Update from JD:Apologies to you and your readers. Rising blood pressure temporarily addled my brains in my last email.
I would like to clarify my earlier text.
The BQ (Block Quebecois is the Federal level).
The PQ (Parti Quebecois) is a provincial party. Both PQ and BQ are separatists.
Alliance is Lib-NDP-BQ.
Our tipster JD sends this followup on the political situation in Canada:
The Liberals just signed an agreement a few hours ago with the NDP (both parties are socialist) to work together. The separatist party, Bloc Quebecois (PQ) (also known as Partie Quebecois; hence the acronym PQ — also socialist) will agree to support this new coalition with their votes.
The PQ will have no minister representation in this new “government”, only a promise to support the Lib-NDP agenda in voting for their policies. (Expect the price of PQ support to be high — in terms of vast amounts of money flowing to Quebec.)
I should note that the media (CBC — Communist Broadcasting Corporation) is falling in lock step with this and is presenting it as a “fait accompli.”
The Lib-NDP (via talking heads representatives on the political talk shows) are now already calling for Harper to step aside “gracefully.”
Harper has two choices.
| 1. | | He could step aside. |
| 2. | | He could issue a call to the Governor General for an election. |
Keep in mind that Harper’s minority government has already received the “seal of approval” from the Governor General in a ceremony just after the Conservatives were elected.
If Harper calls on the Governor General to call an election (the best choice — step 1 would be disaster) then the Governor General has two choices.
| 1. | | She could call for an election. |
| 2. | | She could say “no election” and support the Lib-NDP. |
As I see it:
- - - - - - - - -
If she supported the Lib-NDP, then this would create problems as the Conservative Party has already received the “Seal of Approval” by the Governor General. This decision could be fought by the Conservatives constitutionally in Court. This may result in her decision being overturned, effectively making her office look stupid and useless.
If she calls for an election (only four months after the last one), this decision may be fought by the Lib-NDP in Court. But this is far better for the country than if Harper were to step down.
The key issue is that this is happening after the Governor General signed Harper’s new minority government into office.
This manufactured crisis is a first in Canadian political history and has no IDENTICAL scenario. Lib-NDP-PQ are trying to paint other historical scenarios as identical. Don’t believe it. The situation is unique.
Lib-NDP-PQ are trying to present their decision as a no confidence on the economic policies of the Conservative government. It was actually triggered by a proposal to limit federal taxpayer money to political parties. It was not enough for them to get the Harper government to back off this proposal; but to try and tag-team and usurp Canadian elections and take power for themselves. It is only now, after agreeing to form a coalition government that this talk of “it’s all about helping you” takes place.
This is why the leaders are now promising lots of money for this and that and to “jump start” the economy (aka bailout) — in the vein of the US bailout (i.e. lots of taxpayer money disappearing into a big black hole or even several smaller black holes). They would implement their global warming carbon credit plans, defer to international bodies, etc., etc. — the whole leftist ball of wax. The three leaders (Lib-NDP-PQ) are trying to convince Canadians that they are acting for the benefit of Canadians. This is not so.
A word on the Socialist media. The three leaders (Lib-NDP-PQ aka Larry, Curly, and Moe) had a short question period after the signing. Maybe one critical comment — all the questions were “So what will your government do about such and such.” In essence, presenting it to the viewing audience as a done deal.
Make no mistake. This is nothing less than a “soft coup” attempt — a Socialist grab for power without going through elections. Effectively overriding the decision of Canadian voters, who voted for the Conservatives to GOVERN (i.e. set policies) in co-operation with the other parties (hence the term “minority government”).
NJartist is right to say “[a]ll shame of treason is forgotten in the mad rush to establish socialist states.”
13 comments:
The separatist party, Bloc Quebecois (PQ) (also known as Partie Quebecois; hence the acronym PQ — also socialist)
The federal separatists, or 'sovereigntists' as they prefer to be known, are called the Bloc Quebecois (BQ). The Parti Quebecois (PQ) is a provincial level party that doesn't run candidates at the federal level. (Canadian provinces have separate powers just like US states). But there is considerable crossover between them. They get along better than the Liberal Party's provincial and federal wings.
The PQ has been around for decades and first captured the provincial government in the mid-1970s. Their referendum in 1980 (?) lost but the party has retained its popularity, alternating with the Liberal Party in governing Quebec.
In the 1990s a federal conservative cabinet minister called Lucien Bouchard bolted from the then Progressive Conservative Party, then led by his childhood friend Brian Mulroney. Bouchard formed the Bloc Quebecois out of Quebec conservative members of parliament upset about the failure of English Canada to accept the Meech Lake Accord, which was designed to end Quebec separatism by granting Quebec certain demands.
So the BQ was actually formed by conservatives and it was seen as more pragmatic than the provincial PQ during the 1995 referendum (which narrowly failed). For this decade though it's been fairly left wing on economic and social matters.
In practice the BQ just uses the federal level of politics to get as much 'pork' for Quebec and get re-elected. They don't care about ideology. If the province turned conservative the BQ would turn with them. Their popular leader Gilles Duceppe was recently offered leadership of the provincial PQ on a plate but he turned it down even though in all likelihood he could've won the provincial election and become the Premier (ie. Governor) of Quebec.
The Bloc and the Parti (sans 'e') Quebecois technically aren't the same. The Bloc is the Federal party (national) while the PQ are the provincial party - yes their stated goal is the same thing, but they are different parties.
As for the rest, you nailed it.
My belief is that the opposition parties were looking for any sort of excuse to launch this.
Of course this also allows for Western Separation to blossom. With such a strong conservative base, it might just be the new hallmark for capitalism.
It's getting deep on both sides of the 49th parallel. Liberal Fascism has gained a toe-hold and is on the march!
I should also point out that there is a Quebec provincial election next Monday. The PQ is trailing in the polls to the Quebec Liberal Party, which is led by ex-conservative cabinet minister Jean Charest! Harper's Conservative Party does not operate in Quebec at the provincial level but there is a small right wing party called Action Democratique. Do a search of its leader, Mario Dumont, and you'll get lots of stuff about Muslims and 'xenophobia' in Quebec.
Your correspondent JD's information is mostly accurate, but I don't understand why he/she continually refers to the Bloc Quebecois as the PQ. The PQ (Parti Quebecois) is a different party that competes only provincially while the Bloc, also know as the BQ, competes only federally. Both are separatists but they are two different parties and no one in Canada, I mean NO ONE calls the Bloc Quebecois the PQ. To get something this basic wrong frankly makes me question this persons credibility on the whole subject.
Anyway, this is a coup d'etat in the making just six weeks after the Conservatives won the last election. There are three likely scenarios going forward:
1. The government falls next week and the Governor-General appoints the Liberal-NDP-BQ coalition in its place.
2. The government falls and the G-G calls yet another election.
3. The government prorogues parliament until the new year and hopes public opinion turns against this coalition of the evil.
The Toronto stock exchange had its worst day in 21 years, worse than even 9/11, on the news of this soft coup. The West, the Conservatives base of support, is already up in arms and calls for separation are already being heard. The leftists are predictably using Obama-like propaganda that this is the time for hope and change, etc. They are risking turning a recession into a full-blown depression as the business community is already moving investments abroad. Some unscrupulous Conservatives are also trying to overthrow the Prime Minister during all this confusion.
It's one thing to live in a banana republic, but bananas don't grow here--too damn cold.
Oh, the Governor-General, the big cheese who gets to decide Canada's future single-handedly, is an appointed leftist hack. She's a Franco-Haitian former TV host who claimed she got the job because--no joke--she's "hot".
Sigh...
"This is nothing less than a “soft coup” attempt — a Socialist grab for power without going through elections. Effectively overriding the decision of Canadian voters, who voted for the Conservatives to GOVERN (i.e. set policies) in co-operation with the other parties (hence the term “minority government”)."
From the original posting submitted by JD
If only it were that simple, this would be an easy thing to sort out. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Only 35% of the electorate voted for the Conservatives - myself among them. The rest voted for the various opposition parties now represented in the proposed coalition. So is this "undemocratic" in the most basic sense? On the surface at least, I think one has to conslude that it is not. Coalitions like this are known in many parliamentary systems. Israel, for example, has had them.
A few things I should have added to my comment above:
1. It is far from clear that this coalition will get off the ground, much less that it will last very long, since the three member parties have very different interests, policies and agendas.
2. I don't like this development any more than JD, but ...
3. In our current Westminster parliamentary model there's nothing illegal or aberrant about it. It is foreseen as one possible way - even if not the most ideal or the most common way - for a parliamentary group to emerge (and this is important since Members of Parliament are the only persons elected in our federal parliamentary system) that can govern the country "with the confidence of the House of Commons".
4. The Conservatives negotiated with the BQ for a coalition back in 2004 and, in general, talk of coalitions is common during minority parliaments.
So all things considered, while I agree with JD that this is not a positive development, I would refrain from characterizing it as a uniquely existential crisis for this country as he does with the egregious label of "treason". Whatever treason there is in this has, unfortunately, all been imagined and played out before.
After all, what other country in the world would even allow a party like the Bloc Qebecois - dedicated to the breakup and dismemberment of the country - to sit in its parliament?
Ah, but Israel has a proportional representation system of voting, whereas Canada uses first past the post. Coalitions are only common in parliamentary systems that use some variation of PR. The the westminster model doesn't really promote them since it usually produces a clear winner, even if that winner is a minority government. They got the largest proportion of the votes.
I've noticed that coalitions never last long in westminster systems either. The famously touted coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, where the lib dems urged people to vote "strategically" in order to oust the conservatives on the promise that they'd have a share in government, didn't even survive the election.
After all, what other country in the world would even allow a party like the Bloc Qebecois - dedicated to the breakup and dismemberment of the country - to sit in its parliament?
Separatists have sat in the parliaments of other countries - Scottish Nats, Spanish separatists it is not that unusual. Sinn Fein gets members elected but they refuse to sit in the House of Commons on principle. As I said the Bloc Quebecois do not have principles. They don't sit on government committees and they won't have cabinet members even if this proposed coalition goes through.
The BQ now simply ensures no parliamentary majority for any party, especially Conservatives, thus providing the balance of power. That way Quebec will continue to retain its privileged position within the country.
Diverse societies simply don't work for non-ethnocentric groups. California is about to go bankrupt yet its government can't do anything about it because the Hispanic illegal aliens have the support of a large enough percentage of Hispanic voters. Diversity is Balkanisation. Idealism is no match for blood.
I've coined "Harper's Law" at my blog:
Never get between a politician and his source of funding
"She's a Franco-Haitian former TV host who claimed she got the job because--no joke--she's "hot".
Actually that was a joke and supposedly off the record in an annual press gallery dinner.
Rier: "Only 35% of the electorate voted for the Conservatives"
Not a big difference but the Conservatives received 37.65%. The others:
Liberals: 26.26%
NDP: 18.2%
BQ: 9.98
Greens: 6.78%
I'm very interested in how western Canada reacts to this. The west voted as a majority for the conservatives and elected most of the MPs. I expect there will be rage from Saskatchewan west to B.C. I wouldn't want to be a car dealer in Alberta trying to sell Ontario made autos.
That's what happens when you have a multi-party system. BTW - over the long run I thik this may be bad news for the Liberals who just may get squeezed by the NDP. Interesting times ahead.
Lamentable! Developments such as this against our Canadian compatriots and that Californians are facing underscore a 21st century reality: "soft power" and "soft law" are turning Western Democracies into "soft tyrannies."
The real question is what tools are best for "soft resistance."?
Post a Comment