Canadian Leader Shuts Parliment to Keep Power

[youngnihilist]

Harper did the right thing. canadians sure as hell didn't vote the lefties + quebec nuts in, so why shuld they get them as aleader? harper's coalition won fair and square, they try to steal the election. that's how lefties do it anyway, see al franken's (most likely) failed attempt in minnesota. stealing all the elections!

 

[wundersteve]

The GG's decision was the least intrusive and probably the best that could be done at the moment. The situation has been so outrageously overheated and there should be a cooling-off period. If the coalition is for real, which I don't think it is, then it can ready itself to bring down the government in January.

The issue of public funding of political parties is a valid issue (I support making the parties generate their own revenues from private citizens and not taxpayers), but Harper backed own on that issue and on the federal strike issue so the opposition should've backed off. They didn't, so it has come to this.

The opinions within the opposition parties and the public will crystallize.

 

[SirJude]

The decision to prorogue Parliament was not the Prime Minister's. It was the decision of the Governor General.
The position of Governor General is non-partisan, non-political. Although she was nominated for the position by the former Liberal Government the acceptance or rejection of the nominee is made by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the GG sits as her representative in Canada. Although no nominee has been rejected to my knowledge the option is there.
Just as it is legal for the opposition parties to call a non-confidence motion and is legal for them to offer to form a coalition government if is legal for the Prime Minister to request the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. Whether you like Harper or not isn't an issue, he, like the others was just exercising his rights.
The GG did have the option to say no to his request, she chose not to.
If a non-confidence motion is passed when Parliament returns it is again the option of the Governor General to dissolve Parliament of to accept the proposition of a coalition government. I would be highly unlikely she would reject this offer but she still does have that option.

 

[gsdx]

harper's coalition won fair and square

Are you talking about the coalition of the wannabe political parties which were absorbed into the PC's?

The only reason Harper won is that Dion was such a weak party leader. It would have been like Wally Cox being made leader of the Hell's Angels. We knew Harper was crap as well, but at least we knew him and seemed to be the 'safer' bet. He didn't win because people actually liked him.

It was sort of like having to choose between arsenic and cyanide.

 

[Elwood]

Harper did the right thing. canadians sure as hell didn't vote the lefties + quebec nuts in, so why shuld they get them as aleader? harper's coalition won fair and square, they try to steal the election. that's how lefties do it anyway, see al franken's (most likely) failed attempt in minnesota. stealing all the elections!

Just a little info. Are you aware there is a provincial election going on in Quebec? Yes we vote on Monday. Are you aware that separation is not even an issue in the election? Are you aware that it looks like the Liberals are about to take a majority Govt. here in Quebec? Oh you are not aware of that??? Just spouting off some old time rhetoric without being informed, I see.

 

[gsdx]

From the Toronto Star:

Harper adds fuel to fire

Dec 04, 2008 04:30 AM

If there is any contrition in Prime Minister Stephen Harper over his own role in plunging the country into a political crisis, it was not on display last night.

Instead, in a brief televised address to the nation, Harper was on the attack. He accused the opposition coalition arrayed against him of seeking to "overturn the results" of the Oct. 14 election, "without your say, without your consent, and without your vote" and of making a deal with a party "whose avowed goal is to break up the country" (the Bloc Québécois).

"This is no time for backroom deals with the separatists," declared Harper. "It is the time for Canada's government to focus on the economy."

Finally, Harper closed with a pledge to use "every legal means" at his disposal to prevent the coalition from taking power. This was a reference to Harper's expected appeal to Governor General Michaëlle Jean to "prorogue" Parliament for a couple of months, thereby allowing him to avoid next week's non-confidence vote in the House of Commons.

The speech was breathtakingly audacious, both in its twisting of the facts and its misinterpretation of our parliamentary traditions.

Canada does not have a presidential system. Canadians did not elect Stephen Harper as Prime Minister on Oct. 14. They elected a Parliament, to which the government of the day must be responsible. Harper's Conservatives have more seats than any other party in that Parliament. But they do not have a majority. That means they need the support of at least one of the three opposition parties to govern.

Ignoring that reality, the Harper government last week brought forward an "economic statement" that contained no significant new measures for the economy. Instead, there were ideologically driven poison pills that Harper must have known the opposition parties could not swallow. In response, the opposition parties got together and decided to offer themselves up as an alternative government.

It is not a "separatist" coalition. While it would have the support of the Bloc Québécois on budget measures and other confidence votes, no members of that party would sit in cabinet.

Furthermore, nothing in the accord signed by all three opposition parties would lead to the breakup of the country. (See the text of the accord on page AA6.) Rather, the accord calls for measures to stimulate the economy, including infrastructure investments, enhancements in Employment Insurance, and aid for the auto and forestry sectors. Those would be welcomed by most Canadians.

Full editorial and brief video portion of Harper's speech available here: http://www.thestar.com/article/548127

I didn't hear the speech on television, but I heard about it afterward and I seem to recall a comment made by the announcers that the speech, of course, was given in both English and French and were virtually word-for-word translations. . . except for the word "separatist", which did not appear in the French version.

Can anyone verify that?

 

[gsdx]

^^ It's mentioned in this Globe story.

Thanks. I believe I heard it mentioned briefly by Jay Ingram on Daily Planet. So, I heard correctly.

 

[Elwood]

There was talk that Harpers speech would have implications in the Quebec election next week, due to all his separatist rhetoric. I was thankful to see in the french press this morning that the Liberals are still holding strong and looks like they will have a majority government here in Quebec. So much for us Quebec nuts LOL

 

[Elwood]

I just saw this on Yahoo, which is proof that Harper is far from loosing his throne. We are in for six weeks of hard campaigning from both sides.http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/081205/canada/canada_us_politics_poll

 

[youngnihilist]

Well looks like your good conservative leader is sticking around. I realize his party was the minority, but it still had the most seats. You canadians allowed his conservative party to take the most seats so he should have the power - just like in UK. Suddenly the leftists all band together when they never had before and you have an unfair coup

 

[gsdx]

Well looks like your good conservative leader is sticking around. I realize his party was the minority, but it still had the most seats. You canadians allowed his conservative party to take the most seats so he should have the power - just like in UK. Suddenly the leftists all band together when they never had before and you have an unfair coup

I think you should do some homework. You're wrong on all accounts here.

Firstly, the Conservatives don't hold 'the most seats'. They simply hold more seats than the other individual parties, but still less than 50% of the total seats. That's why the government is a minority. The other parties, combined, hold more than 50% of the seats, which is why they can form a coalition and take power over the Conservatives.

Secondly, it has happened before in Canadian history during WWI when the Unionist Party was formed and became the party in power.

 

[Elwood]

Well looks like your good conservative leader is sticking around. I realize his party was the minority, but it still had the most seats. You canadians allowed his conservative party to take the most seats so he should have the power - just like in UK. Suddenly the leftists all band together when they never had before and you have an unfair coup

You should really get informed if you want to be part of a discussion, and not just come into a thread and make post that show your ignorance.

 

[VICTORIADON]

I have always been a monarchist. I am however questioning my own beliefs.

Parliament of Canada should have been able to speak but the PM ran to the crown, hid behind the "skirt" of the crown and cried. "They are not playing fair, I want to take my ball and go home." The crown looked down and said, "Yes, go home come back another day"

I don't know...did Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada drop the ball?

Should the future of Canada be placed in the hands of one person "representing" the Queen. Should the crown have any say in the affairs of Canada?

I am now at a cross road, far more deeper than the Conservative (Reform), Liberal, NDP, Bloc Québécois question.


......... From Wikipedia................
Canadian national unity

While never speaking directly against Quebec separatism, Elizabeth did publicly praise Canada's unity and expressed her wish to see the continuation of a unified Canada, sometimes courting controversy over the matter. In a speech to the Quebec Legislature in 1964, while the Quiet Revolution was ongoing, she ignored the national controversy (and the riots during her appearance in Quebec City) in favour of praising Canada's two "complementary cultures," speaking, in both French and English, about the strength of Canada's two founding peoples, stating: "I am pleased to think there exists in our Commonwealth a country where I can express myself officially in French," and, "whenever you sing [the French words of] "O Canada" you are reminded that you come of a proud race."[14][75] Later, after she proclaimed the Constitution Act in 1982, which was the first time in Canadian history that a major constitutional change had been made without the agreement of the government of Quebec,[citation needed] Elizabeth attempted to demonstrate her position as head of the whole Canadian nation, and her role as conciliator, by privately expressing to journalists at a reception at Rideau Hall her regret that Quebec had not been a part of the settlement.[14]
In 1995, during a Quebec separatist referendum campaign, the Queen was tricked into revealing her more personal opinions on Quebec secession when Pierre Brassard, a DJ for Radio CKOI-FM Montreal, telephoned Buckingham Palace pretending to be then Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, and kept a convinced Queen Elizabeth in a fourteen minute conversation that vacillated between French and English. When told that the separatists were showing a lead in the polls, Elizabeth revealed that she felt the "referendum may go the wrong way," adding, "if I can help in any way, I will be happy to do so." However, she pointedly refused to accept the advice, from the man whom she believed to be Chrétien, that she intervene in the referendum without first seeing a draft speech sent by the Prime Minister's Office. The Queen eventually began to have suspicions about the person to whom she was speaking and ended the conversation, though her tactful handling of the call won plaudits from Brassard.[76] Chrétien later, in his memoirs, recounted the Queen's tongue-in-cheek comments to him regarding this affair: "'I didn't think you sounded quite like yourself,' she told me, 'but I thought, given all the duress you were under, you might have been drunk.'"[77]

 

[kallipolis]

We should recognise that PM Harper's parliamentary maneuverings are recognised as lawful, and normal within the scope of the Westminster system. If they were not, then the Governor General could not have assented to PM Harper's request. The Governor General is obliged to act in accordance with her terms of reference, as de facto head of state. In other terms the Governor General must follow constitutional procedures.

We should be careful not to permit our highly prejudiced feelings of PM Harper, to impose an understanding of Canadian parliamentary protocols that reflect our political leanings rather than established precedents.

The democratic process continues during the break, permitting all parties to benefit and, in so doing demonstrate that Canada's democratic parliamentary system remains healthy and robust.

Though the three opposition parties that now appear to wish to work in coalition, are appearing unified (in opposition) we should recognise that should these three parties form a government, there will be many conflicts of interest to deal with. This might create, more trouble than its worth. Particularly at a time of crisis, in the world economic order.

Early elections should not be ruled out.

 

[gsdx]

the Conservative (Reform)

And the (Christian Alliance). Stockwell Day and his crew are playing on Harper's team now, too. . . when they're not out thumping their Bibles.

 

[kallipolis]

yes. because having a fourth election in four years and spending another 300 million on an election is exactly what Canada needs.

If that is how the cookie crumbles, then so be it.

After the recess Canada will have to face up, to a vote of no confidence in its current government, or another formula that has been worked out between the parties during the holidays.

I am sure that PM Harper would prefer another, election to a coalition of the current opposition parties.

The end of the parliamentary recess might well surprise the Canadian electorate.

 

[youngnihilist]

That's what I said. They have the most seats. As in, more seats than any other party. In a parliamentary system the party that has the most seats gets the power, even if it's only 35% of the total amount of seats. In the UK the Labor didn't have a majority and they still ran the country. Why should your country rewrite rules and deny the PLURALITY (not majority, I know, but that's your system) of voters?

 

[gsdx]

That's what I said. They have the most seats.

No, they don't! The Opposition has the most seats which is why they can take over the government if they become a coalition!

Harper simply has 'more' seats than any of the individual Opposition parties.

Edit: If the Conservatives had the most seats, it would have a majority government.

 

[gsdx]

Dion must go and go quickly if your party is to survive.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is expected to resign this week and Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc has dropped out of the leadership race and will support rival Michael Ignatieff, CTV News has learned.

07/12/2008 10:58:03 PM

CTV.ca News Staff

"Michael Ignatieff pretty much has this leadership race wrapped up," CTV's Chief Political Correspondent Craig Oliver told CTV Newsnet Sunday evening.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/ab...sitemid=CTVNews/20081206/rae_ignatieff_081207

 

[gsdx]

thirstycanadianboy...you're apparently a mind reader...according to the globe and mail...and gsdx..Dion will be stepping down as Liberal leader today.

It is done: http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/ab...itemid=CTVNews/20081208/dion_coalition_081208