Canadian Government Crisis

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I think it is time to close the Canadian Election thread and put all the flap over the current Parliamentary kerfuffle here.

In about a quarter of an hour, the Prime Minister is going to the people in a TV broadcast in response the the so-called coalition of the left.

I have always felt that the Bloc Quebecois consists of a set of traitors descended from terrorists (FLQ) who are totally devoted to destroying the country.  This is sedition, and should be handled accordingly.  All their seats should be vacated, the party declared illegal and by=elections called.  All BQ members should be charged with sedition.  After the statement he made today that a weaker Canadian government is ideal for the PQ, M. Parizeau should be treated likewise.

The Liberals should remember that when you sup with the devil, you need a long spoon.  Getting in bed with the NDP shows the true, socialist colors of the Liberal Party.  Also, this power play is a means to sieze power without the consent of the electorate.

Anyone who can't stomach the Conservatives should vote for the Green Party (the party of "none of the above").

I am not a rabid Conservative, but I do insist on having something to say about who the members of the government are.  I think another election is the only real answer, and not in 18 months, but right after the new year.

[nihonkaranws 88]

Damn right. Things look good, in my opinion (for now)...

[s.i.X 13]

His voice was so calm, I expected at any moment for him to turn a bit and say "Now, let's paint a happy little bush."

People have to understand that in a parliamentary system, we don't elect the government. We elect 308 members to a parliament, to represent 308 parts of the country, and within that parliament, those members work together in groups to get things done. The Governor General, on behalf of the Queen, appoints the Prime Minister and governing party, which is typically the party with the largest share of seats in the house and its leader. This is why the Conservatives, while not having a majority in the house, formed a government.

Should the government make up less than half of the seats, and should the opposition to the government form a larger share of parliament than the government itself, in the success of a vote of no confidence, one of two things can happen: The Governor General can call an election, or the Opposition can approach the Governor General, saying that it is willing to work together to form a government, and she will appoint them to form a government. This is how our Parliament works, and this is what happened in Parliament in 1925 and similar to what happened in Ontario in 1985.

[torontotransit 2]

If Harper wanted to save his government, he definitely should have tried to reach across to the Liberal MP's who were in doubt. He didn't do this, all he did was repeat how it was undemocratic and will threaten national unity. Also, all his "separatists" comments will hurt the conservatives in the next election (whenever that may be). Then again, Dion couldn't even get his tape delivered, which doesn't sound good for the guy who's supposed to become the Prime Minister. They probably should have let Jack Layton address the nation on behalf of the coalition, as he is much more charismatic and liked.

[spa 970]

This demonizing of the Bloc is getting a bit much. Yes they're a separtist party but they are the duly elected representatives of a large portion of Quebeckers. They deserve to have their voice heard, no matter that many English Canadians disagree. That is their right. Harpers bantering about separatist is a huge red herring and smacks of hypocrisy. For one, Harper won't go after the Bloc in French because that would do him harm in Quebec (say one thing in French and another in English, what is that?). Plus Harper wasn't above approaching the Bloc to try and get Martin out. In the proposed coalition, the Bloc isn't even a member! All the Bloc has promised is to support confidence motions, sight unseen at that. That's pretty passive and not any different from the times they've come to Harper's rescue in the past. The Bloc will have the same number of seats as before, i.e. no more veto power then they do now since there are still 3 federalist parties that together make up a majority of the House. 

Playing the separtist card is a game Harper knows well, mindless fear mongering. The sooner he's gone the better. I would even be happy if the Conservatives stayed on with someone like Jim Prentice at the helm, but Harper is a thug in a suit and he needs to go. His fighting tooth and nail is not only making for a political impasse, but is threatening to become a bigger constitutional issue and could spark a national unity crisis (his separtist rhetoric sets up English vs French all over again). He needs to be a statesman, face the house and accept the result gracefully.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

I have always felt that the Bloc Quebecois consists of a set of traitors descended from terrorists (FLQ) who are totally devoted to destroying the country.  This is sedition, and should be handled accordingly.  All their seats should be vacated, the party declared illegal and by=elections called.  All BQ members should be charged with sedition.  After the statement he made today that a weaker Canadian government is ideal for the PQ, M. Parizeau should be treated likewise.quote>

The Bloc was founded by members of parliament in 1990. Their members have absolutely no connections to the FLQ and it's a little disturbing that that comparison was made. The Bloc is interested in democratically protecting Quebec's interests on the national stage and ultimately, achieving independence via referendum. The FLQ made mailbox bombs.

Also, this power play is a means to sieze power without the consent of the electorate.quote>

In this case consent of the electorate is not needed. s.i.X described it perfectly in his post... we elect members into parliament yes but the government can fluctuate between elections. This is entirely constitutional.

As well, I think we're forgetting that all three of thse parties will have had to make concessions with each other in order for this coalition to work. For the Bloc? Obviously seperation isn't gonna be anywhere near the table. I'm not too concerned about anything happening on that front.

[your_adress_here 11]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

I have always felt that the Bloc Quebecois consists of a set of traitors descended from terrorists (FLQ) who are totally devoted to destroying the country.  This is sedition, and should be handled accordingly.  All their seats should be vacated, the party declared illegal and by=elections called.  All BQ members should be charged with sedition.

quote>

Wow...

[Meg 368]

First off, I’d like to thank s.i.X for his explanation as to how the system works.  That filled in a few missing pieces.

Originally posted by: your_adress_here

 

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

I have always felt that the Bloc Quebecois consists of a set of traitors descended from terrorists (FLQ) who are totally devoted to destroying the country.  This is sedition, and should be handled accordingly.  All their seats should be vacated, the party declared illegal and by=elections called.  All BQ members should be charged with sedition.

quote>

Wow...quote>

Yeah . . . those are rather intense words.  I won’t pretend that I know all of the issues here but, as I understand it, the Bloc Quebecois is a legitimate, elected party seeking a democratic solution to it’s concerns.  Let’s not talk about terrorists unless terrorists are actually involved now.

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

I have always felt that the Bloc Quebecois consists of a set of traitors descended from terrorists (FLQ) who are totally devoted to destroying the country.  This is sedition, and should be handled accordingly.  All their seats should be vacated, the party declared illegal and by=elections called.  All BQ members should be charged with sedition.  After the statement he made today that a weaker Canadian government is ideal for the PQ, M. Parizeau should be treated likewise.quote>

Wait... is sedition actually illegal in Canada?

It's protected under the first amendment (freedom of speech) down here.

No party can be declared "illegal" in the US, ether (right to peacefully assemble, also the first amendment).

Then again, we're not a parliamentary democracy. Parties are strictly superficial here. They have no actual legal definition nor are they granted any power under the constitution. It's the individual politicians that, legally speaking, have the power, not their party. There's no requirement that they belong to a party, either.

Different from a parliamentary system where you vote for the party, not the person.

I can understand how in that kind of system you'd have to have a party be "approved".

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Wait... is sedition actually illegal in Canada? quote>

From what I can tell, yeah. I just did a quick look on wikipedia though so I could be wrong.

No party can be declared "illegal" in the US, ether (right to peacefully assemble, also the first amendment).

Then again, we're not a parliamentary democracy. Parties are strictly superficial here. They have no actual legal definition nor are they granted any power under the constitution. It's the individual politicians that, legally speaking, have the power, not their party. There's no requirement that they belong to a party, either.

Different from a parliamentary system where you vote for the party, not the person.

I can understand how in that kind of system you'd have to have a party be "approved".quote>

We have independents that run here as well. I also don't think we have really any "rules" on what can be a political party, so long as they don't promote hate and that kind of thing.

[Zelgadis 638]

Okay, I've only been in this country for three years, but I've lived in countries with parliamentary democracies for more than six. I'm pretty sure I know what's going on.

1) Mr. Harper calls the opposition move "undemocratic." It's perfectly democratic! The same thing happens all the time in parliaments all over the world. I guess the opposition parties here just don't get along well enough to work together once in awhile. (Until now, at least.) In a sense, it's more democratic than the government we have now. The new coalition would represent more than 50% of Canadian voters, whereas the previous Conservative minority government did not.

2) The Bloc is separatist. Yeah, so what? It's their right to be. But I also observe that not 100% of the BQ voters are separatist. So the BQ is clearly representing other interests. I wouldn't be averse to giving the BQ some power and giving Quebec some more autonomy. Might be just what will make most people happy there. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. But it's clear that they're representing the interests of their people. And it's a lot of people.

3) Mr. Harper says the coalition will "destroy Canada." This is pure, unadulterated fearmongering. Oh, I lived through a good deal of this kind of thing, believe me. Destroy Canada? Seriously, this is not a country that appears to be going to pieces or is on the brink of a civil war or anything. Look at Thailand if you want to see a country that's going to pieces right now. Big difference.

I'm all for coalition governments! Particularly since the Liberal Party is a little too right wing for me and the NDP is a little too left wing for me. Having them as a coalition will put them exactly where I want them to be!

ISF

[your_adress_here 11]

As someone living in Québec I can say that the Bloc certainly is important. Without living in this province you can't really realize how many people there are that have their values represented by the Bloc. Are you trying to say that because some people have different values and different opinions and ways of life, they should not be represented in the country they live in? Most people in Quebec don't want to separate. People are smart enough to know it would just bring a lot of problems. This is especially present in the younger generations, I find. I believe that in a few years once this generation is an important factor at the polls, you will see a sharp decline in support for separatism.

The Bloc doesn't share everyone's views, however. This is why we have democracy. So that people can vote for the party that they like best, or they can run themselves as an independent. That's what being in a free country is. Freedom won't always make everyone happy. But we have to be able to accept that other people are allowed their freedoms just as you are.

Edit: I agree with Zel. A coalition government (if they can't work things out and get along) will be nice since it will represent many different views.

And also, from what I've heard the coalition will only be voting on economic issues together. For other issues, things will go about as usual.

[Haljackey 17,398]

Whatever happens, I just hope democracy survives.

If Harper got away with taking away funding to political parties, no one would have the resources to run against him.  Elections cost money, just look at the amount poured into the McCain/Obama US election! 

-Our very way of life could have very well changed right there and them if Harper had a majority.  What's more, he didn't even mention anything about it in his address to the public!

I'm a little angered with the whole situation, just like pretty much every Canadian.  I did not like how Harper bashed the BQ in his address, they are fairly elected representatives and should be treated as so, even it they have separatist agendas.

The Governor General should not "freeze" parliament, we need it working during this economic crisis.  Either form a coalition or send us back the polls so we can make up our minds now that we have seen the dark side of Harper.

Best,

-Haljackey

[Ntq€310 1]

ok i just heard about this, but am still very confused on the whole situation. Can someone please explain it too me?

[hyped_up_boy 15]

Put simply, Prime Minister Harper revealed his financial plan, none of the other parties agreed with it (especially the part about removing public funding for the parties), so they decided to form a coalition to topple the Conservatives from power.

The Governor General decided to prorogue Parliament until January, by the way, so no more confidence vote.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Ntq€310 1]

hmmm so the other parties want to overtake the goverment, or impeach him per say?

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

hmmm so the other parties want to overtake the goverment, or impeach him per say?quote>

It seems to be that kind of thing.

The difference is, the USA elects and impeaches individuals.   They seem to be electing and impeaching the whole party.

If I understand it correctly.

[your_adress_here 11]

Well, Parliament has been suspended until January.

It's gonna be an interesting January for North American politics, to say the least.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: beebs

Originally posted by: Duke87

Wait... is sedition actually illegal in Canada? quote>

From what I can tell, yeah. I just did a quick look on wikipedia though so I could be wrong.

quote>

I think you'll find sedition in the section on Treason.  As I recall, it is the first sectioin of the Criminal Code of Canada.  Treason can only be charged in cases having to do with the sovereign or her representative (the GG).

---

Nothing like a little inflamatory rhetoric to stir things up, eh?  My point was, as usuaol, an extreme position to see if I could get some knees to jerk.

I do, however, have a problem with a party that only represents one province.  If the Bloc wants to represent Quebec only, they should then refrain from voting on anything that does not affect that province.

Well, the opposition threatened to kill the government, and the reply was "Cool off for a few weeks, you guys."  Maybe they can work things out more amicably after they get their Christmas presents. 

Mr. Dion is unlikely to ever move from Stornaway to 24 Sussex Drive, especially after his total flop with his tape.  He should fire his media advisors and see if Uncle Jack can give him somebody from his team.  Simple is better than late and stupid.  It is too bad that Mr. Dion's English is as worse than Mr. Chretien's.

I suspect that a pea or two will be detected under the "coalition's" mattress.  Rabid socialists and slightly left of centre moderates make unlikely bedfellows.  Layton and Co. will jump ship the first time the Liberals don't ask how high on the way up.

Under the agreement of yesterday (day before?), the Bloc can yank the keel off the ship any time they want, notwithstanding whatever is in their "agreement".  We all know how political facts can become inoperative (Mr. Nixon's grammar, I believe).

I expect that considerable consultation with the opposition will occur in the next siz weeks.  Don't hold your breath.

[torontotransit 2]

I find it very frustrating how the Prime Minister took a 6-vehicle convoy LITERALLY accross the street to the governor-General's house. He did this to dissolve Parliament too. I know its a little detail, but it represents his disregard. Can someone tell me if this is regular practice, I mean Paul Martin simply walked?

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Originally posted by: beebs

Originally posted by: Duke87

Wait... is sedition actually illegal in Canada? quote>

From what I can tell, yeah. I just did a quick look on wikipedia though so I could be wrong.

quote>

I think you'll find sedition in the section on Treason.  As I recall, it is the first sectioin of the Criminal Code of Canada.  Treason can only be charged in cases having to do with the sovereign or her representative (the GG).quote>

Wow that's heavy, a big part of our national and federal parties would be illegal over there 

Only secession is considered high treason under the spanish constitution, and it happened several times

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

hmmm so the other parties want to overtake the goverment, or impeach him per say?quote>

It seems to be that kind of thing.

The difference is, the USA elects and impeaches individuals.   They seem to be electing and impeaching the whole party.

If I understand it correctly.quote>

Kinda sorta but not really. Impeaching would remove said person from their place in congress, etc. entirely (as I understand it). Whats going on here with the opposition parties would just be the Liberals and NDP trading places with the Conservatives in the HoC.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: beebs

 

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

hmmm so the other parties want to overtake the goverment, or impeach him per say?quote>

It seems to be that kind of thing.

The difference is, the USA elects and impeaches individuals.   They seem to be electing and impeaching the whole party.

If I understand it correctly.quote>

Kinda sorta but not really. Impeaching would remove said person from their place in congress, etc. entirely (as I understand it). Whats going on here with the opposition parties would just be the Liberals and NDP trading places with the Conservatives in the HoC.quote>

Okay . . . 

So there is the party in charge (aka, "the government" according to s.i.X's earlier post) and there are the opposition parties.  and the idea here is they play musical chairs and switch places.

One of the things getting in my way is that I have a (apparently surprisingly rare) view of what "the opposition" means.   Silly me, I think that the opposition is al Qaida, the Taliban, and all of those other extremists group that are trying to impose their extremists views on the rest of us.  But Americans, and apparently Canadians too, seem to spend a lot of time squabbling amongst themselves.

I know, I can be weirdly idealistic at times.  

[mightymightychatham 0]

I assume it's similar to or the same as our system in Australia.  We elect our local representatives, who may be party members or independant.  Once everyone is elected, whoever has the majority of seats in the house takes government (because, of course, any motions or laws can be passed by their majority).

What is happening here, if I am right, is this new coalition that has banded together now outnumbers the government's seats and has majority seats in the house.  So nobody is being impeached or fired, but the government has lost their legislative power by losing control of the house.

Any Canadians may correct me, of course!

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: mightymightychatham I assume it's similar to or the same as our system in Australia.  We elect our local representatives, who may be party members or independant.  Once everyone is elected, whoever has the majority of seats in the house takes government (because, of course, any motions or laws can be passed by their majority).

What is happening here, if I am right, is this new coalition that has banded together now outnumbers the government's seats and has majority seats in the house.  So nobody is being impeached or fired, but the government has lost their legislative power by losing control of the house.

Any Canadians may correct me, of course!quote>

Yup, you got it exactly right!

I'm really sick to my stomach right now over the actions of the GG.  I really want to hear the explanation for this.  But she's keeping maddeningly silent so far as I know right now.  This is not how a democracy is supposed to work!  The citizenry demands an explanation for such major decisions, GG!

So...  Now we have no active parliament for the next seven weeks.  That's seven more weeks of doing nothing while the economy goes in the crapper.  Fantastic.  Thanks a lot, government.

ISF

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: mightymightychatham

. . . Once everyone is elected, whoever has the majority of seats in the house takes government (because, of course, any motions or laws can be passed by their majority).

What is happening here, if I am right, is this new coalition that has banded together now outnumbers the government's seats and has majority seats in the house.  So nobody is being impeached or fired, but the government has lost their legislative power by losing control of the house.quote>

So, the "government" is the elected representatives of the party in power.  But other elected representatives are not "government".

I know it's just a terminology thing but if elected representatives are not government, what are they?

Guess I'm just used to the "government" being the whole bunch, regardless of party . . .

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: SkiGeekSo, the "government" is the elected representatives of the party in power.  But other elected representatives are not "government".

I know it's just a terminology thing but if elected representatives are not government, what are they?quote>

They are the opposition to the government, more commonly known as the Opposition Parties. The party with the most seats among the opposition are called the Official Opposition Party.

[person 0]

As a Canadian and Conservative supporter I think that the Liberals and the NDP should wait and see how Harper fixes things instead of being power hungry.

and has for the QB party didn't they want to break off and form there own county? if so why don't they

[mightymightychatham 0]

A similar, yet different, crisis happened in Australia in 1975, known infamously as "The Dismissal".  The Governor General dismissed the Prime Minister and invested the Opposition Leader as the new Prime Minister, who immediately called an election, which his party won.

It's definitely worth a read in the context of this crisis, but be warned: it's very, very complicated and could melt your brain!

The_Dismissal