I'm not doing this for the polls (I swear)!

1323 Views 19 Replies 12 Participants Last post by da_jonesy, May 24, 2007

mrjimmy

Discussion Starter · May 23, 2007

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/05/23/harper-troops-070523.html

This is the best bit:

Reporters were warned they could be arrested for breathing a word about the prime minister's travel plans.

It makes me want a majority more and more.

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

SINC

· #2 · May 23, 2007

Reporters were warned they could be arrested for breathing a word about the prime minister's travel plans.

Exactly as it should be. When any head of state goes into a war zone, it should never be announced in advance lest an attack is planned and launched based on that information.

It is reasonable and not unlike Blair's recent visit to Iraq. Same secrecy, same reason.

Reporters face arrest daily in this country when covering the courts under both contempt and identifying certain individuals rules set down by the courts.

I guess some have to search hard for a reason to wish for a majority.

HowEver

· #3 · May 23, 2007 (Edited)

.

ArtistSeries

· #4 · May 23, 2007

SINC said:
I guess some have to search hard for a reason to wish for a majority.

Like these guys...

Still, that opinion was far from universal. Scores of soldiers began filing out the moment the prime minister wrapped up his speech, until an officer ordered them to "get back inside."

And as soldiers waited for Harper's address, one master corporal muttered within earshot of CBC correspondent Paul Hunter that the rally was "a waste of a morning."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/05/23/harper-troops-070523.html

Still, the trip is a photo-op.... nothing like trying to deflect the issues....

mrjimmy

Discussion Starter · #5 · May 23, 2007

HowEver said:
Why the reference to a "majority?"

The reference to a 'majority' was a sarcastic remark based on how tired I am getting of Steve Harper.

I understand the need to keep such 'photo ops' hush hush. It is a standard protocol that journalists have followed for years. It's this Government's threatening tones that have become commonplace and distinctly un-Canadian.

Harper views 'the word' as a threat. I believe he will stop at nothing to silence it.

Paul O'Keefe

· #6 · May 23, 2007

It's May of 2007 and government officials still have to may secret/suprise visits when they want to go to Afghanistan. That place and the current mission is a failure.

guytoronto

· #7 · May 23, 2007

This is a cheap shot at our PM.

Of course his travel plans are going to be tightly guarded.

Was it a photo op? Sure, just like every other head of state on the planet takes advantage of photo ops. It's called politicking. It's what politicians do. But you probably wouldn't know that being an arm-chair politician.

BigDL

· #8 · May 23, 2007

SINC said:
Exactly as it should be. When any head of state goes into a war zone, it should never be announced in advance lest an attack is planned and launched based on that information.

It is reasonable and not unlike Blair's recent visit to Iraq. Same secrecy, same reason.

Reporters face arrest daily in this country when covering the courts under both contempt and identifying certain individuals rules set down by the courts.

I guess some have to search hard for a reason to wish for a majority.

Sinc it was not the Governor General that went to Afghanistan, It was an MP who happens to be the Leader of the Conservative Party. He can be replaced quickly by another MP from the Conservatives.

So why the big deal about secrecy?

Maybe to hide away the guns and ammo from the troops?

MannyP Design

· #9 · May 23, 2007 (Edited)

BigDL said:
Sinc it was not the Governor General that went to Afghanistan, It was an MP who happens to be the Leader of the Conservative Party. He can be replaced quickly by another MP from the Conservatives.

So why the big deal about secrecy?

Maybe to hide away the guns and ammo from the troops?

I'm pretty sure the GG did go to Afghanistan... or is this the work of really good Photoshop work? beejacon

SINC

· #10 · May 23, 2007

BigDL said:
Sinc it was not the Governor General that went to Afghanistan, It was an MP who happens to be the Leader of the Conservative Party. He can be replaced quickly by another MP from the Conservatives.

So why the big deal about secrecy?

Maybe to hide away the guns and ammo from the troops?

If you think the GG is our head of state, you are sadly mistaken. She is a hold over from the days when Britain dominated us. The office is symbolic and needs to be abolished. Harper is our PM and thus recognized world wide as Canadian head of state. Only fools would believe different.

robert

· #11 · May 23, 2007

Sinc, I think the office of the GG does more than PR work. They are also responsible for honours and awards.
Let's not forget the GG Award for Literature. But then, one would have to read to know about that one.

groovetube

· #12 · May 23, 2007

SINC said:
If you think the GG is our head of state, you are sadly mistaken. She is a hold over from the days when Britain dominated us. The office is symbolic and needs to be abolished. Harper is our PM and thus recognized world wide as Canadian head of state. Only fools would believe different.

or at least those outside Alberta.

SINC

· #13 · May 23, 2007

robert said:
Sinc, I think the office of the GG does more than PR work. They are also responsible for honours and awards.
Let's not forget the GG Award for Literature. But then, one would have to read to know about that one.

I am aware of the awards. A friend was given the Order of Canada earlier this month, my second friend that now holds that title.

It could easily be bestowed by the government of Canada. We don't need an expensive to maintain GG for such things.

robert

· #14 · May 23, 2007

It would mean setting up a new department to handle what the GG office already handles.
Can you say waste of money?
BTW, it isn't just giving awards that the office does. They also design new ones as well as medals for the military, etc.
A little more research is needed before you make a statement like that.

BigDL

· #15 · May 23, 2007

Canada's Head of State is the Monarch Queen Elizabeth or in the case of the Monarch's absence her Representative the Governor General is Canada's Head of State when the Queen is not visiting our country.

A PM and I mean of any political stripe is just a political hack compared to the GG.

The position of GG is far more important than symbolic. If a GG does not sign a bill passed by the Parliament and Senate it is not a Law. Technically the GG still retains a veto over any legislation.

The PM has to ask the GG allow the Parliament to be dissolved and to call an election.

The GG still retains the power to ask the other Party (Parties) in Parliament to cobble together enough support to pass bills and run a government without dissolving Parliament.

And the GG was in Afghanistan.

Beej

· #16 · May 23, 2007

BigDL said:
The position of GG is far more important than symbolic.

Sort of. While the powers you listed look important, the practice is for the GG to just rubber stamp what elected government wants, with the occasional notable exception. The GG can be significant if parliament keeps trying to call elections but, if the GG is doing their job and parliament is not too wrecked, they are symbolic. "Can" and "will" are very different things with our written rules and unwritten conventions.

SINC

· #17 · May 24, 2007

BigDL said:
Canada's Head of State is the Monarch Queen Elizabeth or in the case of the Monarch's absence her Representative the Governor General is Canada's Head of State when the Queen is not visiting our country.

A PM and I mean of any political stripe is just a political hack compared to the GG.

The position of GG is far more important than symbolic. If a GG does not sign a bill passed by the Parliament and Senate it is not a Law. Technically the GG still retains a veto over any legislation.

The PM has to ask the GG allow the Parliament to be dissolved and to call an election.

The GG still retains the power to ask the other Party (Parties) in Parliament to cobble together enough support to pass bills and run a government without dissolving Parliament.

And the GG was in Afghanistan.

Very eloquent description of a position best likened to an eunuch.

robert

· #18 · May 24, 2007

Hey Sinc. Leaving her household aside, which is comprised of various government departments, she still has a role to play.
She is involved with honouring Canadians. She is the representative of the ruling government both here and abroad. This tends to lighten the load of the PM a bit and keep him in the House more.
The job is a lot more involved than you are giving it credit for. It does get abused, but so does every government post.

BigDL

· #19 · May 24, 2007

SINC said:
Very eloquent description of a position best likened to an eunuch.

Not a very niece thing to say about Canada's Head of State. Then again you think highly of our current PM speaking of eunuchs.

da_jonesy

· #20 · May 24, 2007

SINC said:
If you think the GG is our head of state, you are sadly mistaken. She is a hold over from the days when Britain dominated us. The office is symbolic and needs to be abolished. Harper is our PM and thus recognized world wide as Canadian head of state. Only fools would believe different.

The "de jure" head of State of Canada is the Queen of Canada, whom the Governor General is her representative.

The "de facto" leadership of Canada falls on the shoulders of the Prime Minister....

Crap. Nevermind BigDL beat me to it.

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.