Is This the Straw That Breaks Canada?
December 4, 2008 · By Shane Edwards
On the one hand, we have the G&M trumpeting that it is “Harper” that is breaking up Canada. But he wasn’t breaking up Canada until the Liberals and NDP went to the Bloc for support to form a coalition. Only six weeks ago, Layton and Dion accepted electoral defeat, saying they would return to “make parliament work”. Of course, Canadians didn’t understand that they planned even then to “make Canada work” by strong-arming their way to power supported by those whose raison d’etre is to see Canada destroyed.
And so they are. Because on the other hand, you see out west, massive support for either a return to the polls, or the status quo. I wonder why. Preston Manning staved off western separation with the formation of the Reform Party. Now, the west is watching Quebec (not just the Bloc – Dion and Layton are also Quebeckers) overturn an election that just happened to snatch power from a duly elected national party with representation in every region of the country. And with that undemocratic seizure of power comes the prospect of the Easterners once more dictating to the West.
Jacques Parizeau is thrilled with this state of affairs. He has long said the ideal situation for the separatist movement to flourish is a weak central government. He is laughing, probably in disbelief, with the prospect of a government so weak, led by a pack of “leaders” all from Quebec, that they must rely on begging concessions from the separatists. This is a dream only rivalled by the halcyon days of the early 90′s when the Bloc stood as “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”. Except today it is even better. Back then, they were helpless in the face of a Liberal majority. Today, they hold all the cards.
If the G&M isn’t talking out of their butt (which they very well might be), then if Harper stays in, Quebec separatism grows. But if the Conservatives are tossed from their duly elected minority government, then separatism strengthens, both east and west.
Very selective retelling of the story. Why didn’t Harper campaign on the promise that he was going to cut public funding of political parties?
Trying to slide that nugget into the budget triggered this whole mess. Did Harper really believe this was how he was going to “make parliament work”? Was this the consensus he was trying to build? A complete fool would not have foreseen the parties uniting to block this. Choose bankruptcy or a coalition…hmmm
So that being said, Harper had to be well aware that parliament would cease to function as a result of his actions. If he hadn’t tried to pull public funding, there would be no coalition and no mess today.
So he bullies them into a coalition, then cries that we’re in a unity crisis? He engineered it!
Also, I seriously doubt you would have complained a few years back had the reform party had the opportunity to form a coalition government despite only western representation.
All this posturing about western separatism. It’s mere attention whoring. Show me a poll where separatist elements are over 40% in the west and I’ll pay attention. And then while you’re at it, call them traitors because that’s the treatment bloc MPs have been constantly receiving. Such double standards…
I have been fighting separatists on the front lines my whole life and I’ll continue to do so but they were democratically elected to parliament and the votes directed to them are worth the same as a vote directed towards a conservative. When you figure in that 63% of the national vote did not go in Harper’s direction, and that Harper tried to table a budget that would bankrupt the opposition, any reference to this weeks events being undemocratic are laughable.
Breathe deep that heady scent of tyranny from Stephen Harper who has deliberately tried to dupe Canadians saying Dion has no right to power without an election.
Unfortunately the reality is that Dion has the right conditional only to the GG asking him to try to form a government that’s whether prorogation happens or not. Duceppe knows damn well that separatism is not on the short term agenda.
The GG is as useful as tits on a bull except in this instance when she can act as more than a figurehead. and waste of money.
She is not bound by the advice of a PM who has lost the confidence of the House — as Harper clearly has.
The publication of a coalition agreement by Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe proved Harper currently is prime minister in name only. Michaëlle Jean should be taking her advice from Dion at this moment, THAT is parliamentary democracy. If she grants prorogation which it sounds like on CBC at the moment this creates a month of a neutered Gov’t with an entirely open question of whether they will pull his shorts down in January instead of on Monday which seems very likely it’s not like you pull the pin on a grenade and then sit there looking at it.
http://www.thetyee.ca/Blogs/Th.....bloc-2004/
Try to hold this thought in your head – I know it’s a struggle.
Western separatists tried to play nice. They listened to Manning when he suggested trying to reform the government. He made it sound like it was possible. We chose to try and effect change from within, without resorting to bullying tactics like, “Give us what we want or we separate” – the approach of Quebec for the last 150 years.
The fact that separatists have been taking MY taxpayer dollars for who knows how long in the form of federal support for their party should be cause for revolt right there. I am fine if they are duly elected using the processes we provide – but I draw the line at the government handing out my tax dollars to prop up separatists who don’t even fundraise anymore because the money they get from the government is all they need to keep the separatist movement alive.
And cool the ridiculous rhetoric about tyrrany and dictatorship. Harper governs for all Canadians in a manner in keeping with his party’s politics. That some lazy crybaby politicians will have to get off their butts and actually convince people their ideas are worth donating to is no excuse to bring us to the place we are today. A man isn’t a dictator just because you don’t agree with him. The fact is more Canadians picked him to lead this country than any other party, so get a grip and live with the fact that it isn’t a dictatorship just because more Canadians picked him to lead than picked your guy.
And if you still think that Dion and his organization are the people to lead this country in a time of crisis after last nights embarrassing debacle, I question your sanity.
“Harper governs for all Canadians in a manner in keeping with his party’s politics.”
Harper didn’t receive a mandate from the people to do that. He was elected to yet another minority government, which means he has to seek consensus from at least SOME opposition members.
It is simply astounding that he has managed to galvanize the 3 opposition parties into this action. Despite their differences, they have all agreed on one thing: the Liberals & NDP can do a better job than Harper. And those people speak for the majority of the house.
What is undemocratic is that Parliament’s will is being subverted. The government is retaining control despite the wishes of the representatives we sent to Parliament Hill. Please explain to me why the Conservatives deserve to retain power, when it is not the will of Parliament. The majority of MPs, representing the majority of citizens, wish to see another party take over.
Maybe if the Cons had actually been able to put Canada’s interests before Harper’s burning need to exploit every scenario with the goal of finally attaining a strong majority government, we wouldn’t be in this mess right now. It they had actually consulted with the opposition on a confidence matter, as is their obligation, we wouldn’t be facing a suspended Parliament right now.
Where did I use the word dictator? The vote of more Canadians is reflected in the proposed coalition, it’s called basic math 163 > 143 I said he’s trying to dupe people, apparently he duped the GG.
What the GG allowed to happen is Harper kept his job and now he’ll have long enough to smear the proposed coalition in the media; now THAT is unprecedented the GG deciding to support the PM who clearly cannot survive a confidence vote and allowing him to prorogue parliament when it is actually more important that they sit and vote on measures.
Who is “my guy” by the way, have you seen me declaring political stripes?
“The fact that separatists have been taking MY taxpayer dollars for who knows how long in the form of federal support for their party should be cause for revolt right there.”
I suspect that the Canadian population is less concerned about Shane Edwards’ tax dollars than you are.
“The fact is more Canadians picked him to lead this country than any other party…”
In the 2008 federal election, Stephen Harper got 38,545 votes.
In the 2008 federal election, the Green Party got 937,613 votes.
Abby: The opposition has not come up with one actually contrasting position other than “We’re not Harper”. Until they actually give a reason to overthrow the elected government, they are just grasping at power.
We all know this all started with the cuts to party funding. All nobility of aims is simply covering rhetoric for a bunch of lazy politicians who don’t want to have the trough taken from them.
Ken: “Breathe deep that heady scent of tyranny ” – you’re seriously going to quibble about the exact words you chose? That’s what you meant.
Do you actually have any real reasons why the coalition should go forward, or are you simply one of the cacophony of “anyone but Harper” peons?
Stop embarrassing yourself, C. That’s just sad.
My real reason is because it is the will of Parliament. Harper has not governed appropriately, and has lost the confidence of Parliament. This is a very big deal. Yes, it was the fact that he chose to substitute opportunistic political moves for real economic policy for that caused this mess.
This is a parliamentary system, not a plebiscite. When a government loses the confidence of Parliament, it must be replaced. Usually this is through another election, but if possible the GG must respect the will of the people, and leave the Parliament that they elected INTACT.
We’re quite clear on this point. As soon as Harper loses a confidence vote, if there is a viable alternative ready to go, it will be given a chance.
Shane,
The public funding of political parties based on votes is intended to support the parties based on actual popular support. If you want our government run by lobbyist, then dissolve parliament and have our country governed by Syncrude’s board of directors already.
The system you propose would make the vote of the rich worth more than the vote of the poor. If you really think that’s a good idea, you need to have your head fitted for a guillotine.
I still think you’re full of crap with regards to separatism. Quebec separatism is fueled on nationalism and racism/ignorance. The only component of that formula prevalent in western separatism is the ignorance. It will never have enough legs to pull off a separation.
No Shane it’s not what I meant, he IS tyrannical in how he behaves and only a Tyrant could believe those words he let slip out of his mouth like a turd from is ass.
He is not however a Dictator (unless we’re talking about his management style and then I suspect most of his MPs would agree) which I can accept, he’s just a bigot and an asshole.
“The fact is more Canadians picked him to lead this country than any other party…”
In the 2008 federal election, Stephen Harper got 38,545 votes.
In the 2008 federal election, the Green Party got 937,613 votes.
“Stop embarrassing yourself, C. That’s just sad.”
Actually, I think it’s pretty important. I think the fact that you are unable to distinguish between a presidential system and a parlimentary system (or at least unable to do so in writing, which, let’s face it, is all that counts on here) is why you have such a fundametal problem with this. The PM is the person requested by the GG as most likely to command the support of the biggest proportion of MPs. You don’t vote for a PM, you vote for an MP. If you’re unhappy with that, you need to change the political system, and if you want to do that, understanding how it currently works (or at least being able to explain that using…words) would probably be seen as, y’know, quite important.
Now, about that preview button.
The fact is that when the PCs were practically wiped out the Liberals and NDP were cheering from the sidelines. when the PCs started to find ways to raise money all the other parties had pretty much given up fundraising and living on their gov subsidies.
I don’t think any taxpayers money should be going to parties so that they can give up raising their own cash altogether. The fact that this is true is something I find particularly ,irksome. All these parties had plenty of opportunity to bring down the house in the last parlament ,over say, the war,but no. It’s only when they might have to convince people to donate for their cause that they raise a stink. If they had a decent enough message thjey could certainly find the money,Look south at Obama. He made tons of $$
and mostly from individuals,so don’t tell me they couldn’t do it. Why should the parties be able to feast off us when were in hard times. I didn’t see them thinking about any of us little guys. Why should we be paying their way. I have to do with a lot less since I can’t work for health reasons. I lost a fairly healthy income which would allow me to actually do something for fun once in a while. Why should I be paying for them. They get a ton of breaks already.
Joy,
Whether or not the cuts to political parties are a good thing, the Conservatives were expected to focus on the economy, but they played pure partisan politics. Harper saw an opportunity to score a deadly blow to the opposition, and took it.
The amount of money we’re talking about here is peanuts. For comparison, the update also includes the sale of $10 billion in unnamed government assets. $30 million saved in political funding is a rounding error next to that $10 billion guess. Let’s make it $10.03 billion and call it even.
Abattoir,
You make an excellent point with regards to Joy. To further the issue Joy, you’ve already said that you have to get by on less. Well, if you aren’t among the rich, then you probably don’t have the money to donate to a political party. That being said, the only way you can financially support the party you vote for is with the measly 1.95 deducted for your vote.
Shane is also totally off when he says that his 1.95 going to a separatist party is grounds for revolt. First of all, your 1.95 (about the cost of a hot dog) will be diverted to the party YOU voted for. It’s proportionally distributed. Saying that your tax dollars went towards a separatist is nonsense. Sure, some Quebecers don’t make alberta oil salaries but it’s a safe bet that their tax burden exceeds 1.95 per head… All this ridiculous posturing.
No taxpayer money should be funding political parties.
Come on you libs! Get off your sorry butts and try working for your campaign funds if you believe in what you’re always whining about.
Here ya’ go Mr 5:15 Coward:
“What was posted was not a birth certificate, but something that resembles a “Certification of Live Birth” or COLB, which, even if authentic, does not prove “natural born” U.S. citizenship. You see, in Hawaii, a Certification of Live Birth is issued within a year of a child’s birth to those who register a birth abroad or one that takes place outside a hospital.”
A “Certification of Live Birth” is NOT a birth certificate.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=81943
Ken, if I catch you high-jacking someones name in the comments again, you’ll be banned from this website.
that’s fine by me this site does absolutely nothing to further discourse on a single topic that I can identify, you sir (or should that be sire if you’re banishing me?) have failed in ALL of your claimed goals.
Now how are you proposing to ‘banish’ me pray tell, via IP number which I can easily spoof? You come off like a wee bit of a kleptocrat; thinking you can control the internet.
I’ve already given up on this site you have like 4 people that are positive and a bunch of trolls
Ken, you’re banned from this website.
Feel free to spoof whatever IP address you can find – I’ll just continue to remove your childish postings shortly afterwards. You’ll eventually give up, all trolls do…
Thank you Greg.
“ThePolitic is a group weblog devoted to insight and original commentary on Canadian and American politics. Our contributors are a collection of minds from across North America who believe strongly in free speech…”
Except, y’know… when they don’t.
You’re defending Ken?
Ken was politely warned about high-jacking names, he choose to continue doing it, so he was removed from the site. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
But Greg, you didn’t ban him from hijacking names, you banned him from posting as anyone including himself.
If you can continue to remove his “childish postings shortly afterwards” no matter what IP he uses, then you can surely remove only those posted with hijacked names.
Can you really not see any link between stopping someone commenting, and free speech?
No, in this particular case, there is no link.
Ken was asked not to do something, he ignored that request, therefore his ability to contribute to the discussions was removed.
This is a rather standard moderating technique, I’m not sure why you’re confusing moderation with freedom of speech.
Also, I think it’s rather humorous that you consider my banning Ken from commenting is an infringement of his freedom of speech. I haven’t stopped Ken from saying anything – he can pontificate all he wants, just unfortunately, due to his ignorance of my request, he can’t pontificate here anymore.
“Also, I think it’s rather humorous that you consider my banning Ken from commenting is an infringement of his freedom of speech. I haven’t stopped Ken from saying anything – he can pontificate all he wants, just unfortunately, due to his ignorance of my request, he can’t pontificate here anymore.”
Now, see, this IS getting interesting. Over how large an area would someone have to banned from speaking until it becomes censorship?
Presumably you would agree that someone being banned from speaking in a public place would be wrong, even though they would be “free to pontificate” all they want at home, or perhaps in prison?
I would be gratified to know where you believe the restrictions should be drawn for freedom of speech.
Not the issue. I’m not interested in projecting this isolated moderation into a question of “censorship.”
Technically speaking, ThePolitic.com isn’t a public place, but that is besides the point.
See my first comment – this isn’t an issue of freedom of speech or censorship.
This was a case of someone doing something obviously wrong (high-jacking other people’s names) and then ignoring a request to stop. Simple.
About The Politic:
“Our intention is to provide an intellectually honest viewpoint on the topics of which we write, in order to nurture public discourse and the free flow of information”
“”Now, see, this IS getting interesting. Over how large an area would someone have to banned from speaking until it becomes censorship?”
Not the issue.”
The Politic: Nuturing public discourse since 2004.
Why was the guy banned? I’m not taking sides in this, I’m just trying to understand.
The person “Ken” was posting comments when the IP address posting the comments were usually linked to another handle?
In terms of internet etiquette, it’s usually a bannable offense.
Have you considered managing accounts so people have to log in to comment instead of this format?
He was banned because he was posting under other people’s names. I gave one warning and he continued to do it. Also, note: it also wasn’t a innocent mistake – I can overlook someone returning and failing to post under a previous handle – in this case he was intentionally “high-jacking” another commentators handle in a malicious way.
I have, but this has not been a big enough issue to warrant that type of registration.