[Fortunata]

CTV is reporting Chong's resignation from the Intergovernmental Ministery over Harper's motion to give Quebecer's nationhood. Once again party politics rule wherein members must vote according to their party instead of their constituent's wishes.

[g_bambino]

Fortunata, on Nov 27 2006, 06:02 PM, said:

CTV is reporting Chong's resignation from the Intergovernmental Ministery over Harper's motion to give Quebecer's nationhood. Once again party politics rule wherein members must vote according to their party instead of their constituent's wishes.

Nothing I'm reading says that he was kicked out for not towing the party line, simply that he is "set to resign his post over Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stand on Quebec."

Stating that this is a matter of members being forced to vote according to the PM's wishes seems a bit perfunctory.

[Cameron]

Links

[August1991]

Quote

A Conservative cabinet minister appears set to resign his post over Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stand on Quebec.

Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong (he also holds the sports portfolio) will reportedly announce his resignation at a news conference later today.

During question period, Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham "got up on his feet and asked (Harper) point blank whether Mr. Chong was indeed resigning. The prime minister did not respond," reported CTV's Robert Fife.

CTV

Who is Michael Chong and does it matter whether he resigns from the Cabinet? The caucus?

Pierre Trudeau used to say that he got involved in politics to make sure Quebec didn't leave Canada and to make sure English Canada didn't kick it out.

If you're a federalist, the only sensible position is Harper's. If you're a separatist, then you can side with Kinsella because there'll be almost no one in Quebec except those astute political analysts Serge Joyal and Trudeau Jnr to support you.

[Technocrat]

August1991, on Nov 27 2006, 04:11 PM, said:

Quote

A Conservative cabinet minister appears set to resign his post over Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stand on Quebec.

Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong (he also holds the sports portfolio) will reportedly announce his resignation at a news conference later today.

During question period, Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham "got up on his feet and asked (Harper) point blank whether Mr. Chong was indeed resigning. The prime minister did not respond," reported CTV's Robert Fife.

CTV

Who is Michael Chong and does it matter whether he resigns from the Cabinet? The caucus?

Pierre Trudeau used to say that he got involved in politics to make sure Quebec didn't leave Canada and to make sure English Canada didn't kick it out.

If you're a federalist, the only sensible position is Harper's. If you're a separatist, then you can side with Kinsella because there'll be almost no one in Quebec except those astute political analysts Serge Joyal and Trudeau Jnr to support you.

Lolz

I was listening to his press conference live on the radio... He stated that Harper did not even consult his intergovernmental affairs minister(Chong) before cooking up this half baked nation within Canada BS... nice Harper nice... well thought out.

Can we have another election now before more damage is done? I know Harper is inexperience but come on, your not even consulting your freakin ministers?... wow

BTW Michael Chong was quite eloquent about why he is resigning... I would have no hesitation voting for him in an election.

[Fortunata]

Quote

Stating that this is a matter of members being forced to vote according to the PM's wishes seems a bit perfunctory.

Michael Chong said that he could not vote his conscience and be allowed to stay in the party. He chose to resign his position to just abstain from voting. Even as a back bencher it sounds like if you vote against you would be OUT.

This whole thing is important. You Harpnocrats would yell bloody murder if it was a Liberal government that would not allow their ministers (let alone a backbencer) to vote the way they wished. Hypocritical to say the least.

[August1991]

Quote

"I believe in this great country of ours, and I believe in one nation undivided, called Canada," said Chong.

"This is a fundamental principle for me, and not something I can, or will, compromise -- not now, not ever. While I'm loyal to my party and to my leader, my first loyalty is to my country."

... Chong argued that such a motion "is nothing else but the recognition of ethnic nationalism, and that is something I cannot support. It cannot be interpreted as the recognition of a territorial nationalism, or it does not refer to the geographic entity, but to a group of people."

CTV

In a country such as Canada with such a history and with two linguistic groups, we cannot be a melting pot of one single nationality. A federal Canada cannot be one nation.

From Harper's perspective, it is far better to lose one cabinet minister than to lose his Quebec caucus. For federalists, it is far better when all of this is not brought to the forefront. That's why Duceppe introduced the motion.

[g_bambino]

Fortunata, on Nov 27 2006, 07:40 PM, said:

Quote

Stating that this is a matter of members being forced to vote according to the PM's wishes seems a bit perfunctory.

Michael Chong said that he could not vote his conscience and be allowed to stay in the party. He chose to resign his position to just abstain from voting. Even as a back bencher it sounds like if you vote against you would be OUT.

This whole thing is important. You Harpnocrats would yell bloody murder if it was a Liberal government that would not allow their ministers (let alone a backbencer) to vote the way they wished. Hypocritical to say the least.

Where's the evidence that he made this statement, or that he was told to vote a certain way? All I said was that anything I'd read so far didn't back up this assertion. It's still very early yet, however.

Further, I hope you're not directing your "Harpnocrat" label at me. If you are, it says quite a lot about your propensity to jump to conclusions.

Technocrat, on Nov 27 2006, 07:16 PM, said:

He stated that Harper did not even consult his intergovernmental affairs minister(Chong) before cooking up this half baked nation within Canada BS... nice Harper nice... well thought out.

Can we have another election now before more damage is done? I know Harper is inexperience but come on, your not even consulting your freakin ministers?... wow

I believe the idea was cooked up some thirty years before Harper came to be prime minister (some might argue 250 years before), and the other ministers aren't his ministers, they're ministers of the Crown. I don't know much about Mr. Chong's responsibilities as Minister of Inter-governmental Affairs, but I might guess that perhaps, as Harper's motion changes nothing vis-à-vis intergovernmental affairs, Chong was in no position to be consulted.

Quote

BTW Michael Chong was quite eloquent about why he is resigning... I would have no hesitation voting for him in an election.

It's good to hear he was eloquent - we need more politicians with that trait - but, for the same reason, it's unfortunate that he felt he had to resign.

[blueblood]

Fortunata, on Nov 27 2006, 04:10 PM, said:

Quote

Stating that this is a matter of members being forced to vote according to the PM's wishes seems a bit perfunctory.

Michael Chong said that he could not vote his conscience and be allowed to stay in the party. He chose to resign his position to just abstain from voting. Even as a back bencher it sounds like if you vote against you would be OUT.

This whole thing is important. You Harpnocrats would yell bloody murder if it was a Liberal government that would not allow their ministers (let alone a backbencer) to vote the way they wished. Hypocritical to say the least.

Umm my MP, a CPC MP voted AGAINST the plan brought up by Strahl concerning the wheat board so I wouldn't say this happens all of the time, he did that due to his constituents screaming bloody murder on the issue, but you have the good point in saying that it is happening way too much, but what do you expect with political parties?

[Charles Anthony]

blueblood, on Nov 27 2006, 03:18 PM, said:

but you have the good point in saying that it is happening way too much, but what do you expect with political parties?

This is an interesting concept.
I heard one person justify party solidarity by saying that MPs owe much of their election on the support of the party. In other words, the party pays for their election campaign and the candidate just has to show up on election day.

[g_bambino]

August1991, on Nov 27 2006, 07:43 PM, said:

In a country such as Canada with such a history and with two linguistic groups, we cannot be a melting pot of one single nationality. A federal Canada cannot be one nation.

This is true, and I'd go so far as to say that, in a certain sense, Canada has never been one nation. As a united political entity, yes, Canada has been a nation, or, more succinctly, a state, since 1867. But, by the other definition of the word "nation", as a cohesive people that commonly share language, culture, customs and religion? Never.

That's why I find myself agreeing more and more with this motion - in one sentence it lays out what Canada has always been: a number of nations within a united state.

We have always openly acknowledged First Nations to be a nation, and Spain has managed to placate the Basques by giving them a "national" status, so why not the Quebecois? Let them have their "nationhood," it's only a label. Just don't let them think they're special because of it.

[Fortunata]

Quote

Where's the evidence that he made this statement,

I heard him say it.

Quote

Further, I hope you're not directing your "Harpnocrat" label at me.

That comment is directed to Harpnocrats; those who support anything Harper does no matter what.

Quote

If you are, it says quite a lot about your propensity to jump to conclusions.

Sounds like you have a propensity to accuse someone of a propensity to jump to conclusions. Are you jumping to uninformed conclusions?

Speculating isn't jumping to conclusions but in any case, turns out I was right about the vote being whipped, at least on the Conservative side. Some Liberals are saying they are voting against it and one NDP that I've heard so far. Only the Conservatives, it appears by all that has been said, will oust members that vote against (that is informed speculation).

[g_bambino]

Fortunata, on Nov 27 2006, 08:19 PM, said:

Quote

If you are, it says quite a lot about your propensity to jump to conclusions.

Sounds like you have a propensity to accuse someone of a propensity to jump to conclusions. Are you jumping to uninformed conclusions?

I said: if. Though I should perhaps have said: if you are, it might affirm that you have a propensity to jump to conclusions.

Quote

Speculating isn't jumping to conclusions but in any case, turns out I was right about the vote being whipped, at least on the Conservative side. Some Liberals are saying they are voting against it and one NDP that I've heard so far. Only the Conservatives, it appears by all that has been said, will oust members that vote against (that is informed speculation).

Your original post sounded rather adamant, with no evidence to back it up. I'll believe for now that you "heard it", but will reserve any further comment or judgement until I have more facts. As I also said, it's still very early yet.

[Technocrat]

g_bambino, on Nov 27 2006, 06:01 PM, said:

Fortunata, on Nov 27 2006, 08:19 PM, said:

If you are, it says quite a lot about your propensity to jump to conclusions.

Sounds like you have a propensity to accuse someone of a propensity to jump to conclusions. Are you jumping to uninformed conclusions?

I said: if.

Quote

Speculating isn't jumping to conclusions but in any case, turns out I was right about the vote being whipped, at least on the Conservative side. Some Liberals are saying they are voting against it and one NDP that I've heard so far. Only the Conservatives, it appears by all that has been said, will oust members that vote against (that is informed speculation).

Your original post sounded rather adamant, with no evidence to back it up. I'll believe for now that you "heard it", but will reserve any further comment or judgement until I have more facts. As I also said, it's still very early yet.

I heard it too... it was stated when he was taking questions after his little resignation speech

[Canadian Blue]

So he wasn't forced out?

It's unfortunate that he felt he had to resign, but it shows alot of character on his part since he voted for what he believed to be right. For some reason I have a feeling later on he might be getting a different position in government.