Left-Wing Parties To Seize Power in Canada

[Whiffleball]

WMTvqso7NLg

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4AR6ZQ20081202)

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's minority Conservative government may seek the temporary suspension of Parliament to stop opposition parties from voting it out and taking power, an aide to Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Tuesday.

The Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois signed a deal on Monday committing them to bringing down the government, just seven weeks after it won re-election with a strengthened minority, and forming a coalition government to replace the Conservatives.

The formal agreement quickly triggered one of the worst political crises in Canada's history.

The opposition -- which says Harper is not doing enough to tackle the fallout from the financial crisis -- proposed forging a formal coalition of Liberals and New Democrats, with the separatist Bloc promising its support.

The Harper aide, describing the proposed deal with the separatists as "an affront to our democracy (and) incredibly dangerous" for Canada, said the government would fight the coalition plan "with every legal means at our disposal".

This could involve asking Governor General Michaelle Jean -- the personal representative of Queen Elizabeth, Canada's head of state -- to temporarily suspend Parliament, he said.

Jean, who is in Prague on a state visit, said she would cut short her trip to try to resolve the crisis.

"I have decided that it is time for me now to go back home because my presence is required," she told Reuters. Earlier she told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. that the drama "certainly requires a lot of attention".

Jean mainly plays a figurehead role. That said, her word is final when dealing with constitutional matters.

Harper told Parliament that the coalition deal was "the worst mistake the Liberal Party has ever made in its history".

Conservative legislators chanted "Shame, shame" at the opposition during an often charged session of Parliament.

"The highest principle of Canadian democracy is that if you want to be prime minister, you get your mandate from the Canadian people, not the separatists," said Harper.

Dion shouted back: "Every member of this House has received a mandate from the Canadian people... The prime minister doesn't have the support of this House any more."

The Harper aide said political rallies would be held to protest against the proposed coalition and said Harper might make a national televised address.

The Conservatives also released two radio ads, one of which said: "This is Canada. Power must be earned -- not taken."

Harper -- facing his worst crisis since first winning power in January 2006 -- has promised a budget for January 27 and could seek to shut down Parliament until then.

If Harper lets the confidence vote go ahead, he would face a strong likelihood of losing.

The Canadian capital has not seen such tension and political uncertainty since a failed 1995 referendum in Quebec on whether the province should break away from Canada.

Under their coalition plan , the opposition parties promise to present a major economic stimulus package as well as help for the struggling auto industry.

The parties said the new prime minister would be Dion, who led his party to such a bad defeat on October 14 that he has promised to quit once members choose a replacement in May.

The proposed coalition government would stay in power until at least June 30, 2010.

Media reaction has been largely negative. Columnist John Ivison of the National Post said the coalition would mean Canada becoming "the world's coldest banana republic".

The Globe and Mail, which endorsed Harper in the election, ran a lead article savaging what it called his "horrendous miscalculations" and suggested he consider quitting.

It also said Dion was "a humbled and defeated party leader ... (who) has never earned the right to govern."

The Conservatives hold 143 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons and need the support of at least one opposition party to remain in power. The Liberals have 77, the Bloc has 49 and the NDP has 37. There are two independents.

ziWdBbCeILk

[Face]

yay

[29a]

Yay? Are you slow?

I didn't even vote for the Tories and this scares the shit out of me. Dion leads the Liberals to one of the worst showings ever and he's going to be out PM until May? And he wasn't even elected!

[taters]

Considering Harper and his ilk could not get a majority vote in his time as leader, I am not surprised.

Sounds like righties in Canada are fearing the 'revolt' in America spreading back to them. Suits right, Most of canada actually leans away from the ideals of the progressive conservatives (who are practically moderates themselves by American standards). I wouldnt call them 'liberals' in the American understood sense (the ideals of the NDP sort of, but the liberal party is pretty centrist, and the quebecois bloc is sort of its own sphere).

Im surprised they didnt do this earlier, but I guess they were wondering what the atmosphere would be in America. Ever since Harper hired American PR officials (the same that worked for Republicans during the 00, 02, and 04 elections), hes irked me.

Even if this didnt go through, Harper would not survive a re-election. Without a Bush dominated North America, theres no reason to have a conservative minority run canada. Especially with the impending Artic Oil potential conflicts.

[Face]

Yay? Are you slow?

I didn't even vote for the Tories and this scares the shit out of me. Dion leads the Liberals to one of the worst showings ever and he's going to be out PM until May? And he wasn't even elected!
you really need to turn your sarcasm detector on

[29a]

You should learn how to properly use sarcasm on the internet.

[Face]

and you're some kind of expert, is that it?

[29a]

I clearly have the edge on you.

[Morfin]

To all of you people who believe the two-party political system sucks: This is why the two-party system, for all its faults, is the better system. It forces the parties to the middle, and the extremists do not have power, such as these minority parties now have merely under the guise of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

[BIG PIZZLE]

If I was Harper, I would immediately call an election. Let the people decide.

[wacker]

If I was Harper, I would immediately call an election. Let the people decide.

If we have another fucking election I will snap.

[wacker]

In my opinion this is real dangerous for the Liberals.

They have painted themselves as the only party that can rule for all of Canada and not be conservative. But by doing this they are essentially letting the NDP into the ring and people might see them as being capable meaning a vote against conservatives would go to the NDP at a later date.

For me its like why more people don't switch to macs, they are simply scared or aggravated by any hassle but if you force them they actually like it.

[Whiffleball]

To all of you people who believe the two-party political system sucks: This is why the two-party system, for all its faults, is the better system. It forces the parties to the middle, and the extremists do not have power, such as these minority parties now have merely under the guise of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

I don't think there's anything wrong with having multiple parties like you have in the UK or Canada. Why should Quebeckers be forced to vote for a federalist party when a substantial number of them are opposed to federalism? If anything, having multiple parties has allowed the system to evolve as politics itself has evolved... For example, the right-wing of the political spectrum was overthrown when the national Progressive Conservatives was knocked out and forced to merge with the more libertarian Reform Party of the Prairies.

Yes, in places like Italy where there a thousand parties and a hundred coalitions, it's just absurd. But it's a proven fact that modern industrialized countries like the UK, Canada, Australia and Japan can have multiple parties and not have a constitutional crisis every other year.

This isn't a problem of too many parties. It's not even a problem at all. It's the Westminster system. If a party is in a minority, why shouldn't the opposition party form a majority if it can?

The idea that it's somehow wrong or immoral for the Liberals and the Dippers to take power is ludicrous. Harper doesn't have a majority, so for him to prattle on about having a mandate or that the voters are overwhelmingly behind him is absurd. He screwed the pooch hard, alienating the left-wing parties and not living up to promises for Quebec. He's essentially aligned the other parties against him and he's paying the price for his hubris.

He's not as right-wing as Bush, but he's got one thing in common with Dubya: he's divided the country and galvanized a repudiation of his premiership.

[vasili denisov]

To all of you people who believe the two-party political system sucks: This is why the two-party system, for all its faults, is the better system. It forces the parties to the middle, and the extremists do not have power, such as these minority parties now have merely under the guise of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
I don't think this idea, though sound, fits with the canadian political situation. The major change in political calculus took place with the formation of the Bloc Quebecois, a regional/cultural party which sufficiently weakened the liberals allowing for another regional party, the Reform Party of western Canada to come to power. There's no real equivalent in the US of a political party built so strongly around regional or cultural identity; the closest would be George Wallace's American Independent Party, though again, this is a comparison of limited value.

[Morfin]

The problem with the Canadian system -- and most, if not all, multiple party-systems -- is the single-issue party, such as the Bloc. By the Bloc having power, based on a single issue, its parochialism is maintained and the remainder of Canada has to toady to them to get the votes. If Canada had a two-party system, the Bloc would still have political power because they control so many votes (analogous to the senior citizens in the U.S.) and the two parties would still court them. So, they wouldn't lose out.

Canada would be better offf with a two-party system. This is directly related to the Bloc and Quebec is that with a two-party system, Quebec is forced to be part of Canada. With the Bloc, it will continue to be a pain to whatever party is in power, will continue to engender resentment to the rest of Canada, and Canada will continue to have to deal with its periodic secessionist movements. Meanwhile, the Bloc will never achieve total political power because its attraction will never draw a significant portion of non-Quebec Canada.

Personally, I wanted Mulroney to tell Quebec to fuck off, to call their secessionist bluff, rather than capitulate with the Meech Lake Accord, but that is getting too far afield.

[Genius]

So this is how Canadians stage a coup? And you wonder why we all think you're a bunch of pussies.

[wacker]

We were going to go sit in an airport but then we couldn't watch any hockey.

[vasili denisov]

The problem with the Canadian system -- and most, if not all, multiple party-systems -- is the single-issue party, such as the Bloc. By the Bloc having power, based on a single issue, its parochialism is maintained and the remainder of Canada has to toady to them to get the votes. If Canada had a two-party system, the Bloc would still have political power because they control so many votes (analogous to the senior citizens in the U.S.) and the two parties would still court them. So, they wouldn't lose out.

I'm wondering if the issue is so much the party system as regional or cultural identities. You have nothing like this divide in Great Britain, which doesn't have such outstanding issues (not on the english isles, anyways). This shows up somewhat in the US, where the regional identity of the southern states was always factored in when putting together a ticket.

[comicfan]

Well shit.... if Dion becomes president, I am moving the hell out of Canada. The guy could not lead his ass to the toilet let alone a country. I swear they must have some really good weed up there because I have no idea what they are smoking.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Two party is stupid. A govenment that multiple parties can still have a two party government if that's what the people really wanted.

[wacker]

One of the most bizarre aspects of the whole thing for me is that come May a few thousand Liberal Party keeners are going to be responsible for choosing the PM.

[Archetype]

It's not bizarre, it's fucking retarded.

[taters]

The two party system would DESTROY canada as it has destroyed America. Thanks to it, we are guarenteed that nothing ever gets done, and that every political argument only gets 2 points of view, and any other concerns are tossed to the side.

Heh, its hard to imagine angry conservative righties. They must be like a diet shasta cola version of our raging extremist Pepsi Max.

[Oleg]

This is nothing short of embarrassing. We're now left in a situation with three possible outcomes, all of them ludicrous:

1. Harper prorogues Parliament, thereby delaying what seems like the inevitable until January. Odds are the Governor General (the single most inane of all political positions) likely won't allow this to happen. It would, however, give Harper time to resign while the conversatives try to save the situation. No matter what happens here, Harper's political career is done.

2. The Governor General orders a new election, at which point the country will have to pause for a few seconds to let the rest of the world laugh its collective asses off at us. Three elections in four years you say? Fuck it, how about three elections in damn near a single year. And the best part? Another election will produce the exact same bloody result, except there is probably an off-chance that the conservatives could actually get a majority because most of the country will be so bloody awestruck by the vast stupidity of the Liberals and the NDP (while the Bloc continues its little sovereignty nonsense).

3. The GG caves and allows the opposition to form the new government, which is the most likely outcome. Again, the country pauses while the world laughs its ass off at us. Oooohhhhh, maybe Dion can put in that fancy carbon tax that he loves so much. Oh yes, that should go over wonderfully right now.

What do you do when a country is falling apart before your eyes?

[mongo]

as long as i still get my maple syrup, i don't care.

[comicfan]

Move to another country I guess.

[Yelram]

The two party system would DESTROY canada as it has destroyed America. Thanks to it, we are guarenteed that nothing ever gets done, and that every political argument only gets 2 points of view, and any other concerns are tossed to the side.


This is one of the most idiotic statements you have ever made, and thats saying something, since theres only 1 spelling error.

[Das Kahlua]

The problem with the Canadian system -- and most, if not all, multiple party-systems -- is the single-issue party, such as the Bloc. By the Bloc having power, based on a single issue, its parochialism is maintained and the remainder of Canada has to toady to them to get the votes. If Canada had a two-party system, the Bloc would still have political power because they control so many votes (analogous to the senior citizens in the U.S.) and the two parties would still court them. So, they wouldn't lose out.

That's not the only issue with multi-party systems. When multiple parties of similar but not identical political ideologies band together to form a Bloc, even if they're successful in their bid, there becomes a divide once it actually comes time to govern and there is any form of division when it comes to the issues at hand. The result is gridlock, and a pissed off electorate, followed by a Bloc from the other end of the spectrum vying for power immediately following.

While it makes for good drama, it results is no meaningful action after the elections.

[Le Goat]

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b178/chknfaqr/GMF%20Stuff/118333722453.jpg

[Archetype]

That's not the only issue with multi-party systems. When multiple parties of similar but not identical political ideologies band together to form a Bloc, even if they're successful in their bid, there becomes a divide once it actually comes time to govern and there is any form of division when it comes to the issues at hand.

I don't understand how this bullshit is legal. It's a democratic joke.

[Nature's Folly]

HAHAHAHAHA.

[Morfin]

Okay, Harper did it. I don't get it. How can he just shut down Parliament? Regardless of what he thinks about a no-confidence vote and the fact that the budget hasn't been presented yet, he can't just "take his ball home and not play." If the Liberals/NDP/Bloc want to do this coalition, it is not up to Harper to complain -- as long as the coalition isn't doing anything improper -- it is for the people to decide whether they are screwing everything up. And if that takes yet another election, then the people will let everyone know who they believe is to blame.

(But then, I'm an American and I'm just happy that some other country's government is all screwed up so people will not laugh at ours, at least for a little while.)

Canadian leader suspends Parliament to stay in power

(CNN) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday that Canada's governor general has allowed him to suspend Parliament, postponing a no-confidence vote from his opponents he was likely to lose. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Parliament will resume on January 26.

Now, Harper said, the government should immediately get to work on measures to aid the nation's economy.

Had Governor General Michaelle Jean -- who represents Britain's Queen Elizabeth II as head of state -- denied the request, Monday's vote would have likely brought down Harper's government, less than two months after his Conservative Party strengthened its minority position in federal elections.

Harper, speaking to reporters outside of the governor general's residence in Ottawa, Canada, said Parliament would resume on January 26.

"The first order of business will be the presentation of a federal budget," Harper added, and he called on the opposition to work with his administration in boosting the economy.

"Let's get on with actually working on a[n economic] package. That's what I think Canadians want us to do, is work on the economy and work together, work together in the interest in Canada."

He added, "Those who were elected here to serve the interest of Canada as a whole,should work together -- at least to some degree -- on planning an economic plan for Canada."

On Wednesday, Harper had appealed directly to Canadians for support, vowing in a nationally televised address on the economy that he would do all he can to halt his opponents from carrying out a no-confidence vote in Parliament and forming a coalition government that would replace his own.

"Unfortunately, even before the government has brought forward its budget, and only seven weeks after a general election, the opposition wants to overturn the results of that election," said the prime minister, whose Conservative Party strengthened its minority position in federal elections on October 14.

The Liberal Party and the leftist New Democratic Party announced plans earlier this week to form a governing coalition with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, which supports independence for French-speaking Quebec.

Leader of the Liberal Party Stephane Dion, the man who would replace replace Harper under the planned coalition, said the coalition would look to replace Harper unless he makes "monumental change."

"For the first time in the history of Canada, the prime minister of Canada is running away from the Parliament of Canada," Dion said. He said the premier has "placed partisan politics ahead of the interest of all Canadians."Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/12/04/canada.crisis/index.html)

[wacker]

Does this mean I don't have to pay my taxes for the next month?

[Whiffleball]

Laughing at Canada? The very same thing could theoretically happen in the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Israel, Ireland, Germany, India, France... Those are multi-party systems and even when you have two parties larger than all the others, forming coalitions to rule effectively is common.

Harper seems to be arguing that because it's a tradition that Canada's government has always been elected, it's somehow wrong for the left-wing coalition to form. But there's nothing wrong about it; it just shows how three parties, who disagree on so many things, have come together over a shared belief that the Conservative government is unable to handle the economic crisis.

Having had a government that was laughed at by the world for the last eight years, the United States should not be so quick to judge. We ourselves had an election that was highly regarded as having been tampered with, elect our president not based on how many people voted for him but via the electoral college and have sanctioned torture and wire-tapping. Are we (or anyone else) prepared to assert they have the perfect political system or that they are the model of free, unsullied democracy?

I keep hearing all this talk about how this is going to come back and bite the opp. parties in the collective ass. Yet I doubt they would have even made such an unprecedented move unless they were confident they could make their case. Forming a coalition is a high-risk gamble that could potentially go down in flames easy and the very fact that it's being done speaks to how little confidence Harper actually has.

I agree with Morfin that this is just a stay of execution, a mere delay of the inevitable and a true slap in the face of the democratic process, no matter what the system. To shut down Parliament merely because you have run out of legal ways to avoid losing power is too much and only reinforces the stereotype of Harper as the power-hungry bully. I agree with Oleg that his political career is finished... although I am not sure if the Tories are willing to turn their back on their fearless leader just yet.

tHGnJKZKuow

[redsox39]

I love Democracy. If the majority is wrong, stage a coup and try again!

Karl Rove is thinking hard somewhere...

At least we know that Whining and bitching and pissiness are not exclusive to Left wing America.

[Morfin]

Sorry, but I could handle only 4 minutes of Harper's video (it's my ADD).

So, to summarize his points. First, allowing the coalition is going to lead to the break up of Canada. Second, that the coalition is not democratically-elected.

As to the first point, I hate the Bloc as much as the next guy, but this seems like demagoguery to me, trying to scare Canada into believing that if the coalition is allowed, then the Bloc has its foot in the door and all of a sudden there will be a break up. This seems like a cheap diversionary ploy.

Second, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Harper, but the people have never "democratically elected" the Prime Minister. They vote for their local MPs and whichever party gets the most MPs, gets to install their party chief as PM. So, I don't see where a coalition somehow takes anything away from the populace. (I concede that I may misunderstand the system and the "no confidence" vote and what that actually means.)

The bottom line is that the Tories did not get a majority of the seats so their power is tenuous, unless they form a coalition. Harper called his latest election because he thought he could get that majority and he failed. So, as a minority government, he is vulnerable to a coalition forming, just like what is happening.

I may be missing something, but I don't see how the coalition is doing anything underhanded. The only thing I see as underhanded is Harper shutting down Parliament so that there won't be a vote.

(I still believe that the two-party system is better since it avoids this kind of crap, but that is an argument for another day.)

[Le Goat]

WELL DONE COMRADES!

http://jj.am/gallery/d/61551-1/This_pleases_Putin.jpg

[taters]

I dont get how its 'too many elections' when the parties want to oust Harper, but when he was making his push for PM, it was 'the right thing to do'?

Who says Americans are the only ones with double standards?

[VoxAngelikus]

So wait... Canada has their own government?

[Morfin]

51st State! 51st State!

[Le Goat]

51st State! 51st State!

we don't need another Maine.

[VoxAngelikus]

Stephen Harper seems like a real douchebag. I always thought so, even when he was on that shitty 7th Heaven show.

[vasili denisov]

I love Democracy. If the majority is wrong, stage a coup and try again!

Yeah, it's like these Canadians think it's the 70s and they're the CIA in Chile.

[El Torpedo]

I usually don't support anything to do with the Bloc but it's not like the Liberals and the NDP are just ushering them in so they can stage a coup and let them fuck off once they're in power, I doubt the Bloc would be dumb enough to want to go independent at a time like this. I'm actually shocked that Harper has just shut down the Parliament, it seems like the farthest cry from Canadian ideals. He's lost confidence throughout the political field and the country, it would be hard to argue that he ever had that to begin with. If the parties forming the coalition didn't have such a close divide between its supporters there wouldn't be this issues, I'm wary of a coalition however because they do have significant enough differences on issues within each party, but it's not like they would take such a drastic step without thinking about it. I'm in Britain now for school and all this shits going down all of a sudden, ridiculous.

[Genius]

This is one of the most idiotic statements you have ever made, and thats saying something, since theres only 1 spelling error.
I can't believe that he's so far disillusioned that he actually thinks of the US as "destroyed". Someone should actually show him what "destroyed" entails. Here's a hint, Tater. It has nothing to do with the 2-party system of government that has successfully functioned in the US for well over 200 years. Destroyed is Dresden, circa 1946. If the US was "destroyed", you wouldn't even be able to find a computer to post from. THINK before you type, dude.

[wacker]

On the plus side you'd have some great books written right about now.

[taters]

I can't believe that he's so far disillusioned that he actually thinks of the US as "destroyed". Someone should actually show him what "destroyed" entails. Here's a hint, Tater. It has nothing to do with the 2-party system of government that has successfully functioned in the US for well over 200 years. Destroyed is Dresden, circa 1946. If the US was "destroyed", you wouldn't even be able to find a computer to post from. THINK before you type, dude.

Yes, it is 'destroyed' in the sense that is unfunctional. THink Im wrong?


How much does our 2 party system get done? Is the abortion issue solved? Affirmative Action? Immigration? The right way to run our economy? Education? How many issues that EITHER side thinks is important have come to a conclusion one way or another? Some have. Slavery (took a war), Civil Rights (took a number of murders), Womens suffrage (took a lesser amount of murders but larger number of beatings), thats about it.


2 party system insures NOTHING gets done, and guarentees those elected to represent us and get things done are either initially or will guarenteedly become career politicians who live off things NOT getting done.

[billy1980]

You gotta admit, the Republicans love to hate some Democrats and some Democrats love to blame some Republicans for everything. We blame each other instead of taking personal responsibility and trying to make things right, regardless of party lines.

[o O]

Ill be pissed if Dion becomes the prime minister.

[Whiffleball]

In case you missed it, The Daily Show did a bit on Canada's little political crisis, in which Stewart mocked Canadian politeness when heckling, Canada still being under the yoke of imperial oppression and, uh, Canada's relevance: http://www.hulu.com/watch/47871/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-provinces-in-peril---indecision-oh-eh?c=Comedy#s-p2-sr-i1

Ill be pissed if Dion becomes the prime minister.

Fear not, my friend, because in something else that happened days ago, Michael Ignatieff was chosen as the new Liberal leader.

The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081210.wPOLliberals1210/BNStory/politics/home?cid=al_gam_mostemail)

OTTAWA — Michael Ignatieff says he is ready to lead a new coalition government unless Stephen Harper's Conservatives scrap their attack ads, drop their partisan edge and present a budget that addresses the needs of Canada's struggling economy.

"He can continue down this path of divisive politics or he can start working constructively with Parliament. The choice is his," the newly anointed Liberal Leader warned on Wednesday.

Mr. Ignatieff said it us up to the Prime Minister to reach out with policies that satisfy the opposition's concerns.

The Toronto MP and internationally-known academic went before the cameras after the Liberal caucus and the party's national executive named him as interim leader, to be confirmed by members at a convention in April.

His answers to various questions made clear that Mr. Ignatieff is eager to present an image of political strength, after watching his predecessor, Stéphane Dion, repeatedly attacked as a weak leader by what he referred to as the "buzz saw" of Conservative media tactics.

Talking tough in his first news conference as Liberal leader, he said: "The challenges we face as a country are formidable. Canadians are worried about their jobs, their savings and their future. They want stability, they want leadership, and they want a government they can trust."

But can we trust Iggy? This is a man who loses friends when he is wrong rather than see things correctly. A man who believed that human rights would be served by war and invasion. He never finishes anything, but tires of it and leaves. And he's got so much support from all over the place. I just don't understand it at all. It's clear from reading about his life that he can be very persuasive, but he's never lived in the real world let alone accumulated enough political experience to fight the likes of Harper.

He was the biggest problem with the coalition since he can't be bothered with party unity. He's just some elitist asshole who doesn't know what he's doing.

Harper knows what he's doing, however...

The Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/552046)


OTTAWA–Stephen Harper plans to fill every empty Senate seat by the end of the year to kill any chance of a Liberal-NDP coalition government filling the vacancies next year, the Star has learned.

The Prime Minister plans a wave of appointments in the coming weeks to tilt the balance more in favour of the Conservatives in the Liberal-dominated upper chamber, a government source said last night.

"The government has the intention of naming senators by a government that is legitimately elected by the people," the official said, taking a swipe at the coalition that is threatening to topple the Conservatives.

The move is sure to spark howls of protest from opposition parties arguing that Harper, who prorogued the House rather than be defeated by a united opposition, has no right to make such patronage appointments during this time.

However, Governor General Michaëlle Jean placed no restrictions on Harper's ability to govern when she granted his request last week to discontinue parliamentary proceedings.

That leaves him free to stack the Senate with his own nominees.


Oh, Canada. Letting the Queen's representative shut down your Parliament and an upper house that is appointed by the executive rather than elected by the people... You're so delightfully colonial!

[ElvisWong]

Stephen Harper is a retard !

Elvis Wong is proud Liberal !!!

[taters]

How do you 'seize' power in a (canadian) parliamentary system? Totally serious question.

[Whiffleball]

How do you 'seize' power in a (canadian) parliamentary system? Totally serious question.

The opposition parties band together and, with an effective majority, displace the ruling party, which would then be in the minority in Parliament.

They would in effect be taking power since the Coalition would not have been elected by the people to form a government (the opposition parties actually campaigned against each other in the fall election).

But there is nothing illegal or wrong about this, because even though it hasn't been done in Canada before, the system they use permits it. It's common in many other countries that use the parliamentary system.

It's funny how many people are buying what Harper is saying about how it's illegitimate for the opposition parties to displace him without an election:

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/554979

The fact that such unfounded theories gained so much traction prompted the Dominion Institute to commission a public-opinion poll documenting our civic knowledge base. And the poll results, released this week, offer some depressing percentages:

More than 40 per cent of Canadians don't know that we live in a constitutional monarchy. And a majority of Canadians think the prime minister is directly elected.

"Canadians certainly were interested by what was going on in Ottawa, but lacked in many cases the basic knowledge to form informed opinions," says Marc Chalifoux, who heads the institute.

Turnout in our last federal election was a record low 59 per cent. But it turns out it's not just lack of interest, but lack of knowledge, that is undermining Canada's civic debate.

[Morfin]

In my uninformed American opinion, if Harper has prorogued Parliament, then he cannot conduct any parliament-related activities such as making the Senate appointments. He shut down Parliament in order not to be voted out; he cannot shut them down to avoid a vote and yet continue to act as Prime Minister. If he wants to make the apointments, he resumes Parliament, sees if he survives the vote, and then makes the appointments. As it stands, it is no different than a dictator dissolving Parliament/Congress and continuing to act as the leader without a constitutional foundation.

[p-air]

Harper's situation is a bit more subtle than you suggest. He passed a confidence vote the week before the coalition emerged and has not lost a confidence vote since. Once parliament was prorogued, the coalition has, for all intents and purposes, collapsed and no longer represents a realistic or possible 'government in waiting'.
Harper has the power to appoint senators. It is unseemly, but he can surely do it.

[Morfin]

The point is that, in all likelihood, the only reason he "has not lost a confidence vote since" is because he shut it down. That is "taking his ball home and not allowing anyone to play." I posit that since he has shut down any ability for the opposition -- coalition or no -- to remove him, he has lost a moral foundation for continuing to act as prime minister, if not a legal foundation for acting.

[Whiffleball]

It does appear that the Liberals under Iggy are moving away from a coalition and are getting cozy with the Tories, in exchange for Harper finally acknowledging the seriousness of Canada's economic problems: (http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/554998)

There are two possible explanations for this new tone. One is that both the Conservatives and Liberals do recognize that Ottawa must do something bold and are willing to work together to achieve that.

The more logical explanation is that both – for different reasons – are trying to avoid a non-confidence motion that would defeat Harper's government when the Commons returns next month.

The problem for the Conservatives is that Governor General Michaëlle Jean might respond to such a defeat by asking the Liberals and New Democrats to form a government with Bloc support – as outlined in the agreement the three parties signed last month.

The problem for the Liberals is that they no longer want this coalition. Polls show that many voters would find such an arrangement unseemly.

Besides, it's not entirely clear that the Liberals want to take responsibility for the kind of deficit necessary to keep the economy from foundering (the International Monetary Fund calculates that if Canada is to do its bit to stave off global collapse, Ottawa should spend roughly $30 billion more than it brings in next year).

For the Liberals, the coalition fiasco has already served its primary purpose, which was to let Michael Ignatieff replace Stéphane Dion as party leader without the necessity of a messy democratic vote.

So expect the new tone of reasonableness to persist until Jan. 27 when Flaherty is scheduled to bring down his budget. Expect this budget to contain many rhetorical references to the need for strong action. Expect the Liberals to take credit for this rhetoric and to join the Conservatives in supporting the budget.

Don't necessarily expect the contents of the budget to match this rhetoric. And once the possibility of a Liberal-NDP coalition has been firmly and finally buried, don't expect the reasonable tone to continue.

It's interesting that Harper hasn't just changed his tone on the economy. The reason there were so many vacancies in the Senate was because he wanted them to be elected, not appointed. But faced with a removal from power, he wants to stack the Senate with Conservatives so a Liberal PM can't stack it with Liberals.

The NDP seems to agree with Morfin that a PM who lacks the confidence of the House (which really is the case, until the coalition is officially declared off) should not be acting like one:
(http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d84bc837-ac71-4c70-bbf9-c56b1b0aab56)
There's even a growing body of expert opinion questioning whether a prime minster who has lost the confidence of the House of Commons in a prorogued Parliament could even make such appointments.

In an open letter to a French-language newspaper last week, leading constitutional scholars said "the nomination of senators in these circumstances would be illegitimate and, more importantly, in clear violation of constitutional ideals and rule of law." (Translation from La Presse, Dec. 14, 2008).

The experts point out that confidence of the House is fundamental to Canada's parliamentary system and with 161 opposition members signing a letter expressing non-confidence in this government, some experts suggests that these patronage appointments should be rejected by the governor-general. New Democrats agree.

On Monday, New Democrat leader Jack Layton called on Stephen Harper to uphold the principles of responsible government and forgo any Senate appointments. To stack the Senate with Conservative appointees when the House has clearly indicated a lack of confidence while Parliament has been unceremoniously shut down would be a serious abuse of power.

With Canadians rightly concerned about their jobs, pensions, savings and homes, parliamentarians, including Stephen Harper, should be focused on a stimulus package that will kick-start our ailing economy, not transparent power grabs in obvious attempts to cling to power.

[Morfin]

Fuck. The NDP and French are taking my position? I wanna switch. Go, Harper. You're doin' the right thing.