October 09, 2004

• We came this >< close to another election - it's not over from what I have found on the net there will be a vote in two weeks over the Liberal's opening throne speech (I couldn't find the url to the story in my history - if I find it I'll post it here). The Bloq tried to demand more power over federal affairs, including demanding that federal surplus be spent on the provinces. The Conservatives and the Bloq are demading things such as, reduction of taxes for low and modest-income families, the creation of an independent parliamentary budget office, and a non-partisan citizens' assembly to study electoral and democratic reform. They also want a vote on Canada's involvment in the US missle defence plan. Miniority governments don't last long here. Last time we had one Joe Clark was in power - he managed to last about 6 months. From what I gather they will agree to disagree, possibly compromise here and there for awhile since none of the parties can afford another election. Maybe politics in Canada will be interesting ... for awhile. Globe and Mail (reg required) reported that a draft of the throne speech was accidentally released onto the net - wonder if there is a copy out there, somewhere. hope this helps.
• Think this will help clarify what is going on a bit more: CTV News from 3 days ago
• I'd expect to know something in the way of a result in about four hours. No idea which way it will go, it appears to be very tight.
• Anyone interested in the Oz election should follow it here. They've started the count in Tasmania.
• whatever government you have, just stop sending us those damn poison prescription drugs please!!
• "poisoned"? puhleeze. The difference between your prescription drugs and our prescription drugs is the name and the fact we've imposed governmental pricing limitations on the cost of those drugs. If the USA did the same then there would be no need for Americans to come here and get cheaper medications. For example: Phizer manufactures drugs in 32 countries and imports them into the USA. The drug Lipitor is made in Ireland and imported into the USA and Canada - so are the drugs imported from Ireland poisoned only for the Canadian market? Drugs like Zocor, Nexium, and Prevacid are also made in other countries and imported to the USA and other countries. Fact is the cost for prescription medication in the USA is among the highest in the world. It is the only industrialized country that doesn't have price controls on medications. The USA also accounts for half of the profits pharmaceutical companies make. The politicians in the USA are helping its citizens get medication from us. I say all the more power to them. If it saves them money and benefits your citizens why not? It's the drug companies themselves who are pressuring the FDA into clamping down on illegal importation of medication and encouraging the bs about it being a "safety issue"
• I'm digging the MapleLeafFilter/OzFilter political posts! Very informative. [/derail]
• Am I right in assuming that the Throne Speech is somewhat equivalent of a State of the Union speech?
• Mr. Knickerbocker: It's similar. The Throne Speech is an outline of the Government's agenda for the new session of Parliament. Soon after it's delivered, there's a vote on whether to accept it. Does the State of the Union have any legal status or is it just a speech?
• If the Conservatives and Bloc vote down the government (they'll need the one independent vote), Harper may become our next prime minister without an election. I don't think that will happen anytime soon. The proposed changes to the Throne Speech are quite reasonable, so the Liberals should have little problem accepting them.
• The SOTU doesn't have the same legal status that the Throne Speech apparently does. Nowadays It is mostly just a speech... however, the responsibility of the President to give a yearly state of the union address to Congress is enshrined in the Constitution (Article II, Sec. 3), which makes it more important than a standard political speech. It is in no way binding, though.
• what the_bone said.
• First off, thank you for this post. Please, non-US monkeys, let me be one to encourage you to continue this (if tracicle's agreeable, of course). Me learny, me likey. beeza: I believe that was a joking reference to a comment Herr Bush made last night in the "debate." He insinuated that importing drugs from Canada could somehow put our lives at risk. You being a bunch of backward third-world fuckers and all, as you well know. I'm interested in the concept of politically-binding speeches. We don't vote on speeches down here. As t3h_bon3 said, the SOTU is just a speech. All political and policy speeches are just that. We may bitch about it, but we can't vote against it (shame, that). But I so want to be The Usher of the Black Rod.
• Me learny, me likey. Ditto. I wasn't aware of the Throne Speech, for instance. More like this, please.
• That throne doesn't look near as comfortable as I'd always imagined. Oh, and obligatory "Yay for HerMajesty-Filter"
• The throne speech is also not read by a politician, but by the Govenor-General, so it ends up much more monotonous. (I listened to all 40 minutes last night). Thanks for the update, beeza!
• I caught a part of those Parliamentary debates on CSPAN after the throne speech. It was a constant stream of questions back and forth, and few people were sucking each other off or pulling punches. It was amazing. It was nothing like the monotonic, procedural nonsense you see on the US floors. In fact, I've almost never seen either chamber of the US congress packed to such a degree.
• The Canadian Parliament has nothing on the British for sharp, nasty debates. (They have had about 350 years to perfect it).
• middleschool perhaps it was. Though I don't watch much TV let alone American politcal debates so wouldn't know a Bush quote from a hole in the ground. I took the comment at face value. No harm done I actually debated about whether I should poke that one with my 10 foot pole ;) Being the opinionated canuck I am, I couldn't resist temptation. I actually had this argument with my American uncle a few months back he was convinced, being the obstinate creature he is, that there was no difference in prices in the two countries and that we as Canadians were part of some massive conspiracy to sell Americans poisoned sugar pills. One of the proposed changes put forward by the Bloq isn't reasonable at all. The one specifically about excess revenue being spent on the provinces. Essentially the Bloq want to make so the provinces have a say in federal matters. That is what brought on the crisis the other day. Leave it to the Bloq Quebecois to come up with this hair brain scheme. How a separatist party can be involved in federal politics is beyond me. I took perverse pleasure in knowing that the one deciding vote would be a Independent from British Columbia - ahh the irony of it all - a westerner having power over the east. If (big if) all Conservatives, Bloq Quebecois and the one Independent voted to turn down the throne speech there would be a parliamentary dissolution and a call for an election. The Liberals would stay in power as the minority government until the new government was decided upon. The other situation where a no confidence vote could happen here is when there is a "loss of supply" when the federal budget is tabled. (for the Americans - can liken it to a budgetary crisis)
• Trust me, if it ever came down to an actual vote of non-confidence Paul Martin and the straight-shootin' eastern Liberals would declare martial law and come down hard on you whiny western pinko conservative independant crybabies. ... sorry about that, just trying to infuse Canadian political debate with a little of that good old American knee-jerk-ism.
• kenshin, for what it's worth, the star wrote on Friday that Premiers of all political stripes are unhappy with the Bloc's and Conservatives' opportunism in adding the line about fiscal imbalance to the speech.

  Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams took the unusual step of issuing a news release to condemn the Bloc's political play as "a blatant attempt to take advantage of the minority government situation in order to advance the cause of Quebec"

  I think the gist of it is that the Bloc is essentially a provincial party in the Federal legislature. The only federal party with explicit regional interests. And so, by making provincial politics a central theme of the throne speech, it's effectively making the the fiscal-imbalance debate bilateral - the federal government with Quebec.
• I had thought that if the Bloc and Conservatives aligned, they would have more than the Liberals. Good to hear otherwise - it means the NDP might have at least a little sway. Does it feel weird to anyone else to call that party the "Conservatives" instead of Reform or Canadian Alliance? When I hear "Conservative" I keep thinking of honest old Red Tories like Joe Clark, or Brian Mulroney's Regan-licking, but generally centrist (geographically and socially) to right party. Harper's party feels like a new beast altogether - one that should have a new name to match. "Canadian Conservative-Reform Alliance Party" is still available.
• Oh - I did get some of that knee jerk reaction in there. Should have toned it down - sorry. I don't really want this to get all flamey.
• JB, I read the national post quite a bit (sorry, but their entertainment and culture coverage is really quite good) and it scares me to see the way their editorials go all Fox on Stephen Harper, like the man can do no wrong. I have to admit, though, he was a real pro in the debates. If he could come up with a sound economic platform and somehow convince me that he won't try to lock the supreme court up in the basement while he bans gay marriage and abortion ... I think you might find me hesitating beside the conservative box in the next ballot.
• Harper would have to lock me in a basement if he didn't want me voting for anyone but him. Even if he doesn't make so boneheaded a move as to ban gay marriage and abortion outright, there are any number of other cultural and social policies he could take a knife to. caveat: I was really happy for about three hours after the election was over—a Liberal minority with the NDP holding the balance of power was the best result I had hoped for. And then a bunch of close races in BC went Conservative over NDP, and that was the end of the celebration.
• I'm digging the MapleLeafFilter/OzFilter political posts! Very informative. [/derail] Me too!
• Has a Preston Manning moment ... reefoooorm! (in the spirit of Don Ferguson's take on Preston) I'm with you jb on not feeling right about calling them Conservatives - definitly not the same political beast. I'm not happy with any of the parties (I'm getting old, cynical and jaded). Wont need to lock me in a basement more apt to spoil my vote than decide on any one party. Ponders this and decides instead to set up a fund for "whiny western pinko conservative independants". My first act as member of parliament will be to send Chuck Strahl marching down Hastings Street on May 5th wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with a picture of Lenin ;) ps: is highly amused by this imagery
• eek! Just realized I got middleclasstool name wrong and hides in embarrassment - sorry about that.
• Speaking of Quebec, where's ilyadeux got to these days?
• calimehtar: As far as I can tell, a few premiers have legitimate concerns over the wording of one of several proposed changes. All the Bloc needs to do is remove "Quebec" from that one contentious change; the rest are fine as they are. If (big if) all Conservatives, Bloq Quebecois and the one Independent voted to turn down the throne speech there would be a parliamentary dissolution and a call for an election. Not necessarily. The Governor General may either ask Harper to take over or go for another election. It's totally up to Clarkson in that (extremely unlikely) case, and I just don't see her choosing the latter. Harper and his Alberta-based support scare me. Literally. Doesn't mean I disagree with every policy point they cook up.
• Well, I'm an Albertan by having spent a good proportion of my youth there, so I guess I'm a bit sympathetic. Normally I'm a fiscal conservative, social liberal, vote green when I don't feel like the Canada I know it (gay marriage, public healthcare, bilingual, multicultural and all) is being threatened. But I like Reform's ideas about direct democracy, and a few other things that escape me at the moment. IMO the worst you can say about them is they're hopelessly naiive... I can totally imagine them thinking that we could roll our tanks into bagdad and be welcomed with flowers.... :-P I actually graduated from highschool with one of Stockwell Day's offspring. True story. And he was actually a nice guy, despite never once having invited me to go jetskiing with his dad.
• Buncha fuckin' dimwits. :-( "We want out meaningless shit included with your meaningless shit in that meaningless pile of shit that is the throne speech." Jack Layton got it right and thank goodness for that. Let the Liberals try to govern as a minority for a while and use your weight to influence policy while making political inroads where you can. There will be an election soon enough and this minority government is a gift that can let the non-governing parties have their say. Mr Harper: Gift Horse --> Mouth. This was just childish posturing that turns the front pages of the papers into the funny pages. Canadian politicians need to grow up. It's embarassing.
• Since Trudeau revisited the Constitution in 1982 the Governer Generals role is mainly ceremonial (just like the Queens role is now ceremonial). The Governeor General now takes their guidance from the Prime Minister. The Governor General used to be able to choose a new Prime Minister based on a vote of confidence. I'm not sure the Governer General has the power to choose a new governemnt as they did pre 1982 - since that time we've moved away from being a constitutional monarchy and become a independent democracy. Personally I don't think its going to come to that. I think there will be a lot of wheeling and dealing behind the scenes for awhile. Truth was the Prime Minister called this a vote of no confidence after the Bloc put forward their motion: Earlier in the day, the prime minister raised the stakes on the Bloc amendment when he emerged from a cabinet meeting to say he would make the matter a vote of confidence. "If the government were to fall on this issue, then we would go to the polls," he said bluntly." (the blow by blow of what happened can be found here and here) Adrienne Clarckson met with Harper and at the time Harper said he would vote for the Throne Speech. Nice 180 Harper. <- mild sarcasm. Jerry this is what happens when you allow a party who's main goal is to seperate from the rest of the country have a say in federal matters. Welcome to a game of politcal "chicken" ... heh
• Does it feel weird to anyone else to call that party the "Conservatives" instead of Reform or Canadian Alliance? it feels weird, and wrong, because it is. they need to pick a more honest descriptive. they are not conservatives as we historically know them in canada.
• Oh please. They're not red tories, no, but that doesn't mean they aren't conservatives.
• calimehtar: You actually seem to have more sympathy for Reform ideals than I do. When Harper and Stockwell Day wrote that WSJ article to apologize for our Iraq stance, I lost any trace of positive human feeling for that party. I'm not sure the Governer General has the power to choose a new governemnt as they did pre 1982 She does. The Governor General retains a few political powers entrenched in law. Past GG's (hee) almost always chose not to exercise those powers in a way that would (seem to) undermine democracy. Clarkson may do the same, but it's still legally her decision to make. IIRC in certain extreme cases the mostly ceremonial GG has the legal power to go against the elected Prime Minister, just as the mostly ceremonial Senate can veto the elected Commons. But it's Sunday morning and my brain is half dead.... Harper's 180 should surprise no one who witnessed his 180 on Iraq during the election. Whatever, dude, I reread your WSJ article whenever I need a rage boost.
• I'm pretty sure we're still a constitutional monarchy (The CIA Factbook lists Canada as a "confederation with parliamentary democracy" but lists Elizabeth II as head of state, "represented by Governor General Adrienne CLARKSON (since 7 October 1999)"). That doesn't mean we aren't independent - that came in the Statute of Westminster, 1931, which formed the Commonwealth (along with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa), and granted Canada independence over international affairs. (Which is why we declared war seperately in WW2, but not WW1).
• We are still are jb. But I think we've moved more towards a "representative democracy" which can be combined with a constitutional monarchy. The Govenor General and The Queen are more symbolic of our past. As Dennis Miller says, "just my opinion but I could be wrong" kenshin will have to agree to disagree on the Govenor Generals powers. I don't think she has that kind of power anymore. I have been searching for the answer - maybe time for a visit to the law library.
• Timbit face! *honks bicycle horn, scurries off*
• beeza - I think we've been just as much of a representative democracy since confederation, maybe before (I'm fuzzy on the 1830s to 1860s). It had a restricted franchise (men of a certain age, race, property?), but still a representative democracy. It's not really the government which has changed, but who is seen as a citizen. Mmm...I miss tim bits. Almost as much as I miss poutine.