Canadian Federal Conservatives may trigger another election

[TheKwas]

Would anyone have an objection to Quebec becoming Canada's Scotland, really? That is what I'm wondering. I mean, it would pretty much reduce separatism down to a lunatic fringe, I'd think.

Many Canadians do object. Infact, during the 1995 referundum, the separatists were using the EU (and to a much lesser extent, the UK) as an example of how Quebec and the rest of Canada will remain formally 'associated', but many politicans and preimers refused to even consider negotiating such an economic association with Quebec, scaring more moderates to the No side.

[Ryan Thunder]

It's rather maddening how many ignorant fucktards seem to think that a coalition government is somehow a perversion of our system of government.

There's nothing wrong with a coalition government. It's happened before, and it will happen again.

The issue is that the parties it includes tend to be at odds with each other, and earlier in the year wouldn't have been caught dead in such an alliance.

If it weren't for that, I probably wouldn't care too much.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Would anyone have an objection to Quebec becoming Canada's Scotland, really? That is what I'm wondering. I mean, it would pretty much reduce separatism down to a lunatic fringe, I'd think.

Many Canadians do object. Infact, during the 1995 referundum, the separatists were using the EU (and to a much lesser extent, the UK) as an example of how Quebec and the rest of Canada will remain formally 'associated', but many politicans and preimers refused to even consider negotiating such an economic association with Quebec, scaring more moderates to the No side.

But how can the relationship of Scotland and the rest of the UK be considered in the same light as independence, that is the question I have? It seems to me that it was just a mutual reorganization of the State, and that there would be nothing treasonous about proposing that. If that became the Bloc's official goal, do you think there'd be a reduction in opposition to them?

[Sephirius]

Would anyone have an objection to Quebec becoming Canada's Scotland, really? That is what I'm wondering. I mean, it would pretty much reduce separatism down to a lunatic fringe, I'd think.

Please elaborate? If it's what I think you mean, not much chance of it happening, most of the traitors over there won't stop till it's Canada's Ireland

[Ekiqa]

Western separatism is simply a delusion that only some Albertans take seriously. The actual logistics of uniting provinces as unique as BC, Alberta, Saskatchwan and Manitoba makes the idea impossible. It was only a year and a half ago that two of the provinces in the west (Saskatchewan and Manitoba) were ran by the NDP.

The only reason there is an Alberta separatist party is because they think they are Texans in Alberta.

It's rather maddening how many ignorant fucktards seem to think that a coalition government is somehow a perversion of our system of government.

No bloody kidding. The Sun Newspaper here in Ottawa had a picture of the three opposition leaders on the cover with the words "NO" under each head (apparently, NO NO NO is some new sort of rally cry). The Sun is known for it's terrible journalism, but this seems like a new low for even them. A friend of mine commented that he's actually surprised that Canada is as progressive as it is considering how right-wing our media can be.

We have CTVglobemedia, being CTV/CityTV, and the Globe and Mail: right wing.
We have Canwest Global Communications, being Global, the National Pest, and lost of small papers: right wing.
And we have the CBC, which usually follows the government.

So there is basically two companies which control most of the media, and both are right-wing. The Sun is even more extreme right, owned by Quebecor media.

[Darth Wong]

It's rather maddening how many ignorant fucktards seem to think that a coalition government is somehow a perversion of our system of government.

There's nothing wrong with a coalition government. It's happened before, and it will happen again.

The issue is that the parties it includes tend to be at odds with each other, and earlier in the year wouldn't have been caught dead in such an alliance.

If it weren't for that, I probably wouldn't care too much.

Oh yeah, like there's no internal conflict between fiscal conservatives and religious fucktards in the Conservative party

Ruling parties or coalitions routinely have ideological differences; they are still legitimate ruling governments as long as they can work well enough together to function. And if this coalition can't, then it will break apart.

Admit it: you got caught buying right-wing bullshit hook, line, and sinker, and now you're trying to come up with a cover story to make yourself look like less of an idiot.

[TheKwas]

Would anyone have an objection to Quebec becoming Canada's Scotland, really? That is what I'm wondering. I mean, it would pretty much reduce separatism down to a lunatic fringe, I'd think.

Many Canadians do object. Infact, during the 1995 referundum, the separatists were using the EU (and to a much lesser extent, the UK) as an example of how Quebec and the rest of Canada will remain formally 'associated', but many politicans and preimers refused to even consider negotiating such an economic association with Quebec, scaring more moderates to the No side.

But how can the relationship of Scotland and the rest of the UK be considered in the same light as independence, that is the question I have? It seems to me that it was just a mutual reorganization of the State, and that there would be nothing treasonous about proposing that. If that became the Bloc's official goal, do you think there'd be a reduction in opposition to them?

Well because no one is really sure if it will be the same as Scotland's relationship to the UK. I admit that I don't really know how Scottish-British affairs work in-depth, but I think that 'Soverignity-Association' would be considered more 'independent' than Scotland's situation (according to a quick scan of Scotland on Wikipedia, Scotland isn't considered soverign) and probably closer to an EU relationship. However, even if it was the Scottish relationship that the Parti Quebecois were proposing, many other provinces would rebel against Quebec's special status and given the power/situation, may even refuse to cooperate with Quebec on such a basis forcing Quebec to move further towards independence than many Quebecers themselves want.

The details are murky in my mind at the moment, but there's 4 main interpretations of Canadian federalism in Canadian politics, and the Quebec wing (or parts of it?) of the Liberal party believes in a Federal relationship where Quebec is given special status in the federation, and that interpretation implemented alone has caused much outrage with other provinces. Granting them extra special provincial powers where they are essentially equal as the rest of the provinces combined in regards to the federal government would quadruple that outrage.


PS: Should we make a Quebec thread seperately? I feel guilty making big posts that relate little to the original topic.

[Ekiqa]

Oh yeah, like there's no internal conflict between fiscal conservatives and religious fucktards in the Conservative party

Ruling parties or coalitions routinely have ideological differences; they are still legitimate ruling governments as long as they can work well enough together to function. And if this coalition can't, then it will break apart.

Admit it: you got caught buying right-wing bullshit hook, line, and sinker, and now you're trying to come up with a cover story to make yourself look like less of an idiot.

There's also the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada is a merging of two seperate and ideologically different groups. The Reform Party and the old Progressive Conservative Party. It's kind of like the Republicans merging with the Democrats, in a way.

The fact that Harper doesn't let ANY minister make a speach without his approval can be seen as evidence that there is dissension and that he does not trust them.

[Ryan Thunder]

It's rather maddening how many ignorant fucktards seem to think that a coalition government is somehow a perversion of our system of government.

There's nothing wrong with a coalition government. It's happened before, and it will happen again.

The issue is that the parties it includes tend to be at odds with each other, and earlier in the year wouldn't have been caught dead in such an alliance.

If it weren't for that, I probably wouldn't care too much.

Oh yeah, like there's no internal conflict between fiscal conservatives and religious fucktards in the Conservative party

They made that merger and people voted for them when they merged, so there's no problem. Nobody voted for this coalition.

Ruling parties or coalitions routinely have ideological differences; they are still legitimate ruling governments as long as they can work well enough together to function. And if this coalition can't, then it will break apart.

In the meantime, however, nobody voted for an alliance of the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc, where parts of their platforms are going to be dropped entirely from their collective agenda. If they want to form a coalition government, people should vote for it.

Admit it: you got caught buying right-wing bullshit hook, line, and sinker, and now you're trying to come up with a cover story to make yourself look like less of an idiot.

Oh, for fucks sakes. No, I did not buy right-wing bullshit. I am opposed to a government coalition including the BQ, and don't think that Canadians would vote for a coalition including them the same way they would vote for the Bloc, NDP, and Liberals individually, or even the same way they would vote for an NDP-Liberal coalition.

That is all. If you wish to continue to delude yourself otherwise, that's your perogative.

[Solauren]

Duchess, let me explain what the B.Q want.

Basically, they want there own country, lock, stock and barrel. They would want full rights over the section of the Saint Lawerence River that runs through that province, and they want to set there own laws within the province, and to hell with the rest of the world.

That means that would not be bound by treaties signed by Canada, or anything else.

Furthermore, they want to take land with them that wasn't part of Quebec when they entered Canada in the first place. That land was given to them to run in the name of the Crown (Canada). Not 'here ya go, do whatever you want'. That's about 80% of the geographical area of the country. It's also a large part of Quebec (and to a lesser degree Canada's) economy.

Furthermore, when you look at the voting record of Quebec elections, it is rare, if ever, they win a province or federal seat with a true majority of the votes. They are usually the party with the most votes for a single party. i.e the B.Q gets 35% of the votes, the Liberals get 32%, the Conservatives get 31%, and the remaining 2% go to whoever.

So, basically, 35% of the province is voting B.Q, well the other 65% is not.

You also have all the First Nation reserves, which B.Q governments have shown no respect for, and that would not want anything to do with a 'Independent Quebec'.

The B.Q is also funded primarily by larger businesses, native to the province, but that don't like the restrictions the Government has put on them. i.e they can't clear cut huge expanses of forest, they have to replant what they cut down, they can't strip mine, etc.

Combine that with the fact the B.Q had assoications with the F.L.Q (Front deliberation d'Quebec), which commited terrorists acts (limited to stuff like mail box bombing and so forth, but still), and there only purpose in the government at the federal level is to cause problems, well, you start to get the idea.

The B.Q basically want to take one of the founding provinces of Canada (in fact, alot of the founding fathers were from Quebec), and have to leave, splitting the country in half (literally), and taking with them land and people that don't want to leave, and run it without rules to restrain them.

There political robber-barons, opprotunists, and in some cases, borderline traitors and terrorists.

That's what the problem with the B.Q is.

[Ryan Thunder]

<snip>

Not to be a prick, but do you have any sources for any of that? Other people have claimed they're similar to the NDP, and I'm not sure the NDP would be likely to condone clear-cutting forests and the like, see?

I'd believe it, but I just want to be sure I haven't got it wrong.

[Graeme Dice]

They made that merger and people voted for them when they merged, so there's no problem. Nobody voted for this coalition.

Yes, people _did_ vote for this coalition. You'll note that every single one of the members of it was voted into power.

In the meantime, however, nobody voted for an alliance of the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc, where parts of their platforms are going to be dropped entirely from their collective agenda. If they want to form a coalition government, people should vote for it.

I see. Did you do some marvelous, yet totally unreported polling to determine that this was the case? I'd love to see your results so that we can confirm that, iunlike what the election told us, less than half of the country wants the new coalition government to be in power. Giving power to the conservatives when nobody voted for them in sufficient numbers, and when no other party will work with them would be incredibly undemocratic.

Oh, for fucks sakes. No, I did not buy right-wing bullshit.

Then maybe you shouldn't be repeating Harper's talking points word for word.

I am opposed to a government coalition including the BQ, and don't think that Canadians would vote for a coalition including them the same way they would vote for the Bloc, NDP, and Liberals individually, or even the same way they would vote for an NDP-Liberal coalition.

The Bloc is not part of this coalition. You've been informed of this at least once before in this very thread.

[Solauren]

<snip>

Not to be a prick, but do you have any sources for any of that? Other people have claimed they're similar to the NDP, and I'm not sure the NDP would be likely to condone clear-cutting forests and the like, see?

I'd believe it, but I just want to be sure I haven't got it wrong.

Quebec Borders:
Please see a map of Canada as of 1867. You'll notice most of what is now Quebec was part of the Northwest Terroritories, and property of the English Crown. A little historical back checking will confirm the rest.

BQ Information;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois
Check out the 'Present Situtation' near the bottom. It clearly states there popularity level (38.1%), and that there goal was to prevent a majority government.

For voting records, go to Elections Canada

PQ (Provincal Level)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois

Seperatist movement information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_sov ... y_movement
Note that even former leaders say it's just a cover for Quebecs economic problems.


FLQ Information;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLQ

Now, the links to the FLQ are unconfirmed, but if you look at their Manifesto, and compare it to the political parties, well, you'd get the idea.

[Ryan Thunder]

I see. Did you do some marvelous, yet totally unreported polling to determine that this was the case? I'd love to see your results so that we can confirm that, iunlike what the election told us, less than half of the country wants the new coalition government to be in power. Giving power to the conservatives when nobody voted for them in sufficient numbers, and when no other party will work with them would be incredibly undemocratic.

It's funny, I didn't see a candidate running for the Liberal-NDP Coalition in my riding. I understand that it would be kind of hard for them to have done that, given that it didn't exist until last week or so.

The Bloc is not part of this coalition. You've been informed of this at least once before in this very thread.

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go have a long and heated talk with the generally trustworthy person who blithely informed me that the Bloc was in on this...

Oh, by the way, aren't they getting Senate positions for this?

[Ekiqa]

snip.

You're probably one of those idiots who thinks Harper was elected Prime Minister, as if we had special elections for that position, like in the US.

Harper was APPOINTED PM by the GG. NOT ELECTED PM. He was elected as an MP, for a Calgary riding. He happens to be the ruler of the party with the most seats. Therefore, by custom, he was APPOINTED to be Prime Minister. The GG can select whoever they want to be PM.

[Graeme Dice]

It's funny, I didn't see a candidate running for the Liberal-NDP Coalition in my riding. I understand that it would be kind of hard for them to have done that, given that it didn't exist until last week or so.

Are you at all aware of what you are voting for in a Westminster Parliamentary system? You are voting for a person who will represent you. That person may or may not be a member of a political party. That person is not obligated to remain with the same political party that they were affiliated with when you voted for them. You voted for your representative who then gets to decide what to support in the house. Voting for a coalition government is not necessary since the MPs have already been given the power to govern as they see fit.

[SCRawl]

It's funny, I didn't see a candidate running for the Liberal-NDP Coalition in my riding. I understand that it would be kind of hard for them to have done that, given that it didn't exist until last week or so.

Are you at all aware of what you are voting for in a Westminster Parliamentary system? You are voting for a person who will represent you. That person may or may not be a member of a political party. That person is not obligated to remain with the same political party that they were affiliated with when you voted for them. You voted for your representative who then gets to decide what to support in the house. Voting for a coalition government is not necessary since the MPs have already been given the power to govern as they see fit.

The fact is that we've become accustomed to our MPs being, for the most part, strictly affiliated with their party, especially during times of minority governments. They almost always vote (or choose to not vote) together, because their only real strength is in their numbers. I think that it's excusable that people think of their MPs as a party member first, since that's what they've become. This is not to say that they can't be educated about the reality, which is very much as you've already stated it.

[SCRawl]

No big surprise, but Parliament is going to be prorogued. I don't know about the rest of you, but I never heard that word before last week. Anyways, here's the story.

GG approves PM's request to suspend Parliament

Updated Thu. Dec. 4 2008 12:34 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean has approved Prime Minister Stephen Harper's request to suspend Parliament, agreeing to put the government on hold until the end of January.

Harper addressed the media at just before noon after about two-and-a-half hours of meetings at Rideau Hall.

"Following my advice, the Governor General has agreed to prorogue Parliament," Harper told reporters from the front steps of the building.

He said the decision reflects the will of Canadians.

"Last Friday I asked Canadians to give us their opinion on the parliamentary situation. That feedback has been overwhelming and very clear. They want Canada's government to continue to work on the agenda they voted for -- our plan to strengthen the economy."

Harper also said that when Parliament resumes, the first item on the agenda will be the presentation of the federal budget and he will spend his time working almost exclusively between now and then on the fiscal blueprint.

He opened the door to co-operating with the opposition parties on the budget, saying Canadians expect all parties "to get on with it."

"It's the opportunity to work in the next six weeks on these measures, and I invite all the opposition parties, especially those that have a responsibility to the whole of Canada, to work with us, to inform us of their detailed position and we will be there to listen," Harper said in French.

Harper was seeking a suspension of Parliament in order to avoid a confidence motion scheduled for Monday that would have likely toppled his government.

The Liberals and NDP have agreed to form a coalition, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, and have signaled their intention to bring down the government over the fiscal update that was introduced last week and would have come before Commons for a vote on Monday.

They had hoped Jean would deny the prorogation request and let the confidence motion go ahead. If it did, and the government fell, Jean would have to decide whether to send Canadians to the polls for another election, or grant the coalition the chance to win the confidence of the House of Commons and possibly take over government.

Jean returned home early from a central European tour on Wednesday to deal with the political crisis that has gripped the nation.

The decision Thursday followed a rare nationally televised address by Harper on Wednesday night.

In the five-minute pre-taped broadcast Harper said the opposition plans to oust his government and seize power would cripple the country's economy.

Harper also signaled he would be willing to work with the opposition parties in order to deliver an economic plan that will help Canada navigate perilous economic times.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion also took to the airwaves Wednesday, though only after a major delay that saw national networks filling time as they waited for the tape to arrive.

"Stephen Harper still refuses to propose measures to stimulate the Canadian economy," said Dion. "His mini-budget last week demonstrated that his priority is partisanship and settling ideological scores.

The NDP's Jack Layton said Wednesday that the Conservatives have been wasting time with partisan politics instead of dealing with the economy.

"Stephen Harper simply refused to act," he said, adding the Conservatives also attacked the rights of workers and women.

The opposition began to cobble together their coalition after the Tories proposed last week to cut public funding for political parties as a part of their fall economic update.

The update also lacked a sufficient stimulus package, the opposition has said.

I realize that this whole "time out" business is just a chance for the Conservatives to whip up public sentiment against the coalition, and I think that it will be pointless in the end. I do say, however, that no matter what I personally think about the tactic, I'm glad that the GG followed the "advice" of the PM and rubber-stamped the approval.

[TheKwas]

Duchess, let me explain what the B.Q want.

Basically, they want there own country, lock, stock and barrel.

That's a gross oversimplification of sovereignty-association. Furthermore, the Bloc are even operating at the level where they would have juridiction to call for a referundum. Any separatist referenudum would have to be brought forth by a provincial party like the PQ or Action democratic party.

Also, the Bloc are not a single-issue party, and they don't even MENTION separatism in their campaign materials for the 2008 election (check out their election dossiers if you want). Like others have said, they are essentially Quebec's own NDP.

Furthermore, when you look at the voting record of Quebec elections, it is rare, if ever, they win a province or federal seat with a true majority of the votes. They are usually the party with the most votes for a single party. i.e the B.Q gets 35% of the votes, the Liberals get 32%, the Conservatives get 31%, and the remaining 2% go to whoever.

Which is common in ALL seat elections.

The B.Q is also funded primarily by larger businesses, native to the province, but that don't like the restrictions the Government has put on them. i.e they can't clear cut huge expanses of forest, they have to replant what they cut down, they can't strip mine, etc.

Source? The Bloc is largely supported by Quebec's unions, and furthermore I don't think that the Bloc have much say on internal Quebec affairs.

Combine that with the fact the B.Q had assoications with the F.L.Q (Front deliberation d'Quebec), which commited terrorists acts (limited to stuff like mail box bombing and so forth, but still), and there only purpose in the government at the federal level is to cause problems, well, you start to get the idea.

Really? You're going to be bring up "guilt by association" where the association is mostly hearsay? You're a retard. Palin had a better case with the Bill Ayers-Barack Obama association. Your own link doesn't mention any connections between the FLQ. The Bloc wasn't even formed until 20 years after the death of the FLQ, but I doubt you knew that because apparently you don't understand that the BQ and the PQ are two different parties. However, even the PQ denouced the FLQ's activities while they were active.

Note that even former leaders say it's just a cover for Quebecs economic problems.

Quote the part of the article that actually says this, I can't find it.

[Ryan Thunder]

It's funny, I didn't see a candidate running for the Liberal-NDP Coalition in my riding. I understand that it would be kind of hard for them to have done that, given that it didn't exist until last week or so.

Are you at all aware of what you are voting for in a Westminster Parliamentary system? You are voting for a person who will represent you. That person may or may not be a member of a political party. That person is not obligated to remain with the same political party that they were affiliated with when you voted for them. You voted for your representative who then gets to decide what to support in the house. Voting for a coalition government is not necessary since the MPs have already been given the power to govern as they see fit.

Ideally, yes. But that only works if the representatives are independent of political parties, does it not? The political parties end up dictating policy to their members. Thus, if there is a change of party, you can probably expect a change of policy, and that policy may be one that people do not wish to support.

This is why I think they should run in an election as a coalition if they want the benefits thereof. They should communicate their platform to the public, and allow the public to judge it.

[SCRawl]

This is why I think they should run in an election as a coalition if they want the benefits thereof. They should communicate their platform to the public, and allow the public to judge it.

You've made it quite clear that that's how you see the situation. I would submit to you, though, that that's simply not how our parliamentary democracy needs to work; your insistence that it should has little bearing on the reality.

[TheKwas]

You are also an idiot. The conservatives didn't run on a platform of party funding cuts or eliminating Union's right to strike, yet it's perfectly ok if they bring forth such legislation because they were elected to do what they see is right. At the same time, no one elected the Liberals expecting them to cooperate with the NDP, but it's perfectly alright if they do because they were elected to do what they see is right. By your logic, people may not want to support Harper's economic update because they never voted for it, and therefore Harper should go to another election with the economic update in his platform to make sure the people like his economic update.

Election platforms are never intended to give the voters the big picture of what to expect, as they focus almost always on short-term issues that a government could achieve in a few months.

Again, coalition governments and this sort of cooperation between parties is the NORM for parliamentary democracies. Even in Canada, parties will often compromise with each other to pass certain legislation, and such compromise is generally wanted by the population (normally called bi-partisan). This coalition is nothing but a formal compromise between three parties.

[TheKwas]

EDIT: Reponse to Ryan Thunder obviously. I don't know how SCRawl got in between us.

[Ryan Thunder]

I guess its moot, because this obviously won't work the way I figured it would.

Nevertheless, I don't see the similarity between your example of two parties voting together on a bill that they both want passed, and two parties signing an agreement to merge their vote count after the election has already passed so they can form the federal government and install Bloc Quebecois and NDP party members into the Senate.

In one case, they're working together because they happen to agree on an issue. In the other case, they're forming their own party with its own platform and its own stance on issues. If they aren't going to be united on platform issues, why are they acting as a single party?

You are also an idiot.

Yeah, I love you, too.

[Fiji_Fury]

I'm disappointed at the GG proroguing parliament. I can't say the idea of a coalition government inspires me with the utmost confidence, but I'd rather see it tried than live with more of the Conservative Party drivel with Stephen Harper at the helm. In the meantime, the GG gave the thumbs up for Harper to avoid a DEMOCRATIC VOTE IN PARLIAMENT. I do not think it is appropriate and am completely unsurprised that Harper wanted it this way (at least since his bungle which encouraged the Liberals and NDP to formally plan for a coalition to topple his goverment).