Who the Hell do these guys think they are?

[Reccesoldier]

I've been chewing on this a while, and this is the straw...

In a democratic country we elect our leaders. Those leaders form the government and have an honour bound duty to lead the country. Inherent in that leadership is the fact that the people who form the government are elected for their ideals, policies and platform. The idea that they must represent those people in the public that backed, and most likely continue to back, the opposition is nonsensical. The only portion of the public to which they owe any loyalty are those that gave them the mandate to govern. The rest quite frankly can go pound sand until such time as there is an election or the government is toppled by a vote of nonconfidence

On the other side of this coin is the fact that the Loyal opposition is supposed to oppose the government in Canada. IN CANADA! Their duty to oppose ends at the borders of this country. To insist that they be included in international forums, that they have a seat at the table for conferences and international bodies is preposterous, and done, if at all solely at the pleasure and with the permission of the elected government.

We the people of Canada, representing a plurality of the population elected the government to represent us both nationally and internationally. We most emphatically did not elect the Opposition to speak for us as a nation or on the international stage. The oppositions job is to oppose at home and stay at home! Not to go chasing our duly elected leaders around the world spewing partisan talking points in order to score points with Canadian voters.

These opposition media whores are making this country a complete laughingstock internationally. You do not see Condolezza Rice berated in Israel by Hillary Clinton who followed here there to state the Democratic platform. You don't see Gary Kasparov waiting in the hallways of the UN building in the hopes that he can grasp the coattails of some NBC news crew so he can deride his governments position on the state of Georgia. 

If Dion, or any other member of the opposition, Liberal, NDP, Greens or Bloc want to spend their own personal money and travel as John Q Public to whatever, meeting wherever, then fine, there is no way to stop them but it should be crystal clear that these people do not speak for Canada and do not speak for Canadians.

Also at: UNCOMMON SENSE

 

[COBRA-6]

To insist that they be included in international forums, that they have a seat at the table for conferences and international bodies is preposterous,

These opposition media whores are making this country a complete laughingstock internationally.

Exactly, they are not the government. They need to sit down and STFU internationally.

It boggles the mind. I guess if you believe in your own mind that you are the natural governing party it makes sense  :

 

[JAWS228]

We need someone running around behind the liberal party when they travel making sure everyone knows they don't speak for Canada or Canadians.....Stephane Dion saying he represents Canada (or even parts of it)...God help us all :-\

 

[George Wallace]

Well stated Reccesoldier.

I think the Darwin Theory is in play here.  'Dionisms' seem to be the latest fad on the Comedy circuits.  We already know what 'pool' the others should be told to get out of.

It is not the role of the Government to send any of these 'Wannabes' on any International Business of State.  There is of course nothing to stop them from using their own personal funds to travel to these conferences or summits, but they must realize that they are doing so as an everyday citizen and can expect to be treated accordingly.  As 'John Q Public' they can only observe from the sidelines at a safe distance, well outside of the actual summit.  They would never be allowed access to the actual summit or its participants.   It in essence it would wind up being a holiday in Bali which coincidentally happens to be at the same time an International Summit was taking place, where they would likely never (should never) be permitted through the Security Perimeter.  

They are just a bunch of peacocks looking for a photo op in a warm clime.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I agree with everyone saying only the government can speak for the government and Canada as a whole, and if opposition want to pay their way to go, they can go, but I'm not entirely clear on this bit....

In a democratic country we elect our leaders. Those leaders form the government and have an honour bound duty to lead the country. Inherent in that leadership is the fact that the people who form the government are elected for their ideals, policies and platform. The idea that they must represent those people in the public that backed, and most likely continue to back, the opposition is nonsensical. The only portion of the public to which they owe any loyalty are those that gave them the mandate to govern. The rest quite frankly can go pound sand until such time as there is an election or the government in toppled by a vote of nonconfidence.

So, if I voted for a party other than the winning party, I should take a flying leap when it comes to my wanting my elected officials to know what I think is needed?  Or, to micro-size it, if Bloggins voted Liberal, and a Tory represents him, Bloggins should consider himself shut out until the next election?  In a country with a secret ballot, how does the GoC know who (individually) elected them?  Doesn't the Government of Canada, with the Prime Minister as head of government, represent ALL CANADIANS, not just the supporters of the winning team?

- edited to fix freudian slip in grammar -

 

[niceasdrhuxtable]

So, if I voted for a party other than the winning party, I should take a flying leap when it comes to my wanting my elected officials to know what I think is needed?  Or, to micro-size it, if Bloggins voted Liberal, and a Tory represents him, Bloggins should consider himself shut out until the next election?  In a country with a secret ballot, how does the GoC know who (individually) elected them?  Doesn't the Government of Canada, with the Prime Minister as head of government, represent ALL CANADIANS, not just the supporters of the winning team?

- edited to fix freudian slip in grammar -

I agree. If you extend that logic then minors and other disenfranchised also have no right to representation by the government.

 

[Reccesoldier]

I agree with everyone saying only the government can speak for the government and Canada as a whole, and if opposition want to pay their way to go, they can go, but I'm not entirely clear on this bit....

So, if I voted for a party other than the winning party, I should take a flying leap when it comes to my wanting my elected officials to know what I think is needed?  Or, to micro-size it, if Bloggins voted Liberal, and a Tory represents him, Bloggins should consider himself shut out until the next election?  In a country with a secret ballot, how does the GoC know who (individually) elected them?  Doesn't the Government of Canada, with the Prime Minister as head of government, represent ALL CANADIANS, not just the supporters of the winning team?

- edited to fix freudian slip in grammar -

Of course you are correct, I didn't explain my point well.  

The government is elected to fufill the platform it was elected on.  The idea expoused by Dion and the rest (more than once) that "the government isn't representing the interests or ideals of Canadians" is BS, pure and simple.  The Government was elected to do what it has been doing.  The fact that the Conservatives are not governing by Liberal ideals is too bad, so sad for the Liberals and their followers.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The government is elected to fufill the platform it was elected on.  The idea expoused by Dion and the rest (more than once) that "the government isn't representing the interests or ideals of Canadians" is BS, pure and simple.  The Government was elected to do what it has been doing.  The fact that the Conservatives are not governing by Liberal ideals is too bad, so sad for the Liberals and their followers.

Ahhh - makes sense, then.  Thanks for clearing that up.

If that's the argument, then how can the Liberals claim THEY represent all of us?  "No, really, most seats went to Party X, but you KNOW people really wanted the policies of Party y?"  Riiiiiight.....

Is the GoC representing the interests of Canadians as a group?  Yes.  Are they representing the interests and ideals of every single Canadian as individuals?  Kinda hard to do, no?

 

[Sub_Guy]

Outside of Canada, the PM and whoever he delegates speaks on behalf of Canadians, not some other guy (who most people can't understand anyway).

I see a perfect solution to this, next time vote Conservative and then you can be certain that the PM is representing you!

If Celine Dion and Taliban Jack want to go to Bali then go!  Just don't say you are representing Canada (its embarrassing), oh and use your own money...

 

[Bigrex]

Well seeing as Harper only has a minority government, he doesn't have the confidence of the majority of Canadians, therefor he cannot truly stand up and say he represents all of Canadians. The role of a minority government is to work with the opposition parties to forge ahead, not to force feed them into adopting their policies, no matter how ill conceived they may be. I know I'll get flamed for my comments, but I only hope that Harpers totalitarian regime will fall at the next election, or at least come close enough to make him realize he doesn't have as firm a grasp on Canada as he thinks, or as tight as he has on his own caucus, forcing him to rethink some of his strategies.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well seeing as Harper only has a minority government, he doesn't have the confidence of the majority of Canadians, therefor he cannot truly stand up and say he represents all of Canadians. The role of a minority government is to work with the opposition parties to forge ahead, not to force feed them into adopting their policies, no matter how ill conceived they may be. I know I'll get flamed for my comments, but I only hope that Harpers totalitarian regime will fall at the next election, or at least come close enough to make him realize he doesn't have as firm a grasp on Canada as he thinks, or as tight as he has on his own caucus, forcing him to rethink some of his strategies.

One Word.  The difference between a debate and a flame war.  Now, was this post to change minds or to make yourself feel good?

Beyond that, the PM is still the PM and as such is Head of Government and as such is the sole legitimate voice for Canada on the international stage.  Jean Chretien never represented more than 40% of all Canadians.

 

[Bane]

                This blown way out of proportion.  You think the people at the U.N. don't know Dion isn't the Prime Minister.  Opposition MP's often travel, often attend conferences aboard, often make statements at international events critisizing the governmental policies.  This is normal behaviour and occurs in many other nations as well.  The people at these conferences know the deal, everyone understands who is playing what role and that critisism is OK.  The conservatives were going to give Quebec a special seat at certain international conferences weren't they? Most large political parties maintain relations with other parties, organizations and goverenments even when out of power, totally normal.   Canadian society is not monolithic and does not become a monolith at the boarder, and our interaction with the world is not monolithic either.

...and as such is the sole legitimate voice for Canada on the international stage. 

He's the only official one, every single citizen is their own voice. See last sentence above.


Dion - the Globe and Mail, Dec. 01, 2007
“I will go to Bali. I know it's not my role to negotiate. I know what it is. I will respect the government of Canada elected by the Canadian people. I'm not there to continue the debate we have here in Canada about this bad government.  But I will be there, as other personalities will be there, to be sure that my network, my experience will be helpful as much as possible. To push every country in the back.”

 

[DBA]

Harper was asked by the Governor General of Canada to form the government and as such the Conservatives are in power as long as they have the confidence of parliament. There have been several votes put forward as confidence votes and they all passed. That means a majority of the members of parliament present at each vote supported the current government.

Harper promised a certain legislative agenda, and thanks to the poor shape the Liberal party is in, he has been able to advance it this session without as many concessions to opposition parties. Any minority government is going to push harder whenever the polls show them likely to get a majority if an election is called. The Conservatives will push even harder at times since they precluded themselves from calling an election absent a vote of non confidence.

 

[Kirkhill]

 Canadian society is not monolithic and does not become a monolith at the boarder, and our interaction with the world is not monolithic either.
He's the only official one, every single citizen is their own voice. See last sentence above.

You are making a distinction without difference.  Only the Prime Minister is authorized to negotiate agreements with other states.  In that sense Canada, and every other state, IS a monolith.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

"We are speaking about the worst ecological threat that humanity is facing, and I will do my best."

I'd love to see how Stephane Hypocrite would score on this test

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

I'm glad you qualified your statement about who elected MPs represent Reccesoldier. There was a flap about this a few years ago when an MP tryed to figure out who had voted for him and who had not so as to determine whom he should help and whom not to help. They are elected to represent all members of their riding whether they voted or not, or voted for them or another guy. I once approached a local MLA to help someone get into a Government rehab program who was getting the run around from the bureaucrat in charge. He didn't ask me who I supported or who the client supported politically....he did some inquiries and had the guy in the program two weeks later. When MPs or MLAs work for their constituents regardless of political stripe they tend to get rewarded for that hard work with another term in office.

I think it's strange that Dion is going to Bali too, Mr Harper did receive the most seats in Parliament the last time we voted, was legally requested to form the Government and has done so for the last two years. He has the authority and the mandate of the country to represent us all....if Mr Dion doesn't think he has a mandate then maybe he should stop abstaining from voting against Mr Harper's government in Parliament.

 

[Bane]

You are making a distinction without difference.  Only the Prime Minister is authorized to negotiate agreements with other states.  In that sense Canada, and every other state, IS a monolith.

Beyond that, the PM is still the PM and as such is Head of Government and as such is the sole legitimate voice for Canada on the international stage. 

       It is not unusual for MP's from other parties to be involved in negotiations, and recall many countries require a body of legislators to pass or reject certain types of, if not all, international agreements.  Thus all the lawmakers, the legislators, could/should well be considered 'legitimate' (if one prefers the more legal derivation of the word). The Prime Minister in this case would indeed be legitimate, but so would every other MP. Quite rightly so, although the holder of the office of the Prime Minister is typically given a large amount of deference which is also proper.

When it comes down to it though, the only really legitimate head of Canada is the Queen.

 

[Bane]

The Edmonton Journal - 19th of Jul, 2005 pg. A7
WASHINGTON - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper told an international gathering of conservative political leaders Monday he would take Canada more deeply into the U.S.-led war on terrorism, and would create a national security commissioner to oversee the work of police and security agencies.

        So as Leader of the Offical Opposition, Stephen Harper and Member Stockwell Day went to another country and spoke openly about the Oppositions policy on the WAR ON TERROR.  Pretty serious stuff.  Imagine if Dion were to do something like that, he'd be strung up as a 5th columnist here!  It was perfectly fine for Harper to do it regarding issues much more serious than another U.N. chatty Cathy fest on the environment, and Dion is in the right also.  You may not like him or his hippie peacenik politics, but he is very polite man and would not go out of his way to insult the office of the Prime Minister.  I don't mind the constervative bias on the board, to be expected and it is sometimes justified, but seriously....

 

[Kirkhill]

A whole bunch of coulda/woulda/shoulda there in your justifications Bane.

The PM is Head of Government. The Queen is Head of State.  Both are legitimate.

Stephane is at liberty to talk to any "international gathering of progressive political leaders" he chooses, including the Socialist International, and tell them what he wishes to do when or if he finds the wherewithal to form his own government.  While he may be at liberty as a private citizen to voice his opinions wherever he pleases it seems unseemly for the "Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" to be actively involved in trying to subvert Her Majesty's Government during negotiations with foreign governments.

 

[Bane]

A whole bunch of coulda/woulda/shoulda there in your justifications Bane.

What does that mean?

The PM is Head of Government. The Queen is Head of State.  Both are legitimate.

You said the the PM was the "sole legitimate voice for Canada" ...... I argued, and it seems successfully that you were wrong. MP's turn agreements into law. Or if you are a a person hung up on technicalities, the Queen does so.

Stephane is at liberty to talk to any "international gathering of progressive political leaders" he chooses, including the Socialist International, and tell them what he wishes to do when or if he finds the wherewithal to form his own government.  While he may be at liberty as a private citizen to voice his opinions wherever he pleases it seems unseemly for the "Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" to be actively involved in trying to subvert Her Majesty's Government during negotiations with foreign governments.

'Subvert' is very hyberbolic seeing as he specifically stated he ws doing nothing of the sort.