Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Pending Coup In Canada
Topic Started: Dec 1 2008, 08:57 PM (1,002 Views)
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator


Quote:
 
Canada opposition signs deal to defeat government



OTTAWA (Reuters) – The leaders of Canada's three opposition parties on Monday signed a historic deal to bring down the minority Conservative government and then form a coalition government of their own.

The Liberals, New Democrats and separatist Bloc Quebecois say the Conservatives of Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- who won a strengthened minority in an Oct 14 election -- are not doing enough to help Canadians cope with the worsening financial crisis.

One of Harper's ministers called the deal "a coup d'etat" and suggested the government could temporarily shut down Parliament in response. Another minister said the country was in "a very, very serious situation."

In a scene unprecedented in Canadian political history, the Liberals and New Democrats sat down in one of Parliament's most stately rooms and signed a formal coalition deal.

The two parties, vowing to work together until June 30, 2011, will split cabinet posts. The Bloc signed an agreement promising to back a coalition government for at least 18 months.

A confidence vote has been set for next Monday. The proposed coalition government would be the first of its kind in modern Canadian history.

"We're seeing a sad spectacle from Stephen Harper's government. ... (It) has shown it has no plan, no competence and no will to face up to the crisis," Liberal leader Stephane Dion said at a news conference after the signing.

"The opposition parties have decided it is time to take action. ... We're ready to form a new government."

The opposition promised a stimulus package that would help the economy for two years and said they would help the ailing auto sector.

The parties agreed that Dion -- who led his party to a big defeat in the Oct 14 election -- would head a coalition government if it were formed.

Given Dion's poor campaign performance, the choice is likely to be controversial. He has already agreed to step down next May once a replacement is chosen.

The leaders said they would focus on the economy and ignore other deep policy differences.


More (Source)






What nonsense. This is a cheap power grab by the floundering Liberals who were resoundingly rejected in our recent election. They still don't have enough seats to topple the goverment by merely joining with the NDP, they have to get in bed with the Bloc Quebecois party, a seperatist party dedicated to breaking up Canada.

Cheap whores, all. The idea that these bumbling fools can govern Canada effectively is a joke.

We just had an election, the minority Tories were strengthened by vote count which pretty well amounted to a clear mandate. This coalition have no policies; in fact, they don't even know what they stand for anymore. That's why they got trounced.

Somewhat angry on the banana-republic west coast. :realmad:


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Franko - a minority government is not a "clear mandate" by any stretch of the imagination.

If there were no "Bloc Quebecois" those votes most certainly would go to the Liberals, not the Conservatives. Quebec has never been friendly to the Conservatives.

The Conservatives blundered when they tried to go ahead as if they were a majority and bring in what would certainly be unpopular policies with the Liberals and NDP. And it's really no suprise that the Bloc didn't like those policies either. The Conservatives should have taken all that into account and worked with the other parties.

The one mistake I think the opposition is making is to put Stephan Dion in charge of the coalition. I really don't think that will be popular with the Canadian public. The Liberals would have done much better in the election with a different leader.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
whitestar
Member Avatar
Captain
Very intriging. In what way does the Canadian constituition allow an appointed govt to be removed? From experience here in Aus, our Governor General (head of state) is the only person with the power to dismiss an appointed govt and then must immediatly call a general election. The vacancy left by the govt dismissal is filled with a "caretaker" govt (the opposition), they get to exercise excutive power but restricted from passing any laws during transition between dismissal and final election result (4 weeks)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Presumably via a vote of no confidence in the existing government.

Though at Westminster such a vote would almost certainly result in a dissolution of Parliament and fresh elections before an alternative government could be appointed.

Could the existing Prime Minister of Canada seek an immediate dissolution and put this to the people? I know you have just come out of an election but surely not impossible in law? We had two elections here in 1974 to resolve a minority government situation.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Usually there would be a dissolution of parliament - but our laws do allow for a governing coalition. That is what the opposition is asking for. It is up to the Governer General whether to call an election or allow the coalition.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
whitestar
Member Avatar
Captain
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 08:40 AM
It is up to the Governer General whether to call an election or allow the coalition.
Wow.. a fragile democracy, I can understand a minority govt going down in a no confidence vote when out-numbered by the opposition but to simply be replaced... seems like a vulnerability in the Canadian constitution. How are the Canadian public receiving this?

When you say "allows for a coalition", does that mean in general? the reason I ask is, our last govt of 12yrs was a coalition, no surprises there in a westminster style system but when you say it will be allowed, your refering to.. allowed to replace the sitting govt without an election.. right?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
^^^ There does have to be a vote of non confidence first - sorry I left that out.

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc have enough votes to pass the non confidence motion, so it's a given that it will pass.

Franko's article
 
A confidence vote has been set for next Monday. The proposed coalition government would be the first of its kind in modern Canadian history.
Edited by Minuet, Dec 2 2008, 11:40 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Quote:
 
The leaders said they would focus on the economy and ignore other deep policy differences.


So the opposition is going to override the will of the people, and from a government that is based on only one issue?

In fact that doesn’t speak well for the smaller opposition parties; they of course will be sidelined once this takes place and are no longer needed.
Edited by Dandandat, Dec 2 2008, 11:49 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 11:48 AM
Quote:
 
The leaders said they would focus on the economy and ignore other deep policy differences.


So the opposition is going to override the will of the people, and from a government that is based on only one issue?

In fact that doesn’t speak well for the smaller opposition parties; they of course will be sidelined once this takes place and are no longer needed.
What is this "will of the people" you speak of? Combined the opposition parties represent more people then the ruling minority party. If they didn't then they would be unable to topple the government, plain and simple.

And for the record there are no other parties represented in the government at this time, so your comments about smaller opposition parties are irrelevant.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 11:56 AM
What is this "will of the people" you speak of? Combined the opposition parties represent more people then the ruling minority party. If they didn't then they would be unable to topple the government, plain and simple.

And for the record there are no other parties represented in the government at this time, so your comments about smaller opposition parties are irrelevant.
The will of the people was to vote for the party they wanted to see in power.

for example:

There is no reason to surmise that one who voted for Bloc Quebecois wants to be governed by members of the Liberal party. If members of the Bloc party wanted to be governed by members of the Liberal party than that is what they would have voted for.

There is clearly enough differences between these parties that they exist separate from each other. There supporters clear see a problem with the other two parties which caused them not to vote for those parties.

For those who are now in power of those parties to abandon those issues that make them different, that cause one to vote for or against them is an over ride of the will of the people.

For those parties to abounded the will of their supporters for powers sake and to override the will of the country as is tallied by the last election is the abandonment of the will of the people.


And my second comment was directed toward the smaller two of this three party coalition, not other parties that may exist.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 01:17 PM
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 11:56 AM
What is this "will of the people" you speak of? Combined the opposition parties represent more people then the ruling minority party. If they didn't then they would be unable to topple the government, plain and simple.

And for the record there are no other parties represented in the government at this time, so your comments about smaller opposition parties are irrelevant.
The will of the people was to vote for the party they wanted to see in power.

for example:

There is no reason to surmise that one who voted for Bloc Quebecois wants to be governed by members of the Liberal party. If members of the Bloc party wanted to be governed by members of the Liberal party than that is what they would have voted for.

There is clearly enough differences between these parties that they exist separate from each other. There supporters clear see a problem with the other two parties which caused them not to vote for those parties.

For those who are now in power of those parties to abandon those issues that make them different, that cause one to vote for or against them is an over ride of the will of the people.

For those parties to abounded the will of their supporters for powers sake and to override the will of the country as is tallied by the last election is the abandonment of the will of the people.


And my second comment was directed toward the smaller two of this three party coalition, not other parties that may exist.
Dandandat - we are a representative democracy - just like the US.

Who are you to state what the will of the people here in Canada is? Did you consider that our will just might be that we want our parties to work together to do what is best for the country? Maybe that is why the Conservatives were unable to get the majority that they wanted in the last election.

As to the two smaller parties - one is getting a third of the cabinet positions (if this comes to pass - it ain't a done deal yet). The other has chosen not to take any cabinet positions - not a suprise really considering the position of the Bloc Quebecois. They are separatists. They don't want to be part of the ruling coalition - they want to separate from the country. The strange thing is that many of the people who vote for them are not separatists - they simply want Quebec to have the balance of power in parliament. Which is exactly what the Bloc currently represents. So it's pretty safe to say that the will of the people who voted for the Bloc would be to go ahead with this coalition. They can build it up and they can tear it down.

Harper's big miscalculation was not understanding the reason he was given a minority and not a majority. In different parts of the country there are different needs and wants. Harper tabled a budget document that was heavy on Conservative ideology. He made no compromises to the opposition parties despite needing thier support to pass any legislation. The will of the people is compromise for the benefit of all. Harper, who is usually a pretty sharp guy, somehow missed that message.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
As I see it, if the will of the people was to go for strong policies of, in this case, the Conservative party, they would have voted for that and given Harper a majority.

The Canadian people didn't do that. Instead, they voted for a minority Conservative government, giving them the leadership role in Parliament, but with limits to their power which requires them to soften their approach on some issues and work out compromises with the other parties.

Now, I can't comment on the specifics of Harper's budget but, if as is being argued here, that it made no concessions towards the will of the other parties, then it is Harper who has overriden the will of the people. He is governing as if he was given a majority mandate, when this is not the case.

Hence, the vote to bring down Harpers government is a reasonable response to what the other parties could view as an attempted abuse of power by Harper.

Now, all of that being said, I'd agree that the other parties don't possess a mandate to govern either. The logical conclusion of this should be another election, in the light of what has happened/is happening here.

Sorry to suggest you should be put through all this, my Canadian friends ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 01:30 PM
Dandandat - we are a representative democracy - just like the US.

Who are you to state what the will of the people here in Canada is? Did you consider that our will just might be that we want our parties to work together to do what is best for the country? Maybe that is why the Conservatives were unable to get the majority that they wanted in the last election.
I haven't stated what the will of the people is. I have accepted what your last election and the existence of your parties state.

If what you stated about Harper is true, that he "made no compromises to the opposition parties" yet his party still won the election than it is clear that the will of the people is not as you state for your "parties to work together". If that was so and what you say about Harper is true, than the people would have voted Harper and his party out of power. That is not what happened.

What happened was that the people decided that supporting their party of choice was more important than voting Harper and his part out of power.

The only conclusion can be that the supporters of these opposition parties felt their individual party beliefs where more important than voting Harper out of power. To now through those difference to the wind in order to through Harper and his party out of power is an act against the will of the supporters and the voters.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 08:40 AM
Usually there would be a dissolution of parliament - but our laws do allow for a governing coalition. That is what the opposition is asking for. It is up to the Governer General whether to call an election or allow the coalition.
That is where it diverges from the Westminster system. In the UK there is no Governer-General, the Prime Minister relates directly to the monarch and the monarch is bound to act on the advice of her Ministers. She cannot choose not to dissolve Parliament if the Prime Minister asks for a dissolution.

Now I wonder under the Canadian Constitution if Prime Minister Harper could ask the Queen to dismiss the Governor-General and replace them with someone who would grant the dissolution.
Edited by ds9074, Dec 2 2008, 03:25 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 02:44 PM
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 01:30 PM
Dandandat - we are a representative democracy - just like the US.

Who are you to state what the will of the people here in Canada is? Did you consider that our will just might be that we want our parties to work together to do what is best for the country? Maybe that is why the Conservatives were unable to get the majority that they wanted in the last election.
I haven't stated what the will of the people is. I have accepted what your last election and the existence of your parties state.

If what you stated about Harper is true, that he "made no compromises to the opposition parties" yet his party still won the election than it is clear that the will of the people is not as you state for your "parties to work together". If that was so and what you say about Harper is true, than the people would have voted Harper and his party out of power. That is not what happened.

What happened was that the people decided that supporting their party of choice was more important than voting Harper and his part out of power.

The only conclusion can be that the supporters of these opposition parties felt their individual party beliefs where more important than voting Harper out of power. To now through those difference to the wind in order to through Harper and his party out of power is an act against the will of the supporters and the voters.
Maybe your lack of understanding is due to your two party system.

In the US it is clear who controls congress - one party will always have the "majority". Where there is more then two parties you are left with the party with the most seats being asked to form the government - however that party could very well have less then 50 percent of the seats and be unable to run things without the co-operation of the other parties. That is the situation we have now. You keep going on about the will of the people but the fact is that the majority of Canadians did NOT vote for the current ruling party. The "will of the people" is somewhat fractured. Harper could have chosen to recognize this and try to work with all the other parties like he did the last few years (which were also minority). Instead he chose to go ahead as if he had a majority. He gambled and apparently lost. The representatives of the majority of the people have decided that they do not have confidence in him and a non confidence motion will be voted on.

Most likely we will have a new election - but this coalition is an intriguing possibility.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus