Before I do so I wish to state clearly: I do so with all due respect to, and appreciation for, the comment because ABOVE ALL my engagement at this time is motivated by a drive to see more people inquire, think, discuss, argue, think, learn, think and evolve in their understanding of our Government. I will do my utmost to address the points of the comment and not in any way insult the commenter, and I beg your pardon should I fail.
You can read the entire comment attached to yesterday's blog, but I will, in my (probably hopeless) attempt at brevity just reproduce points I'm answering.
So, from Mary:
You state that the Bloc is not part of the coalition and yet without the Bloc, the other 2 parties do not have the numbers to defeat the government.
Both are correct....
To me that suggests that the Bloc is an integral part of the coalition whether they hold ministerial positions or not.
Your inferred conclusion to the first two statement is incorrect. The Bloc is not part of the proposed coalition government. The proposed coalition, which would be the Government of Canada, would be a Government consisting of a Liberal PM, 18 Liberal Ministers, and 6 NDP ministers, and that is the extent of the entity that would be the coalition Government of Canada. The Bloc is not part of that. The proposed Coalition Government of Canada would indeed remain an effective minority government and would require the support of additional MPs to pass legislation as they still require approval of 50% +1 of the Members of Parliament. None of that makes the Bloc part of the proposed coalition Government of Canada any more than the Bloc became part of the Conservative Government of Canada when they voted in favour of any of the current Government's legislation this past year.
.... the Bloc has promised not to defeat the government for 18 months. That means that a coalition government has 18 months to do whatever it wants with no threat of being defeated and in a time of economic crisis.
Absolutely right, so true! And... so what? Mary, this is what EVERY government wants and by any stretch of common sense should seek to have. Every MAJORITY government has this implicitly and has it for good stretch longer than 18 months. Every minority government seeks this, in all kinds of legitimate ways, one of which is in fact to form a coalition government with another party. Another way a minority can do this is to not form a coalition government, but somehow entice sufficient non-party MPs to support them either entirely, or on a vote by vote basis (I'll skip all the guesses at methods by which they could do this). Another way a minority could do this is by placing members from other parties in bad positions by attaching a confidence motion to every vote whereby members must vote against their conscience or better judgement in order to avoid the unpopular consequence of triggering an election they're not prepared to fight for whatever reason.
I believe that is unconstitutional
Again, this is a conclusion that does not follow from your entirely correct statment of fact. It is not unconstitutional and believing it so does not make it so. One could believe the sky is pink if one wanted, I suppose.
The Bloc receives 86% of its funding from taxpayers' dollars and yet they only represent approximately 22% of Canadians.
OK, some numbers. But you haven't cited a source so I can check. But everyone, please carefully read and think about what Mary wrote. To the above I answer again... yes (I assume you have checked your facts and are correct) but ... so what? You state this like it represents something significant about the Bloc. But all you have stated are two unrelated numbers. The fact that the Bloc receives 86% of its funding from taxpayers dollars is fine. Under our current laws all parties receive tax-funded subsidies as was one of the points of contention that started this. The fact that this legal means of aquiring funds provides 86% of the funds for the BQ is great! It means they only have to raise 14% of their budget from private donors. It sounds like something entirely different is being inferred from that statistic, as if you think it is stating "the Bloc receives 86% of the tax revenues of Canada yet they only represent 22% of Canadians". That would be an entirely different (and, um, incorrect) statement.
I respectfully submit: 100% of Mr. Harper's salary as Prime Minister is funded from the taxpayer's dollars, but he only received 37% of the voters' support!
You are right that all MPs were legally elected. But you miss the point. If a majority of ridings had not elected Conservatives, then the Conservatives would not be the government and Mr. Harper would not be the PM.
A majority of ridings did not elect Conservatives. More ridings elected Conservatives than elected Liberals or NDP or Bloc or Independents, but it is still a minority of ridings - less than 50% +1 - that elected Conservatives. The Conservative Party leader was appointed Prime Minister by the convention that still holds that as the leader of the party with the most seats (not the majority of seats, just more than any other single party), he is the first choice. It is still required that the PM maintain the confidence of the House or be defeated, and if that happens other options are available in our model of Constitutional democracy.
Do you honestly believe Canadians vote with no preference for which party will be governing?
Oh, no, ma'am, I do not believe that and I did not say that. I completely think that most Canadians vote with a preference for a party. What I said was "we vote for the individuals who will represent us as Members of Parliament". That is factually true, for that is the object accomplished by casting our vote. I completely believe that each individual choice is highly likely to be informed by the voter's preference for a Party platform or ideology, and they will therefore cast a vote for the individual representative associated most closely with that. But we still do not vote for a Party, a Party not being an entity which can sit in the House and represent constituents, we vote for our representative I am on a crusade to make people understand that, because the fact that we misunderstand what our vote does and doesn't entitle us to is one of the roots of this issue.
You are wrong about the CTV not airing his response because I watched it on CTV and
OK, I have to stand corrected on this, however I admitted I was off into a rant and I have long since lost any love for CTV. Keep in mind, too, CTV may have aired it on your local station and not mine, possibly. I watched it for about an hour after Mr. Harper's address finished and was subjected to ETalk Daily and part of that dance show when I found Mr. Dion's address had already come and gone and been broadcast on CBC and many others. In re-watching captures of the CBC version, the station ID included a timestamp of 6:38 pm Central at one point - 7:38 pm Eastern, when I was most certainly stuck with ETalk Daily. So if CTV did broadcast it, I am disappointed that they broadcast it so much later than other stations and indeed, were behind YouTube.
And someone stupidly neglected to remove a book behind him that read "Hot Air" on the spine (
I'm sorry, but I just cannot see this. ANYone else? I've read the claims on some blogs, but this looks like viral rumour to me. I've just scrutinized 4 different uploads from 4 different sources and cannot see this. Where do you get this? Is it because I don't have BluRay? You did say the sound and video was poor, did someone mistakenly read the book located over M. Dion's right shoulder, the only one with big enough title text, which reads "365 Jours" as "Hot Air"? If true, someone point me at a verified, undoctored, picture of this.
If I am asking an opponent in argument ANYTHING in all this, I am asking that you check every statement you make or have someone else do so too. I am trying to do that, to my limits.
Thank you, again, for the time and effort in sharing your comments on my blog. I DO welcome you to do so and I appreciate the opportunity to hear and be heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment