|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/3/2008 8:46:38 AM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11438
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
I'm surprised no one has posted a thread on this yet.
Canadians: what are your opinions of this whole no-confidence, "minority party coalition to take over the government" scheme? (For those not in the know, HERE is one news article on it.)
I'm not a citizen and don't have a firm grasp on the intricacies of the Canadian governmental setup, but I think that this absolutely reeks of childishness. The minority parties lost the election (albeit kept enough seats so the Conservatives don't have a majority) and now want to band together and wrest power from the Conservatives? It reminds me of a gang of bullies.
_____________________________
Tricia
"There's a fine line between being open-minded and empty-headed." ~Michael Coren
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/3/2008 1:41:43 PM
|
|
|
aslouie
Posts: 706
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Status: offline
|
Well, being someone who's highly intrigued with international politics, this sounds like some hyper-partisanship with the Bloc Quebecois, New Democrats, and The Liberals, the latter of which, if memory served me correctly, wasn't he also the prospective (Liberal) PM candidate, aside from being part of The Bloc?
_____________________________
With fame I became more and more stupid, which of course is a very common phenomenon.
--Albert Einstein
That's hot.
--Paris Hilton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/3/2008 5:33:43 PM
|
|
|
pbaribeault
Posts: 1080
Joined: 4/29/2005
Status: online
|
I'm not sure why anybody has a problem with the government operating within the constitution. Political parties are free to join together, to split up, to elect new leadership -- all sorts of things. If the 2 (Liberals & NDP)* form a coalition, then that new entity clearly represents more of the Canadian vote than the Conservative party currently holds... therefore, that places them in the position to form the government (with the consent of the Governor General, with respect to the legitimacy and workability of their coalition).
The sitting Liberals and NDP-ers are elected yahoos too.
* Note: the Liberals & NDP are forming the coalition. The GG will assess whether that coalition has the 'support' of the Bloc, as part of her assessment of the workability of parliament under that new coalition.
quote:
the Bloc Quebecois, New Democrats, and The Liberals, the latter of which, if memory served me correctly, wasn't he also the prospective (Liberal) PM candidate, aside from being part of The Bloc? I'm not sure I understand the question, but I will try to explain. There are 4 or 5 sort-of-major political parties in Canada, and each has a leader all the time. The people of Canada do not directly elect the Prime Minister. Each local area elects a Member of Parliament, who is usually from one of the 5 parties (occasionally independent). The election results in certain 'seats' awarded to MP's, and then they just add up who has the most seats, and that party forms the government and the leader of that party is the Prime Minister.
Therefore, there is no such thing as a 'PM candidate' -- and it would be impossible for a member (or leader) of the Liberal party to also be a member (or leader) of the Bloc. (Although people do, at times, change from one party to another.)
Perhaps you are confused by the term "Quebec / Quebecois" Quebec is a province in which all political parties are active, and many leaders of all parties have come from there. Quebec is a significantly populated province and one of the original 2 from when Canada was forming. Someone can be from Quebec, and as such they are a Quebecois person, without being a member of the Bloc Quebecois -- which is a party that specifically stands for Quebec self-governance with an end goal of separation from Canada itself... not all Quebecois people believe this, obviously, or they would have done it already... but plenty do.
That's why they are kind of a wrench when they have enough seats to make a difference in Parliament -- because they are essentially disinterested in governing the nation, but only interested in how they can either benefit as a Province or achieve independence. (So any coalition who needs their 'support' is going to have to throw them plenty of bones, which might hurt us all as a nation.)(Hence the STD comment.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/3/2008 7:21:13 PM
|
|
|
lexie
Posts: 2945
Joined: 6/27/2005
From: Toronto
Status: online
|
For all the people who are quick to condemn what the Liberals are doing and the rest of coalition, please remember that 4 years ago Stephen Harper agreed to the exact same coalition deal with the NDP and the Bloc and requested that then GG Adrienne Clarkson look into allowing a coalition government rather than a Liberal minority.
So while what is happening right now may remind many of a gang of bullies, just remember that Stephen Harper and the Tory's were the leader of the gang not too long ago.
I'm not saying I agree with this coalition but I am SO SICK of people crying "poor Conservatives" and "poor Stephen Harper" when Harper tried to do the EXACT SAME THING. This is just politics as usual, and this is what can happen we with a parliamentary system like ours.
quote:
Between Layton's and Dion's greed and Harper's bullying, I think the whole lot should be fired!
Now that I agree with. I don't have a problem with a Conservative government, I have a problem with Stephen Harper being the leader of it. How dare he stand there now and cry "woe is me" and say that what the Liberals and NDP is doing is unfair to Canadians and how because they couldn't win power they are going to steal it. Just following in your footsteps Mr. Harper!
But a government led by Stephane Dion? And you know what's worse than that? A government led by Michael Ignatieff who is looking like the front runner right now.
That's it, I'm packing up and moving to Europe.
_____________________________
I want to be more than an ordinary servant.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/3/2008 9:50:29 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11438
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
Lexie - was the thing 4 years ago this imminent, or was it more of a, "maybe we could go about it this way... hmmm...." kind of thing?
My husband doesn't follow politics that much, but he says he doesn't remember the other situation you mentioned.
_____________________________
Tricia
"There's a fine line between being open-minded and empty-headed." ~Michael Coren
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/4/2008 12:56:15 AM
|
|
|
aslouie
Posts: 706
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lexie
For all the people who are quick to condemn what the Liberals are doing and the rest of coalition, please remember that 4 years ago Stephen Harper agreed to the exact same coalition deal with the NDP and the Bloc and requested that then GG Adrienne Clarkson look into allowing a coalition government rather than a Liberal minority.
So while what is happening right now may remind many of a gang of bullies, just remember that Stephen Harper and the Tory's were the leader of the gang not too long ago.
I'm not saying I agree with this coalition but I am SO SICK of people crying "poor Conservatives" and "poor Stephen Harper" when Harper tried to do the EXACT SAME THING. This is just politics as usual, and this is what can happen we with a parliamentary system like ours.
quote:
Between Layton's and Dion's greed and Harper's bullying, I think the whole lot should be fired!
Now that I agree with. I don't have a problem with a Conservative government, I have a problem with Stephen Harper being the leader of it. How dare he stand there now and cry "woe is me" and say that what the Liberals and NDP is doing is unfair to Canadians and how because they couldn't win power they are going to steal it. Just following in your footsteps Mr. Harper!
But a government led by Stephane Dion? And you know what's worse than that? A government led by Michael Ignatieff who is looking like the front runner right now.
That's it, I'm packing up and moving to Europe.
Would that be Sarkozy's France, Brown's UK, or even something like Merkel's Germany or Berlusconi's Italy?  
_____________________________
With fame I became more and more stupid, which of course is a very common phenomenon.
--Albert Einstein
That's hot.
--Paris Hilton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/4/2008 1:01:35 AM
|
|
|
aslouie
Posts: 706
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: pbaribeault
I'm not sure why anybody has a problem with the government operating within the constitution. Political parties are free to join together, to split up, to elect new leadership -- all sorts of things. If the 2 (Liberals & NDP)* form a coalition, then that new entity clearly represents more of the Canadian vote than the Conservative party currently holds... therefore, that places them in the position to form the government (with the consent of the Governor General, with respect to the legitimacy and workability of their coalition).
The sitting Liberals and NDP-ers are elected yahoos too.
* Note: the Liberals & NDP are forming the coalition. The GG will assess whether that coalition has the 'support' of the Bloc, as part of her assessment of the workability of parliament under that new coalition.
quote:
the Bloc Quebecois, New Democrats, and The Liberals, the latter of which, if memory served me correctly, wasn't he also the prospective (Liberal) PM candidate, aside from being part of The Bloc? I'm not sure I understand the question, but I will try to explain. There are 4 or 5 sort-of-major political parties in Canada, and each has a leader all the time. The people of Canada do not directly elect the Prime Minister. Each local area elects a Member of Parliament, who is usually from one of the 5 parties (occasionally independent). The election results in certain 'seats' awarded to MP's, and then they just add up who has the most seats, and that party forms the government and the leader of that party is the Prime Minister.
Therefore, there is no such thing as a 'PM candidate' -- and it would be impossible for a member (or leader) of the Liberal party to also be a member (or leader) of the Bloc. (Although people do, at times, change from one party to another.)
Perhaps you are confused by the term "Quebec / Quebecois" Quebec is a province in which all political parties are active, and many leaders of all parties have come from there. Quebec is a significantly populated province and one of the original 2 from when Canada was forming. Someone can be from Quebec, and as such they are a Quebecois person, without being a member of the Bloc Quebecois -- which is a party that specifically stands for Quebec self-governance with an end goal of separation from Canada itself... not all Quebecois people believe this, obviously, or they would have done it already... but plenty do.
That's why they are kind of a wrench when they have enough seats to make a difference in Parliament -- because they are essentially disinterested in governing the nation, but only interested in how they can either benefit as a Province or achieve independence. (So any coalition who needs their 'support' is going to have to throw them plenty of bones, which might hurt us all as a nation.)(Hence the STD comment.)
Hey pbaribeault. thanks for the fact check/heads up!  I guess I was still a bit rusty with the recent Canadian elections when Harpers' Tories was able to win a few more seats, though not enough for a majority gov't. And yeah; I think I made a slight gaffe or something, regarding how parliamentary elections are done... and I took an advanced placement course in high school political science!   I guess I'm either a bit rusty with my poly-sci knowledge or I'm a bit too eager to jot down whatever's on my mind! 
_____________________________
With fame I became more and more stupid, which of course is a very common phenomenon.
--Albert Einstein
That's hot.
--Paris Hilton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/4/2008 11:01:34 AM
|
|
|
lexie
Posts: 2945
Joined: 6/27/2005
From: Toronto
Status: online
|
quote:
Would that be Sarkozy's France, Brown's UK, or even something like Merkel's Germany or Berlusconi's Italy?
What do you expect me to do, move to the US??? I don't think so!
quote:
Lexie - was the thing 4 years ago this imminent, or was it more of a, "maybe we could go about it this way... hmmm...." kind of thing?
It was a backroom deal so it wasn't as obvious, and even if there was no attempt such as the current one, it is known that this was proposed to the GG. So to me, that seems to be a bit more than a thought. What's extremely scary is that Harper's coalition would have been with the Bloc, giving them a lot more power than they should have in Parliament. To me, that's a desperate attempt at power.
I was reading in todays paper that a coalition proposal was also made in 2000.
I guess Harper's just upset that others have managed to do to him what he couldn't do to them.
_____________________________
I want to be more than an ordinary servant.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/4/2008 7:59:43 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11438
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
Well, the gov general authorized suspending parliament until something like January 26th. Maybe during that time the Conservatives will devise a plan for the economy that will satisfy the other parties? Or will it be like Jack Layton said, just a delay of the coalition takeover?
_____________________________
Tricia
"There's a fine line between being open-minded and empty-headed." ~Michael Coren
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/5/2008 10:44:51 AM
|
|
|
lexie
Posts: 2945
Joined: 6/27/2005
From: Toronto
Status: online
|
I hope this will make Stephen Harper realize that he still has a minority government and he needs to work with the others and can't pass ridiculous things (I don't agree with the cuts to political funding when it's obvious that his party won't be affected by it.)
Although this time off could give the coalition more time to work out their position.
I think it's silly though, when you look at the state of our economy right now. We're the only western country that hasn't adopted an economic stimulus program. I don't think it's appropriate to suspending parliament when there is so much trouble right now.
Right now it sounds like Dion is willing to work on a budget, but Layton is back down (surprise there.)
_____________________________
I want to be more than an ordinary servant.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/7/2008 8:25:13 AM
|
|
|
Boofhead
Posts: 47
Joined: 8/1/2005
From: Alice Springs, Northern Territory of Australia
Status: offline
|
Wow! What a mess!
The fact that the minority parties are holding a strong balance of power suggests that Canada's federal system is over represented. Any type of over-representation in the Westminster system will lead to political problems that Canada is now having to deal with. To have any minority party to hold that much power is undemocratic and it does not serve the best interest of that country.
Canada needs a politician cleanse.  The number of seats in Parliament could be reduced.
_____________________________
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/7/2008 10:41:33 PM
|
|
|
aslouie
Posts: 706
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lexie
quote:
Would that be Sarkozy's France, Brown's UK, or even something like Merkel's Germany or Berlusconi's Italy?
What do you expect me to do, move to the US??? I don't think so!
Are we talking about the outgoing Bush era, or the incoming Obama era ?
_____________________________
With fame I became more and more stupid, which of course is a very common phenomenon.
--Albert Einstein
That's hot.
--Paris Hilton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/8/2008 1:12:44 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4149
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
That is one of several reasons why I really dislike parlimentary-style democracy. The US has never had a "coalition" government and really cannot. We may complain about a 2 party system but it avoids this mess.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/9/2008 5:01:09 PM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 384
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
People will always complain -- too few parties, too many parties -- there is no one perfect system. You have to remember that there is no executive branch in Canada, so a majority party can pretty much do what ever they want to do (as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair did with their strong majorities in the UK). Having a small majority or being in a coalition are probably the only ways of reining in the leading party if things go too far in one direction.
In the US we usually have some sort of split between Dems and Reps. A single party in control is a fairly rare event over the course of our history.
The funny thing about the Governor General getting involved is that he is the Queen of England's appointed representative in Canada so, in effect, she was the one who gave Harper permission to suspend Parliament. (In reality, if Harper had been refused his request, it would probably have triggered a constitutional crisis since I doubt Canadians would appreciate the monarch of another country telling them what they can and can't do).
The Daily Show had a great piece on all this last night. Worth a look online if you're interested.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/9/2008 7:41:26 PM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 384
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Yeah, but I am a Brit, so know a fair bit about Parliamentary democracy with a titular head of state (i.e. the Queen). From a quick scan of the Wikipedia entry, it does seem, as in the UK, the Queen actually has a fair amount of constitutional power (which is delegated to the GG in Canada) but she "chooses" not to use it (also as in the UK) except on the advice of the Prime Minister.
So, when a British or Canadian Prime Minister approaches the Queen to request that she take action under the powers she has as the constitutional head of state, then she does it, or she has to have a really, really good reason for refusing it. After all, in theory, she can say no to the usual, formal request of the winner of the last election to form a new government, but in practice such a refusal would be unprecedented in modern times and would probably trigger a constitutional crisis since a democracy cannot stand by and let an absolute monarch -- even their own -- dictate terms like that.
So, while I suppose "constitutional crisis" might be going a little too far in my original comment, it would (and should) have been very difficult for Canada's Governor General (acting on behalf of the Queen) to refuse Harper's request. Harper is the duly elected leader of Canada, the Queen is, well, the Queen. I suspect that if he had refused to prorogue parliament as requested, there would have been serious outrage over the matter and the precedent it set.
It is a very odd system, really. Britain and Canada are both monarchies which are, in reality fully democratic nations. The unelected head of state -- the Queen -- has a great deal of constitutional power, but if she tries to use any of it in earnest (as opposed to doing what the Prime Minister requests) then she would likely have those powers stripped from her.
There is one advantage of keeping her around though. It avoids the need of having a president...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canada's Constitutional Crisis - 12/10/2008 6:45:19 PM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 384
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Yeah, I know in practice that the Governor General doesn't consult the Queen on such matters, since she probably isn't fully aware of the situation anyway, and would not presume to interfere. It is also true, in practice, that the Queen is only a figurehead, but if you examine your constitution, you will find that in reality she has some significant constitutional powers but, as I said, if she used them against the wishes of the Prime Minister, she would likely not have them for much longer.
That's why the Governor General really had little choice but to act "upon advice from the PM."
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
