Michael Chong Resigns

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Where's the evidence that he made this statement,

I heard him say it.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

[jdobbin]

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.

He sounds pissed because like a lot of decisions Harper makes, they are done unilaterally.

[g_bambino]

He sounds pissed because like a lot of decisions Harper makes, they are done unilaterally.

Now I'm going to do an "I heard it", but according to the CBC Harper didn't make the decision unilaterally. Just without Chong.

In an interview with Chong on this evening's news, Peter Mansbridge mentioned that, amongst others, Stéphane Dion was present to speak with Harper the night before the PM tabled his motion in the House. Also, at every turn, at both the news conference, and in his interview later, Chong seems to expalin that though Ministers were expected to vote in favour, back-benchers were not forced to do anything. What is clear is that he doesn't fault the PM for anything.

Truly, the whole thing just seems rather strange to me. I can't tell if he's doing this for personal attention, or what. He's actually rather vague in his answers and explanations.

BTW, Chong's press conference is available here: CBC - Latest CBC Television Newscast (though I'm not sure how long it will remain current).

[jdobbin]

Now I'm going to do an "I heard it", but according to the CBC Harper didn't make the decision unilaterally. Just without Chong.

In an interview with Chong on this evening's news, Peter Mansbridge mentioned that, amongst others, Stéphane Dion was present to speak with Harper the night before the PM tabled his motion in the House. Also, at every turn, at both the news conference, and in his interview later, Chong seems to expalin that though Ministers were expected to vote in favour, back-benchers were not forced to do anything. What is clear is that he doesn't fault the PM for anything.

Truly, the whole thing just seems rather strange to me. I can't tell if he's doing this for personal attention, or what. He's actually rather vague in his answers and explanations.

BTW, Chong's press conference is available here: CBC - Latest CBC Television Newscast (though I'm not sure how long it will remain current).

I suppose in the end this is his moment of fame. I have no idea if he is principled or not. I can't tell at the moment. There were some people who didn't vote who were cabinet ministers. I wonder where they stood.

[scribblet]

Chong was a Cabinet Minister, and required to vote with the government that he was part of. He did not resign from the party - only from cabinet so that he can abstain from voting on the motion.

He stated in his press conference that Harper was very gracious to him and understood his reasons. While it is too bad that he felt this way, he dealt with the situation in an admirable way.

I sometimes wonder how many ranting from various directions have read the PM's statement and reacting to what the press tells us what it says, and not reading it for ourselves.

The statement is quite cleverly worded, in fact its an argument for one nation, there is no slippery slope, it removes a slippery slope. Neither does it open a constitutional debate.

That being said I think the Prime Minister should have allowed all members, including cabinet, to vote their conscience with no level of whip.

Interesting vote though, only 16 in total voted against the motion,

[MightyAC]

The statement is quite cleverly worded, in fact its an argument for one nation, there is no slippery slope, it removes a slippery slope. Neither does it open a constitutional debate.

That being said I think the Prime Minister should have allowed all members, including cabinet, to vote their conscience with no level of whip.

The goal of the Bloc is to create a separate sovereign nation of Quebec. Gilles is supporting this motion and can't wipe the smile off his face. Something tells me he wouldn't be so excited about a motion that would help keep Quebec in Canada long term.

I completely agree that the PM should have allowed all members vote their conscience. They pretend to be democratic when they talk of free votes but they don't follow through. I think the only reason they even talked of free votes was so they could avoid taking a position on social issues during the election campaign. When asked about SSM, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc the PM could simply dodge the question by saying our MPs will vote their conscience.

Why do we even bother tying MPs to ridings when the PMO tells them how to vote? Is there any value in geographical representation when a party is completely run from the top down? This government only allows its MPs to speak in the house if a script has been approved by the PMO. CPC members must attend brief party meetings before their committee meetings to be told what to do and say. Conservative members are prohibited from submitting private members bills unless approved by the PMO. CPC MPs can not speak to the press without permission, and now they are told how to vote. Again I ask, why do we even have MPs?

I know the Liberals and NDP are to blame as well. The Libs forced cabinet to vote in favour of SSM and all NDP members were forced to do the same. Both Harper and Chrétien supported electoral reform and PR when in opposition but when in power they rule with an iron fist.

We elect MPs to represent our wishes in parliament not to have ideas rammed down our throats by the PMO. I'm sick of big party politics, forced votes, distorted election results, lack of representation and wasted votes. I'm not sure what the ideal solution but something has to be done.

Anyway, I would like to congratulate to Mr. Chong for standing up for his constituents. It was a very safe act of defiance, considering it was well known that the vote would pass easily, but it was an act of defiance nonetheless. I’m not sure if he would have made the same move on a more divided issue but I’d like to hope so.

[blueblood]

We elect MPs to represent our wishes in parliament not to have ideas rammed down our throats by the PMO. I'm sick of big party politics, forced votes, distorted election results, lack of representation and wasted votes. I'm not sure what the ideal solution but something has to be done.

Heres a solution, throw out the party system and have them all run as independants and toss out the senate just like it was done in antiquity

[August1991]

The goal of the Bloc is to create a separate sovereign nation of Quebec. Gilles is supporting this motion and can't wipe the smile off his face. Something tells me he wouldn't be so excited about a motion that would help keep Quebec in Canada long term.

Duceppe is an eternal optimist, an idealist. His smile was a brave face. But he may be right in the long run.

Anyway, I would like to congratulate to Mr. Chong for standing up for his constituents. It was a very safe act of defiance, considering it was well known that the vote would pass easily, but it was an act of defiance nonetheless. I’m not sure if he would have made the same move on a more divided issue but I’d like to hope so.

Chong claimed to oppose ethnic nationalism, citing the origin of his parents, but in fact he was merely justifying the ethnic nationalism of the American melting pot.

Canada cannot work that way - it's been tried. If Canada is to work, it must tolerate and respect the genuine differences between people. There is a reason Canada is a federal state.

These ideas of nationalism, ethnicity, multiculturalism, bilingualism are confused in Canada. Chong's vote is an example. That's sad because Canada has such experience with this.

I suspect Chong readily claims that he's Canadian, yet he'd deny being American.

We elect MPs to represent our wishes in parliament not to have ideas rammed down our throats by the PMO. I'm sick of big party politics, forced votes, distorted election results, lack of representation and wasted votes. I'm not sure what the ideal solution but something has to be done.

We have representative democracy, not direct democracy.

You don't tell a dentist exactly what to do. Rather, you choose a dentist and then follow her/his advice.

[Canadian Blue]

We elect MPs to represent our wishes in parliament not to have ideas rammed down our throats by the PMO. I'm sick of big party politics, forced votes, distorted election results, lack of representation and wasted votes. I'm not sure what the ideal solution but something has to be done.

Despite the American system's faults, I would still prefer there system over us with regards to the congress and senate. When a senator or congressman is elected their primary concern is their constituents. Republican's and Democrats are free to disagree with certain party policies and the "establishment".

I think we should consider becoming a Republic, and have a Triple E senate.

[bk59]

Here is what I find frustrating about the situation. Compare the current motion with the same sex marriage bill from a year ago.

Now:

There is a vote on a government motion.

Cabinet is told to vote in favour of the motion.

Backbenchers can vote as they wish.

The Conservative position: this is all OK.

A year ago:

There is a vote on a government bill.

Cabinet is told to vote in favour of the bill.

Backbenchers can vote as they wish.

The Conservative position: this is wrong and Cabinet must be allowed to vote their conscience.

Some will say that there is a difference between a motion and a bill. (And there is.) But the Conservatives are reopening the debate on SSM supposedly because they want it to be a free vote. Even though they are following the exact same method for voting now as in the past. In addition to this, there is an argument to be made that this particular motion is just as important to Canada's future as the SSM bill. In fact, the argument could be made that this motion is more important.

Aside from my frustration with political hypocrisy, I find it very odd that Harper did not consult with Chong but did consult with Dion. As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Chong should have been consulted on a motion of this type.

The optimistic side of me thinks that it is a good thing that Harper talked with Dion. It might show at least some willingness on Harper's part to work with other parties and to consult with experts in the field that don't automatically agree with him. The pessimistic side of me just thinks that he consulted Dion so that if the Liberals try to use the motion against him he can say that Dion was involved.

[Charles Anthony]

As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Chong should have been consulted on a motion of this type.

I agree. It would have looked better if Chong was consulted and if Chong simply told the public: "I resign because I disagree with the motion. Period." instead of being ignored. Even if we believe that the Ministers are just puppets, it certainly would have looked better.

Nevertheless, the Emmerson-floor-cross and the Fortier-Senate-minister do not look like good PR either.....

The optimistic side of me thinks that it is a good thing that Harper talked with Dion. It might show at least some willingness on Harper's part to work with other parties and to consult with experts in the field that don't automatically agree with him. The pessimistic side of me just thinks that he consulted Dion so that if the Liberals try to use the motion against him he can say that Dion was involved.

I think both possible scenarios you raise are optimistic. They are both good strategy.