I just emailed the governor general myself. I don't envy her position. I expressed the opinion that she should not agree to prorogue parliament if Steven Harper cannot demonstrate to her that he has a viable plan to regain the confidence of parliament. His current attack mode does not seem designed to achieve confidence or trust. It is only delaying the inevitable. I think we have a coalition with the liberals and NDP, agreed to by the Bloc to provide stable government for at least 18 months.  Seems the best way to go to me.

tough decision indeed.

i can't see proroguing parliament... we are in an economic crisis here, and shutting down for 7 weeks doesn't seem to be in our best interests at all.  for harper to even ASK such a thing should prove to people that he isn't the guy we need in charge at this point. 

nor should she allow for another election... we just had one.  again, we are in a crisis here, and an election would do nothing to stabilize the economy.

i don't see how she has any choice BUT to allow the coalition to govern... harper doesn't have the support of the majority of MP's anymore, and the government needs to be actively running the country right now, not fighting amongst themselves like this. 

she needs to stand up and tell them all that its time to act like adults.  we elected them, now they should just friggin' RUN THE COUNTRY ALREADY.

God help Madam Michelle Jean. God giver her wisdom; and God give her strength.

Amen.

Toronto Star has a neat Q&A on Coalitions & Proroguing etc.

 Useful tool.  Reading it makes this decision seem very clear.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/547915

Prayers for her that she doesn't get caught up in blustery false arguments, and is able to see logic & choices well.

wow... thats a good article, birthstone.  thanks for posting that.

Yes Birthstone, now please run off a few million copies and post them all over Canada so that Canadians stop thinking they are citizens of the United States just because we get their television shows.

LOL!! 

On the radio just now, I heard a talk show asking whether the Govenor general should not be a person like Michelle Jean - not from Canada, no political experience, her husband with some ties to the Bloc.These kind of comments are not helpful and are quite offensive, I think.

Crazyheart you're sure right about that.

Excellent article in the Toronto Star. I'm sure hoping for the best in this. Harper has really toasted his goose this time and we are not going to be well served by an idle parliament and a pseudo-election campaign involving endless and nauseating attack ads all the way through Christmas. Harper is really the most dishonest and disengenuous politician we have seen in a long time. His time is done. He's not going to go gracefully.

man.  what we needed, at this point in time, was a LEADER.  we needed someone who could unite the country.  we are going through a huge economic crisis that has taken down the united states, even though they've tossed billions at it.  we need someone with vision. 

and THIS is what we got.  we got attack ads, we got petty partisanship.  we got screwed, thats what we got.

harper could well be the worst leader we've ever had in this country.

And for me this is the worst of it.  Regardless of what my bias is toward Mr. Harper's politics, the true test of a leader is how they behave in a crisis.  This country, the world, is in a crisis that will impact on the lives of average citizens. 

Harper's response to this reality is an ostrich like stance that somehow Canada will be protected from a global crisis.  Worse he responds to crictism of this position by  fear mongering and pandering to ignorance.  Instead of uniting the country he is dividing it at a time when we need to work together.

Simply put, because I understand some like simple, this is not leadership. 

LB

Parliament is more than procedure - it is the custodian of the nation's freedom.     John Diefenbaker, 1949

I found the article helpful too.  Maybe I'll get a t-shirt!

Did you hear him tonight (7pm) - geez you would think he was Mister Rogers!  He spoke for about 5 minutes.  It was the kind of syrupy speech you hear in American Patriotic movies about aliens destroying mankind.  He listed maybe 10 measures that he is taking on the economy (why didn't he do this last week!??????) and some of them sounds promising, but there was still NO detail and only the promise that we should wait until Jan 27 - nearly 2 months away.  He mentioned automotive innovations, infrastructure money, taking "due diligence" with the Ontario automotive sector issue, Seniors & Rifs etc, incentives for expanding businesses in things like Forestry, and a few other things (my kids were talking).

He basically swung the Bloc issue as this time, this crucial political economic time is the wrong time to work with Separatists (I would imagine he is saying that any other time was ok).    And he pleaded with us to uphold the decision that voters made on October 14.

I'm waiting for the discussion to hit the internet (I dont' have tv).

I don't think Jean should be judged on the basis that she was not born on this country or her husband's political views.  However, her lack of experience in politics and constitutional law worries me.  Does she have a basis of knowledge to make the right assessments? 

I'm sure she is surrounded by many advisors and I hope she will consult well with them.

I don't envy her this decision as there is no right answer and no matter what the answer there will be upset people.

It also troubles me that an unelected person, appointed by a prime minister, has this decision.

I know, i know it's our constitution.  but

that doesn't make me feel much better.  my god, she has done a wonderful job as a figure head representing canada, but

she is a former CBC reporter!

she will have tons of advisors and they will have lots of choices and lots of opinions but

she is a CBC reporter!

It seems somewhat bizarre that after an election where we all could vote if we wanted and now a fight in the governement, one unelected person is deciding.

and yes Graeme, i know it's the constitution

I'm also thinking this isn't a decision M. Jean will be making on her own without lots of input from the most  knowledgable  people in gov't. plus lots of hittin' the books.

Sorry I'm such a horrendous pessimist but I see no light in the darkness. I'm not at all sure the coalition will be able to work together or even know what they're doing. Very shaky.

If Harper closes up shop and comes back on Jan.28 (I think) I still see a mighty mess awaiting him and a mighty mess for months to come if he holds on to power. Little will be accomplished. Another election might bring the same results we just had; a waste of money and Dion is still the Lib. leader.

Shakin' my head.....no hope.....O Canada ....

Actually there is, quite clearly, a right answer.  All the smoke and mirrors of the Conservative party is set on making it look like there isn't one.  Quite simply, if party A can't form a majority, party B or C is given an option to try.  That's the only correct answer.  Well, I suppose a half-ways legal answer is to delay until some time in January, but then, we're dealing with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, so I don't think it makes sense to delay during a time of crisis because one of the parties got its feelings hurt.  We do not elect presidents in Canada, so there is nothing -- absolutely and quite clearly nothing -- special about the Conservative party right now.  They were not elected to lead the country, they were not given a new mandate, they were not put into power.  They recieved some of the seats in the house and had to try to form government.  That's it.  That's all there is.  So, again, yes, there is a right answer.

Ah, yes the sign of the devil

From Government of Canada 

 Michaëlle Jean was born in Port au Prince, Haiti. As a young child in 1968, she and her family left her country and sought refuge in Canada.

She received a Bachelor of Arts in Italian and Hispanic languages and literature, and continued her studies towards a Master of Arts in comparative literature at the University of Montreal. From 1984 to 1986, she taught at the Faculty of Italian Studies at the same university. During the 1980's, she pursued linguistic and literary studies at the University of Perouse, the University of Florence and the Catholic University of Milan, all of which cited her for excellence. She is fluent in five languages: French, English, Italian, Spanish and Creole.

As she pursued her studies, Michaëlle Jean worked for eight years, from 1979 to 1987, with Québec shelters for battered women. She has taken in, supported and accompanied hundreds of women and children in crisis, while actively contributing to the establishment of a network of emergency shelters throughout Québec and elsewhere in Canada. She was also involved in aid organizations for immigrant women and families, and later worked at Employment and Immigration Canada and at the Conseil des Communautés culturelles du Québec.

Madame Jean's sense of social commitment and her appreciation of national and international realities led her to journalism.

funny how nobody has batted an eye about all this before, but all of a sudden the fact that the governor general has never been an elected position is this HUGE deal!!

harper should be ashamed of himself.  instead of uniting us as a nation, he has torn us apart.  he has inflamed talk of separation all over the country.  all of this at a time when the world finances are in crisis.

how this guy can even be CALLED a leader is just beyond me.

If the GG were an elected position, it would be awful. This is not a position that makes promises for change. She is a figurehead for the monarcy, who implements NEUTRALLY the constitution. If she were elected, all of the sudden she has electors to represent.

It is the same with the Senate - if it were elected, it would be like the States. Elections cost money. Raising money means owning favours. The elected official who wins is instantly indebted to the interests that helped them get elected... and I'm not talking about voters.

It is a system of checks and balances. Our Lower House has the power to put forward laws; these are the leaders elected for their political swagger and public charisma. Out Upper House (Senate) approves laws; these are the people appointed for their knowledge, (although unfortunately quite often party allegiences play a part), The GG enacts laws; she does nothing partisan and has all the formal power with no real personal power. And then, the judges test the laws to see if they are legal in the context of the Charter of Rights and other previously passed laws.

It's a much better system than the corporate-sponsored orgy that exists in the states. There has to be some room in the system for the geeks, nerd and smarty-pantses who would never win an election, but know more about the system than those who get elected.

Its just like your high school government. The cheerleader wins the election to president because she's popular, not because she's best for the job. She's given personal power, but there are checks in place so that she can't paint the whole school pink.

I am adding that post to the list of things that need to be posted all over Canada. 

We have a very strong set of checks and balances in Canada that has served us (and the large number of countries using this same system) well fro a long time.  However, it seems that everything about our system of checks and balances bothers the Conservatives. 

• They don't think the majority of seats should decide things in the house
• They don't think the Senate should be appointed
• They don't think public money should fund political parties
• They don't think the people of Quebec are allowed to voice their opinions
• They believe Canada elects presidents

I'm sorry, but to me that looks like an attack on our democracy because it is in their personal interests to do so. 

Actually sighs,

when she was nominated as the GG there was alot of discussion about her qualifications. 

that said, i really like her.  I think she does the figure head role of GG well.  She is well spoken, empathetic, charming, a sign of how far anyone can go within our country.

however, that issues about her lack of qualifications remains.

Certainly the office of the GG will have tons of recommendations, advisors.....  I would expect that a group will recommend what to do and she will do it.

It is still an uncomfortable thing for me. 

i'm not sure why... she is an intelligent woman.  i've met her a couple of times, and she is personable and intelligent, without being arrogant. her education far surpasses many of the MP's on the hill, and probably quite a few of the cabinet ministers.  she would never have been nominated if she lacked the qualifications for the situation that she is currently in.  i encourage you to take the time to learn about the position, the process by which she was chosen, and her background.

harper could learn a thing or two from her about how to be a leader, actually.

and that is what makes harper so friggin' SCARY.  i don't think that the majority of conservatives feel the same way he does about our government, either.  this guy is not conservative... he is nothing even close to the conservatives, imho.

as long as he is the leader of this party, i will never vote conservative. 

Well folks, I am uncomfortable about your discussion of the GG, especially the comments that she was not born in Canada - my God folks, she has lived, studied, and worked here for some considerable time, SHE IS CANADIAN.  Yes I know that she held duel citizenship , but now she doesn't - end of story.  and, I might add, it hasn't been all that long since we sat on the other side of the immigration table.

As to her qualifications, no person in the world is infinitely knowledgable in her/his field of endeavour.  Mm GG is worthy of her post.  She has advisors - the rules of what she can and cannot do are fairly straight forward re options.  What she is being called to exercise her role in is in character ability and whether or not the current governing party and its leader can enjoy the confidence of parliment now or even in 4 weeks time.

If she judges "no" then she goes to the other options.  From what I have observed of Mm GG i take her to be a relatively good judge of character and able to make a good decision.

We should be glad that we have this second sober opinion on this issue and not like the US.

4chun8 to live in this country.

sigh - my MP, a Conservative cabinet minister, has this listed for his educational background:

"some business courses"

so yes.

good lord.  and THESE are the people who think that she is unqualified to do this?!?!?  talk about a bannana republic.

I had forgotten that Michelle Jean's husband had past Sovereignist connections - largely in the academic environ. While this should have no bearing on her position as GG however it's not a good plan to indirectly insult someone's spouse while trying to curry their favour.

... and it appears we are prorogued. 

good grief.

Bring on the slandertising.

How many anti-coalition ads do you think we'll see over Christmas?

Did you know, Stephane Dion hates children? Not only that, he agreed that Jack Layton is the sexiest man on earth. THE SEXIEST. Would you trust your infant with a man who got confused and named his dog Kyoto and a parliment bill Spot?

Call your neighbours and DEMAND that they throw rocks at anybody wearing red or yellow or green this Christmas season. Only the Conservatives were given the mandate to save Christmas.

Brought to you by the council to save Steven Harper's ass by making everyone else look bad.

I am stunned that Madam Jean granted Harper a suspension of Parliament.  I think that this is the worst thing that she could have done.  She has in essense set a terrible precedent in that she has now established a remedy for future Prime Ministers to stall none confidence votes to allow them the time to delay things to regroup.  We are in the middle of the worst financial crisis since the great depression.  It would be very difficult for any future GG to say no to a request of a future PM as I think that it is fair to say that this is one of the worst times in Canadian history and Harper has been allowed to suspend Parliament and basically run the country with no active government.  Secondly, she has put us as a country in a very difficult position.  Normally not much happens over Christmas, but this year I expect that there will be a lot of meetings etc. happening over Christmas and January in the economic sectors.  For example, the automotive companies are in active discussions with the US government and that is affecting our manufacturers etc.  Harper is effectivly a lame duck Prime Minister now as it is clear he will be ousted as soon as Parliament resumes, thus, it is very unlikely that another country is going to enter into an agreement with him on behalf of the Canadian people.  It is hard to see that he has the authority (moral or otherwise) to make any agreements when he clearly does not have the confidence of the Parliament of Canada.  In my opinion, Harper should have had the integrity to stand up to the non-confidence motion and not hide behind suspending Parliament and Madam Jean should have had the courage not to have allowed him to hide behind Parliamentary procedure.  Elisabeth

The point of proroguing is that Parliament is done it's work and will take a break.  that is where I am baffled at the judgement to allow the PM to prorouge. 

Goverment work is just starting - the economy is in need of major work now, if only to soothe frayed nerves.  How can the GG agree that the 'work is done'?

The GG made the correct call.  It is correct due to the fact that she made it, and that is the deciding factor over if it is correct.  Now, whether she should have ever been put in the position of having to make that call is another question.  I think she was asked to make it by a cowardly, hate filled, and petty man for all the wrong reasons.  Thus, I am opposed to his request, but not her choice. 

If the question was "May I prorogue the Parliament?" and there was NO qualifying evidence, of course she would be obliged to do so.  I agree that we don't want to mess around with having a GG who would undermine a sitting PM, however, given the definition of prorogue (and no, I don't know the LEGAL defn' - just how it was clearly explained yesterday), it is clear there is work to be done now, and so Proroguing is the wrong choice.  I'd love to know what her rationale is.

i gotta go with frommian on this one... that she should have had to make this decision in the first place is the problem. 

Yes, it was proper for her to grant the request, but it was not right that she was asked in the first place.

The game is over. The damage is done. In the last two days, harper has lied and misrepresented, and insulted and fed hysteria. It's done.

French and English are split as they  have not been in close to century when the last PM to split them deliberately (also a conservative) did it in 1917. Separatism in quebec has been given an enormous boost. (and please don't waste your time writing me about how inviting the bloc to support the coalition was what boosted the PQ. I not only lived most of my life in Quebec, I was fifteen years on the executive of the anglo rights groups, two as its chairman, and  major organizer for the no vote in the referenda. Forgive me if I think I know more about Quebec than you do. It's harper that did it.)

As I listened to his speeches, it was also clear he has closed the door to any cooperation - despite words that seemed to say he had not.

Now, with parliament shut down and harper launching an advertising campaign, the hysteria will get worse. we may well be in for violence in at least three provinces.

As for Jean, she didn't have much choice. Broadbent thought she should not have prorogued. But there's a precedent for not taking the advice of the pm, and it is not a happy one for a GG. I can well understand her position.

But, oh, we could be in for some very ugly times.

graeme

Oh certainly the damage is done Graeme.  I can't imagine a world where this doesn't increase the position of the soverignists, especially with an election going on right now in Quebec.  If I was told my MPs that I elected were not a real part of the political process, I'd be for seperation.  And worse, this will incite division between the West and East generally.  We have a Prime Minister who would rather shatter the country and lie in public than face the consequences of his own actions. 

If this keeps up, I'm helping with the campaign for Newfoundland seperatism next election.  I've got nothing against the rest of the Country, but I'm not staying part of a Country with a guy like that in power.

How is anyone to take what you say seriously?  You are incredibly biased against Harper.  In fact I would wager that if at 12 noon tomorrow, Harper were to release a statement that the sun is up, you would argue the point.  Your (and several others in here) partisan blinders, and insistance that your "side" has done nothing wrong is not only not helping, it is irresponsible.  I repeat my earlier assertion that they are all acting like a$$holes.  Although I do have to add that Duceppe's "screw all of you, I'm here for Quebec" attitude has not changed, never been hidden, and is really why he and his MP's were elected.  Imagine, the sepertists are the least of the douche bags!

alta, i normally don't go for graemes whole 'the sky is fallling!!' stuff, but i am very afraid that in this case he has nailed it. 

harper has completely erred in his response to this crisis... to try and divert attention from his poor decisions, he decided to stir up the separatists in quebec and alberta.  unfortunatly, that is a pandoras box. 

for him to have made such a PROFOUND misjudgement on this is just further proof the guy doesn't have a clue about canada.

Well Amen to that.  In fact, given that they've behaved entireably honourably, are respected by the people who elected them, and were made the target of the Conservatives for basically no reason, I'd argue they haven't been douche bags in any way, shape, or form.

The problem as I see it though is all signs still point to Harper. Is the Coalition making a grab for power.  Geez, Jack Layton is running the NDP and the Liberals are still the Liberals.  So: yeah, it's a power grab.  However, it appeared that there was no plan to grab power by them at this particular time until Harper allowed (or coerced) his government to lead the single dumbest attack from a point of weakness that I have ever seen in my life.  Sure, the Conservatives can make nice videos, but I guess they used the part of the budget the calculators usually come out of.  Simple math makes it clear that:

(308/2) + 1 does not equal 143 or less. 

Thus, anyone with a brain would not attack the funding and base of the other parties as well as not having acted on any of their advice with 143 seats.  I mean, they attacked ALL three of the other parties.  All of them.  That's mind numbing.  Until they have a majority they need to keep punting for field position.  They can run it in for the touch down when it's 1st and inches, not when it's 3rd and long from the other side of the field.   They need to convince Canadians they aren't scary, they aren't Americans in disguise, and that they are capable of taking other people's advice.  Then they really will end up with a majority next election.  Any other leadership level MP from the Conservatives would have seen this and avoided the whole situation.  That makes Harper the biggest douche of the lot.

Graeme is correct, Harper is a lying sack of sh*t, he has damaged our Democratic Institutions and shut down our Parliament.    The polls indicate the public is very confused, I wonder why. Harper, and his band of cronies have been spreading lies for a week now, saying that the agreement was signed with no Canadian Flag behind the leaders when indeed it was there.

Harper has stirred up anti-Quebec Hate, he has decided that his hold on office is so important that he will destroy the Country if necessary.  He hopes that the Governor General blinks (today she did).  Our only safeguard in our system, refused to prevent the closure of Parliament, a Parliament session  that has accomplished nothing, and sat for only days.

By the way you good folks pray for Governor General Jean, I will pray for the the Autoworkers and Forestry Workers who were counting on the Coalition to save their jobs before Christmas.

It's never a surprise to see that the leberal left is ranting again here.

you guys kill me.

This was the correct action.

The liberals had two weeks of a government.  They passed a throne speech..

They rallied against funding cuts.  those cuts were dropped.

that was the time to take the High Road.

To say to the public that "we made them back down."

To start to try to make other changes.

they missed a fabulous opportunity .

Certainly their record in the last government would have led anyone to think that the modus operani for the Liberal party is to say

" no way, no way no way...... oh well ,yes we vote yes"

It is what they did each and every other time.

so instead this time, bolstered by Jack, "thank god he is not in Toronto politics anymore"Layton, they decided to pull down the government.

this under the leadership of a man that the country absolutely voted against.

A man that his own party doesn't support

a man that his own party couldn't wait to toss out

a man who led the Liberals to their worst election ever, ever , EVER!

but it's always nice to see that you all will support him to the bitter end.

too bad the rest of the Liberals can't wait to turf him out.

Now what they should do is have a snap vote , get a new leader and then tackle the issues that are important.

last pointe -   you will note that far from being partisan, i have never spoken highly of either Dion or Layton.

It's true Dion is not inspiring. If you knew any canadian history at all, you would know that Mackenzie King was even less so. But he was arguably the most effective PM this country ever had. Layton is, I'm afraid, too much the politican for me to get excited.

As for blind partisanship, I have had good friends who were politicians in the Liberal, NDP and Conservative parties. They includes senators, cabinet ministers, and one pm. One of those friends, Harper's official biographer, went public yesterday  to say that Harper has caused this mess, and has to go for the good of the party.

So if  you are the blind partisan you accuse me of being - but seem to be yourself - you had better wake up. You'll find large numbers of your buddies are plotting to do Harper in. Supporting him is going out of style in conservative circles.

graeme

Lastpointe, people like you kill me.  Party loyalists who can't admit that their guy is also a loser.  See, I'd like to see a show of hands here for how many people have voted for the PCs, Liberals, and NDP in different elections.  Anyone who doesn't have their hand up is probably biased somewhat.  My hand is up.  I believe I can comment because I have voted for Progressive Conservatives.  I actually enjoy their policies regarding civil liberties.  The current PM is not a PC MP.  He is neo-con MP.  His policies are not those of the old PC party, and his neo-con agenda is not an agenda capable of long term success for the party.  I want to see him go so I can go back to having three options.  As soon as the Greens change their policy on the seal hunt, I'll have four. 

To assume people opposed to a terrible party leader are simply biased is silly.  Anyone hoping for the best for the Conservative party really should open their eyes and realize what a tool is in power.  The other pary's hands were forced at first.  Now they're just full steam ahead because they smell blood in the water.  The blood is in the water because Harper decided to shoot his own party in the foot.

What kind of idiots need two months to prepare a budget? I don't care if it's federal, it doesn't take a genious to spend money well. Harper is afraid of his own countrimen; that is the sign of a failed leader.

This whole goddamn country is nothing but a joke. We used to be feared for our military might and praised for our generosity. Now we can't even put together a respectable government. How pathetic is that?

The High Road including demonizing our fellow Canadians in Quebec and cuts to pay-equity, not to mention planning to sell Canadian assets?

Also, according to the Friends of the CBC, there are, "Conservative plans to slash a devastating $200 million from the CBC's Parliamentary grant, which would cripple the radio and television operations of our national public broadcaster."

Mo5 - The CBC is losing money because they're not pro-Conservative. Many accuse them of being biased, but I'll tell you, I watched the CTV news last night. Talk about baised. They aired 9 well-written letters from people who opposed the coalition and 2 poorly written letters who approved of it.

The CBC may be a little left-leaning, but they're nothing compared to the private networks. We need a well-funded public broadcaster, or we'll end up with FoxNews Canada.

CTV is Canada's FoxNews

Never will see so many ugly old white guys in the same room...

last Pointe will be happy to hear that harper can win this one. The weeks ahead give him time to buy off the hanful of liberals it would take to give him a majority. It won't be hard because the liberal party is not left. it's not even centre. Must of it is just as stone age as you are, and would be far happier in the conservative party.

This could turn into an even more profound source of shame than it already is.

graeme