December 2008

A Con Is A Con Is A Con

Another story that has been developing during the news blackout known as the Christmas Season surrounds the issue of Abortion. Like a great many Canadians I'm surprised that this is an issue. I was fairly certain Canada had resolved this one quite a few years ago. It seems however, that there is a "secret caucus" in Ottawa made up of parliamentarians who would like to make abortion illegal. The plan at the moment seems to be to pass laws defining the fetus as alive and a legal person. Even this will be brought in thru the back door. The idea is to make crimes against pregnant women carry harsher sentences than the same crime committed against a non pregnant person. This introduces, legally, the idea that the fetus must be something special. From there the rights of the fetus are expanded until abortion becomes illegal because it infringes upon those rights. And today Stephen Harper announced that he has no intention of reopening the debate on abortion.

Where to start. A secret caucus? So there's a bunch of parliamentarians who know that Canadians don't want this issue reopened and are mostly accepting of where the laws now stand. The caucus is secret because if it got out which people were pushing this agenda they would lose their seats in the next, possibly soon, election. Why else would they hide? Combine this with the method being employed to change what are considered basic rights for women in Canada and you have a group of people who believe that they know better than the voters how things should be. And they are willing to go behind the backs of voters to make it happen. This is not representation. This is not politicians pursuing the will of their constituents. This is somebody saying they know what is right for us even though we have said repeatedly we don't want it. This is someone willing to use secret and hidden means to change the law, to force Canadians to a place we don't want to be.

Stephen Harper says he has no intention of reopening the abortion debate. He also has no intention to tax income trusts, call early elections or, well, you get the point. Who believes anything this guy says anymore. And I'm sure he'd say that this isn't about abortion, it's about harsher sentences for crimes against pregnant women. This takes us down the same garden path.

It seems to me that if a person is against abortion, rather than trying to change the laws that the majority of Canadians support they should spend their energies supporting single mothers. If it was easy in our society to be a single mother, if there were numerous supports in place to help women, we'd see far fewer abortions. It's also something a great many Canadians would support. I know I would.

Original story here.

Politics And Hockey

I just watched John Baird get introduced at the world juniors. And soundly booed. Now there's a poll I trust.

Go Canada.

Repetitive Behaviour Syndrome

For those that missed the story while stuffing turkey...Tory aide tried to scuttle Hanukah event school says.

This shit still surprises me. This was a threat. To any conservatives out there - what do you make of this? It's my understanding that the conservative philosophy is that governments should not be bullying and threatening it's own citizens.

I first heard about this on warrenkinsella.com. If it's not on your list of political blogs to read it should be.

For Those In BC...

Single Transferable Vote. If you don't know what this is, please spend some time at The BC-STV Campaign. This is an idea that 58% of BC voters said yes to, but somehow still didn't get, and is a perfect example of why we need it. A panel of British Columbians spent a considerable amount of time and energy addressing the problem of voter turn out and reached the conclusion that most voters are tired of their vote not counting. The website gives several very good examples. This is the solution they came up with.

If there is any hope of this idea getting applied to national politics it needs to start somewhere and I say let's start it here. Please share the link above with all of your BC friends. I'm sure that once the idea is understood it will be supported. Wouldn't it be nice to feel like your vote actually counts?

Merry Christmas Senate Reform

Some people have suggested that Stephen Harper is not to be trusted, but personally I think you can trust him. You can trust him to speak loudly and passionately about what he believes in. You can trust him to change his mind about what he believes in if it doesn't help him. You can trust him to do the exact opposite of what he said he would do if he thinks it will help him push his agenda forward. You can trust him to ignore the conventions and accepted rules if they get in his way. You can even trust him to break the law if he feels he wants to make a point. In short, you can trust him to be Stephen Harper.

After years of railing against Senate appointments, and even making his point by not appointing any new Senators last term, Stephen Harper has done his usual about face and appointed himself some Senators. Of course he couldn't make those appointments while Parliament was in session like every other Prime Minister, because he suspended Parliament in order to avoid getting tossed out on his ass. So, after setting one precedent for being the first Prime Minister to use the formal procedure of prorogation to avoid a vote of confidence, he adds to that legacy by being the first one to appoint Senators during a prorogation. Does this mean Stephen Harper might actually be beginning to realise that he might not be around much longer and so this is his last chance to tuck some friends in?

I like the Senate, I believe in the Senate and I think it has, generally, served this country very well. On most days it continues to. I also believe in appointed Senators. Typically they are not appointed by some unknown and unelected hermit, they are appointed by the person who, having achieved the majority support of Parliamentarians, achieves the office of Prime Minister. What could be more democratic? This person, usually, has won at least 3 elections to get there. The election to leadership of their party, their home riding election, and then the more nebulous election of having the most seats in the House of Commons. This year, however, only two out of three of those elections were won. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Stephen Harper has lost the support of the House of Commons.

The Senate's function is to stop populist politicians with from running our country like a dictatorship. And we need them now as much as we ever have.

Over Taxation

Here's a handy phrase becoming increasingly common. Over taxed. As in, "If the Government has a surplus it's because they were over taxing." It's a talking point for the right. Of course they feel any taxation is bad taxation, so it's not surprising. It's also used for cover when people ask how we went from $16 billion or so in the bank to where we seem to be finding ourselves today. I think that most Canadians don't mind paying taxes, they would just like to see some value for their dollar for a change. We would like to actually see some thing happen for our tax dollars.

Things other than blowing $300 million on an election and then, to save $30 million, demand we hold another $300 million election. Something other than insisting that there's no financial crisis, then suggesting if the Government is going to make bail outs it needs to sell assets in order to avoid deficit, to finally admitting that even if we don't spend any more money and sell all our assets we're going to run a deficit. In under 2 months. Would you hire these people to run your business?

Suddenly over taxation sounds like fiscal prudence. At least we wouldn't have to hold a fire sale. I take it this is another one of those good times to invest?

Our Government In Action

Why Stephen Harper and his gang think it's ok to yank one of our top scientists from attending his commitments at an international forum on climate change.

Canada is not living up to it's international obligations.

You're Kidding Right?

More seemingly ridiculous "cost saving" measures that don't address the problem. Scientist dropped...

Meanwhile there's announcements of extended plant closures. Priorities gentlemen! Oh right, there isn't actually anyone in the office to do anything, so sorry.

Thinking About Change

Change was the mantra in the recent U.S. election, and the mantra is sliding north. But change for the sake of change, change without thought, is a risky political idea at best. When someone tells you they want to change something, the first question to be asked is, "Why was this things we want to change put there in the first place? What was being attempted?" Let's look at some real life examples.

Per vote funding of political parties, for example. It's very easy to jump up and down and scream that this is nothing more than snouts in the taxpayers pockets, to mix a metaphor, but before we get to that we need to ask why is it in place to begin with. What was the law designed to do? The per vote funding was brought in for two reasons. The first is that, at the same time, there were changes to how political parties could receive funding. The maximum individual donation was dropped to $1,000. Funding was supposed to come from individuals, not corporations or unions. It basically recognised that money is necessary to running a political campaign, and yet could have a corrupting influence on our elected officials. People who donate large sums of money expect something back for those large donations. The other reason for the per vote subsidy is that it gives parties who do get a considerable size vote, but no seats, some recognition for the fact that they are speaking for some Canadians. Take the Green Party for example. In the last election almost one million Canadians voted for them, and yet not a single seat in Parliament. Those million Canadians can take some comfort in knowing their vote was note wasted and will help the Green Party in getting their message to more Canadians. A democracy needs several voices in order to be healthy. Merely ending this subsidy does nothing to address these issues, and these issues are certainly still relevant in Canadian politics today. Unless there is a plan to address these issues in place, removing this subsidy does far more harm than good.

The Senate is also hitting the news today, with Stephen Harper poised to appoint 18 new members. Apparently these 18 members will have to promise to support the idea of an elected Senate, and an elected Senate is on of Stephen Harper's pet plans. On the surface it sounds like a great idea. Surely the Senate is nothing more than a hold over of British privilege? Not quite.

The purpose of the Senate in Canada is to prevent the Government of Canada from being hijacked. To prevent the Government of Canada from being taken over by anyone who would make themselves a dictator. Let's look at a historical scenario - Nazi Germany. Most people forget Hitler was elected. This phrase has been repeated so often that I'm actually certain most people don't forget, but it is telling for our example. Thru clever machination and a pathological desire to grab the reigns of power, Hitler managed to place all the people he needed throughout the German Government with such speed that by the time the average person noticed what he was doing it was over. He had so consolidated power that it was too late for anyone to do anything about it. A populist approach, pandering to people's fears, and an utter ruthlessness in approach to his opponents was all that it took. At the moment, that can not happen in Canada. Why? Because our Senate is not elected.

By making Senators appointed, the majority of Senators in Canada will be made up of people that agree with whatever Government the people of Canada have seen fit to put into office several times, over a long period of time. As the "house of sober second thought" it represents the will of Canadian voters, through their elected Governments over a period of decades. Just deciding to make it an elected body does nothing to address the safeguards it now represents.

Does Anyone Check Facts Before Reporting Them Any More?

GM workers make, on average, over $70/hour. Heard this stat lately? I just heard it on Newsworld and was shocked. No, not at the amount, but at the fact that Newsworld was repeating the figure even after Media Matters pointed out a few days ago that this number is a gross error. The average GM worker makes just under $40/hour. So where did that number come from? GM. And it's easy to guess why.

The Media Matters story here.

Coronations And Spin

Michael Ignatieff is in as the new leader of the Liberal Part of Canada. Technically it's the interim leader, with the convention in May to pick the leader, however every other candidate in the leadership campaign has dropped out. So it would seem that there won't be many choices in May. As we've seen in the last couple of weeks however, things move quickly in Canadian politics.

In the meantime, we're told that the Liberal executive consulted with roughly 800 members of the Liberal Party. Riding presidents and such. There is being much commentary on the fact that each party member did not get a vote for their new leader, and won't get that chance in May. Here's the spin part. Now I'm not a member of the Liberal Party of Canada and have never read their constitution, but it's my understanding that not a single party leader has been chosen by a vote from all their members - that's not how the Liberal Party does things apparently. When you see this ballon being floated, ignore it.

So how has this changed things in Ottawa? Well Michael Ignatieff seems to have more charisma than Stephane Dion. And half the Conservatives seem to be starting to play nice, suggesting that perhaps the two parties should talk, but the other half seem to continuing their usual attacks. Is there dissent in the ranks of the Conservative Party? A fracturing? Not likely. It's more likely that it's games as usual for the Conservative Party, and they're buying time to figure out how they can slam this leader. They're trying to create the illusion of playing nice in the sandbox so they can, once again, say it's not their fault. The only difference I see in Ottawa today, is that the Liberal Party has a much better chance at maintaining a coalition or winning an election than they did yesterday.

If There Were Any Doubts

Stephen Harper was interviewed today on CBC. He was asked a couple of times whether or not he thinks he did anything wrong in the last two weeks, if maybe some of the madness was his fault. Nope. Not a bit. Screw you all! It was interesting to watch what he did with his hands and which questions made him ball his little fists up and turn his knuckles white.

If anyone had any questions about Stephen Harper and if he had been chastened any by the last two weeks now has their answer. Nope. I think the NDP are right on this one, Stephen Harper only sees his plans for dictatorship as being wrong because they didn't work. That is still the plan. The moment he thinks he can get away with it he will bring in every single thing he's backed down on. He has not backed down on the ideas, just on the timing. The man is dangerous. The man has no respect for the Canadian system of parliamentary government. The man has no respect for his party, and no respect for Canadians.

Politics And Fear

An interesting study (article here) suggests that our political leanings may be influenced by our biology. After testing the fear response and corelating it to our political persuasion, the reaserchers suggest that those with a high fear response tend to vote conservative. Those with a low fear response tend to vote liberal.

It would suggest that for the conservatives, raising the fear level would help mobilise their base. That certainly explains a lot about the right wing politics we've been seeing a lot of lately.

Membership Drive

Should Stephen Harper or any of his gang comment on the way the Liberal Party selects it's leader...let them know that if it's really of such concern to them, you'd happily sell them a membership so that their voice can be heard. Because the voices in the Liberal Party will be heard. Right?

The Liberal Dilema

Michael Ignatieff is poised to take control of the Liberal Party. So says CBC news this eve. The scenario they're unravelling is that Stephane Dion is going to step down on Wednesday during their caucus meeting, followed promptly by their anointing of Michael Ignatieff as their new leader.

Early reports have Bob Rae suggesting that this isn't a good idea, that there needs to be a vote or Canadians will rebel against it. Oddly enough, they're both right. Isn't that kind of refreshing?

My Apologies

I'm late posting this, my apologies. It's still a very good idea and a very good cause. All of you that talked to me in January last year and thought you should have bought one then, should buy one now. It is still a limited time offer. Anyone who's been a regular visitor to propagate.ca knows we've liked these folks a whole bunch for a long time. Please support them if you can. And if you can't, let someone who can know. Please.

This year the One Laptop Per Child project has teamed up with Amazon.com. Go Here.

And for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, their website is: One Laptop Per Child. After you've finished reading about them go here to buy one or two or four.

Please. Did I mention Please?

One Dollar And Ninety Five Cents

Much has been made of the axing of the political subsidy. The right is claiming it is the sole reason for the upheaval and that it needs to be done away with. Politicians at the public trough. For the most part the left coalition has ignored this and tried to keep repeating, "It's the economy stupid." It is the economy, but it's also about those subsidies. And just why is our Government giving away tax dollars to political parties?

First of all, there are two main subsidies available to political parties for fund raising. One is tied to donations and one is tied to votes. The first one is available to any registered political party. If you give them $100, you get a $75 tax credit. This is the one that makes up the majority of funding for the Conservative Party, and pays out considerably more than the per vote subsidy, as in we would have saved more money getting rid of this subsidy. Funny that this one wasn't on the chopping block. People in favour of this subsidy say that it demonstrates that people are interested in your party because they are willing to give you money. It's a subsidy you have to "work for" in that someone has to drum up all of those donations.

The other subsidy is tied to votes. There's a threshold, so getting one vote does not get you the subsidy, but if enough Canadians vote for your party you receive a payment, at this point around $1.95, for every vote you receive. This subsidy makes up the majority of funding for the rest of the political parties in Canada. People in favour of this subsidy point out that political parties that champion, for example, the poor will still have a voice in our political system. Myself I have to think that getting a few hundred thousand people to vote for you in a federal election takes at least as much real work as phoning your friends and asking for money does.

The second subsidy was brought in as an attempt to help remove the importance of money, and the corruption that money can bring to politics, from our political system. Of the two subsidies, it is the one that was specifically designed to remove corruption from our political system. It's the one that lets people without large sums of money have a say in Canadian politics. And it's the one that makes sure no vote is ever wasted. Almost a million people voted for the Green Party in the last election, and the Green Party didn't manage to win a single seat in Parliament. Those people can feel like their votes will now be ignored, or those people can know that they have increased the ability of the Green Party to get their message heard by almost two million dollars. If you voted Green last election, which would make you feel like your vote actually meant something.

Personally I think that anything that makes Canadians feel like their votes are not wasted is a good idea. It should also be a relatively easy sell to the vast majority of Canadians.

Without Quebec

A pet peeve. When someone forwards a stat as to how politics would look in Canada without Quebec. Without Quebec? Ok, well let's pretend rodents can vote. We know the beavers are voting Liberal and the rats are voting Conservative.....would that leave the balance of power with mice? Would muskrats go with the beaver part of it's nature or the rat in it's name?

There is no Canada without Quebec.

Dust To Settling Dust

The day ends, Parliament is prorogued and the Canadian people are left wondering what the hell just happened. Except for the 1,000 who were laid off today in Canada. And the 10's of thousands of people that are being predicted to lose work will probably lose interest soon as well. Then the question will go from why to where are the pitchforks. As Machiavelli famously noted, we're only one meal away from revolution.

So, while we're all comfy and wondering what next, consider the options.

I didn't hear anything today from the Conservatives that makes me think anything has changed. I see no recognition that Stephen Harper is willing play very dangerous games with the Country in the pursuit of his own ambitions. Chretien may have been power mad in some people's minds, but I can not imagine him abandoning Quebecers to the Bloc as completely as has occured this week. Presumably, we are told, there are mumblings in the back rooms, there are folks who are unhappy and don't enjoy watching their political careers flash before their eyes. Repeatedly. Will this mean any real agitation to remove Stephen Harper from his post from within? Don't count on it.

Stephane Dion presumably won't be so lucky. The grace with which the party was going to let him retire is probably run out. I'm not sure what other options were available to him. There was certainly no way he could have let the Conservative plans proceed unhindered. Right now the Liberal Party suffers from an extreme inability to connect to the Canadian people, an inability to speak to them. Ideas which should be a slam dunk to sell to any Canadian who didn't vote Conservative seem impossible for them to get accross. It may or may not be Dion's fault, but he is going to have to go because of it. Send out the rest of the clowns in the media department as well.

Whether or not there's another attempt at coalition will largely depend on what the Liberals do, and who is sitting in their leaders seat come Jan 26.

And the voter? Parliament? The democratic tradition in Canada today?

This has been messy all around. One thing seems certain however. National politics is on the decline and regional politics is on the rise. At a time when we have seen how badly divisions can hurt the nation, we are becomming more fractured. Quebecers, Albertans and everyone else needs to understand that most people in Canada feel abused and ignored by Ottawa. Go ahead, call someone in another Province, or another part of your Province. The disconnect is not between the regions of Canada, it is between Canada and the people in Ottawa. Well, just the ones in the House of Commons actually. Because I'm willing to bet that the average person in Ottawa is feeling just as abused and ignored as the rest of us.

Don't Panic!!!!!!

That's right, just relax. There's nothing wrong here, everything is fine. Obviously. In fact things are going so well that as a reward all the MP's are going to get almost 2 months off for Christmas. So, while we ignore the layoffs and tumbling dollar, because obviously that's all ok and what was intended, let's reflect.

I don't want to suggest that this blog has ever had any impact on an election, but who knows. Maybe the dozen people who read it take the ideas and spread them at huge rallies. I am, therefore, going to use the word we. We the Press. Ok, maybe We the Bloggers.

I've been asked more than a couple of times why people don't understand our system of Government here in Canada. I myself have railed against the idea that Canadians vote for parties or Prime Ministers and pointed out that we elect MP's, we vote for the make up of Parliament and everything else follows from there and reflects the will of Parliament. Presumably Parliament represents the will of Canadians. So why doesn't everyone get this?

We commentators and news outlets cover elections as if it is a race. We cover the leaders. We make the election about the leaders instead of acknowledging that every party is based upon it's membership. Even a strong leader like Stephen Harper gets direction from his party. The Winnipeg convention did push Stephen Harper a little further right and it showed when he got back to Parliament. And if he loses his present game of chicken you can bet that his party will replace him with great haste. And we cover that perspective hard. Just look at this blog, go back to the election coverage, it was all about leaders and parties. With that in mind, is it really any surprise that people think they're voting for a Prime Minister and not a Parliament?

Perhaps if we commentators and news folks used the word Parliament more often in our Election coverage, we wouldn't have to use it so often after the election.

Stephen Harper Speaks

Wow.

Stephen Harper asked for and got 5 minutes of tv time to convince Canadians that he's right. There was much wondering whether or not Stephen Harper would use this opportunity to apologise for creating this crisis. Whether or not there would be some contrition. There was none. It was nothing but pure politics again and that should anger every Canadian regardless of political affiliation. Worse yet it was filled with, well, lies. I know I shouldn't be so blunt, but there it is. He lied and he knows he's lying. It is a disgrace.

Let's look at his speech. One of the things that the Conservative Party has been doing in the House of Commons lately is to say different things in English and French. It seems that the text was the same in English and French except for one word. In English the Bloc are separatists, in French they are sovereignists. Very telling that. It's guaranteed to rile up his Conservative base in the west. Just what we need in a time of economic crisis.

From Stephen Harper's televised speech:

"Constant in every case, however, is the principle that Canada's Government has always been chosen by the people." Wrong. Canada's Government is chosen by the House of Commons. The House of Commons is chosen by the people. You would think the Prime Minister should have this fundamental fact down by now.

"Unfortunately, even before the Government has brought forward its budget, and only seven weeks after a general election, the opposition wants to overturn the results of that election." - Utter bullshit. And he knows it. No-one is asking for seats in the House of Commons to be changed and that is what the results of the election are.

"Instead of an immediate budget, they propose a new coalition which includes the party in Parliament whose avowed goal is to break up the country." Same smell as the above quote. The coalition is between the Liberal Party and the NDP. The Bloc are only relevant in that they have agreed not to vote against the coalition in 3 votes - a speech from the Throne and 2 budgets over the course of 18 months.

"At a time like this, a coalition with the separatists cannot help Canada. And the Opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists they promised voters would never happen." Again, the Bloc is not part of the coalition. And actually the Opposition not only have the right, they have the duty to replace any Government that has lost the support of Parliament.

"The Opposition is attempting to impose this deal without your say, without your consent, and without your vote." There was a vote. And the majority of those MP's Canadians voted for want Mr Harper out. Mr Harper knows this.

That's one lie a minute in his 5 minute speech.

Mr Harper must go. Now. And please, let the door hit you in the.....

On A Bright Note

Something good actually did happen in politics today. Canada, along with 100 other countries signed a treaty banning the use of cluster bombs. Well done! Bravo! Proud to be Canadian. Story here.

The Governor General

I like our Governor General. When Michaelle Jean's nomination to Governor General was announced I smiled. I also like the Office. No one would suggest that Parliament could function without the Speaker of the House, we can all very easily see that things would descend into name calling, hair pulling and spitballs in a day. It's because his role is constantly being required that makes it so easy to understand. It's a little tougher with the Governor General.

Like the Speaker of the House, the GG's role is to make sure that the Government of Canada remains stable. If it isn't stable, then it is the GG's job to find a way to fix it. Most of the time it's easy to fix - call an election. This has many people looking on the Office of the GG as purely symbolic. It isn't, and if the latest round of high drama and low theater from Ottawa doesn't make that obvious, well, let's just say it does.

Whatever the GG decides in our present "crisis", someone is going to be seriously peeved, so I propose an interesting exercise. Listen to what each party is saying in regards to both Michaelle Jean, and the Office of the GG right now. Remember it once the GG has decided what will happen to try and fix this mess, and listen to how it changes. It will be telling.

Speaking of listening to the parties speaking.....have you notice that one side of this discussion is jumping up and down and using highly emotional language? Just today I heard treason and sedition used to describe the Liberal Party and Stephane Dion. Do you think for a second that if M. Dion was honestly engaged in treason that there wouldn't be charges laid against him with great haste? Surely that would take the steam out of the coalition. Must be just another cheap gimmick to try and take the minds of Canadians off of what's really going on. Stephen Harper and the Cons have lost the support of the majority of Parliament. They had a chance to play nice with at least one other party in Ottawa and couldn't bring themselves to do it. It's time for them to go.

Civics

There's a lot of rhetoric flying around these days about just what exactly is and is not going on in Ottawa. Let's look at some of the basics.

In Canada we elect Members of Parliament. We do not elect a government and we most certainly do not elect a Prime Minister. All we elect is Members of Parliament. Most of those Members belong to one of the politcal parties in Canada. Once all the Members of Parliament have assembled, the Governor General asks one of the political parties, traditionally the one with the most seats, if they feel able to form a government. Notice the word tradition. Constitutionally the Governor General's job is to decide which party has the best chance of forming a stable government and asking them to form the Government. By tradition the Governor General starts with the party with the most seats. The Government does not exist outside of Parliament it is an expression of the will of Parliament. This is the very basic core of democracy in Canada. The people we vote for then cast their vote for the one amongst them they feel most able to lead Parliament.

This means that no Government in Canada has a mandate from the Canadian people. The Canadian people give a mandate to Parliament, and Parliament gives a mandate to the Government. Parliament is more important than the Government. Those that form the Government are MP's that were elected in a few ridings in Canada, Parliament represents the vote of every riding in Canada and is the voice of every single Canadian who voted.

Parliament has a mandate from the Canadian people. Everyone else gets their mandate from Parliament.

Is This A Coup?

Yes. A coup is definied as: a highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move; a clever action or accomplishment. If getting the Bloc to forget about agitating to seperate and work towards what is best for Canada isn't a coup I don't know what is.

Let's Talk The Bloc

The Bloc are seperatists and any party that works with the Bloc is working for the destruction of Canada. Heard that one yet? It's garbage. While politically risky, keep in mind that if everyone in Quebec who voted for the Bloc wanted to seperate, Quebec would no longer be a province. It's a safe bet that most of the people who voted for the Bloc do not want to seperate from Canada, they voted for the Bloc because they see them as the party that actually concerns itself with Quebec. To ignore these voters, to refuse to work with them, actually does more to fuel seperatist goals than working with them does. Demonstrating that the Federal Government can keep the interests of Quebecers in mind, can work with the party they elected to Ottawa, actually strengthens the federal position.

Constitutional Crisis?

It's a catchy headline, sells papers and plays right in to the Conservative spin. This is not a constitutional crisis, it's exactly how a parliamentary democracy is supposed to work.