Monday, February 11, 2008

Keeping it Simple Tonight

In the same way that Harper and whoever told him to wear this nonsense believed that he would fool people into thinking that he was a real good old boy from Calgary, he Harper, would also have us believe that he meant it when he set an American style term of office. Sorry, I meant to say election date.

That assertion was BS then and it's BS now. The Con's and some of their media supporters tout themselves as being strategic geniuses. In fact, this government seems to be in the business of producing much ado about nothing. Everything they put out and speak to is either phoney, specious or an out and out lie.

On this particular issue, going to the GG to fell the government, well it's just too transparent. A government hell bent on defeating itself has something to hide in my view.

But some constitutional experts say such a move would conflict with a federal law passed last year setting fixed-election dates. Under the law, which was introduced by the Harper government, the next federal election is slated for October, 2009, unless the opposition parties defeat the government before then.

"One could make a very strong argument to the Governor General to refuse his request because he's violating his own law," said Errol Mendes, a professor of constitutional and international law at the University of Ottawa.

An attempt to force an election would also violate the constitutional principle of Senate independence, noted Mendes. The Commons has no authority to compel the Senate to pass legislation, he said.

"Confidence motions are basically about the government of the day retaining the confidence of the House, not the Senate. It has nothing to do with the Senate, which is why there has never in the history of Canada been a motion such as this."

I hope the budget they produce is innocuous and one that we can let pass. Yes I know the NDP will accuse us of what nought but the more exposure of the inability of this government to do anything right is warranted in my view. Keep them in power just little bit longer and Canada will see who they are.

Harper, etal, has now shown that is what they fear, so let's give them that.

I know I've said we should go for an election now, but a little more time just might expose these morons fully. Canadians only now seem to be removing the scales from their eyes, (gawd was that a biblical reference?, lol), so let's help them in that painful endeavor. We can ease the pain by taking it a bit more slowly. In doing so, Canadians might just see what a sham this government is.


Loraine Lamontagne said...

Ewan Solomon interview of the Leader of the Opposition Stephen Harper :

Solomon: So why did you write that letter to the Governor-General with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton saying in the event of a confidence vote situation do not call a snap election - are we to assume that therefore you're working to form a coalition?

Harper: There seems to be an attitude in the Liberal government - that they can go in, be deliberately defeated and call an election - that's not how our constitutional system works. The government has a minority - it has an obligation to demonstrate to Canadians that it can govern. That it can form a majority in the House of Commons. If it can't form a majority, we look at other options, we don't just concede to the government's request to make it dysfunctional. I know for a fact that Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton and the people who work for them want this Parliament to work and I know if is in all of our interests to work. The government has got to face the fact it has a minority, it has to work with other people.

I could not agree more with Mr. Harper

Anonymous said...

My view on this has been that it is best not to give Harper an election when he wants one if this is possible. However, I don't know if they will find agreement on Afghanistan. I don't know what is in the Liberal motion, but it sounds like it has a fixed end date of 2011 and a change after Feb 2011 away from search and destroy.

This sounds a lot like the Dutch compromise, which has a fixed end date of 2010 and, from what I have heard, they do not do search and destroy, but they also are not just development. Harper appears to lean more toward the USA model (full combat, no fixed end date) and I doubt he will go along with the Dutch model.

I discussed this with several Dutch and learned that while the left-wing of their political spectrum felt very uncomfortable with the mission in Afghanistan and the role of the US, they were strongly influenced by their role in Bosnia, where their hands were tied to not engage in combat and they stood by and watched genocide. They felt this could happen in Afghanistan if the troops didn't stay and do what they could to prevent it. In the end, they achieved a consensus of both right and left-socialist parties and went for a fixed end date. The people I talked to thought it was the best compromise in a bad situation.

I really doubt Canada will see such a compromise among their various parties on this. As a former NDP supporter, I was very disappointed when the NDP voted against ending the mission in 2009. Given that vote, I don't expect to see any compromise from them and I don't expect to see them cooperate in trying to time an election when Harper is most vulnerable. However, I think both the Liberals and the Bloc would prefer that to be the timing, so we will see.

Anonymous said...

That should say a change after Feb 2009 away from search and destroy.

Karen said...

Nice catch loraine. Do you have a link to the article?

Memories grow short when distracted by the heady scent of power don't they?

Karen said...

clh, I suspect Mr. Layton's policy is driven by what his base would expect, as well as his commitment to attacking both the Lib's and the Con's when an election comes.

Interesting facts about the Dutch decision. Thanks for that.

wilson said...

IMO the 'confidence' motion to set the Senate on fire was for the purpose of illustrating to Canadians, that even with a majority, the Liberals Senate can not be forced to pass anything 'Conservative'.
Even tho Parliament (elected members) passed this bill , as Sen. (unelected) Sharon Carstairs said, you can't make me do it!
It would take an election, as was the case over free trade, to move the Senate on a matter of importance to the government of the day.

PMSH is keeping Senate reform on the front burner.

Dion's Afghan mission ammendments maybe in contravention of NATO rules/strategy, re: information publication and training of Afghans.

Karen said...

Maybe wilson, but it's foolish strategy in my opinion. Looking petulant loses Harper support.

Didn't a Maritime province just come out and say they would not support changes to the Senate recently?

Dion's Afghan mission ammendments maybe in contravention of NATO rules/strategy, re: information publication and training of Afghans

I'm not following you here. Can you elaborate please?

Anonymous said...

I don't see why either dion or harper would want an election this winter. please visit The result of an election reight now would probably be about the same as we have now...

Anonymous said...

Exactly, results would be the same - Harper is obviously scared of something, otherwise he would'nt be pushing it. I think Harper would rather it end up the same than being exposed.

What is he afraid of? I say, let's wait - let's see what is going to come out of the woodwork.

ottlib said...


I mentioned a few days ago that it is generally not good political strategy to give your political opponents what they want.

Stephen Harper gives every indication of wanting an election this Spring. So, if at all possible the Liberals should wait.

Karen said...

I agree ottlib, but it doesn't feel like that will happen.

The media has been silent on the persistent filibustering going on at committee, but they love to sink their teeth into other issues that the Lib's attack the government on. The more exposure of that the better.

We'll see I guess. Right now everyone is playing nicey nice re' Afghanistan, but give it a day or two.