"We live under the rule of law and only Parliament makes the law. How comfortable are you with someone who speaks against that?"

More comfortable than I am with a provincial government that doesn't uphold the rule of law.

That makes no sense in a split sovereign constitutional structure. Try again.

It occurs to me, then, that calling it not a matter of confidence would be wrong, too.

The members of the cabinet can say what they like, but if/when the bill passes and gets Royal Assent, they'll be bound by it. (And they know it.)

Their out, of course, would be to request that Parliament be dissolved and that we head into another election.

Suspect that's the end-game we're headed to.

I guess the level of comfort might vary with your distance from Caledonia.

While it does take a bit of gall for LIBERALS to suggest that there are constitutional rules after the Dumpling's bob and weave on confidence in the last Parliament, there is no question at all that upon receiving royal assent even the dumbest law passed by Parliament is, er, the law.

However, and I wonder if there is a Tory with the constitutional knowledge to argue this, the way I read the proposed bill the Government would have "to submit its plan for perusal within 60 days by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy."

The what!?

I can imagine that a Canadian Statute might require presentation of a plan to, er, Parliament or a Commission of that Parliament or even a Judicial Inquiry; but the "National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy". Pray which level of government is this? What is its constitutional status? Does it have the power to compel witnesses? Issue regulations? Call in the UN?

If the Tories are smart they will let the Bill sail through the House and Senate, rush it off for Royal Assent and, that day, pop into the SCC and suggest that it is entirely unconstitutional as it creates a novel fourth (or is it fifth) level of government well beyond the scope of even the most inebriated of the debates in Charlottetown.

Dicey is redlining in the cool dark earth.

And, while I have you on the line, how is that global warming thing working for you. Looks like fun in upstate New York.

Harper should submit a plan and say the CPC has no intention of voting for it. Gas at $2.50 - 4.00/litre, rationing for use of private recreational gas using vehicles (trikes, skidoos, private planes, etc). Ban the production of building non-hybrid vehicles inside of Canada. Ban SUV and trucks from non-commercial owners. Require all commercial fishing vessals be upgraded. Build 40 nukes in the next decade. Massively tax the use of second properties, such as cottages.

If this is how you set up your claim to majority, that government can ignore Parliament, good luck to ya. It's like the Dion ads - needy and arrogant at the same time.

That being said, split my income please!!!

Excellent. If a majority government banned gay marriage, or outlawed Catholism or something, I assume we'll look to you for the justification. No?

I suggest a one line amendment "replace "National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy" with "C.D.Howe Institute".

David, that's a sad argument. You know very well that all laws of the land are still subject to the Constitution and Charter of Rights. Neither of your scenarios would fly.

"Gas at $2.50 - 4.00/litre, rationing for use of private recreational gas using vehicles (trikes, skidoos, private planes, etc). Ban the production of building non-hybrid vehicles inside of Canada. Ban SUV and trucks from non-commercial owners. Require all commercial fishing vessals be upgraded. Build 40 nukes in the next decade. Massively tax the use of second properties, such as cottages."

Apart from the 40 nukes, I'm all for those proposals. We only need two nukes.

I forgot "massively tax trust funds and send the money to Russia to buy C02 credits" -- I'd love to see some those guys from the NDP to actually know what it is to have a job!

Al: isn't that what Jay's arguing. Yes, "ban Catholism" won't fly, but there's lots of laws that may or may not fly depending on what happens long after the law is passed. Bills don't got the the SCOC for assent.

Huh? What? I wasn't really paying attention.<p>Can't Parliament delegate a "perusal" - whatever that is - to Jerome the giraffe if it wants to? I don't see anything unconstitutional in that even if it is a bit wacky. Any collection of Jeromes can then report back to Parliament. Am I missing something?

Bob Tarantino has written a good piece of this law and its possible effects. Amusingly enough, it looks like Torstar and Rodriguez just kind of made up the "coup d’état" stuff to get the typical Torstar reader worked up about the fascist nightmare they wake up to every morning:

<blockquote>
<p>
It's a bit of spin by the Star, prompting Rodriguez to quail about a "coup d'etat" - if you read the article, though, even the Star is forced to admit that the Tories "did not explicitly say they would ignore the law", it's just taht some MPs have just called it "useless" and predicted that "their government’s fate was not bound to it", which is more of a political prediction than a proposal.
</blockquote>