, to say the least.

There are two new ideas I have

1) There is a difference between being correct and being right.

2) What is the point of being right, if it costs you everything?

To quote from one of the best modern day philosophers, the Liberals "...were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." This would have come back and bit the Liberals on the ass harder than any T-rex could.

Admittedly, it has been both interesting and exciting. Forming the government right now might have been really good for Canada - I truly believe that. It would have definitely been really bad for Liberals. In a battle of historical examples, the people who consistently tell you why what they are doing is legal are often doing so because they can't justify why it is right.

In a Parliamentary Democracy where the constitutional powers of the Governor General are not defined, but were assumed over time - the only precedent that matters is the rule of law. That rule of law, sadly, is NOT based on precedent - the GG can prorogue if she wants to. The Prime Minister has to resign. Everyone keeps forgetting that. I don't know why.

Liberals are correct that in a Parliamentary Democracy the control of the House is rooted the confidence of this House. Liberals are correct that other countries survive with coalition governments. Though, I might argue that they survive despite them. They are also a little more 'used' to it then we are. Off the record, I am not so sure comparing us to Israel or Italy is a good idea.

The Prime Minister is right, if not correct, when he says nobody voted for this. Over the past years, eons, decades - our institutions and the conventions surrounding them have not been tested this way. In fact, the last precedent for this, in Ontario - led to the political demise of the person who led the newfangled coalition. They didn't get back to power for 15 years.

Great idea guys.

Regardless, the first reference case on unilateralism (1980) noted that while Mr. Trudeau *COULD* just go to London and amend the constitution, he really SHOULD NOT. He didn't have to test that power. Legally, both were correct. Morally, Trudeau used the threat of unilateralism to get what he wanted from 9 of 10.

That is what the coalition has accomplished. Or, so the government has said. We will see.

And then we have our most recent reference case on succession. The Court was very clear about a lot of things - but one of the areas where it was particularly focused was on the role that conventions play in our system. They change over time, based on the attitudes of our nation. In responding to the question - do conventions matter, the court said (and I am paraphrasing) they represent an important element of our law that is not codified. There are very important conventions on BOTH sides of this debate.

If you think Steve was hard to work with before when he was pretending he had a majority, wait until you see him in action when he has one. I admit, the atmosphere in Ottawa is poisoned as a result of the economic update. But, what would it have been like with serious moral questions about the legitimacy of the government from outside the beltway? I have spoken to very few people (real people, on the street) who think this was a good idea. I guess political leadership for me is understanding what the people want - and leading them to it.

Frankly, I am not so arrogant to ascribe intent to a vote. I know why I voted in the last election - and it had nothing to do with this. It won't change my vote - hell, we might even pick up a few along the way if we do a good job - but it wasn't what I was voting for. I was voting for an MP from Ottawa Centre. I wasn't voting for Prime Minister Dion. I daresay, that is NOT the way most other people voted. In fact, lots of people voted to give the green party $2.00.

I will say it clearly and loudly - I DO NOT BELIEVE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE VOTING FOR WHEN THEY VOTE. According to the court, we have to remain cognizant of that when we look to alter our federation. I agree, people need to learn more. Next time, when they vote, they will know what they are voting for - because Steve is going to tell them what a vote for the Liberals and NDP means. And they are going to believe him.

It is a million times worse in America. Trust me.

Do you honestly believe that a Prime Minister could disallow a provincial statute? Would that maybe drive Danny Williams (C - Almost) bonkers? Or a Quebec Premier? Well, legally, that power exists. Go ahead, try using it.

This isn't about forming a government. This isn't even about contrasting various precedents. This isn't even about what a doofus the Prime Minister has been over the last week. This is about understanding timing and delivery. We have clearly botched delivery from the get go. I don't even want to talk about the "Blair Witch Project" response we saw from Dion last night. Filmed in Osama Bin Laden's cave, no doubt.

If this had happened, the next 18 Months (or five months, depending on whose view of the coalition's real strength you believe) would have been attack after attack on the legitimacy of our Parliamentary Democracy. Led by a man who we know has had disdain for a lot of Canadian institutions. In fact, he wanted to reform them.

And, there wouldn't be a lot of people who could argue against him at the highest level. The coalition's leader is already quitting. The coalition's 2IC (NDP - Toronto Son of Tory) is not likely going to love the successor (L - Stole Christmas, gave it back). The coalition's crutch (BQ - Megatron, leader of the Duccepticons) is already figuring out how to undermine Marois after she gets whupped by Charest (L - Sherbrooke), who might also be looking forward to his next job (Right Hon. C - Sherbrooke, M.P., P.C.).

In other words, there is a lot of baggage with being associated with leading this coalition.

And don't even get me started about what this would mean in Quebec. On the one hand, Parizeau is right and the "disfunctionality" of confederation would be exposed. On the other hand, the same people Harper has been trying to win over will now hate him even more. The BQ will continue to participate in the "never-endum" of instability. Gong. Show.

Under the status quo, its legitimacy remains intact. A lever that existed before, and continues to exist, has been exercised on the advise of the political leadership on behalf of the sovereign. In fact, we have postponed the real question - and there is NOTHING wrong with that. In the interim, we have seen vicious attacks against Quebec, against people who believe in social justice. It is shameful that they are under attack. It speaks to the vile methodology of the Prime Minister. Sadly, it is resonating across the country. They will continue. As long as we aren't the ones attacking Canadians, we are in good shape I think.

When we are cast (pun intended) as those denying democracy, rightly or wrongly, we are going to lose that conversation no matter how correct we are. I get it - because I am a lawyer who understands constitutions and powers. I also know why OJ got off. People are still outraged because they think differently than I do. Their vote, however, is the same as ours.

And democracy is just organized mob rule (that was a double pun.)

Ultimately, we have two months to prove that we deserve to form government. We should take the 2005 Budget still on Ralph's (L - Saskatoon Cowboy) hard drive, dust it off, and present it to Parliament - with some tweaks here and there, of course. We need to demonstrate in clear terms we are ready to govern - not that just that we have the confidence of the House.

In that time, I suspect the sands will shift considerably, starting with the fact that the five month rule will suddenly only be three - assuming a quick transition. Still, the PM would ask the people for support. We would likely be the least popular government in history. And then we would get murdered.

Yes, the bully got his way. Our only option was to kill the bully and ourselves to stop him. That isn't a good idea because it sets the precedent that we have to live with the next time. And it might be us that has to live with it.

Yes, this time has also set a precedent. The PM can weasel out of a losing vote by asking for help from the GG. Until the next time, where the facts are distinguished from this situation. Politically, the PMs inability to gain the confidence of the House will be on HIS shirt, not ours.

Finally, we need to recreate our system to allow a new way to just punch the bully in the nose every so often. Having an established committee system that was permanent and allowed a true check on his power is a start. Maybe go so far as having our executive divorced from our legislature. That is a debate I want to be involved in.