‘Vikileaks’ cyberfoe aims to embarrass Vic Toews with tweets of his private life
In which a politician learns that you, in fact, cannot whitewash an issue by calling your critics child pornographers.
Photo of the day: A Canadian senate page disrupted Stephen Harper’s first throne speech under a Conservative majority with a “Stop Harper” sign. This girl (who we’ve heard called Brigette Marcelle and Brigette DePape) is bold and a total badass for pulling this off. She may have gotten fired for this mess, but she has our respect. (Pic by Sean Kilpatrick, The Canadian Press)
Number of Canadian politicians who have contacted us on Twitter today: One. Number we agree with: One. The fact of the matter is, family farms have suffered the worst of the damage in the current bout of flooding along the Mississippi River, and while officials likely picked the lesser of two evils in most cases, it nonetheless should go without saying that farmers deserve compensation for taking the brunt of the pain here.
National Post front page for May 3, 2011
Harper proves his doubters wrong again
Quebec takes the plunge with the NDP; Duceppe quits
After Bin Laden: The manhunt, the raid, the reaction and what comes next
To give you an idea of what happened with the Canadian elections last night.
nfornaomi asks: Re: The political issue in Canada
I've never understood why opposition parties are able to give a vote of non-confidence and thus force another election. The PEOPLE voted for the Conservatives (yes, a minority gov't, but still!) so it doesn't seem very democratic for the opposition to have the power to band together and overthrow the government. Another election is obviously something we don't want.. shouldn't our leaders be listening to us Canadians?
Can you shed some light on this possibly convoluted Ask?
» We say: This is actually a parliamentary law that is a bit different from American law, for example. It’s been around for hundreds of years, and many countries use it, including Britain. Simply put, if you put all the minorities together and they create a majority, they can overpower a plurality. It’s not really an “overthrow” of the government so much as a check on it. Akin to overriding a presidential veto in the U.S., except stronger. Voters, if they still want Harper, can keep him there by voting for him. And the other thing to keep in mind — based on some of the emotional responses we’ve heard on this issue over the past few days, not everyone agrees with the sentiment. Consider it this way: If Canada had a two-party system, Harper may not even be Prime Minsiter.
Stephen Harper has some pretty huge problems right now. The Canadian Prime Minister’s government was found in contempt by the House of Commons — the first time that’s happened in the country’s history. The situation, pushed by a coalition led by the minority Liberal party, promises to add an interesting twist to Canadian politics over the next six weeks. “The principle at stake in this debate goes to the heart of parliamentary democracy: the obligation of a government to provide members of this House with the information they need in order to hold the government accountable to the people of Canada,” said Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff. Now, we understand that many of our readers may not know much about Canadian politics, so here’s a quick explanation of what’s going on:
» Other frustrations: The minority parties also have shared frustrations in Harper’s corporate tax cuts and push for increased defense spending on military jets — allowing for the opposition parties to find common ground. If they were to gain control, expect these things to be targets.
A plurality government with no majority: The House of Commons — the main voter-elected body in the Canadian government — has led with a plurality government for a few years, strengthening their hold in 2008, but with the 308 seats up for grabs a little over four weeks, the body could change significantly. While polls suggest Harper’s Conservatives could gain a majority this time out, if they don’t, it’s possibile that the three main minority parties (along, possibly, with the Greens, who currently don’t have a seat in the House of Commons) could form their own coalition, forcing Harper off his perch entirely. Here’s what the House of Commons looks like now:
» Minor members and the Senate: On top of the parties here, two of House of Commons seats are held by independent candidates, and three seats are currently empty. Also of note: The Canadian parliament also has a Senate, but it isn’t directly elected, is kind of a messy situation of its own, and holds no say over the situation with Harper or the government. Harper’s job lies in the hands of the confidence of the House of Commons — which he just lost. (By the way, our boy Ilya Gerner has a pretty interesting take on the whole Canadian plurality system worth checking out.)
Unfortunately, Mr. Ignatieff and his coalition partners in the NDP and Bloc Quebecois made abundantly clear that they had already decided they wanted an election instead, Canada’s fourth election in seven years, an election Canadians had told them clearly that they did not want. Thus the vote today, which obviously disappoints me, and will, I suspect, disappoint most Canadians.Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper • Discussing his frustrations with the current contempt vote. The polls seem to suggest that many back Harper’s take on the situation — the party still holds a strong plurality in two recent polls, and in one holds over 40 percent — enough for the Conservatives to hold a technical majority. Other parties say that, either way, Harper’s uncooperative leadership style made his bed. “He made a choice,” said NDP leader Jack Layton “and that choice was to take us into an election.” source
Dear SFB,
I enjoy your blog. I just wanted to let you know that I think that the Baird quote you posted to highlight my country’s election was irresponsible because it only illustrates the Conservative opinion on the issue. Of course the committee that recommended the Harper government be found in contempt of Parliament was “opposition stacked”. Would a committee that was “Conservative stacked” recommend their own party be found in contempt of Parliament? No. Clearly, that is what the actual acts of contempt prove to us.
Oh and a little note about Government House leader Baird:
written in the Globe and Mail about Baird last August,
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has again called on John Baird to plug a hole in his cabinet, moving him Friday morning into the tricky post of Government House Leader where his job will be to push through the government’s agenda in a testy minority Parliament.
The choice of Mr. Baird is notable as he is considered a partisan attack dog. He often fills in for Mr. Harper when the Prime Minister is away from the Commons and his pointed answers tend to get under the opposition’s skin.
He is not the most likely choice for a post that requires an ability to compromise in negotiation with the opposition parties. However, by putting such a divisive politician into the job, the Prime Minister may be signalling he wants to push full-steam ahead on his agenda this sitting.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/pm-hands-procedural-reins-to-john-baird/article1664178/
I know I can count on your glorious blog to post this ask and tell both sides of the story.
We’re putting this message in as a blockquote because we feel that people should read/reblog it, and we do want to offer some balance here. But we want to emphasize a couple of things: We admit to reblogging coeus because we know she’s libertarian-leaning and Canadian and therefore offers a certain perspective on the whole issue. Here’s the thing … I personally don’t think that we should play traffic cop in terms of other perspectives that we reblog and try to balance out everything we post. By the nature of reblogging multiple opinions over time, we can offer a broader perspective. If you disagree with the post, we’d rather see you guys debate about it. We offer opinions of our own here and don’t hide them.
Ultimately, if we reblog something without (or with a short) comment, we don’t necessarily endorse it as our own opinion. (Reblogs are not necessarily intended as endorsement. We can put that on the site if you want.) Rather, we thought it was interesting and worth a reblog. The opinion is theirs. Why undercut it?
(EDIT: PoliticalCanuck wrote a pretty good response to this. We think it’s worth your time.)
What do you think?
Government House leader John Baird responded by accusing the opposition of putting their lust for power above the interests of Canadians.
“I’m saddened that a Parliament which has accomplished a lot recently will come to an end because of the reckless actions of the Liberal, Bloc Quebecois and NDP coalition in forcing an unwanted and unnecessary election on Canadians,” Baird said.
He noted the opposition parties hold a majority on the committee that recommended the government be found in contempt of Parliament. No government has been found in contempt of Parliament in Canadian history.
“What they aren’t telling Canadians is that this was an opposition-stacked committee, who used the tyranny of the majority to get the predetermined outcome they wanted,” Baird said. “They were the ones who demonstrated real contempt for Parliament, and they will have to answer to the Canadian people for that.”
Oh boy, an election, what fun!
Big news for Canucks.
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
