PDA

View Full Version : Fun times in Canadian Politics


lokase
12-03-2008, 02:36 PM
**sorry for the long write up but this is quite the unprecedented situation playing out up here in Canada**

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081203.wPOLcoalition1203/BNStory/politics/home

Things have REALLY heated up here in Ottawa over the past week. Let me try and condense the time line for everyone so that you can gain an idea of the scenario playing out in our national political arena:

November 27th:

The minority led Conservative government presents a “mini-budget” in the House of Commons. The mini-budget contains no real plans to stimulate the economy and defers those plans to the larger budget presentation later in January.

The Conservatives however slip in two caveats into this mini-budget that starts a fire storm. The first caveat is that the public service (all federal employees), who are unionized, will NOT be allowed to strike until 2011. Ouch, pissing off the public servants is a very bad idea.

But that was just the tip of the iceberg. Now comes the dozy. The Conservatives propose to end the public financing of ALL federal parties for election campaigns. That represents $1.95 per voter per election.

Canada just came out of a hastily called election (by the Conservatives) six weeks ago were the Conservatives were for the second time, handed a minority government. The opposition parties (Liberals, NDP, BQ, and Green Party) all had to take out loans to cover the cost of running a campaign for the election. The monies received from the public financing of party campaigns goes to pay off those debts.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper in effect has backed up ALL of the other federal parties into a corner and threatened their very existence, not to mention democracy here in Canada, heavy handed and bold does not even come close to describing this action.

Does anyone know what happens when you back a hungry racoon into a corner and then make sudden, erratic moves?

On top of everything, “mini-budgets” are automatically entered into a vote of confidence, meaning the house votes on the content of the budget. If the budget does not pass, the government is dissolved and we have to go through yet ANOTHER election. As a minority government Prime Minister it is Stephen Harpers duty to gain consensus and thus the confidence of the opposition parties in order to pass budgets and legislation.

With these actions in the mini-budget it appears as if PM Stephen Harper thinks he is running a majority government and can ram anything he wishes though parliament to his liking. Wrong!

So now things start to get interesting…


November 28th – December 1st:

The opposition parties with their backs to the wall enter talks to form a coalition government. Halo and other Europeans will be familiar with this concept.

When the government’s confidence is called into question there is the opportunity for the opposition parties to band together in a coalition and ask the Governor General to accept the coalition as the new ruling block in the Government, essentially ousting the current government.

There have to be a few guidelines in place for the coalition to take their request to the Governor General:

- The coalition must be made up of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.
- It must be made quite evident that the majority of the MPs in the House of Commons have lost confidence in the current government.

All guidelines have been satisfied and the Liberals, NDP and BQ parties all signed a document agreeing to a coalition and oust the current Conservative government.

The formation of a coalition is legal under Canadian law and is purposefully setup to work like this in our democracy. The opposition is well within their rights to form the coalition no matter what spin you may hear in the media and from Conservative grunts.

Now it gets EVEN MORE confusing:
The confidence vote for the mini-budget is scheduled for Monday, December 8th. This vote must take place in order for the coalition to dissolve the current Conservative government. Once the current Conservation government has been dissolved the coalition can take their request to the Governor General. She can do one of the following:
- Allow the coalition to take over power
- Force all parties to enter into yet another election (blah)

And YET another EVEN MORE confusing scenario can play out:
PM Stephen Harper can ask the Governor General to accept a prorogue of this session of parliament. Essentially, this request would end this session of parliament and would buy time for the Conservatives. A new session of parliament would reconvene near the end of January and the whole shit fest would start up again.

And YET again another scenario:
PM Stephen Harper can step down as PM and have someone else, someone more moderate and willing to work with the opposition to take over the role and regain the confidence of the house. This scenario will NEVER happen. Stephen Harpers ego is massive and weighs the same as mountain made out of granite. He will fight to the bitter end no matter how much he taints his own parties’ reputation.


December 2nd:

The question period in the House of Commons goes berserker with PM Stephen Harpers back now up against the wall (looks good on the doof). Tempers are at the edge and a lot of he said she said is flung across the aisle.

The whole country is talking about the scenario playing out in Ottawa and you can see a clear line drawn in the sand between Conservatives and the Opposition parties.

Political pundits can’t get the smiles wiped off their faces, its going to be a great Christmas.


December 3rd:

The Governor General is called back to Canada from a diplomatic trip to Eastern Europe. She will be back on Canadian soil sometime this afternoon. She will no doubt have some visitors waiting for her at her residence to talk about “government stuff”.

PM Stephen Harper is set to “speak to the nation” tonight, no doubt his speech will be layered with half truths and a forked tongue. The guy is literally trying to save himself from political suicide.


Quick Analysis:

1) PM Stephen Harper is a very masterful tactician but has made the miscalculation of his political career. No matter if he can pull his party out of this clusterf**k, his days as PM, Conservative leader and even as a politician are numbered, and they are very few at that.

2) The Governor General, mostly a figure head position with no real power, now has real power and must make a very difficult decision. Her final decision will have major implications on what happens to our political system over the next few months.

3) The opposition is well within their legal rights to form the coalition. Mr. Dion, the leader of the Liberals and possibly the next PM tanked on the last election. He will even be stepping down come May when a party convention is held to replace him. Most of the country doesn’t want him as a PM but given the alternative are willing to live with it to gain the advantages of the coalition.


Personally I want to see Harper ousted by all means necessary. If we have a coalition government for the next 30 months so be it, perhaps they will actually be able to pass some legislation and get things moving again up on parliament hill.


Cheers,

Fandros
12-03-2008, 02:44 PM
Whoa, the old Proverb comes to mind "may you live in interesting times". Sounds like our neighbors up north are doing just that...

Good luck up there Lokase!

Haloface
12-04-2008, 02:00 PM
I was always partial to Harper, but he has outlived his stay.

It's funny that the Queen's Governor in Canada and the other Commonwealth countries where the Queen is still Head of State, can legally depose a Prime Minister, as per Australia in I think the 80's.

So is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking?

Fandros
12-04-2008, 02:21 PM
Dunno, you tell me!

lokase
12-04-2008, 02:31 PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081204.wparliamentday1204/BNStory/politics/home

I don't know how he did it but he managed to convince the Goveror Genearl to prorogue parliament until January 26th.

In effect Harper has pulled the fire alarm before entering his exam because he knew he was going to fail the test.

Its a very sad day for most of us here in Canada who respect parlimentary and subsequently democratic law.

I can only hope that the Governor General sent Harper into the corner for a time out and told him to play nice or else the trip to Disneyland would be cancelled. Meaning, get your shit together Stephen or I will release that Coalition government breathing down your neck and you will be out on the street looking for a think tank job.

The soap opera continues.

Look for updates in February.


Cheers,

Osgiliath666
12-04-2008, 09:18 PM
Who cares.. AS long as I get Poutine every now and then I don't care what happens to the red headed step son of the Unites States..

LummusL
12-05-2008, 01:10 AM
Is that what Rush would say about Canada, Os?

I read about is this and it seemed Canada was in the midst of a potential coup. Canada???? Its considered one of the world's most stable countries, with Sweden being the most stable.

Haloface
12-05-2008, 03:11 AM
Osgiliath, what you fail to realise is that the as yet under-utilized giants of the Commonwealth, such as Australia, Canada, etc, will be this century's world powers, with their as yet small populations and vast scope for natural resource exploitation. There is no reason Canada could not outstrip the US in economic power within 50 years. And Australia? Well any country the size of a continent cannot fail to become a global titan.

'Canada???? Its considered one of the world's most stable countries, with Sweden being the most stable.'

- Yes, but it has no scope for violence, unlike a coup in say Thailand or Indonesia!

LummusL
12-05-2008, 05:12 AM
what you fail to realise is that the as yet under-utilized giants of the Commonwealth, such as Australia, Canada, etc, will be this century's world powers, with their as yet small populations and vast scope for natural resource exploitation. There is no reason Canada could not outstrip the US in economic power within 50 years.

Not entirely unreasonable. The US probably will be ranked a Third World country by global standards in 50 years.

Fandros
12-05-2008, 08:22 AM
Absolute rubbish...

We'll not be a third world country, if you say that you have no idea what a real third world country is.

lokase
12-05-2008, 08:54 AM
it seemed Canada was in the midst of a potential coup

No, a majority of MPs (Ministers of Parliament) can form a coalition and ask the Governor General to take control of the house ANY TIME the majority of MPs lose the confidence of the Prime Minister, like with Harper.

The coalition was within their parlimentary right and subseqently Candaian law to form the coalition. The GG has the final say though, without her go ahead the coalition can do nothing but force another confidence vote when parliament reconvenes. If the Prime Minister loses confidence of the house again come January/February then the GG has two choices; Let the coalition take over or call yet another bloody election.

AS long as I get Poutine every now and then

Poutine and a steamy is the perfect hang over cure! Don't forget to have a May Wes as well!


Cheers,

Osgiliath666
12-05-2008, 08:54 AM
I just want good Bacon Poutine... MMMmmmMmmm AHh I miss my youth playing Jr. hockey in B.C.

Rover
12-05-2008, 12:55 PM
I just want good Bacon Poutine... MMMmmmMmmm AHh I miss my youth playing Jr. hockey in B.C.


So in the context of the USA you are an immigrant?

And furthermore, a black that played hockey? That's like seeing a ghost...rare...rare indeed.

Sixee
12-05-2008, 01:25 PM
Did Rover just call Osg a spook?

Taleren Bloodsong
12-05-2008, 03:24 PM
So in the context of the USA you are an immigrant?

And furthermore, a black that played hockey? That's like seeing a ghost...rare...rare indeed.

Never heard of Jerome Iginla?

LummusL
12-05-2008, 03:35 PM
We'll not be a third world country, if you say that you have no idea what a real third world country is.

We are one dirty bomb away.......

That aside, all we have to do is stay in the same place for 50 years or slip up a bit while the rest of the world catches up and surpasses. "Third World" is a subjective term, as it is based on the quality of life of whoever is on top vs. those who are catching up. Plenty of civilizations have worn the "First World" crown and lost it and are now considered the "Third World" in modern times. Incas. Mayas. China. Ethiopia. Egypt. India. Turkey. Even Iraq. Granted some are recovering, such as China. All it takes is one prolonged stretch of laziness, bad luck and poor leadership and you get knocked down a peg or two. The inverse is also true. The only constant is change as they say.

And Fandros, I have spent the past 6 years of my life working in the so called "Third World". Granted, some places have obsolutely NOTHING to offer what so ever, such as Djibouti, which might as well be Somolia anyway.

Fandros
12-05-2008, 03:54 PM
I think Iraq qualifies as Second world not third even now.

50 years is ludicrous and the statement that we will be on in 50 years is just plain silly.

LummusL
12-05-2008, 04:09 PM
There is no reason Canada could not outstrip the US in economic power within 50 years. And Australia? Well any country the size of a continent cannot fail to become a global titan.


/shrug. I based that upon this quote. 50 years is just the starting reference. Alot can happen then. Good bet in 50 years global energy will become a HUGE problem. Perhaps fresh water? Global warming and climate change? How many more people can the planet add in the next 50 years? Can we feed everyone? Remember, population growth works on a logarithmic curve. 50 years is plenty of time for the world to go into critical mass. Those who take steps to prevent it will fair better than those who do not. Australia could harness all that barren sun baked Outback and make gobbs of electricty with wind and solar. And Canada will be sitting nice with a preferred growing climate as well as living climate if the earth heats up more.

Fandros, if you think that "Third World" is nothing but donkey carts and mud huts, even those nations have cities with high rises, cars, airplanes, cell phones and cold beer if you are willing to pay enough for it. Visit Kenya some time. The parameters have shifted alot.

LummusL
12-05-2008, 04:24 PM
I will throw you this much of a bone, Fandros, based on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

As you can see, the proper definition can't be pinned down, as it changes with the times. Totally based on perception. One of the maps with the 2007 rankings of who is First, Second and Third world evenhas a mistake, as it shows Haiti as "Second World" in red and the Dominican Republic in the "Third World" green when its the other way around. Granted if someone comes to visit any country where services, infrastructure and over all quality of life just plain sucks compared to where they are originating from, than yes, the USA as a Third World nation is plausible. Many from other nations visit the US now and feel we are backwards in alot of ways.

Bylimet Spiritwalker
12-05-2008, 06:15 PM
I have heard it said somewhere that any country without indoor plumbing should be considered a Third World country. Then, I think back to the beauty of the country and the culture of the people in Viet Nam, and I look at what we have in many of our urban areas, and I really am at a loss to explain why our urban areas should be considered more advanced than the cities and peoples I saw over there.

I guess it is all relative.

Rover
12-05-2008, 09:51 PM
Never heard of Jerome Iginla?

Yes I have, and I've seen a ghost before also...actually more ghosts than I've seen black hockey players.

Kelraz Bladesinger
12-08-2008, 11:07 PM
He disbanded the parliment today. Wow, that is pretty nuts.

I also like how everyone wants him out because he has a 46% approval rating. Bush would give a testicle to get a rating that high. Also learned today that the Governor General is a representative of the Queen of England. Ironic that she has no power in England, but can disband the Parliament in Canada.

Haloface
12-09-2008, 03:00 AM
She does have power in England. She remains the supreme head of the state, Governments are formed on her invitation. Yes, she hasn't acted the part since she acceeded to the throne, but that does not mean she does not possess the power. No King of England had assumed the power of veto over parliamentarian legislation since James II in 1687, before George III did it in 1784. The Queen still possesses that perogative power. Lest we not forget that every Bill must still be placed on her desk for her consent before it is law. We have come to view these powers as ceremonial and symbolic in the last fifty years - but only because there has been no situation that calls for their deployment, as our constitution and domestic affairs have been stable and consistent, but it does not mean the Queen does still not possess them.
If a situation, such as that in Canada, arose in the UK - an impasse in party politics, there is no doubt that the Queen would dissolve Parliament or meddle in Government affairs. On the advice of Ministers? With no real policy of her own? Perhaps, perhaps - but it is not as if the Governor-General of Canada did this through his own, powerful means. He was merely responding to a situation where only he possessed the typical powers to move forward. Had opinion or expectation been against this move, there is no doubt of his not having done it.

Nydia Ywalmoriel
12-09-2008, 03:16 AM
*Her* own powerful means - the current Governor General of Canada, to wit: Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada (official title). In the current political climate (and the GG being an elected position), she has been accused of being a rubber-stamp for Harper this fall.

In any case, last Thursday, she agreed to Harper's request to suspend Parliament until late January, although she may feel differently about that decision given his subsequent move yesterday; this short article also reiterates that the Queen is still the Head of State of Canada, as a member of the British Commonwealth:

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSOTW00020020081204