Are Canadians falling into the Obama trap?
Like most of you, I begin each day with an assessment of the situation in Canada and troubling it is to those who follow constitutional issues north of the border.
(For anyone who has not been concentrating, the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, battling to stay in power, has persuaded the country's acting head of state to suspend Parliament so he can avoid being ousted by opposition parties next week. There is talk of coups and separatist plots.)
Although the Canadian detail is fascinating almost to the point of ecstasy, the thing that caught my eye was the last line of this piece, which gives an indication of the trap that awaits all western democratic leaders and electors in the coming years.
It is the Obama trap - the approach that looks at the panting, sated Americans and says, "boy I'd like some of what they've had!"
Barack Obama is unique and uniquely American - those British MPs I was talking to the other day understood that, but electorates might not.
One of the effects of the Obama phenomenon might be a reduction in respect for the institutions (for instance parliaments and parliamentary government) and for the dullness that is perfectly respectable in political life in the free world.
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~09~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
For once I agree with Mr. Webb. The Canadian pickle is indeed "fascinating almost to the point of ecstasy." One especially interesting aspect is to learn of the Governor General, about whom I have never heard before. She is nominally head of state, and even commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but in practice appears to be only the PMs valet.
As a US citizen, it's none of my business, but I'll offer some neighborly advice anyway. If you do decide to do away with that quaint office, consider replacing it with a president along the lines of the French model. You certainly don't want a system like ours, and leaving all power in the hands of parliament is only what you have today.
Complain about this comment
""I think there's a yearning amongst Canadians for an Obama-like figure who can unify them as opposed to divide them," said Thomas."
Well as nearly half of voters rejected Obama I am not sure quite how unifying he is. We'll need to wait and see until he actually takes office and has to do something as to how much of a uniter he is.
Complain about this comment
I hate to be so ignorant of the ways of our neighbors to the north practice... but Im a little confused as to what is going on here.
Could someone please explain what is happening? In rhyme?
Or in the style of an Icelandic viking saga?
That would make my day. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Ignoring Schwerpunkt and concentrating on the Canadian issue I'm fascinated to know what the BQ expect to get out of this coalition deal? I noticed in the Toronto Sun article that the Liberal and ND supporters appeared to ignore the BQ all together.
I hope the Governor General has the guts to insist on a new election, then everyone can see just how popular this notion is with ordinary voters.
Complain about this comment
"One of the effects of the Obama phenomenon might be a reduction in respect for the institutions (for instance parliaments and parliamentary government) and for the dullness that is perfectly respectable in political life in the free world."
Hmm... I wouldn't have identified our last election as representing a reduction in respect for our institutions. The high voter turnout would seem to indicate the opposite. The fact that we cast aside racism (the whole country, yes, including Republicans) would also indicate a increased respect for our institutions and ideals.
Obama's election was not revolutionary. All of the instruments of American government are still in place and unchanged. And there's still an active and vocal opposition.
I find it interesting that the rest of the world sees it otherwise. Is this universal?
Complain about this comment
OK I'll be the first to say it.
Canada, eh?
Justin's first line is a laugh. We all know he's only just found out that Canada is part of North america. If he just read this blog once in a while he may have found out earlier.
The situation in the north certainly has a je ne saids quoit! It will be interesting to see how it pans out. Having the GG make such a decision will bring out the anti-monarchists again (and the French speaking ones are already out).
Complain about this comment
AsaScot asks what the BQ will get out of the deal.
The BQ are not part of the coalition, but have pledged support for it for 18 months. They would not be part of the government, but would not vote against the government on matters of confidence (for example, the Budget).
The Conservative government's fiscal update of last week would roll back pay equity (thereby attacking women), remove the right of public sector unions to strike, and cut public funding to political parties (which would seriously hinder the BQ as most of its funding comes from this subsidy). Nothing the Conservatives were offering would be good for Quebeckers.
The coalition's proposal, however, would be far better for Quebec. Their plan includes an economic stimulus package, which would help several sectors (manufacturing, forestry) that are suffering due to the economic crisis. Quebeckers would definitely benefit from this.
The BQ may unfortunately be sovereigntists, but they could never be accused of being bad Members of Parliament. They are simply doing what is best for their constituents by supporting a better deal than what the Conservatives have offered. Plus, Harper has repeatedly insulted them in the House of Commons debates in the last few days - it is doubtful that he could ever regain their support.
Complain about this comment
#3 Here's an effort
Woe betide he who,
doth betray those conservative muddlers whom he hath and doth serve
when compromis'd o' fear from
the joinder of liberal sloth
which does sully the pure and drivel thence
Rising in ire from dark corners lurking
the majority may dispell him from his seat on high who doth serve at the pleasure of the people and civil war results
With friends like these who needs enemies
Complain about this comment
Obama was mostly style, little substance. Sadly, that goes over all too well in many places.
Still, while Harper and the Cons got the most seats of any party, the swing from the past election had about as many people going leftwards towards the NDP and Greens than towards the right. A lot of the mess is Harper's fault, and getting hitched to Bush hasn't helped him. But, Dion hasn't done much that I know of that's that inspiring. Plus, the Liberals still have the bad reputation from the sponsorship scandal a few years back.
And, while I hate to plug a non-BBC resource, you can watch CBC's "The National" online for free, no matter where you are, tonight after 10 PM Eastern (US/Canada) Time (3 AM GMT, half an hour later in Newfoundland.)
Their website is:
http://www.cbc.ca/national/latestbroadcast.html
(Oh, BBC? Can you post CBC's documentary "Planet of The Doctor" on your Doctor Who or YouTube pages? It's too great to get forgotten.)
PS I'm not Canadian...
Complain about this comment
#7 jooseph:
"They are simply doing what is best for their constituents by supporting a better deal than what the Conservatives have offered. Plus, Harper has repeatedly insulted them in the House of Commons debates in the last few days - it is doubtful that he could ever regain their support."
So basically the've sold themselves to the highest bidder? Nice. I am a Scot but I have no time for these petty nationalists like the BQ or our own SNP. Hopefully another election will eliminate the need for the government of Canada to bend over backwards to placate them.
Complain about this comment
Responding to Gary Hill. There advantages of having a non-partisan and largely ceremonial Head of State. For one it means that you don't have the problem of being accused of being unpartiotic for not supporting the Head of State. Also the Head of State can act is effectively a neutral arbitor during (very rare) Constitutional crisis.
To answer the biologist's question. Canada is a Westminster style Parliamentary democracy. This means that we each voter for a member of parliament (similar to a member of House of Representative). Typically the largest party forms the government. In the case of a minority Parliament (where one party does not have all the seats) it means one party holds executive (cabinet positions). These positions are held by Members of Parliament. One of which is the PM. In order to maintain the government. The party in power must maintain confidence of the house. This means they must get a majority of votes on matters of confidence (budget and financial bills, the thrown speech and anything declared to be confidence).
Failing a confidence vote usually results in an election being called by the Governor General at the request of the Prime Minister. However in the event there was an election recently the Governor General can ask another party form a government (in which case they to must pass a confidence vote)
A few interesting notes about British based Parliamentary system. In generally affords way more power to the Prime Minister than a President in the US system (particular if the PM commands a majority Parliament). But interestingly enough around the world there have been fewer major civil wars/revolutions etc in countries with Parliamentary systems. Maybe because the divide between Leg and Exec is not as explicit less overall tensions between the two parts of the government.
Complain about this comment
Further to #6, I second the request for an edit option on posts made. I have to confess to a poor ability to type and even a spell-checker doesn't help if you are trying to show off the full scope of your foreign language abilities. As I keep saying to my sons, check your work before submitting it!
Complain about this comment
Mr. Webb once again demonstrates his limited understanding of...well, everything.
Obama is miles from a "unifying character" - he could hardly fail to polarize the south against him. Obama won because minorities saw a chance to actually be represented, and thus for the first time since Kennedy, voted in large numbers.
Additionally, as a Canadian I assure you that "some of what they have" is the very last thing we want. We would sooner have an italian-style ineffectual coalition government than end up with the half-baked, polarizing two party system the US seems to love so much. All the on-paper checks and balances in the world don't mean a damn thing when you have an all powerful executive branch. The only thing that kept the republican party from destroying centuries worth of social progress in the last 8 years was that the US supreme court had 5 Justices who could be counted on to strike down the really ridiculous legislation.
There also seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about the role of our Governor-General. She had no other palatable option but to grant Harper's request to prorogue Parliament - he has not yet lost a confidence vote, thus, to do so would invite accusations of a political leaning or motivation - which would be entirely inappropriate. She is obligated to listen to the advice of the sitting Prime Minister, which she did.
IF, however, Mr. Harper loses a confidence motion - it is her job to ensure we have an effective government in parliament. As such, she will be obligated to ask the coalition parties if they can form a government - which they can, as long as the Bloc supports them. At that point, the entirely unacceptable Stéphane Dion would become the head of an inherently unstable government with barely enough seats to pass a bill. Most likely we'd be back to polls long before the Bloc's 18 month "mandate" was up anyway.
And to think, we could be actually resolving this economic "crisis" (our economy has fared the best of the G8 as my understanding has it) instead of arguing about the constitutional correctness of an entirely legal move by the P.M...
BBC, find a new North America editor already - maybe, you know, an actual North American?
Complain about this comment
What is REALLY interesting to me is that Michaelle Jean, the Governor General of Canada, and the Queen's representive (ie: decision maker) is a black woman.Why were we not told, and no-one in the UK has heard of her?
Also, the QB is a a minority, factionalising party...they will always jump on any bandwagon that destabilises the status quo to gain a tiny advantage, as we have found in the UK, with the Scottish National Party, and most Northern Ireland Parties. I just bet they are loving this bit of fake power/glory.
But that Michaelle is a black woman. Why didn't we know? How cool, almost a black queen!
Complain about this comment
Mr Obama is a highly attractive candidate and would be appealing to many outside the US
However Justin if you were to ask British, Australian, Canadian voters woud they like to have an 10 month long electoral camapign,costing billions, much of it wasted only to elect a man who, in theory, could have a hostile legislature virtually paralysing his every move -I think the answer would be pretty robust.
Complain about this comment
Our Governor General is an interesting lady. She's actually Haitian in origin and I believe her first language is french - so Her Majesty's representative in Canada is francophone!
Complain about this comment
What is happening in Canada is not an indication of a disregard for the institution of Parliament. Quite the contrary - it is a positive attempt to use the institution to prevent an irresponsible and arrogant Prime Minister from succeeding. If anything, the leadership of Prime Minister Harper is very similar to that of President George Bush. Mr. Harper has spent most of his time in power disrespecting and disregarding Canadian institutions, values and priorities. The fact that our opposition parties could come to an agreement and in such a short period of time, in order to end the "reign" of Mr. Harper is uniquely Canadian. Canadians are well-known and very proud of their ability to compromise and work together for the benefit of the nation. This is something that the Liberal and New Democratic parties have succeeded in doing. And as for Mr. Harper's attempt to scuttle the agreement by using the Bloc Quebecois (political party advocating the separation of the province of Quebec) is a cheap attempt to divert attention and make the issue about Canadian unity. It is ironic because the very Conservative party that Mr. Harper represents had many seperatists elected under their banner during the Mulroney era, and in fact one even served as the Defense Minister in the Conservative cabinet. All I can say is that I look forward to January when Mr. Harper must recall Parliament and a vote of non-confidence will put him out of power. Quick and easy - not to mention very Canadian!
Complain about this comment
Mr Webb,
Forget Obama for the moment.
Look at the US model. Compare it with the UK model (UK- no written constitution, people making it up as they go along). Today, ththe EU said that our cops shouldn't keep DNA details on people who've not been convicted of anything. We have a higher percentage of such than anybody else in the world - the report says. On BBC4 the interviewr asked the chief constable, if he was so in favour of the idea, why not go the whole hog and have everybody on it? He sidestepped the question.
We've had Jacqui Smith with odd moralistic ideas, ideas for 6months of our emails and phone calls, ID cards, not knowing about Damien Green fiasco,...Caroline Flint's odd ideas, Woolas's odd ideas on 70million max into UK (can he cap EU nationals entering? NO)...plainly we have people who get elected (lots are lawyers)...they have no idea about anything. Civil servants (if they can remain non-political) are vital. Quangos are huge. Does a cabinet minister know anything about his portfolio?
Unfortunately, the ex-colonies adopted the UK model and lots (from personal experience) are poorer for it. Look at the Senate, in Jamaica. To get talented people in who don't need to be politicians, can only get them into the Senate - example Mr. Wehby formerly of Grace Kennedy company.
http://www.jis.gov.jm/finance_planning/html/20070920t100000-0500_13037_jis_minister_wehby_resigns_from_grace_kennedy_group.asp
After Marcos, didn't the Phillipines adopt a US model? Tonight, Andrew Neil's program: David Starkey said much the same. Reform should include a directly elected PM. And a system more like the US one.
Mr. Obama/Bush/Reagan/whoever can choose a Cabinet of people who KNOW something - not congressmen who just know how to smile pearly whites and so on.
Our politicains are like the dog that chases a car, catches it, and can only lift its leg. Do they know anything? They're lightweights.
Get a Cabinet that knows something - get them from any area of society. Accountable to parliament.
Checks and balances: parliament with the Whip just does whatever the PM wants.
Obama/Bush/whoever: congressmen owe no allegiance to him as they owe their re-election to local folk.
Look at Ms. Abbott - if Blair doesn't like her, she can't get any further in the party/govt. If MPs don't vote according to dictate, they suffer. Look at the minister who had to resign because they wanted ballots at the party conference re Gordon Brown - an unelected PM. (Blair "I'm finished, Gordon; it's your turn").
Would Ms. Feinstein need to vote with her party? No. Look at Mr. Lieberman - supporting McCain! Imagine the Whip here? He'd be de-selected by the apparatus!
Look at cops going into parliament without a warrant!
Using anti-terror laws to snoop whether parents are using schools in another catchment area! Whether garbage is in right bin! To freeze Icelandic assets! To harrass Brian Haw! The CCTV coverage! The loss of our data - floppy disc lost between Newcastle and London - courier with details of all mothers in UK...etc, etc, etc
Is this deliberate? Or just incompetence? Are we in a democracy? Really? Where are the checks and balances?
It's not Obama as much as the US system that's so much better than what we in the Commonwelath adopted and realised we made a BIG mistake!
Complain about this comment
AsaScot: I'll have you know, the difficulties of our Canadian Confederation are all the fault of James Murray, a Scot and first Governor of Quebec. If he had been a twit like those good King George had in charge of the other 13 Colonies, I wouldn't need a passport to cross the border.
Slainte Mhath!
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
In the States, your culture wars are fought primarily on the turf of religion.
In Canada, ours flare up over regional issues. What started as a case of monumental over-reach on behalf of Harper, has been quickly fanned into an emotional battle of "Western alienation" and Quebec nationalism.
Harper over-reached because his government leads in a minority parliament. As others have noted above, he introduced, via an innocuous sounding "economic update," several very, very controversial measures. Not least of these measures was the proposal to reduce Federal election funding for the (cash strapped, in the case of the Liberals at least) political parties. Harper gambled that the Liberals, saddled with a very unpopular and soon to be replaced (in May 2009) leader, would, while ranting and raging, ultimately roll over. He lost.
The three opposition parties, including the nominally socialist (lib/democrat, really) NDP, and the sovreigntist Bloc Quebecois, cooked up an agreement (the particulars outlined ably above) that would allow them to collectively form a majority in Parliament.
Their intention was to vote down the Conservatives in a confidence motion over the economic update, which would require Harper to dissolve Parliament, in the absence of a tenable governing alternative. The three party coalition intended to present themselves to the GG as just such an alternative, thus forming a working coalition gov't.
Harper moved to forestall this eventuality by asking the GG to prorogue, or suspend, Parliament so as to avoid the confidence motion, and allow him a chance to regain the confidence of the House. She agreed.
All this procedural stuff, while interesting enough for those of us with an appetite for such things, is, however, as nothing compared to the level of invective that all sides began hurling at one another.
The coalition accused Harper of trampling on the rights of Parliament, etc. Harper went one further, and invoked the dreaded "national unity card." The coalition was not only undemocratic, it was seditious (one of his backbenchers actually used this term) because the Libs had done a deal, not only with (gasp!) socialists, but with the terrible separatists, who would rend the country asunder at the first opportunity.
Now, this plays well in the West, where support for Harper is strongest, because the West (OK, Alberta in particular), having become fatted up on oil money, is quick to believe that it alone "pays for" some supposed socialist paradise in Quebec (my own father goes on about Quebec as a "cuban utopia"! I keep telling him there are no warm water beaches, but he won't listen . . . ). Suffice it to say there is a goodly measure of resentment in the West vis a vis Quebec, and that this resentment, when stirred up, gets ugly, and there is lots of inflammatory invective hurled at Quebec and Quebecois, as well as the usual rumblings (in Alberta and B.C. particularly) about Western separatism (I call this zombie alienation, because just when you think it's dead...).
In Quebec, the Bloc are viewed by a majority as an honest Federal representative of what they see as their unique interests. Yes, the party explicitly voices sovereigntist rhetoric (don't get me started on the difference between sovereigntist and separatist, or I'll really bore you!). Yes, a significant, but currently a minority, portion of the Quebec electorate support the formation of some kind of independent Quebec (again, you don't want to know the details of the 'some kind' bit). But by and large, the issue of sovereignty in Quebec is torpid. It's here, but it really has no legs.
That is, until something comes along and stirs it up. Enter Stephen Harper, blathering about deals with the separatist devils, implying that the Bloc have no legitimate role in Parliament, etc. (which ignores, of course, the fact that they've been in Parliament since 1990, and that Harper himself approached them regarding some sort of arrangement to replace Paul Martin's Libs).
Previous to this, Harper had been making nice to "soft" Quebec nationalists. He seems now to have burned all those bridges, and in so doing guaranteed the Bloc even more seats in the next Parliament. Some argue that the Blocs' inclusion in the coalition has also enhanced the legitimacy of the Bloc in the eyes of Quebecois. So it would seem the only sure winner in all this is actually the Bloc Quebecois.
I could go on, but I am merciful, and will shut up now.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Question for one of the Brits here with local constitutional smarts:
Although she prorogued the Canadian parliament today at Harper's request, I understand the the Governor-General might legally have refused the request, or called for new elections, or asked the opposition to form a new government.
In the UK, does the Queen retain similar legal authority re: Parliament? Could a parallel situation occur in the Commons? If it did, and the Queen rejected the PM's request to suspend Parliament, what kind of political fireworks would ensure?
Complain about this comment
It would have been politically incorrect for the liberals and the NDP to form a coalition with a sovereignist party. That is IMO the main reason the BQ is not part of the coalition (apart from the fact that they say publicly that they would never be part of it). The Conservative party's recent attempts to deamonise this party is part of this strategy. Right now, there are about 60% of Canadians that are happy to have a majority of progressive BQ from Québec instead of Conservatives.
#10 asaScot
?So basically the've sold themselves to the highest bidder??
What has you saying this? Have you had any indications that they have negotiated with the Conservatives?
#10 asaScot
?I am a Scot but I have no time for these petty nationalists like the BQ or our own SNP. Hopefully another election will eliminate the need for the government of Canada to bend over backwards to placate them.?
I don't think the BQ is going to disappear any time soon. It is a fairly recent party (compared to the SNP which I know very little of). It has more popular support. 38 to 50% of Québecers voted for them in all the elections they have been part of (6 elections). They now hold 49 of the 75 seats from Québec.
Complain about this comment
Yes, of course we in Canada suffer from Obama envy! Who would not want such a class act: what a win, including the mass grassroots involvement that goes beyond the election, etc. Oh, do we every envy the down-to-earth, center-left pragmatism of Obama!
We have only the crude, hostile rivalries and ideological purities -- both semi-left wing and totally right wing -- of our political leaders.
Well, someone is going to come along and do the same for us. If the NDP doesn't find someone very, very quickly, who can turn our social democratic party into a mass left wing party, then the person who will do it will be, my bet, Justin Trudeau, for the Liberal Party.
Complain about this comment
straseed (#13), thanks for that clarification. But, as has been pointed out on some of the Canadian web sites, this case is unique in being the first time that proroguation (sp?) was used only to postpone a vote of confidence, and some Canadian pundits who are knowledgable about Canadian politics were expecting or recommending that a vote of confidence be allowed to proceed. As I understand it, the budget proposal, when it arrives in late January, will amount to a vote of confidence anyway, is that correct?
I'm not taking sides, but suppose I stipulate for the sake of argument that the Liberals are in no position to govern under this coalition with Dion as PM. Isn't it nevertheless appropriate that if Harper lacks the confidence of the House, that the Conservatives replace him with someone who does have the confidence of a majority?. It seems to me that the PM should be of the party with the largest share, but if that is a minority, then at least one other party should be taken into account.
Complain about this comment
#9 Orvillethird wrote:
"A lot of the mess is Harper's fault, and getting hitched to Bush hasn't helped him"
Now, I must admit I don't know a great deal about Canadian politics, but, just to be clear - you're saying that the Canadian PM has got married to the current US President?
And here was me thinking that these rightwingers were anti-gay.
;-p
Complain about this comment
# 9 Orvillethird wrote:
"Obama was mostly style, little substance. Sadly, that goes over all too well in many places."
How very true.
Just look at his dreadful lack of achievement since his inauguration back in January 2009......
Complain about this comment
Canada? I've heard of it. It's out there somewhere...I think. Hmmm, up North? Not the south, Mexico is there. East or West? No, those go to the oceans. Must be up North, process of elimination.
Over 90% of the people in Canada live within one hundred miles of their southern border, or at least that's what I've read. I assume they huddle close to the US for the warmth...especially in winter.
One nice thing about Canada is that they don't make a lot of noise. It's terrible to have noisy neighbors. Now Mexico makes a lot of noise. Ever hear one of those Mariachi bands?
Thing about Canadians is that when you get to talking with them, sooner or later...OK within the first five minutes, they start telling you everything that's wrong with America and why Canada is so much better. Just like Europeans do. But when their country seemed like it was going to fall apart in the early 80s, many Provinces had petitions all ready to apply for statehood in case it did. That is they wanted to join the US warts and all. And that is different from Europe. In Europe it was the other way around. Angela Merkel told President Bush shortly after she took office on her first visit to the US that America should join the EU. Oh if we could only build a wall around ourselves and keep the rest of the world out. How nice that would be. At least by bankrupting everyone, we might not have them flying over here so often. Aren't there any good stories for BBC to cover that can be handled from Bush House? The world has become too small. What we need is to somehow make it bigger.
Complain about this comment
Re: 13 Strasseed She had no other palatable option but to grant Harper's request to prorogue Parliament - he has not yet lost a confidence vote, thus, to do so would invite accusations of a political leaning or motivation - which would be entirely inappropriate. She is obligated to listen to the advice of the sitting Prime Minister, which she did.
I understand this logic, but I don't fully accept it. It is equally legitimate to argue that, by agreeing to Harper's highly unusual, and perhaps even unprecedented, request, and thereby unquestionably allowing Harper to avoid a confidence vote he could not win, Jean leaves her office equally open to accusations of political leaning or motivation. Why should she protect the Prime Minister from the will of Parliament?
Either way it was a no win decision for her.
It will be interesting to see if the Conservative knives come out for Harper, as the party comes to grips with the mess he's landed them (and all of us) in.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Oh, silly Marcus. I must say I like your posts better when you let a little humour peek through the clouds.
Now, if you want me to tell you what's wrong with the US, well, let's start with health care . . .
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
I am very disappointed either side- government or the opposition coalition offered any major or draft proposal of economic details to the Canadians. There was a lot of talk of economic stimulus and cuts to government expenditures. We do not even have a made in Canada solution. Canadians do not need an Obama. Canadians need a leader that tells their citizens that their issues are being listened to and being attended to, in which either federal parties seemed to notice. More then 40% did not vote for a candidate or a federal party at all, therefore, for now, Canadians have the government that they currently have. (deserved, I don't really think so because voting is not perfect).
Complain about this comment
Marcus:
What a coincidence... I have a similar idea, which I can't talk about, except to say it involves the BBC and seperatists/sovreignists/splittists/nationalists.
As for Justin Webb's title, it's worth noting that Canadians prefer Obama to Harper (And presumably Stefane Dion, Layton, Duceppe, and May). See the poll cited below:
http://voiceswithoutvotes.org/2008/09/29/canada-obama-for-prime-minister/
And, it is worth noting that someone set up a site (which may have been covered on the CBC) that has Obama for PM shirts, using altered logos for the Obama campaign, Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Block Quebecois, and Greens.
http://barackobamaforpm.blogspot.com/
Complain about this comment
24. Gary_A_Hill wrote:
As I understand it, the budget proposal, when it arrives in late January, will amount to a vote of confidence anyway, is that correct?
Gary,
Not to speak for straseed, but the answer to the particular question you ask above is yes. The GG gave Harper a stay of execution. It will be interesting to see how he uses it.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Oh, the latest edition of The National is going online, so you can watch it right now.
http://www.cbc.ca/national/latestbroadcast.html
Complain about this comment
Justin, if you read these postings, telling us:
"Barack Obama is unique and uniquely American - those British MPs I was talking to the other day understood that, but electorates might not," is really quite a load of smarmy piffle intended to flatter Americans.
Give us a break, man! What do you or anyone else at BBC really know about Obama? Neither you nor Matt Frei or Katty Kay bothered to conduct independent investigations into his life and political record during the elections, preferring to parrot the mostly baseless drivel that pro-Democrat stations, Democrat Party advisors and strategists, and liberal journalists waffled endlessly.
How on earth can you say the man is
"unique" - in a special sense - when he hasn't yet in all his years in politics achieved anything of note - other than win the U.S. Presidential election supported by a huge reserve of funds and a disgracefully biased U.S. media.
As to Canadians, no, they are not falling into the Obama trap, whatever "trap" that is. The mess they are now in simply reflects what occurs when a largely left-wing media does everything in its power during an election to ensure that a Conservative government does not regain power.
To some extent the media effort failed. The Conservative government was returned to power, but again forming a minority government that faced three parties, one the French BLOC Quebequer that is dedicated to the break up of Canada, and two party, the Liberals and the socialist New Democratic Party - who did not "give up their principles", as has been stated, they never had any 'principles' in the first place, so with the French separatist party they conspired to overthrow the government by forming a coalition.
This has nothing to do with serving the best interests of the people of Canada, it is all about the Liberals regaining power the only way they can right now, and the NDP grabbing a bit of power the only way the NDP will ever get power, by underhand means.
Complain about this comment
straseed: The best thing about the BBC is that the news and comments are not written by North Americans. I do not like the North American-style of journalism. It is refreshing to read Canadian news written by non-Canadians. I am sick and tired of the Canadian media.
Complain about this comment
In rhyme - here we go;
Far to the north there's a vast frozen land,
Civilised, cultured, peaceful and bland,
Where folks are nice and all things fair,
And even believe in universal health care,
And conflicts solved without pulling a trigger,
It's kind of like New Zealand but bigger.
They gave us Bryan,Pamela and Jim Carrey for one,
And we'll never forgive them for Celene Dion,
They forgot to join in and give King George the pound,
Then invaded and burned the White House to the ground,
They still have the Queen and her governor too,
Who is a black women- gosh who here knew,
Well anyway their politics is boring at best,
So they elected some rednecks from way out west,
Added a few Quebec seperatists too,
All of a sudden a big hullabaloo,
Conservative Harper came through the gates,
Just before Red Obama conquered the States,
So before you go north remember to say,
How interesting -wow - its Canada eh!
Complain about this comment
Yes Gary, a budget vote in the Canadian parliament is always a confidence vote...I am not sure if that is simply tradition or whether that is a legal convention, but it is the de facto reality
@Chrono - I agree. Were it simply an issue of the "right thing" to do, I think she would have felt compelled to allow the vote to occur - it is crystal clear that Harper is simply buying time to try and change the outcome of the election that must inevitably happen when he is defeated by the vote...but he IS the PM currently, and as such, tradition and precedent (the King-Byng affair aside) dictate that she honour the PM's request. Quite correct when you say she was in a no-win situation though.
As for the North American style of journalism, I fail to see how it is fundamentally different - but to understand our politics properly, you clearly need to be from here.
A Brit can understand why Quebec Separatism is a touchy issue just about as well as I can understand the troubles in North Ireland. Sure, you can read the history - but you'll never really understand what gives feelings like that their power or the effect they have on voters. The majority of Quebecers (including bloc voters in many cases) realize that Sovereignty for Quebec is NOT in their best interests - it's a political statement. A way of thumbing their noses at Anglophones without causing serious damage to the status quo, if you will.
For those of you who don't know, Separation was put to a referendum in Quebec twice. In the most recent case, in 1995, it was voted down - by less than a 1% margin! The proposed action would have kept a common currency and trade relationship with Canada, but would have allowed Quebec to make it's own laws - a sticking point, as before Confederation Quebec used the french Napoleonic Code as the basis for their laws, rather than English common law as in the rest of British North America.
This is just one example of why these feelings exist - it's essentially the long-term fallout of the French-British conflicts that took a slightly less violent course over here.
Complain about this comment
Now I will get to learn something about Canada and the people we think of as friendly faces along our border.
During the McCarthy era people said, "If it gets really bad, we will go to Canada." The protestors of the Vietnam fled the draft and found a haven in Canada. And then there was the mischievous episode at the time of the Iranian revolution. Some Americans had gotten left behind and our friends of the north gave them Canadian passports and got them safely out of the country.
So we have a good feeling about Canadians, but I don't think we really know them. We think of them as a sort of American who likes cold weather. They look like us; they dress like us; they even sound like us except when they say "south."
So thank you for posting this, Mr. Webb. I will try to read all the comments.
Complain about this comment
Ok, I like Obama as much as the next person and I'm glad he won, but there is really no need to link everything back to him, he's not Kevin Bacon. ;) If you'r finally going to give Canada some attention why not give it all to them instead of turning around and linking it back to us in the states again.
Complain about this comment
I have to admit, I don't know much about Canadian polictics or politicians. I have a hard enough time trying to keep up with our mess and I do mean mess of American politics. I have heard people call Stephen Harper "Canada's George Bush". If that's true, that is a bummer. In response to #27 Marcus, I do understand what you are talking about when you cross the boarder into Canada and people know you're from the States. I have been blamed for George Bush a few times when I have been there. But, you know well Americans make a lot of fun of Canada. Yes, it's annoying being blamed for Bush, but I know what I put on my ballot so I don't let it sink in too much. I really like Canada and I go usually once a year to visit. It's a lot like America but also, very different at the same time. I find that most of the people there are very welcoming and very respectful.
Complain about this comment
This kind of thing makes me thankful that all I have to worry about is which of two parties control Congress and the White House; there is no such thing as the President dissolving Congress for elections.
Complain about this comment
I'm not entirely sure that the majority of Canadians would be overjoyed at the chance to have a presidential system of government as in the US. Some do wish to directly elect our head of government instead of going through intermediaries as we do now (forget the American electoral college for a moment), but conversely there are times when being able to easily recall your government is quite handy - think of how nice it would have felt to have been able to remove Bush from office with a single congressional vote, without having to worry about long impeachment processes.
In addition, the American system overhauls the entire upper half of its federal bureaucracy with each new president, and continually backpedals as every president tries to reverse the decisions of the last one. In Canada at least we're guaranteed that the people doing the genuine work (the civil servants) know what they're doing, even if the ministers don't.
As for the crisis itself, I'm simply intrigued as to how our Governor-General -- a staunch opponent of the Quebec sovereignty movement -- will react when/if the current administration falls to a Bloc-supported coalition. I'm not sure that she'll be able to stomach the idea of giving more power to the one group in parliament she has the most issues with. Methinks another election is in the offing.
Complain about this comment
straseed,
There is one other place in North American that uses the Napoleonic "Civil" Code and that place is Louisiana. America solved that issue a long time ago.
As for the Constitutional crisis, I think it gives everyone an interesting look into Canadian Constitutional Law; for example, I had no idea that the Canadian Head of State was a representative of the Queen of England.
Complain about this comment
#5 Andy Post
Not universal.
As the years roll by it seems that so many electors still have this earnest desire to believe that the latest politician on the block will be our inspiration, our national saviour, as with Reagan and Blair.
Sadly, experience tells me that this has always been a triumph of hope over experience, but I fully understand the need to believe that things can get better after the events of recent years.
I wish President Obama well and that this time really will be a new start, for all our sakes.
Complain about this comment
straseed: A lot has changed since 1995. Support for separation has dropped significantly, and the last polls I heard showed strong support for a majority Provincial Liberal government in Quebec.
To fill in all you non-Canadians, while this crisis is going on there's also a provincial election in Quebec, which is much more important to the question of separation. Only the Quebec provincial parliament (the Assemblee Nationale, as they are called) can call a referendum on separation, and if the provincial Liberals (who are federalists...and actually closer to the Federal Conservatives than the Federal Liberals!) get in power, then there's zero chance of that happening.
BienvenueEnLouisiana: Yes, the GG is officially our head of state, although she is basically a figurehead, like the Queen. There has only been one time in the history of our country when the GG has opposed the PM on any matter of importance. Which is the main reason, I think, why she accepted his request to prorogue parliament.
As far as the crisis goes, it infuriates me to see Harper trying to deepen the East-West divide and fan the flames of anti-french racism in this country. He is acting not as the Prime Minister, but as a petty party leader from Alberta, trying to grasp as much power as he can. If this country is to survive, we need a PM who will work with all parties and all Canadians. Whether any of the opposition leaders meet that qualification depends on your personal politics I guess, but Harper certainly does not. His shameless attempt to bankrupt the opposition parties should be enough alone to demand his resignation.
And the GG's decision to prorogue? Probably necessary for national unity reasons, maybe even demanded by tradition, but still a terrible precedent. She basically gave all future minority government PMs carte-blanche to shut down Parliament if their government is threatened. That is not how democracy works. A majority of elected MPs chose to defeat this government, and they deserved the right to exercise their democratic rights on our behalf.
But even with all this, I'd rather have the Canadian system than the American one, even if it came with Obama , who's rather far to the right in Canadian terms if you think about it. I mean, he's against gay marriage, pro death penalty, and doesn't support our single payer health care system!
Complain about this comment
42. At 06:34am on 05 Dec 2008, Malvikins wrote:
"I'm not entirely sure that the majority of Canadians would be overjoyed at the chance to have a presidential system of government as in the US."
I am not that sure that the majority of Americans like our electoral process either.
Complain about this comment
To each his own electoral process.
Complain about this comment
Just a note regarding why the budget, in a parliamentry democracy, is open to a vote of "no confidence". Unlike a Presidential system, where the President is guaranteed a specific term of office regardless of his party's numbers, the majority party or governing coalition is unable to govern if its' proposed budget is defeated. It's similar to congress refusing to allocate funds for a Presidential budget, the difference being that because of his/her guaranteed term, the President can go back to congress and horsetrade something acceptable. In a parliamentry system the party and government are inextricably linked so if the budget is rejected the party, as a governing whole, must go back to the voters to try and get a new mandate.
Complain about this comment
Well done Justin! You finally arrived at the party, albeit via a "six steps to Barack Obama" route...
While not a Canadian, I've been following this story with great interest. I think there are likely to be parallels with the UK in 2011, where we face the very real possibilities of a hung parliament and/or minority government.
I think even Harper supporters would acknowledge that he has made a major tactical error in the past few weeks. Buoyed by an increase in the number of Conservative seats (though still short of a majority) and the impending Liberal leadership contest, he thought he could barrel through some changes that were largely for political advantage. The Libs and NDP got their ducks in a row for once, got the BQ to sit tight, and now Harper has painted himself into a corner.
I think British readers would be interested to know how the Canadian federal system works, as the role of provinces is important here. [I'm no expert, so pelase correct any errors!]. In British terms, each province is almost self-governing, raising most of its' tax revenues and providing most of the public services. The federal structure sits over the top of this, but each province is more self-governing than, for example, Scotland is within the UK. This brings its own tensions, which must be fed into the mix.
I think the GG's decision was the right one - this is happening very fast, even as the economic situation changes daily. There is little to be lost by having a few weeks of thinking time. If Harper cannot get things together he will lose the confidence vote in January. Whether there should be a coalition government or a fresh election; that's a whole different story...
Complain about this comment
sweetsmellofsuccess,
Your description of our federal system is quite accurate in the role which our provinces play. Our provinces are far more self-governing than Scotland or Wales (from what I know of the British sub-national governments), especially in that our provincial legislatures *must* exist under our consitution, and have certain rights outlined there vis-a-vis the federal government -- for instance, each province runs its own health care program (ie, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan [OHIP]).
However, there's even more tension as a result of funding: the federal government subsidizes many provincial programs (as in health care, where Ottawa contributes to each province's coverage system), and "equalization payments" take place between the provincial and the federal governments -- broadly put, the wealthy provinces (ie, Alberta and, until recently, Ontario) transfer funds to the poorer provinces (ie, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec) under a federal system of payments.
Much of the tension that Alberta has with the rest of Canada stems from the fact that they consider the rest of the nation to be living our of their pockets, although they have relatively little political influence because of their population. Quebec, as a net beneficiary of the transfer payments, balks at the idea of losing their support. It's a bit of an oversimplification, but this one fact constantly pits Quebec MPs against Alberta MPs, and helped keep the Alberta-based Conservatives from winning a significant number of Quebec seats -- or any genuine support from that province.
I'm not sure if this is particularly well-known outside of Canada, but it drives our internal power-politics and helps explain things.
Complain about this comment
Sorry to change the issue back to the US, but I noticed this piece by Kissinger which I thought I'd share (apologies if already seen). The bit that interested me, other than praising Obama's team selection was his comments regarding the relationship between the President and the Secretary of State and the 'team of rivals':
Complain about this comment
I have to disagree with all the talk by other politicians and Mr Webb about how 'the world needs/wants the Obama phenomenon'
Of course all politicians 'want what they've (America) had'. They want a personality cult around them and a media which never criticises you. Pop star popularity where they dont pay attention to your politics, but only your image. What politician wouldn't want it?
But I will give some funny examples from the media:
The German and French media were wondering after the US election why the German or French politicians couldnt do like Obama. Well I think they forgot their last elections.
In Germany the CDU tried to highlight Merkel and single her out as a star. The German people didnt like it. Voter backlash took away her double digit lead in the polls. Elections in Germany are not personal popularity contests.
Similar in France. Sarkozy has his life on the front of tabaloids and has become a type of media star. There is a backlash with the French public, with them saying they dont a pop star as president and I have even read some quotes where people have said 'This is not America'.
Even in Britain's last general election, I remember some minor backlash from the public because British elections were becoming something 'in which personality suddenly plays a more important role than party voting habits'
So when I read a headline or comment about Obama being 'uniquely American' or how his story 'could only happen in America' I have to agree, but not for the reasons the media means.
People like Lula da Silva (Brazil) or Ivo Morales (Boliva) are just 2 examples of people who have overcome more hardship and prejudice than Obama ever did, but their photos and story are not the subject of every newspaper and TV programme around the world. They dont have a marketing machine of professionals pitching their image to the world.
No, Obama is 'uniquely American' and his story 'could only happen in America' because no other country puts so much value in image and so little in substance
Complain about this comment
I woke up this morning wondering what to do first. Brush, my teeth? Have a cup of coffee? And then when I rubbed the sleep out of my eyes, I realized like every day what I have to do first thing in the morning is...."begin each day with an assessment of the situation in Canada." Oh Justin, you are so right. I've asked my colleagues at work and "like so many of them (you)" that's how we begin each day. We know what's really important in this world.
It may surprise Canadians to know but I and I'll bet a lot of Americans sometimes go for years without Canada crossing our minds even once. We know in the back of our minds it's out there somewhere but it's not one of those things you dwell on unless something important happens there....like maybe William Shatner deciding to return home to live there for good. Why is BBC preoccupied with him anyway? Is that the biggest American celeb they can get to pay any attention to them? Well, OK, I've thought about Canada for all of 90 seconds. Time to forget it until around maybe March or April....of 2012.
Complain about this comment
#43 BienvenueLouisiana:
Queen Elizabeth is, in fact, the Canadian head of state, where she fulfills a constitutional role as Queen of Canada. A number of other former British colonies do likewise. The monarch is simultaneously and separately queen of each of these countries. It's an interesting device and wrapped up in the history of the end of the empire. For Canada, the last act came as recently as 1982.
Because Queen Elizabeth cannot reside in several different countries, she appoints a governor to represent the crown. The governor is usually selected by the local head of govenment, i.e., prime minister.
Complain about this comment
chronophobe wrote:Now, if you want me to tell you what's wrong with the US, well, let's start with health care . . .Yours, Canadian Pinko.
That's a good thing because it keeps out many leftists, especially the enemy leftists from Europe.
Complain about this comment
Now, if you want me to tell you what's wrong with the US, well, let's start with health care . . .
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
When we get national health care here, which we surely will, (but why does it matter to you one way or the other?), what will your next gripe be? Are you keeping a list?
Merry Christmas
Complain about this comment
StickJackal.
Your #36 rhyme was very good.
#35 Jafarb. You have my sympathies.
Complain about this comment
53. At 11:26am on 05 Dec 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
I woke up this morning wondering what to do first. Brush, my teeth? Have a cup of coffee? And then when I rubbed the sleep out of my eyes, I realized like every day what I have to do first thing in the morning is...."begin each day with an assessment of the situation in Canada." Oh Justin, you are so right. I've asked my colleagues at work and "like so many of them (you)" that's how we begin each day. We know what's really important in this world.
It may surprise Canadians to know but I and I'll bet a lot of Americans sometimes go for years without Canada crossing our minds even once. We know in the back of our minds it's out there somewhere but it's not one of those things you dwell on unless something important happens there....like maybe William Shatner deciding to return home to live there for good. Why is BBC preoccupied with him anyway? Is that the biggest American celeb they can get to pay any attention to them? Well, OK, I've thought about Canada for all of 90 seconds. Time to forget it until around maybe March or April....of 2012. "
Once again we get this queer complex one finds in a few Americans, that they presume to speak for the whole country, 300 million of them.
Given that this individual completely miscalled the election etc one has to wonder if he has met any of them.
On the other hand he could be George Bush in disguise.
Complain about this comment
lochraven wrote: "When we get national health care here, which we surely will, (but why does it matter to you one way or the other?), what will your next gripe be? Are you keeping a list?"
For starters, next they will want to see the right to bear arms disappear, gay marriage legal throughout the land and religion banned. Lets face it, many of them (leftists from Europe and Canada, even many of the anti-American ones) want those things so they can then try and move to America. In my experience many of the worse critics and America haters constantly holiday in America. To use an American expression, go figure. :)
Complain about this comment
#40 ladycm
In all candour, just because Stephen Harper has along okay with George Bush during meetings, does not make him a George Bush. That is the kind on nonsense you hear from Canadian Liberals.
Further, Canadians were anti-American decades (yes decades) before George Bush became U.S. president. It's become something of a mindset. Frankly, it's a bit pathetic and I think emanates from a fat inferiority complex that results from living next door to a powerful and more influential neighbour, so a lot of media effort goes into 'knocking' the big neighbour who they know won't hit back and do any damage, and then telling themselves just how superior they are. Smug self-satisfaction and labouring under self-created, self-flattering illusions is now something of a Canadian fetish, but, I believe, wasn't always that way. But then, with such a media what else would one expect?
Americans are far more generous about their northern neighbour than are Canadians toward their southern neighbour.
I've seen that first-hand.
Complain about this comment
There is no Obama envy in Canada. Nobody in Canada really cares too much about what is happening in the US, that is the average person on the street. We have our own Black leader anyway - long before you guys down south made Obama president - our Governor General is not only Black, but of Haitian origin and a woman - beat that!
Complain about this comment
Isn't it strange how one blog in 18 months that isn't about the USA, brings out some American bloggers who can't wait to whine about how superior the USA is? Anyone would think they had some kind of inferiority complex, or something.
Anyway, to return to the subject of the blog. I think Harper has created a problem that needn't have been there - had he started the reduction in funding of political parties by simply freezing it, presenting it as a populist sop to the economic conditions, opposition parties would have found it hard to mount a credible defence. By going for the jugular, Harper overdid it and invited a response.
That said, the 'coalition' doesn't appear to be that firm, and depends on the acquiescence of the BQ, for a price that doesn't seem to have been spelled out. Another election so soon would, of course, be a pain (and expensive), but the electorate would punish one side more severely than the other, possibly leading to a more stable situation down the line.
Complain about this comment
Can see why it's easy to long for the US model - not the US personality necessarily.
Just look at the British model exported to her ex-colonies/the Commonwealth, how messy and ineffectual it is in terms of checks and balances.
Most of us have a governor-general that rubber stamps the PM's bidding, a Cabinet dependent on not crossing the PM, a system where the MP is beholden to his party leader (PM or leader of the Opposition), where calibre of people winning seats is not necessarily calibre of people needed to run departments. MPs are not necessarily going to make good Cabinet material.
Whereas the US Treasury Secretary, etc can have nowt to do with politics but everything to do with expertise.
Look at the English speaking Caribbean running the UK rather than US model.
Though model stands up better certainly in Canada, Audstralia, etc, the old model still seems in need of reform.
David Starkey has a point.
---------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/7766700.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/7766634.stm
"In 2008, following the controversial arrest and search of the MP Damian Green's House of Commons office by the Metropolitan Police, who were given consent to do so by the Serjeant-at-Arms without holding a search warrant, the Speaker of the House later stated that the protocol would in future require a search warrant and his personal approval before such a search could happen."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serjeant-at-Arms
-------------------
criminisation of political activity
no warrant - House of Commons
Serjeant at Arms - no knowledge of rules
voting time - absolute control by the Whips
Complain about this comment
Canadian anti-americanism has nothing to do with "jealousy" (thanks for the laugh though) and everything to do with a long history of trying to interfere in our affairs and american-created political tensions.
The most recent and glaring of them would probably be their refusal to honour the NAFTA agreement and put tariffs on our softwood lumber; or refusal to import Canadian Beef for months after ONE cow was found to have Mad cow disease, or their slow destruction of the Great Lakes by pollution from american factories...Bomarc missiles torpedoing the Avro Arrow (yes we're still sore about that)...American submarines pissing around under our polar ice cap looking for russians...the list goes on.
Perhaps the worst thing that has changed recently between us, however, is the border policies. When I was a kid, I played minor hockey - sometimes we'd go over and play an exhibition game or a tournament in the states (upstate New York in this case). We didn't even bother bringing my birth certificate or anything because the border was what we used to call "undefended" - we went through the checkpoint and all, but it was a formality as it was recognized that an elaborate system wasn't needed to separate friends. Now I need a passport because Americans are nuts about "Homeland Security". It's a shame, really.
It is also indeed an important distinction that our head of state is NOT the English Sovereign...it's the Queen of Canada, who happens to be the same person. Same Lady, different office. Most of the Colonels-in-Chief of our military regiments (an honorary or ceremonial position) are members of the Royal Family (many of them are the Queen herself or the Duke of Edinburgh - my father's unit had her to dine in their Officer's mess back in the 80s)
So if there's one nation we're "jealous" of, it's probably England. Some of us very highly value our roots as a Commonwealth country - myself being one of them.
Complain about this comment
#60 robloop: Amen.
Complain about this comment
Re: 55, 56, etc.
Ladies and gentlemen, ready your rolls! Let the bun fight begin!
Happy hurling,
A Canadian Pinko, who prefers to butter and eat them
Complain about this comment
ptrsln (#45), " ... But even with all this, I'd rather have the Canadian system than the American one, ... "
Certainly. How do you compare the French system?
Complain about this comment
Hahahah! Thank you Frayedcat and Stickjakal!
With worthy rhymes,
Youve each made my day.
I could read the "Times,"
But tis better this way.
Complain about this comment
justcorbly (#54), likely true, but as I understand it, the Queen has formally delegated all authority to act in the name of the crown to the GG, so that she is never actually consulted about anything. Can some Canadian tell me whether this is true? If so, then it is a distinction without a difference.
Complain about this comment
Forget about Obama "traps" and separatist movements. We should be more concerned about two, major world economic powers essentually sitting on the side lines in handcuffs while the world economy is so quickly bleeding to death. Granted; the handcuffs on these two players are of their own constitutionally mandated procedural issues .
The United States must wait for fresh leadership until the new President can take office in January 2009; while an unpopular, lame-duck President is sitting on his hands watching the economy collapse; waiting for the moving van to arrive. The United States Congress is debating whether cramming unsold Sport Utility Vehicles into the ever-increasing breechs of a crumbling economic dike might stem the flow of disaster. A stop-gate effort at best. Now the Canadian parliment has been placed on enforced holiday until sometime in January 2009.
Can these two, major national economies afford any lapse in leadership during this time of crisis? Can the world economy withstand two major players out of the struggle to stem the death spiral into economic chaos?
Canada and the United States are linked with very inter-dependant economic ties. When the lines of semi-tractor rigs at the Blue Water and Ambassador bridges are not backed-up waiting to clear Customs on both sides of the border between Ontario and Michigan; both economies are in terrible trouble. Those lines are very short these days in comparison to only a year ago.
The United States must wait for the new President to be sworn into office before an effective leadership opportunity can take place. Is the Conservative Party of Canada able to quickly find and install a new leader from among their party to replace the divisive leadership of Stephen Harper and bring about a compromise with the other minority parties?
At least one of the major players can be back in the game. Canada, and the Conservative Party have an opportunity to be an even stronger world leader during this time of global economic chaos while the Canadian economy is still relatively strong. That window of opportunity is closing as the clock ticks.
Complain about this comment
#63 alanskillcole
"criminisation of political activity
no warrant - House of Commons
Serjeant at Arms - no knowledge of rules
voting time - absolute control by the Whips"
Absolute control by the whips? In Gordon Brown's dreams! And while leaking may have become a House of Commons sport its not really a legitimate political activity. I personally think the MP's are upset because the police actually took a leak enquiry seriously and found the source. What's next? Only listing real expenses? Hiring staff you're not related to? Madness!
Complain about this comment
#67 Gary_A_Hill
"Certainly. How do you compare the French system?"
The French have a system???
Complain about this comment
Steven Harper wants to shut down
parliament just because he does not agree with it.
Some say this is unprecedented.
In fact, Harper is following
parliamentary tradition.
Consider the following precedents:
1629: King Charles I in England
1799: Napoleon in France
1913: Victoriano Huerta in Mexico
1933: Adolf Hitler in Germany
1936: Fransisco Franco in Spain
1939: Benito Mussolini in Italy
1973: Augusto Pinochet in Chile
1975: Indira Gandhi in India
1999: Perez Musharaff in Pakistan
2008: Steven Harper in Canada
Complain about this comment
What's the old joke?
Well, enough about me. What do you think of me?
The Canadians on the blog finally get a thread to talk about what's going on there politically....and it still gets framed in terms of what's happening in the USA. And we Americans still can't stop arguing about Obama.
No slight to Justin Webb intended, but I got a little chuckle for my morning out of that.
Complain about this comment
The common perception is that the Eastern Provinces represents Canada,but they do not.
Prime -Minister Stephen Harper's Party was elected overwhelmingly
in British Columbia.He has a Minority Government but he has a Government.
The catalyst for their Putsch was supposed to be the Budget,but that is not so.
It is an naked power grab,by defeated Liberals who got less than 27% of the vote led by an unpopular Stephane Dion,cobbled with an another unelectable Party NDP,led by Jack Leyton, and Gill Duceppte of the Bloc Quebec,a Separatist Party with Jaque Parizeau a tired Separatist enlisted to give them some legitimacy.
The Election was won by the Conservative Party,a month ago.And even if the 'so-called vote of no confidence in the Government by the Troika of failed Parties,is legal, it is neither wise or unifying to the country.
Western Canada does not want a Government where the veto is held by Separatists.And their actions are seen as a naked power grab to foist on the people of Canada an unholy alliance,unelected and unacceptable to the West.Separaton may not be just a Bloc Quebec Idea.
If there is a no-confidence vote in January new elections must be called.The people of Canada have more information to consider,the blatant overturning of an election for partisanship under the name of 'no-confidence in the Budget.'
Michelle Jean the Governer Generale made the right decision to prorogue the Parliament to give the Troika Parties to get their Leaders replaced with those who will unify the country.
Complain about this comment
The common perception is that the Eastern Provinces represents Canada,but they do not.
Prime -Minister Stephen Harper's Party was elected overwhelmingly
in British Columbia.He has a Minority Government but he has a Government.
The catalyst for their Putsch was supposed to be the Budget,but that is not so.
It is an naked power grab,by defeated Liberals who got less than 27% of the vote led by an unpopular Stephane Dion,cobbled with an another unelectable Party NDP,led by Jack Leyton, and Gill Duceppte of the Bloc Quebec,a Separatist Party with Jaque Parizeau a tired Separatist enlisted to give them some legitimacy.
The Election was won by the Conservative Party,a month ago.And even if the 'so-called vote of no confidence in the Government by the Troika of failed Parties,is legal, it is neither wise or unifying to the country.
Western Canada does not want a Government where the veto is held by Separatists.And their actions are seen as a naked power grab to foist on the people of Canada an unholy alliance,unelected and unacceptable to the West.Separaton may not be just a Bloc Quebec Idea.
If there is a no-confidence vote in January new elections must be called.The people of Canada have more information to consider,the blatant overturning of an election for partisanship under the name of 'no-confidence in the Budget.'
Michelle Jean the Governer Generale made the right decision to prorogue the Parliament to give the Troika Parties time to get their Leaders replaced with those who will unify the country.
Complain about this comment
re. 43. BienvenueEnLouisiana :
"I had no idea that the Canadian Head of State was a representative of the Queen of England."
I believe that's true for the entire Commonwealth. The Queen is legally the head of state. Except that the Australians periodically talk about severing the relationship and becoming a republic.
I grew up along the US/Canadian border, and I'm very fond of Canada and Canadians. A trip there is like visiting your relatives: they do things a bit differently, but they're still family.
I seem to remember from the last serious bout of Quebec separatism (in the 80s?) that if Quebec actually did sever its connection to the the rest of Canada, it would immediately become one of the poorer countries on the continent. Can that be true? They certainly have enough timber resources.
Complain about this comment
Re #40 ladycm,
Do we make fun of Canada alot? It doesn't seem to be happening where I am, but my state is not near Canada.
I'm trying to think back, and I only come up with the animated South Park movie where we went to war with Canada over their immoral comedians...and they bombed the Baldwins. The very idea makes me smile. About the Baldwins, I mean.
The best humor I have ever seen regarding Canadians came from The Kids In The Hall, who were Canadian themselves if I recall correctly. I will always fondly recall the skit they did about a Canadian on vacation somewhere tropical, who is asked what a Canadian is. His response:
It's a lot like an American but without the gun.
Complain about this comment
Gosh, don't cha know....we love to read when Canadian's Rhyme...eh!!
One correction....Obama is Blue...sorry.
And I'm not sure what country most of you are from....but from The US, the election left us a country divided. Maybe those hardcore dems couldn't see it for all the sparkling camera bulbs and smoke and mirrors....but it was bad. And most conceded that Obama was going to win. He's the celebrity....entertainment and glorification is all that matters in the States.....being rich, famous and over the top!! I sure hope you're right about the "Obama Change Factor" cause from where I sit....it's more of the same....
Complain about this comment
AsaScot (#72), yes, of course they do. I think you know that. They have a President, a Senate, and a National Assembly. The question is whether it is our (US) cumbersome and expensive system of electing our president which is objectionable, or the idea of a president separate from the legislative body itself.
Complain about this comment
66
pinko commie from up north
sounds like some are jealous of you lucky northerners getting treated like equal citizens of a society.
how does a nation built on equal rights and even treatment manage to always stay away from any commitment to make that a reality.
Complain about this comment
And I had resolved not to write any more long posts. Oh well, ...
Apologies in advance to those having no interest in Canadian civics:
Here is part 1.
Canada has the same system of constitutional monarchy as the UK, with a bicameral house consisting of an elected House of Commons and an appointed Senate. Canada shares the same monarch as the UK, Australia, New Zealand and others as head of state. Since the end of WWII, all Canadian Governors General have been Canadians. Generally Governors General have typically been esteemed senior statesmen, though in recent times the largely ceremonial position (except for this week) has been used also to showcase the cultural diversity and inclusiveness of Canada.
Like the UK, Canada has a first-past-the-post electoral system that can achieve highly anomalous results.
Simon Fraser University has an informative website: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html
For example, there are 308 seats in Canada's House of Commons.
The Conservatives, with 37 % of the votes won 143 seats. The Liberals with 26 % of the vote won 77 seats. The NDP with 18% won 37 seats. The Bloc Quebecois (or BQ, or "the Bloc") won 10% of the vote and 49 seats. The Greens with 6.8 % of the vote has no seats at all. There are two independents.
This electoral system has been the subject of much criticism over many years in Canada, the UK and elsewhere. Australia and New Zealand have both modified it.
The most fundamental rule in Westminster based Parliaments is that the Government must have the confidence of a majority of the members of the lower (i.e., elected) House.
A second absolutely fundamental rule of Westminster based Parliaments is that all money votes are votes of confidence. This dates from the Glorious Revolution of 1689 (for Americans: when Parliament refused money to the profligate Stuarts and turned them out in favour of William of Orange).
Complain about this comment
Here is Part 2.
As in the UK, in a minority Parliament by custom the Crown invites the leader of the largest party to form a government. But not always.
One example of particular relevance today:
In 1925 the Liberals won 99 seats, the Conservatives 116. King, the incumbent Liberal Prime Minister demanded that the Gov. Gen., Field Marshall Lord Julian Byng of Vimy (hugely popular war hero, commanded Canadian Corps in WWI) permit him to form a government supported by the Progressives. Byng, a man of great integrity, did not consider this fair play, so he agreed to let King meet the House on the condition that if King lost a vote of confidence, Conservative Arthur Meighen would have a chance. A few months later there was a scandal in the customs house in Montreal that would have resulted in a vote of censure against the Government. King demanded dissolution. Byng rightly considered King's conduct in (a) trying to duck the vote of censure; and (b) in refusing to honor his pledge to allow Mr. Meighen to have a go, to be reprehensible. Byng refused dissolution, and summoned Meighen. Meighen's ministry soon fell, and the House was dissolved. The election of 1926 was a vitriolic campaign by King against interference in Canadian affairs by the British Crown. As the King's Representative, Byng had no ability to defend his actions in the press. (The Crown cannot, ever, engage in partisan politics). That left Meighen looking like a British toady. King was returned with a majority.
Complain about this comment
Here is part 3.
On October 14 there was another inconclusive election. Harper, with 143 seats out of 308 was called on to form the government. The general hope was that the politicians would quiet down and work together to deal with the serious financial crisis facing the country. If there was a consensus, it was that partisan brinksmanship would be set aside.
However, Harper the Conservative leader, could not let well enough alone.
By Canadian standards Mr Harper (right wing, strong support by evangelical Christians) is considered quite abrasive, with a political style and tactics similar to, if not borrowed from, the Republicans. This is a significant departure from previous Progressive- Conservative (genteel, center, slightly right of center) leaders. He might be considered a mix of a much more clever George Bush, Carl Rove, and Dick Cheney, but with less charm no matter how many sweaters he buys, and no matter how hard he tries to smile for the camera (apologies to any who feel insulted, including Mr. Harper, but this is intended only as a rough approx for quick explanation). He has been portrayed in the press as a sand-lot bully. When he tries to speak gently to the camera it has a tendency to sound syrupy, condescending, and insincere - even when he is being sincere. (By contrast, the Liberal Leader, Mr. Dion is so awkwardly honest and sincere you feel embarrassed for him. If Harper is the school yard bully, Dion is the intelligent kid with glasses who always gets picked-on and kicked - except this week Dion punched back) Harper's on-camera smile, frozen on his face by evident will-power, often comes across as a smirk. The overall effect can be very grating. In terms of comfort zone with voters, think: Ronald Reagen NOT. He is clearly a polarizing personality - Hilary Clinton, perhaps, except even more so.
There is often the impression that he simply itches for the majority government that he feels he so deserved on October 14, only to be thwarted by these,... these,... these,... fools, pinky! The earlier comment that he sometimes comes across like Mr. Burns on The Simpsons was cruel, and maybe a bit unfair, but perhaps not so far off the mark. Of course, left-of-center folks tend to see him as the devil incarnate, if not worse.
In what some commentators (the Toronto Globe & Mail?) have characterized as a Nixon-like inability to resist overkill, the government introduced an unnecessary, highly inflammatory set of proposals. This sent the opposition parties ballistic.
Consequently, in a stunning turn of events, the Liberals (center left, approx mainstream Democrats) and NDP (Democratic Socialist, approx like German SDP, UK Labour?) have indicated that they are prepared to form a coalition government that would have the confidence of the House (163 votes to 143). In Canada formal coalitions are very rare, though not completely unknown.
The Bloc (Democratic Socialist, Quebec Independence, approx SNP in UK) is not part of that coalition, but has undertaken to support it in confidence votes for the next 18 months (as, indeed, it supported the previous Harper minority government on many votes of confidence). A confidence vote to bring down the Harper government was scheduled for Monday.
Complain about this comment
Here is part 4.
In a strangely Cromwellian (or to some, Orwellian) move, Harper has now tried to duck the vote by asking the Gov.-Gen to prorogue (i.e., dismiss) the House until Jan. 26, 2009. In NFL speak: With his career hanging by a thread, he has demanded a time-out inside the two-minute warning, even though he was tackled in-bounds, and it isn't clear he is entitled to one. When they return in January it will be a brand new Session with a brand new throne speech (i.e., Queen's speech in UK)
Harper is quite forthright about admitting that he is trying to duck the vote. One might expect a barrage of advertising (the Conservatives are the only ones who have money left after the election, so it will be quite one-sided), and perhaps backroom attempts to open fissures in the coalition or lure opposition members to the Conservative ranks, and perhaps similar skulduggery the other way, too. This is the seamy side of politics. There's a saying about laws and sausages. It will be a busy Christmas season.
Prorogation ends the Parliamentary Session. But Parliament had been called into session only two weeks before, and had not actually proceeded with the government's program set out in the speech from the throne.
Prorogation is usually (always?) requested by a government when it has completed its program for the Session. It has certainly (a) never been requested within three weeks of the throne speech of a freshly elected govrnment; (b) without the passage of any major piece of legislation; (c) by a government that has clearly lost the confidence of the House, and (d) to avoid a non-confidence motion.
It rather smacks of the ignoble motives of Mackenzie King in 1926. As an extremely well known hockey commentator and public personality might say: "Shabby. Very shabby. A real stand-up guy like Dougie, or Brendan Shanahan doesn't turtle. He turtled. You kids out there: don't ever turtle." (If you are a Canadian, you may find this funny, I hope.)
So now there is the bizarre dance of a Prime Minister who knows he does not have the confidence of the House presuming to advise the Gov. Gen. She in turn is taking his advice even though she knows he dare not face the House.
If they both assumed he lacked the confidence of the House, some people might fairly wonder whether she had a constitutional right to listen to him, other than to accept his resignation. Some people might now wonder (as several commentators on the CBC feedback sites have done) whether Canada ceased to have constitutionally legitimate federal government at about 11:18 a.m. yesterday. Hmm. Good question.
Clearly, the Gov.-Gen will have taken independent legal advice from eminent constitutional lawyers. In a very serious crisis like this it would not have been improper to have consulted the Queen herself and the Queen's constitutional legal advisers as well. The Queen is known (obviously) to have long and deep knowledge of constitutional convention and the role of the monarchy, which, by and large, is to uphold fair play while avoiding controversy. Sometimes that is a tricky job.
And, yes, 13, Stressed, the Crown would have been well within its rights as an institution to have asked the first minister to demonstrate that he had the support of the House as a condition of granting the request to Prorogue. This was, in fact, suggested by a former Gov. Gen. Ed Screyer. It will be 30 years before we find out why this was not done. The meeting lasted 2 hours.
Complain about this comment
strange canadians might be seen as a little anti american.
after all they were offered the chance to be part of the US but the said NO.
or NON
instead siding with them pesky unthinking useless people from over the seas.
Providing their people with distractions from the true pain of life, the torture that is the everyday.Why if suffering was not good for you and ignoring the plight of the sick around you is not good then why would God have created so much of it.
Mollycoddling their people with Healthcare ,
It's against God.
Inhuman ,heathens
Complain about this comment
#70 publiusdetroit:
I know what your saying about possibly being able to play more of a leadership role. But I'm afraid the clock will continue to tick and time will expire, so to speak. I've been hoping that Canada would take on more of a leadership role during the current crisis, if our economy is really in better shape than others (as our leaders here lead us to believe). But it doesn't seem that this will be the case. Or at least not at this point. The current government has already stated that they would prefer to wait and see what takes place south of the border before going too crazy with their economic plans. Which may be wise, I'm not sure. We are very interlinked economically with the U.S. I'm not sure if this really hampers us from setting out our own economic path right now. But I don't know all the ins and outs of the economics, so I'd rather not speculate. I think the current crisis has thrown government off as now they have to prepare a budget by Jan. 27 (I believe?), which is only a few days after Obama gets into office. However, in the end, perhaps this is what the majority of Canadians would like. We seem to prefer more of a 'teammate' role rather than a leadership one. People up here are worried about the economy and the steady approach being offered by the Conservative government is winning people over. I'm expecting a conservative majority, probably by spring time. It's a shame though, it all could have been so different.
Complain about this comment
Don't fall into his trap.
Be careful Canadians remember he is not who he seems
I have proof.
Well the bottle does
Complain about this comment
Q to the Canadians. Do you get paid holidays as well as health care?
And do you have ROUNDABOUTS ?
Complain about this comment
Oh, and people shouldn't be swayed by any posts here bashing either Liberals or Conservatives in Canada. This is the kind of thing that's happening on the Canadian news sites, and it's a little ridiculous. I would encourage anyone who's interested to read a few different articles from different sources and make up your own minds. Politics are politics, and nobody is innocent. Rather, I'd argue, all parties are guilty. It just depends on which guilty party you prefer.
Myself, I look at the last election with the lowest voter turnout in our history. To me that suggests that people are just tired of our current politicians.
Complain about this comment
As a Canadian I am stunned with the amount of comments being submitted. We didn't even have this much coverage during the elections. Most of the comments (the ones that I have noticed anyways) seem to be blaming the political parties, in reality we (as canadians) should be blaming ourselves. 40% of the voters didn't vote and we ended up with a minority government. The main reason (my opinion) was, we did not have a charismatic candidate (Like Obama) that could attract the imagination of the whole population. Good or bad, Obama was able to do that.
Mr. Harper shot himself in the foot by finding a way to galvanize the opposition against him. Take away money from a political party? That's like chumming the water when shark fishing, you are going to get bit.
Hopefully we can get through this without another election, I am not sure we could afford it financially or emotionally.
Complain about this comment
78
It seems to me there is the occasional
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile?userid=11645683
but to be honest he doesn't seem to be telling us what he thinks.
Maybe he is an american worried about what happens if his health care provider goes down the tubes.
Canada is the but of jokes by americans.
but then America is the butt of jokes by the world.
I'd rather have a Canadian passport myself.
Oh , and do keep it down, with the Anti wah wah ,go back trash talk, it does you no favours etc.
Complain about this comment
Part 5. (and last)
In any case, the time-out has been granted even though it serves no objective public purpose. It clearly serves a one-sided partisan purpose. Agreed 45, this is a terrible precedent. Minority governments in the future will be able to delay a non-confidence vote by demanding that the House be prorogued. One may doubt whether this precedent is going to be picked up by the other Westminster based constitutional monarchies.
For better or worse, the result is that Harper now has two months to engage in arm-twisting.
This crisis was brought on by Mr. Harper himself, foolishly, selfishly, and unnecessarily. It seems very much to be about Mr. Harper's own personal ambition to lead a majority government, and little else. There is so much mindless, uninformed blather. Harper portrays himself as the champion of Canadian democracy. Oh, please. Stuff and Nonsense. The only thing on the line yesterday at Rideau Hall was Stephen Harper's desire to be Prime Minister. In poll, after poll, after poll, a broad majority of Canadians would be only too glad to see Mr. Harper's departure.
This foolish, unnecessary, selfish crisis has already served to strengthen the position of the Bloc, and to cast its leader, Gilles Duceppe, in the light of a dignified statesman. No amount of money could have bought that for the Bloc.
Given the problems now facing Canada, the time between now and January 26 might better be spent by Mr. Harper considering whether his country would be better served by someone with a less fractious personality. Right now, he has so poisoned the environment that the chances of this Parliament working smoothly as long as Stephen Harper is Prime Minister are, seemingly, nil. There are other senior ministers in the Harper cabinet who could step in and work more harmoniously with the other parties. Saner heads could prevail. With a little less selfish behaviour the country could go back to work with a moderate, generally centrist, or very slightly center-right government balanced gently, comfortably, between the (Progressive)-Conservatives and the Liberals. It would be stable (209 seats). It would avoid placing Jack Layton anywhere near the cash drawer. It would not require excessive cosiness with the Bloc. It can be easily done. It requires just one small thing:
Stephen, Please, for the love of God, man, put your country ahead of yourself. Go now, before you do any worse damage.
I hope this has been informative to other readers. I apologize for its length.
Complain about this comment
Canada is a vast expanse of land which is underpopulated by people with silly accents, cold, scenic, and mostly ignored.
It's basically Eastern Alaska. I think maybe they yearn for Palin, not Obama.
What has Obama ever done other than run for President anyway?
Complain about this comment
I completely disagree. I think this is a big indicator that you aren't really paying attention to what's going on in Canadian politics.
What is happening... Is that we just had an election, and then a speech to the throne. The finance minister gave his financial update, which was full of things like pull tax payer funding from all political parties starting by mid next year. This part alone was enough to anger people as it would bankrupt two major parties and one minor party, making our political system pretty much a two party system. It was a political trick on the part of the conservatives that sent the other parties reeling... reeling enough to sign a coalition (the liberals and the ndp) and get a confidence commitment from the bloc.
We may want a Barack Obama, but our political crisis is not a result of that. This is a build up of our unstable government over the last 2 years. If Canada thought they had a better choice, another option... they'd pick it. But instead we keep our minority governments in the face of a lack of good policies and leadership.
Complain about this comment
# 79 Merribell34
I hear you on the divided country front. It seems to be getting that way here in Canada too. I guess there's lots of blame to be shared for this. Politicians share some, with the ways they try to drum up their support and run their campaigns. However, I'm finding message boards can really be a catalyst for this as well. The internet is a beautiful thing for us to communicate with, but without any civility or respect, things can get out of hand quickly and really push peoples buttons. Anyone can post for a variety of reasons and some of those reasons are strictly just to stir things up. I try my best to stick to the points and argue my view as best I can. I'd rather have debate. But somedays I have to bite my lip looking at the different boards. It's tough seeing some of the things people write. But you have to press on and try to rise above it. Maybe if we could all do that we'd find ourselves getting more things done in government. Disagreeing with others, but respecting those viewpoints.
Complain about this comment
Interested Foreigner.....sweetie you need a vacation........or the BBC needs to hire you for editorials....
Complain about this comment
It is important to note that there was a conference call before this political explosion by the leader of the NDP to others in his party and senior figures in the BQ. In it he was heard to say that this take-over of government had been planned "for some time". The interesting point about this is that Parliament had only been sitting for 12 days since the election seven weeks ago. So the planning began immediately after the election then, I presume. The opposition parties passed approval of the prime minister's throne speech measures without demur. Harper then announced a fiscal measure that was seen as arrogant (no one disagrees about his arrogance), and the plan formed by the plotters sprang into action.
To me the big question is this: can it be democratic to plot to overturn the results of a democratic election before MPs even take their seats at the first sitting of the House? Can you seize power just because the Prime Minister is someone you personally loathe, never mind that an election put him there?
I voted liberal myself, but cannot back the Liberals in this attempted hi-jacking of power. The NDP got a score of about 14.6% in yesterday's Ipsos Reid poll. This plot is their leader's only chance to ever have a cabinet seat. It's all so banana republic.
Complain about this comment
And yes, to the point of the article above, I don't think the crisis currently in Canada has anything really to do with Obama.
For me, I go back to 1988 and the Meech Lake accord. I was thinking about this the other day. Follow the policital history from there, and you'll see where we're at now.
Complain about this comment
#64 straseed
Do some hard and honest research into the Avro Arrow and you'll find that one of the major factors that "torpedoed" it was not the Bomarc, but runaway costs. Costs had gone ballistic, foreign orders for it had been cancelled and still it was not completely ready for production. But why P.M. Diefenbaker ordered destruction of every aircraft built was utterly mindless and a terrible shame.
Yes, the border situation today is a shame, but then the side to the equation you haven't presented is that if Canada (much like the U.S. with its Mexican border) had not become so utterly and shamefully sloppy about who it has allowed into the country without screening or security checks; had not allowed terrorists - even al Qaeda and Tamil Tiger members, and families of Somali's warlords - to make Canada their home, and has such poor control over the whereabouts of foreign criminal elements still loose in the country, the U.S. might not have resorted to passports and other border checks.
Complain about this comment
#96....I absolutely agree.
Complain about this comment
Yesssss, the Avro Arrow. Yeah, it was shame he had them destroyed. You're right about that sloppy border too robloop. We did have it good, but in the current global climate stricter control is required. Unfortunate, but true.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner, excellent exposition!
happylaze (#86) "strange canadians might be seen as a little anti american. after all they were offered the chance to be part of the US but the said NO.",
and chronophobe (#19),
It's a little-known fact that the northern provinces (settled by Scots) were on the other side of the American Revolution (instigated by Ulster Scots, what we call the "Scotch-Irish") because they couldn't agree on the spelling of "whisk(e)y". Our Scots in the lower colonies adopted the Irish spelling, while Canadians still use the Scottish form.
Complain about this comment
I just read up on the Avro Arrow. Interesting. I feel the same regret about the termination of the Northrop F-20 Tigershark.
Complain about this comment
#64 straseed
Do some hard and honest research into the Avro Arrow and you'll find that one of the major factors that "torpedoed" it was not the Bomarc, but runaway costs. Costs had gone ballistic, foreign orders for the Arrow had been cancelled and still it was not completely ready for production. But why P.M. Diefenbaker ordered destruction of every aircraft built was utterly mindless and a terrible shame.
Meanwhile the F-104 Starfighter was ready for service and significantly less expensive.
Yes, the border situation today is a shame, but then the side to the equation you haven't presented is that if Canada (much like the U.S. with its Mexican border) had not become so utterly and shamefully sloppy about who it has allowed into the country without screening or security checks; had not allowed terrorists - even al Qaeda and Tamil Tiger members, and families of Somali's warlords - to make Canada their home, and has such poor control over the whereabouts of foreign criminal elements still loose in the country, the U.S. might not have resorted to passports and other border checks.
Complain about this comment
histjunkie:
There is nothing wrong with opposition parties meeting to work together, no matter how early after the election that meeting is. That is the way minority parliaments are supposed to work! The difference this time is that the only party which does not want to work with anyone is the Conservative party. That's their right, but since they don't have a majority of MPs, they don't necessarily get to call the shots. That's how a democracy works. A Lib-NDP coalition with bloc support does have a majority of MPs, so they have the right to govern. No results were overturned. Canada voted for its parliament, and will be the same parliament with a coalition as it was without.
Let me phrase it another way. If I take the US congress and split the democratic party down the middle, calling half of them the Democratic A party and half the Democratic B party, would that give the Republicans a mandate to govern? Of course not. And as long as the two halves worked together they would still control both houses. The same goes here. Harper did not have a mandate to govern alone. Minority governments must work with the opposition to get things done. The Conservatives refused to work with the opposition, so they banded together and chose to govern on their own.
Speaking of the conference call, it was illegally tapped into by the Conservatives, and anyone involved should go to jail. Spying on any political party cannot and should not be justified, ever.
Complain about this comment
Justin:
Small clarification: The Governor General is not the "acting head of state".
The Queen is the head of state.
The Governor General is the Queen's representative. She represents the Queen in all of the Queen's duties at the federal level while the Queen is absent from Canada. The Queen's duties at the provincial level are performed by the various Lieutenants General.
Complain about this comment
97 Marribell34
Nah, I just like history a lot.
Sam Tyler reads more than I do, though. He probably knows this stuff inside-out.
Complain about this comment
I'm of two minds on Canadians:
On one hand they produced the likes of Brian Adams, William Shatner, and Celine Dion (thumps chest).
But to their credit, they also brought us Jim Carey, Rick Moranis, and Tom Green.
Complain about this comment
To further explain Canada's head of state or more properly said, Sovereign.
The Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II, is a legal and separate entity in the Dominion of Canada(yes that is still the official title) from that of the UK, Australia, NZ, and the other 12 Commonwealth Realms. The role as Sovereign(Queen, head of state) is an integral part of the governmental machine. It is imperatively at the very core of it's parliamentary system. Without the role of the Sovereign, the country could not exist in it's current form.
The Queen's position as head of the country was solidified further with the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982. This was the very last legal tie, constitutionally, Canada had with the United Kingdom. Canada and her Queen are one of the same. Even if the UK got rid of the monarchy completely, it would still remain in Canada indefinitely, in it's own right.
Lastly, for those that incorrectly use the term, 'Queen of England'. There in fact has not been a Queen of England since Queen Anne in 1707. Shocking people still use it! The Queen has different and lengthy titles depending where she is Queen of. Usually we just all refer to the role as "the Queen" or "the King".
Complain about this comment
For some of the American commenting, Canada is not a monolith.
I do business with Quebec, Otawa and Vancouver concerns they have different philosphies and goals.
Western Canada generally is more favorable to the U.S than the others.
The Globe and Mail however is a rag. I have seen more erronious reporting regarding the U.S than in LeMonde.
Example the emminant domain cases, it was the liberal justices who sided with the state takeover to give to a richer private developer. but the newspaper blamed Bush
Complain about this comment
"Barack Obama is unique and uniquely American" alright - a total fraud, an empty confection whipped up by a party machine with hundreds of millions in cash and a complaisant media (including at least one foreign correspondent 'cheerleader'). The Obama Trap that 'the world' - or at least naive school kids in South London and provincial Canadian local papers - have fallen into is to even believe his phoney public persona in the first place. Most Americans are neither "sated" nor "panting" (whatever that over-the-top sexual metaphor is supposed to mean). In fact, 70% of the American electorate did NOT vote for Obama Copacabana. He was elected by less than a third of the total eligible voters. As Lincoln once observed, "you can fool some of the people all of the time". And as Bush, Sr. once slyly added. "...and those are the ones you should concentrate on". Unfortunately, it seems, a lot of people in other parts of the world are equally susceptible. Sadly, they're going to find out over the next four years, just what an awful trap they've fallen into.
Complain about this comment
happylaze asked - Q to the Canadians. Do you get paid holidays as well as health care?
And do you have ROUNDABOUTS ?
A - Yes, yes, and some roundabouts. Depends where you live in Canada considering it has 6 time zones, 10 Provinces, and different administrative practices in each. Roundabouts are becoming very popular to use for traffic calming measures.
Holidays? Not as many paid holidays as the UK.
Healthcare? Pretty similar to UK NHS.
Canada is essentially the same as the UK governmentally and institutionally. It also shares common traditions and culture and even holidays like Boxing Day or the Queen's birthday - called Victoria Day in Canada but it celebrates the current monarch's birthday not the older one.
Complain about this comment
An analogy for the current crisis. If you, like most Canadians, are into hockey you will see how the beloved Toronto Maple Leafs can finally get the Stanley Cup.
The Cup will be stripped from from 2008 champions the Detroit Red Wings and be awarded to the Leafs, who didn't even make the playoffs.
How is this possible, Canadians ask?
Well, the Leafs have formed a coalition with Eastern semi-finalists the Montreal Canadiens, and quarter-finalists the Ottawa Senators.
"The Red Wings have lost the confidence of the league and should hand the cup over immediately to our coalition," Leafs coach Ron Wilson said.
NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is cutting short a European trip to try to resolve the unprecedented hockey crisis that could force a second playoff series, or see an opposing team coalition take the Cup.
Complain about this comment
78. At 5:53pm on 05 Dec 2008, mdalerwill wrote:
"The best humor I have ever seen regarding Canadians came from The Kids In The Hall, who were Canadian themselves if I recall correctly. "
Yah they were, that was a great show! That was like early comedy central at least in the U.S. I was actually thinking about the South Park movie, which was hilarious. I live in a boarder state and I am about 3 hrs from Canada, so many that's why there are Candian jokes. Tis all in good fun though, I love that place. It's weird to go there and see "Budweiser" as an imported beer. Who would import that crap?
Complain about this comment
BBC, get some editing software. Too often I proof read and don't catch ridiculous mistakes.
Complain about this comment
87, 90 t_RAV_in_tO & 91 Double-double
You have temperate approaches, which is good, but from what I've read it was not just a matter of Harper getting the Liberals and NDP excited over public funds being denied their party, because, evidently, right after the recent election (and thus with public funds not even an issue), Jack Layton of the NDP, in an effort to over-throw the Conservatives and grab a bit of power for his small minority party (but mainly for himself you can bet), initiated discussions with the BLOC Quebequer that wants the break-up of Canada. Once he had some sort of agreement with them he approached the Liberals to form a coalition.
However, regardless of how despicable it seems of the NDP and Liberals to consort with the French separatists, it seems that Stephen Harper brought matters to a head by being unnecessarily provocative or arrogant, in the process 'shooting himself in the foot' and creating an unnecessary crisis.
Complain about this comment
#80 Gary_A_Hill
"AsaScot (#72), yes, of course they do. I think you know that. They have a President, a Senate, and a National Assembly."
And of course the farmers and unions who actually make the decisions. Is France on its Fourth or Fifth Republic? I lost count... :-)
Complain about this comment
Dear Justin: Thanks, at least, for nodding in the direction of Canada. It's been more or less ignored by the BBC in general for the past couple of years. Perhaps Canada cooked up the constitutional crisis to get some attention? It certainly hasn't generated much from the Americans, though they probably would take notice if the oil and gas stopped flowing from Western Canada and the Blackberry went out of business, not to mention the shutdown of auto parts manufacturers in the land of the north.
There was no entirely satisfactory way out of the parliamentary crisis, involving as it did so many actors from all sides. It's probably set some interesting precedents in Canadian constitutional law, as well as sounded the death knell for the ill-matched partners in the would-be coalition. Not much chance for that, now.
Complain about this comment
I was just following a link that pinky provided on another thread, and browsed around the newspaper to see what else is going on.
I noticed tha 'Canadian automakers' were appealing to the Canadioan government for emergency loans. Intrigued as to who these Canadian car makers were, I dug deeper. Are these same companies trying it on in every country they operate in?
Complain about this comment
I am new to this blog.
Justin - Since you are North American editor and Canada has 1/10th the population of the U.S. perhaps something on Canada every 10 days or so....?
There seems to be a lot of interest and the discussion very friendly and informative. Lots of goodwill back and forth.
#36 StickJackal's rhyme
#82 Interestedforeigner's history lesson
#73 Sickofwar's scary list
.....etc.
Complain about this comment
I think some of you should come up for air. What a bunch of nut cases. Reading these post leaves me to believe there's no hope. Too many knuckle heads here on both sides.
Complain about this comment
Canada is like Brigadoon. It comes alive for one day every hundred years and then it goes back into hibernation. Only a few more hours to go Canada. Ay?
Complain about this comment
Re: Interestedforeigner 82, 83, 84, etc.
Sir,
I salute you! Job well done.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Re: 122 Lochraven,
Too true. I believe I'll have a wee dram. That'd be of WHISKY, Mr. Hill
Cheers
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Justin:
I think that most people in Canada are falling into the Barack Obama trap of better and transparent government....
Complain about this comment
Re: 123 MAII
That's right, laugh while you can. I probably shouldn't be telling you this, but, what the hell.
You know all those rumours of Obama's out of US birth? Totally true, only not like you've heard. He's actually from Nova Scotia. That's right, he's the scion of slaves who joined the British in exchange for their freedom during that nasty little insurrection of yours.
We've carefully trained him, and come inauguration day the U. E. Loyalists shall at last have revenge! You will become indistinguishable from us, what with health care, racial tolerance, gun control and the like.
But don't worry. You WILL come to love multiculturalism and hockey as we do. And, if I were you, I'd start learning the metric system ...
God Save the Queen!
Complain about this comment
#123
Marcus,
I agree. As South Park once sang:
'They're not a real country anyway'
Terrence and Sam
Complain about this comment
84 Interestedforeigner
One thing I'd like to make clear because I know it's not true, Stephen Harper does not have "strong support by evangelical Christians". He might well have had their support in his early days as prime minister, but to them he has proven a dismal failure in regard to abortion, recently emphatically making it clear that he will not permit members of his own party to re-open debate on abortion.
Then he seems to lack the stomach to do anything about Canada's rogue Human Rights Commissions and their obsessive preoccupation with promoting a homosexual agenda, what they consider as 'hate speech', and tyrannical conduct in Human Rights Commission courts that are now often little more than kangaroo courts.
If anyone has any doubts about this go to Google and look up Mark Steyn, a writer for MacLean's magazine, and then read the views of a Rex Murphy.
The bottom line, Harper has done nothing about addressing this issue, but be assured, the Liberals and NDP would definitely do nothing about the HRCs as they go on their merry way making a mockery of democracy and silencing free speech.
Complain about this comment
Actually, the Governor General is enjoying a 70-80% approval rating for her decision to porogue Parliament . This is not the 'crisis' foreigners think it is. Parliament is only going home one week early. A confidence vote will be held in January.
Most Canadians find foreigners, particularly Americans and Brits, who should know better, quite irritating when they call our system quaint and 'undemocratic and insist that the United Empire Loyalists got it wrong in rejecting George Washington.'
Before a GG is chosen, the Leader of the Opposition is also asked his opinion regarding the choice. The GG's job is to ensure stability and she only intervenes to get the system back on track.
More evidence that Her Excellency acted correctly and is protecting democracy. The coalition is asking itself some serious questions and Dion may not even retain his leadership until the Liberal convention. She could not have asked him to form a government under those circumstances.
In the meantime, MPs are back in their riding getting an earful about 'incivility' and Canadians are moving on to concerns like the economy and the loss of more troops in Afganistan. And finally focusing on our own country's Parliament. (No Obama envy here.)
Again, we don't consider our political systems 'quaint', but we do find Americans who think we made a mistake in choosing it, really irritating. And Brits too, when they give them a forum.
We may have an election in January. Or maybe not. Either way, please stop insulting us. And gaze in your own naval for a while.
Yes, we have snap elections. Yes we have a Queen, represented by a Governor General. Our choice.
Complain about this comment
Well said maple.
What gets lost in the shuffle here is that while Harper has made an unprecedented move and delayed the inevitable, the fact that it is inevitable merely underscores the truth - our system works very well.
Harper, by trying to shove a controversial bill down the left of centers' throats, has rendered himself inert. Instead of having another 4 years of him as the states would (read: did), he'll be gone in a month or two tops and we'll have an effective government again.
I like our system of government and the fact that we have a non-political head of state. I like our roots in the commonwealth, I like our Queen and I like that Canadians are reacting so vehemently against this political skullduggery.
I love my country :)
Complain about this comment
127, chronophobe.
Why have you let the cat out of the bag? Obama's opposition was saving this for the Supreme Court?
Complain about this comment
131 Straseed
With Harper gone you'll have "effective government again" - from whom? The utterly ineffectual Stephane Dion in tandem with scheming Jack Layton, 'backed' by the BLOC Quebequer that is committed to breaking up Canada?
You must be joking! That would be about as effective as having Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi running the show, 'backed' by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela!
Complain about this comment
maplecomment (#130), I think you're being a bit oversensitive. Many Americans, myself included, appreciate the advantages of a Westminster type parliamentary system, and certainly respect your right to choose whatever system suits you. The word "quaint" is not a particularly strong word of disapproval, if it is one at all, and I would only apply it to certain minor procedural matters, myself. Certainly far worse has been said by Mr. Webb and others about our electoral college.
Where we disagree rather significantly, however, is with your notion that the BBC ought not to give a forum to critics of the British (and Canadian, etc.) way of doing things. We believe rather strongly in the rights of free speech and press down here (in the US). Some Americans (and Canadians and others) can be irritating, true, but if someone doesn't like the fact that they have access to a public forum in which to express their views (within reasonable limits), I say that's just too bad. Get over it.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and maplecomment, what do you mean, exactly, by " ... insist that that the UE Loyalists got it wrong in rejecting George Washington"? Who said that?
Washington was a moderate at the beginning of the American Revolution, who hoped for reconciliation with Great Britain. He was not one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. After the Declaration, he was chosen to lead the Continental Army. His role then was military, not political.
Complain about this comment
129. Robloop.
In some ways your comment speaks for itself, perhaps not as you might have intended.
Yes, there are alternative parties also supported by Christian fundamentalists: The Christian Heritage Party and the Family Coalition Party, for example. They have had some strength in e.g., the Niagara Peninsula and in the BC interior, but their vote totals across Canada sum to less than 1 %. The overwhelming bulk of the evangelical vote goes to the Conservative, nee Reform, Party. It certainly isn't going to the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc or the Greens. Since the five major parties account for over 97 % of the vote it is difficult to understand where you believe the evangelical vote is going if not overwhelmingly to the Conservatives. The strong influence of evangelicals was well on display at the recent Conservative convention in Winnepeg, where, e.g., there was cheering when a motion passed for the proposed redefinition of an unborn fetus as a child.
To others, as a footnote, it is improbable that any major political party in Canada would now seriously propose to recriminalize abortion. This issue was settled over 20 years ago in Canada.
130. MapleComment.
(1) Please be patient with, and tolerant of the lack of knowledge of non-Canadians about Canada.
(a) Remember, most Canadians are themselves poorly informed about Canadian history and civics; and
(b) How much do you yourself know, for example, about Mexican or Brazilian history or politics ?
Canadians tend to be comparatively well informed about US politics because, rather like Puerto Rico, even though Canadians don't have a vote in US elections, Canadians are profoundly affected by US elections, US laws, and the performance of the US economy.
75 - 80 % of Canada's imports are from, and 80 - 85 % of Canada's exports are to, the US. Roughly C$ 2 B crosses the border in two way trade every day. More trade flows across the Windsor-Detroit border crossing than any other border crossing in the world.
While Canada has run a budget surplus for 13 years (bless you Paul Martin), has had a substantial trade surplus for many years, and has a mortgage default rate very substantially less than 1 %, if the US economy takes a tumble Canada will follow. Alternatively, if President Obama puts the screws to NAFTA, Canada is in big trouble. Ontario (pop. 12 m.) alone has 400,000 auto industry jobs (and falling like a stone).
It is a hugely assymetric relationship.
It is, therefore, a bit unfair to expect Americans or Brits to know much more about Canada than we know about e.g., Mexico or Brazil.
If it bothers you that others don't know much about Canada, well, you have a good opportunity here to inform. These posters aren't mean or ill spirted. Maybe they would like to know more. So take that opportunity and try to replace ignorance with knowledge. Try to bring out the good in people.
(2) We do not know what advice Peter Hogg or others may have given the Gov. Gen., and to say that there is evidence that the decision is "correct" seems a bit hasty. We are not likely to know if it was "correct", or, indeed, "incorrect" until we see how it unfolds over the coming months, and probably not for at least 20 or 30 years.
I cannot comment on polls of approval ratings because I have not seen them and do not know their source. I can say that only one Party has any money left to do that kind of overnight polling, and that Party is determined to break up the proposed coalition by fair means or foul prior to January 26, 2009. That was the whole point of requesting Prorogation. Therefore, a fair level of skepticism of those polls might be in order. By contrast, on the CBC website the comments against the decision were recommended by over 2000 viewers, and ran more than 7 pages before the first pro-Harper comment appeared. Overall, the comments were running perhaps 20 - 30:1 against Harper. That is extraordinary. I have never before seen anything like it on that site.
As for whether the Gov. Gen. could or should have called on Mr. Dion, clearly the only question that is constitutionally appropriate is whether Mr. Dion could demonstrate that he had the support of the House - which, apparently, he could. It is emphatically not the Gov. Gen's role, or duty, or place, to speculate on day-to-day politics concerning the upcoming replacement of Mr. Dion as leader of the Liberal Party, since that is an entirely internal affair of a partisan political party, i.e., none of the Crown's business, any more than it was the Crown's business to speculate on Margaret Thatcher's replacment by John Major, or Tony Blair's replacment by Gordon Brown. That would be hugely improper.
I suspect that the real issue was to avoid the appearance of having taken sides in a partisan dispute - an issue on which there was no win-win answer. However, this way, if Mr. Harper now falls in January, the Crown can not be blamed for not having let him make his own bed. There is much to be said for that view, for sure. But against that, there is now the precedent of being able to run away from a confidence vote, and the example of the Crown taking advice from a first minister who does not have the support of the House. That violates a centuries-old bedrock principle of responsible government in Westminster Parliaments, namely whether Canada has responsible government or not.
Particularly given that his advice was to shut down Parliament, even temporarily, yes, this is a rather important, basic issue in a democracy.
If Paul Martin had done this 2 years ago, the Conservatives would have jumped up and down in a self-righteous, indignant rage. If Joe Clark had done this 29 years ago, the Liberals would have cried foul. Either way, the country has paid a bad price simply to indulge Stephen Harper's ego. Depending on what happens in January, that price may get larger. It is going to be paid for many, many years.
Although it is not certain, it looks like it would have been better, or at least constitutionally more sound, to have made the Prorogation conditional on a prior demonstration of support in the House.
As for the timing issue, you are right, Parliament is only going home one week early. But it would be a Liberal NDP coalition, and the Christmas interval would be spent in transition to a new government. That is not a trivial difference.
Harper has now had his Mulligan. It therefore seems unlikely that Canada will have an election in January, February or March, without the Liberal leader (whomever it may then be) first having a chance to form a government. Still, a week can be a long time in politics.
Complain about this comment
#106 Ptrsin
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. The latest poll showed that a good number of people ( more than 50%) think the coalition is attempting a pure power grab, rather than thinking of the welfare of Canadians. Sorry I don't have the exact figure.
I can see why you think the coalition might be theoretically justified in toppling Harper before he has had time to actually do any major policy. But I cannot remember a vote of no confidence ever being done 12 days after Parliament sits. Theory aside, the haste of tossing aside the party who won the election has an air of greed for power and bigger pension about it. Of course the power and bigger pension is only for the lucky cabinet members. The lowly liberal back benchers will get nothing and may pay the price at the next election. I voted Liberal, but won't be doing so next time, even though I am not ideologically a Conservative.
As for the phone call. Thank goodness that individual taped it, because that has made all the difference to the way I see this. That's one back room deal in the open. Now all we need to know is what did Layton promise the BQ. The west wishes to know.
Complain about this comment
#34:
"Give us a break, man! What do you or anyone else at BBC really know about Obama? Neither you nor Matt Frei or Katty Kay bothered to conduct independent investigations into his life and political record during the elections, preferring to parrot the mostly baseless drivel that pro-Democrat stations, Democrat Party advisors and strategists, and liberal journalists waffled endlessly.
How on earth can you say the man is
"unique" - in a special sense - when he hasn't yet in all his years in politics achieved anything of note - other than win the U.S. Presidential election supported by a huge reserve of funds and a disgracefully biased U.S. media."
Obama won because the GOP couldn't form a case as to how they would have governed differently from George W. Bush
The bulk of the Republican platform consisted primarily of throwing dirt on Obama's name (Only in GOP-land is someone named "Hussein" automatically a terrorist), Rev. Wright (Rod Parsley? John Hagee?), and William Ayers (G. Gordon Liddy?).
Until the day the GOP quits making speeches about "lower taxes" and "smaller government" and actually DOES something about it, they're going to be in the wilderness for quite a long time.
Complain about this comment
136 interestedforeigner:
Good posts! On the subject of popular support: while those CBC figures are certainly not in Harpers favour, I have seen two polls, one for the CBC, and one for the globe and mail, both show that Harper would get a majority if an election were held today (44/45%). The same polls also show a distinct lack of support for the coalition. A majority of Canadians seem to support the decision to prorogue parliament. Though this is probably less out of love for Harper and more to do with avoiding another general election. I think the coalition is ill-fated. I cannot see them holding together for more than a month or two, and anyway they have the problem of the liberal party's leadership. A problem of his own making but I think Harper will survive ... just!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081204.wPOLpoll1205/BNStory/politics/home
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/
Complain about this comment
140:
The CBC poll I mentioned was on 'The National', two days ago, I can't remember who carried it out.
Complain about this comment
# in response to #14. skoota66:
As far as i am aware Elizabeth Windsor aka "Elizabeth II Regina", holds the head of state position for each nation separately.
She is claimed by each of the nation that she is head of state as their own. The fact that she also happens to be head of state of other nations is a side note.
Since she is a decendant of Empress of India I guess she is indian. Oh wait, she is decendant of king of Jamaica, so she is Jamaican, errr since she is decendant of Emperor of Ghana she is Ghanaian i get confused..
e.g.
Canada.
Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Canada and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, etc
Antigua and barbuda: [Defintely assume that she is local]
Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Antigua and Barbuda and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, etcFaith, etc
The bahamas: also assume that she is local
Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, etc.
barbados: ditto
Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Barbados and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, etc
Complain about this comment
136 Interestedforeigner
I won't dispute your claim that the bulk of evangelical votes go to the Conservatives, but it is evident that any infatuation with, or expectations of, Harper himself have died on the vine. A friend directed me to a website called LifeSiteNews, Christian and primarily Catholic (I think), that comes out of Canada primarily (I gather), in which I've now read numbers of columns emphasizing Harper's lack of opposition to abortion and his inaction over the conduct of Canada's Human Rights Commissions. The disaffection seems fairly complete.
Complain about this comment
I am genuinely finding this stuff fascinating - especially the erudite and informative postings from 'interestedforeigner'.
The one thing that strikes me, as a complete outsider, is I cannot see how someone can say Harper 'won' the election with 37% of the votes and a minority of the seats. Maybe because we have had all kinds of coalitions in [the Rep of] Ireland, but I pretty much take it as a given that the 'winners' are whichever combination of parties can form a stable government.
Complain about this comment
Re: 130 maplecomment
Well, that's an odd post. Aside from a bit of chain yanking (to which you have all too predictably responded), the posts in this thread were by and large polite questions and/or informative discussion.
Please, read the thread before going off on a rant.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Re: 143 Dublin john, in:
Canadians are used to the duopoly of the Libs and Conservatives, with the NDP as also-rans.
The decline of the "big two" in Quebec, and the consequent rise of the Bloc Quebecois, seems to be pushing us toward the necessity of learning to live with coalition gov'ts.
It's going to take awhile for folks to get used to it, I'm afraid.
Any links to recommended Irish media?
Thanks,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Marcus, post 27 & 53
Not sure as to the location of Canada? Well old age does not come alone..
It's definately to the north.
It's the beautiful land that your fore-fathers thought that they could take by just marching.
It's inhabitated by folk who stand by their friends from the start of any worthy conflict, and stay to the last.
They have minds of their own and often see that might is not always right.
They have the two most beautiful cities in this world, Vancouver and Victoria.
Canadians are universally respected the world over.Gentle and unassuming..
Just like americans without their guns?? more like some americans without their attitude..
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner and chronophobe
How do you see this playing out?
As an English Quebecer with a Provincial election on Monday the 8th, I am, needless to say, more than worried!
Complain about this comment
ukawailee, old age has nothing to do with it. Last time I headed north out of Rochester, I got to this huge sea. I thought it was Lake Ontario but it turned out to be the Arctic Ocean. Nothing but icebergs as far as the eye could see. I'll bet Russia was right on the other side. With a pair of binoculars, I'll bet I' could have seen what Governor Palin saw. Are you sure Canada is actually still there? Have you checked lately? No noise, no sign of life from their direction. But then there rarely is.
Early this year I flew to Toronto. Canadian Customs and Immigration were rather surly. No sign of niceness there. I think they just didn't like Americans. Funny thing was though, we drove back through Niagara Falls and their American counterparts were every bit as bad if not worse. I don't expect to go back to Canada again...even if it is there. And I do hope we give all people who come to the US as unpleasant a time of it at our points of entry as I got. I'd hate to think foreigners are treated better than Americans by our own people.
"Gentle and unassuming" ????
Oh, you mean they are Wusses. I'll agree to that.
"Just like Americans without their guns."
How nice for them to have a neighbor who protects them at no real big cost to them. They can sit back and breathe easily. Uncle Sam will protect them from those nasty Russians. But who will protect them from the French? Actually, I don't think we are alike at all. When I meet a Canadian, the tenth word out of my mouth doesn't begin with "I'm an American and I'll tell you what's wrong with Canada." They are always so anxious to tell me why Canada is better than the US. But then why do they keep coming here? And why of all things do they come for medical treatment when it's free to them in Canada? Perhaps its the waiting they can't stand. That's the problem with socialism, you have eternal shortages. Just look as your own NHS.
Actually I've been to Vancouver and I do not agree that it is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. I've been to a lot of them. Even in Canada I like Montreal better. Quebec is more scenic even if it doesn't have a counterpart to Mount Whitney. I went up Grouse Mountain, to Stanley Park, and the Capalano bridge. It's OK. I prefer San Francisco to any of them. But having lived in cities, suburbs, and in a rural area, nothing beats living out in the country. It would just be better in Canada if it weren't frozen 364 days a year. If ice were an exportable comodity the way oil is, they'd be the richest country in the world. Ay?
Complain about this comment
#27, 53, 123 MarcusAurelius11
Your comments have given me a good deal of mirth. Having lived in Canada, gauged the general mood and seen the super-sensitivity toward foreign criticism or foreigners criticising Canada, I know that your comments 'grate' Canadians more than you possibly imagine.
From their politicians and media, Canadians have been led to believe that their country is not the backwater to which you allude, but the centre of the universe. And then you have the audacity to mock it!
Part of the problem is one of too many Canadians taking themselves and their country too seriously. Talk about 'naval gazing', it's almost a national pastime. Geniune self-deprication, let alone self-examination and self-criticism is not high on the list of activities. There are exceptions to that, naturally, but not too many. Rex Murphy who comments on CBC t.v. is an exception and really exceptional.
But as to Canadians falling into "the Obama trap", Justin, what were you thinking, mate? Meanwhile, thanks for the entertainment you've created.
Complain about this comment
Re: 147 AngloQuebecer
You are probably in a better position to say than am I!
I thought Charest was still looking at a majority, with the ADQ and PQ splitting the disaffected/sovereigntist vote. Do you get the sense that this is changing because of Harper's inflammatory rhetoric?
As to the Federal scene, jeezus, I dunno. So many variables. One thing is sure, Harper is going to have a hard time putting the roused rabble back to sleep! It's easy enough to stir up nationalistic passions, not so easy to calm them down.
Political passion is simple, visceral. Reasoned political compromises are, well, structured, complex, and built up over time.
I had come to have a grudging respect of Harper's political acumen. With this debacle, he has shown he is not worthy of it.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
The only problem with the Obama charisma is that we've been through this before with a guy named Pierre Elliot Trudeau. He took over the leadership of the Liberal Party when he was really a socialist and proceeded to change Canada in ways no one envisioned.
Being a francophone, he was out to subvert the English majority in the country and did this by opening the flood gates for third world immigration, most of whom settled in Toronto. Now we have ethnic street gangs with handguns smuggled in from the States where before Trudeau, none of this was taking place as we didn't have the street gangs.
Hopefully, President-elect Obama has no plans to alter American society the way Trudeau did.
Beware the politician with Charisma. It doesn't make him intelligent or right.
Complain about this comment
Re: 148
Marcus, darling, that's "eh?"
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Oh, and Marcus (and robloop, though your nationality is shifty, at best), might I suggest you get a Nexus card to ease your border crossings. Very handy. No nasty Customs agents.
And, after you get your card, I suggest you come up to Ottawa for a bit of skating. Ring me up, I'll buy you a beavertail!
Happy trails,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Re 151 FrankRosseter
Ah, yes, Trudeau (wistful sigh). My only regret with PET is that he didn't manage to get his good buddy Fidel appointed as Governor General for life.
My only hope is that the socialist/separatist coup will succeed, and we can then progress to full economic and political integration with our TRUE southern neighbours, Cuba!
Viva la Revolucion!!
Complain about this comment
chronophobe, I've known enough Candians in my life to know it's ay, in fact aye and not eh. And I've been to Ottawa. I saw Parliament and the changing of the guard. Saved me the trouble of going to London England. There still is an England isn't there? I heard someone say once that there will aways be an England. UK or UGH :-) But will there always be anything like English people living there. Oh that Plessed Blot.
Well I've had a lot of fun at Canadians' expense but if the truth be known, if they got over their obsession with their national identity crisis and would say huh instead of aye, you couldn't tell us apart. Funny thing though. They drew up these petitions in the 80s to apply for statehood if the Quebecois and the Aboriginies managed to break up Canada. Many don't like being one of several provences in far off Ottawa, I wonder how they'd like being one of more than fifty states in further off Washington DC. Believe me we're all better of if they don't break up and get swallowed up by the US. We have more national indigestion here already than we can handle without dealing with their problems too like their Francophone hangups. I can tell you one thing for certain. No matter what happens I am not going back to trying to learn to speak Franch again, no way, no how, come hell, high water, or Canada becoming part of the US. I have enough sinus problems as it is. Non! Non! Non!
Complain about this comment
#148 MarcusAurelius11
Another mocker! And pretty good too, not least about surly border customs people. But be fair now, Vancouver might not be one of the most beautiful 'cities' in the world, but like Cape Town it is one of the most beautifully situated cities in the world.
Of course the medical treatment in Canada is not 'free' any more than it is in Britain. You pay for it through heavy taxes. And further, it's deteriorating badly, which is why some Canadians travel to the U.S. for treatment - instead of very accommodatingly keeling over and dying while waiting! It never paid for dentistry and doesn't pay for drugs. It used to pay for physiotherapy, but in some provinces no longer does. You pay. It used to pay part of chiropractic treatment, but no longer does. And a friend has told me that having "semi-private" written into your group health and dental plan is now a bit meaningless in Ontario, because lack of rooms in hospitals could make a passageway your "semi-private" ward. On top of that they now also pay an additional 'hospital tax' when submitting their tax returns.
Americans urgently need something to reduce medical expenses, but they should have fewer illusions about what government-run healthcare systems will do for them.
Complain about this comment
Re: 150 chronophobe
Yes! That is my point.
I read a comment from a non-francophone Liberal Quebecer who (with his wife) has already voted PQ to show their displeasure with Harper's comments. If you can make any sense out of that. Emotions are running high!
Federalist Quebecers work hard to try to keep our country together now only to see it undone by our PM! It truly boggles the mind!
I do not agree with #151, but instead long for a Pierre Trudeau to emerge. At this point, I would even accept a Conservation one!
Complain about this comment
Re: 157 AngloQuebecer
I think (I hope?) that common sense will prevail. The latest polling (reported here in the Montreal Gazette) augers well for Charest. It interested me to learn that the collapse of ADQ support has actually played in the Liberals' favour, at least thus far.
I too have been reading the Canadian media blogs. So many of the postings seem to me to be simple regurgitation of Party talking points, and/or angry, ill considered rants. How the ranting will translate into political activity remains to be seen. I suspect a lot of it is just blowing off steam.
Still, I think it's funny that so many Canadians seem to have just realised that the Bloc is alive and well and participating, in their peculiar way, in Parliament. They've been there since 1990, and now suddenly it's "sedition" to talk to them. Odd.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
100
canada's a bad place ,,what failures EH?to quote you
"
Yes, the border situation today is a shame, but then the side to the equation you haven't presented is that if Canada (much like the U.S. with its Mexican border) had not become so utterly and shamefully sloppy about who it has allowed into the country without screening or security checks; had not allowed terrorists - even al Qaeda and Tamil Tiger members, and families of Somali's warlords - to make Canada their home,"
let anyone in eh?
that's why Homeland security started to check EH?
that's why pass ports are needed now eh?
OR was it the same over reaction that sees people getting fingerprinted and Iris scanned if they could.
Not the same paranoid thinking and blaming other countries because America thought letting people on to planes with knives was OK.
Box cutter OK
I think before you blame the northerners for the controls you might look at America (the united states one) to find the culprit.
Why rumour has it that some of the Hijackers actually lived in the USA.
Hard to believe I know.
Complain about this comment
19. At 01:29am on 05 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:
AsaScot: I'll have you know, the difficulties of our Canadian Confederation are all the fault of James Murray, a Scot and first Governor of Quebec. If he had been a twit like those good King George had in charge of the other 13 Colonies, I wouldn't need a passport to cross the border.
Slainte Mhath!
Canadian Pinko
I always thought that revolutionary wars were encouraged by Lords in the UK playing games. Making wagers about who led the most revolting colony.
Complain about this comment
109 Also they importantly DID NOT bring us Dick Cheney and George W Bush.
So they have that going for them.
Complain about this comment
153 Chronophobe
Your comment about me, "your nationality is shifty, at best" gave me a smile. I'm South African, have lived in Vancouver, the Toronto area, even very briefly Ottawa (the Market I think it's called), and through circumstances spent a lot of time in the U.S. That circumstance allows a person the opportunity to look in from the outside. You see the good and the bad, everywhere and, like the United States, Canada has much that is good - but some of it now disappearing, not least the once low level of crime, good level of common courtesy, and cleanliness in public places.
Canada was not done any favour by Pierre Trudeau opening the door to the world with such abandon. While I mix very easily with most nationalities and races, I impolitely, and happily so, regard Canadian
'multiculturism' a real crock.
Yes, Canadians are very tolerant, subdued and politically correct while watching
'their' country, the country into which they were born and grew up, disappear under a wave of immigrants who too often really don't respect their ways, culture or traditions while demanding that Canada become at least a reflection of the failed societies from which they emigrated - to find a better life in Canada (which then is not quite good enough because it's not enough like the mess from which they departed!) So much for multiculturalism!
What Canada now has, particularly Toronto (and probably Vancouver) is a polyglot of humans who often have very little in common. Sure they tolerate each other, make themselves understood, often in broken English, but there are generally no longer common values, or an unspoken understanding, or humour (God forbid!), the things that bind a people - even if they can exchange pleasantaries like discussing the weather.
Americans beware! Encourage immigrants to become American, or, as is happening in Toronto and surroundings, find yourself a minority in your own country.
We live in a changing, internationalizing world, and we have to accept that, but it does not mean that a nation has to see itself buried and finally obliterated in a wave of widely different foreigners as is happening in Canada.
Complain about this comment
113 three lions win
thankyou.
Don't worry I know some about Canada as the more important To a Brit country on the North American continent.
But the holiday pay interests me.
It does seem that Canada has a more "european" mentality on health care (as some from the USA seem to say.Personally I would call it" sensible mentality").
I was wondering how this translated to other areas more so the holiday.
Here in the states many people get No holiday in the year.
Complain about this comment
old age has nothing to do with it. Last time I headed north out of Rochester, I got to this huge sea. I thought it was Lake Ontario but it turned out to be the Arctic Ocean.
but being old and unable to read a map is.
Complain about this comment
149 Having lived in Canada, gauged the general mood and seen the super-sensitivity toward foreign criticism or foreigners criticising Canada, I know that your comments 'grate' Canadians more than you possibly imagine.
Wow
I think the Canadians are probably annoyed with people saying are you "american".
And they have good reason to be annoyed ,who who is not american would like to be insulted like that.
Complain about this comment
162 Having lived in Canada, gauged the general mood and seen the super-sensitivity toward foreign criticism or foreigners criticising Canada, I know that your comments 'grate' Canadians more than you possibly imagine.
Sure they tolerate each other, make themselves understood, often in broken English,
Encourage immigrants to become American, or, as is happening in Toronto and surroundings, find yourself a minority in your own country.
Now you weren't a Boer were you?
Complain about this comment
"Geniune self-deprication, let alone self-examination and self-criticism is not high on the list of activities. "
Now anyone reading this blog for any time (like one week) will know that americans just love it when people say their place them people and their country suck.
Time for That Tim fellow to turn up and complain about anti americanism,EH?
Seriously lucky you said you were not american then you would be a total hypocrite.
Nice essay on health care.
tell me how many Canadians would swap for the US system or lack there of?
Because as Systems goes you are comparing Apples with empty air.
America has a health Industry not system.
But it is OK you do after all have the unswerving support of someone who thinks they are an old emperor who was wise.
Strange fantasies that is for sure.
Complain about this comment
histjunkie:
I agree that public perception is against the coalition, but I think this is due more to the Conservative PR campaign than anything else. When you have people shouting on tv and radio 24/7 that the coalition is undemocratic and a coup d'etat, I'm not surprised public opinion moves against it. And let's face it, the Conservatives are miles ahead of Dion's Liberals in moving public opinion (the main reason behind him losing the election). I would have loved to see a poll taken right after the coalition was announced, but before the Conservatives started 'crying coup'.
It is not true that no party has lost a confidence motion early in parliament. I believe in 1985, the Ontario government was defeated on the throne speech. The Conservatives at least survived their first day.
One thing I really don't understand is all this western fear of the BQ. They can not break up Canada without the PQ in power, even if they controlled the entire federal government. And the Liberals look to be headed for a big win in the Quebec elections on Monday (take a look at the polls). In parliament, the BQ are nothing more than a regional party. One that has been approached by every party for deals, by the way, none of which have destroyed Canada so far.
Lastly, it may surprise you that I do not support the Liberals or the NDP. Or the BQ for that matter, though I'm not alone in thinking Duceppe is the most honest of all party leaders. If you can't vote Liberal in the next election, consider voting Green, if only to add a new voice in parliament.
Oh, and don't feel bad for lowly backbenchers of any party. They make 155 thousand dollars, about 120 thousand more than they deserve.
Complain about this comment
# 145 chronophobe wrote:
'Any links to recommended Irish media?'
The national state-owned broadcaster is RTE. I think their site is rte.ie. Reasonably factual
The two main Irish broadsheet papers are the Irish Times and the Irish Independent. The former has a more of a liberal rep - it can also be a bit po-faced. The II also has a Sunday version.
The Sunday Tribune is quite a good Sunday paper - they are at http://www.tribune.ie/
'The Village' was a monthly current affairs periodical that went bust but may be coming back - definitely rather 'leftie'.
Think all of these are mostly or completely free to access. You should be able to locate them via Google easily enough.
Hope that's some use
Complain about this comment
FrankRosseter and robloop:
Both of you have referred to higher crime and murder rate in Canada, which is most certainly not true. Canada's homicide rate has been dropping for decades, through both conservative and liberal governments, as you can see from this statscan report. You can also see that firearm related homicides are also down (although hand gun homicides are up). The crime rate has also gone down steadily since 1991.
If, in your municipality or province, you see a higher crime or murder rate, you should know who to blame. This is not a federal problem, but a local one.
Complain about this comment
170 or it could be their parents let them watch the local news now they are older.
Complain about this comment
139 Self Evident.
Yes, I've seen them now, too. Don't know what to make of it. Liberals are scrambling to replace Dion before Christmas. Absolutely urgent now. When the House reconvenes on Jan 26, that have to have their act together or Harper will eat them alive.
If Harper can't win a majority against Dion, the weakest possible opponent, he won't win it against anybody else. Liberals need a solid guy in place. Too bad John Manley didn't have enough support to run.
143 John-in-Dublin
"Won" because the Conservatives are the largest party, and increased their seat count, whereas the Liberals fell. The assumption is that in a minority, the largest party will try to get along with the other parties at least a bit, and so a plurality is winning. The problem here is that Harper has run three times as leader, and there have been three minorities, one "won" by the Liberals under Paul Martin, and two "won" by the Conservatives.
Harper thinks he deserved a minority in October, and is clearly incensed that he didn't get it. Copying the US Republicans, he even jigged the electoral law to require voter photo ID. Predictably, this depressed turnout and shifted the left-right vote balance, maybe by as much as 5 % (hard to tell there is already a constitutional challenge against the BC voter ID law), and he still couldn't get his majority. But a big part of why he didn't get it is just that - people do not warm to him because he is the kind of guy who thinks he's entitled to be PM, and is incensed if he doesn't get his way.
146 Ukwales characterizes Canadians as "gentle and unassuming".
By and large that is how Canadians like to see themselves other than (a) on the ice with sticks and a puck; or (b) at war. Actually, including at war. Read about "Operation Manna" in Holland in the Winter of 1945.
Wusses ? Hmm. Canada had a glowing record in WWI. In WWII fought in Italy (see Sicily, Ortona), and all the way from D-Day to Germany. The Netherlands and Belgium have supported Canada through thick and thin ever since. Did more than its share to feed, clothe, arm, and defend the UK in very dark days.
Canadians tend to try to be helpful, to try to see the other guy's point of view, to make things run better, to try to get along. Generally peaceful. Generally law abiding. It may have something to do with the historic need to make compromises between English and French. Whatever the case, it is a trait deeply embedded in the Canadian psyche in all regions of the country.
Stephen Harper just does not fit that picture. One commentator called him "un-Canadian". There is a lot in that. It's take no prisoners, kick-em while they're down, do whatever you can get away with. Campaigning ? Go negative. All negative, all the time. Smear your opponent (the character assassination of Stephane Dion is without parallel in Canadian history), distort, spin. E.g. refer to the proposed coalition as "illegal", say it over and over in the press and in ads. Do it even if you know that it isn't "illegal" at all, because most Canadians don't know civics well enough to know the difference. There is no sense of fair play. There is no compromise in the man, no give and take, no gentleness. That is why is he is so widely dis-trusted. Starkly un-Canadian.
During the recent election Conservative candidates in Quebec (and elsewhere, too) were forbidden to attend all candidates' meetings for fear they would stray off-message. You place a gag rule on your candidates? What kind of democracy is that? His decision making circle of trusted advisors has approximately the same diameter as his own skull. That just isn't how things are done in Canada.
The closest previous example is Mackenzie King. Slippery. Not very principled. Thought Hitler was "a man we could deal with." Hated Chuchill, and all things British. Did everything he could to prevent the Army from fighting in WWII. Told his secretary he was going out for the afternoon. Drove himself to Ogdensburg, New York, alone. Met with FDR. Shifted Canada from the British zone of influence to the American zone of influence. Didn't mention it to anybody. Held seances to communicate with his dead mother through his dog. (No, I am not making this up.) A small, narrow-minded, nasty, vindictive little man. However, the Depression disaster of the Bennett government (1930 - 1935) rescued King. King had a brilliant American Engineer, C.D. Howe, in his cabinet. Howe was the real mainspring of Canadian government from 1935 - 1957. (Ref.: Donald Creighton, "The Forked Road".)
Harper was on TV during the leaders' debates. In the French debate, he sat there for two hours with a fake smile glued on his face, the picture of smugness, just waiting for the clock to run out. Got roundly dinged by Gilles Duceppe and Stephane Dion. Didn't matter. English voters weren't watching.
The Conservatives would only agree to hold the English language debate at exactly the same time as the Palin-Biden debate, in the hope that nobody would watch. Five leaders on TV. Four of them clearly able to get along and work together. And Stephen Harper. Odd man out. Dismissive. Disrespectful. Smug.
Such big ability, and yet so small a man.
Un-Canadian, indeed.
147 AngloQuebecer.
No idea how this is going to play out. A real mess. Looks like the coalition may fizzle. Conservatives have all the money and organization. Voter photo ID law is a Liberal-killer.
Duceppe is really smart; loathes Harper; knows how to get things done. Very capable. Bloc may sweep (60 + seats) in Quebec next time. If the Liberals don't find a strong leader right away, Harper may get his majority. If so, Charest had better have won big on Monday in Quebec: A Harper majority in Ottawa would be a red flag for the Pequistes. Another Quebec referendum with Harper as PM = No credible federal champion. Don't like that thought at all.
As Justin says, "Events, dear boy, events".
148. & 155 MA II - Now that (148) was a funny post.
The thing is, as you point out in 155, Canadians do not regard the US as a foreign country. A neighbour, yes. A foreign country, no. You can always go over to the neighbour's house for the day.
Psychologically, the US is part of being Canadian. Speak the same languge (mostly), share the same history. The culture is so intertwined, the economies are inextricably meshed, the US entertainment business fills the airwaves, US politics fills the news, hundreds of thousands of Canadians own property in e.g., Florida, and spend a chunk of the year there.
The idea that you would need a passport to go to the US? You must be kidding. What jerk thought that up?
149.
No, Canadians do not generally think of Canada as the center of the Universe. That would be Washington (politics), New York (business, fashion), or L.A. (glitter). Unless you are from Toronto, in which case the world is Torontocentric.
Canadians often overestimate Canada's (shrinking) importance in world affairs.
Now back to hibernation.
Complain about this comment
With all this succesful "trapping" that Obama has done do you think the Palins will let him in their Clan.
Oh they already have a trapper though.
Still it is not surprise the Canadians would be attracted to someone with such frontier skills.
Complain about this comment
#166 happylaze
Be careful that you don't come across as a bigot. The fact is, you stereotype. No, I'm not a "Boer", and if you alluded to all 'boers' being racists and supporting apartheid, you need to re-think your stereotyping. I have a few 'boer' friends who did not.
Further, I noticed that one Canadian on this blog stated something to the effect that unlike Canadians, Americans suffered a kind of paralysis when it comes to discussing race. The fact is, a similar problem exists in Canada. There is seldom honest discussion, instead a lot of dishonest pretence.
#159, 164, 165 happylaze
At this rate you'll do yourself an injury!
You demonstrated admirably the all too often Canadian-type neurosis toward criticism that I described earlier. I didn't say
"Canada's a bad place", you did. You even ignored my comment about U.S. sloppiness over border security in the south.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
The problem is not the "dullness" of Canadian politics, it is (as a few others have alluded to) its regionalism. For all the talk of the United States being a "divided country," Obama was a candidate who was able to appeal to all (or almost all) sectors of the population, in all parts of the country. That just doesn't happen in Canada. The Conservatives are a Western party who have managed to get enough support in Ontario to form a government. The Liberals are an Eastern party despised in most of the West. The Bloc Quebecois are... well, the Bloc. The NDP are the only party that can really claim to be a national party. This is a real problem because the issues that Canada faces today are not regional, they are national, and usually international. Environmental degradation, the financial crisis, international genocides and human rights abuses, terrorism--these are not problems unique to Ontario, Saskatchewan, or Quebec, or even Canada. They are problems for everyone everywhere.
Our current political culture, and even more-so our idiotic first-past-the-post system, promote regionalism, not globalism, and that is our problem. The Greens can get 6.8% of the vote nation-wide and not win a single seat because particular constituencies can be won by parties focusing on regional, and not national, issues. The Bloc, on the other hand, can get 10% of the vote and 16% of the seats in the House of Commons. That is what is wrong with our political system, and we won't get a Barack Obama until it changes, and we get proportional representation of some sort.
Complain about this comment
#172 Interestedforeigner
I must hand it to you for your industry! Your comments about MacKenzie King are interesting and completely on target. While at UBC I read Prof James Ayers' book 'The Rights and Wrongs of Foreign Policy", and he didn't spare King for the unprincipled scumbag he was.
I can't agree with your comment that Canadians don't regard Canada as the centre of the universe. Watch the CBC enough or read the Toronto Star and that is the impression you eventually gain. However, you might be right about it being a "Torontocentric" impression.
Canada's importance on the world stage, played out throught the U.N. and Commwealth, declined quite dramatically after apartheid ended in South Africa and Ottawa no longer had the anti-apartheid platform that had given it prominence. Peace-keeping, too, is no longer in such vogue.
Complain about this comment
#175 Nevinc
Re 'regionalism', in my estimation yours is a good posting.
Complain about this comment
^
Rep by pop. would certainly help with some of our problems, though it also presents it's own set
I'm personally predicting a lot of instability until the Liberals choose a new leader in a few months. Harper is doing his best to lose as much of his moderate support as possible, which will realistically have nowhere to go but the liberals (provided they can find someone who can get a better grip on the left of centres than Dion)
I wouldn't mind Ignatief, but it'd be Bob Ray for choice. I think he could lure some of the redder torries back to the light since he IS a former (progressive) conservative himself.
Complain about this comment
Re: Canada's parliament
It is regrettable that it took a constitutional crisis to educate Canadians and others on the workings of the parliamentary system of government.
Interested Foreigner: Thank you for the background articles on the Canadian system of government (posts 82 ff.). No one could have described it as well or as concisely.
When it comes to your analysis of the current situation, however, I feel your characterization of Mr. Harper, while true in parts, was a bit over-the-top.
Certainly the leaders of the opposition parties have shown themselves to be equally as small-minded and nakedly ambitious, alas.
Re: Canadians' anti-American streak
A few posters have commented on it.
It's been my experience that here in Canada you can't make a joke or a negative comment about any ethnic group or country without some kind of censure, but the US and Americans in general are always fair game.
And "American" or "American-style" are loaded codewords used in elections to describe anything even slightly right of centre. The revulsion those words elicit is scary.
Re: infatuation with Mr. Obama
Our media in Canada is dominated by American news, sports, politics, and entertainment. Of course we were swept up in the tide of infatuation, especially since the electorate in Canada is much further to the left than even Mr. Obama.
But if he starts messing with NAFTA, the border, and the export of softwood lumber to the states, etc., the honeymoon will be over and we will all safely return to our default knee-jerk Anti-Americanism. We are a small people, much of the time. Sigh
Complain about this comment
er. Bob Rae...and I appear to have him confused with something else, he was NDP. Nap time..
Complain about this comment
streaseed:
Pray tell, what is the problem with having Rep by Pop? The only one I can see is that the BQ would never accept it (they would lose half their seats).
My favourite choices for for Liberal leader are unfortunately not running: Goodale, Manley and McKenna. All three of them are well respected politicians who I think stand a good chance of not only winning elections, but of reuniting the country after Harper's divisive politics. I find Ignatieff is too far right to lead, or even be a member of, the Liberals. Why he did not choose to join the conservatives is beyond me. Rae would have a lot of trouble winning Ontario, making him a poor choice.
Complain about this comment
Re: 162 robloop
I showed your posting to my Ukrainian wife, and my Kurdish friend (Turkish Kurd actually, talk about a group with conflicting identities!) just now. They had a good laugh.
There is some truth to the notion that the civility one finds in everyday life in a more homogeneous society are somewhat lacking in modern metropolitan Canada. I imagine Canada was, back in the WASP-y days, a very comfortable and predictable place, especially for those of the dominant group.
I spend quite a lot of time in Japan, and I can tell you there is no more homogeneous or harmonious society known to me. At the same time, it tends to be xenophobic, and far too predictable. Social interactions are choreographed manoeuvres; you know almost exactly what people are going to say, and how they will behave, before a word is spoken.
I personally love the diversity of urban Canada. I think the crime issue you point to is largely a myth, but it is true that some people do bring some of the problems of their home countries with them. At the same time, I don't think that there is any urgent sense of social corrosion, or a decay of the good, tolerant values of live and let live that allow us to function here. I have often thought the we should make John Stuart Mill our patron saint, as it were. That's the core of our identity, and it is strengthened by diversity, not weakened.
Now, I'd say more, but I do have to run. My wife, daughter and I are going out to dinner at our Polish friend's house, and my daughter's Hatian violin teacher and her husband will be there as well (and no, I'm not sh#tting you about this, either!).
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Rae got elected here provincially just fine, though as you no-doubt know his popularity tanked afterwards - however, I am of the belief that this was largely due to economic conditions beyond his control rather than a reflection on his personal popularity. He would also help greatly in tightening the relationship between the federal NDPs and the Liberals in my humble opinion.
I would be perfectly happy with John Manley also, however. Frankly as long as they find one who is electable, they'll have my vote.
Re: rep by pop - while one could argue this is actually an advantage, it would further spread out the Left of Centre seats between the Greens (8% popular vote, no seats) and would arguably weaken the overall chances of not having a conservative government as they are really the only "right wing" party we have. So really it isn't a problem with the system as much as it is a condition inherent to a multi-party system.
I also don't know enough about how Quebec votes percentage wise, or riding by riding, to predict what effect it would have on Quebec. If you DO know, feel free to share an opinion
Complain about this comment
straseed:
The riding by riding votes are here if you want to see them, but that's unrelated to my argument. The BQ got 10% of the popular vote in the last election, which means they would have gotten 31 seats in this parliament if we used rep by pop. Instead they got 49 seats. This was not a fluke either. The BQ almost always wins more seats than they are entitled to under rep by pop. And most of the time the number of extra seats are quite high.
For this reason alone, the BQ would fight tooth and nail against Rep. by Pop. (or the related MMP).
Complain about this comment
#182 chronophobe
I didn't take offence from your comments.
Pole, Ukranian, Turkish Kurd, in all honest not the diversity obstacle I was thinking of, and not those who demand that Canada become a reflection of where they are from.
Now try an area where almost the entire new arrivals are from the Third World and consider what I wrote.
Complain about this comment
#172 Interestedforeigner
Thanks for your views. I agree, especially regarding Duceppe. I had not thought of the ID requirement being a conservative ploy and I consider myself a conspiracy theorist. Must be slipping.
#183/184 I think rep by pop is long overdue. In Quebec the PQ, while in power, are constantly fiddling with riding boundaries - in their favour.
#163 Happylaze
In Canada we have 8 or 9 paid National holidays (Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, etc.) and one paid Provincial holiday. Full time employees generally receive two to four paid weeks a year.
Are you saying Americans are not paid for, say.... Christmas Day?
Our health care system is far from perfect but Canadians do not go bankrupt while dying. Nor do we have to pay first then go through filling out complicated forms (at least not in Quebec - each province runs its own medicare system). We have government issued cards - but no bill arrives at the end of the month.
#146 Ukwales
Thanks for your kind words. We do like to think of ourselves as 'nice'.
Complain about this comment
#162 Robloop:
"No, I'm not a "Boer", and if you alluded to all 'boers' being racists and supporting apartheid, you need to re-think your stereotyping. I have a few 'boer' friends who did not."
And how many who did? And of course not being a Boer doesn't exempt you from being a supporter of Apartheid either.
Complain about this comment
The anti-coalition petition now totals 16,3,380 Canadians out of a population of 33,390,141. I do not know how many people we would have to take out of the total Canadian population to remove the under eighteen non-voters.
It looks to me as if the government have slightly more than half the voting population. Even looking at it from a neutral viewpoint, how can the coalition leaders say they have a mandate? They can argue that they have a right to topple the government in a non-confidence vote in January, steal "the best bits" from Harpers budget and begin governing, but there will be still be angry people out on the streets saying that they didn't vote for a coalition. Bob Rae is having to embark on a tour to basically electioneer for support.
I personally feel something is missing here. We know what platforms Harper ran on in September, but no-one knows the future policies of the coalition. They haven't got around to telling us. We need to know asap. Will Bob Rae be telling us, or will he just rant about how he hates Harper? We also need to know who their future prime minister is. How can we support a group with no known policies and no ratified leader?
Perhaps we should bite the bullet and have an election. It may be the only way to obtain the coalition's full raft of policies. It would also be good if all the leaders stood down, because they have lost all perspective and are blind with rage. We are all viewed as mere tools for their ambitions. I know this is usually the case, but this personal vendetta in the House has reduced Canadians to mere numbers. At the moment we really don't matter a damn to any of them. Their precious egos are at stake and they are willing to take the country down with them, on both sides.
Complain about this comment
AngloQuebecer:
I agree rep by pop is overdue, I'm just offering a reason for why it isn't here yet. Of course, the BQ are not the only opponents of rep by pop. Both the Conservatives and Liberals have had majority governments without a majority of popular support. Neither would want to lose that power. In fact, you have to go back to 1984 to find a government which had a majority of canadians vote for it, and even then they had only 50.03% of the vote.
By the way, I'm an anglophone Quebecer myself. Which part of the province are you from?
Complain about this comment
John-in-Dublin:
Hi.
As an Irishman myself, one who has become a landed immigrant here in Canada (and thus not coming from a country which seemingly isn't good enough for some here to want to have people arrive here from, it seems... nowadays, at least) I figured it might be worth noting one significant difference between how the current system here is compared to back home - the lack of PR-STV.
We're used to governing coalitions and such in Ireland because we actually have a reasonably fair system of proportional representation - so even if I don't agree with a given choice of government (I'm not a fan of FF, personally) I can't argue that they, along with their current coalition partners represent, more or less, a fair proportion of the Irish voting electorate.
However, in Canada, both federally and provincially, the first-past-the-post system they use at Westminster (but not at Holyrood or Stormont, thankfully - both use STV) is echoed here - so not only can certain parties end up with an unfairly large number of seats in the Canadian House of Commons, but smaller parties often end up squeezed out altogether.
(For example, with a not-overly-dissimilar percentage of the vote, the Irish Greens have 6 TDs out of 166, the Canadian Greens have no MPs at all. Even larger parties like the NDP are relatively constrained, in contrast to the share that their counterparts in the Irish Labour Party usually get at election time.)
Hopefully, one day, there will be STV, or another PR system introduced over here. Indeed, BC had a referendum on STV which passed, but 'not by enough', and thus will have a re-run this May during the provincial election - and with luck, if it passes, it just might help spread the idea here that STV might actually be a good idea.
Oh, and another thing worth noting is how poor a job the various media outlets (in English Canada, at least - not so sure on the French ones) do regarding informing people of what could be used as bases of comparison from outside of the United States. So, the chances that most people will hear about the examples of PR used elsewhere (including in our own generally Westminster-style Dáil Éireann) are, to put it mildly, slim on he ground...
...as is the part about how nationalist parties from places like Catalonia and the Basque country get themselves elected - and holding a degree of influence - in the Spanish Cortes, yet without the sky falling all around them.
But then, when I was living in Ireland, I was bothered by how few other people knew, or cared, about Canada, so I guess I'm hamstrung either way!
All the same, I would be thrilled if at least one major paper here was owned by an independent trust, the way the Irish Times and the Guardian are - as opposed to being up for grabs by various media conglomerates... - and that was actually bilingual. The cultural divide between French and English Canada can best be tackled through mutual understanding, and that's hard to do when the two media cultures don't try to cross-pollinate the way they should.
Or, at least, the way they did when CBC and Radio-Canada worked together to make the documentary series Canada: A People's History (or Le Canada: Une Histoire Populaire, of you prefer) - a fine series that showed what Canadians of each major linguistic group can accomplish when they work together.
Complain about this comment
189 Ptrsln:
I'm a Montrealer.
It is one thing to make the effort to understand the position of the Nationalists in this province, but the irrational rants on the CBC site from Conservatives - I find very discouraging. What can we do, other than vote on Monday and "take to the streets" in true Quebec fashion, when necessary.
Complain about this comment
#187 AsaScot
A half-baked question followed by a comment that doesn't exempt you from appearing a provocative ass for no good reason! Back to the same old rubbish Asa! You've picked up on happylaze's irrelevant question in 166 and I have no intention of answering for the actions of others.
Complain about this comment
Question is, will the wonderful New South Africa, the "Rainbow Nation" dreamed of by Nelson Mandela, be able to arrest its own steady deterioration, or will it turn out to be yet another failed experiment in African self-rule?
And if it begins a practically irreversible slide down the drain, at what point will the 'international community' sit up and take notice, as it is now belatedly doing regarding Zimbabwe?
(No, I'm not a Boer.)
Complain about this comment
For those who look at Canada from outsides and think of the situation as "interesting" or something of the sort, keep in mind the Canadian perspective: This is downright scary! Nothing like this has happened for a long time, this situation is a threat to our national unity, democracy, civil order, and peace in general. It is wasting alot of time during testing times as well.
The opposition's attempt to overthrow the govornment comes less than two monthes after a federal election too, wher they suffered a humiliating defeat and the leader of the opposition planned to resign... now this. It is only logical that the opposition is desperately trying to grab power because they know that they can't get it demovratically; they would rather waste time in a crisis to gain power than save the people by backing down.
Complain about this comment
It is interesting to note that the same conservatives that now condem the Liberals for joining with the NDP and Bloc are the same conservatives that did exactly the same thing with exactly the same people for exactly the same purpose in 2000 and 2004.
Today the conservatives quietly say that was different. They are exactly right, the difference, the Liberals were the government.
On President Obama, he appears to be a statesman like person and if I were an American I would likely have voted for him. As far as wanting an Obama for Prime Minister, at my age I caution, be careful what you wish for.
Complain about this comment
76. Robloop.
Your point cites the Toronto Star and the CBC.
First comment: Ever watch US News? Fox and CNN are the worst, but if you are waiting to see or hear non-US news, well, you better not blink. But if you want endless wall to wall coverage of events of earth shattering importance like Michael Jackson's trial, or Britney Spears or Paris Hilton, ...
I'd say the best US news service, by a mile, is MacNeil Lehrer.
Second: Note that your two examples are both based in Toronto. Need I say more? One the first day of WWII, the main headline in the Toronto Star was about a three-alarm fire. Parochialism-R-Us.
The CBC actually does not a bad job of serving its national mandate as a public broadcaster, particularly when compared to the commercial networks. For example, the local CTV presenter always reminds me of Kent Brockman, except worse. But for international news there's nothing like the BBC World Service. Sounds like shameless kiss-ass pandering, doesn't it?
Enough of that.
Complain about this comment
186. Anglo: The photo ID law
There were people turned away from the polls this time because of the new photo ID law, even when there was no doubt that they were who they purported to be. Voting is a basic right in our society, it defines citizenship in a democracy. It's in the Charter. And yet it can be denied without any bona fide cause at the whim of the miserable bitter little woman appointed by the Conservatives as a scrutineer, who was determined to force every voter at the poll to show her their ID.
There has not been a single documented instance of voter fraud in Canada. Both the current head of Elections Canada, Marc Mayrand, and the former head of elections Canada, Jean Pierre Kingsley, have confirmed this.
In a democracy, we usually try to decrease barriers to voting, particularly given the long term trend toward low voter participation. We want citizens to take part in the democratic process. That participation, in and of itself, strengthens the institutions of a democracy. We genuinely want a government that reflects the "will of the people" as nearly as possible. We want to raise voter turnout, not curtail it.
Yet Canada introduced a voter photo ID law "to prevent voter fraud".
This is a direct import from the US. 24 states have such laws. They are the modern echo of Jim Crow laws. They are deliberately intended to increase the liklihood that poor people, immigrants who have difficulty speaking English, University students, people who move frequently, internal migrants, physically handicapped people, and anyone unlikely to have a driver's license, from voting. There are interesting local variations: in Alaska hunting or fishing licenses are adequate ID.
They are deliberately designed to prevent or discourage people from voting. Why? Because the groups most likely to be prevented from voting overwhelmingly don't vote Republican. It has absolutely nothing to do with "voter fraud".
The Conservatives copied the idea.
Does it work? Well, if you go to this website, you can judge for yourself:
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html
The actual election results were Conservatives 143 (37.6%), Liberals 77 (26.2%), Bloc 49 (10.0%), NDP 37 (18.2%), Independents 2, Greens 0
As you will note, the errors from the actual results are, in a statistical sense comparatively rather large. They fall well outside the usual statistical error ranges. They all fall to one side of the actual result. They are typically off by more than 10 seats for both the Liberals and the Conservatives. The usual error is less than 3 seats, and it should be random, not all to one side.
In Saskatchewan, the last big poll before election day had 800 respondents, five days before the poll. It should have had good accuracy. It gave the Conservatives 40 % support, and the NDP 35 % support. The actual result on October 14 was 53 % to 25 %, or roughly 4 times the standard 19-times-out-of 20 range. Subsequent smaller polls by Ekos were closer, but still a fair way off, and Ekos, in my view, tends usually to overshoot on Conservative support, and undershoot on Liberal and NDP support.
The Conservatives gained 18 seats in the election on October 18, 2008. How much do you bet that the margin of victory in most of those seats is smaller than the 4 or 5 % relative bump (of those votes actually cast) the Conservatives appear to have obtained?
People point to the low turnout, and blame those who didn't vote. Do you believe that a reduction in voter turnout from 2006 to 2008 of almost 5 % was probable as a random event? Do you believe that people were apathetic about the October 14 election? It sure didn't seem that way.
Yet the decrease in voter participation (4-5 % of all eligible voters, roughly from 66 % to 61+ %) is entirely consistent with the object of introducing the voter photo ID law, and appears to bear out a study by at least one set of researchers.
This is dirty pool. The voter photo ID law needs to be repealed, or struck down on a Constitutional challenge.
Complain about this comment
194. Daniel:
You write:
"The opposition's attempt to overthrow the govornment comes less than two monthes after a federal election too, wher they suffered a humiliating defeat and the leader of the opposition planned to resign... now this. It is only logical that the opposition is desperately trying to grab power because they know that they can't get it demovratically; they would rather waste time in a crisis to gain power than save the people by backing down"
Can you explain to me how the conduct of the Liberals and NDP is any less democratic than the conduct of the Conservatives?
Were the Liberal and NDP members not also elected to Parliament?
Do they not have the same right to vote in the House as the Conservative members?
Has the rule been changed that requires the government to have the confidence of the House to govern?
If you consider the previous comment on the voter ID law, you will see that Dion didn't actually do all that much worse that Paul Martin in 2006 once the effect of the ID law has been accounted for.
Humiliating defeat, or not, they still have their seats and are entitled to vote the same as any other members of the House.
188. Junkie.
You write:
"It looks to me as if the government have slightly more than half the voting population. ... "
This is something run by Elections Canada with scrutineers ?
In the last election run by Elections Canada, the parties of the coalition received substantially more votes than the Conservatives (44.4 % v. 37.6 %). If you add the Bloc on confidence motions it is 54.4 %, which is more than the Liberals got in 1992 when the PC's were reduced to 2 seats. If you add the Greens (who have also indicated support, but to what end other than making people feel warm and cuddly, I'm not sure) it is 62 %.
"Even looking at it from a neutral viewpoint, how can the coalition leaders say they have a mandate?"
If that is a "neutral" viewpoint, I'd be afrad of your definition of "partisan".
Be that as it may, they have just as much of a mandate as Stephen Harper. Maybe more.
Neither Stephen Harper nor anybody else has the right to form a government unless they have the confidence of the majority of the members of the House. It's a really basic rule. It has been the Rule for a long, long time. Are you proposing to change the rules, and replace them with an unsupervised, ad hoc on-line petition?
None of the parties in a minority House can govern unless they obtain the co-operation of other members. In the previous Parliament Harper often relied upon the co-operation of the Bloc. Given that the Liberals and NDP purport to have formed a coalition, the only way Harper can stay in office is with the support of the awful boogie-men S-E-P-A-R-A-T-I-S-T-S !!!! They're evil. Stephen Harper told me so.
Did anybody "vote for" a Conservative government propped up by the Bloc? No more or less than they voted for the Liberals and NDP to work together and be propped up by the Bloc. It's the way Westminster Parliamentary systems work. Do you have a problem with that?
"They can argue that they have a right to topple the government in a non-confidence vote in January, steal "the best bits" from Harpers budget and begin governing, but there will be still be angry people out on the streets saying that they didn't vote for a coalition."
"Best bits"? What "Best bits"? LOL.
I am a bit curious about what you define as the "best bits" of the Flaherty offerings. You wouldn't think there would be much demand for them.
A basic proposition in a society governed by the rule of law is that we do not have mob rule. What about the 60+ % of voters who did not vote for the Conservatives? Should they take to the streets? Is that your idea of a rational approach in a democracy?
When Pierre Trudeau was governing, there were an awful lot of angry people. When Brian Mulroney was governing, there were even more angry people. What do you propose as a better alternative than Parliament?
"Bob Rae is having to embark on a tour to basically electioneer for support."
And Stephen Harper isn't straining his every last fiber, the war chest of the Conservative party, its advertising organs, and any available resources of the federal government to do the opposite? What's your point?
"I personally feel something is missing here. We know what platforms Harper ran on in September, but no-one knows the future policies of the coalition."
Well, that isn't actually accurate. He didn't run on any platform in September. Harper didn't unveil a platform until October. He tried very hard not to be pinned down to any identifiable platform, but did put a great deal of effort into distorting the platforms of others, as pointed out most bluntly by Ms. May of the Greens, among others.
"It would also be good if all the leaders stood down, because they have lost all perspective and are blind with rage."
The issue here is Stephen Harper's ego and career, nothing else. Another senior minister in the cabinet could step in and the crisis would be over. He needs to be a man and stop being so selfish.
If you watched the debates in French and English, you will know that there are five leaders. Four of them get along and treat each other with respect. The fifth one needed to be sent to the Principal's office. Oh yes, he was there on Friday, and She let him off easy. You know the one - the guy who turtled. Squak, buq, buq, buq, buq. Squak !
There was a big demonstration of several thousand people in Toronto today, in favour of the coalition. At the same time, half a dozen blocks away there was a scraggly demonstration by less than 500 anti-coalition protesters (numbers estimated by the police, apparently). Does anyone believe that either event was (a) a clinical statistical sampling of public opinion; or (b) a basis for not adhering to the rules governing our Parliamentary system?
Junkie, or Stephen, if that's your name, either you believe in democracy, or you don't.
If you believe in democracy, you play by the Rules, and you play fair.
You don't try to prevent other people from voting by rigging the Elections Act to require voter photo ID. You don't shout other people down, which is what happens when only one party has money to advertise. You don't engage in character assassination, whether of Joe Clark or Stephan Dion, or anyone else. You don't distort facts and count on most voters not knowing any better. You don't sceam about coups or seizing power, or undemocratic ploys or "illegal" acts when you know very well that they are nothing of the kind. You don't impose a gag rule on candidates running for public office. You have respect for others. Because sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. If you expect others to abide by the law when you win, you have to abide by the law when you don't win. We believe in "Peace, Order and Good Government", and you can't have any of those things without fair play. It may seem silly to you, or naive, but some of us value those things rather highly.
There's a really good book you might read. Its called "The Government of Canada" by R. MacGregor Dawson. U of T Press.
The issue this week was about the strength of the institutions of Canada's democracy. That's what Prof. Hogg spent Friday morning trying to defend. Its what Robert Sharpe, Brian Dickson, Bora Laskin, Antonio Lamer, Stanley Knowles and many others have dedicated their lives to defending. Perhaps you might think on that. If you don't know who these people are, and were, perhaps you might look them up. You won't be sorry for having done it.
Complain about this comment
#186 Anglo Quebecer..
You are not "nice".
Just decent folk setting a high standard.
Dont stop..
Complain about this comment
"While I mix very easily with most nationalities and races" - robloop@162
Right. And I'm the God-Emperor of Xanthan Beta.
Complain about this comment
197 Interestedforeigner:
Thank you for your explanation re: ID
I now realize I have no one but myself to blame. When Harper called his snap election I was so disgusted I did not pay close enough attention (as I normally do) since I did not have the stomach for it.
I voted Liberal in an attempt to prevent a majority conservative government and did what I could to encourage others to do likewise. I even asked BQ voters which I thought was rather brave of me! It would appear not many took my advice!
Having lived through two referendums I am well aware of voter intimidation and should have seen this for what it is.
Thanks - you are a wealth of information.
199 ukwales :
Thank you again. It must be my approx. 1/64th Welsh blood!
Complain about this comment
186 yes I am saying there is no pay on Christmas day for many many employees.
It is just a day when there is no work.
that is the reality of america where there is NO guaranteed holiday.
That is up to the boss.
Complain about this comment
187. , AsaScot wrote:
#162 Robloop:
"No, I'm not a "Boer", and if you alluded to all 'boers' being racists and supporting apartheid, you need to re-think your stereotyping. I have a few 'boer' friends who did not."
And loop is not a dutch name either
.Loop
Dutch: habitational name from de Loop (meaning ?the watercourse?), in the province of Antwerp.
So that would make him a" Boer" but really I had it wrong I meant Bore but my typing is not so good.
I especially like the like misdirection in the
I'm not a "Boer" comment because it does not deny that he is in fact a boer just that he is not a "boer"
Not seeming to have much of a different attitude to other races as I started by quoting.
Complain about this comment
Mr Loop why do you persist in trying to hide the truth.
How on earth can you say the man is
"unique" - in a special sense - when he hasn't yet in all his years in politics achieved anything of note - other than win the U.S. Presidential election .
Well that is a pretty big achievement for a half black guy in America. I never heard of another one.
Just before he ran so many said "no black guy is going to win the election".
but he did.
Good on him and Good luck he deserves it .
As to" unique- in a special sense"
He is the only Black(or half) American President.IN History.
ONLY and Unique are pretty close.
Complain about this comment
#193 Truetoo
The sad part is that Mandela's "Rainbow nation" has become a 'Rambo nation' (as one publication coined it), with crime and corruption absolutely ballistic. Murder, rape and robbery are at 'world-class' levels. You can be murdered for a cell-phone or get a bullet through the brain for not exiting your car quickly enough during a car hijacking. This particularly crime is far worse in some parts of the country than in others.
And yet, despite that, if lucky you don't run into any trouble, but constantly take precautions and make your home a fortress.
Apartheid racism has been replaced by ANC racism with a huge dose of amazing incompetence and ineffeciencyt thrown in for good measure.
The harsh reality is that the astronomic levels of crime and corruption began when Mandela was president, and while I doubt he was behind it or that he wasn't concerned, he did nothing about it, not least, it has emerged, because he left running of the country to Thabo Mbeki.
If South Africa "begins a practically irreversible slide down the drain", and there are ominous signs, I don't believe the
'international community' will do anything until utter chaos reigns - as is happening over Zimbabwe. Even now it's action over Zim are tepid and ineffectual. It's more of the hand-wringing, 'what can we do?' variety! Pathetic!
Jimmy Carter's comments about the situation are laughable. What he has
'discovered' existed weeks ago, and Mugabe is still in power, driving around like royalty in luxury cars surrounded by a large troop escort while everything around him falls apart. He has got to be insane - but no less than Idi Amin!
The 'international community' has had years to do something constructive about Robert Mugabe, but chose to leave the matter to the Southern African Development Community - that left the matter up to the utterly useless Thabo M'beke, who simply created a totally unworkable compromise solution in an effort to save an old Marxist chum from ignominious surrender of power.
The results are there for all to see, people starving, being murdered, dying of dysentry and cholera, and fleeing into neighbouring countries. Yet another African tragedy!
Meanwhile the wondrous 'international community' has done nothing about issuing an arrest warrant for Robert Mubage for the genocide he perpetrated against the Ndabele people in Matabeland where his army's North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade murder about 20,000 people, let alone the murders of white farmers, their labourers, and political opponents. Those butchers from the Balkans who landed up facing the World Court were not responsible for nearly as many murders as is Robert Mugabe, but evidently the 'international community's' rules for Africa differ from those they apply to Europe.
So pardon me if my faith in the
'international community' - with its selective 'concerns' - is zero should South Africa follow the Zimbabwe route.
Complain about this comment
"#159, 164, 165 happylaze
At this rate you'll do yourself an injury!
You demonstrated admirably the all too often Canadian-type neurosis toward criticism that I described earlier. I didn't say
"Canada's a bad place", you did. You even ignored my comment about U.S. sloppiness over border security in the south."
Let me address that then in a manner more obvious for you to understand.
Which border did the 9/11 terrorists enter through and would heightened security at either of these borders have stopped the attacks?
What the hell does Canada's acceptance of other people have to do with the attacks on the trade towers?
How did sloppy border security with Mexico
encourage 9/11.
Why is it that Canada's (alledged) open attitude to people is responsible for terrorist attacks within the USA.
What is the point in you post if not to make people think that there may be some fault attributed to the immigrants.
Ahh you are in good company eh?
"or will it turn out to be yet another failed experiment in African self-rule? "
Complain about this comment
193. At 07:57am on 07 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:
Question is, will the wonderful New South Africa, the "Rainbow Nation" dreamed of by Nelson Mandela, be able to arrest its own steady deterioration, or will it turn out to be yet another failed experiment in African self-rule?
And if it begins a practically irreversible slide down the drain, at what point will the 'international community' sit up and take notice, as it is now belatedly doing regarding Zimbabwe?
He say's he is not a boer
PS failed African experiment
S Africa under Aparthite
Zim under Brit rule.
They failed because they are no longer there.
If they had not failed they would still be there.
Well how good did all those white folk do running the USA and Britain .
Why is it another failed African experiment.
What about the whole world going down at the moment.
Failed african experiment indeed.
Complain about this comment
While Canada seems to hold more elections than Italy per year it is good to keep politicians on their toes. That being said, this constitutional crises is really a media circus and nothing more.
The real issues are: do we really need public funding for politicians? Allowing the public sector the right to strike, is in essence, giving them free-reign to screw up our daily lives whenever they wish. Nobody but the general public is victimised by such strikes.
MA: Your wonderfully high-brow contribution in #27 has enlightened me to your rapier wit and cunning charm. Unfortunately there are no discussions on guns, religion or American cars here. There is a story on the Detroit big three budget crises on this very site though - deadhead
Complain about this comment
205 So where are the squatter towns for white these days?
Are whites allowed to the same schools?
Are whites systematically beaten up by Black cops?
Where is the white leader in jail?
Well sad to see a discussion on Canada has been sidetracked all the way to Zim by people who both claim to not be racists.
But really do seem to have some issues on race.
Back to the discussion guys. And leave off the immigration hating rhetoric.That was all I was saying.
Border security got more strict between America and EVERY nation.
that was the result of 9/11.
At some stage the Homeland people finally figured out that the N and S border were porous and that having extra security for plane travellers just meant future terrorist might try getting over the border.
Thus they set about trying to tighten that up.
Nothing to do with Mexicans or people living in Canada not fitting in and all wearing maple leaves and saying EH?
But carry on looking for nice things to say about other cultures guys,
"No bigots here"
Complain about this comment
"So pardon me if my faith in the
'international community' - with its selective 'concerns' - is zero should South Africa follow the Zimbabwe route." - robloop
You're clearly longing for it to happen, because you think that would prove your racism justified. Wrong. Mugabe's crimes do not retrospectively justify Smith's; Mbeki's spinelessness over Mugabe and idiocy over Aids do not retrospectively justify apartheid, nor would the appearance of a Mugabe-style tyrant in South Africa.
Both South Africa and Zimbabwe have long histories of violence, oppression and gross racial inequality which may take generations to overcome, as do most southern African states. However, all is not bleak. Mugabe is opposed by a coherent internal political force - in other words, there is an alternative, and his rule is probably nearing its end: the army itself is now suffering the consequences of economic breakdown. South Africans will get another opportunity to freely elect their government next year. Most of the countries of southern Africa are now functioning democracies, although still with many and serious problems.
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner:
I think what is "confusing" to some voters is the fact that instead of the three opposition parties looking at each other, saying "this Economic Update is an outrage" and voting it and the government down - then forming a coalition to present to the GG, they instead did it the other way around. I believe they reasoned this would be more upfront and not viewed as back room dealing. Bit ironic that's what they are being accused of.
Sounds honourable to me.
What is your take on the order in which this was done?
202 happylaze
Do you mean to tell me that all the American holidays we hear about - President's Day, Memorial Day, two days off for Thanksgiving, etc... are not nationally paid holidays???
Here I was sitting in the Great White North thinking, Wow if only we had as many holidays as the States.
Complain about this comment
192. At 05:10am on 07 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:
#187 AsaScot
A half-baked question followed by a comment that doesn't exempt you from appearing a provocative ass for no good reason! Back to the same old rubbish Asa! You've picked up on happylaze's irrelevant question in 166 and I have no intention of answering for the actions of others.
Rob Loop
How is it irrelevent to your comments that included many comments about other races?
Is it irrelevent to consider that maybe someone brought up in a country where blacks were third class citizens and treated like cattle, that fought against the freedom for these people so hard, might not be the most impartial racially tolerant person when they are making the comments You make.
You appear not as a "provocative ass"
but you do appear to be a racist ass.
Oh and at what stage did I say Boers were racists?
Are they not" Farmers".
You took offence quickly.
Then you certainly did nothing to suggest you were not.
Complain about this comment
205. At 3:09pm on 07 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:
#193 Truetoo
The sad part is that Mandela's "Rainbow nation" has become a 'Rambo nation' (as one publication coined it), with crime and corruption absolutely ballistic. Murder, rape and robbery are at 'world-class' levels. You can be murdered for a cell-phone or get a bullet through the brain for not exiting your car quickly enough during a car hijacking. This particularly crime is far worse in some parts of the country than in others."
But you no longer get a bullet in the back for being the wrong colour, and you can no longer get arrested for marrying the wrong colour
Complain about this comment
211 angloQuebecer
they are for many companies but if you say worked construction , landscaping, welding you better be working for a "big Boy" outfit,or a generous boss.
If you are a state employee you get them.
if you are a federal employee you get them.
If you work for smith food processing lets say you will not
I have not been paid for 1 hour of time that I did not work in the US .
That is why I support Unions.
the rights of unorganised workers here suck.
On the holiday pay that you can decide when to take , again no company has to provide anything.
In the UK and europe Law says pay the guy his vacation time.
That is what I wonder about Canada . Is there a nationally mandated amount of holiday that has to be given to employees.
Complain about this comment
"There is seldom honest discussion, instead a lot of dishonest pretence."
Too true.
So try starting
dishonest pretence would be denying your heritage to win an argument .
Complain about this comment
205 robloop: As a Canadian who grew up in Zimbabwe, and with many white Zimbabwean friends, I must agree with others that you have no idea what you are talking about. South Africa, for all its problems, is not Zimbabwe, and probably will not be. Detestable as Jacob Zuma is, it is highly significant that his election was opposed by Mbeki and other ANC higher-ups--but he won anyway. That only happens in a democracy. It certainly would not happen in Zimbabwe. And now the ANC has split, and it looks like there may be a real opposition in South Africa (which is more than we can say in Canada at the moment!). Sounds like good democracy to me. Of course, it's always possible that someone will come along and try to change the constitution and stay in power indefinitely, but I doubt South Africans would let it fly--the civil institutions in the country are too strong. As Nick-Gotts pointed out, Zimbabwe is probably headed towards real democracy itself, and if you look at global trends, many more countries are moving from autocracy to democracy than the other way around.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and additionally, neither the U.S. nor Britain (nor even the U.N.) is in a position to go in and forcibly remove Mugabe from government. We've tried doing that kind of thing before, and it doesn't work. Just look at a list of countries the West has gone into and look at how well they're doing today; if anything, they're doing worse than other countries that were in similar situations to theirs. Unpleasant as it may be, it has to be SADC that does something about Zimbabwe. Now perhaps the West could have put a bit more pressure on Mbeki and not tolerated his "quiet diplomacy" nonsense, but that itself might have backfired and made it take longer for African leaders to speak out against Mugabe, which is finally happening now. Change in Zimbabwe needs to come from within Zimbabwe, supported by other countries in the region which can claim some legitimacy. Rightly or wrongly, too much Western interference runs the risk of being seen as imperialism.
Complain about this comment
Re: #187:
"Boer" is farmer in Afrikaans. The term used to describe the Apartheid era followers is "Afrikaaners".
Rural Afrikaaners, like rural Americans, could (or can) speak little English and their spelling was equally atrocious. They are also rabidly religious as part of the Dutch Reformed Church, a fundamental branch of the Lutheran church if memory serves.
The vast majority of whites in South Africa were known as "English". Consequently people from England were known as "British".
The "English" South Africans were liberally minded people who would pay their maid and gardener well, help their servants out where-ever they could without invoking the wrath of the Afrikaaner and promoted the liberal media. There were exceptions to this in those who only cared about having their oak tree polished properly but over-all one should be very very careful about making presumptuous comments about which they have very little knowledge.
(Did anyone get that? All I understood was: "very")
Complain about this comment
Re: 185 robloop
Am I correct in assuming you are getting 'round to a Mark Steyn-ish argument concerning Islam? I used to think Steyn was the only readable columnist back when Connie Black owned the National Post. He was caustic, but funny as well. Now he just seems sad and angry. The stuff on his blog is nigh well incomprehensible. He is so caught up in a running battle with the leftish opponents he has stirred up (a must see is the very readable blog of his best nemesis, Warren Kinsella)that, unless you're into that kind of intellectual bun fight, there is little to be gained from reading him.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Being a proud Canadian from Vancouver Canada, I am very happy with my political system. It may be bland most of the time(with the occasional interesting thing happening once in a while) but we always pull thru.
And I highly doubt it they'll be coup attempts in Canada.
The seperatist movement too in Quebec is unpopular even in Quebec.
Complain about this comment
To Happylaze...
Yes, there is a nationally mandated amount of holiday time given to every employee, part-time or full-time. The law states that everyone is entitled to 4% or 2 weeks paid vacation per year. However, most companies pay more then 4%. Employees can negotiate a higher percentage as a sign on bonus. I started my last job at 10% or 4 weeks. Then there are the laws for working statutory holidays. Generally, the employer must pay the employee 1 1/2 times their hourly rate if they work on a statutory holiday but, in some professions such as health care, they earn 2 times their hourly rate.
Complain about this comment
205. robloop,
I agree completely with your comments. Those who scoff at anyone who criticises South Africa and Zimbabwe should take a closer look at what is going on in those countries.
216. nevinc,
Yes, South Africa is not Zimbabwe but you contradict yourself when you say that democracy would never happen in Zimbabwe and then say that it is likely to happen. Where is the evidence that Morgan whatshisname will be any better than Mugabe? Because he calls his party the Movement for Democratic Change? How democratic is the Democratic Republic of Congo these days?
While the ANC split is an interesting phenomenon, there are very worrying signs in SA, in addition to the comprehensive list robloop provided. The ANC has already tried to fiddle with the constitution for its own benefit.
African countries look to a strong man to lead and have little acquaintance with democracy. Where is the evidence that this is likely to change?
Complain about this comment
214 happylaze:
If it is of any consolation to you, I never shop at Wal-Mart. I will not support their dismay treatment of employees. They do stand out in the Canadian market place as poor employers, so that should help answer your question.
Complain about this comment
208 dbithead.
The public funding formula was a quid pro quo for the elimination of corporate and trade union donations.
Keep in mind that to run for the US Senate you have to be able to raise about US $ 20,000/week.
Canada may have wasted C$ 300 M on the unnecessary October 14, 2008 election, but that is all-in, for everybody. In the US one well known candidate raised over $ 1/2 B. Mind boggling.
Does Canada really want to go down that road? C$ 1.95 / voter seems a pretty inexpensive way to guarantee that voices from all across the political spectrum will be heard. If they made it C$ 10.00/voter, I'd still think it a bargain. Of course, when Revenue Canada see this admission, they will want to raise taxes: When the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems tend to look like nails.
As you may note, US campaign funding has become a significant problem in the US - one of the things John McCain tried to clean up.
201 Anglo
Same here. People were frantically trying to vote against Harper. And then the turnout was lower, and there were all sorts of stories on the news about people being prevented from voting. The national print media (e.g., the G+M) and the CBC have ignored this story, and I don't know why. Maybe someone is making a close analysis of the data.
In any case, on the referenda, I hear you. Yet there is Harper, a walking, breathing, two-legged advertisment for separation. Every time he appears on the Telejournal, or opens his mouth, the separatists gain another thousand votes. Or more. It took forty years to get a lid back onto that Pandora's box of troubles (with thanks to Stephane Dion, ironically), and now he's re-opened it. Oh, what fools these mortals be.
I was a bit sharp with junkie last night on this point, and afterwards wished I'd been more temperate. He wanted to get rid of the whole lot. That seems a bit unfair to me, because the bulk of the blame for this situation clearly rests with Mr. Harper, and Dion is going anyhow. Harper overplayed his hand, and it blew up on him. Time to take responsibility for that. The other thing is that none of the other leaders, simply by retaining their position, aggravate the National Unity problem the way the continued presence of Harper does.
Here's hoping Jean Charest wins big tomorrow.
211 Anglo
I think the reason they did it was to forestall an attempt by the Prime Minister to request dissolution on a vote of non-confidence. They want to have evidence in place that there is a viable alternate government in place. I believe that the precedent for this was the fall of the Miller government in Ontario in 1985. Then David Peterson and ?? Floyd Loughren? Some guy named Bob Rae? My memory fails me. Anyhow, they had an agreement in place, and made sure that the Lieutenant Governor was aware of it.
In this case, the opposition are probably in a stronger position, too. The October 14, 2008 election was called at Harper's request. The previous Parliament had been working (in large part due to a supine opposition), and there was no compelling reason for having an election. For him to request dissolution again for the third time in a little over two years and not to allow the other parties a chance would be pretty high handed. There just isn't any compelling reason to go to the polls again.
Good luck tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
#203, 204 happylaze
Indulge in whatever silly speculation you choose, my surname is not Loop and I'm of Scots descent.
That aside, your ramblings are pathetic, and you can't even spell, not least
'apartheid'.
AsaScot and Simon21, from you just the usual old irrelevant piffle! If because I'm a white South African you and happyglaze think you can intimidate out of discussing race or Africa's continuing dismal failures, think again. My reaction to your comments was one of: "What a couple of phonies!"
#216 & 216 Nevine. Don't be so quick to make silly comments about me having "no idea what you are talking". Evident to me is that you don?t. And agreeing "with others" whose half-baked and prejudiced comments expose their ignorance is even less impressive.
Regardless of growing up in Zimbabwe it?s evident you?ve been away too long to comment with any authority. I've been in and out of South Africa for the last ten years, again just recently, have discussions with family and friends, business people and school teachers, read newspapers, observe and gauge the mood of people. The latter is like a barometer, hopeful one minute, despondent the next. I'm very aware of declining standards that are common knowledge there, even if not to you, and the deep political uncertainties. I love the country and would prefer it to anywhere else, but like many others am very trouble by the political uncertainties and what this portends. And then there are the astounding levels of crime, now among the highest in the world, the rape-rate second to none ? even girls of six and nine months! If you dismiss that too, you are totally uninformed.
As to Zimbabwe, just this last week an ex-Zim friend, now living in the U.S., forwarded me two letters, one from a friend who lives in Harare, and another who from South Africa just last week visited Zim to take supplies to beleaguered friends. Shops are almost empty and the currency worth next to nothing. Both men told of terrible conditions, people starving and dying of cholera and dysentery. Now even municipality-supplied water is contaminated and undrinkable. One told of Mugabe?s thugs arriving with AK47s at a largish house near the airport, kicking the inhabitants out at gunpoint and then bulldozing the house to the ground. The fear of that occurring again is now widespread. The rest of what I told you is also true and if you simply dismiss it then I question your knowledge of what is going on in Zimbabwe.
I have seen first-hand declining standards in South Africa and if you don't know about the levels of crime, now among the worst in the world, then you are simply out of touch and in no position to comment as you did. As to the recent split in the ANC between it and COPE, it is too early to tell what will eventuate. It's not yet certain that behind it is not simply self-interest. That aside, for the last fourteen years South Africa has had a virtual one party dictatorship. Will the split change anything? I don?t know and neither do you, but if what has existed till now adds up to your idea of 'democracy', dream on.
For a long time I've watched the SADC and Mbeki's utterly useless efforts at creating a political settlement in Zimbabwe while the international community sat idly by, even when abundantly evident that whatever Mbeki was cooking up was intended to save Mugabe's bacon rather than address the needs of desperate and dying Zimbabweans.
I agree that Western powers need to keep out of Zimbabwe, but then the SADC and particularly Mbeki needed to step in and one way or another force Mugabe out of office. They didn't and seem morally destitute.
Talk about change in Zim 'needing to come from within' is worn out and totally unrealistic. Any attempt at opposition results in threats, severe beatings, imprisonment, even murdered. The other neighbouring countries in the region have proven utterly useless at doing anything constructive for the people of Zim, the best call so far (in my estimation) recently coming from leaders in Kenya who want Mugabe
?removed?, and, if necessary, I don?t think they intend that the removal be gentle.
Complain about this comment
#210 Nick Gotts. Why do you find it necessary to begin your posting with such utter drivel and, as a matter of interest, totally erroneous assumptions? You have not the slightest idea of what I stand for, yet through mindless prejudice write the inflammatory crap you do!
Complain about this comment
#213 Simon21
"But you no longer get a bullet in the back of the head for being the wrong colour..."
How little you know! In fact, you do - for being white, coloured, Chinese or Indian.
"... and you can no longer get arrested for marrying the wrong colour."
In fact that ended back in 1985 or 1986 when then President P.W. Botha ended the Mixed Marriages Act (or an act to that effect) and more than 180 other pieces of apartheid legislation. That happens to be why Thabo Mbeki offered the Botha family a State Funeral for P.W. Botha, out of recognition that he had started the ball rolling. And, as a matter of interest, one the states in the U.S. continued that law after it had ended in South Africa.
Complain about this comment
Canada like America is filled with people who are no longer traditional. nationalists---anything goes for them it appears to get some form of international socialist world government started. They, of course, have no idea where this all may end up? This is what the rest of us really fear the most, plus the loss of our rightful national identities.
Being your British I found it strange they way you put these Canadian facts, as...Mr Harper "persauded" the "acting" head of state----We all KNOW or should--- the Canadian, Head of State is... HM Elizabeth II. Mr. Harper asked the "permission" of the Govenour General, HM the Queen's personal representative what the Prime Minster wanted done, to suspend Parliament for a short time for talks to take place... because he does not see dealing with "separatists" , maybe even terrorists, as a legal, viable answer to Canadian unity as a nation.
Where you get any link to Obama is strange to me, unless you believe we all should just go to world anarchy without traditional law because it often is "dull"? Where did you get this from? The world is a very dangerous, unsettled place today...the last place citizens need more unsettled conditions are in British Democracies---From the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland and many more working countries. I feel we have the right to choose our own national life and not be swept away with some world tide of any politics or mass of people. There is some very faulty thinking going on right now that through "silient assertion" is claiming some form of Majority Rule without borders...in the USA and Canada. I do not see where people think this is right or legal, but many people are supporting this new "world" state view. When push comes to shove it will be anything but DULL as citizens of many nations DEMAND their rights.
P.S. Many citizens in the USA are not even sure that Mr.Obama is a legal candidate today----more to come next week.
Complain about this comment
I thought ya'll thought that Canada was perfect? ... and corner gas....
Complain about this comment
226 robloop
I distresses me no end to read what you have written. I will make no comment on what is happening in SA or Zimbabwe as my knowledge is limited (other than what I read in the press). It must be extremely difficult to see this happen to your country. Do Desmond Tutu's words carrying any weight? I heard him speak out against Mugabe the other day.
As you know we have our own problems in Canada but they pale in comparison to yours.
I offer you my condolences. Which is about all I can offer right now. Writing to Harper would be a complete waste of my time. Hell, he's not even at home! If only Stephane Dion had come across better, I would be bombarding PM Dion with letters.
Complain about this comment
209 Happyglaze
I didn't 'sidetrack' the discussion on Canada, it was jokers like you who did. I think it was Chronophobe who said my nationality was 'suspect' (or something to that effort). I told him and that immediately drew idiotic attacks based upon stereotyping, and then stupid speculations and assumptions to which I had no intention of giving satisfaction.
Complain about this comment
225 Interestedforeigner
Thanks and I agree. With a viable (in my humble opinion) alternative, why not ask the opposition to form the next government.
I learned of the Ontario coalition last week, along with many, many other things.
Thanks re: tomorrow. Polls are saying Charest will win but....
I was amused by a quote I read awhile ago from a Frenchman (France) saying, "All we ever do is vote! and vote and vote!" I feel the same. So off I go tomorrow to yet another school gym!
Complain about this comment
Re: #225 Interestedforeigner:
Poignant observation. Not sure the relevancy to my point though. I refer to public funding.
Care to endulge?
Complain about this comment
#196 Interestedforeigner
It's a very long time since I watched Fox News, but many times have watched CCN with Wolf Blitzer and his "best political team on television." If they are, then God help us all! Then they have Jack Cafferty, Rick Sanchez, Campbell Brown .... and the list gets worse.
I did at one stage get McNiel and Lehrer, and considered them believable and thorough even if a bit droll. I remember one British commentator describing Lehrer as "paralyzingly boring". To be fair, the fact is that he is believable - which CNN is not.
Your comment about CBC and "parochialism-R-us" gave me a smile. Too true. Boring beyond imagination most of the time.
Re BBC and international news coverage, you are right, there is no better.
Complain about this comment
Interesting analysis of the recent Canadian political events by Jeffery Simpson of the Globe and Mail here.
Off topic, but I also came across this interesting set of interviews with members of the taliban here on the Globe and Mail site. You have to look a bit to find them, but worth it. It's a kind of poll done with a couple dozen taliban. Very chilling.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
#228 Robloop:
Yeh but comeon Rob, PW was like Bush. He only understood Afrikaaner society. His concessions were a matter of survival. The liberal media had at that point in time achieved dominance, the majority white english south africans were threatening to take over parliment.
Complain about this comment
#219 Chronophobe
If you go back to my 185 I think you'll understand why I'm not sure what your point is to me re Mark Steyn. I believe that originally I simply pointed out the tyranny of Canada's Human Rights Commissions as they related to Steyn, but without any reference to his conflict over Islam. Concerning this matter Rex Murphy was particularly good - although to be frank, I haven't actually watched Murphy for years, but I have read his comments on Google.
When, as Steyn has done, an individual gets caught up in a struggle of an ideological nature, or one of the nature that descended on Steyn, the danger is that of becoming so consumed by the 'struggle' that balance and perspective is lost, and with that also the fun side to them that made them attractive. Bitterness has a warping effect on a personality. Steyn won in the end, so should take a step back and focus on regaining the side to him that he evidently has lost. I do take my hat off to him for having 'guts'.
Complain about this comment
#231 AngloQuebecer
I'm not sure if Desmond Tutu's words carry much weight with the ANC, but suspect they don't. I think they now resent him too deeply. They've come to hate his guts over criticism of rampant corruption in their ranks, failure to effectively address the massive crime issue, and failure to attend to the needs of millions of poor black South Africans while enriching themselves.
Telling the ANC leadership, which included Mbeki, that he didn't fight "apartheid tyranny" only to see a new form of tyranny emerge, didn't go down too well - as you can imagine! Then he has told the ANC that housing built for blacks during the "apartheid era" was far superior in construction to those now being built. The latter he said were already crumbling.
All the same, maybe in a reluctant way they listen and in time someone who is smarter and more moral than the present lot will take heed. One can only hope.
Complain about this comment
#237 dbithead
Of course P.W. Botha, who definitely was no whimp, brought about changes out of fear for the future. It was he who said that change was necessary or the future would be "too ghastly to contemplate", but you are wrong about English-speakers ever forming a white majority or threatening to take over parliament. At best we formed 40 percent of the white population, but it is a fact that more and more Afrikaners took to reading English-language newspapers to find out what was going on in the country and the world outside.
Actually, after getting rid of, I believe, 187 pieces of apartheid legislation, P.W. (as he was called) froze, which is roughly why F.W. de Klerk emerged as the man to bring an end to apartheid and minority white rule.
Complain about this comment
Re: 240 robloop:
I remember it well Rob. However your argument over liberal white superiority in South Africa in the 80s remains without evidence. The fact of the matter is evident, or do I have to post links in this age of Google?
Methinks you view me is an adversary. Nothing is further from the truth, merely an educated observer and a friendly voice amongst much ignorance.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#241 dbithead
Sorry if I gave you the impression of regarding you an adversary. I didn't, but thanks for pointing that out.
I honestly have absolutely no recollection of there ever being a "liberal white superiority" in the 1980s and don't think you are right on this score. At the time I was very much under the scrutiny of BOSS for writing the things I did in newspapers, so felt very much part of a minority and have no recollection of there being any evidence I was anything but.
In 1986 Van Zyl Slabbert, then leader of the Progressive Federal Party, left his parliamentary position out of frustration and the feeling that the opposition 'liberal' Progressive Federal Party was almost irrelevant under the weight of the National Party majority and political events in South Africa. If his party, and individuals of kindred thought, had been in a majority I doubt he would have so dramatically quit politics. As a matter of interest, I met and chatted with both Van Zyl Slabbert and Helen Suzman.
So by all means send the Google link. I'll be interested to see what it says.
Complain about this comment
Robloop wrote:
The mess they are now in simply reflects what occurs when a largely left-wing media does everything in its power during an election to ensure that a Conservative government does not regain power.
What an interesting view of Canadian media. Not one significant newspaper, radio station, magazine or television station across Canada endorsed the only left of centre party, the New Democratic Party, in any of our federal elections. In fact, they rarely give much coverage to the party's policies and leader. Most media in Canada tend to take centrist or right wing stands in their daily and election coverage. If even a small number of outlets gave balanced reports, the party would probably grow significantly from its consistent 18-20% of the popular vote which in our antiquated electoral system only generates about 10% of the seats in Parliament.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII wrote: Canada...I've heard of it...
It surprises me that there have been so many contributions to this site from people in many countries since Canada usually has very little visibility on the international scene.
It strikes me that a contributor from the United States would show so little awareness of my country (perhaps it was toungue in cheek and I missed the humour). After all, Canada is the United States single biggest trade partner (much bigger than China, Europe,Japan,...); for more than 40 states it is their biggest customer; daily cross-border traffic is the busiest in the world. Despite this, most of its people and many of its politicans haven't a clue as to where we are, how we are governed (whoops! recent events show that a lot of Canadians don't either), what our cities are like, our how we impact on their lives, etc. We don't exist in their media except for hockey, basketball and baseball teams.
Complain about this comment
robloop:
Perhaps my language was too strong; what I meant was simply that if you mean to imply that South Africa is not a democracy, or is heading in the same direction as Zimbabwe, I simply disagree. You don't have to tell me how bad things are in Zimbabwe, or in South Africa. I don't have the same firsthand knowledge of the latter that you do (I have South African friends in Canada, but I haven't talked to them about the country recently; I get most of my news on it from the BBC), but my family regularly gets E-mails from friends in Zimbabwe and we actually have a white Zimbabwean living with us right now (his family is friends of ours and we were able to sponsor him to come to Canada and go to school here). So I'll thank you not to assume I know nothing about what's going on there. I am fully aware of the terrors of Mugabe's regime, and of the failures of Mbeki and SADC. I absolutely agree with you that other countries in the region need to remove Mugabe, by force if necessary. You seem to want to quarrel with me over matters I agree with you on. My point regarding change in Zimbabwe was simply that it needs to be other African countries that bring it about (and that there needs to be a viable government from within Zimbabwe, which there clearly is in the MDC). Not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of that, just trying to be realistic.
As for your accounts of the problems of South Africa, I don't doubt any of those either. My primary point is simply that all of those don't make SA any less of a democracy. A country being a democracy doesn't mean it doesn't have problems, or that's a nice place to live. India was a hell of a country to live in for most of its independence, but it was still a democracy. South Africa is, and I believe will remain, a democracy. The fact that there was not until recently a credible opposition doesn't make it a "dictatorship." Canada quite recently had one-party rule (by the Liberals) for just one year less than SA has had it now. It's not whether there's just one party in power, it's how that party operates and whether its leaders have some measure of accountability to the people. Of course the ANC had and has an enormous amount of corruption, but again so do parties everywhere (including Canada), and if it is more there than many places it is still nowhere near the level of Zimbabwe. I don't really think any of this is particularly controversial. I don't know of any credible organization that studies global trends that would not classify SA as a democracy, whatever its other problems. Freedom House and the Economist's Democracy Index, for instance, both rank it as a liberal democracy, albeit an imperfect one. Maybe you disagree with these classifications, but at makes you the one taking the outlandish position, not me.
Complain about this comment
246. nevinc wrote:
My point regarding change in Zimbabwe was simply that it needs to be other African countries that bring it about (and that there needs to be a viable government from within Zimbabwe, which there clearly is in the MDC).
I'm afraid there ain't nothing clear about that at all. As I pointed out at no. 223, calling a party the Movement for Democratic Change is hardly evidence that the party will in fact be democratic. And opposition to Mugabe is hardly evidence of democratic intent, no matter how justified that opposition is. In an African context, it is far more likely to be evidence of a push for power by the next budding dictator. Back in the eighties, Mugabe started off as the great revolutionary hope for starry-eyed Western "liberals," and look how he turned out.
I am completely pessimistic about a positive outcome for Zimbabwe and deeply concerned both about the current abysmal state of South Africa and the almost certain prospect of future deterioration.
There's an old joke:
If you can see the light at the end of the tunnel in South Africa, you're facing the wrong way.
Except it's not funny.
Complain about this comment
247. At 08:54am on 08 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:
246. nevinc wrote:
My point regarding change in Zimbabwe was simply that it needs to be other African countries that bring it about (and that there needs to be a viable government from within Zimbabwe, which there clearly is in the MDC).
I'm afraid there ain't nothing clear about that at all. As I pointed out at no. 223, calling a party the Movement for Democratic Change is hardly evidence that the party will in fact be democratic. And opposition to Mugabe is hardly evidence of democratic intent, no matter how justified that opposition is. In an African context, it is far more likely to be evidence of a push for power by the next budding dictator. Back in the eighties, Mugabe started off as the great revolutionary hope for starry-eyed Western "liberals," and look how he turned out."
Well the eighties heroes of the right - Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Pik Botha, Nicolas Ceaucescu were hardly great successes either.
It is important to remember that had the right-wing appeasers of the West not supported RSA and Rhodesia ("our friends in the north") then Mugabe might not have got into power in the first place.
"I am completely pessimistic about a positive outcome for Zimbabwe and deeply concerned both about the current abysmal state of South Africa and the almost certain prospect of future deterioration."
Not sure what "abysmal state" of SA is supposed to mean. It faces problems, certainly. Its government has feather bedded the whites for far too long. But the country has considerable strengths and has risen from the ashes of aparthied remarkably smoothly.
As regards Zimbabwe. It is hilarious to hear the newly pious, black-rights converts express such compassion for the country.
Abuse of various African states for not sending in troops is hilarious.
Nice white countries like the UK and US etc have sent their soldiery in to Kossovo, Bosnia, etc and apart from Sierra Leone in each instance there has only been limited, extremely limited success.
Indeed in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan matters have not improved. In Kossovo ethnic cleansing was carried out under Nato's nose.
So not surprisingly many African leaders are reluctant to follow the western examples.
Complain about this comment
246 Nevinc
If you look back at your 216 I think you'll realize that your language was "too strong", but thanks for acknowledging that. Being told that I "have no idea what you are talking about" re Zim and SA didn't sit too well.
As a matter of interest my 242 was for your reading. It contained a recent letter from Zimbabwe describing frightening events unfolding there and graphically conveying the fears of the writer who asked that people "everywhere" round the world pass on his letter to everyone they could. The South African who forwarded the letter, from his Zim friend, stated that the SA media (state-controlled SABC) is not telling South Africans the full extent of the mess in Zim. I'm not sure why the moderator wouldn't allow it, but I think you might have found it informative and troubling.
There's nothing "outlandish" about my position on SA. However imperfect, I hope it remains at least a semblance of a democracy, but the fact is that till now the ANC's overwhelming majority has given it a rubber stamp to do as it pleases. Thankfully there have been moderate voices such as that of Trevor Manuel to temper its actions, and the new stand-in president seems to have a level head. However, there are now also ANC M.P.s who demonstrate the instincts of a totalitarian dictator like Mugabe. Not only that, they are thorough racists.
If Zuma becomes president we will have to see whether his considerable support from COSATU and the South African Communist Party doesn't force his hand in the direction of something like the old 'German Democratic Republic' which, despite the name, was nothing more than a thoroughly repressive communist dictatorship in East Germany. Let's hope that the ANC-COPE split saves the country from that eventuality, but the reality is that it is these type of concerns that constantly keep South Africans on edge.
Yes, there is corruption everywhere, not least in Canada, but that in Canada doesn't even nearly compare with what incessantly occurs in South Africa. It's like a daily event to read about yet another scandal.
Complain about this comment
249. At 12:51pm on 08 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:
"However imperfect, I hope it remains at least a semblance of a democracy, but the fact is that till now the ANC's overwhelming majority has given it a rubber stamp to do as it pleases. "
Yes that is democracy for you. How odd that the ANC should act like any other party in government!
"Thankfully there have been moderate voices such as that of Trevor Manuel to temper its actions, and the new stand-in president seems to have a level head. However, there are now also ANC M.P.s who demonstrate the instincts of a totalitarian dictator like Mugabe. Not only that, they are thorough racists."
Are they? At least they haven't passed laws forbidding black and white marriage have they?
At least they haven't turned the armed police on demonstrating schoolchildren.
And they haven't bulldozed any white townships and ordered the people to leave.
That's the rascism the majority of South Africans had to live under before ANC rule.
"Let's hope that the ANC-COPE split saves the country from that eventuality, but the reality is that it is these type of concerns that constantly keep South Africans on edge. "
"f Zuma becomes president we will have to see whether his considerable support from COSATU and the South African Communist Party doesn't force his hand in the direction of something like the old 'German Democratic Republic' which, despite the name, was nothing more than a thoroughly repressive communist dictatorship in East Germany. Let's hope that the ANC-COPE split saves the country from that eventuality, but the reality is that it is these type of concerns that constantly keep South Africans on edge."
Some South Africans.
"Yes, there is corruption everywhere, not least in Canada, but that in Canada doesn't even nearly compare with what incessantly occurs in South Africa. It's like a daily event to read about yet another scandal."
Did Canada undergo over 40 years of racial government?
No yet it still has considerable corruption.
Not to mention who exactly does the corruption.
Maybe those in glass houses...
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner
Thanks for your interesting posts.
Isn't Parliament sovereign? So can't it refuse the Governor-General's decision? I know the Queen can dissolve Parliament and, in the case of no overall parliamentary control, ask the leader of the largest party in the lower house to form a government; but I didn't know the Queen could temporarily close Parliament. History tells us that this is a path to civil war - people will choose Parliament or the Monarchy and the latter will lose big time. I say let Parliament speak.
Complain about this comment
It's puzzling to me to read Canadians (and Brits) complaining about their "antiquated electoral system," as some do. The Westminster system is rather old, and it survives because it works well. The characteristic (shared with the US system) of electing members of Parliament (or Congress) to represent districts, rather than parties, leads to relative stability in government.
Consider, as an example, the alternative systems used in Italy, which are mostly proportional, and which tend to give small minorities a piece of the action:
http://www.electionresources.org/it/
Italy has had approximately 60 governments since WWII, about one per year. Who wants that?
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#225), " ... Keep in mind that to run for the US Senate you have to be able to raise about US $ 20,000/week. ... "
Not necessarily. In 1982, the late Senator Proxmire of Wisconsin reported $145.10 in campaign expenses and received 64 percent of the vote.
Complain about this comment
248, 250 Simon21
You are an unhappy, angry, empty bag of wind as these mostly stupid postings once again show. You must be permanently in excruciating pain, or derive some sick pleasure from being a pain in the rear? Your comments about South Africa are worn out. Your knowledge of democracy evidently zero.
Complain about this comment
249 robloop:
Having veered off course from Canadian politics and leaving Obama in the dust -
I was wondering if you would mind telling us how it is that you are South African. Just out of interest and curiosity.
Complain about this comment
254
really is this an argument?
Complain about this comment
252 Gary
I as a total left bent twisted guy strangely have no problem with the monarchy or the house of lords even before the changes.
there was something nice about watching the old lords and ladies bring reality into debates. they turned down the Criminal Justice Bill , twice didn't they(can't remember)
Bunch of tory lords against it.
Why they didn't care about getting elected so they dared to say taking away rights to protest or worse to take away the right to have a 21 st party for trixibellpottet.
That was before reform though.
Or the old lord who when debating the right to spit, asked if he was to be expected to keep phlegm in his mouth or swallow it until he got home.If he did spit and a copper was near would he be accused of spitting at an officer.
Great freedom for the lords,a bit like the Justices on the Supreme court who sometimes seem to say "I'm here so stuff them all ,i'm going to do what's right"
Complain about this comment
56. At 1:06pm on 05 Dec 2008, lochraven wrote:
Now, if you want me to tell you what's wrong with the US, well, let's start with health care . . .
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
When we get national health care here, which we surely will, (but why does it matter to you one way or the other?), what will your next gripe be? Are you keeping a list?
Merry Christmas
DEATH PENALTY
Complain about this comment
100
"Yes, the border situation today is a shame, but then the side to the equation you haven't presented is that if Canada (much like the U.S. with its Mexican border) had not become so utterly and shamefully sloppy about who it has allowed into the country without screening or security checks; had not allowed terrorists - even al Qaeda and Tamil Tiger members, and families of Somali's warlords - to make Canada their home, and has such poor control over the whereabouts of foreign criminal elements still loose in the country, the U.S. might not have resorted to passports and other border checks"
I'd question the motive behind this
129 "but to them he has proven a dismal failure in regard to abortion, recently emphatically making it clear that he will not permit members of his own party to re-open debate on abortion.
Then he seems to lack the stomach to do anything about Canada's rogue Human Rights Commissions and their obsessive preoccupation with promoting a homosexual agenda"
again not someone into all inclusive society
then we have this telling phrase from 162
"Yes, Canadians are very tolerant, subdued and politically correct while watching
'their' country,"
followed by
" the country into which they were born and grew up, disappear under a wave of immigrants who too often really don't respect their ways, culture or traditions while demanding that Canada become at least a reflection of the failed societies from which they emigrated - to find a better life in Canada (which then is not quite good enough because it's not enough like the mess from which they departed!) So much for multiculturalism"
Well after this I could hardly be expected to think "Wow this guy is a real nice guy, what a beacon of cultural understanding."
having started q a post with
Your comment about me, "your nationality is shifty, at best" gave me a smile. I'm South African, "
I took it into my head hat you are South African. Because I can understand what I read.I noticed that your name here (obviously not your real name) is ROB Loop which I knew to be a Dutch word, replied with a pretty easy to make assumption. I am sorry I did not mean to state you were a Boer I asked if you were.
having quoted some of those real sensitive words.
"Sure they tolerate each other, make themselves understood, often in broken English,"
"Encourage immigrants to become American, or, as is happening in Toronto and surroundings, find yourself a minority in your own country."
simple question,no implication.
Now you weren't a Boer were you?
You said No, Ok, but why did you pick a name like Rob LOOP then?
Not an accusation just a question.
All your writings do not show a very culturally tolerant person.
There are a few QUOTES here.
Now you probably see nothing in them, but again surely as a White person brought up in South Africa you have become aware of how these words could by many be seen to be an indication that you are not so happy with all races.
comments like " I have a few 'boer' friends who did not." imply there were a few but not many or a majority.
given the careful wording of you reply I saw the old doublespeek coming out.
"I didn't take offence from your comments.
Pole, Ukranian, Turkish Kurd, in all honest not the diversity obstacle I was thinking of,"
(it were the other ones)
Oh is this like the Christian east Muslim east thing that your buddy 193( the one who brought up Africa) is into?
the one who refers to
the "Rainbow Nation" dreamed of by Nelson Mandela, with a little scorn it seems.
I reply to you in 203 and 204
at which point you are writing the lovely post
205. At 3:09pm on 07 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:
#193 Truetoo
The sad part is that Mandela's "Rainbow nation" has become a 'Rambo nation' (as one publication coined it), with crime and corruption absolutely ballistic. Murder, rape and robbery are at 'world-class' levels. You can be murdered for a cell-phone or get a bullet through the brain for not exiting your car quickly enough during a car hijacking. This particularly crime is far worse in some parts of the country than in others.
And yet, despite that, if lucky you don't run into any trouble, but constantly take precautions and make your home a fortress.
Apartheid racism has been replaced by ANC racism with a huge dose of amazing incompetence and ineffeciencyt thrown in for good measure.
The harsh reality is that the astronomic levels of crime and corruption began when Mandela was president, and while I doubt he was behind it or that he wasn't concerned, he did nothing about it, not least, it has emerged, because he left running of the country to Thabo Mbeki.
If South Africa "begins a practically irreversible slide down the drain", and there are ominous signs, I don't believe the
'international community' will do anything until utter chaos reigns - as is happening over Zimbabwe. Even now it's action over Zim are tepid and ineffectual. It's more of the hand-wringing, 'what can we do?' variety! Pathetic!
Jimmy Carter's comments about the situation are laughable. What he has
'discovered' existed weeks ago, and Mugabe is still in power, driving around like royalty in luxury cars surrounded by a large troop escort while everything around him falls apart. He has got to be insane - but no less than Idi Amin!
The 'international community' has had years to do something constructive about Robert Mugabe, but chose to leave the matter to the Southern African Development Community - that left the matter up to the utterly useless Thabo M'beke, who simply created a totally unworkable compromise solution in an effort to save an old Marxist chum from ignominious surrender of power.
The results are there for all to see, people starving, being murdered, dying of dysentry and cholera, and fleeing into neighbouring countries. Yet another African tragedy!
Meanwhile the wondrous 'international community' has done nothing about issuing an arrest warrant for Robert Mubage for the genocide he perpetrated against the Ndabele people in Matabeland where his army's North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade murder about 20,000 people, let alone the murders of white farmers, their labourers, and political opponents. Those butchers from the Balkans who landed up facing the World Court were not responsible for nearly as many murders as is Robert Mugabe, but evidently the 'international community's' rules for Africa differ from those they apply to Europe.
So pardon me if my faith in the
'international community' - with its selective 'concerns' - is zero should South Africa follow the Zimbabwe route.
Now that seems a little Boerish to me not that anything else didn't.
I did have to reply on the africa topic in 207 and 209 but you will see that 205 is rather lengthy and rather concentrating on africa.
and it continues.
How about we all leave SA and ZIM out of this and concentrate on why Maple sugar is the best damn sap in the world
Complain about this comment
#259 Well, happyglaze, I must acknowlegde that you've been busy. And you were saying.....?
Complain about this comment
#255 AngloQuebecer
Yes, we sure have veered off course.
A slightly curious question you put to me, but I imagine that like your own forebears who emigrated from somewhere, so did mine. My mother's father left Stirling, Scotland, at the age of three. My grandmother on that side left Dublin, but was of Scots descent. My father's parents left from England, but that grandfather's origins were also Scot. My father and mother got together one day and in a flash of excitement that for me was it - about 50 kilometers from Cape Town in the shadows of the Hottentot Holland Mountains!
I hope this helps.
Complain about this comment
People might be interested in tonight's World Have Your Say programme, which dealt with sanctions or possible military intervention in Zimbabwe. The health minister came on and got a bit frantic about the prospect of the latter. Debate got a bit heated:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20081208-1900a.mp3
248. Simon21,
I'm not sure I see the logic in blaming the right for Mugabe. He's not that atypical for an African leader. Think Idi Amin and a host of other brutal dictators who couldn't give a damn about their people.
The abysmal state of South Africa has been clearly and comprehensively outlined by robloop. Maybe you missed that.
Complain about this comment
261 robloop:
I find family histories intriguing and yours sure is! So many Scots all arriving in SA. I was also wondering why SA? Had you been Dutch - which we all know you are not! - I would not have asked.
It sounds like you are talking about perhaps the '20's? Around the time my own maternal grandparents left Wolverhampton UK. I believe Canada had "a special" on that year! Although my grandmother's original intention had been New Zealand.
So instead of being a Kiwi I find myself out in -13 C weather voting in the Quebec election for a candidate who will hopefully help keep this country together. To bring us back to Canadian politics!
As I said, just curiosity
Complain about this comment
I'm not surprised at the ignorance of some of the American bloggers about Canada itself, let alone its politics. But then how can you find fault with our southern neighbours when a good portion of them couldn't even find the United States on an unmarked map of the world!
Stephen Harper is a "Bush-lite" leader, who doesn't believe in the Kyoto Accord on global warming and who takes pre-emptive strikes against the opposition in the Canadian Parliament.
The Honourable Michelle Jean, our Governor
General, has an excellent fashion sense and has been touted to help Michelle Obama (Barak's wife) in upgrading her wardrobe.
Complain about this comment
ookpik 244 & 245.
Please go easy on our foreign friends. We don't always know everything about their issues, either, so cut them some slack.
The media is not responsible for the perennial state of the NDP.
The NDP as a federal party has consistently received between 18 and 21 % of the vote for a very long time, in good years and in bad. It doesn't seem to matter what the issues are, who the leader is, whether it rains or shines. Not sure why, but that is how it is.
Part of the reason it did relatively poorly this time was the new voter ID law, which works most strongly against the Liberals, the Bloc, then the NDP, and the Greens.
In a normal distribution, the NDP is always more than one standard deviation to the left of the mean, there is a broad-church centerist party between it and the mean, and there is another usually relatively centrist party a bit to the right of the mean. Inherently that means the NDP is fishing from a pool that is substantially less than half full. It will always be tough to get more than 20 % of the vote under those circumstances. But to fish in a larger pool means ditching some of the policies that the federal NDP holds closest to its heart.
You might look at why the CCF was successful out West, where they established themselves as one of the main parties, not the third party. Between 1944 and 1981 the CCF/NDP formed the goverment of Saskatchewan for all but 4 years (Ross Thatcher, 1967 - 1971) In that time they had "the most socialist government in North America" by some accounts.
How socialist? Well they ran a balanced budget or a surplus every year they were in office except one. In many ways it was a small-c conservative government in terms of personal financial responsibility, with highly progressive social policies. Tommy Douglas established the principle that they were going to have as much socialism as they could afford, but they would not borrow money to do it. Borrowing money would make them beholden to the banks, and if they were beholden to the banks they would no longer have freedom to choose policy. So they made do with what they had. It took a lot of self-discipline.
Nonetheless, they introduced public health care. It became the model for Canada. But they kept a very close eye on the accounts the whole time.
Of course, after the "wild spending socialists" were booted out in 1981, the fiscally prudent Conservatives came into power and promptly spent the province into bankruptcy.
The NDP has been less successful in BC, and the freak event of an NDP governement in Ontario was not an happy experience. If the federal NDP could make a credible promise of fiscal prudence and personal self-discipline the way the NDP can on the praries, it would get more votes. But it can't because of the desires of some of its core constituencies to "make the rich pay". Trust Jack Layton to manage the till? Not a chance.
And that is the enduring problem at the federal level, not the media or anything else.
Complain about this comment
It is only fitting that a discussion of Canadian politics should eventually get 'round to Tommy Douglas.
I said in a previous post that J.S. Mill should be the patron saint of Canada. Well Tommy Douglas is the spirit made flesh. I'm almost serious about this.
I saw him speak in the early to mid-1980's, I think it was, when he was an old warrior, no longer in the political fray. He took to the podium in a big, packed hall, and suddenly realised he had forgotten his speaking notes. He apologised for his 'senior moment,' and began speaking, off the top of his head, for over an hour. He was wise, funny, generous, and kind. A truly great man.
Not long ago, the CBC had a rather silly viewer vote in contest to name the greatest Canadian. Tommy won it easily. He represents, I think, how we, in Anglo Canada, at least, like to see ourselves. A bit Methody, perhaps, but with a genuine and earthy commitment to principles of social justice.
His trademark parable of 'Mouseland,' the tale of why mice elect cats to govern them, text here, audio (with an intro by his grandson Kiefer Sutherland) here.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
nevinc #246:
The logic seems hazy. The MDC is, at least, as bad as ZANU/ZAPU because they have not proved themselves to you?
Seems to me they attained credulity merely by the fact they have not severely injured or mudered hundreds or thousands of citizens, starved thousands and sent so many others to a rapid and ignominious grave.
Complain about this comment
#247
Complain about this comment
#261 Robloop:
Did anyone else get that clue? Anyone?
Complain about this comment
266 Pinko.
Yes, he really was.
251. dceilar
Yes, that's exactly the point.
In our Parliamentary system the Executive and the Legislative branches are merged. In the age of TV we now have "Presidential" Prime Minsters, and power is concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) to an extent that would surprise Americans. In essence, a majority government in Parliament is fairly close to a time limited (5 years maximum) quasi-dictatorship. However, when everybody accepts long established practices and customs, it usually works ok. If the government behaves badly, then they're out at the next go. One of the problems with the present bunch is that they seem to have a much rougher and nastier idea of how the game is played. It's American hardball politics, and that isn't consistent with the more strongly consensus based Canadian culture.
That a PM in a minority Parliament can now run away from a vote is not a good precedent, and several sommentators have raised the very same point you raise.
252 & 253. Gary:
There used to be a joke in Canada that you could tell an election was coming when Stanley Knowles took his old car in for an oil change.
(A wonderful, decent man. Sorely missed.)
The point is that the typical cost of running for public office in the US is very high. This and the inherently related problem of redistricting explain why an elected member of congress faces a greater risk of dying in office than of being thrown out by the voters.
This year provides a particularly good examplied of how ossified the US electoral system has become. The last eight years have been one disaster after another for the US. In most countries you would expect the incumbent gov't to be resoundingly thumped. But only 19 seats changed hands in a House of 435 members. That is miniscule compared to the large swings that can be caused in Westminster Parliaments by small changes in the popular vote.
Compare Nov. 4 with the Wagnerian Gotterdamerung that ended the Mulroney era in Canada: the (then) PC's were reduced from 155 seats to ... 2! (Elsie Wayne and some other guy from Sherbrooke named Jean Charest. I wonder whatever happened to him?)
First-past-the-post (FPP) works pretty well to yield stable majority goverments in two-party systems. However, it makes starting a third party difficult. It rewards geographically compact parties (i.e., separatists) and aggravates regional tensions (Not that Canada has ever had any problems with regional tensions. No, hardly at all .) Not good in a country that has "too much geography, and not enough history".
On October 14, the combined total of Liberal votes (24 %, surprisingly low) and Conservative votes (22%, surprisingly high) in Quebec was greater than the BQ vote (38 %, rather lower than th 40 - 41% they had in the pre-election polling). Yet the BQ won 49 of 75 seats in Quebec. But for the voter ID law, the BQ would have won 2 more seats, possibly 3. FPP just doesn't work for a multiplicity of parties: in Gatineau a candidate won with 27 % of the vote.
This is why Australia has gone to the single transferrable vote. That seems a much better system.
Not thrilled with PR, either. In France the 3rd Republic had the same problem as Italy after the war. PR works well in some countries, not in others. And then there are the Swiss: PR + referenda. It works a treat. But, or course, the Swiss are, well, Swiss.
Complain about this comment
Take on the Quebec Liberal Majority anyone?
The voters fled the ADQ for their home ports. Unfortunately many were insulted by Harper's comments and backlashed with a PQ vote.
265 Interestedforeigner:
You do amuse me!
"Of course, after the "wild spending socialists" were booted out in 1981, the fiscally prudent Conservatives came into power and promptly spent the province into bankruptcy."
269 dbithead:
Not sure what you mean. A Scot by ancestry?
Complain about this comment
262. At 10:24pm on 08 Dec 2008, TrueToo
248. Simon21,
I'm not sure I see the logic in blaming the right for Mugabe. He's not that atypical for an African leader. Think Idi Amin and a host of other brutal dictators who couldn't give a damn about their people.
The abysmal state of South Africa has been clearly and comprehensively outlined by robloop. Maybe you missed that."
Let me make it clear to you then. it was the right who beleived in aparthied and the natural supremacy of white rule.
It was the right who helped break Rhodesian sanctions and helped Ian Smioth estalbish his regime.
Not sure what you mean by "typical" African leader. Think Ceaucescu, Franco, Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, Sharon, Stroessner etc etc.
Are these typical white leaders? Remembering none of them come from years of rapacious rascist colonial government, but had nice white middle class (excepting Stalin) upbringing.
"The abyssmal State" No I didn't. SOuth Africa was ruled byone of the worst regimes of the the lates twentieth century, often supported by the US and Israel.
The black majority have shown astonishing restraint in the rlight of decades of systematic injustice and brutality. They are a remarkable people.
Maybe you missed that?
Complain about this comment
272 Simon
""The abyssmal State" No I didn't. SOuth Africa was ruled byone of the worst regimes of the the lates twentieth century, often supported by the US and Israel.
The black majority have shown astonishing restraint in the rlight of decades of systematic injustice and brutality. They are a remarkable people.
Maybe you missed that?"
He missed it all
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#270), that was another informative and interesting post. Thank you.
I don't understand this "first-past-the-post" term that parliamentarians like to use. Doesn't it just mean "plurality." Election to single member districts doesn't require that a plurality be sufficient. In some jurisdictions a majority is required, which is sometimes arrived at by a runoff between the two leading candidates.
Denmark is an interesting case where PR works relatively well. Their system goes to such great effort to ensure that everybody is represented fairly that they need a mathematician to figure out the election result. Apparently, the Danes are all happy with it, but then they are the happiest people on earth, so of course they are! Even in Denmark, however, they have had their periods of frequently changing governments. Not, certainly, to the extent of the Italians. Nobody over here (US) notices when the government of Denmark changes, because there are no consequences. The Havarti cheese still arrives in the supermarkets.
I think that Canada has the same problem whether seats in parliament are awarded by district or proportionally to parties, because the concentration of BQ voters gives them a significant number of seats either way.
I agree that the US system is somewhat ossified. It is difficult to "throw the rascals out." That is why term limits have grown in popularity. (These don't apply to Congress, however.) I'm not in favor of term limits; I think if someone deserves another term, we should be happy to have them stay on. What's wrong with experience?
Complain about this comment
262 and seeing as you are the one who HIJACKed this conversation to the africa topic with a thinly veiled racist taunt, could you explain what the hell this has to do with canada, obama or anything?
261 what you writings here say is that "they left from"
we were not concerned with their travel arrangements .
"I didn't 'sidetrack' the discussion on Canada, it was jokers like you who did"
you said to me.
Wrong AGAIN.
Q to the canadians, rumour has it there are easy to get visa for certain trades, is that true?
260
I was busy
Point you missed.
You write like a racist.
Your write deceitfully.
And this is not a discussion about how much you hate africans that just happen not to be white.It is meant to be a discussion about Canada.
And how the heck I can get out of the states to live there;)
PS Both of you ,did you hear that in Rwanda there are 55% women in power running the country.
Seems pretty progressive to me compared to most western "White" folk countries.
Complain about this comment
An interesting fact about the Canadian Parliament that I don't understand is that Quebec seems to be overrepresented. Is that correct? Ontario has about two-thirds greater population than Quebec, yet has only 40 percent more seats. BC has 55 percent the population of Quebec, but fewer than half the seats. Population figures are recent (2006). How often are districts (ridings) recalculated to adjust for population shifts? Is there a built-in bias favoring Quebec even when adjustments are made?
Complain about this comment
276 Gary_A_Hill:
I believe the short answer is "yes", but I'm sure Interestedforeigner" will be more than happy to enlighten you!
Complain about this comment
Anglo and Gary:
Yes, I'm getting a real constitutional law workout on this string. Haven't had to remember this stuff in years.
"First-past-the-post" is short for the first man to the tape wins the race, and yes, it does mean that a bare plurality is enough.
"Single transferrable vote" in Australia is in essence a run-off system that allocates the votes of the unsuccessful candidates until one candidate has 50% + 1.
I do not agree with term limits either. They simply make sure that competent people are driven out along with the rascals.
I suspect that the desire for terms limits arises when there are problems with campaign financing and odd nominating procedures.
As for seat distribution in Canada. Anglo, do you remember the British North America Act, retroactively re-named the Constitution Act of 1867 ?
Seat re-distribution always follows the most recent decenial census. Therefore re-distribution is typically ten years out of date so that areas of the country that are increasing in population are usually slightly underrepresented. And then there are some special rules.
No, Quebec is not over-represented, by definition.
Under the BNA (now Constitution Act) the number of seats in Quebec is now and forever more 75. Dividing the population of Quebec by 75 yields the average population per seat. That is the yardstick for everybody else. We then take the populations of the other provinces and divide them by that number, which gives the number of seats to which each province in entitled.
Except.
(a) No province can ever have fewer seats in the House of Commons than in the senate. Thus PEI with a pop of 150,000 is entitled to 4 seats.
(b) Everybody gets at least one seat. Hello Nunavut, NWT and Yukon.
(c) We don't take seats away, because that really upsets folks. Therefore Newfoundland (rhymes with "understand", by the way) has 7 seats, Nova Scotia has 11, New Brunswick has 10.
(i.e., Atlantic Canada = Maritimes + Newfoundland, has 32 seats for a poulation of about 2.3 m, whereas it should have 20 - 22, really, but don't say that or people will get angry.)
Saskatchewan and Manitoba each have 14 seats, and have had for years and years, with populations hovering about the 1m mark.
(d) We try not to make really big changes all at once. Therefore, although Ontario is probably entitled to 112 - 115 seats, or more, it only has 106. BC has 36 and Alberta has 28.
Finally, in the 1980's (I might be mistaken about this, just going by memory here) there was a court case involving redistribution in Saskatchewan. The Surpeme Court of Canada held that it was impermissible to have any seat that had a popoulation more than 15 % from the mean population of seats in that province. This has had a very beneficial effect in subsequent redistribution, since this precedent is correctly assumed to pertain to all jurisdications.
So the net effect is that Ontario, BC, and Alberta get short changed a bit because of the lag in the census data and the special rules.
On Quebec, glad Charest squeaked home. Wish it were a larger margin, but you can see that already we have the "loose lips sink ships" effect. Some genies are better off left in their bottles.
Complain about this comment
278Interestedforeigner:
Thanks for the lesson.
I answered "I believe... 'yes' as I had it in my head Quebec was guaranteed 25% of the seats. Now where did I get that idea from? Not that 75 is 25% of 308......! But I knew you would set us straight.
And 'yes' I remember the BNA Act. First thing that comes to mind - it is housed in Westminster! Should that ever come up on Jeopardy. And there was a "night of long knives" when Trudeau tried to bring it home.
Not happy to see the resurgence of the PQ. But a majority is a majority and we will have to be satisfied with that. At least we can put it behind us for four years and concentrate on Federal politics. Ignatieff ? What do you think.
Complain about this comment
Anglo:
Just don't know. He will become Liberal leader without anyone ever having voted.
We are living in strange times.
Complain about this comment
As ever lots of facts mixed up with manure.
The GG in Canada has probably done the monarchy a lot of damage in Canada - they were not supposed to get involved with politics in the modern age - and since she's the Queen's mouthpiece, i think she blew it.
To the reader calling her black - well she is of Haitian descent - and oddly - married a Quebecer documentary maker and they both seemed to espouse Quebec seperation for many years (which everyone now seems to have forgotten since she was given the 'plum' job.)
To the reader saying the Liberals are trying to gain power whilst being unelected - you can read all over the Cdn media that the present prime minister tried at least twice to do the same thing - so it's pretty partisan to say it's only bad now.
To the reader who suggests (from the UK) that the QB (which should be the BQ by the way,) are causing trouble. They represent a good chunk of the Canadian vote, their leader is supremely able and full of bright ideas. They add to the Canadian diaspora, which is one of, if not the most multi cultured and diverse on the planet. Differences can bring great ideas, so don't knock it unless you've tried it...
And finally, Justin Webb, always completely out of touch with North America - filling in space with the 'Obama' factor. The USA's history is greatly differing from that of Canada, slaves used to run up here for freedom, we did not have plantations. He's a good guy - but unproven - all this talk of revolution/salvation is almost as tasteless as the commemorative coins and other tat they sell on TV now. Let him do his job before the accolades roll. In Canada however, we're trying to fix the economic problems, which differ somewhat from the US and we have no equivalent Bush fatigue. i cannot see much of a comparison at all - as we know who we'll get. The leader of the Libs - and they're much the same, whichever one you get. they hold up their party policies - and they are not at all changed from 3 years ago.
So why does this blog even exist? Everyone spreads manure...not truth. Here comes my train, I have to run...pity.
Complain about this comment
Anglo, if you're still there:
Just read an update in today's paper on redistribution. Apparently Ontario is owed a whopping 21 (for a total of 127 v Que. 75) additional seats at the next redistribution. BC is to get 7 (total of 35) more, and Alberta will get 5 (total of 41).
I didn't realise that the lag had grown that large.
Complain about this comment
282 Interestedforeigner:
Altho I should not be surprised - I'm stunned!
What will this mean? Should Ontario come to their senses and vote Liberal "all will be right with the world" otherwise.....
I don"t know what BC gets out of a Conservative government. Are the Conservatives winning there due to a split NDP/Liberal vote? If so, they will have to vote strategically as we do here in Quebec.
If you are in Ontario you had better start "pounding the pavement" in support of the Liberals! As I said previously, I suggested to BQ voters they vote Liberal to prevent a Harper majority. I outright asked a Toronto couple I know how they vote (if you can believe it - I was that desperate), and on hearing they vote NDP pushed my "do not split the vote" agenda!
I do not want to see the "face" of this nation change. I live in Quebec for a reason.
Complain about this comment
Got the numbers reversed earlier. It is Alberta + 7 to 35, and BC + 5 to 41.
Enormous symbolism there, too: There will then be more seats in Alberta and BC than in Quebec.
Harper has shot himself in the foot in Quebec twice in two months, so you wouldn't think a Conservative majority would come there. Is it probable that Ignatieff would do worse in Ontario than Dion? Doesn't seem like it. Arithmetically there aren't that many chances in the Maritimes and NFLD, because there aren't all that many seats up for grabs, or in the West because there are so few that they don't already have. Is there a silver lining here? Was that break to Jan 26 just what the Liberals needed? They don't seem on the ropes any more, but Stephen Harper still faces an opposition smarting from the recent gratuitous slights. Ah, hubris and nemesis.
Complain about this comment
This is becoming eerily like Quebec politics. A government in power (put there by many who did not know what they were voting for) with an agenda totally opposed to my views. Then to live through all the twists and turns as they try to manipulate the system to their advantage. Countering their attacks is exhausting and very time consuming. The country doesn't know what it is in for if we are going down that road.
I have no idea if Ignatieff is the man for the job but I do feel more confident now that he is there.
Will this shut down of Parliament be enough time? Hopefully.
I don't believe the Conservatives will pick up additional seats in Quebec anytime soon. I was surprised by the ones they did get. Nor do I know how Quebec will react to a lower percentage. Not well - is a given. When do these new seats come into existence?
"To everything there is a season" (to "quote" Harper). I found Global Health Nexus on google with an interesting article called "Being Stephen Harper."
I think most of Quebec is "smarting from the recent gratuitous slights." And have every right to be incensed he would play the National Unity card!
Complain about this comment
Re: 285 AngloQuebecer
The worst of it is, he did it only to save his own sorry ass. He should have no credibility at all with any self respecting Canadian federalist.
Ignatieff, I think, will play very well in Ontario for this very reason. He is a thinking person's centrist. Harper, to the contrary, has forced himself far to the right with his recent rhetoric. I can't see him being an attractive choice for the many fiscally conservative federalists in Ontario.
So the big question, to my mind, is how Iggy can best work Quebec. Does he go after disaffected Conservatives? Can he draw from Bloc voters?
What's your take on this.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
286 chronophobe:
My take, for what it is worth -
Ignatieff has no baggage in Quebec therefore they have nothing against the man. Will they vote for him?
Up until Harper Quebec barely had a Conservative Party. It is highly unlikely they will vote for him again, so they will return to whence they came.
Some Bloc votes may go Liberal as they were "anyone but Dion" votes. Too much baggage.
Quebecers like to back a winner and right now Duceppe is winning. Should Ignatieff be perceived as being good for Quebec, they will vote for him. Ergo - the perennial "Woo Quebec."
But... one false step on his part and they will hold it against him and vote accordingly.
Personally I think all Quebec Conservative MPs should cross the floor... talking about "self respecting Canadian federalist(s)".
Oh! what a good idea - we should all put that on our Christmas/Hanukkah/etc. (should we have one) Wish List!
Complain about this comment
Justin,
Before we, Brigadoon like as MarcusAureliusII noted, disappear into the mist for another 100 years (well maybe only 30 days or so, depending), I'd like to thank you for giving us usually contented Canadians our moment of BBC blogospheric angst.
Cheers,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS