Canadian Election 2011

[silverpig]

From the bbc (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12872973):



What the fuck? Why is this still required in the 21st century? Last I checked the western world has left the middle ages. Why do some countries insist on hanging back along with the middle east?

It is purely symbolic. As soon as parliament voted no-confidence, we were sure to have an election. Everything beyond that is procedural tradition.

At least our leader isn't mired in 2000-year old fairy tales (much older than Islam mind you) and doesn't ask some sky-fairy to bless our country.

 

[Iron Woode]

From the bbc (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12872973):



What the fuck? Why is this still required in the 21st century? Last I checked the western world has left the middle ages. Why do some countries insist on hanging back along with the middle east?

Canada has a Parliamentary Government.

The Governor General has a wide range of powers and responsibilities. Generally, the GG does what the Federal Cabinet and the Prime Minister says. The GG can summon or dissolve Parliament. The GG does this because of the BNA Act and an update from 1947.

So when the ruling party loses the confidence of the House (as it did on the recent budget), the PM has no choice but to have the GG dissolve Parliament and allow another election.

after the election, the party with the most seats in the House of Commons gets to form the next government. The leader of that party is named Prime Minister by the Governor General. The GG then gets to choose who makes up the cabinet. The GG then opens Parliament for business. More or less.

 

[silverpig]

Canada has a Parliamentary Government.

The Governor General has a wide range of powers and responsibilities. Generally, the GG does what the Federal Cabinet and the Prime Minister says. The GG can summon or dissolve Parliament. The GG does this because of the BNA Act and an update from 1947.

So when the ruling party loses the confidence of the House (as it did on the recent budget), the PM has no choice but to have the GG dissolve Parliament and allow another election.

after the election, the party with the most seats in the House of Commons gets to form the next government. The leader of that party is named Prime Minister by the Governor General. The GG then gets to choose who makes up the cabinet. The GG then opens Parliament for business. More or less.

Minor nitpick: The no-confidence motion wasn't actually in regards to the budget. It was a vote on contempt of parliament AFAIK.

 

[iGas]

It is purely symbolic. As soon as parliament voted no-confidence, we were sure to have an election. Everything beyond that is procedural tradition.

At least our leader isn't mired in 2000-year old fairy tales (much older than Islam mind you) and doesn't ask some sky-fairy to bless our country.

Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean granted Prime Minister Stephen Harper to suspend Parliament.

Michaëlle Jean met Barack Obama, and abused her power by quest support for the Haitian poor.

Mulroney stacks Senate to pass the GST. He uses an obscure power to make eight appointments, creating an instant Conservative majority in the Senate. The unprecedented move, made with the consent of the Queen.

There is no such thing as democracy in Canada. Infact the American have a more democratic system than Canada.

Please study Canadian laws and politic.

 

[silverpig]

Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean granted Prime Minister Stephen Harper to suspend Parliament.

Michaëlle Jean met Barack Obama, and abused her power by quest support for the Haitian poor.

Mulroney stacks Senate to pass the GST. He uses an obscure power to make eight appointments, creating an instant Conservative majority in the Senate. The unprecedented move, made with the consent of the Queen.

There is no such thing as democracy in Canada. Infact the American have a more democratic system than Canada.

Please study Canadian laws and politic.

BS.

The Gov Gen granted the PM's request to suspend parliament. If she had denied him, then she'd be playing a role with her power. She just did as she was told.

The Mulroney example is the same. The PM wanted something, so the GG went along with it. If the PM DIDN'T want it and the GG overruled him and went another way, you'd have a point. But you don't.

We have democracy here and it probably works better than the US system because the US system is prone to lobbyists and corporate money.

<--- Canadian

 

[Iron Woode]

Minor nitpick: The no-confidence motion wasn't actually in regards to the budget. It was a vote on contempt of parliament AFAIK.

its interesting because only certain things can trigger a non-confidence vote.

the budget is what brought down Turner's government in '79.

 

[handyman999]

..To All.., Vote with your Head and not with your friends,
The old RED<WHITE<BLUE doesn't control this Country,
The RED MEAPLE LEAF, YES You the Canadians Do...
..Blue is USA Controled,
..Red is know more, Specialy with that leader,
..Green is nice but if you go ECO,
..But even if Orange do not WIN, They Fight for my Health Care,
and will it still be there when I retire, ...I HOPE SO...
..Thats if Blue doesn't take it out. Even the USA wants to use are
Canadian idea for their Health Care, like many more of are Canadian
Idea that they stole or use totay in their NAME.
---JUST A THOUGHT---VOTE WISELY---

 

[yllus]

I'm not sure how well received your plea will be taken as your preferred alternative seems to be "vote by colour".

I'd say something denigratory about the IQ of NDP voters but I think you've got it covered.

 

[westernedge]

in a nutshell...at almost 50, i've been a political junkie since my teen years, have seen the good and the bad. now that we as canadians hold the strongest economy of the G7, worldly admitted, the best banking system in the world, do you really want to see the liberals screw it all up again. We have a prime minister who is an economist, not a screwball lawyer or a liberal lapdog to the US agenda, In all reality can anyone justify their accusations of Harper pandering to US concerns. The biggest problem with the US...is...the US. A voting electorate that act like sheep. During the last general election that saw history being made by having a black candidate for president, the largess portion of the population chose a platform of hope and change, not knowing or even caring what it meant, now they are finding out, trillions of added debt, printing of money without regard, spending with even less. HERE IN CANADA, we are an intelligent voter population, we focus on platforms, we voice concerns over issues and the majority of our MP's are the people down the block. Name me a govenment in our history that hasn't had some scandal, but when you compare Harpers' tenure to those of recent past, he stands before us relatively unscathed. Our best and only option to retaining increased growth to OUR economy is to return the Conservatives to office with an overwhelming majority. a vote anywhere else would be wasted.

 

[iGas]

BS.

The Gov Gen granted the PM's request to suspend parliament. If she had denied him, then she'd be playing a role with her power. She just did as she was told.

The Mulroney example is the same. The PM wanted something, so the GG went along with it. If the PM DIDN'T want it and the GG overruled him and went another way, you'd have a point. But you don't.

We have democracy here and it probably works better than the US system because the US system is prone to lobbyists and corporate money.

<--- Canadian

The GG sided with the PMs to altered (or tried to changed) the course of government after the PMs lost or about to lose the peers democratic votes. How is that democratic to you?

It is naive to think that Canada don't have lobbyists?

<--- Canadian and know lobbyists/lawyers that are working for large corporations/unions (it come down to who grease the lobbyists palms with more money). My former IT corporation boss were an ex Deputy Minister (he was ousted because he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and the government gave him a company/no bid contracts), and we work closely with the government (most of our contracts were government contracts), and you will be surprise what I have seen behind the parliament closed doors.

 

[Unheard]

Bush 2011!

 

[sandorski]

in a nutshell...at almost 50, i've been a political junkie since my teen years, have seen the good and the bad. now that we as canadians hold the strongest economy of the G7, worldly admitted, the best banking system in the world, do you really want to see the liberals screw it all up again. We have a prime minister who is an economist, not a screwball lawyer or a liberal lapdog to the US agenda, In all reality can anyone justify their accusations of Harper pandering to US concerns. The biggest problem with the US...is...the US. A voting electorate that act like sheep. During the last general election that saw history being made by having a black candidate for president, the largess portion of the population chose a platform of hope and change, not knowing or even caring what it meant, now they are finding out, trillions of added debt, printing of money without regard, spending with even less. HERE IN CANADA, we are an intelligent voter population, we focus on platforms, we voice concerns over issues and the majority of our MP's are the people down the block. Name me a govenment in our history that hasn't had some scandal, but when you compare Harpers' tenure to those of recent past, he stands before us relatively unscathed. Our best and only option to retaining increased growth to OUR economy is to return the Conservatives to office with an overwhelming majority. a vote anywhere else would be wasted.

WTF? History Fail, total history Fail.

Harper has done alright, but to claim the Economy and Banking situation are the Conservatives doing is dishonest at best, complete hogwash at worst.

 

[CanOWorms]

From the bbc (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12872973):



What the fuck? Why is this still required in the 21st century? Last I checked the western world has left the middle ages. Why do some countries insist on hanging back along with the middle east?

Yes, it's fucked up. Canadians here tend to be extremely nationalistic and they'll defend this barbaric practice with all sorts of justifications regarding culture and other excuses. However, it still boils down to barbarism, sexism, discrimination, etc. Their head of state is the Monarch. They refuse to enter the 21st century.

But have hope. Many Canadians oppose this practice (particularly those in Quebec), there just aren't many on this forum. Canadians on this forum take a far-right stance in their support of the Monarchy. They just don't believe in equality.

 

[actuarial]

Yes, it's fucked up. Canadians here tend to be extremely nationalistic and they'll defend this barbaric practice with all sorts of justifications regarding culture and other excuses. However, it still boils down to barbarism, sexism, discrimination, etc. Their head of state is the Monarch. They refuse to enter the 21st century.

But have hope. Many Canadians oppose this practice (particularly those in Quebec), there just aren't many on this forum. Canadians on this forum take a far-right stance in their support of the Monarchy. They just don't believe in equality.

I'm sure there are lots on this forum that don't agree with it (if given the choice we would choose to get rid of it), we just don't agree with your assertion that it's barbaric, sexist or discriminatory. You also seem to have no clue how it impacts our life (hint: it doesn't). If it started to, we would demand change. Maybe you can explain how it actually impacts my life negatively, as opposed to just denouncing the practice and an entire nation of people as 'barbaric'.

Would it be accurate to compare the US to the middle-east because their motto is "in God we trust" - a crazy religion-driven nation stuck in the middle ages?

 

[CanOWorms]

I'm sure there are lots on this forum that don't agree with it (if given the choice we would choose to get rid of it), we just don't agree with your assertion that it's barbaric, sexist or discriminatory.

I think that most people would call it barbaric, sexist, and discriminatory. It's based on maintaining a caste system. The system prefers males over females. The system also excludes Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc. You have to be an Anglican. Not only that, but the head of the Anglican Church.

You also seem to have no clue how it impacts our life (hint: it doesn't). If it started to, we would demand change. Maybe you can explain how it actually impacts my life negatively, as opposed to just denouncing the practice and an entire nation of people as 'barbaric'.

You think that the government mandating a monarchy, in effect institutionalizing the head of state as belonging to the descendants of a particular inbred bloodline, does not affect your life? Where do you think their funding come from? Why should one inbred family be elevated above all others?

Would it be accurate to compare the US to the middle-east because their motto is "in God we trust" - a crazy religion-driven nation stuck in the middle ages?

I think that the poster was referring to monarchies. However, if he was referring to religion, then Canada's government is quite religious. As I stated before, the Monarch is to come from a particular family that is the head of the Anglican Church. The monarch is recognized by the Canadian government as "The Defender of the Faith." In addition, the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, established in 1982, also states that Canada is founded upon the principle of recognition of the supremacy of God. How can they do that in a modern age?

 

[actuarial]

I think that most people would call it barbaric, sexist, and discriminatory. It's based on maintaining a caste system. The system prefers males over females. The system also excludes Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc. You have to be an Anglican. Not only that, but the head of the Anglican Church.

The system may have ORIGINALLY been based on that, but it is not anymore. The American system of government ORIGINALLY only allowed males to hold office, and not black males, does that mean all republics are sexist and racist?

You think that the government mandating a monarchy, in effect institutionalizing the head of state as belonging to the descendants of a particular inbred bloodline, does not affect your life? Where do you think their funding come from? Why should one inbred family be elevated above all others?

I do believe that. You have yet to give me a reason otherwise. How would my life change if we no longer had a governor general in Canada?

I think that the poster was referring to monarchies. However, if he was referring to religion, then Canada's government is quite religious. As I stated before, the Monarch is to come from a particular family that is the head of the Anglican Church. The monarch is recognized by the Canadian government as "The Defender of the Faith." In addition, the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, established in 1982, also states that Canada is founded upon the principle of recognition of the supremacy of God. How can they do that in a modern age?

And in that very thread, I stated how misguided that was. I'll ask the same question as in that thread: how many Prime Ministers are Anglican?

Is 1982 modern age but 1956 not? How is the bill any more religious than 50,000 singing to god in unison to bless their country, or forcing small school children to recognize that their country is under God daily?

 

[Dominato3r]

Yes, it's fucked up. Canadians here tend to be extremely nationalistic and they'll defend this barbaric practice with all sorts of justifications regarding culture and other excuses. However, it still boils down to barbarism, sexism, discrimination, etc. Their head of state is the Monarch. They refuse to enter the 21st century.

But have hope. Many Canadians oppose this practice (particularly those in Quebec), there just aren't many on this forum. Canadians on this forum take a far-right stance in their support of the Monarchy. They just don't believe in equality.

Lol, nobody gives a shit about the Monarchy.

 

[CanOWorms]

The system may have ORIGINALLY been based on that, but it is not anymore. The American system of government ORIGINALLY only allowed males to hold office, and not black males, does that mean all republics are sexist and racist?

You seem to be quite ignorant of the Canadian system. The system is still like that in Canada. The American system evolved and changed to take into account modern society. Cries of tradition were defeated.

But why compare Canada to America? Why can't it surpass its neighbor? Why should because its neighbor is doing something, then Canada should excuse itself of an evil? Is this not the same rationale that led Canada directly supporting slavery in Sudan in the 1990s? Whenever Canada takes this route, it executes some of the worst evil humanity is capable of performing. It is capable of much more.

I do believe that. You have yet to give me a reason otherwise. How would my life change if we no longer had a governor general in Canada?

The government funds the Queen and her servants. You would have more social services if those funds were redirected.

There is also much psychological distress in the Canadian psyche. Wouldn't it be helpful to relieve the national consciousness of one of the factors that contribute to it? Let's free the people from the peasant classification and just have everyone as people. All the same.

And in that very thread, I stated how misguided that was. I'll ask the same question as in that thread: how many Prime Ministers are Anglican?

I'm not sure what thread you're talking about.

Is 1982 modern age but 1956 not? How is the bill any more religious than 50,000 singing to god in unison to bless their country, or forcing small school children to recognize that their country is under God daily?

Yes, I would say that 1950s Cold War hysteria is not modern compared to 1982. In addition, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not something trivial; it was the foundation of future legal principles and rights.

 

[CanOWorms]

Lol, nobody gives a shit about the Monarchy.

It is one of the factors driving separatism and cries of freedom in Quebec. If nobody cares about the Monarchy, then get rid of that bitch!

 

[Infohawk]

It is one of the factors driving separatism and cries of freedom in Quebec. If nobody cares about the Monarchy, then get rid of that bitch!

If you're so upset about the monarchy you should be equally upset about basically all religions that have similar traditions that can be considered equally barbaric. But 90% you are ranting about the British monarchy, because you're angry that they conquered South Asia.

 

[Iron Woode]

WTF is happening in this thread?

We have a Parliamentary Democracy. Get over it. I seem to remember having a black woman as our GG. Canada has no monarchy. We have some hold-over traditions from when we did have a Monarchy.

Our First-Past-The-Post electoral system is a little odd, but it is still democratic.

Canadians are divided on a number of issues and that is why this election is very important, maybe even historic.

 

[ShawnD1]

I too was terribly disappointed with the Harper government these few years. With them originally running on the platform of transparency and responsible government only to become the most secretive government to date is a real let-down.

This!!!

If the libs get their shit together, I'm voting lib.
If I don't want either of the 2 main parties, I'll vote NDP just to troll. It puts across a message that yes I showed up to vote, no I don't want either of those parties running it. I wouldn't vote NDP if they actually had a chance of winning though :awe:

 

[CanOWorms]

If you're so upset about the monarchy you should be equally upset about basically all religions that have similar traditions that can be considered equally barbaric. But 90% you are ranting about the British monarchy, because you're angry that they conquered South Asia.

Wow, another race-based attack from Infohawk. Shocking! I don't care about South Asia. However, I think that your characterization is interesting since the British were defeated by third world civilians there.

I'm not upset at the concept of monarchy or religion. If people want to believe in fairy tales, that's fine. But when the government mandates a monarchy, then I'm not ok with it. People all over the world still worship various monarchies (Greek, French, Afghanistan, Nepal, etc.) while the governments don't officially recognize them.

If Nepal and Afghanistan can get rid of barbaric monarchy, shouldn't supposed developed countries be able to do the same?

 

[CanOWorms]

WTF is happening in this thread?

You don't think that governmental reform is important? That should be an issue for debate in the upcoming elections.

We have a Parliamentary Democracy. Get over it. I seem to remember having a black woman as our GG. Canada has no monarchy. We have some hold-over traditions from when we did have a Monarchy.

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

 

[actuarial]

You seem to be quite ignorant of the Canadian system. The system is still like that in Canada. The American system evolved and changed to take into account modern society. Cries of tradition were defeated.

It's funny everyone else seems to think you're ignorant of the Canadian system. All I know is that no one is banned from holding office in Canada based on sex, race or religion (which is clearly evolution). And if it's so sexist, why do we have a woman as our head of state?

But why compare Canada to America? Why can't it surpass its neighbor? Why should because its neighbor is doing something, then Canada should excuse itself of an evil? Is this not the same rationale that led Canada directly supporting slavery in Sudan in the 1990s? Whenever Canada takes this route, it executes some of the worst evil humanity is capable of performing. It is capable of much more.

Personally, I believe we DO surpass our neighbour in many ways related to personal freedoms and eliminating discrimination. My point was to show you that if you just describe things literally and have no idea of their actual impact (like, you know, actually living here) you can make ridiculous assertions. That doesn't mean they're correct. I don't actually think the US is some backwards religious hell hole like the ME.

The government funds the Queen and her servants. You would have more social services if those funds were redirected.

That's a decent point, and really the only valid one you've made. I would certainly support a politician who advocated minimizing the budget to the GG and LGG. I would support one that wanted to completely eliminate the relationship. It's just something that is low on my list of political priorities, and also political waste, since as I said AS A CANADIAN it has no impact on my daily life.

There is also much psychological distress in the Canadian psyche. Wouldn't it be helpful to relieve the national consciousness of one of the factors that contribute to it? Let's free the people from the peasant classification and just have everyone as people. All the same.

Technically, based on your definition we're all peasants, so everyone is the same. Also, you have no clue about how this affects the Canadian psyche. Hint: it doesn't. Do you have any support for your ridiculous rantings? I'm a Canadian and I can promise you that I've never seen anyone feel like a peasant due to our relationship with the British royalty.

I'm not sure what thread you're talking about.

You keep ranting about how Anglicans have some special status and Canadians support this. Why so few Anglican leaders?

Yes, I would say that 1950s Cold War hysteria is not modern compared to 1982. In addition, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not something trivial; it was the foundation of future legal principles and rights.

And what about the daily pledging by children? That's in 2011. The reference in the preamble is not the foundation of legal principles, nor is it given any legal weight. In the actual Charter all religious expression (and non expression) is protected. As a Canadian who is an atheist, I would certainly support removing it, but have found no instance in my life in which that reference had any impact.