Will the Liberals and NDP (with support from the Bloc Quebecois) pull the rug out from under the minority Conservative gov't and form a coalition gov't?

I've been watching this development closely. Doesn't look as if Harper can hang on without the support of the House and he brought this debacle on all by himself. Even if he asks the Governor General to call a new election she is well within her right to deny the request and allow the Coalition to try to form a govt. I am sure Conservative supporters will go nuts, especially in the West, but about 66% of Canadians nationally did vote against Harpers Conservatives. It will be interesting to watch and Harper must be going crazy trying to find a way out of a mess he created all by himself with his arogant its my way or the highway attitude! Cant be gone too soon in my books and I was a long time Progressive aConservative supporter. Of course Harper drove most of the Progressives out of the party, and took Bush/Rove as his model of good governance.

The Tory attack ads have come out, but it might be futile.
The GG is rushing home from Europe. Will Stephen Harper's fate be in her hands? Or will he fall on his sword and step down? A new election? I porogue? The three witches are stirring the caldron... ready to cook Stephen Harper's goose. Ah, hubris!

I'm watching this with fascination; I was surprised that Harper and the conservatives somehow won enough votes to form a minority government, but I see that he's now asked the governor general to suspend Parliament for a two-week talking period. Has this ever happened before?

How much power does the GG Jean have to defy him? Also, is there any possibility that Canada would move towards a system like France's, where instead of having a royal representative, like the GG, the country would have a strong president, like Sarkozy, or might there be a comparatively weaker presidency, like Germany's or Israel's, where the position is mostly ceremonial?

Though I'm sure there's more detailed analyses out there, the CBC website has some interesting articles on the GG's role here:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/04/...ion-expert.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/02/...or-general.html

In theory, the choice to dissolve parliament and call an election or to ask an opposition coalition to govern in its stead, but in practice, the GG has been an essentially ceremonial position for a long time. I don't envy Michaelle Jean's position one bit.

I too have been following this story, both online and in my local press. May I ask what the Governor General is? Is it like Canadas' version of our Speaker of the House? or?

There's really no comparable post in the U.S. The governor general is the representative of the Queen and in theory is the head of state. In practice the GG is a rubber stamp that goes on all legislation and presides over various ceremonies like receiving the Order of Canada. Although the Governor General is appointed by the Queen, she is "advised" on who to appoint by the Prime Minister of Canada. As I say, ordinarily the role is ceremonial and non-controversial.

Harper has won his porogue and Parliament will be suspended until January. At that time, the same thing could happen and the coalition could take over. Or, the coalition could fall apart (some are already suggesting cracks). Or, Stephen Harper could convince the Canadian people that the coalition is not in their best interests and the coalition may not act due to popular opinion. Or, Parliament could be dissolved and a new election called (who might benefit, or who might be blamed for the new election is not clear to me). It's a delay tactic, and perhaps for the GG this was safer than rushing into a hastily-created new gov't. Public opinion polls suggest a people want a "cooling down" period, and this may be it. But in the meantime, who's managing our country in this time of economic crisis?

The coalition's biggest problem is Stephan Dion. The lame duck leader of the Liberal party has said he will step down (in May, I think), but it can't happen soon enough for the Liberal party as even Liberal supporters are wary of the possibility of Dion as Prime Minister. Until they have a leader that the public can have some confidence in, the coalition may not have the popular support they want.

What's wrong with Dion? Are you saying the public has less confidence in him than in Stephen Harper? Is he that bad?

Governor-General Michaëlle Jean was really put in a difficult situation over this, but her approval of the prorogue (not to be cofused with those potato-cheesy things often served with cabbage rolls and onions )was the safest option under these extraordinary circumstances. As expected, here in the Tory heartland, many were outraged at the idea of 'socialists and separatists' forming a coalition. I had some reservations about it myself, even though I'm no fan of Harper and his party. Predictably, the French version of Harper's speech to the nation last night used the word 'sovereigntist' rather than the more emotionally-charged 'separatist', in a feeble attempt at damage control in Quebec.

As for Fantomas' question about Stephan Dion; he is a decent enough person and a strong federalist, but turned out to be a disastrous 'compromise' choice for leader of the Liberal party. He is widely perceived as an 'intellectual' who is out of touch with average Canadians, a weak leader, and struggles in communicating his ideas especially in English, the language spoken by 75% of the population. The 'Green Shift' was a good example of that during the election campaign. And yet he is just as unpopular in Quebec as he is in the rest of Canada. He has resigned as leader, but is staying on until his successor (most likely Michael Ignatieff) is elected at the Liberal convention next May. A Liberal-NDP coalition government would probably be more palatable (and successful) without Dion as leader.

What a mess! It would be nice to hear Harper admit some responsibility for it. But all of the parties have shown themselves to be opportunistic and power hungry in this fiasco. Meanwhile there will be no budget nor any significant economic stimulus for at least another seven weeks while the politicians cool off and reassess their positions. But yet another election can't be far off. If nothing else, this crisis seems to have shaken Canadians out of their apathy, after the dismal voter turnout in October.

I understand why it seemed the safest option, but unless Harper is able to figure out a compromise budget that at least one other party will support, it just delays the decision.

While I'm not enthused about the Bloc being part of the governing party either, I'm greatly irritated by Harper's hypocrisy on this issue--after all, he floated the idea of forming a coalition with the Bloc himself in 2004.

Chantal Hébert, journalist for The Toronto Star, said last night on the CBC News that instead of having nine lives, Stéphane Dion has had nine deaths, which had me bursting out in laughter.

This coalition is so ill-timed and doesn't make sense to me at all, especially right after an election. It's making the members of the coalition look inept, for lack of a better word. They should just let it be. Stephen Harper will dig his own grave in the long run. But, right now, the coalition is digging its own.

There have been both pro-Conservative and pro-Coalition protests throughout the country. What I found funny were the mock-Obama "HOPE" posters that had Dion's face and the word "DOPE".

Dion has been brutal. The out of focus and too late to make it on to some networks reply from Dion to Harper's address to the nation was a farce. As is Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. Ken Dryden - former Canadiens goalie and former President of the Maple Leafs and now a Liberal member of Parliament summed it up best. 'We can't trust you, you've lost the confidence of the House - and you can't earn it back because you have proven yourself to be untrustworthy.'

Harper's actions the last two weeks have been disgraceful. Anti-democratic to say the least. And he clearly seems to think he's more important than the country's economy or even the country's democracy.

Sadly until Dion is gone the Coalition won't fly either. Although news today has him out possibly out within days replaced by Micael Ignatieff - who should have won the leadership the last time. So with the Liberals doing that clearly the Coalition may have legs and Harper's days are numbered. And it will be his own fault! Even Conservatives off the record are saying Harper blew it.

Apparently Dion is now willing to resign as soon as a successor can be found/decided upon.

And Dominic Leblanc has dropped out in favour of Michael Ignatieff. Now only Bob Rae stands in the way of Ignatieff (a more centrist; whereas Rae is more leftist) and the Liberal leadership.

With Parliament porogued, Ignatief installed as the Liberal leader, Stephen Harper stacks the Senate.

So is Harper basically a dictator now?

Not quite. He is well within his rights as PM to appoint Senators (all Senators are appointed) but it is something he has always opposed when in Opposition and in his first term as PM. He also appointed a new member to the Supreme Court by passing a Parliamentary Review Board that was his own creation. Harpers character is not one that has ever dealt well with opposing opinions, his natural bent is towards autocracy but he does have to face the Opposition when Parliament resumes in late January. Michael Ignatieff, the new Leader of the Opposition, has already warned the PM that he better be willing to work with the Opposition or his government will be defeated.

OK, dear Canadian fellow Outsporters, please explain.

How does Canada's Senate work? Does it have as much power as the US Senate? How is it possible that 18 seats would be open, that the PM alone could fill all of them, and that these people would hold their posts till the age of 75?

The US Constitution originally required that Senators be appointed/selected by state legislature, but that turned into a horrible mess from the 1850s onwards, and got so bad, with bribery, nepotism, and so on, that a new constitutional amendment changed things in 1913.

Do you think Harper's action will spur change? Are the appointments supposed to be nonpartisan? Does the GG ever stand up to the PM?

All Senators are appointed and no our Senate is not as powerful as the US Senate. A better comparison would be with the British House of Lords. The Senate is supposed to be the house of sober second thought. Its job is to review legislation from the Commons, most of its important work is done in committee. The Senate can amend bills and return them to the Commons but it cannot defeat a money bill. Senators do serve until age 75, it used to be until life. Membership is not equal by province, it is more regional. For example the 3 Maritime provinces have 24 members which is the same as Ontario.

A few more questions, if it's okay.

So the Canadian Senate doesn't have a lot of power. Its numbers are proportional in some way. Does it have any other distinctive powers compared to the House of Commons? Is there any proposal to give them more power if they were popularly elected?

If the Senators were popularly elected, would they still stay in office until the age of 75?

Are the Western states [UPDATE: should read "provinces"!--Sorry!] pushing to have more Senators?

I hope you meant western provinces There has certainly been more interest in senate reform in the west than in other parts of Canada, but I wouldn't say it's a particularly burning issue in the public's mind at the moment. In fact, we have had a couple of 'senator-in-waiting' elections here in Alberta, most recently in 2004 as a supplementary ballot in conjunction with the provincial general election. I'm not opposed to an elected senate, but I didn't vote because the choices were limited to several Conservatives and a rabidly right-wing Independent (the Liberals and NDP did not nominate anyone). The eventual winner was Conservative Bert Brown, but he was not appointed to the Senate until after Harper (a fellow Con) was elected as Prime Minister in 2006. Thus Brown is the only one of 105 senators who was first elected before being appointed. The rest are pretty much all patronage appointments. But apparently Saskatchewan is thinking of holding a senatorial election too.

The four Atlantic provinces have a disproportionate share of Senate seats (30 members for a region with less than three million people). In contrast, the four western provinces have fewer seats (24) yet have a population of nearly 10 million. But one could argue that Ontario is also under-represented with just 24 seats for nearly 13 million people. Only Quebec, with 24 seats for seven million inhabitants, has about the 'right' number. However, I believe the whole idea of the Senate was to counter-balance the 'representation by population' model of the elected House of Commons, so that provinces/regions with smaller populations would have (approximately) the same degree of 'influence' as Ontario and Quebec. Sort of like in the US, where each state, regardless of population, is entitled to two senators.

Personally, I think if there is going to be democratic reform in Canada, our priority should be on some kind of proportional representation or run-off elections, rather than senate reform. Far too often the percentage of popular vote for a given party bears little resemblance to its percentage of seats won in the House of Commons and provincial legislatures (Alberta being a glaring example of this).

It might be interesting (not that I think it is likely to happen but...) to retain the house of commons as it is and change the senate to a house based on proportional representation.

President Obama's first foreign will be to our northern neighbor and sibling nation, Canada, on February 19.

(I love the comments after the article. Some of them are hilarious.)

I wonder if his second foreign visit will be to Mexico. That would only be fitting.

Obama coming to Canada is very exciting news. I'm sure everyone in Ottawa is tripping over themselves to try and get an audience with him. PM Harper is going to look so sorry in comparison.