Da Legal Stuff...

All commentaries published on Web Talk are the opinions of the contributor(s) only and do not necessarily represent the position of any other individuals, groups or organizations.

Now, with that out of the way...Let's Web Talk.

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Canada, A True Monarchy

The Governor General’s decision to suspend Parliament and prop up a government that does not have the confidence of the House of Commons proves one point very clearly.

The Governor General’s office, as many have expressed in the past, is a complete and utter waste of taxpayer dollars.

The Governor General, with her decision, has set a precedent that will impact all future governments in Canada and dampen the ability of government to function.

By setting this precedent it will now be possible for all future governments to suspend the House of Commons any time they are facing a non-confidence vote, thus denying the elected House the ability to oust an ineffective, unpopular or even destructive leadership regime.

The office of the Governor General is expected to protect Parliament and ensure that it functions as it was intended, a role the current Governor General has abdicated by denying the will of the very Parliament she is sworn to protect and instead supporting one party over the will of the majority of elected members.

The will of Parliament, whether or not any single individual agrees with the sentiment, was to defeat the current government. Instead of allowing this democratic event to unfold as has happened throughout Canada’s history, the current Governor General has allowed the Prime Minister to hide from his responsibility and govern unopposed.

The Prime Minister is now free to wage a propaganda offensive against his opposition while continuing to control the public purse, speak on behalf of the Country and make decisions of national importance without having the support of the majority of the House.

There are those who will argue that the current Prime Minister should be allowed to continue governing rather than being removed from office.

There are those who believe the desire of Parliament should be followed by allowing a coalition government to lead Canada.

There are still others who might prefer another election be held to settle the issue.

No matter which side of the issue Canadians may subscribe to one thing is now abundantly clear:

In spite of those who believe Canada is a dysfunctional democracy, believe it or not, this is no the case.

In a democracy, even a dysfunctional one, the people can always hold out hope of invoking some kind of positive change. Now even that hope is gone.

Canada today is no longer a dysfunctional democracy. It’s a corrupt and disconnected monarchy.

The Governor General should not only be removed from her office but the office itself should be permanently closed.

22 comments:

Who Cares said...

Good post.

It really is a shame, I think it would of been interesting to see what would of happened if there was another Election or if let the coalition run things for awhile.

Now we'll be subjected to 2 months of the Conservative's bashing the other party's to death or he'll offer enough to MP's of the other party's to get a Majority.

Geekwad said...

To be fair, Harper has not lost a confidence vote, so he can't officially be said to have lost the confidence of the house.

Patriot said...

Give me a break Geekwad. The entire point here is that the GG did not permit the House to express its non-confidence which is a dangerous precedent. It's clear to anyone not in a coma that the majority of the House does not have that confidence. The GG allowed Harper to usurp that will by not allowing the vote and no amount of splitting hairs will change that.

Geekwad said...

It's not hair splitting. Either SH is PM or he is not. He has been asked to form a government and he has not lost a vote of confidence. Therefore he is PM. Therefore he has every reason to expect the GG to grant any constitutional request.

If you don't like it, take it up with 2/3rds of the provincial legislatures, the Senate, the House and the Queen.

MrvnMouse said...

I agree fully and wrote to a similar effect: http://www.1337hax0r.com/2008/12/04/harper-does-not-have-confidence-of-the-house/

I, however, argue further that our MPs should have a provisional parliament in protest of this. Shutting down the legislative body simply because it disagrees with the executive is a dangerous and bad precedent.

Patriot said...

Granted he had the right to ask but if she was doing her job she would have protected Parliament by denying that request.

So sorry but no amount of blind partisan kool-aid drinking on anyone's part changes that reality.

Geekwad said...

Please do not make assumptions about my politics. You are mistaken.

I think it would have been more "monarchist" for the GG to refuse a request of the legal PM of our country. She needs a *constitutional* reason to refuse a request. Otherwise she is just doing whatever she likes; we have a GG and a PM instead of a monarch to avoid just that.

Geekwad said...

Partisan. Please. Further more, don't tell me to give you a break and don't belittle me any further. See rule 4. I take it very personally to be associated with the CPC. ;-)

Patriot said...

Number one Geekwad, anyone who would pick a nickname like that doesn't need anyone else to belittle them.

Secondly, I'll tell you want I what I feel like telling you, including to take a break.

Thirdly, I never said you were a CON but if you believe I was saying you were then perhaps there is a reason for your personal beliefs. Perhaps you should take a look deep inside (see, I'm telling you to do something else).

Finally, are you a constitutional expert (if so prove it) because there have been plenty of them the past few days who have agreed that she had the option to deny the PM. Who do you claim to be that you can pronounce that she does not?

NL-ExPatriate said...

There is a reason Harper took almost two hours in that meeting. He had to convince coerce and probably downright threaten her the GG that is.

I think the GG should have to justify her decision to set a precedent to change fundamentally our parliamentary democracy from here on in. Especially seeing as it is a new precedent that will change fundamentally how our dictatorship works. Yes dictatorship because if we have now ways or means to hold the govt of the day accountable it is in essence a dictatorship.

Now harper should never have put the GG in such an untenable position to begin with or she shouldn't have accepted his request for a audience. But in the end it was the GG's decision to make and the GG's decision alone so if she didn't have the intestinal fortitude nor strength of will to say no to a bombastic bully who is only in the position he is in is because of his antagonistic nature and ideological views with little or no respect for the will of the people in only giving him a minority.

The Public Eye said...

THIS is the true lesson of what happened. Harper was despicable for settling upon prorogation as a mechanism for extending his political life, but it was Jean who made it happen. In this sense, she has made herself an accessory after the fact in Harper's crimes. Both she and Harper should be shown the door.

Anonymous said...

Well Myles what can one say that hasn’t been said already. I believe that Craig Oliver form CTV gave the best description of how this came too be. All things set aside I shall never again give my vote to a social party such as the NDP. To sit in the wings with the Bloc, a separatist party, to wait for a confrontation likes this. It has done nothing for the Canadian economy. This from Jack Layton whom I thought was setting a good example until that bit of news’s hit me.

What really surprises me is the lack of anger coming out of the Province from all levels of Government. Mines closing in Labrador, Mills closing in Grand Falls Windsor. What next, layoffs in the Oil and Gas sector. Nothing would surprise me.
This too me shows me one thing and one thing only. It is not the Governor Generals Office that is dysfunctional but the entire structure of The Canadian Government.

Yes, the Governor Generals Office has truly screwed up by not allowing a vote of confidence but I believe this is nothing more than putting off a vote that must take place. Harper has shown his weakness. His need to destroy his political foes was his own undoing. The fact that the NDP and the Bloc were just itching for something like this to take place so they could recruit the Liberals into this coalition was really surprising.

For over eight years now Canada and a great number of her citizens have bashed the American people and the government of George Bush for being destructive and not working with people. Finally Canadian’s show there true hypocritical colors and follow suit. I see no one working together. I see no Obama style of leader from any party trying to cross the partisan lines of Government for the betterment of her citizens. All I see are lies and half truths and intolerance on both sides.

Yes Myles, you see a dysfunctional Governors Generals Office. I on the other hand would have to conclude that the entire Canadian government is now dysfunctional. What a better name for our country .Canada failed liberal state. Are we going to start making deals with terrorist now as well? Yes, Harper is nothing but a snake in the grass that wants to rule with an iron fist. But, has this country fallen to the level that it will allow a separatist party to take seats in the senate. Is this what we voted for in 1949? To be members of a dysfunctional state that no one is willing to invest in. I say it’s time to hack up this country. We have to stop giving our resources away because we are going to need them to once again build our own nation. This is not a country, but a sham. And a sick dysfunctional sham to boot.
Its time this boat left port Myles.

It’s time to worry about what’s going to happen to Newfoundland and Labrador. What’s left will not be worth fighting over anyway.

Whatever happened to the NLFirst Party. Another dead dream.
God Guard thee Newfoundland.

PS, yes ,my name really is Calvin.And today I'm coming out.From now on please refer to me not as a Soft-Nationalist, but a separtist.It seems to work for Quebec very well.

Patriot said...

Thanks for the comment Calvin (Anon) and thanks for coming out (in the political sense).

I'm glad to hear what you have to say but (not being arguementative but simply questioning) I'm having a bit of a hard time reconciling your comments.

You are ticked that the NDP would partner with separatists but you are saying that you are now a soft nationalist for NL.

Yes, Quebec has been well served by doing what they do (which is the point) but why would you be so vehemently opposed to their stand if you support the same sort of action for NL?

I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said but I find that part more than a little confusing.

In reality NL and Quebec are perhaps the two most aligned provinces in Canada in terms of being unique societies. Yes, we have had a lot of grief from Quebec for years over so many issues but never the less we are both unique societies.

Why do you see NL nationalism as OK but Quebec nationalism not so much?

Again, not argueing or attacking but curious.

WJM said...

Calvin writes:

To sit in the wings with the Bloc, a separatist party, to wait for a confrontation likes this...

From now on please refer to me not as a Soft-Nationalist, but a separtist.It seems to work for Quebec very well.


OK... are separatists good, or bad? Or does it depend on which province's separation you're arguing for? Please clarify.

Who Cares said...

To all people who call the Bloc a separatist party think about it...

Why in the world would Quebec want to leave Canada?
They would lose $10+ Billion a year in money and have their costs go up..
Military, border control, coast guard, etc... Quebec doesn't want to leave Canada and never will!! It's just their way of getting more for less.

Of course if we separated, (and I think if it was put to a vote, it could happen, a lot of people I know would vote that way) Canada would lose just about all air traffic coming from Europe (They pay to use our airspace.. NL's not Canada's, I read somewhere a few years ago that it's close to a Billion), that's just one reason that they(Canada) would never let this happen.

Now if I'm wrong about this, I'm wrong. 57% of all Iron Ore in Canada come's from NL and all secondary prosscesing is done here... (LOL Right How many job do you think this gives the rest of Canada...)

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC824436#SEC824450

But I'm sure there are a hundred more ways we are getting raped that no one thinks about.

I'm just sick of seeing so much money leaving NL to support the rest of Canada and getting hardly anything in return besides being mocked..
I can go on and on...

The point of this is we should easily be the richest province in Canada,(even without the Fishery) but we are not, because they have raped us of everything for years. Unlike Quebec we could leave and do very will for ourselves. I don't know if I'm a separatist or not, I would just like to see us getting our fair share..........

lol I lost my train of thought.

Anyways I just wish that everyone in NL would get together like the people in Quebec. We always pride ourselves on our spirit, I wonder what we could do if we all worked together. Like maybe Vote in the NLFirst Party next time or get some MPs up there that would fight for us first and their party second...

ahhh that's it... I'd love to hear about more ways we lose money to the rest of Canada, if you have read anything or know anything post it.

Later

Who Cares said...

By the way I just found your Blog a few days ago and I must say I really enjoy your writing style.

I don't agree with everything you've posted (and I've read alot of it in the last couple of days), but you do a very good job of getting your Point of View across and alot of your views and those of others here follow mine.

Thanks and keep up the good work,
Wes

Anonymous said...

If I may Myles I would like to answer Wallace first. To be honest I’m rather happy to answer his question. I believe Wallace this may be the first time we have been able to actually discuss something, I hope it is not the last.
“WJM said...

Calvin writes:

To sit in the wings with the Bloc, a separatist party, to wait for a confrontation likes this...

From now on please refer to me not as a Soft-Nationalist, but a separatist. It seems to work for Quebec very well.

OK... are separatists good, or bad? Or does it depend on which province's separation you're arguing for? Please clarify.”

First Wallace I truly thought that all separatist were evil creators that deserved to be hung in the town square. And, no it doesn’t matter what province you are arguing for. To me those from Quebec were no better than those in the west arguing, their case for western secession. It just seems to me that Quebec uses this every time it does not get its own way. What if every province in Canada worked this way Wallace. What would we have? I would love to hear your response to that (not being argumentative but simply questioning). I hope that I have been a little more descriptive in my writing for you this time.

To bring some conclusion to your question Myles, yes we as Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans do have a great number of things in common with Quebec. We both have a very unique, vibrant culture that has a history unto itself. I would say Myles that the difference between a soft-nationalist and a nationalist is that one believes his culture may live and grow in a society that is shared by others. While a nationalist believes that this is not possible. They need complete autonomy. Their own flag money and head of state ,a complete sovereign state.

If I have given you the impression that nationalism is OK for Newfoundland and Labrador but not so for Quebec, then pardon me. I have again misled your train of thought. It must be my tone or my sentence structure that shows this. My tone however must come from years of hope that our home will somehow progress in confederation. This of course is once again a matter of opinion and example. In regards to my opinion and research I feel that the last 59 years have not been worth the cost of confederation with Canada. The price tag was just far too excessive.

In regards to the NDP, all I see is a party that is not looking for cooperation but confrontation. Their coffers are flush and they now have the ability to launch a full out assault on the Prime Minister’s office. This, coming from a political party that campaigned on the promise of “getting along.” The now infamous recording has shown that Mr. Layton did not have these intentions from the start. More lies and false promises. Just when Canada needed someone or something to bring the country together we get lies and treachery. I thought that by giving someone a chance that never had it before might have made a difference. Again I feel I have been proven wrong. And what a time to do so .In the greatest economical challenge of our generation. When we need our government the most it has once again not failed Newfoundland and Labrador but all of Canada.

I have tried to find some other rational thought that would explain my feelings towards what is happening in Ottawa. All I see is a great pissing contest by greedy men who want to control. Its time to take back our nation. We just need to help Quebec move on from Canada. Is it evident that this is what they want the most? Why else would they continue to threaten the federal government and the other provinces?
Besides, would it not be hypocritical of me to try and convince the good people of Quebec to stay in confederation. Look at what they receive now compared to Newfoundland and Labrador, and they are still unhappy with their situation. I want to think of this as coming to terms with a situation that will never go away Myles. It’s time to say Good-bye to Canada. It’s not worth the fight.

Calvin

Patriot said...

Thank-you Calvin for what were obviously heart felt words on your part.

You have answered my queries. Based on past history I doubt you will satisfy Wallace's however. It's very rare that anything ever does however I hope that even Wallace, in these trying political and economic times, can put aside his partisan bent and political philosophy and simply accept your feelings of concern for what they are.

Cheers,
Myles

Anonymous said...

Well Wes (Whocares), it’s very easy to lose your train of thought reading this Blog, Myles has created. Whenever you invoke or have such an emotional attachment to something it tends to interfere with your logic. I’m a prime example of such ranting. I think Myles can testify to that on my behalf.:)

I to hold out for Newfoundland and Labrador unity. Studying Newfoundland and Labrador culture for the amount of time I have, I have always read on the divisions that we have had as a people. Townie verse bay man. Catholic verse protestant. The recent trouble and divide between mainland Labrador and the Island portion of the province.

If our resources are in such great demand, why can we not produce jobs that involve processing those resources? Comes down to dysfunctional government. And, the situation does not look good in the near future.Hope to hear from you again.

Calvin

Anonymous said...

A letter I found Myles sent by a former First Minister to the Governor General.

Her Excellency
the Right Honourable Michaelle Jean
Governor General of Canada

Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K14 0A1


You Excellency:


As a former first minister of a Province of this country, a participant in the formulation of the 1982 Constitution, and as a Privy Councillor, I feel that it is my duty to provide you with my views on the present political crisis facing our country. You will understand , I trust, that I will be making this communication public.

You have received letters from the Leader of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party indicating that they are in a position to form a coalition government since they contend that the majority of members of the House of Commons have lost confidence in the present minority Government. Of course, this would have to be demonstrated on a vote in the House.

The coalition was careful to produce a document ( An Accord on a Co-operative Government to Address the Present Economic Crisis) creating a coalition government having as signatories just the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party. However, there is a further document ( A policy Accord to address the Present Economic Crisis) that is signed by The Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada and the Leader of le Bloc Quebecois. And the Leader of Le Bloc Quebecois has publicly on Television given his support to the Coalition. Le Bloc Quebecois is, de facto, a part of the Government being proposed. This is further legitimized by the Bloc's statement that it will not support any non confidence motions in the House of Commons for the period of its agreement.

Now, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois and his party do not believe in the continuation of this country as presently constituted. So it is a contradiction in terms to have a Government of this country whose very existence depends on people who do not believe in this country.

I would submit, therefore, that the coalition proposal is outside the constitution of this country. Our constitution is based on the Country as it presently exists. Given that you are to consider your options in light of the Constitution, the Coalition proposal does not qualify for consideration.

I contend that there is no provision in writing or convention which permits consideration of a proposal which sees the formation of a Government of this country which is dependent for its existence upon those who do not support the country as it presently exists.

Some will argue that because there are Bloc Quebecois members in the House this precludes my argument from being valid. I would argue that two wrongs don't make a right . Secondly, I would argue that it is one thing to be a member of the House, it is quite another to be a part of the Government. The elevation of the issue to the level of Governing the country simply means that we now must confront the bizarre nature of how we have conducted ourselves---outside the constitution-- and that it is time to be consistent with it.

The other potential matters of proroguing the House or an election are matters that come within the Constitution and I am sure, with your advisors, the appropriate decisions will be made.


Honourable A. Brian Peckford P. C. Brian Peckford was Premier of Newfoundland from 1979 to 1989

Calvin

Patriot said...

The peckford letter means very little. It's just one person's opinion and worth no more or less than anyone elses regardless of the author's previous position. In fact it may be less valid than some since he is clearly a person with a partisan political history.

It does raise an interesting point however. One that nobody has even mentioned so far, at least to my knowledge.

Other than for political/partisan reasons, why would the Conservatives (and others) keep saying that the coalition would have to depend on the Bloc to get legislation passed or to stay in power?

If the coalition were in power then the Conservatives would be sitting in opposition just as the NDP and Liberals are today and (if they were truly willing to put their partisanship aside for the good of the Country) they would be in a position to vote in favor of good legislation.

This would mean that as long as the coalition governed well and introduced good measures they could stay in power without bloc support.

Are the Conservatives saying they would not support anything brought forward, even if it is good for Canada, simply because they were booted out of office?

What does that say about the Conservative party and what they stand for?

Starrigan said...

I agree with Who Cares, we do stand to do very well as a separate country, Quebec, not so much. But do they really want to separate or are they just continuously playing the same game? They do very well by just threatening. We have discussed this here before. It's just the way Canada works, Quebec has the population and the political pull that comes with it, that will never change. What has changed is the fact that we may be looking at coalition governments as the norm in the future. Interesting, if the NL First party had 7 seats, it may very well have some power in the future....