Political crisis in Canada

[Kaylia]

I still think that Harper is making a horrible move by blaming the coalition on the separatists. It only makes all of his supporters go in a form of anti-Quebec riot, much like some of the McCain supporters who were promoting the "anti-black" movement to counter Obama.

I'm from quebec and still blame the Bloc for this shit. You can't have a self centered party taking decision for a country they don't want to be in.

[Elesirdur]

Canada's economic troubles aren't being caused by bank collapses like in the US (since we have a highly regulated banking system), but are being highly affected by the economic slowdown in the US. Canada still largely relies on the export of raw and semi-processed raw resources, much of which goes directly to the US to be used in consumer products.

Here in BC, forestry is one of our largest industries and it has been taking blow after blow in the last 10-15 years because of how closely it is tied to the US housing and construction market. The whole softwood lumber issue was probably unheard of in 90% of the US, but it was a very real and public problem here in Canada, especially BC. With the US housing market in the shitter, and the Canadian one following slowly, a reduced demand for wood and other building materials (like gypsum for drywall or potash for agricultural uses) severely impacts the forestry and mining industry in Canada. Mills and mines close down, jobs are scarce and unemployment continues to rise in rural communities where most of the people have little to no advanced education or training to allow them to transfer into a different line of work.

Similairly, the reduced production and closures of auto plants in Ontario and Quebec, caused by the massive financial troubles the Big 3 automakers are having, is creating almost the same situation in Canada's industrial heartland of the Quebec-Windsor corridor.

That Harper has announced no economic stimulus package or any major effort to keep Canada's manufacturing and resource sectors alive and competetive (except for the fucking Oil & Gas industry, go fuck yourselves right in the asshole for taking my tax dollars when you're turing in quarter after quarter of record profits) is reason enough to get him out of the PMO. That I don't care much for his American-style "fend for yourself" form of social assistance is just an added reason for me to want to see the centre-left coalition come to power sooner than later.


Edit: Annhiliator, you may want to do some quick reading about the Canadian head of state. While it is true that the Governor General is appointed by the Queen - or more properly the reigning monarch of Canada, in our case Elizabeth II - on the advice of the Prime Minister. Female GG's are a new thing in Canada, with Jeanne Sauve being the first female GG appointed in 1984. The fact that the current Monarch of Canada is a Queen has little to do with it - Chretien and Martin apparently liked the ladies

[guartz]

Well now, Elesirdur. You gotta understand that subsidizing Canada's industry would drive up the oil prices again. Something that would further hurt Canada's longterm interests with exports in U.S

[friedfunk]

This whole thing is a joke...

The reason it's blowing up is because the Steven Harper and the Conservatives tried to sneak in a part of their budget that would do away with public funding to the political parties. Each vote gets them $1.75, on top of what they can raise in fundraisers. The Conservatives would lose the most money from this because they got the most votes, but they get a lot of money from business fundraisers (they are the more pro-business party in Canada). The NDP and Liberals get far less money from donations, so in effect they would be screwed in future elections. There were Members of Parliament that said they couldn't spend much on advertising in this last election because they were still in debt from the previous election. Basically this new budget would screw them royally for future elections.

Harper didn't need to do this, he's had a minority government for the last 3 years or so, he would have been able to govern for the next two years with the same minority. In the past he's been able to pass all his bills with support from one of the other parties.

The shittiest part about this is that with the coalition of the NDP, Liberals, and Bloc the Liberal leader Stephane Dion will likely become our Prime Minister. This guy is a very ineffective leader. During the election campaign, a reporter asked him a question "If you were the Prime Minister, what would you do to combat the economic crisis ? " He needed the question repeated 5 times because he didn't understand it, including a couple times from his aide. He basically resigned after the election, he was only staying on until the next Liberal Party convention when they would choose a new leader. And now it looks like he is making a power grab to be our next leader. There are even longtime Liberal MP's that are talking about breaking ranks from the party over this.

The best thing that can happen is the Harper Conservatives get their budget bill defeated and we have another election in January.

[Elesirdur]

Well now, Elesirdur. You gotta understand that subsidizing Canada's industry would drive up the oil prices again. Something that would further hurt Canada's longterm interests with exports in U.S

I'm not sure what you mean here. The federal gov't has been subsidizing the Canadian oil and gas companies for quite some time now, even though they are raking in massive profits. I find it unlikely that removing the subsidies would cause production and exploration do diminish, or for prices to rise - since oil prices are pretty much pegged on OPEC standards and most Canadian oil for gasoline is sold outside of Canada anyway.

Re: friedfunk

We obviously have differing political opinions, and I doubt we'll convince each other either way but nevertheless, here goes.

I think Dion is the leader we need most right now. He's the kind of person who will weigh out options and choose pragmatic and well thought-out solutions that put Canada's best interest firsts, not just some knee-jerk PR-approved "policy" that keeps a party elected but functionally does nothing. Granted he's not good on TV, but since when did being a TV personality make someone a good political leader? (yeah yeah, since 1960, JFK vs Nixon, blah blah) Canada needs well weighed out and designed solutions right now to meet the economic crisis and combat health and environmental problems facing the nation. We need solutions that won't be popular with everyone and that take that hard road because it is what has to be done, not what is in the best interests of politicians getting re-elected. That's what Dion campaigned for during his leadership bid and the 2008 election, that's why I support him and have hope that he can lead Canadians to success better than anyone else in the House.

Regarding campaign finance, yes this is a problem for the other parties and not so much for the CPC. The campaign financing law the Harper gov't brought in during their first term, Bill-33 or something like that, was a political masterstroke; I'm willing to admit that. By removing the ability for parties to take big donations the CPC sliced off the biggest sources of funding for the Liberals and NDP, who got a lot of funding from Bay Street and labour unions, respectively. The CPC's current plan to remove the per-vote bonus will cripple smaller parties like the fledgling Green Party and put a lot of stress on even bigger parties like the Liberals. The only reason the CPC can afford to make a change like this is because they developed an excellend strategy of nickle-and-diming their supporters for donations - and it worked. They have the best fundraising mechanism in Canada today and they know it, but the opposition parties aren't willing to stand to be crippled and are fighting back.

PS: The reason Dion is resigning as party leader is that the Liberal party consitiution says that after a leader is defeated in a national election (ie does not become the PM by forming gov't or loses an election taking the formerly governing party to the opposition) he or she must face a leadership review vote at the next party convention. It is unprecedented for a defeated party leader to attempt to challange the leadership review, which would only forstall a leadership race and cause another leadership convention to be held, costing members and the party millions. It's not a question of support from the Liberal ranks, both elected and party members, but a pragmatic reality.

[friedfunk]

The CBC website has a online poll running about Harper's move.. last time I looked it was running 3-1 against prorogue. At this rate if he keeps this nonsense up, Dion can just sit in the shadows and do nothing but watch the Tories' popularity collapse in the eastern provinces.

That's like taking a poll on FOXNEWS seriously.... the CBC is about as far left as you can get for media in Canada.

[Elesirdur]

That's like taking a poll on FOXNEWS seriously.... the CBC is about as far left as you can get for media in Canada.

You mean it's STATE CONTROLLED MEDIA! Oh shit, someone get Conrad Black on the phone. lol

[guartz]

I'm not sure what you mean here. The federal gov't has been subsidizing the Canadian oil and gas companies for quite some time now, even though they are raking in massive profits. I find it unlikely that removing the subsidies would cause production and exploration do diminish, or for prices to rise - since oil prices are pretty much pegged on OPEC standards and most Canadian oil for gasoline is sold outside of Canada anyway.

I wasn't talking about subsidies on energy business in canada. Also canada is not part of OPEC. Like Russia. Think about it, if they canadian government throws in subsidies into forestry business, then productions will rise (with the consumption of oil), and that will raise the demand for oil, which will raise oil prices.

Oil prices rise = bad for america = less business for canada = furthering recession for both states.

[Elesirdur]

I'm no economist (just a historian), but I would think the increase in oil consumption due to increased logging activities would have to be massive to make a dent in oil prices. Besides, most of the gasoline we get in Canada is refined elsewhere, probably in the US anyway. I mentioned OPEC standards because they are the most dominant force in the world oil trade and retail prices seem to be most influenced by their actions, not Canadian. Example: During the aftermath of Katrina oil prices spiked because local production was reduced and OPEC refused to increase production creating a higher demand.

What I'm trying to say is that the Oil and Gas companies no longer need to be protected. It's no longer a fledgling industry and the only reason the subsidies keep coming is for purely political reasons.

[guartz]

A two hitter, eh?

I'm no economist (just a historian), but I would think the increase in oil consumption due to increased logging activities would have to be massive to make a dent in oil prices.

Not directly no. Also households are the biggest consumers anyway. What's been driving the oil prices down is that there is a lower demand, and markets respond accordingly.

Besides, most of the gasoline we get in Canada is refined elsewhere, probably in the US anyway. I mentioned OPEC standards because they are the most dominant force in the world oil trade and retail prices seem to be most influenced by their actions, not Canadian. Example: During the aftermath of Katrina oil prices spiked because local production was reduced and OPEC refused to increase production creating a higher demand.

That was actually due to speculation, the local production wasn't down long enough to have made a difference. That's an important note to make here though, OPEC controls prices because it regulates the production, not the actual prices itself. Not that's not insignificant, but it's becoming more and more so, because of countries like Canada and Russia who produce as much as they want.

Also Canada has more control of oil prices, because it has direct subsides for the oil industries. Notice how in the past 3 - 4 years canada has been super accelerating it's oil production? That's because Canada wants/needs oil prices low.

Why? Because higher oil prices increase the value of canadian dollar. And that's a big no no for export dependent countries.

I'm not even gonna go into the inflation factors and europe.

[Elesirdur]

Okay Guartz, I see where you're coming from. I believe I was explaining myself poorly when talking about OPEC "setting prices". The way I wrote it I was implying that they directly controlled prices instead of implying, as I wanted, that because they control and regulate production they have a de facto control over price.

Even though most consumers will lament a low Canadian dollar, compared to the greenback, it is a positive sign for the manufacturing and resource industries to help move their products across the border. However, if that reduction in exchange rate is also combined with a reduction in purchasing power parity then there there would be additional trade implications. (From what little I know about economics this made sense to me, but to someone knowledgeable I'm guessing it's complete and utter bullshit lol)

[friedfunk]

Also Canada has more control of oil prices, because it has direct subsides for the oil industries. Notice how in the past 3 - 4 years canada has been super accelerating it's oil production? That's because Canada wants/needs oil prices low.

Why? Because higher oil prices increase the value of canadian dollar. And that's a big no no for export dependent countries.

While it's true that a strong dollar hurts our exports, Canada does not want low priced oil. A lot of our oil is in tar sands and it costs much more to extract. There's enough oil in Alberta's tar sands to fully service the USA for 100 years, but the average cost to extract it all is estimated at $60 per barrel (compared to Saudi's average of about $1). When oil spiked to $150 / barrel, a lot of companies started to build infrastructure in Alberta because it made sense to start extracting... since the oil price crashed those projects are now abandoned.

[guartz]

Okay Guartz, I see where you're coming from. I believe I was explaining myself poorly when talking about OPEC "setting prices". The way I wrote it I was implying that they directly controlled prices instead of implying, as I wanted, that because they control and regulate production they have a de facto control over price.

Even though most consumers will lament a low Canadian dollar, compared to the greenback, it is a positive sign for the manufacturing and resource industries to help move their products across the border. However, if that reduction in exchange rate is also combined with a reduction in purchasing power parity then there there would be additional trade implications. (From what little I know about economics this made sense to me, but to someone knowledgeable I'm guessing it's complete and utter bullshit lol)

Here in enters Bank Of Canada, CPI (Canadian Consumer Price Index) and my tinfoil hat, which provides a pretty plausible answer on why oil is such a political business, eh?

That and purchasing power means very little if majority of your citizens don't have a job.

[Wizerd]

There's just one thing I don't understand here in Canada.

Car sales are only down 10%, compared to the USA's 40%, and the automakers/dealers here are complaining about going bankrupt if they don't get support.

10% shouldn't be enough to shut them down.

Also Canadians did not vote for a coalition, they voted for Liberal, NDP, and Conservative all separately. For it to be able to govern without a new election is the most retarded thing possible in Canadian policy. This January I hope our GG calls an election rather than letting a retard become PM (Dion).

If the liberals had someone else besides Dion, I might reconsider my stance. But no, just no, to him. That's like having Sarah Palin lead the USA. Seriously.

[Skjie]

Remember kids: A group of sitting Member's of Parliament who together form a majority of seats with a leader who has the approval of them is undemocratic.

Asking the GG to suspend Parliament for almost two months to avoid MPs voting the sitting government which has lost the faith of the members out of power is not.

[Charla]

Also Canadians did not vote for a coalition, they voted for Liberal, NDP, and Conservative all separately. For it to be able to govern without a new election is the most retarded thing possible in Canadian policy.

Even though it happens all the time in some other parliamentary democracies? And technically they voted for individual elected officials, not a political party. If 55% of those elected officials agree that they'd rather see mr. Dion as PM instead of Mr. Harper, then it's really no less democratic than 45% of them agreeing for Mr. Harper to be PM in the first place.

Is there something anti-Canadian about a governing coalition? Are the Liberal and NDP positions on significant issues completely different? And most importantly, if it was in fact against the rules to form a coalition, wouldn't that render the opposition parties mostly incapable of holding a minority government accountable to anything besides their own electoral base? I realize they'd still need to pick up a few votes from someone in order to actually get any bills passed, but as we saw down here, there's sometimes a lot that a cabinet can do without having to ask the legislature about it.

[pohibaba]

Combined, the opposition parties did get more popular votes (as well as seats in the house) than the CPC so I believe the coalition does have a justified mandate to take over Government should they wish to join forces.

Sorry, I'm a bit late, but this coalition didn't exist at the time of the election, right? Everyone voted for individual parties, and the Conservative Party came out on top. It seems as if this coalition has no such mandate, seeing as no one voted them in to anything, they just decided to sneak behind the voters backs. Seems as if we have a case of sore losers to me.

[Skjie]

Sorry, I'm a bit late, but this coalition didn't exist at the time of the election, right? Everyone voted for individual parties, and the Conservative Party came out on top. It seems as if this coalition has no such mandate, seeing as no one voted them in to anything, they just decided to sneak behind the voters backs. Seems as if we have a case of sore losers to me.

No, they are doing exactly what our parliamentary system is meant to do: pass legislation easily by maintaining a majority. Harper is being sneaky getting it all cancelled, and trying to make up reasons why the coalition is wrong.

EDIT: Both the rule and spirit of the law are being followed with the coalition. Suspending parliament was designed to be used where there is no further business of the Government and not reason to meet, thus giving people a break to deal with local matters. Harper's use to avoid a confidence vote is against the spirit of the law, while not being illegal.

[guartz]

if 55% vote to enslave the other 45%, is it democratic?

Why yes, yes it is.

[Skjie]

If 37% of the votes gives Harper a mandate to lead without the support of the majority of parliament, is that democratic?

Hyperbole -->>