Readers sound off on coalition

Having decided that the Detroit Red Wings technically won the 2008 Stanley Cup, the Pittsburgh Penguins, Philadelphia Flyers and Dallas Stars have formed a coalition demanding a three-way ownership of the league title.

The rationale for their decision revolves around their total combined scoring in the 2008 semifinals, their total share of season ticket holders versus the Red Wings, and their horror at discovering the Red Wings are using a more cost-effective and efficient but non-union-made silver polish to keep the Stanley Cup gleaming.

The three teams are being assisted in their bid to overturn the traditional results by members of the Quebec Hockey League who have no real interest in the success of the NHL in general but sense an opportunity to demand Zambonis and other critical equipment be manufactured in Quebec.

Player representatives, team owners and Nike are expected to submit their proposals to Don Cherry in the next few days. Fans and ticket holders are neither being asked nor allowed a voice in the final decision.

Paul Schmitt

Winnipeg

Democratic process praised

Many Canadians with Conservative leanings are crying foul over the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition that is about to take over the reins of power in Ottawa.

I applaud the Canadian democratic process. After all, Stephen Harper did not win a majority government, he won a minority. This means his party wins the right to try to form a stable government, nothing else. His inability to work with the other political parties means he cannot reach a majority in House of Commons and this failure not only speaks to his lack of leadership ability, but it also gives the opposition the opportunity to form a stable government -- something Canadians deserve in these uncertain times.

Michael Pollock

Winnipeg

All-time low for Liberals

It appears that in the coming weeks, a coalition government of Liberals and NDP, with support from the Bloc Québécois, will take power. It is shameful that our government be appointed through closed-door meetings rather than in a democratic election. The Canadian people have already rejected Stéphane Dion as a viable prime minister, and overwhelmingly so.

Giving the balance of power to a separatist party would be hitting an all-time low for the Liberals. Either the coalition government will fail, or Quebec will become over-represented in our government. Dion is not ready to lead his own party, and clearly not able to lead our country.

RYAN HENRIE

Winnipeg

More like a dictatorship

I find it unimaginable that we have several political leaders who have no loyalty to the nation and are trying to overthrow the government in Canada. One would expect the threat of a coup in dictatorships, but not in our 141-year-old democracy. And to think that the balance of power lies with a group of separatists whose leader said during the election campaign just weeks ago that he does not care about Canada.

It appears that the leaders of the opposition are not acting in the interest of the country, but rather in the interest of enhancing their short-term careers. I trust that sanity will ultimately prevail.

John Bergen

Niverville

Embarrassment for Canada

The recent antics of the politicians who were put in place to serve the will of the people is an embarrassment to most thinking Canadians. I feel as if I've woken up in a Third-World country where the miffed politicians who feel they did not receive their just reward will resort to any tactics to achieve the power they feel entitled to.

Get over it and work together for the good of the people.

Pat Loewen

Steinbach

$1.95 a fair price to pay

When federal legislation was introduced to eliminate corporate donations and limit individual donations to political parties and replace that lost revenue with funding, it was the absolutely right thing to do. No individual should have a greater influence on the political process because they are wealthy, and the legislation was accepted by all the parties in Parliament.

Stephen Harper accepted the money when he was in opposition because he knew that opposition political parties needed resources to communicate messages that may disagree with the government in power. Now he represents government and the change of heart is hypocritical, mean-spirited, and not in the best interests of Canadians.

It costs over $300 million to run a national election, and the funding to political parties is a fraction of that cost -- but an important cost that gives Canadians the opportunity to hear many viewpoints. If you take away a political party's ability to present viewpoints contrary to the government's message, then all Canadians will suffer. I'm willing to accept my tax-funded $1.95 is a cost for a stronger, fairer political process because the alternative of any government's overwhelming ability to sell their vision, and only their vision, is far too big a price to pay.

Dennis Trochim

Winnipeg

Madness must stop

I am outraged about the current war games being waged on Parliament Hill. In any other country, the coalition's attempt to take power from the elected government would be called a coup. And yet we Canadians are passively sitting by and letting democracy be wrested from us. In other countries people fight, and sometimes die, for the right to hold democratic elections, yet we are giving this right away.

This could not have come at a worse time, either. With the current economic uncertainty, we need a strong government to bolster confidence in foreign markets. This "coup" will only serve to further destabilize our fragile economic condition and worsen the financial state of millions of Canadians. Obviously, the power-hungry coalition does not care about the people it is supposed to serve.

We did not elect a coalition government. We did not elect Stéphane Dion to lead our country. We do not want another election. This madness must stop or Canada will lose its place as a respected, democratic country.

Tamara Miller

East St. Paul

Bias clouds judgment

I read Roger Gibbins' column in the Tuesday Free Press with interest (Governor General can just say 'No'). The first thing that struck me was, what would he have written if it were Paul Martin at the head of this government and Stephen Harper the leader of the Opposition?

The answer that came to mind was that he would not have written the same piece. On the basis of all that I have read of his previous writings, I cannot see him defending the principle that it is the Governor General who decides who shall govern and not the elected members of the House of Commons. My conclusion is that his bias overrules all other considerations.

The second thing that struck me was that his suggestion that the Governor General refuse to accept her prime minister's resignation and instruct him to go back and try, really for the first time since Harper was chosen to lead Her Majesty's government, to secure a majority in the House of Commons, was a good one. It seems like a sensible way out of this conundrum of Stephen Harper's making.

And then reality struck home. Even if Harper were to humble himself and actually listen to those with alternative points of view, never mind negotiate a compromise, he has so poisoned relations within the body politic of Canada that he no longer has any credibility.

A better solution for Canada than the Governor General just saying no would be for Harper to resign, not only as Her Majesty's Prime Minister, but also as the leader of the Conservative party, leaving the door open for a new Conservative prime minister with, hopefully, more statesmanlike qualities and a better understanding of our Canadian democratic process.

Rudy Peters

Winnipeg

Victims of greedy ambition

Once again, Canadian citizens have become the victims of the greedy ambitions of the party leaders -- all party leaders.

Stephen Harper's mistake was to try to cancel the subsidies each party received based on how many votes they received at election time, rather than concentrating on the economic crisis looming for Canadians. Jack Layton and Stéphane Dion, whose main ambitions are to be prime minister, schemed up this coalition with the Bloc Québécois so that they could topple the minority Conservative government, with no concern about the Bloc's basic goal to separate from Canada.

All this happens only six weeks after a $300-million election, in which Canadian citizens made their choices. It is unfortunate that these citizens must endure all these totally unnecessary conditions and expenses created by these politicians.

Issie D. Oiring

Winnipeg

Intelligence, judgment sought

There are some positives in the current political dust-up. Firstly, the media are providing some clearly much-needed education on parliamentary democracy and its processes. One hopes some members of Parliament are learning, too.

Secondly, there has been some excellent writing. I plan to keep the Dec. 2 View from the West page for a while, for the pleasure of re-reading and considering all three columns. I will probably find a future use for the following observation from Roger Gibbins's column:

"...the Governor General... has discretion. We don't have a rigid constitutional formula because we know that in some circumstances, intelligence and judgment must be brought into play."

Would that there were more such occasions.

Doreen F. Pruden

Winnipeg

Let Harper do his job

It stands to reason that the coalition idea of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois is not only absurd but very scary. None of these parties was elected, which means we have no confidence in their ability and to top it all, doesn't everybody know that three wrongs won't make a right? Let Harper do his job.

Dolly Dennis

Rosser

A political science lesson

Your contributor, Allan Levine, is confident that history teaches us that the idea of a coalition government is presently unjustified (Faux champions of democracy, Dec. 2). Let me offer another view of history and try to supplement it with some constitutional arguments.

Elections in parliamentary democracies are only indirectly about "choosing" a government. Fundamentally they are about choosing members of Parliament who then repair to Ottawa to sit in the Commons. The House of Commons holds the government accountable by voting supply and confidence in the government. That is how we have responsible government. And so governments that do not have the confidence of the Commons must resign. This can trigger another election but it need not.

There are precedents in Canadian history and throughout the Commonwealth of Kings and governors general not agreeing to another election but choosing another prime minister. For the Governor General has an important discretionary role to ensure that the advice of the prime minister of the moment is consistent with constitutional principle and not based on his crass self-interest.

The events of 1926 are a wonderful prefiguring of what is going on now. Mackenzie King and the Liberals did not have a majority and they were facing a defeat in the House, so King sought to dissolve the Commons and so advised the Governor General who, to his everlasting credit, told King to take a hike. Instead he called on Arthur Meighen to form a government. This example still stands.

It is not the case that constitutional principle is changed just because King won the next election. And so what we have now is a prime minister, Stephen Harper (he of such unblemished political integrity) who does not have the confidence of the Commons facing an Opposition that has agreed to provide a plan of government for another 18 months, at least.

To repeat, parliamentary government is about securing dependable, effective, responsible government and this should be the pre-eminent concern of the Governor General as she considers what to do. Not only would she be within her rights to accept the coalition proposal of the three parties, but indeed, if the precedent is 1926, then she is bound to do so because she is not required to simply follow the advice of a prime minister who has failed so lamentably to secure the confidence of the Commons so soon after the last election. Governors general must exercise such discretion. Otherwise we are captive to such self-serving leaders as Harper has so sadly become.

Allen Mills

University of Winnipeg

Liberals avoiding voters

When I cast my ballot a few elections ago, I was not supporting giving my tax dollars to the separatist Bloc Québécois. But the Liberals did it anyway. My ballot in the recent election was not cast to give a power base in the federal government to the separatists. But the Liberals did it anyway.

The majority of Canadian voters clearly rejected the concept of the Liberals governing this country. But the Liberals are going to do it anyway -- by avoiding the voters.

Never again will I vote for this morally bankrupt federal party. Why would anyone?

Gervin L. Greasley

Winnipeg

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition December 3, 2008 A13