Canadian Politics

[Jonathan]

It looks like the Liberals could form and lead a coalition government after all.

Without much insight in Canadian politics, I heard that conservatives were screaming "undemocratic!" about the prospect of loosing a confidence vote. It does taste somewhat like a coup d'état but I wouldn't consider it undemocratic. It is after all a parliamentary majority that makes the call. Still, from what I've gathered, a coalition of Liberals, New Democrats and separatists would be very fragile. Political stability is highly valuable so even if I supported the opposition, I would think twice before supporting such a move.

Nurv, what are your thoughts?

[inked]

ooooooooh! JUST CLOSE DOWN THE GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT YOUR OUSTER

http://charter.net/news/read.php?ps=...ARSDCCLM_UNEWS

My. Thought that the Charter thingy ought to protect the people from this sort of totalitarianism..............................:conf used:....................

Help, NURV.

[Jonathan]

Well technically the Governor General suspended parliament, not the prime minister. Kinda downplays the allegations of totalitarianism.

But I wonder, on which grounds did the governor feel the need to go along with Harper's request?

[inked]

Yeah. Somebody else has gotten the connivance of other parts of the government in hoodoo-ing the public. Name escapes me at the moment....

But seriously, what's with this?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Well technically the Governor General suspended parliament, not the prime minister. Kinda downplays the allegations of totalitarianism.

But I wonder, on which grounds did the governor feel the need to go along with Harper's request?

I think she did this because it's the least invasive of her four possible choices.

It would have been a bigger deal if Parliment wouldn't already have gone on Christmas break a week from now. Basically, they let them check out a week early.

Personally I wouldn't have minded the Coalition as government (NDP + Liberals in the government, with support from the Bloc). However, I understand why she made the choice that she did.

In late January when Parliment returns, Harper will introduce a budget that the majority of the House supports, or his government will fall. He had better get a new attitude before then or he's toast.

People just don't trust Harper anymore unless they like the Conservatives. But a government has to earn the trust of all Canadians, not just their supporters. This is something that in three years, he has completely failed to learn. He has a month and a half. I doubt he will recover from the enourmous blunder.

[inked]

What four choices, Nurv? Fire? Sword? Jail? Exile?

Help us nonCanadians get a handle on this.

One person can suspend the elected government?

[Jonathan]

Here's a funny article that explains the Canadian crisis to the average American

Dear neighbour, about what's going on in Canada

My dear American neighbours,

I see the political crisis in Canada has finally made it into the Washington Post's Foreign Briefs column.

So, anticipating a flood of interest from all of you at the dog run in the morning, let me try to give you some idea of what's happening up there.

A few weeks ago, we had an election in Canada, a couple of weeks before yours, actually. A political party known as the Conservatives won.

Well, sort of. They didn't win in the sense that most of you understand winning. I'll get to that in a second.

They also aren't what most of you would consider conservative.

They support what you call socialized medicine, they believe in protecting a Canadian-controlled banking system, they believe in government as a vehicle for transferring wealth between regions, and they've actually muzzled party members who tried to make abortion a campaign issue.

In fact, instead of making his Sunday trip to church a photo opportunity, our Conservative leader refuses to discuss his faith in public. (Like many Americans, he's an evangelical Christian)

[cont'd]

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

What four choices, Nurv? Fire? Sword? Jail? Exile?

Help us nonCanadians get a handle on this.

One person can suspend the elected government?

The governer general can suspend the government (prorogue) at the request of the Prime Minister. She can't just do it whenever she feels like it.

Her other options were let the coalition take over the government (she could only do that because they formally asked her), or call an election (because the government had lost the confidence of the House). Actually, I think that's it, so three options. (I'll come in again.)

Jonathan, the article you linked is hilarious!

The current office holder, Michaëlle Jean, used to be a CBC reporter. Like me.

Actually, the one before her was once a CBC reporter, too. So were two others in the recent past. In our country, any CBC reporter can dream of becoming head of state.

Ahahahahaha*gasp* *gasp*hahahahaha!!!

It's funny because it's true.

[inked]

Ah, Canadian politicians! Can't call a spade a spade in a poker game, either, I bet.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canad.../17610021.html

"News Canada
Honour killings term angers Trudeau

By BRYN WEESE, Parliamentary Bureau

Last Updated: March 15, 2011 4:34am

OTTAWA - Liberal MP Justin Trudeau said the government should not call honour killings "barbaric" in a study guide for would-be Canadian citizens.

..."

You simply must read this for the sheer enjoyment of stupidity. Seriously.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Ah, Canadian politicians! Can't call a spade a spade in a poker game, either, I bet.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canad.../17610021.html

"News Canada
Honour killings term angers Trudeau

By BRYN WEESE, Parliamentary Bureau

Last Updated: March 15, 2011 4:34am

OTTAWA - Liberal MP Justin Trudeau said the government should not call honour killings "barbaric" in a study guide for would-be Canadian citizens.

..."

You simply must read this for the sheer enjoyment of stupidity. Seriously.

Well, it's actually just one Canadian politician commenting on an official Canadian government policy.

Still, I'm glad to see them pointing out to new citizens and residents that accepting gay marriage is one requirement for becoming a member of a civilised society

[inked]

Ah, civilized society withdraws from the Kyoto protocol. See here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...NqO_story.html

Why, you ask?

"“To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada,” Kent said."

But, other than those minor inconveniences, remaining "in" and not meeting the goals would have resulted in a 14 billion dollar fine, oops, "penalties".

Tough choices to be sure: no vehicles or no food and no heat or 14 billion dollar loss.

Which would you have chosen?

[The Gaffer]

Are you still saying that global warming is a myth or have you moved on to the solar radiation gambit?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

Tough choices to be sure: no vehicles or no food and no heat or 14 billion dollar loss.

Which would you have chosen?

Oh puh-lease... as if that is the actual choice Canada had to make.

From what I can tell the reason for pulling out is purely economical. If the USA won't touch Kyoto, then Canada is economically in a very tough competitive position compared to its big neighbour.

But hey, it sounds so much better if you just say they'll have to give up on heating, food production, public services like police and ambulances as well as personal transport for Kyoto. Yeah, those specific points are exactly the very things Canada would have to sacrifice to meet that cruel, cruel, cruel Kyoto norm. I'm surprised education wasn't included, that always works well too to get an emotional response so people won't dwell on the faulty logic behind this sort of comparison.

That said, I can understand Canada for pulling out, but let's not hide behind straw men and let's be honest about the real reasons, shall we? Tar sands. Protecting the own economic interests. In the end everybody will protect their own economy. It's hard to implement long-term strategies and decisions needed for Kyoto if the big polluters happily go about their business and thus can out-compete the others. But that's just how global politics are these days. Visionary treaties of the past, like say the Antarctica Treaty, just couldn't come about today. That sort of idealism is sadly considered out-dated.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

That said, I can understand Canada for pulling out, but let's not hide behind straw men and let's be honest about the real reasons, shall we? Tar sands. Protecting the own economic interests.

Ouch.

[The Gaffer]

Well said Earniel.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Visionary treaties of the past, like say the Antarctica Treaty, just couldn't come about today. That sort of idealism is sadly considered out-dated.

Depressingly so.

(Although it is good news that China and the US haven't bailed on Durban YET)

Maybe the Great Depression of 2012-2020 will achieve by accident what we can't by design.

[inked]

Not that I had thought of it, but if global warming continues, will it make more tar sands available for increased economic growth?

[GrayMouser]

Maybe not, but Hamilton, Ontario will have a climate like Hamilton, Bermuda, and Long Beach, Vancouver Island will be like Long Beach, California.

And people wonder why Canada is dedicated to promoting global warming

Bru-wa-ha-ha-ha!

[inked]

Ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I knew there was a secret subturfugeneous reason for tar sand exploitation over Kyoto.

[Earniel]

Heh, I guess in that scenario they won't have to worry anymore about giving up their heating either...

[inked]

Another incursion into the great northerness by unscrupulous USA entrepeneur types. O the inhumanity (literally)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...rence-to-the-b