Francis Chartrand for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

The Conservative government of Stephen Harper tabled a bill Thursday that would add 30 seats in the House of Commons.

The project goal is to ensure a more equitable representation of provinces that experienced in recent years, high population growth, said Steven Fletcher, Minister for Democratic Reform.

Ontario would receive around 18 new MPs, while British Columbia and Alberta have 7, 5.

As for the other provinces, they retain the seats they currently hold. Quebec is, therefore, assured of keeping its 75 MPs.

"The bill also guarantees Quebec and all other provinces the current number of seats they hold, even if their population does not justify it," said Steven Blaney Thursday, Conservative MP for Lévis-Bellechasse.

Still, if this bill is adopted, the total number of seats will increase from 308 to 338. The relative weight of the provinces where the number of seats has not increased thereby lessen Mechanically with 75 seats out of 338, the political voice of Quebec will be lower than 75 seats out of 308.

The only way to regain the province of political clout in the House of Commons would be the demographic with a higher birth rates or immigration, as was suggested by Steven Blaney.

The Bloc Québécois has denounced the new government's attempt to change the composition of the House of Commons. This is, he said, a political ploy. The Bloc DeBellefeuille Claude spoke of the reform as a partisan maneuver to the detriment of the Quebec nation.

Link

Labels: Canada, Conservative Party, Elections, House of Commons

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 1:17 PM 0 Comments

The 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute is an ongoing political dispute in the 40th Canadian Parliament. It was triggered by the intention of opposition parties in the House of Commons to defeat, by a motion of no confidence, the minority government formed by the Conservative Party only six weeks after the 40th general election.

This was a result of the government's fiscal update presented to the commons on November 27, 2008, which included several provisions that none of the opposition parties would accept. Though the government later withdrew several of its contentious proposals, the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party signed an agreement to form a minority coalition, with the agreed, signed support of the Bloc Québécois on confidence issues. The parliamentary session was delayed one week by the Conservative government, so a motion of non-confidence could not be registered.

On December 4, 2008, Governor General Michaëlle Jean (the vice-regal representative of Queen Elizabeth II, the country's head of state) granted the request of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (the head of government) to prorogue parliament until January 26, 2009, ending the first session of the 40th parliament and thereby delaying a possible change in government.

The 39th Canadian Parliament was led by a Conservative minority government headed by Stephen Harper, and lasted for two years with the support or abstention of opposition parties, until, on September 7, 2008, the Prime Minister requested, and was granted, a dissolution of parliament and a snap election, claiming that parliament had become dysfunctional and needed a renewed mandate. During the election campaign, publicity for strategic voting came from the Liberals, the Green Party, and the Anything But Conservative (ABC) campaign, foreshadowing the political divide that would become official weeks after the federal election, held on October 14.

The final tally saw an increase in the Conservative seat count from 127 to 143, a plurality but not a majority, while the Liberals, led by Stéphane Dion, returned as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, with 77 seats. Two other parties, the New Democratic Party (NDP), with 37 seats, and the Bloc Québécois, with 49 seats, together with two independent members of parliament, rounded out the House of Commons.

Catalyst: November 2008 fiscal update

On November 27, 2008, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty provided the House of Commons with his fiscal update, within which were plans to cut government spending, suspend the ability of civil servants to strike until 2011, sell off some Crown assets to raise capital, and eliminate the existing political party subsidies of 1.95 CAD for each vote the party wins. The document – which, as all money bills are traditionally confidence motions, forced the opposition to consider whether to accept the motion or bring down the government over it – was strongly rejected by the opposition on the grounds that it lacked any fiscal stimulus during the ongoing economic crisis, for its suspension of federal civil servants' ability to strike, and for suspending the right for women to seek recourse from the courts for pay equity issues.

Though polling by Ipsos-Reid found that 61% of Canadians wanted the political subsidies eliminated, it was frequently suggested in the media that the main reason for the opposition parties' anger was the elimination of these federal subsidies. This would have disproportionately worsened the financial situations of the opposition parties, which have relied mainly on public rather than private financing; while the Conservative Party received 37% of their funds from Crown funding in 2007, the NDP received 57%, the Liberals 63%, the Green Party 65% and the Bloc Québécois 86%.

Formation of a minority coalition

Just after the Conservative government announced its plans, NDP leader Jack Layton asked his predecessor, Ed Broadbent, to contact former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien to discuss the idea of a coalition to oust the Conservatives from power. Negotiations began about "what would be a good situation here for the people of Canada, for parliament," and, almost immediately, the plan became public. Labelling the absence of any economic stimulus plan as irresponsible and the removal of public funding to parties as an attack against democracy, the opposition threatened to topple the weeks-old government: they would vote against the fiscal update, the defeat of which would be considered a vote of non-confidence in the newly formed Conservative minority government, leading to the ministry being brought down. The opposition parties counted on the possibility that Governor General Michaëlle Jean would then invite a Liberal-NDP coalition to form the government, instead of dissolving parliament less than two months after the previous election.

The proposed minority coalition would have a cabinet with 24 ministers, with a Liberal prime minister, 17 other Liberal ministers (including the minister of finance), and six New Democratic ministers. As the outgoing leader of the Liberal Party and its caucus, Dion would become the interim prime minister until relinquishing the position of party leader at the scheduled leadership convention in May 2009, while the agreement between the Liberals and NDP would continue until June 30, 2011. Further, Liberal party elders Frank McKenna, Paul Martin, John Manley, and former NDP premier Roy Romanow, were reported to have been asked to form an economic advisory body to the coalition if needed, though both McKenna and Manley declined to take part.

Any Liberal-NDP coalition, being in a minority, would have been unable to govern without the support of members of other parties, due to the makeup of the house. The Bloc Québécois, which holds the balance of power in the 40th parliament, thus signed a policy accord with the other opposition parties and agreed to support the proposed coalition on confidence matters until at least June 30, 2010, in return for a consultation mechanism for the duration of the agreement, but would not be a direct participant in the coalition, as it would receive no cabinet positions and would be free to vote as it wished on other matters. It is debatable whether this three-party arrangement meets the definition of a coalition government.

Government response

Opponents have characterized the coalition as "undemocratic".

While, on November 28, 2008, Stephen Harper referred to the coalition agreement between the Liberals and NDP as "undemocratic," and that "Stéphane Dion does not have the right to take power without an election," Transport Minister John Baird announced the following day that the plan to eliminate the political party direct subsidy would be dropped. The government then cancelled its initial opposition day, which was originally to be held on December 1, to avert the threatened vote of non-confidence, meaning the earliest the coalition could then possibly take office would be following a vote on a Liberal motion of non-confidence or on a supply motion put forth by the 28th ministry, both scheduled for December 8, 2008.

In response to the opposition's demands for an economic stimulus package, the Conservatives changed their plan to one in which a federal budget would be presented on January 27, 2009, instead of late February or early March, though the Liberals still indicated that they intended to present their motion of non-confidence on December 8. On November 30, the Conservatives then released a secretly-recorded private NDP conference call, in which Jack Layton indicated that the groundwork for assuring the Bloc's participation "was done a long time ago." Following the release of the recording, the NDP said that they would consider pressing criminal charges, and alleged that Conservative MP John Duncan received the invitation to participate by mistake, in place of NDP MP Linda Duncan, who had "a similar email address."

The possible change of government was debated during Question Period, and the Conservatives aired radio and TV ads contending that "a leader whose party captured just 25% of the vote in the October 14 election doesn't have a legitimate mandate to govern." In anticipation of the Prime Minister's visit to the Governor General, Harper's office also organised protests outside of the viceroy's residence, while John Baird said that "Conservatives would go over the head of Parliament and of the Governor-General."

The role of the Governor General

Governor General Michaëlle Jean stated that "what is happening right now is part of the possibilities in our democratic system and I think that people can be reassured that, as I turn to what is happening, I am myself looking at my constitutional duties." Jean had three possible actions to pursue during her meeting with the Prime Minister on December 4, 2008: dissolve parliament, prorogue parliament, or ask him to resign his commission.

Dissolution of parliament

The Centre Block on Parliament Hill, containing the houses of the Canadian parliament.

Peter H. Russell, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto, suggested that if Harper were to seek a dissolution, the Governor General would have to consider carefully the reasonability of the request. The viceroy's primary concern is to protect parliamentary democracy; a dissolution of parliament would have necessitated an election only two months after the preceeding one, and repeated short term elections, in Russell's view, would not be healthy for the system. In such a case, with a reasonably viable coalition available, Jean might then refuse Harper's request for dissolution (requiring Harper to resign under constitutional precedent), and commission Dion to form a government. Former governor general Adrienne Clarkson wrote in her memoirs, Heart Matters, that she would have allowed the then prime minister, Paul Martin, a dissolution of parliament only after at least six months following the 2004 election. "To put the Canadian people through an election before six months would have been irresponsible," she wrote, especially having received a letter co-signed by then opposition leader Stephen Harper, NDP leader Jack Layton, and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, asking her to consider letting them attempt to form a government without an election if the Liberal government should fall.

Maclean's columnist Andrew Coyne noted that, while a coalition government is neither unconstitutional nor illegitimate, there are several concerns that the Governor General must address in considering installing such a government. As a coalition is inherently volatile, its permanence or lack thereof would be a factor, as well as the possibility of creating a prolonged period of instability and uncertainty. Coyne also noted that the opposition parties' plan is an extreme application of the traditional parliamentary prerogative to choose a government – that is, defeating a government so soon after an election, and replacing it with a likely unstable one.

Prorogation of parliament

The option of prorogation, or discontinuing the session of parliament without dissolving it, presented various possible scenarios: One was a long-term prorogation, lasting up to a legal maximum of one year, while another was a short prorogation period lasting a few weeks to a few months. Each would delay any parliamentary activity, including the registering of a motion of non-confidence, and the Conservative government would therefore continue. On December 3, Dion wrote to the Governor General with his opinion that she must refuse to grant a prorogation as, in his opinion, it would be an abuse of power denying the right of the legislature to give or withhold its confidence in the government. He also suggested that the government had already, in effect, lost the confidence of the house, and that she could therefore no longer accept Harper's advice as her prime minister.

Constitutional scholar C.E.S. (Ned) Franks of Queen's University suggested that the Governor General could agree to prorogue parliament, though on the condition that the government only manage day-to-day affairs until parliament was reconvened; the Governor General would not approve orders-in-council requiring cabinet decisions, meaning that the government could not undertake any major policy initiatives, much like the way governments govern during an election campaign. However, a prime minister asking for prorogation when facing an imminent confidence vote, as well a governor general refusing or implementing conditions on such a request, would all be unprecedented in Canadian history. "There is no precedent whatsoever in Canada and probably in the Commonwealth," he stated. Constitutional scholar and former advisor to governors general Ted McWhinney said that the Governor General would have no choice but to follow the Prime Minister's advice if asked for a prorogation, though the prime minister would have to explain to the electorate why he had advised this particular course.

Former governor general and NDP politician Edward Schreyer stated that if the Conservative government were to fail a vote of confidence, Michaëlle Jean would have no choice but to offer the coalition the opportunity to govern. He also said that prorogation would be a difficult judgement call, and suspected a short prorogue might be reasonable as long as it wasn't "used in the longer term as a means of evading, avoiding and thwarting the expression of the parliamentary will" by avoiding a confidence vote.

Resignation of the Prime Minister

Asking the existing prime minister to resign would have prompted Jean to request that parliament form a new government, permitting the formation of the coalition headed by Dion. If no new government were to form, parliament would be dissolved, resulting in a dropping of the writ for a general election. On December 4, 2008, however, asking Harper to resign as prime minister was not considered a likely option by the media or scholars.

Had the government lost a non-confidence vote, which was scheduled for December 8, 2008, then the Governor General may have turned down Prime Minister Harper's request to call an election. This would be effectively to dismiss Harper and, in such circumstances, she would invite the opposition to form a government. While constitutional authorities agree that such a reserve power certainly exists, they are uncertain about exactly when it should be applied.

Dismissal of the Governor General

The possibility was raised of the Prime Minister recommending to the Queen that she dismiss the incumbent Governor General and appoint someone of the prime minister's choice. The aforementioned Ted McWhinney wrote in his 2005 book The Governor-General and the Prime Ministers that, in the buildup to the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975, had the then prime minister advised the Queen to dismiss her Australian viceroy, she would "surely have had to take the prime ministers 'advice' without demur." That a prime minister could make such a request prompted W.P.M. Kennedy, former Dean of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, to state, before the present Queen's reign, that the reserve powers of the Crown has ceased to exist in the Dominions "for the simple reason that a governor-general who persisted in refusing ministerial advice would be at once recalled on the advice of his ministry given direct to the King." In the Globe and Mail, Andrew Steele wrote that "[calling] this option risky is a grave understatement. Not only would it threaten the role of the monarchy in Canada, but parliamentary supremacy back to the Magna Carta would be called into question."

Leadup to the Governor General's decision

Leaders' addresses to the nation on December 3

Both Harper and Dion addressed the nation on December 3, 2008, with televised statements broadcast on Canada's major television networks. Harper's five minute pre-recorded statement, televised nationally in English and French at 7 p.m. ET, outlined the steps the government had taken to address the economic crisis, while also attacking the Liberals for forming a coalition with the sovereigntist Bloc Québécois. Harper said: "at a time of global economic instability, Canada's government must stand unequivocally for keeping the country together. At a time like this, a coalition with the separatists cannot help Canada. And the opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists they promised voters would never happen." The press noted that while he used the word sovereigntist in the French version of his speech, Harper used separatist in English.

The networks also agreed to air a response from Dion, which aired around 7:30 ET, and attacked the Conservatives, stating they did not have a plan to weather the economic crisis, and stating that Canadians did not want another election, instead preferring that parliament work together during this time. "Within one week, a new direction will be established, a tone and focus will be set. We will gather with leaders of industry and labour to work, unlike the Conservatives, in a collaborative, but urgent manner to protect jobs." This statement, intended to air immediately following Harper's, was late in arriving to the networks, and was of low video quality, prompting the party to apologize; The Globe and Mail reported on December 5 that Dion's chief of staff had bypassed the normal in-house Liberal shop, instead retaining an outside consultant to produce the video on short notice. CBC Television stayed on the air past 7:30 p.m. to show Dion's statement, cutting into its regularly-scheduled programming, and network anchorman Peter Mansbridge, speaking later that night on the newscast The National, compared the quality of Dion's video to YouTube. CTV, which had already signed off of its special broadcast before Dion's statement arrived, was met with complaints both that the network had ignored the Liberals, and that Dion had snubbed the network. CTV commentator Robert Fife stated that the New Democrats and Bloc Québécois were "angry" with the quality of Dion's address, elaborating that it had undermined the credibility of the coalition. Public statements also came from the Bloc and NDP leaders: Layton, who unsuccessfully requested his own airtime and had to share with Dion, said "Tonight, only one party stands in the way of a government that actually works for Canadians... Instead of acting on these ideas... Mr. Harper delivered a partisan attack." Duceppe said "Stephen Harper showed a serious and worrisome lack of judgment by putting his party's ideology before the economy."

Unity crisis

The Conservative Party stated in Harpers national address: "Canada's government cannot enter into a power-sharing coalition with separatists." While the Bloc Québécois had committed itself to supporting the coalition in matters of confidence, some suggested that they could have considerable influence in policy since they would hold the balance of power in parliament.

In the nine primarily English-speaking provinces, the Conservatives enjoyed increased support in polls. The strongest opposition to the coalition was in Alberta, where fear was expressed at being politically marginalized by its eastern-based leaders. Some suggested that if the coalition took power, it would revive western alienation, with some speculation on the formation of a western-based party to counter the Bloc Québécois. Anti-coalition rally organizers, however, emphasized that their opposition was to the Bloc's associations with the coalition, not Quebecers in general.

At the same time, the Conservatives' attacks on the coalition may have cost the party support in Quebec, as Quebecers "tend to view the sovereignist parties as legitimate political formations"; Antonia Maioni, head of the Institute for the Study of Canada at McGill University, stated that "[Harper] is portraying not only the Bloc Québécois but Quebecers in general as being a threat to national unity in Canada." Dion defended the coalition accord, saying that "fellow Quebecers who believe in separation are more likely to be reconciled with Canada if we work with them than if we marginalize them". Kelly Parland criticized Dion, a staunch federalist and the author of the Clarity Act, for having gone against his principles by taking part in negotiations with the Bloc.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest, a federalist and former leader of the federal Progressive Conservative Party, condemned the "anti-sovereigntist rhetoric" of the prime minister, emphasizing that the Bloc MPs had been legitimately elected by Quebecers, and stating: "I live in a society in which people can be sovereigntists or federalists, but they respect each other. The same thing should prevail in the federal parliament." He also accused Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois of using the ensuing discussion about the coalition to attempt to build sovereigntist momentum.

Other reactions

Statements regarding the upset in Ottawa came from provincial premiers, both past and present: Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who originally started the ABC campaign, stated that he would remain neutral on this issue and that he would work with whomever was prime minister; British Columbia premier Gordon Campbell spoke out against the coalition, stating that if their gamble fails, Canada's economic worries will become significantly worse as a result; Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach urged federal party leaders to take a time out and hold off the non-confidence vote until the new year so a federal budget can be introduced; and former Quebec premier Jacques Parizeau told Le Journal de Montréal that the deal was an "impressive victory", showing how powerful the Bloc Québécois is in federal politics.

Political satirist and commentator Rick Mercer critiqued the entire affair as "embarassing", and denounced the Conservatives' claims about affronts to democracy and coups as willful lies.

The Governor General prorogues parliament

Rideau Hall, the official residence of the Governor General of Canada, where Prime Minister Stephen Harper met with Queen Elizabeth II's representative, Michaëlle Jean, on December 4, 2008.

On December 2, it was announced that Harper's plan was to ask the Governor General to prorogue parliament, thereby delaying the possible defeat of the government until the new year. The coalition leadership then sent a letter to Jean – who, at the time, was abroad on a state visit to various European countries – informing her of the events, upon the receipt of which, Jean announced that she would cut her trip short and head back to Ottawa "in light of the current political situation in Canada." The day following her return, Harper visited the Governor General at Rideau Hall, at approximately 9:30 am ET, on December 4, and, after consultating with the viceroy for more than two hours, it was revealed that the prime minister had requested Jean prorogue parliament until January; this request was granted, and parliament was prorogued until January 26, 2009, but without indication if the prorogation came with any limitation on Harper's prime ministerial abilities.

Most scholars indicated that the privacy of the meeting between the Governor General and her prime minister follows "the tradition of regal discretion [going] back centuries"; with C.E.S. Franks stated that the privacy of these meetings was comparable to that surrounding meetings of the Cabinet, and Ottawa University law professor Ed Ratushny opined: "it's generally normal that [constitutional] advice not be conveyed publicly unless it's not taken – so that it can be given freely." Lorne Sossin, professor at the University of Toronto and a constitutional law expert, offered a counter-opinion, stating that "it is simply not acceptable to have a closed door at Rideau Hall at moments like this," citing that transparency is a necessity in democracy, and Joe Comartin, NDP MP for Windsor-Tecumseh, suggested that such decisions should be made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, after a hearing in an open court.

MP Bruce Stanton said that the suspension of parliament until late January "was perhaps the last tool in our basket to be able to allow parliamentarians to take a step back." There was, however, some concern that Jean's decision may have set a precedent in which a prime minister may seek prorogation or dissolution when confronting a potential vote of non-confidence. Nelson Wiseman, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, said that the following of Harper's advice "has been a blow to parliamentary democracy in Canada," while Margaret Wente, at the Globe and Mail, opined that the Governor General was the only person who emerged from the situation with any gained respect.

Aftermath

Liberal party reaction

Jack Layton speaks at a protest against the Stephen Harper government, held at Nathan Phillips Square, in Toronto. Stéphane Dion stands third from the left, in the front row.

After the Governor General suspended parliament, there were questions within the Liberal Party regarding the future of Dion's leadership and the coalition. Dion was criticised for his role in the amateur, out-of-focus video of his address to the nation, which undermined public support for the coalition. Former deputy prime minister John Manley asked that Dion resign immediately, saying it was incomprehensible that the public would accept Dion as prime minister after rejecting the possibility only a few weeks earlier, and said what was needed was a leader "whose first job is to rebuild the Liberal party rather than leading a coalition with the NDP." Several other insiders advocated moving up the date of the party leadership vote, rather than have Dion remain leader for either a potential election or coalition; Jim Karygiannis said that the coalition would not survive when parliament resumed, while other MPs suggested working with the Conservatives on the economy.

Effect on Liberal leadership race

Dion initially scheduled his resignation for the party's leadership convention in May 2009, and appeared with Layton at a pro-coalition rally in Toronto, on December 6, 2008, but two days later announced that he would step down as party head upon the selection of his successor. Should he resign before a new leader is chosen, suggested interim leaders included John McCallum and Ralph Goodale.

Leadership contender Bob Rae, who helped to persuade the Liberal caucus of the power-sharing deal, took over as the coalition's spokesman and planned to travel through the country to promote the coalition. By contrast, Michael Ignatieff, the frontrunner to succeed Dion, was said to be uncomfortable with the idea of sharing power with the NDP with supply support by the Bloc Québécois. Ignatieff said that there would be a "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition," noting that the coalition served a useful purpose by keeping the Conservatives in check, but warned that the Liberals look over the budget before deciding. After the withdrawal of two other leadership contenders, Ignatieff was left as the sole declared Liberal leadership candidate, and presumed victor in the campign to succeed Dion.

Public response

Polling

This anti-coalition rally in Calgary was one of several demonstrations held across Canada both in support of and opposition to the coalition's attempts at gaining control of parliament.

The pro-coalition rally in Toronto was held in Nathan Phillips Square, at the foot of Toronto City Hall, and featured Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton as speakers.

An Angus Reid Strategies poll on this subject conducted on December 1 and 2, 2008, consisting of online interviews with 1,012 Canadian adults, and with a reported margin of error of 3.1%, showed that 40% of respondents agreed with the statement "The Conservative party does not deserve to continue in government," while 35% agreed with "The Conservative party deserves to continue in government," and 25% were "not sure." On the question "Should the opposition parties get together and topple the Conservative minority government headed by Stephen Harper?", 41% responded No, 36% Yes, and 23% not sure. If the government was defeated in a non-confidence vote, 37% of respondents would support a coalition of opposition parties taking power, 32% favoured holding a new election, 7% favoured an accord rather than a coalition among opposition parties, and 24% were not sure.

A Léger Marketing poll of 2,226 people, conducted on behalf of Sun Media and released on December 4, showed a regional split on what should happen if the Harper government fell. Nationally, 43% of respondents preferred a new election be held, compared to 40% who favoured allowing the coalition to govern. In Western Canada, however, respondents were sharply opposed to the coalition, led by Albertans, who responded 71% in favour of new elections. Quebec showed the highest level of support for the coalition, with 58% preferring it to a new election. Ontario was split, with 43% preferring an election compared to 39% supporting the coalition. This poll also showed that 60% of Canadians were concerned that the Bloc Québécois would hold the balance of power in a coalition, compared to 35% that were not concerned, with the majority of respondants in every region, excluding Quebec, expressing concern. 34% of those polled argued that the Conservatives were best able to handle the economic crisis, compared to 18% for the coalition. 14% felt the Liberals individually were best prepared, 7% felt the NDP individually were the best choice, and 2% felt the Bloc Québécois were best.

An EKOS Research Associates poll of 2,536 people, conducted on behalf of CBC and released on December 4, showed that if an election were held the next day, the Conservatives would have received 44% of the vote, up from 37.6%; the Liberals 24%, down from 26%; the New Democrats 14.5%, down from 18.2%; the Bloc 9%, down from 10.5%; and the Green Party 8%, up from 4.5%. 37% of respondents (including the majority of Conservative voters) expressed support in proroguing parliament, while 28% (including a majority of Liberal and Bloc voters, and a near majority of NDP voters) supported the proposed coalition taking power within the next few weeks, with 19% supporting an election. Additionally, 47% of respondents thought that Harper's Conservative government would better manage the financial crunch, versus 34% in support of the Dion-led coalition. Furthermore, 48% of respondents (including the majority of Liberal, NDP, and Green voters, but only 41% of Conservative voters) expressed confidence in the Governor General's ability to make decisions regarding the impasse.

An Ipsos-Reid poll suggested that if an election had been held on December 5, the Conservatives would have received 46% of the vote, enough to have easily formed a majority government. The poll also showed Liberal support had dropped to 23% from the 26.2% they received in the election, and New Democrat support fell to 13% from 18.2%. Also telling was that 56% of those polled said they would rather go to another election, rather than let the coalition govern.

Rallies

Public rallies, both in favour of and against the coalition, continued to be held a number of days after the prorogation, particularly on the afternoon of December 6. Besides the aforementioned that was attended by both Dion and Layton, other gatherings included one in Halifax, with Conservative MP Gerald Keddy attending; one in Calgary, at which Conservative MP Jason Kenney addressed the crowd; and at Queen's Park in Toronto, where Conservative MP Peter Kent spoke alongside John Tory, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. The rallies, all together, attracted thousands, with the largest assembly being in Ottawa, with an estimated attendance of 3,000.

Online activity

Web users across the political spectrum came out in force, leaving thousands of posts on news websites, blogs, and news articles; on December 1, The Globe and Mail website had over 4,500 comments posted on its articles related to the political dispute. This motion was in addition to the multiple specialized websites that were launched during the upset, and using the Internet to promote rallies and protests in the hopes of voicing their opinion.

Precedents

Reserve powers of the governor general

Main article: Reserve powers > Canada

The reserve powers of the governor general have been used twice in respect to declining the advice of the prime minister. The first took place in 1896, when Charles Tupper refused to resign as prime minister following his party's loss in the election of that year, and Governor General Lord Aberdeen refused to make several appointments, forcing Tupper to relinquish office. The second instance was in 1926, during the King-Byng Affair, when Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, already in minority government and having lost two votes that suggested he was likely to lose a third vote – one on a confidence question – asked Governor General Lord Byng of Vimy to dissolve parliament. Byng refused, as constitutional convention leaned to the view that parliament should sit for a reasonable period before a new election may be called, and then only if members of parliament are demonstrably unable to work together to form a majority government. More importantly, however, Byng also refused King's request that he consult the British government, as Byng believed that Canadian constitutional questions should be settled in Ottawa, not London – a position that was thereafter adopted throughout the Empire, as it began to transition into the Commonwealth of Nations. One view would hold that in applying the constitutional conventions relied upon by Byng to the matters in 2008, Jean would have been obliged to deny a request to dissolve parliament within less than six months of the previous election, unless Harper had a valid reason consistent with Commonwealth constitutional history. However, the situation in 2008 is not identical that which pertained in 1926, and so the precedent may not be directly applicable. In the 1925 election, Meighen had emerged as the plurality seat winner, and the Liberals had suffered an electoral rebuff, with King losing his own parliamentary riding, although the King government struggled on with Progressive Party support. In 2008 the Tories were in the electoral ascendant while the Liberals suffered one of their heaviest defeats. In addition, scholars are in agreement that Byng was in error in not re-appointing King as prime minister on the defeat of Meighen in the vote of confidence.

The 1931 Statute of Westminster clarified the independence of the Dominions (then, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and the Irish Free State) from Britain, and also clarified the role of the governor general as one advised by the dominion government, not the British government, notwithstanding that the Dominions and Britain all had the same monarch. The historic "indivisibility of the crown" was transformed into an abstract concept, in which the crown is not a literal person or a thing, but an idea represented by a person, thus enabling the one monarch, and his/her governors, to serve each different country according to its own national traditions.

Similiar prorogation requests

In 1873, during the 2nd Canadian parliament, Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald asked Governer General Lord Dufferin to prorogue parliament in order to stop the work of a committee investigating MacDonald's involvement in the Pacific Scandal. While the governor general did reluctantly prorogue parliament, he limited it to a period of ten weeks; when parliament returned, Macdonald was censured and had to resign.

Previous Canadian coalitions

Federal coalitions

Canada was federated in 1867 under a coalition government, called the Great Coalition, and led by John A. Macdonald. Since that time, there have been no formal coalition governments, though, the Unionist Party was quickly formed after a coalition was proposed in response to the Conscription Crisis of 1917, and, in 2000, the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives were allegedly secretly considering forming a coalition government with the Bloc Québécois if, together, their three parties had won a majority of the seats in the 2000 election. Four years following, Stephen Harper sent a letter to then Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, suggesting that, if the Liberal minority government fell, the Conservatives would be willing to form a government with the support of the Bloc Québécois and NDP, and, during a subsequent press conference, said "...in a minority parliament, if the government is defeated... the governor general should first consult widely before accepting any advice to dissolve parliament. So I would not want the prime minister to think that he can simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to a general election – that's not the way our system works."

Provincial coalitions

Unlike in the federal sphere, there have been examples of coalition governments in the Canadian provinces, such as that which was formed in Manitoba between the provincial Liberal Party and the Progressives, following the 1932 election. The two parties subsequently merged, and also led a coalition government with several other parties through the 1940s. At approximately the same time, British Columbia was governed by a Liberal-Conservative coalition, formed to keep the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) from power.

In Ontario, the Progressive Conservative party under Frank Miller won a plurality (but not a majority) of seats in the 1985 provincial election, after which the New Democrats, then led by Bob Rae, entered into negotiations with the second-place Liberals. An accord was reached between the Liberals and the New Democrats, and Miller's government was defeated on a no-confidence motion over the Speech from the Throne of the newly elected legislature. The Liberals, led by David Peterson, were then appointed to government by the Lieutenant Governor, though the New Democrats did not participate in a coalition government, only agreeing to support the Liberals on confidence motions for a period of two years. The most recent coalition was seen in Saskatchewan, when, in 1999, the New Democratic Party formed such an arrangement with two Saskatchewan Liberal Party MLAs.

Other Westminster system democracies

Canada is one of many nations that use the Westminster system of government, a democratic parliamentary system modelled after the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The most recent major constitutional crisis in a country using the Westminster system of government was in Australia in 1975, when Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was dismissed by Governor-General Sir John Kerr. It had been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australia's history, and bore similarities to the Canadian situation in 2008.

Labels: Anne Humphreys, Canada, Dion, Elections, Harper

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 1:22 PM 0 Comments

If you are Canadian and Islamist, you probably voted for the New Democratic Party (NDP), which won 18.2% of the vote on October 14, 2008. This was an increase in of about 1% in the vote and led to seven more seats from the 2006 elections. However, the party could not budge itself from its permanent 4th place in Canada's parliament. Endorsed by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), the left-leaning NDP has shown an incredible lack of understanding of the Islamist agenda and how soft jihadis are using democratic institutions by manipulating our respect for multiculturalism.

As a political ideology, in the long-term Islamism seeks to establish an Islamic state in the North America, but this is barely mentioned by the suave and polished young Islamists who appear in expensive suits and with a flourish of legalese and the right disarming accents. While a Taliban style overthrow is unlikely, in the short term, Islamists hope to fundamentally change western foreign policy in favor of the foreign governments that fund them and organizations they ideologically adhere to, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Recognizing this threat, Marc Lebuis, who runs http://www.pointedebascule.ca/, invited moderate Muslims Tarek Fatah, Salim Mansur and me to participate in a conference in Montreal to address the infiltration of Islamists into the Canadian political system, where the first real arena has been the NDP.

The NDP was founded by social democrats, and was originally, as noted by Mansur, a critical opponent of Communism, and a key element in "denying communists in Canada the opportunity to acquire any shred of legitimacy by posing as defenders of the working people." Today, however, it allows itself to be used by an equally potent ideological enemy, radical Islamism. The working class in the West now includes immigrants, who as ethnic and religious minorities complain of the classic oppression against which the NDP wishes to be a voice of protest.

But, the NDP fails to distinguish between the socio-economic concerns of Muslim immigrants in Canada and the well-funded, ideological organizations that purport to speak for them.

The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) is one such organization. The President of CIC, Mohammad El-Masry, is notorious for his anti-Semitic statements, his call for Sharia courts in Canada, and agitation for an anti-Israeli foreign policy.

Canadian Muslims mattered in this national election because they were, some argued a swing vote in certain ridings. El-Masry endorsed the NDP, and encouraged voter registration to bolster it. Jack Layton should have repudiated Elmasry's support but did not.

Toronto NDP candidate and lawyer, El Farouk Khaki caused a stir recently when he defended a Muslim youth convicted for his involvement in a terrorist camp in Canada. After the judge threw out the youth's defense that "no real Toronto terrorist group existed because its goals were too fanciful to be achieved," Khaki stated that if you are Muslim in Canadian courts you will be presumed guilty until proven innocent. He went on to accuse the judge of having an anti-Muslim bias. This plays into the victim-hood complex Islamists want Muslims in the West to fall into. Khaki was not chastised by NDP leader Jack Layton or any other party candidate.

In Montreal, the NDP paraded Samira Laouni, as "the first veiled candidate," in the province. She ran from the riding of Bourassa and made no attempt to hide her support for what she referred to as "real Shariah." She did not win. Jack Layton should have vetted out NDP candidates who favor Sharia like Laouni, whom Mansur has called a "CIC operative."

It seems strange that with Canadian forces fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, the same support for Taliban style orthodoxy is allowed in Canada. Besides, pro-Sharia politicians like Laouni, Islamists are spreading their message on the street. In Mississauga, Ontario, a woman by the name of Farhat Hashmi runs an Islamic school for girls. Hashmi wears a full niqab (face covering) and encourages young girls to emulate her. She is known for promoting a very conservative Islamic ideology that is based on Wahhabism. She, like other Islamists is in favor of Sharia in Canada.

The results of the Canadian election were an eye-opener because all Muslim candidates from all parties lost, with the exception of Yasmin Ratansi, who for some time has been trying to distance herself from her Muslim identity despite being the first Muslim woman to get elected to the Canadian parliament..

This is a clear indication that because of the incessant and unreasonable demands by Islamists, Canadians punished all Muslims. Most ordinary Canadians, well-meaning and decent folks, are fed up with demands for unreasonable accommodation and are no longer willing to put up with politics disguised as religion in the public sphere. Although Canadians are politically correct and diplomatic in public, the election result shows their true feeling about the trend that Muslims who may have an Islamist agenda are not welcome in Canada. Of course, the usual suspects are already screaming Islamophobia - again.

There is no rampant Islamophobia in Canada - only an attempt at gradual Islamization.

Yasmeen Ratansi was first elected in 2004 but when she sought the nomination of her party, some Imams denounced her as not being Muslim enough because she did not cover her hair and wore skirts. She is currently Chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of women.

In two districts (ridings as they are called in Canada) the Muslim candidates who lost were openly hostile to the Islamist agenda. Wajid Khan in Toronto and Rahim Jaffer in Edmonton. It is rumored that the full force of the Islamist establishment and the mosque structure came out to defeat these two Muslims because they were seen, in the words of one cynic "too good looking to be considered authentic Muslims".

Elsewhere, a leading supporter of the Islamist causes and past Member of Parliament, Omar Alghabra was defeated. He has previously condemned Canadian newspapers that called Hamas and Hezbollah "terrorist" organizations, advocated the complete repeal of Canada's anti-terrorist laws, and supported Sharia law in Ontario. Throughout the urban districts of Canada, many Islamists tried to sneak through but met with thumping defeats. Along with the Islamists, many secular and liberal minded progressive Muslims were also trounced in what may be described as "collateral damage."

The lesson for all Muslims is written on the wall: If they are unwilling to stand up to the Islamists in their communities and stop the influence of Saudi Arabia and Iran, we will all suffer because of the actions of a few.

Link

Labels: Canada, Elections, Islam, Religion and fanaticism

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 10:11 PM 0 Comments

Still lucky that the Republicans were 46%, because with their unimaginable gaffes, us in Canada, we have seen and placed behind the Greens.

Hockey Mom and Miss Alaska that hunts the last caribou of Alaska from a helicopter, which saw Russia from the window of his kitchen and Canada from the window of his living room (it's funny, Calisse, j 'lived in Kitchener and I never saw Guelph from the window of my room), just understand what is Afouica, sorry, Africa.

Someone has explained, at the last minute, as usual, what is NAFTA.

We explained her what it was today a budget campaign, non-need a wardrobe of 150 000 dollars when we meet Joe the Plumber in pick-up in the middle of Oklahoma, and he showed the true voice of Sarkozy. ;)

Now, even Bill O'Reilly of Fox News updates us in the dirty laundry of Republicans, and believe me, it is shouting the shit ...



Yet it is the Republicans who put an end to slavery, prohibition and the war in Vietnam, but the cream of intellectuals are Republicans it?


8 years ago, Rick Mercer, its popular This Hour As 22 Minutes had interviewed Mike Huckabee, Arkansas governor and candidate for the primaries, making believe that the Parliament of Canada, had been renovated in Igloo.



And George W Bush confused Jean Chrétien and Vladimir Putin, and believed that the Canadian prime minister, was Jean Putin ... then everyone thinks that the federal capital is Toronto, and we just choose at the turn of the year 2000, the 24 hours clock.



Americans, do you know what is a globe? Either the lobbies and creationists trying to make believe people that the earth is still flat? Whatever, this was the case of Sarah Palin up its 19 years, if we can believe the New York Times.

And since the phone prank of Powder Blue with Pope John Paul 2 and his sister, Queen Elizabeth 2, CKOI continues to amaze the world. CKOI thank you.

Labels: Anne Humphreys, Elections, McCain, Palin, United States

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 9:57 PM 0 Comments

Lee-Anne Goodman
The Canadian Press
Washington

Less than 24 hours after the defeat of John McCain in the U.S. presidential election, relatives of the Republican candidate laid the blame on colistière Sarah Palin, including supporting she did not know that Africa is a continent and had spent fortunes on clothes during the campaign.

Those close to Mr McCain has not ceased to call the media, speaking under cover of anonymity. They criticized the Governor of Alaska, which was chosen in August to lead the Republican campaign alongside veteran of the Vietnam War.

If we believe, Ms. Palin said that South Africa was a region just part of the vast country of Africa.

The colistière was also unable to name the three countries in the Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, the United States and Mexico.

See interview on Fox news



A prank call from Quebecer comedy duo Masked Avengers, last week that Ms. Palin trapped in pretending to be French president Nicolas Sarkozy, has become a source of tension between the camps of Mr. McCain and the candidate for the vice-presidency.

The Los Angeles Times reported Thursday, after the impact of a little joke around the world, the main strategist of Mr. McCain, Steve Schmidt, organized a teleconference to demand explanations from Ms. Palin and his entourage.

An aide of colistière, Steve Biegun, has taken upon himself full responsibility. He argued in an interview with the Los Angeles Times that he had been misled and that he wanted at the highest point of having placed the Governor of Alaska in such an embarrassment.

The scathing comments on Ms. Palin were published in the magazine including Newsweek and The New York Times, when the Republicans held a meeting in Virginia to discuss the future of the party.

Attracted by his conservative views on the social level, several party members had hoped to see Ms. Palin run for the presidency in 2012. Ms. Palin itself did not hide his ambitions went beyond a candidate for the vice-presidency of the United States.

Link

Labels: Elections, McCain, Palin, United States

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 6:57 PM 0 Comments

Labels: Elections, Rachel Maddow, United States

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 6:35 PM 0 Comments

Labels: Elections, Keith Olbermann, United States

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 6:32 PM 0 Comments

25/10/2008 07h11

At each election, it's the same thing: we always wondered why so many people do not even bother to vote.

Well, my answer to that question.

A two-pronged response: Pierre Auger and Michel André Reidl.

RATHER THAN RED DEAD

Imagine: you vote for two candidates adéquistes because you want to kick ass party in power, and what happens?

The two candidates that you have elected their badge ADQ throw in the trash and join the ranks of party you want to dislodge!

Hello slap in the face ...

Pierre Michel Auger and André Reidl did not even have the decency to declare itself independent members, no. They immediately jumped into the liner of the Prime Minister not to sink the boat with their former leader.

And do not come tell me that because our two zozos suddenly converted to liberal credo. These guys are completely not care program PLQ (as it does not care from the ADQ). All they want is a job.

The ruling party would have been obedience Communist qu'Auger and Reidl had sung gloriously The Internationale, the torso draped in a flag bearing the effigy of Lenin.

As Jacques Dutronc sang: "I am for Communism / I am for socialism / And capitalism / Because I am opportunistic / There are those who contest / Who claim and protesting / I do that a single gesture / I return my jacket / Always on the right side / I trust the voters / And I want to do my butter ... "

AT GENIES OF NONOS <7b>

As for Jean Charest, he demonstrated an even cynicism.

One day, the ADQ is a party of two of pique populous ignorant and uneducated. The next day, the two defectors from the party of Mario Dumont are welcomed with pride and enthusiasm.

Why? Because Jean Charest is that they are candidates value?

No. Because it made two more members of its board. Auger and Reidl have the IQ of a refrigerator light that the Prime Minister vanterait great intelligence.

All these people will not care voters and democracy. All that interests them is to push the puck in the net of the opponent.

SAILING

All sociologists and economists say Quebec is in trouble up to his neck.

The solutions we are out of the hole. All specialists know. But no politician will not apply.

Why? For that. For the same reason Reidl and Auger have switched parties, and Jean Charest has welcomed with open arms.

Because politicians think only one single thing: staying in power. Getting re-elected.

They will not care in Quebec, they will not care in Canada, they will not care of ideology, welfare workers, health of democracy or program of their party.

They are neither right nor left, green or red or blue.

They are in the wind, that's all.

And they adjust their sails under his leadership.

Link

Labels: Action Démocratique du Québec, Elections, Parti Libéral du Québec, Québec, Richard Martineau

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 10:44 PM 0 Comments

The motto of Belle Province may be "I remember," Quebeckers are less vindictive beings in the world.

Just look at the results of federal elections for realizing it.

MR JOE LOUIS

Take Maxime Bernier.

For weeks, journalists and commentators have repeated how the former foreign minister lacked trial.

Not only has he attended a woman who had links with organized crime, but he even left confidential documents at home!

In addition, when Mr. Bernier has visited the Quebec soldiers in Afghanistan, he insisted that the military are being photographed eating Joe Louis in order to please an entrepreneur in his region.

Imagine: using young people who risk their lives every day to make the pub!

But what did the voters of County Beauce to this fact?

They said "We don't care," and they reelected Maxime Bernier.

THE INVISIBLE WOMEN

Take Josee Verner.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and the Francophonie accumulated gaffes during the campaign. All journalists and commentators have stressed its incompetence, its inability to clearly explain the decisions of its government and its tendency to take the powder Escampette when we wanted to question the cuts in the cultural sector.

Proof that Ms. Verner is beside its pumps: it did not favor his own party Tuesday! Instead of voting in the constituency it represents, as the Electoral Act permits, she went to vote in the constituency where she lives - and where the Conservative Party had no candidate ...

But what did the voters of Louis-Saint-Laurent to this fact?

They said "We don't care,'' and they reelected Josee Verner.

NOT SO GREEN

Thomas Mulcair now.

According to a survey of shock Devoir, the former Minister of Environment Liberal prevented Hydro-Quebec to give a grant of two million dollars to an environmental group that fights against climate change because Jean Charest ( "the boss "As he called him in his e-mails) was too PQ these activists to his liking.

Not bad for a politician who brags about being green, right?

In addition, during the campaign, the NDP walked alongside a candidate who campaigned in an organization advocating sharia.

But what did the voters of Outremont to this fact?

They said "We don't care," and they re-elected Thomas Mulcair.

CRYING IN THE DESERT

In recent days, much has been written about the growing gap between artists and the public.

But it seems that artists are not only talking in a vacuum. Journalists, political analysts and columnists also cry in the wilderness.

Day after day after day during this campaign, you disclosed the incompetence and inconsistencies of this or that politician.

And you, what do you do?

You shrugged and you re-elected.

Labels: Elections, Richard Martineau

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 12:19 PM 0 Comments

All this for that. All these signs, all these millions, all promises, all these insults, all these debates, all these steps, all these stories, all these tests? For that.

To return quietly to square one.

CHANGE OF SCENERY

However, this detour has not been completely unnecessary. It comes home, but the scenery has changed. Some furniture had been moved during our absence.

The Conservatives, for example, even if they are less minority that the last time, emerging from this election fairly amochés. They believed wrest a majority, they are in the same uncomfortable position in January 2006.

We could even say that their position is even more precarious.

Not only the Conservative Party failed to convince Canadians to give him the flexibility he wanted, but this campaign has allowed political opponents of Stephen Harper to organize and be heard.

Now they are on a war footing, they do not lay down their arms, on the contrary they will continue fighting until the head of their enemy rolling in the sawdust.

Harper believed themselves from the elections stronger. A gust of wind, and his government might take the edge.

IT SHOULD KNOW

For liberals, this defeat has the air of victory.

They now have every reason to get rid of their evil leader loved, who was propelled to the throne by accident. Stéphane Dion has repeated many who wants to hear it will not, is not he who will decide. You do not want much to get rid of, if your girlfriend made his luggage, casts its alliance in the trash and moved with her new boyfriend, you have no choice.

You must draw the obvious conclusion. As sings the great Charles Aznavour: "You should know / Leave the table / When love is served Without clinging, air pitiful / Going without making noise?

Stéphane Dion Will it at all costs keep all his dignity and, despite what it costs, go without return?

This is seen in the coming days.

TOUR OF THE BLOCK

If there is one who has slept well last night, is Gilles Duceppe. It announced the funeral of his party, and now Quebecers voted en bloc for the Bloc.

Instead of descending on the ice and participate in the match being played between conservatives and liberals, we have chosen, once again, remain in the stands and throwing slaps on the ice.

If, on the provincial scene, it was preparing to vote massively for the PQ, that decision would make sense.

But no: Bloc vote on the federal and Jean Charest in Quebec City. Try to understand something.

It sends to Ottawa separatists and federalists in Quebec!

No wonder our immigrants are all mixed and not know what language to speak more!

NOT SERIOUS

In my riding, the Green Party candidate called F. Pilon, Mr clothesline.

It was written like that on the ballot. After that, we said that we must take the Greens seriously.

Labels: Elections, Richard Martineau

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 12:10 PM 0 Comments

I do not know about you, but I'm glad that cursed in this campaign is over. It may have been short, I found endless.

As rightly says Marco Fortier yesterday: "It is time that this campaign comes to an end. The leaders have uttered so many big words for 37 days they have nothing more to say if it continues."

I am sure that Lee Atwater turned in his grave and heard our leaders start insults.

ROCKY THE SQUIRREL

Remember Lee Atwater? It was one of the greatest political strategists of his generation.

Specialist negative publicity, Atwater (we called him the Darth Vader of the Republican Party) was ready to do anything to save their foals.

It will stop at nothing - no mud bath, no baseness, no fight. He circulated false rumors about his opponents, investigating their personal lives, and so on.

In 1988, when Michael Dukakis was threatening to win the presidential elections, Atwater has produced a 30-second video which completely demolished the campaign of Democratic candidate.

Known as Rocky the squirrel, this pub murders showed Dukakis in the process of piloting a tank of the U.S. military. Affubled a helmet ridiculous move that would net the famous Gilles Duceppe for a Stetson, and awkwardly trying to play cowboy, Dukakis (a frail intellectual who was also macho that Stéphane Dion) had looked like a twit finished.

Result: George Bush Sr. moved to the White House and the poor Dukakis has become a footnote ...

SAVE ME MY

In 1990, at a breakfast fundraiser, Lee Atwater delivered a speech to a packed house. As he recounted how he had just rolled in flour Dukakis, the pitbull of the Republican Party has had convulsions and crashed on stage.

Transported to hospital, he learned he was suffering from brain cancer in the terminal phase.

Remorsed, seeking a form of redemption, Atwater has spent the last months of his life to apologize to his former victims and denounce the immoral of the American political scene.

He died on 29 March 1991, a month after writing in Life magazine:

"My illness helped me see that I missed it fails to U.S. policy in general: a little heart, a little compassion. A tumor is dangerous now gnaw the soul of my country ... "

A GOOD EXAMPLE

Leading a country is not just pass laws and put the economy on track. It is also - and above all - inspire citizens.

However, during this campaign, no politician not inspired me.

The heads have lost so much time to tell us why we should vote against their opponents that they forgot to tell us why we should vote for them.

They spent their time to shout names. To quote Marco Fortier, the candidates have launched more than mud that children of 12 years in a camp. "

That's the example you want to show Canadians? That's nice.

After that, we wonder why young people do not respect authority figures ...

Labels: Elections, Richard Martineau, United States

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 12:00 PM 0 Comments