Here’s someone in Yukon getting spammed by a Winnipeg Conservative MP. The North is always at the front of the mind in the Conservative Party. The Rod Bruinooge the Minister of Xeroxing proves it.
I’m mailing the Conservatives 4 pieces of junk mail to try and keep pace with their recent example, and you should too. It’s free, just tape some junk mail into communication they make you pay for, that they mail to you. Better send it soon today though, the House may not be in session by Monday, unless the Governor General has a spine! She actually could stand up for Canadians, when Harper chooses to ask her to break his fixed date election law.
–
Hat tip to comment from LF
==
There is a compelling, but long letter I want to share with you, and if you agree with it I hope you’ll fax it in to the GG and email. There isn’t much time.
Her Excellency
the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General of Canada
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A1 Transmitted via fax : (613) 998-8760September 4, 2008
Your Excellency
In the matter of the recent news reports of the Prime Minister of Canada suggesting he will request you dissolve government, due to his lack of confidence. I am attaching an Op-ed I wrote recently,
which I feel reflects the feelings of myself and many Canadians.Canadians have felt powerless for far too long. We are tired of being at the mercy of the whims of our elected officials. We have hired them to do a job, to represent the people of this nation and
hold our best interests in the highest esteem. I am requesting that you ask the member of the Official Opposition whether he feels he has the confidence of the majority of members of the House and if so, allow him to take over as our Prime Minister. (As is part of our Canadian Convention ) If the recent news reports are correct, it is clear then that the current Prime Minister does not want his job and does not feel he can serve. Therefore it is incumbent on you to represent the people’s best interest. I quote our Queen from this government website;Parliamentary democracy has fostered tolerance and flexibility - a good balance between individual rights and collective responsibilities. And this is because the constitutional monarchy has always placed the emphasis on people in community - as it were, a national family with the Sovereign as its head.
Queen Elizabeth II
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
October 1987
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/fr-rf/couronne_crown_canada/4_e.cfmI submit that it is neither in the best interest of Canadians individual rights nor our collective responsibilities, to be paying for another election at this time. I submit that the House was sitting in the spring and did not lose confidence at that time, they have not resumed the next session and there has not been a motion which was defeated. The Prime Minister’s meetings with the leaders of the other political parties, requesting a statement of confidence outside the House is not productive to good government. This is not a game. A minority government should not request a blank cheque from the opposition leaders. This is not responsible government.
I quote from an article on the government website, in bold is the critical point [bold not shown in this blog post]:
“First, in the United States the head of state and the head of the government are one and the same. The President is both at once. Here, the Queen, ordinarily represented by the Governor General,
is the head of state, and the Prime Minister is the head of the Government. Does that make any real difference? Yes: in Canada, the head of state can, in exceptional circumstances, protect Parliament and the people against a Prime Minister and Ministers who may forget that “minister” means “servant,” and may try to make themselves masters. For example, the head of state could refuse to let a Cabinet dissolve a newly elected House of Commons before it could even meet, or could refuse to let Ministers bludgeon the people into submission by a continuous series of general elections. The American head of state cannot restrain the American head of government because they are the same person.”
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/idb/forsey/can_am_gov_print-e.aspFurther I quote the importance of minority government (again from a government website) , surely ensures that only legislation that is in the best interest of Canadians can or will be passed. If
legislation cannot be agreed to by the majority of members of Parliament then I submit to you that it is not the will of the people of Canada.“A reality of “minority governments” is that their life is often quite short. If the government is defeated in the House of Commons or legislature on a vote of non-confidence, the Crown’s
representative must either dissolve Parliament by calling an election or call on yet another member to attempt to form a government that would enjoy majority support. Far from existing only in political theory, this prerogative power has indeed been exercised in Canada - for example, in Ontario in 1985.”http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/fr-rf/couronne_crown_canada/4_e.cfm
In keeping with Canadian tradition, Convention and attitude desiring good, responsible government I am requesting that you act on behalf of the people of Canada, and assert your authority in this matter, sparing the people both the expense and effort of an unnecessary election.
Yours very respectfully
Catherine Whelan Costen
cc: Media
Catherine Whelan Costen
Website: http://web.mac.com/whelancosten
[...]
The Governor General’s fax number is provided within the letter, or
send email to her at info@gg.ca
Impolitical has more thoughts.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Maureen | 05-Sep-08 at 9:09 am | Permalink
This letter succinctly lays out the way I feel. My question is this. As Stephen Harper has smugly suggested he expects another minority government, how will have things changed? If this is the end result, will he once again go to the Governor General and ask for parliament to be dissolved?
As a citizen, am I free to interpret the laws of the land to suit my own needs as Mr. Harper is proposing to do?
Travis | 05-Sep-08 at 11:38 am | Permalink
The law does allow for the Prime Minister to go to the Governor General and ask for an election just like the law allows for an election if the government does not have the support of parliament.
brem | 05-Sep-08 at 12:02 pm | Permalink
Canada is starting to look more and more like Italy where they have an election every year or every other year… costly.
Saskboy | 05-Sep-08 at 2:00 pm | Permalink
Travis, I haven’t studied the law closely, but it’s clearly a violation of the intent of the law, which was to prevent giving the PM leeway in calling an election when they think it suits him/herself best.
Travis | 05-Sep-08 at 9:11 pm | Permalink
The intent of the law is to take away the power from the government mainly during periods when the government has a majority in order to prevent the calling of an snap election when it is in the best interest of the governing party. There is no clear indication that calling an election now is in the best interest of the Conservatives over any other party also the Liberals gave very strong indications that they wanted an election in the fall.
Now, is Harper abusing the spirit of the law? If you look at the most recent polls it is mixed some show clearly the Conservatives have a lead and other shows a deadheat so I would say asking for an election is fully within the intent and spirit of the law. Now, if the opposition does not want an election they have the full power to visit the Govenor General and mention that they would have enough support in Parliament in order to govern.
Saskboy | 05-Sep-08 at 10:04 pm | Permalink
Travis, listen to the man himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6GItPJphLw
He’s a criminal, and a liar. Not bad for a politician, eh?
Louise | 06-Sep-08 at 8:10 am | Permalink
Brem @ 12:02 pm, you got it. I remember back in the 1970s and early ’80s it was really, really bad. Government’s fell every six months and violence and mayhem reigned. I hate to see this happening to Canada. The thing that was the spoiler is a party called the Bloc Quebecois. If Quebec won’t separate, I say either boot them out or separate ourselves. I think Western Canada would do quite nicely as an independent nation.
Travis | 06-Sep-08 at 2:18 pm | Permalink
How is Harper a criminal? As for being a liar that depends on if you think calling an election when the polls show the two parties being tied as calling an election when it is in the best interest of the governing party. The law is clear in what it says but calling him a criminal is crap.
Saskboy | 06-Sep-08 at 4:07 pm | Permalink
Travis are you unfamilar with Cadscam?
http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2008/03/02/a-political-scandal-so-big/
How about In-and-Out?
Even if Harper isn’t breaking HIS OWN LAW now, he’s done it publicly twice before with the proof easy for anyone to access in the media.
Travis | 06-Sep-08 at 5:51 pm | Permalink
The RCMP have already said they would not file any charges in the Cadman affair and the in-and-out issue is being investigated but at this point Stephen Harper is not a criminal and saying otherwise is completely false. If you want to attack the record of the Conservatives go right ahead as they have much to be accountable for including broken promises to Saskatchewan but to call Harper and point to one event where the RCMP have already stated they will not lay charges is simply wrong.
Saskboy | 06-Sep-08 at 6:12 pm | Permalink
I’m not pointing to one event, I’m pointing to 3. Sure, Harper’s criminality is not “official” yet, and it’s technically my opinion of events, but as I said, the evidence (in audio form and testimony http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2008/09/closer-examination.html ) is available for anyone to make their own judgment so they can vote accordingly.
Travis | 06-Sep-08 at 9:15 pm | Permalink
There is a big difference between an individual having a negative view of actions performed by a politician or a political party and a politician or political party being guilty of a crime. So far, Harper and the Conservatives are not guilty of any crime so calling them criminals is purely dirty politics of the worst. It was just as wrong when individuals attacked Jean Chretien and attempted to label him as a criminal. One can think a politician is clearly in the wrong but there is a clear definition of what makes an individual a criminal and Stephen Harper is not one at this time.
Saskboy | 06-Sep-08 at 9:31 pm | Permalink
“[T]here is a clear definition of what makes an individual a criminal and Stephen Harper is not one at this time.” Despite the evidence of crimes taking place, he’s not and his party has not been convicted, yet.
Fine. So long as the Conservatives make that their next pre-election campaign ad.
Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy :: Next Conservative Campaign Ad? | 06-Sep-08 at 9:44 pm | Permalink
[...] is a clear definition of what makes an individual a criminal and Stephen Harper is not one at this [...]
Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy :: Awe Heck! Why do we even pay a Gov. General? | 07-Sep-08 at 12:57 pm | Permalink
[...] Jean did not stand up to Harper’s bully tactics, or uphold the law of Canada (which Harper’s own government passed!) and refuse to dissolve parliament because there had been no vote that indicated a loss of confidence in the government. She, and subsequent GGs should not have a role in government from now on. It’s time to end the monarchy in Canada, that seems to be the lesson from today’s shenanigans. If the monarchy figurehead won’t stand up for Canadians when we need it most, it’s time to move on like most other developed former colonies have done. [...]
Travis Fast | 07-Sep-08 at 1:14 pm | Permalink
I would like to just point out that the TRAVIS who has posted on this thread is not me nor the Travis of RPPE.
Saskboy | 07-Sep-08 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
I was aware of that, but I guess it doesn’t hurt to point it out to people reading who can’t see the email addresses of commenters. It’s kind of strange that two Travis commenters showed up within a day of each other, but there’s more than one Ross, and Kate who comments here too sometimes.