Tuesday, May 10, 2005


Is it procedural or substantive? Hilariously, that actually sounds like a question for one of my Conflict of Laws tutorials (if procedural, apply the law of the forum; if substantive, apply the proper law of the dispute; etc..)

On its face, the motion seems procedural. Should any merit be given to the argument, put forward by Jay Hill and others, that it should nevertheless be taken as substantive? The Liberal Minority has effectively denied the CPC an opportunity to bring forward their desired motions by manipulating the traditional agenda of Opposition days in the House... and if a majority of MPs ultimately support "a recommendation that the government resign", you would think the Governor-General might be tempted to give the Prime Minister a call.

Most likely any talk of Constitutional crisis will be averted, however. [though it might be better to get it over with now before the Queen gets involved] The Conservatives will be quite happy to portray Martin as a Prime Minister who needed to be told 2 or 3 times to leave before he would give up power, while the Libs seem determined to bring the budget into the forefront. How I laugh to hear the Liberals trumpeting how wonderful this newly reworked left-wing budget truly is, as if Paul Martin wrote every word himself! The NDP strategists continue to win the day, sitting above the petty posturing of the two main parties continues to descend to ever-greater farcical levels.

Finishing up my last Conflicts tutorial this afternoon and then to a performance of Shakespeare play #11 of the year: The Winter's Tale. Looking forward to wading through the mess of news upon a late return tonight. In the mean time, check out the discussion at this Cherniak post as to the relative strategic implications of the coming days. Interesting times.


Blogger The Tiger said...

The joys of government by convention. :-)

The most important convention is, of course, "do what you can get away with, and set a new precedent".

12:22 PM  
Blogger The Observer said...

Historical precedent suggests that the motion is substantive. King resigned in 1926 rather than face a less clearly worded censure motion.

5:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home