Canadian Government craziness!

[Toups]

I don't really know that much about politics, but this new coalition with the Liberals/NDP/BQ thing is shocking! So in a span of 2 months, Dion goes from losing the election to leading the country? What?? Or the Governor General will call for a new election??

Finally, Canadian politics has my attention! LOL

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/...tion-talks.html

[Southofnowhere]

Here's what i know about Poltics in Canada.

The PM is a Bush lover who has his lips stuck on his butt and tried to mess with Obama.

Dion is not to bright.

Layton is i millon miles to the left of any Liberal Dem.

Bloc want to turn the very tiny province of Quebec into their own Country.

Do i have it right?

[SnCCorinthos4ever]

Troups, in 1975 the Governor General sacked our then Prime Minister, I remember that is was November 11th and he made the leader of the opposition party the care taker Prime Miniserand called for an election.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australi...tutional_crisis

[Adam]

The Separatists in bed with a Liberal/Socialist coalition.... sounds like just what this country needs. I am no huge fan of Harper, but I don't care if this is unprecedented , it ain't democracy.

[MTSRocks]

More like nonsense.

[Toups]

I don't like Harper either and I agree it's not democracy. Are we in that much a of a crisis for this to happen? It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Adam]

I don't think so and I have a huge problem with Stephane Dion, a man Canadian's categorically denied was unfit to be PM just 6 weeks ago, could be leading this country for what 4 months until a new Liberal leader is chosen? It all is just so ridiculous and embarrassing for Canada on the world stage if you ask me.

I don't care if we need another election over it, that's the proper thing to do. Power grab is all this is, and not in the best interests of Canadians as they always like to say.

That being said Harper has a minority, he shouldn't have been so arrogant and included those revisions. Everyone has a piece of the blame and they all should be ashamed of themselves.

[MarkH]

Ex-patriate Canadian here, following this with interest.

These coalitions are common in other multi-party countries.

Given the cost and low turnout of the last election, I have to believe that a coalition is better than another federal polling.

On the other hand, Harper knew he had a minority from the beginning. Why he didn't make coalition-building HIS big agenda item, I don't know. As the ruling leader, I honestly believe most of the blame lies with Harper. It was his to lose...and he lost it.

In the end, it's all Brian Mulroney's fault, lol.

[foxhunter]

actually you're wrong on a few levels.

while i'm not a supporter of dion, he is far from stupid. he is well-versed and even a statesmen. but his perceived weaknesses stem from unfair criticisms from his opponents and the media. his English comes off as broken. he has also failed to rally his troops, as it were. he is not PM material but is not dubya-stupid.

Quebec is our largest province, and has the second largest populous in the nation. and while the bloc would love for it to declare sovereignty there are many hurdles to overcome. a referendum would have to be called, and Quebec voters would need to vote for a resounding YES (more than the usual 50 percent plus 1). France has slowly distanced itself from Quebec sovereignty a few years back after strong criticism from other world leaders who want Quebec to stay within Canada.

most Canadians are a millions time more left then a left-wing democrat. in terms of social progression, we tend to paint ourselves as progressive as some European nations. the NDP are seen as LEFT, the liberals left of centre, and the conservatives right of centre. even the most staunch conservative would be seen as a leftist by unabashed republicans.

and while a coalition government would appear to be undemocratic it actually isn't. the parliamentary system is very different from American politics. we don't vote for our senators or even for the PM him/herself. members of each party decide on their leader. we vote for the candidate of our choice, the one with the most votes becomes an MP and they go to Ottawa to represent their constituents. the party with the largest number of seats/MPs form the government, the party leader becomes the PM. if more than 51% of the seats in the house of commons are held by the government then it is a majority government, meaning it does not need the support of the other parties to pass bills into law. if the government holds less then 50% it is known as a minority government. that means that the government needs the support of other political parties to pass bills into law. if the government puts forth a finance bill, and it is rejected then it is automatically considered a non-confidence vote. that means that the majority of the house of commons does not believe that the government can not effectively govern. when this happens the PM would go to the GG, and asks him/her dissolve parliament. if he/she feels that dissolving parliament is prudent then the government falls and an election is called. but, he/she also has the option of asking other parties if they feel they can govern together. in a minority government the opposition parties have more seats then the government. this is our third minority government in a row, no one is on the same page on anything. will an election just behind us it is believed that the GG will have little choice but to let a coalition government have a chance. such a government would have to adopt a policy of compromise and cooperation instead of full on war against the other side. it is perfect legal and perfectly democratic.

and yes, harper gets a hard-on whenever he thinks of bush. it is somewhat ironic seeing how harper will be totally F*C*ED by obama.

[Jess]

Now this is politics!!

I only follow Canadian politics sporadically. Didn't the former Prime Minister also receive a vote of no confidence, or has this prime minister now received two?

I thought Bush and the Canadian government were at odds after we started the War in Iraq and our leaders made some unwarranted statements regarding Canada and other governments that did not agree with us on the issue. There also were some divisions between the countries when the United States issued policies regarding Canadian cattle and Mad Cow disease.

This Prime Minister did "reach out" (or suck up, your preference) to the Americans and it was not always popular. I could be totally wrong, but I find all Parliamentary governments so interesting -- and probably a lot more representative than our two-party system. If anybody has the time or interest to provide me a little background on the prime minister, I would appreciate it.

Now Quebec has often been ignored, but at the same time a bit of a power broker, is that correct? Is it because of location and because it is partially French-speaking or is that only my limited knowledge?

I'm sorry to ask so many questions, but I am a political junkie.

[foxhunter]

the last PM (paul martin) had to dissolve parliament when his last budget bills did not get passed in the house. at that time, steven harper, jack layton and gilles decuppe all asked the then GG if they could form a coalition government. can you see the irony? back then the leader of the opposition (now the PM) wanted to take power without giving the Canadian electorate the opportunity to vote.

bush came hard on Canada (in terms of limiting trade) after we refused to part-take in the Iraq war. when bush made a speech thanking other countries for their support fighting terrorism Canada was not mentioned. soon after the famous "if you're not with us than you're with the terrorists" edict came down. the fact that we did and do partake in Afghanistan war meant nothing. around this time we had to deal with SARS, the soft-lumber tariffs (which are arguably illegal under the current NAFTA pact) and mad cow disease. it didn't help that we had a left-of-centre government and you had a conservative government.

you have to clarify your Quebec comments. basically Quebecor's want to preserve their language (which is different from France's french language) and cultural identity. some quebecor's want to separate (separatists) others do not (federalists). it has had the movement for decades and have came so close to separating. '95 was the last time Quebec had a referendum and they were this close to declaring independence.

[Drew]

yep, everyone supporting the Conservatives would like to forget about the Bloc/NDP/Conservative coalition they tried forming in 2004. Last I checked, the Bloc were still seperatists back then ....

and despite what people would like to think, a coalition government is not undemocratic and is perfectly legal. And when you consider the majority of canadians voted against the Conservatives, just for different parties, its hardly "stealing power" or "undemocratic" . Even without the term "coalition", they can still vote down anything he decides to introduce.

[Jess]

It seems like a coalition government would be more democratic, or at least more representative. Here, a candidate can receive 49 percent of the vote and his opponent receives 51 percent. The winner's gets all the marbles and the losers walks away with nothing. In a parliamentary government, the losing party gets something.