Can Justin Trudeau be Removed?


B00Mer
No Party Affiliation
#1
Can Justin Trudeau be Removed?



The Question is Difficult



Our Constitution

When Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre Elliot Trudeau repatriated the Constitution of Canada in 1982 he created many impasses to progress. In failed attempts to create a made in Canada Constitution, Pierre Trudeau held numerous discussions throughout 1981 with the provinces with a goal to find consensus It was apparently that the new Constitution had gaps and flaws.

By 1982, Trudeau lost patience with much larger personalities than his own in the form of provincial leaders and took a poorly calculated risk in crafting a flawed constitution without full participating of the provinces. The British North America Act (BNA) of1867 was about to become the proverbial “fly in the ointment. The BNA had intentionally defined Canada with most meaningful powers handed to the individual provinces and certain specific powers delineated to the central (or Federal) government.

History would show that Pierre Trudeau was an admirer of the type of strong central power model only found in republics (and/or dictatorships). His (Trudeau’s ) zeal for unimpeded power led to a legacy of discord between various provinces and his Ottawa parliament. Simply put; the provinces having been in control of various issues were not about to hand over power to Trudeau.

There remained mistrust in Pierre Trudeau that lingered since 1970 when he invoked the War Measures Act to quell a situation in Quebec. In truth, the rise of insurrection in Quebec and the evolution of the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) were directly the result of Trudeau’s unwillingness and inability to negotiate a lingering number of language based issues that had fermented inside Quebec during Trudeau’s reign as Prime Minister. His strong arm action by placing an entire country under martial law (the War Measures Act, October 1982) made many of us uneasy and even more distrustful of Trudeau – th4e man and Trudeau the Prime Minister, self proclaimed to be an advocate of Machiavelli and an advocate of dictatorial power. His infamous “Just watch me” comments while unleashing martial law were sinister.

Little wonder that the various provincial premiers of the day vested sufficient trust in Pierre Trudeau to create a truly pan-Canadian Constitution for Canada. Thus, we were left with a flawed Constitution and a growing list of unresolved federal/provincial differences.

Within five scant years, in 1987 after the voters had shown the door to Trudeau and a new government was running the show in Ottawa, an attempt by way of extensive federal/provincial negotiations to amended and modify Trudeau’s 1982 Constitution was made. How badly was the 1982 Constitution flawed? Let’s begin with the fact that it had NEVER been ratified by all the Canadian provinces. Even now, Quebec has never ratified the Act as a result of still lingering disputes about language rights.

The Meech Lake fiasco (1987) failed and in the middle of those opposing Constitutional modifications was none other than (now) former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Although no longer a valid participant, he skulked around the perimeter of meetings where he fermented discontent to anyone who would listen. His presence reminded me of a vulture or a withered old relic attempting to hang onto fleeting fame.

Interestingly, there is not one single mention of the words, Prime Minister in the Constitution of 1982. Nor is there any mention of exactly how a country could rid itself of an unfit Prime Minister.

We do now elect Prime Ministers. A Prime Minister is the same as any other member of parliament with one single difference. A Prime Minister becomes prime minister once select by members of his/her political party to become party leader.

AND, I chose the word “selected” advisedly since there was more than a little gimmickry and gerrymandering inside the Liberal Party leading up to the selection of Justin Trudeau as party leader in 2013. To begin with, the tampering of voting rules permitted Justin to actually use votes from non-party members to attain power. It should be noted that the Liberals were destitute and void of potential as the aftermath of their previous scandals lingered.

Background

Justin Trudeau’s Liberals rose to power by way of an overwhelming Liberal sweep of parliamentary seats in the election on October 20, 2015. The Liberals had taken 184 of the 338 seats in parliament. An interesting fact lives with the numbers. 68.5% of eligible voters cast ballots. Of that group, 40% voted for a Liberal candidate in the various 338 ridings. By simple calculation, Justin Trudeau had achieved absolute power of a G9 country with only 27% support from the voters (that is 40% of 68.5%). He promised real change and during his first three months, he has exhibited two similarities to his Liberal predecessors. Like his father, Justin has displayed a callous contempt for parliament. He has sat in parliament for a scant 5 days and yet amassed over $3.0 billion in expenses- none debated in parliament nor approved in senate. Additionally, like his scandal plagued predecessors (Chretien and Martin) he has played loose with rules and displayed a penchant to indulge himself at tax payers’ expense (nannies, European junkets with his entourage and use of tax money to vacation in millionaire resorts in the Caribbean.

It leads to an intriguing question: how would Canada be able to rid itself of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau?

Impeachment

It is correct to say that any member of parliament can be impeached by parliament. Given the fact that Justin Trudeau’s party holds 184 of 338 seats in parliament that option is extremely unlikely. The 154 opposition members lack the numbers to toss him out. For impeachment to occur, it would require that Cabinet would likely need to decide that he (Trudeau) was an embarrassment and mount a vote among themselves to oust him. That is unlikely since Trudeau has populated his Cabinet with lackeys and toadies who will tow the mark.

How about the Governor General?

The Governor General (GG) is the Queen’s vice-regal designate in Canada. The GG is appointed by the Queen on recommendation of the Prime Minister. Despite the fact that the present GG was appointed on recommendation of the former (Harper) government, the role to GG is largely ceremonial. In theory, the Vice Regal possesses power to act to ensure peace, order and good government, the ensuing media issues alone would be sufficient to dissuade David Johnson’s term in office as Governor General had been extended until September 2017 as a result of instability (minority government) in 2010.

While His Excellency, Governor General Johnson serves in a more or less ceremonial role, as lawyer he is knowledgeable enough as to not permit himself to be pushed by petitions into making history. For the GG to formally request Justin Trudeau’s resignation would be historically significant. At no other time in Canadian history has a Prime Minister been forced from office.

How About the Queen?

For many of the same reasons, the Monarch of Canada (HRH Queen Elizabeth II) would be loath to take such actions. It is correct to say that responsibility for peace order and good government rests with the Queen, there again would be historical precedent to consider.

Public Will

The present Prime Minister achieved office by way of support from only 27% (see above) of the wishes of Canadians who actually voted for him and his Liberal colleagues. Given the love-affair that “corporate media (newspapers, broadcasters etc), there is little hope that the media would see any fault with Justin Trudeau and ferment discussion about his misdeeds. Alas, the media has long ago abandoned objectivity and to a large extent were cheerleaders to his rise to power.

Conscience?

The term conscience may have an entirely different meaning in the prototypical Trudeau mind. There are more than enough glimpses of a certain grandiose sense of entitlement residing behind Justin Trudeau’s eyes.

By way of spin and fable, the myth of Pierre Trudeau’s regime have become distorted by history. Those of us who are old enough to recall Trudeau senior (Pierre) saw him for what he was – an egotistical buffoon who believed himself to be wiser than the mere serfs he reigned over.

Suspicion is that Justin Trudeau believes that he is of Canadian royal lineage and, as such is entitled to the fruits of war by way of his election. I personally hold no hope that Justin Trudeau will see fault in himself. The tale of Paul (Bible, Acts 26) and his journey to Damascus and the lighting strike that changed his point of view are not likely to happen with any Trudeau.

So what is left?

Time?

The most obvious answer to this question is time. Three years, 9 months and 10 days is a great deal more pleasant sounding than the raw number = 1,379 days. At that point in time, Canada will again vote. The ensuing period will certainly not be boring and we are all likely to see entirely new chapters written in Canada’s book of scandals. It should be interesting.

source: https://thunderbirdrising.wordpress....au-be-removed/
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#2
Probably pretty fast if he was to rob a bank or murder someone!
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#3
I saved that to my must read file. It looks interesting, how come you have it?
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
+2
#4
All it takes is a simple non-confidence vote in the House of Commons.

No sweat.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

All it takes is a simple non-confidence vote in the House of Commons.

No sweat.

Might be pretty tough with a strong majority gov't. methinks!
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+1
#6
Look we don't want to have another election. I think Treudeau is great man ,he can sell alot of T shirts.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Might be pretty tough with a strong majority gov't. methinks!

Details, details!
 
davesmom
+1
#8
There's a more than good chance that Trudeau will do himself in by the time his four years are up.
He's a typical Liberal with only three courses of action; . Make promises, spend money and blame the previous government.
After four years of his dithering and inconsequential changes, broken promises and several billions of dollars (and growing) deficit, people will almost certainly have had enough.
Those who voted for him on promises he made that were impossible to keep right from the start will have lost hope and confidence.
Hopefully in four years we'll be seeing, 'Anybody but Trudeau' signs throughout the country. The damage he does in the meantime is regrettable but can't be avoided.
 
Remington1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

Can Justin Trudeau be Removed?



The Question is Difficult



Our Constitution

When Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre Elliot Trudeau repatriated the Constitution of Canada in 1982 he created many impasses to progress. In failed attempts to create a made in Canada Constitution, Pierre Trudeau held numerous discussions throughout 1981 with the provinces with a goal to find consensus It was apparently that the new Constitution had gaps and flaws.

By 1982, Trudeau lost patience with much larger personalities than his own in the form of provincial leaders and took a poorly calculated risk in crafting a flawed constitution without full participating of the provinces. The British North America Act (BNA) of1867 was about to become the proverbial “fly in the ointment. The BNA had intentionally defined Canada with most meaningful powers handed to the individual provinces and certain specific powers delineated to the central (or Federal) government.

History would show that Pierre Trudeau was an admirer of the type of strong central power model only found in republics (and/or dictatorships). His (Trudeau’s ) zeal for unimpeded power led to a legacy of discord between various provinces and his Ottawa parliament. Simply put; the provinces having been in control of various issues were not about to hand over power to Trudeau.

There remained mistrust in Pierre Trudeau that lingered since 1970 when he invoked the War Measures Act to quell a situation in Quebec. In truth, the rise of insurrection in Quebec and the evolution of the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) were directly the result of Trudeau’s unwillingness and inability to negotiate a lingering number of language based issues that had fermented inside Quebec during Trudeau’s reign as Prime Minister. His strong arm action by placing an entire country under martial law (the War Measures Act, October 1982) made many of us uneasy and even more distrustful of Trudeau – th4e man and Trudeau the Prime Minister, self proclaimed to be an advocate of Machiavelli and an advocate of dictatorial power. His infamous “Just watch me” comments while unleashing martial law were sinister.

Little wonder that the various provincial premiers of the day vested sufficient trust in Pierre Trudeau to create a truly pan-Canadian Constitution for Canada. Thus, we were left with a flawed Constitution and a growing list of unresolved federal/provincial differences.

Within five scant years, in 1987 after the voters had shown the door to Trudeau and a new government was running the show in Ottawa, an attempt by way of extensive federal/provincial negotiations to amended and modify Trudeau’s 1982 Constitution was made. How badly was the 1982 Constitution flawed? Let’s begin with the fact that it had NEVER been ratified by all the Canadian provinces. Even now, Quebec has never ratified the Act as a result of still lingering disputes about language rights.

The Meech Lake fiasco (1987) failed and in the middle of those opposing Constitutional modifications was none other than (now) former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Although no longer a valid participant, he skulked around the perimeter of meetings where he fermented discontent to anyone who would listen. His presence reminded me of a vulture or a withered old relic attempting to hang onto fleeting fame.

Interestingly, there is not one single mention of the words, Prime Minister in the Constitution of 1982. Nor is there any mention of exactly how a country could rid itself of an unfit Prime Minister.

We do now elect Prime Ministers. A Prime Minister is the same as any other member of parliament with one single difference. A Prime Minister becomes prime minister once select by members of his/her political party to become party leader.

AND, I chose the word “selected” advisedly since there was more than a little gimmickry and gerrymandering inside the Liberal Party leading up to the selection of Justin Trudeau as party leader in 2013. To begin with, the tampering of voting rules permitted Justin to actually use votes from non-party members to attain power. It should be noted that the Liberals were destitute and void of potential as the aftermath of their previous scandals lingered.

Background

Justin Trudeau’s Liberals rose to power by way of an overwhelming Liberal sweep of parliamentary seats in the election on October 20, 2015. The Liberals had taken 184 of the 338 seats in parliament. An interesting fact lives with the numbers. 68.5% of eligible voters cast ballots. Of that group, 40% voted for a Liberal candidate in the various 338 ridings. By simple calculation, Justin Trudeau had achieved absolute power of a G9 country with only 27% support from the voters (that is 40% of 68.5%). He promised real change and during his first three months, he has exhibited two similarities to his Liberal predecessors. Like his father, Justin has displayed a callous contempt for parliament. He has sat in parliament for a scant 5 days and yet amassed over $3.0 billion in expenses- none debated in parliament nor approved in senate. Additionally, like his scandal plagued predecessors (Chretien and Martin) he has played loose with rules and displayed a penchant to indulge himself at tax payers’ expense (nannies, European junkets with his entourage and use of tax money to vacation in millionaire resorts in the Caribbean.

It leads to an intriguing question: how would Canada be able to rid itself of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau?

Impeachment

It is correct to say that any member of parliament can be impeached by parliament. Given the fact that Justin Trudeau’s party holds 184 of 338 seats in parliament that option is extremely unlikely. The 154 opposition members lack the numbers to toss him out. For impeachment to occur, it would require that Cabinet would likely need to decide that he (Trudeau) was an embarrassment and mount a vote among themselves to oust him. That is unlikely since Trudeau has populated his Cabinet with lackeys and toadies who will tow the mark.

How about the Governor General?

The Governor General (GG) is the Queen’s vice-regal designate in Canada. The GG is appointed by the Queen on recommendation of the Prime Minister. Despite the fact that the present GG was appointed on recommendation of the former (Harper) government, the role to GG is largely ceremonial. In theory, the Vice Regal possesses power to act to ensure peace, order and good government, the ensuing media issues alone would be sufficient to dissuade David Johnson’s term in office as Governor General had been extended until September 2017 as a result of instability (minority government) in 2010.

While His Excellency, Governor General Johnson serves in a more or less ceremonial role, as lawyer he is knowledgeable enough as to not permit himself to be pushed by petitions into making history. For the GG to formally request Justin Trudeau’s resignation would be historically significant. At no other time in Canadian history has a Prime Minister been forced from office.

How About the Queen?

For many of the same reasons, the Monarch of Canada (HRH Queen Elizabeth II) would be loath to take such actions. It is correct to say that responsibility for peace order and good government rests with the Queen, there again would be historical precedent to consider.

Public Will

The present Prime Minister achieved office by way of support from only 27% (see above) of the wishes of Canadians who actually voted for him and his Liberal colleagues. Given the love-affair that “corporate media (newspapers, broadcasters etc), there is little hope that the media would see any fault with Justin Trudeau and ferment discussion about his misdeeds. Alas, the media has long ago abandoned objectivity and to a large extent were cheerleaders to his rise to power.

Conscience?

The term conscience may have an entirely different meaning in the prototypical Trudeau mind. There are more than enough glimpses of a certain grandiose sense of entitlement residing behind Justin Trudeau’s eyes.

By way of spin and fable, the myth of Pierre Trudeau’s regime have become distorted by history. Those of us who are old enough to recall Trudeau senior (Pierre) saw him for what he was – an egotistical buffoon who believed himself to be wiser than the mere serfs he reigned over.

Suspicion is that Justin Trudeau believes that he is of Canadian royal lineage and, as such is entitled to the fruits of war by way of his election. I personally hold no hope that Justin Trudeau will see fault in himself. The tale of Paul (Bible, Acts 26) and his journey to Damascus and the lighting strike that changed his point of view are not likely to happen with any Trudeau.

So what is left?

Time?

The most obvious answer to this question is time. Three years, 9 months and 10 days is a great deal more pleasant sounding than the raw number = 1,379 days. At that point in time, Canada will again vote. The ensuing period will certainly not be boring and we are all likely to see entirely new chapters written in Canada’s book of scandals. It should be interesting.

source: https://thunderbirdrising.wordpress....au-be-removed/

If this is true, yes:
FEBRUARY 08, 2016
EXCLUSIVE: Liberals plan to build refugee camps on seven Canadian military bases -- Taxpayers will fund mosques, Korans
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#10
It's a complex issue, one must pretend the displasments have nothing to do with your bombing

In Canada we only have two bombs
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by davesmom View Post

There's a more than good chance that Trudeau will do himself in by the time his four years are up.
He's a typical Liberal with only three courses of action; . Make promises, spend money and blame the previous government.
After four years of his dithering and inconsequential changes, broken promises and several billions of dollars (and growing) deficit, people will almost certainly have had enough.
Those who voted for him on promises he made that were impossible to keep right from the start will have lost hope and confidence.
Hopefully in four years we'll be seeing, 'Anybody but Trudeau' signs throughout the country. The damage he does in the meantime is regrettable but can't be avoided.


Actually, I hope to hell you are wrong but I'm fairly sure you will be right! Not funny!
 
gerryh
+4
#12  Top Rated Post
More whining from the butt hurt crowed.


What was harpers popular vote when he won a majority?
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

By 1982, Trudeau lost patience with much larger personalities than his own in the form of provincial leaders and took a poorly calculated risk in crafting a flawed constitution without full participating of the provinces. The British North America Act (BNA) of 1867 was about to become the proverbial "fly in the ointment." The BNA had intentionally defined Canada with most meaningful powers handed to the individual provinces and certain specific powers delineated to the central (or Federal) government.

Ooh, I see we have some issues with creatively rewriting history here.

The British North America Act, 1867, in fact, was crafted with the opposite intention. It was crafted to create a stronger federal government, in contrast to what the Fathers of Confederation saw as the problematic division of powers between federal and state governments in the United States of America. The Act set out a few powers for the provinces, but reserved all else for the federal level.

In fact, the Canadian courts upheld this understanding for several years (i.e., that Canada was to have a strong central government, at the expense of weaker provinces). The most substantial decisions against the federal government in constitutional disputes were not the decisions of Canadian courts but, rather, on appeal to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council.

Despite that gradual erosion of federal authority, there are several constitutional doctrines that persist to this day. For example, the doctrine of federal paramountcy states that where there is a conflict between a federal and a provincial law, the provincial law is inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency (Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen). Any erosion of the authority of the federal legislature since that time is a continuation of the dialogue started by the United Kingdom's privy council.

Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

Within five scant years, in 1987 after the voters had shown the door to Trudeau and a new government was running the show in Ottawa, an attempt by way of extensive federal/provincial negotiations to amended and modify Trudeau’s 1982 Constitution was made. How badly was the 1982 Constitution flawed? Let’s begin with the fact that it had NEVER been ratified by all the Canadian provinces. Even now, Quebec has never ratified the Act as a result of still lingering disputes about language rights.

Well, that's because Québec was not required to ratify the constitution.

The government, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, P.C., C.C., C.H., Q.C., F.R.S.C., made a good call by having discussions and consultations with the provinces, and it is of course fortunate that most of the provinces agreed to the final text of the repatriated constitution. It is, of course, unfortunate that Québec opted not to "sign on," but that does not in any way whatsoever impact the validity or the legitimacy of the new Act.

In fact, the constitutional authority for the passage of the Act did not in fact rest within Canada at all, at the time (never mind the provinces). The actual legislative home of the Constitution Act, 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is as an appendix to the Canada Act, 1982, an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was passed with the consent of our own federal legislature of course, as the constitutional amending formula at the time required, but it did not require provincial consent to be valid.

Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

Interestingly, there is not one single mention of the words, Prime Minister in the Constitution of 1982. Nor is there any mention of exactly how a country could rid itself of an unfit Prime Minister.

We do now elect Prime Ministers. A Prime Minister is the same as any other member of parliament with one single difference. A Prime Minister becomes prime minister once select by members of his/her political party to become party leader.

That is some pretty fantastic wordsmith acrobatics.

We do not elect the prime minister. Voters in the electoral district of Papineau, in Québec, elected a member to represent them in the House of Commons, and that member happened to be the Right Hon. Justin Trudeau, P.C., M.P. He was not prime minister when he was elected; and, in fact, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P. (Calgary Heritage) stayed on as prime minister for several days.

Mr. Trudeau was not appointed until several days later, and that appointment was made by His Excellency the Right Hon. David Johnston, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., as he was the person who appeared best able to command a majority of votes in the House of Commons, per our system of responsible government. Obviously the choice was an easy one, since the Liberals received a majority of seats in the House.

However, this has not always been the case. We have had prime ministers come from the second-place party, and who have lasted and held the confidence of the House for several months; we have even had prime ministers who have not held an elected seat at all, and who have governed instead from a seat in the Senate. Our system of Westminster parliamentary democracy, within a constitutional monarchy, is not nearly as neatly laid-out as it would politically convenient for you to have folks believe.

Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

Justin Trudeau’s Liberals rose to power by way of an overwhelming Liberal sweep of parliamentary seats in the election on October 20, 2015. The Liberals had taken 184 of the 338 seats in parliament. An interesting fact lives with the numbers. 68.5% of eligible voters cast ballots. Of that group, 40% voted for a Liberal candidate in the various 338 ridings. By simple calculation, Justin Trudeau had achieved absolute power of a G9 country with only 27% support from the voters (that is 40% of 68.5%). He promised real change and during his first three months, he has exhibited two similarities to his Liberal predecessors. Like his father, Justin has displayed a callous contempt for parliament. He has sat in parliament for a scant 5 days and yet amassed over $3.0 billion in expenses- none debated in parliament nor approved in senate. Additionally, like his scandal plagued predecessors (Chretien and Martin) he has played loose with rules and displayed a penchant to indulge himself at tax payers’ expense (nannies, European junkets with his entourage and use of tax money to vacation in millionaire resorts in the Caribbean.

This is laughable.

This government has treated Parliament with more respect that any number of Mr. Trudeau's predecessors (and I am including former Liberal prime ministers among those). The government has proposed the creation of prime minister's question time, to enable the House to hold the prime minister more accountable; they have overhauled how committees function, including calling for committees to elect their own chairs by secret ballot, and they have rolled back the roles of parliamentary secretaries, to make committees more independent.

The rhetoric from this article is just sensational, and is patently false.

Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

Impeachment

It is correct to say that any member of parliament can be impeached by parliament. Given the fact that Justin Trudeau’s party holds 184 of 338 seats in parliament that option is extremely unlikely. The 154 opposition members lack the numbers to toss him out. For impeachment to occur, it would require that Cabinet would likely need to decide that he (Trudeau) was an embarrassment and mount a vote among themselves to oust him. That is unlikely since Trudeau has populated his Cabinet with lackeys and toadies who will tow the mark.

Well, sort of.

The House of Commons, because it inherited a set of powers "similar to that in principle" to its counterpart in the United Kingdom, does in fact have the authority, by a majority vote, to remove one of its own members. However, the power to remove members is a disciplinary power of the House in the regulation of its own affairs as the legislative branch of government, and this cannot be used as a weapon against the executive branch.

If the House adopted a resolution to remove Mr. Trudeau, the House would only have the authority to remove him as one of the House's members. He would still be prime minister after he had been removed from the House. It would obviously be a messy situation, as in modern times a prime minister who loses their seat is expected to very shortly seek successful re-election to the House, but that is a separate constitutional question.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

More whining from the butt hurt crowed.


What was harpers popular vote when he won a majority?


Doesn't really matter as long as it's higher than any of the other contestants! To be realistic when you are competing in a system where there can be 12 parties or more running getting as much as 40% is a pretty respectable showing!
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#15
Actually look at the political horizon trouble brewing for many. Remember when campaigns
ran to get the young out to vote? Nothing worked for decades now they are becoming the
empowered and they are supporting people like Bernie in the States at least for now.
In Canada the young I talk to are going Liberal in droves Tories and NDP being pushed aside.
What do they want?

cheap education without working two or three jobs.
Clean energy less dependence on oil and coal
They want more say about what happens in the workplace
More taxes on the rich (they are not rich yet)
They want churches and other in some words other parasites to pay taxes
They want the companies paying their share
They want real food and NO GMO (science is not the issue they don't like GMO
They want election reform (end first past the post)
Legalized pot
A lower voting age
and not being involved in military actions anywhere

Do I agree not in some cases but the fact is they don't want any government like Harpers
and they were not fussy on Mulcair they want youth and a leader in their image and they
intend to keep him around.
Personally until recently I didn't like him at all but I know one thing he ain't Harper and
that right now is good enough for me
The list goes on and there will soon be more of them than there is of us

As for many I speak too they love Trudeau and he will soon be their political and spiritual leader as well.
 
personal touch
Bloc Québécois
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

Can Justin Trudeau be Removed?



The Question is Difficult



Our Constitution

When Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre Elliot Trudeau repatriated the Constitution of Canada in 1982 he created many impasses to progress. In failed attempts to create a made in Canada Constitution, Pierre Trudeau held numerous discussions throughout 1981 with the provinces with a goal to find consensus It was apparently that the new Constitution had gaps and flaws.

By 1982, Trudeau lost patience with much larger personalities than his own in the form of provincial leaders and took a poorly calculated risk in crafting a flawed constitution without full participating of the provinces. The British North America Act (BNA) of1867 was about to become the proverbial “fly in the ointment. The BNA had intentionally defined Canada with most meaningful powers handed to the individual provinces and certain specific powers delineated to the central (or Federal) government.

History would show that Pierre Trudeau was an admirer of the type of strong central power model only found in republics (and/or dictatorships). His (Trudeau’s ) zeal for unimpeded power led to a legacy of discord between various provinces and his Ottawa parliament. Simply put; the provinces having been in control of various issues were not about to hand over power to Trudeau.

There remained mistrust in Pierre Trudeau that lingered since 1970 when he invoked the War Measures Act to quell a situation in Quebec. In truth, the rise of insurrection in Quebec and the evolution of the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) were directly the result of Trudeau’s unwillingness and inability to negotiate a lingering number of language based issues that had fermented inside Quebec during Trudeau’s reign as Prime Minister. His strong arm action by placing an entire country under martial law (the War Measures Act, October 1982) made many of us uneasy and even more distrustful of Trudeau – th4e man and Trudeau the Prime Minister, self proclaimed to be an advocate of Machiavelli and an advocate of dictatorial power. His infamous “Just watch me” comments while unleashing martial law were sinister.

Little wonder that the various provincial premiers of the day vested sufficient trust in Pierre Trudeau to create a truly pan-Canadian Constitution for Canada. Thus, we were left with a flawed Constitution and a growing list of unresolved federal/provincial differences.

Within five scant years, in 1987 after the voters had shown the door to Trudeau and a new government was running the show in Ottawa, an attempt by way of extensive federal/provincial negotiations to amended and modify Trudeau’s 1982 Constitution was made. How badly was the 1982 Constitution flawed? Let’s begin with the fact that it had NEVER been ratified by all the Canadian provinces. Even now, Quebec has never ratified the Act as a result of still lingering disputes about language rights.

The Meech Lake fiasco (1987) failed and in the middle of those opposing Constitutional modifications was none other than (now) former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Although no longer a valid participant, he skulked around the perimeter of meetings where he fermented discontent to anyone who would listen. His presence reminded me of a vulture or a withered old relic attempting to hang onto fleeting fame.

Interestingly, there is not one single mention of the words, Prime Minister in the Constitution of 1982. Nor is there any mention of exactly how a country could rid itself of an unfit Prime Minister.

We do now elect Prime Ministers. A Prime Minister is the same as any other member of parliament with one single difference. A Prime Minister becomes prime minister once select by members of his/her political party to become party leader.

AND, I chose the word “selected” advisedly since there was more than a little gimmickry and gerrymandering inside the Liberal Party leading up to the selection of Justin Trudeau as party leader in 2013. To begin with, the tampering of voting rules permitted Justin to actually use votes from non-party members to attain power. It should be noted that the Liberals were destitute and void of potential as the aftermath of their previous scandals lingered.

Background

Justin Trudeau’s Liberals rose to power by way of an overwhelming Liberal sweep of parliamentary seats in the election on October 20, 2015. The Liberals had taken 184 of the 338 seats in parliament. An interesting fact lives with the numbers. 68.5% of eligible voters cast ballots. Of that group, 40% voted for a Liberal candidate in the various 338 ridings. By simple calculation, Justin Trudeau had achieved absolute power of a G9 country with only 27% support from the voters (that is 40% of 68.5%). He promised real change and during his first three months, he has exhibited two similarities to his Liberal predecessors. Like his father, Justin has displayed a callous contempt for parliament. He has sat in parliament for a scant 5 days and yet amassed over $3.0 billion in expenses- none debated in parliament nor approved in senate. Additionally, like his scandal plagued predecessors (Chretien and Martin) he has played loose with rules and displayed a penchant to indulge himself at tax payers’ expense (nannies, European junkets with his entourage and use of tax money to vacation in millionaire resorts in the Caribbean.

It leads to an intriguing question: how would Canada be able to rid itself of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau?

Impeachment

It is correct to say that any member of parliament can be impeached by parliament. Given the fact that Justin Trudeau’s party holds 184 of 338 seats in parliament that option is extremely unlikely. The 154 opposition members lack the numbers to toss him out. For impeachment to occur, it would require that Cabinet would likely need to decide that he (Trudeau) was an embarrassment and mount a vote among themselves to oust him. That is unlikely since Trudeau has populated his Cabinet with lackeys and toadies who will tow the mark.

How about the Governor General?

The Governor General (GG) is the Queen’s vice-regal designate in Canada. The GG is appointed by the Queen on recommendation of the Prime Minister. Despite the fact that the present GG was appointed on recommendation of the former (Harper) government, the role to GG is largely ceremonial. In theory, the Vice Regal possesses power to act to ensure peace, order and good government, the ensuing media issues alone would be sufficient to dissuade David Johnson’s term in office as Governor General had been extended until September 2017 as a result of instability (minority government) in 2010.

While His Excellency, Governor General Johnson serves in a more or less ceremonial role, as lawyer he is knowledgeable enough as to not permit himself to be pushed by petitions into making history. For the GG to formally request Justin Trudeau’s resignation would be historically significant. At no other time in Canadian history has a Prime Minister been forced from office.

How About the Queen?

For many of the same reasons, the Monarch of Canada (HRH Queen Elizabeth II) would be loath to take such actions. It is correct to say that responsibility for peace order and good government rests with the Queen, there again would be historical precedent to consider.

Public Will

The present Prime Minister achieved office by way of support from only 27% (see above) of the wishes of Canadians who actually voted for him and his Liberal colleagues. Given the love-affair that “corporate media (newspapers, broadcasters etc), there is little hope that the media would see any fault with Justin Trudeau and ferment discussion about his misdeeds. Alas, the media has long ago abandoned objectivity and to a large extent were cheerleaders to his rise to power.

Conscience?

The term conscience may have an entirely different meaning in the prototypical Trudeau mind. There are more than enough glimpses of a certain grandiose sense of entitlement residing behind Justin Trudeau’s eyes.

By way of spin and fable, the myth of Pierre Trudeau’s regime have become distorted by history. Those of us who are old enough to recall Trudeau senior (Pierre) saw him for what he was – an egotistical buffoon who believed himself to be wiser than the mere serfs he reigned over.

Suspicion is that Justin Trudeau believes that he is of Canadian royal lineage and, as such is entitled to the fruits of war by way of his election. I personally hold no hope that Justin Trudeau will see fault in himself. The tale of Paul (Bible, Acts 26) and his journey to Damascus and the lighting strike that changed his point of view are not likely to happen with any Trudeau.

So what is left?

Time?

The most obvious answer to this question is time. Three years, 9 months and 10 days is a great deal more pleasant sounding than the raw number = 1,379 days. At that point in time, Canada will again vote. The ensuing period will certainly not be boring and we are all likely to see entirely new chapters written in Canada’s book of scandals. It should be interesting.

source: https://thunderbirdrising.wordpress....au-be-removed/

what a bunch of bull shi,I cannot figure you out Boomer,you certainly will have those radical Albertans all stirred up with titles such as this forum,are you a purposeful shi disturber?
for your information, our Prime Minister,Senior Trudeau,was a visonary,as all good leaders should be.The passing of the Constitution was the result of what was to come,I don't think our leader knew about the capacity of information laundering,or did he?it was suppose to ensure Canadians freedom,fair process,but more so protect Canadians from interference of many realms,including poltical interference.The worry was not about the average Canadian.
this was all fine and dandy until the art of information laundering started playing amongst Constitutional freedoms,Canadians opportunities were weakened,it has all been down hill since the signing of this wonderful piece of paper.
Information laundering started before the Constitution,the game stakes became higher as a result of that piece of paper,challenges were to be had.
The Constitution was designed to strengthen our public institutions,such as the Court system,unfortunately the courts placated information laundering,more diminished opportunites for Canadians.
the sad fact is the Supreme Court of Canada has come to accept information laundering as a form of acceptable presentation of information,therefore the Supreme Court has diminished the strength of the Constitution.
I do believe when I did some information auditing of the Supreme Court and their role of accceptance of information laundering,
I became saddened with such grief,that realization that the Supreme Court participates in information laundering was very difficult for me to accept,it was defintly one of my darker days of auditing,there's been a few,I cried for days.
as the old saying goes,"the Constitution aint what it used to be"
what started as something good is not so great right now.

i like how you all talk to yourselves on this forum,that's cool,i wanted to talk to myself,but i was informed you can't.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
+3
#17
Sigh. It is terrible to see the poor sad neocons lamenting the loss of power. Better get used to it. The last time a Trudeau was elected he was in power for 16 years.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
-1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Sigh. It is terrible to see the poor sad neocons lamenting the loss of power. Better get used to it. The last time a Trudeau was elected he was in power for 16 years.

Yeah, the last time that martial law was declared in Canada, too.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Sigh. It is terrible to see the poor sad neocons lamenting the loss of power. Better get used to it. The last time a Trudeau was elected he was in power for 16 years.


Yep, it's a little ominous isn't it. On a brighter note perhaps we've learned something since then! It probably is loss of power but not in the way you think!
 
tay
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Yeah, the last time that martial law was declared in Canada, too.

Given the circumstances of the time, was that a good or bad move....?
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by tay View Post

Given the circumstances of the time, was that a good or bad move....?


Necessary might be a more appropriate term. Probably 1970 a murder and hostage taking, I believe!
 
TenPenny
+2
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Sigh. It is terrible to see the poor sad neocons lamenting the loss of power. Better get used to it. The last time a Trudeau was elected he was in power for 16 years.



That's not true. The last time a Trudeau was elected, he was in power for 4 years. March 3, 1980–June 29/30,1984.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#23
I hope he cannot. No democratically elected PM should be removed in a non-democratic manner. Period. This is not to say I will vote for him in 4 years or cheer if he is re-elected.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

That's not true. The last time a Trudeau was elected, he was in power for 4 years. March 3, 1980–June 29/30,1984.


Surely people aren't forgetting Joke Lark!
 
Blackleaf
#25
The Queen can remove him and her entire government.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The Queen can remove him and her entire government.


I don't believe Lizzy still has a gov't here.
 
Blackleaf
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I don't believe Lizzy still has a gov't here.

I always thought Canada's Head of State was Queen Elizabeth II and that she has the power to fire any of her Canadian PMs and her Canadian governments.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The Queen can remove him and her entire government.

Technically yes. But I doubt she ever would.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

Technically yes. But I doubt she ever would.


Didn't the Statute of Westminster preclude that ability?
 
Blackleaf
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

Technically yes. But I doubt she ever would.

I woudn't bet on that, if I were you. It's one of the powers granted to her under her royal prerogative and she has used it before - she dismissed her Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and the entire Australian parliament in 1975.
 

Similar Threads

9
A Song For Justin Trudeau.
by davesmom | Jan 25th, 2016
1
116
Justin Trudeau gets the job done.
by Cobalt_Kid | Apr 4th, 2014
156
For Justin Trudeau
by Retired_Can_Soldier | Mar 4th, 2013