Tory minority in jeopardy as opposition talks coalition. Will there be another election?

[Edward Campbell]

Despite my Constitutional reservations, I think (and indeed, I hope) Stephen Harper can win this based on two items from today’s Globe and Mail:

This article tells about a very recent Strategic Counsel poll that “suggests a majority of Canadians preferred keeping a Conservative government over getting a new Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc Québécois support.” But there is bad news, for Harper, in Québec; perhaps - hopefully - not enough to offset the gains he can, likely, make in Ontario and Atlantic Canada in an spring general election; and

This bit about a Stéphane Dion/Bob Rae exchange in caucus appears to give proof to Mr. Harper’s contention that the Liberals are fighting for unearned power rather than principle:

Mr. Dion appeared to be open to changing his mind about defeating Mr. Harper's government, saying that a “monumental change” on Mr. Harper's part would alter that.

That phrase angered some Liberals, who began shouting at Mr. Dion, accusing him of not going far enough, according to a caucus insider. That is when Mr. Rae approached the microphone, telling Mr. Dion that even “monumental change” was not acceptable.

Mr. Dion appeared shocked, the insider said.

Nothing, it appears, not even “monumental change,” can keep the Liberals from stealing power they could not win. The Conservatives can make hay with this.

 

[2 Cdo]

Nothing, it appears, not even “monumental change,” can keep the Liberals from stealing power they could not win. The Conservatives can make hay with this.

Honestly, did anyone really figure this was about the economy or the "good of Canada"? : From day one after the election, this has simply been an attempt to unseat the Conservatives using Parliamentary "loopholes". Both parties know that they could never form a government if they went back to the polls, so this was their only "legal" option.

I think over the next few weeks you will see more Liberal MP's start speaking out against either the co-alition, Dion, or both! I also wouldn't be surprised if there are calls passing between the CPC and certain members of the Liberal caucus about support for the budget come January. After all Stephen Harper only needsaround a dozen or so.(My bad, I can't remember the exact amount right know :-[)

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Now that's an interesting thought........your saying maybe sweeten the pot for the 3 Maritime province's Liberals support?

As it seems an extra billion dollars will somehow make party lines not so visible these days.

 

[helpup]

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best.  In the last house the Tories put through bill after bill and measure after measure because the Liberals refused top trigger an election.  The thought that just after the election would be the best time to push through the measures the opposition would despise the most.  They bet that they could keep playing the same game,  the same way. 

I think you hit the nail on the head, The PM is smart, a good political chess player however who in their right mind would of wanted this mess or even planned for it.  The strike legislation, party funding scheme's sure they are things that most people on this site would agree to.  But doing it during this time period, with a minority Gov't...... "wouldn't be prudent" is a understatement, as the current events have proved.  

The NDP expected this and Layton made arrangements do that the Liberals would have an option other than getting rolled by the Tories.  This arrangement,  while fairly well known in Bloc was kept quite secret in the NDP,  (dippers can't keep a secret )  So when it was announced Layton had to inform his party of what deals have been made.  (I think the PMO's office released a secret tape of one of those calls)

They did, now the timeline of this and the introduction of the legislation points would be debatable cause and effect points.  Personally I think the Conservatives didn't really understand what that would mean to them at the time and or the resolution of the Libs to follow through on it. The timeline was just too short for any grand planning by the CPC, PMO or the PM.

There is a split inside the Liberals.  Some are angry that Dion, who performed so poorly, still gets to be Prime Minister Others are caught between Ray and Ignatiff.  Remembering the damage done by Martin to those who backed the wrong horse,  many are scared.  Ray I think sees this as an opportunity to help prevent or at least lessen the pain many Canadians will feel.  (Most don't feel it yet,  but a storm is coming)  Ignatiff... I have no idea what he is thinking.  Having read some of his publications I am glad he is being quiet. 

This makes me wonder what the coalition ( mainly libs were thinking) the majority even with the bloc support would not be that great.  The leader (Dion) is not credible, a leadership convention is due soon and all it would take is a few people to sour on it. The Lib party is split between the two front runners and it must of been obvious ( or should of been) that enough MP's have been getting a earfull from their constituents to put pause to them supporting this coalition.  

Now as for the precedent of a Prime Minister being allowed to Progue Parliament to avoid a confidence vote.  I think that this power is now open to even more abuse than we have seen.  The structure and history of our legislative/executive Branch is designed so that there wont ever be any impasses or stale mates.  By allowing the prime minister to effectively hit the pause button and then go and do whatever he wants,  we create a situation where the government is not answerable to Parliament.

I disagree. The situation for this Progue is if not unique something that will come up a bit more often due to the forcast of lack of majorities to be elected.  But the crisis that is enabling it will not be seen that often.  There is enough of a uproar for the PM being allowed to use this tool is such that will ensure its use will not be contemplated too often ( my opinion ) if at all in the future.  The Porogue ( my understanding of it ) is being treated by most Canadians ( rightly so ) as a TIME OUT that Nanny 911 would use on a petulant child.  The use of it in the future to delay the inevitable colapse of a Govt on a confidence motion is something I don't see happening often if at all.

To add there is very little the Gov't can do during this Time out.  It still has to table a budget ( or should table one ) that will be a confidence vote.  During this time feelers/ olive branches will be handed out.  What happens to them during the break is looking like they will be grudgingly accepted to make this Parliament work at least until the Liberals get a new leader and shore up their house.  I do hope that on the resumption of Parliament that the Conservatives don't take it to be a time to hammer through more tough to swallow pills.   By all means go with a Conservative budget, they have the mandate for that.  But keep the Partisanship brinkmanship out of it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Just got this from one of my 'regimental nets':

Leafs win Stanley Cup!!!

Canada was stunned Monday when it was announced that The Stanley Cup will be awarded to the Toronto Maple Leafs, possibly as early as December 6th. The cup will be stripped from from 2008 playoff champions the Detroit Red Wings and be awarded to the Leafs, who didn't even make the playoffs.

How is this possible, Canadians ask?

Well, the Leafs have formed a coalition with eastern conference semifinalists the Montreal Canadians, and conference quarter finalists the Ottawa Senators, now outnumbering the Red Wings. According to current Leaf coach Ron Wilson "the Red Wings have lost the confidence of the league and should hand the cup over immediately to our coalition".

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is cutting short a European trip to try to resolve the unprecedented hockey crisis that could force a second playoff series, or see an opposing team coalition take the cup.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Just playing on this site,    http://www.electionresources.org/ca/
and wanted to ask a question of those who use the argument that because 62 % of voters didn't vote Conservative that they actually don't have the support of the people,

October 14, 2008 General Election Validated Results - Canada Totals
Conservative Party of Canada    5,209,066   37.7%   143

and yet, none of these same people it seems, wish to dispute the fact that the Bloc represents Quebec voters, however


October 14, 2008 General Election Validated Results - Quebec
Bloc Québécois      1,379,991  38.1 %  49


Just sayin'........

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a column by Jeffery Simpson dealing with how Québec and the Bloc Québecois gain from the current situation:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081204.wcosimp05/BNStory/politics

And the winner is ... the Bloc

JEFFREY SIMPSON
From Friday's Globe and Mail

December 4, 2008 at 11:19 PM EST

The Bloc Québécois, in a strictly partisan sense, emerged as the clear and only winner from the political gamesmanship in Ottawa, a temporary halt to which came yesterday with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's purchase of time through prorogation.

Canada, however, lost, as did the three federalist parties, each in different ways and for different reasons.

The existence of the Bloc, winner of the largest number of seats in Quebec for six consecutive elections, always meant a foreign element in Canadian politics - foreign in the sense that the Bloc's principal loyalty was to Quebec, its interests, aspirations, hurts and reflexes, as opposed to those of Canada. In a national parliament, therefore, there was one party dedicated to withdrawing Quebec from that parliament.

As long as the Bloc is Quebec's preferred party, it makes majority governments harder to achieve. As long as minority governments become the rule rather than the exception, the temptation wafts around Ottawa to play footsie, or get into political bed, with the Bloc in order to secure a majority.

It was a temptation to which Mr. Harper succumbed as leader of the Canadian Alliance. Jack Layton fell under its spell. Now, with this "coalition," a marriage of convenience has been consummated, however temporarily and uneasily, between the Bloc and its suitors, and Liberals and the NDP.

Once consummated, the marriage deal left the Bloc in a win-win-win position, regardless of what happened or happens. If the Bloc finds itself in such a position, by definition, Canada must be the loser.

In Quebec, as La Presse's André Pratte observed, a major argument used by federalists against the Bloc has evaporated. The Bloc stood accused by federalists of being unable to achieve anything. It would never be part of government and, therefore, was a useless political enterprise. But the consummation of the "coalition" has legitimized the Bloc as a governing entity. How can Liberals or New Democrats now use that argument, having invited the Bloc into their marriage of convenience?

If this coalition falls apart, as it likely will, the Bloc can argue that the Liberals and NDP did not understand Quebec, proving again how incompatible are Quebec and Canada. If the coalition holds together for a while, the Bloc will claim that it alone secured whatever benefits Quebec will receive. No wonder that Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe looked like a cat surrounded by canaries, his hardest decisions being which one to choose as prey, and when.

The Bloc has always been a hybrid party: in Parliament but wishing Parliament did not exist; part of a system of "responsible" government but unwilling to be responsible for any government.

Now the Bloc will be half in the coalition but always ready to threaten withdrawal, a bit like Quebec itself - and a party that took the measure of the NDP's eagerness for power and the Liberals' clueless leadership to secure for itself an excellent win-win-win arrangement. Quite predictably, although for other reasons, too, support for the Liberals and NDP dropped after this coalition was born, according to the Strategic Counsel poll in today's Globe and Mail.

Better still for the Bloc, once Mr. Harper found his power threatened, he berated the "separatists" and whipped up anti-Quebec sentiments outside the province, thereby producing an entirely predictable, highly defensive, nationalistic response in Quebec - a response that makes the ground more fertile for secessionist views.

Secessionists dream about something happening elsewhere that can be construed as an "insult" to Quebec. That sending MPs to Ottawa who want to break up Canada might be insulting to Canadians elsewhere would never occur to Quebeckers, whereas a hostile reaction to the Bloc's semi-inclusion in a government would occur to Quebeckers immediately.

It has always been the supreme test of national leadership in Canada to keep English- and French-speaking Canadians willing to co-exist, and so keep the Canadian experiment alive against those who wish to weaken and ultimately destroy it.

To save his skin, Mr. Harper failed that test. That failure will cost his party dearly in Quebec, where people think he turned the country against the province for political gain.

Coupling that failure with the hinging of the coalition's power grab on Bloc support meant a banner week for the secessionists in Parliament and in Quebec.

Simpson returns to a periodically recurrent theme: Québec as a ”foreign element” within the Canadian body politic – either as an irresponsible demandeur or as being only ”half in” the coalition or, indeed, Canada, itself.

The Conservatives need to find a way to hang on to at least four or five seats in Québec – enough to retain their claim to be a (the only true?) fully national party. I have shown how the Tories might win ‘without Québec’ and the Strategic Counsel poll I cited earlier this morning indicates that, if the numbers hold until end of a late winter/very early spring election, that could happen in 2009.

 

[dapaterson]

The best Tory inroads into Quebec next time the writ is dropped will likely be made into the yellow dog liberal ridings of Montreal's west end / West Island.  Dion's "deal with the devil" may well be what drives those safe Liberal seats into Tory hands, particularly as more details of what promises were made to the Bloc leak out.

Harper has managed to steer the Liberals out of the centre; that is what will be their downfall.

 

[vonGarvin]

Just got this from one of my 'regimental nets':

Mr. Campbell: that was probably the FUNNIEST thing I have seen all day!  Thank you! 

 

[vangemeren]

I thought I would stir the pot, (bolding and yellowing my emphasis)




Harper wrong on democracy claims: experts

Updated Thu. Dec. 4 2008 5:59 PM ET

Jim Brown, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- If there's one point on which Stephen Harper has been adamant, it's his claim that the opposition politicians trying to strip him of power are undermining democracy.

"The Canadian government has always been chosen by the people," the prime minister declared in his mid-week televised address to the country.

But now, he told viewers, a coalition of opposition parties is trying to oust him through a backroom deal "without your say, without your consent and without your vote."

Just how valid is Harper's claim that changing governments without a new election would be undemocratic?

"It's politics, it's pure rhetoric," said Ned Franks, a retired Queen's University expert on parliamentary affairs. "Everything that's been happening is both legal and constitutional."

Other scholars are virtually unanimous in their agreement. They say Harper's populist theory of democracy is more suited to a U.S.-style presidential system, in which voters cast ballots directly for a national leader, than it is to Canadian parliamentary democracy.

"He's appealing to people who learned their civics from American television," said Henry Jacek, a political scientist at McMaster University.

Harper signed similar document in 2004

In Canada, there's no national vote for prime minister. People elect MPs in 308 ridings, and a government holds power only as long as it has the support of a majority of those MPs.

"We have a rule that the licence to govern is having the confidence of the House of Commons," said Peter Russell, a former University of Toronto professor and adviser to past governors general.

"I'm sorry, that's the rule. If they want to change it to having a public opinion poll, we'd have to reform and rewrite our Constitution."

Harper himself signed a letter to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, claiming the right to form a government if Paul Martin's minority Liberals could be defeated in a confidence vote in the Commons.

His ostensible partners would have been NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe -- now derided by Harper as the "socialist" and the "separatist" in Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's coalition.

"I was just as much a sovereigntist then as I am now," Duceppe sniffed Thursday in a reference to Harper's new-found aversion to any deals with the Bloc.

Such facts are conveniently forgotten by some members of Harper's cabinet who have been even more vocal than their boss in the current crisis.

Revenue Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn has characterized the opposition effort to bring down the Tories as a "coup d'etat."

Transport Minister John Baird spoke Thursday of the need for the Conservatives to go "over the heads" of both Parliament and Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to take their case straight to the people.

There's no doubt the central Harper claim -- that he can't legitimately be dumped from office without a new election -- is dead wrong, said Jonathan Rose, a Queen's University political scientist.

But as a communications strategy it has the virtue of being simple, direct and powerful.

"He's using this bludgeon of an argument (but) most people just see the word democracy and have some intuitive connection to it," said Rose.

By contrast, the theory and practice of parliamentary confidence and responsible cabinet government take some explaining.

But Harper may have undermined his own effort Thursday with his visit to the Governor General to get permission to shut down Parliament for seven weeks.

It was the only way he could dodge a confidence vote that would have toppled his government next Monday. But it also presented the Liberals, NDP and Bloc with a ready-made response to the prime minister's claim of democratic superiority.

"You need something visceral and simple," said Rose. "The opposition metaphor of locking the doors to Parliament does it. I think people understand that."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081203/harper_undemocratic_081204/20081204?hub=Politics

 

[vonGarvin]

Harper himself signed a letter to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, claiming the right to form a government if Paul Martin's minority Liberals could be defeated in a confidence vote in the Commons.

His ostensible partners would have been NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe -- now derided by Harper as the "socialist" and the "separatist" in Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's coalition.

Actually, that letter said nothing of the sort. 

Here is what Harper said:

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority

Here is the letter the Coalition sent: link

 

[geo]

interesting,
in 2004
seat distribution as follows Lib 133 VS PC 98 + NDP 18 = 116 + BQ 53 = 169

in 2008
seat distribution as follows Cons 143 VS Lib 77 + NDP 37 = 114 + BQ 49= 163

regardless of how Mr Harper may have said it... he was pert much in the same position in 2004 as Mr Dion was this month.  without the bloc, neither had a leg to stand on.

IMHO, the only thing Mr Harper has managed to do is completely burn his bridges within Quebec.  Existing PC members from Quebec might as well start writing their CVs between now and january cause, it'll be a hell of a fight to get reelected.

 

[Rodahn]

If our "Leaders" were to receive a report card at this particular time I would hope that they all had the following comment.

"Does not work/play well with others".

 

[vonGarvin]

IMHO, the only thing Mr Harper has managed to do is completely burn his bridges within Quebec.  Existing PC members from Quebec might as well start writing their CVs between now and january cause, it'll be a hell of a fight to get reelected.

I guess hyperbole exists in here as well...

 

[helpup]

Good call Rhodan, and each bears some blame for the whole mess, lets hope the "Time Out" causes some pause all around.  I will give the bloc this much, they at least have been consistant and the most honest party out there when it comes to the Spin.  I honestly don't blame them for their position, they got voted in on their platform ( that I disagree with vehemently) and are acting accordingly.  I am not a fan of the anti Quebec sentiment that is being brought up but do understand where it is coming from.  For the people of Quebec they are leaning against separatism ( or were ) and are voting Bloc as they realize that they are getting the best deal out of the bloc being in power.  Frankly I dint blame them for that.  This country is very much a what is in it for me federation. 

It was looking not too long ago as if the Bloc's powerbase was going down the drain, all the animosity going along now though will just cause that to entrench for the for-seeable future. ( much to my dismay ) And before I get jumped on let me add I dint believe in what the Blocs goals are but they are doing it with in our framework.  Since they do not swear allegiance they will never be able to hold a Cabinet Post ( my understanding of it) but they are fully entitled to vote as they see fit and they will continue to see fit anything that benefits Quebec.  I do think there is some serious issues with a party that wont swear allegiance being allowed to prob up a coalition but it is well with in our rules.

I also am getting a chuckle out of the Spin from all parties,  Of course the opposition can vote it down and have it be a democratic process, the forming of a coalition is also allowed.  The way they went about it though is suspect.  especially this close to the last election and each was running on vastly differant platforms.  To change their own platforms out of thin air is a concern to me and many others, but not illegal. Pointing out the PM tried to do the same thing is wrong. He was espousing voting with the block to cause the fall of the govt and did encourage the GG to go through all her options but did not form a coalition with the block or NDP prior. That would of been similar but not the media premeditated circus this one was.

Hypocrites abound as this is politics and honestly who here would not rather they smarten up grow up and govern at least for a year before bringing us to the brink again.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The Sovereign's first duty is to ensure (with the odd exception, such as a general election) that she (the country) has a prime minister who has the confidence of parliament.

She did.  A vote which was a matter of confidence was recently held, and the government was not defeated.  Subsequent to that vote, the PM requested prorogation.  Most of us believe we know why he requested it and what was thought to lie further down the timeline, but that doesn't escape the chain of events the G-G must respect.  A letter from the opposition leaders is not a vote of non-confidence and they don't indisputably hold the proxies of their parties - in view of the poll numbers, it is conceivable that Liberal MPs unwilling to defeat the government might have allowed the government to survive.  As of the time Harper went to the G-G, we assuredly did not have a situation where the only reasonable presumption was that PM Harper did not have the confidence of parliament.  Therefore, his capacity to advise her was not missing.

The G-G would have set a much worse precedent by ignoring a PM's request for prorogration for the first time, on the mere say-so of three party leaders that the government could and would be defeated.

[Edit: to add more visible emphasis]

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post is another ‘take’ on the coalition:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/04/john-ivison-dark-days-get-darker-for-dion.aspx

John Ivison:
Dark days get darker for unloved Dion

Posted: December 04, 2008, 6:20 PM by Kelly McParland

Much of the speculation this week has centred on whether Stéphane Dion could bring down the government. Not much time has been spent asking whether he could run a government.
During an emergency Liberal caucus meeting, just hours after the Prime Minister revealed that the Governor-General had agreed to prorogue the House, MPs started to pose that question to themselves.

They seem to have just awoken to the fact that the man who couldn’t even deliver his national television address to the networks in time for it to be broadcast could become the accidental Prime Minister of Canada. The prospect seemed to alarm many, according to one person who was in the room.

The source said Scott Brison, the party’s finance critic, called for leadership race to be moved up, just in case the Governor-General allows Stephen Harper to dissolve parliament and call an election next month.

The doubts over Mr. Dion’s leadership seem to extend to the course he has plotted for the party.

Leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff said the coalition needs to explore options other than bringing the government down next month, said the source. Other speakers, such as Nova Scotia MP Mike Savage and Yukon MP Larry Bagnall offered a similar view.

David McGuinty, the Ottawa MP, said that the Governor-General had scolded all MPs and essentially told them to go home and play nice. He said the party needs more options and should meet with the Prime Minister to negotiate a solution to the current crisis. If coalition negotiators say they cannot negotiate changes, send in new negotiators, he said. Bob Rae, the Toronto MP and leadership candidate, called for the party to stick to the present course.

When asked whether the coalition was starting to unravel, one MP said: “It’s coming apart at the seams.”

It is a remarkable turnaround from the united front put on by the Liberal caucus on Monday. Over the course of the week, a number of Liberals have expressed their disquiet at a deal which for many saw them getting far too cozy with the Bloc Québécois. The final straw seems to have been the debacle over Mr. Dion’s video that was scheduled to follow the Prime Minister’s address to the nation on Wednesday night.

Mr. Dion’s office missed its deadline to deliver the statement to the networks, When it did arrive, there was no separate French version and Liberal staffers were forced to edit a French tape while Mr. Harper was on the air. Network anchors killed time when Mr. Harper had finished, still waiting for the Liberal address. By 7.30, CTV had had enough and returned to scheduled programming, which was probably a blessing for the Grits, because the final product looked, in the words of CBC anchor, Peter Mansbridge, as if it had been shot using someone’s cellphone.

“Those guys couldn’t organize a two car funeral. So close, yet so far...” said one disillusioned senior Liberal.

Jim Karygiannis, the maverick Toronto Liberal, emerged from caucus and called for Mr. Dion to step down.

“We bombed in the election and we didn’t do so good last night. We bombed again,” he said.

Bryon Wilfert, the MP for Richmond Hill and Mr. Dion’s most loyal supporter, was dispatched to defuse talk of the coalition falling apart. “The coalition, as far as I know, is not dead,” he said, which was hardly a ringing endorsement of its rude health.

The Liberals now have two options: attempt to take the Conservatives down next month, or use the threat of bringing forward a non-confidence vote as a bargaining chip to gain concessions in the Budget. Each path seems to have a champion among the leadership candidates.

Mr. Rae has taken a hard line, insisting that the Prime Minister has to go, regardless of what the Conservatives do in their budget.

Mr. Ignatieff was less dogmatic when he emerged from caucus. “We will maintain the possibility of reaching out but you cannot get this government to listen and respond unless the government is perfectly certain of the unity of purpose of this caucus,” he said.

Liberals can disagree on which option to back. But where there seems to be near consensus that neither outcome is likely while Mr. Dion remains at the helm.

jivison@nationalpost.com

National Post​

So, all is not sweetness and light inside the big, red tent ... again ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
still.

The coalition may collapse even before it is formed because some senior Liberals are beginning to understand that Canadians will punish them for forming it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>IMHO, the only thing Mr Harper has managed to do is completely burn his bridges within Quebec.  Existing PC members from Quebec might as well start writing their CVs between now and january cause, it'll be a hell of a fight to get reelected.

That seems likely.  If the Conservatives lose all their Quebec seats, they need to gain about 20 to obtain a majority.   What happens on election day in Quebec if the last sets of numbers shows the Conservatives trending in majority territory even without a seat in Quebec?

 

[Edward Campbell]

>The Sovereign's first duty is to ensure (with the odd exception, such as a general election) that she (the country) has a prime minister who has the confidence of parliament.

She did.  A vote which was a matter of confidence was recently held, and the government was not defeated.  Subsequent to that vote, the PM requested prorogation. 

You are quite correct.

I was totally ignoring the vote on the Throne Speech debate and it does, indeed mean that Harper has demonstrated that he, currently, has the confidence of parliament and the three opposition leaders' letters are, Constitutionally, just idle chatter from the cheap seats.

My mistake; and I withdraw my comments at: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/81648/post-785691.html#msg785691 and at: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/81648/post-785956.html#msg785956  Constitutionally Mme. Jean could have made Harper pay, dearly, for his miscalculation but she acted properly and on proper advice.

 

[George Wallace]

SO?  With the Final Air Farce being broadcast on New Years, and the final firing of the Chicken Canon, is it time to start a campaign to have the Three Amigoes Stooges whatever, nominated as the primary target........for their Cooperative Convoluted Conceptional Conspiracy Coopting Conservatives from power.  6 "C's" from P.  >