• commentary
  • MONDAY SEPTEMBER 8 2008 6:00 PM

Canada's Schoolyard Politicians Love The Silent Treatment

Submitted by Yulia

Edited by nicole_powers

Tags: Canada, federal election, Green Party, Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, Elizabeth May, parliament

The 14 October federal election has only been announced for one day, but incidents of flying insults, accusations, and uses of the word "illegal" have already quadrupled. The Conservatives are worried. To their credit, they're recognized that they should be -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper began his election campaign with a sign saying "Yes, I'm breaking my own law, but let's not talk about that, so look what a great family man I am!"

If you're not sure of the details, here's how it went down. In May 2006, Harper passed his law establishing a fixed election date in Canada, set for October 2009. On Sunday, after weeks of Canadians wondering when he'd get around to it, Harper formally asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election. In other words, he broke his own law. But because Canada is part of the Commonweatlh of Nations, we are subjects of Queen Elizabeth II (in formal tradition-keeping only), and Her Majesty's Canadian representative -- the Governor General -- did as Harper asked.

In the simplest terms? Harper used the Queen of England as a loophole to become, in a sense, "above the law."

With every federal election in Canada comes the much-loved Leaders' Catfight -- oops, I mean Debate. Until now, this debate has been closed to the Green Party and leader Elizabeth May, as the other four party leaders formed a pack mentality advocating the belief that since the Greens had no elected MP, they didn't belong in the Leaders' Debate. Nope, being a Leader is not enough, because the debate is really secretly called the We're Elected And You're Not Nah-Nah Debate. (It's just too damn long to say all the time, so they shortened it to "Leaders" upon reviewing the effectiveness of the schoolyard chants.)

The Green Party is entering this election with one Member of Parliament, thus meeting all requirements for the Leaders' Deabte. And yet they're still shut out. Three of the other four major parties have ganged up to show an impressive amount of schoolyard strategy, refusing to show up for the debate if Elizabeth May is allowed to participate.

Logic doesn't apply here. Other party leaders are terrified of May, a woman -- and a party -- they used to dismiss as "single-issue" and treat as the (so perceived by them) annoying little sister who always wants to play. While the older parties were busying ignoring, Elizabeth May quietly built strong foundations and a reputation as "Canada's Obama" in oration.

May doesn't use a teleprompter. She doesn't use cue cards. She just speaks, and everybody listens. I guess the new motto of the Canadian government old boys' club is, "If you can't beat 'em, mistreat 'em."

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Comments
FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

SEP 09, 2008 12:46 AM

Well... what Harper did isn't technically illegal. It's shady as fuck, but not illegal. From what I've been reading, the only way to close the loophole is to make amendments to the Constitution to change the Governor General's role in the government. It was apparently easier to leave that loophole in than go through the insanely painful process of changing the Constitution.

Now, as for the Green Party being left out of the debates... yeah. That sucks.

realistic67

realistic67

Vancouver, BC
August 2005

SEP 09, 2008 01:01 AM

Elizabeth May ...Who is this Canadian? I guess this is an east coast thing. Because I've never heard of her....And if she can't win in the west.. she's automatically defunct as a majority leader.

Canada will never elect a green party. Our ties are far too close to the USA to let that connect. ( not saying that it's a bad thing...) but, American politics has to get far more progressive with their situation, to make that happen. On a strange way we are far more conservative ( politically) than the Americans

Yulia

Yulia

SUICIDEGIRL

Canada

SEP 09, 2008 09:02 AM

Thank you both for your input! I'm not saying Elizabeth May (former leader of the Sierra Club of Canada, so yes, West Coasters do know her!) should or will win the election (surely we can all see that the Green Party is not about to jump from one MP to even a minority government), but as a party leader she should be in the debate. Canadians deserve to hear from a party that's running for seats in nearly all 308 ridings (I believe it's 307 but I haven't checked).

FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

SEP 09, 2008 09:06 AM

Yulka said:
Thank you both for your input! I'm not saying Elizabeth May (former leader of the Sierra Club of Canada, so yes, West Coasters do know her!) should or will win the election (surely we can all see that the Green Party is not about to jump from one MP to even a minority government), but as a party leader she should be in the debate. Canadians deserve to hear from a party that's running for seats in nearly all 308 ridings (I believe it's 307 but I haven't checked).



Up until now they really had no reason to be in the debates. Yes, they were running candidates. But so does the Marijuana Party. And the Communists. They're not invited either.

However, they do have an MP now so I don't see a reason for them not to be let in. Although, if I remember correctly, he was elected as a Liberal wasn't he?

May's support for the Liberals is a bit screwy though.

Yulia

Yulia

SUICIDEGIRL

Canada

SEP 09, 2008 09:31 AM

FreakPirate said:

Yulka said:
Thank you both for your input! I'm not saying Elizabeth May (former leader of the Sierra Club of Canada, so yes, West Coasters do know her!) should or will win the election (surely we can all see that the Green Party is not about to jump from one MP to even a minority government), but as a party leader she should be in the debate. Canadians deserve to hear from a party that's running for seats in nearly all 308 ridings (I believe it's 307 but I haven't checked).



Up until now they really had no reason to be in the debates. Yes, they were running candidates. But so does the Marijuana Party. And the Communists. They're not invited either.

However, they do have an MP now so I don't see a reason for them not to be let in. Although, if I remember correctly, he was elected as a Liberal wasn't he?

May's support for the Liberals is a bit screwy though.



Yes, and then resigned under tax allegations he was fully cleared of, then sat as an Independent for 8 months before joining the Greens.

You're right about the other parties not included, and that's why most (at least begrudgingly) accept that May wasn't in the debate before now. But having an MP... The Greens meet all the requirements. I think that the Conservatives and the NDP will come to regret their boycott threats.

Noctua

Noctua

San Francisco, CA
February 2004

SEP 09, 2008 12:18 PM

I think what's missing from here is the recognition of the the Canadian Parliament's practice of Parliamentary Supremacy (about halfway down the page).

Translation: Parliament can do pretty much whatever it wants, except where the Constitution says otherwise. And the Constitution is silent on fixed election dates; that part is whenever the ruling party says it is. Harper's got historical electoral practice on his side -- PMs have always been the ones to call the election date.

FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

SEP 09, 2008 12:21 PM

Noctua said:

Harper's got historical electoral practice on his side -- PMs have always been the ones to call the election date.



That used to be true. It's no longer the case.

Harper's government introduced legislation setting fixed election dates to prevent governments from calling elections at opportunistic times.

xo_b_mac

xo_b_mac

Markham, ON
June 2007

SEP 09, 2008 02:26 PM

Maybe if bitch May would stop sucking Dions dick people wouldn't mind her being in he debate. Harper shoulda just stayed and not called an election, Dion is such a pussy it'd be like having a majority anyway.

DO YOU THINK ITS EASY TO MAKE PRIORITIES!?

dholokov

dholokov

Toronto, ON
April 2003

SEP 09, 2008 04:42 PM

Noctua said:
I think what's missing from here is the recognition of the the Canadian Parliament's practice of Parliamentary Supremacy (about halfway down the page).

Translation: Parliament can do pretty much whatever it wants, except where the Constitution says otherwise. And the Constitution is silent on fixed election dates; that part is whenever the ruling party says it is. Harper's got historical electoral practice on his side -- PMs have always been the ones to call the election date.



Parliamentary supremacy is mainly a concept about legislation - it's not so much that parliament can do whatever it wants, but that it can pass whatever laws it wants (with execptions). The question really is, does parliamentary supremacy give parliament the ability to pass a law which prevents the prime minister from requesting dissolution, and does the fixed election act do so? The first part can be argued both ways - the governor-general's power to call an election under s. 50 of the constitution may be so tied up with the prime ministers request to dissolve it that it can be considered constitutional, the reverse may be true.

CommunistCanuck

CommunistCanuck

Canada
February 2004

SEP 10, 2008 12:35 AM

FreakPirate said:

Noctua said:

Harper's got historical electoral practice on his side -- PMs have always been the ones to call the election date.



That used to be true. It's no longer the case.

Harper's government introduced legislation setting fixed election dates to prevent governments from calling elections at opportunistic times.



The escape door to this one I have been told is that the law only applies to majority governments not minority *cough*cou-conservative*cough* governments.

As for debates I dont know why anyone would want to be involved in this years leadership debates, we got the most uninspired lineup of political automotons in the big parties now that the greens could probably get better PR on commenting how bad the debates will be then actually being apart of them.....


FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

SEP 10, 2008 12:52 AM

CommunistCanuck said:

The escape door to this one I have been told is that the law only applies to majority governments not minority *cough*cou-conservative*cough* governments.



No idea. Haven't heard anything about that. Either way, the loophole would still let them have the GG dissolve parliament.

As for debates I dont know why anyone would want to be involved in this years leadership debates, we got the most uninspired lineup of political automotons in the big parties now that the greens could probably get better PR on commenting how bad the debates will be then actually being apart of them.....



Being a shiny new party in a lineup of same-old-faces in the debate could do the Greens a lot of good. Well, some good I guess. It's going to be a while before they're taken seriously as a party.

CommunistCanuck

CommunistCanuck

Canada
February 2004

SEP 10, 2008 01:23 AM


CommunistCanuck said:

The escape door to this one I have been told is that the law only applies to majority governments not minority *cough*cou-conservative*cough* governments.


FreakPirate said:
No idea. Haven't heard anything about that. Either way, the loophole would still let them have the GG dissolve parliament.



Not surprising considering that democracy doesnt seem to be on any of the main parties agendas, why stress the anti democratic features of this law when the centre loves its law and order?

CommunistCanuck said:
As for debates I dont know why anyone would want to be involved in this years leadership debates, we got the most uninspired lineup of political automotons in the big parties now that the greens could probably get better PR on commenting how bad the debates will be then actually being apart of them.....



FreakPirate said:
Being a shiny new party in a lineup of same-old-faces in the debate could do the Greens a lot of good. Well, some good I guess. It's going to be a while before they're taken seriously as a party.



Well every major party is now featuring an "aggressive green agenda" in which the greens have yet to show how they stand apart from the pack, I will not be surprised if they have their voting numbers decimated this year because of this fact as this seems to indicate that the greens of last elections shine has lost alot of its lustre.

Alas so runs the logic of bourgoise politics in its hampster wheel......

FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

SEP 10, 2008 01:28 AM

CommunistCanuck said:

Well every major party is now featuring an "aggressive green agenda" in which the greens have yet to show how they stand apart from the pack....



And that's why I won't be voting for the Green Party any time soon.

dholokov

dholokov

Toronto, ON
April 2003

SEP 10, 2008 08:48 PM

The 'only applies to majority governments' bit was an utter fabrication by the conservatives. If it was meant to apply only to majority governments, it wouldn't have set a specific date (Oct. 19th, 2009) for the previous (minority) parliament.

zenFish

zenFish

Vancouver, BC
August 2004

SEP 10, 2008 08:58 PM

One thing to point out, the only reason why the Greens have a person IN the Commons right now... is because a Grit crossed over.

0.02c

Link

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

featured interviews