Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Harper: "I Am Not A Crook"...

Oh... Sounds so familiar doesn't it?

1) Election funding "irregularities" requiring the national police force to assist elections regulators in obtaining key info from Party Party HQ

2) Shady deals made - or attempted - with a dying government member for his vote, offering something in return, reportedly (and recorded on tape).

3) A tape-recording of an opposing party in a private discussion (in caucus), taped without their knowledge - and made public before they were made aware.

Sounds like a Nixon Whitehouse. Maybe a 3rd World failing dictatorship? Certainly akin to a banana republic, or in the Reformer Prairie sense, a "Barley Republic"?

Actually, it's Stephen Harper in his continued attempts to consolidate all power in the PMO. The most controlling PMO in Canadian history continues to mislead Canadians and push for control and power.

Mr. Harper has silenced his own MPs, after years of crying about MP's rights to speak for their constituents, and "buck the party line"... Now, when all of Parliament opposes him, and is ready to turf him, he complains?

Harper has a LOT to answer for, and we hope the Canadian people see through his sham and coming storm of bought advertising. This sicko doesn't care for Canada, or our traditions and systems, and he really doesn't care what he does to save his own hide. He is a bull in a china shop, and unfortunately that china shop happens to be the country we all know and love.

Email, call, or write you local paper to complain about their skewed coverage of the events of the past week!

Here's a Globe and Mail excerpt from an Editorial Board Q&A:

"Globe editorial board editor on why Harper should resign

North Star from Canada writes: While certainly no PM has prorogued the House mere weeks after taking government and only delivering a throne speech, has any PM before prorogued Parliament successfully when it was clear that proroguing is only a manoeuvre to stave off a defeat of non-confidence? The usual precedent is for the GG to accept the PM's advice but Harper's request only weeks after taking government is also unprecedented, so one wonders then, that if precedent is already broken, if the GG is bound to convention? Thanks!

John Geiger: This is the dilemma that the Governor-General must face when she returns from Europe. You are quite right, this function of the Queen's representative has been treated as a rubber stamp, and the current practice is for all requests to prorogue to be granted, but you are right also that the circumstances here are very unusual. This is a case not of a government establishing its schedule for Parliament, but of a government trying to avoid Parliament, in effect trying to hide from Parliament, lest it be defeated. Constitutional scholars are divided on the question, and it is this issue, more than the question of dissolution, which has the potential to blow up in the face of the G-G. In a perfect world, Mr. Harper would not run scared in this way, and the viceroy would not be forced to wade into such waters. But if he does and if she has to, then Ms. Jean must weigh carefully the impact of denying the request not only on the government but on her office.

Bruce Smith from Canada writes: Only a few months ago, Mr. Harper announced that, despite having passed a law fixing the date of the next election, he was forced to call one early because Parliament was not functional. He won the election, although only with a minority and promptly demonstrated that the new parliament was far less functional than the last one. On what possible basis does he have for seeking a new election? He has clearly failed to achieve what he set as his goal for the prior election. What logical or honourable argument does he have for remaining leader of the Conservative Party?

John Geiger: Hi Bruce, these are good questions, and in fact the powers invested with Governor-General are there for a very good constitutional reason: to prevent politicians from abusing the electorate by going back to voters time and again trying to get the right answer from them. Canadians have twice refused to give Mr. Harper a majority government. To me, that means only one thing: That Canadians don't want Mr. Harper to have a majority government. Mr. Harper needed to conduct himself accordingly. Instead, he chose to largely ignore the dark economic clouds gathering, and instead use the government's fiscal update to take some partisan pokes at the opposition and the public service. I'm sure this seemed like great sport at first for at least some of Mr. Harper's conservative 'base', but Mr. Harper's real base consists of the people of Canada. He has failed to act like a prime minister. This is the side of the Conservative party that produced the defecating puffin. Mr. Harper has not only sent the country into political turmoil, but has invited a political crisis, one he now hopes to stoke through radio ads and public rallies. The question surely must have entered the minds of many Tories as to whether Mr. Harper is not now a serious liability for his party."

post signature


Aaron said...

" the powers invested with Governor-General are there for a very good constitutional reason: to prevent politicians from abusing the electorate by going back to voters time and again trying to get the right answer from them."

I think that is the most important point. The constant calls for an election and the disdain shown to parliament are abusive on the Canadian constitution and our democracy. They will keep calling elections until they "win"

Aaron said...

I know that your list of Harpers abuses of parliamentary democracy was probably not meant to be exhaustive. But the 200 page manual issued to Conservative committee chairmen on how to obstruct the business of parliamentary committees is another important example