Canadian Crisis

[LonelyPilgrim]

Me starting a topic is rare, but this seemed to warrant some attention.

Is anyone else concerned about recent events in Canada? The Governor General has prorogued Parliament, effectively suspending democratic government until she has scheduled parliament to return on Jan. 29th. This significantly oversteps the usual duties of the Gov. General, which involve kissing babies, reviewing military parades, and cutting the tape at ceremonial openings for shopping malls.

As I understand it, PM Harper remains in charge - but no longer as a result of a parliamentary coalition, but rather at the pleasure of Her Majesty, the Queen. Am I wrong in thinking that Canada is effectively now a very real monarchy, at least until 29 January, assuming Parliament is re-instated as scheduled? Is this not rather disturbing? And why, oh why, isn't this major news here in the US? Is it major news in the UK?

[Frank]

Quick checks suggest this is *not* major news in the UK.

BBC headlines read:
- Irish pork recalled in ditoxins alert
- Greek police shooting sparks riot
- Brand wins British Comedy Award

In effort to increase my search paramters, Metro.co.uk's top story is "Is Madagascar a great escape?"

My (unfounded) speculation is that this might not be anything terribly serious and certainly no more a threat to Canadian democracy than the Prince Philip is to ours.

[Freaker]

What I find disturbing is the reason for suspending the work of the parliament for more than a month - the fact that a new coalition formed that wanted to overthrow PM Harper, if I understood it all correctly. Harper had been ruling as part of a minority coalition without the majority of seats behind him, which naturally makes it all rather a lot harder - but then naturally that makes him very vulnerable to attempted regime change, too.

Now my knowledge of all this is very hazy, based mostly on this bit on Wikipedia and I have seen only very little of it on the news - a brief note here and there, but nothing major (and the biggest German news page gives no hits for it whatsoever...) . There seems to be a large fear of instability, bringing a coalition of three parties that all "lost" the election together, one of them being "separatist" or "sovereigntist", depending on your word choice, and being quite controversial. Also, there were (early) parliamentary elections only about two months ago, in which Harper's conservative party gained seats, but not enough to gain the majority.

In that sense I could understand (but not agree with) the decision to prorogue the parliament in order to maintain stability at the moment. The alternatives would have been to ask Harper to step down and let the coalition do its work - or to call for new elections, and I can see the danger in having so many elections in such short time. Oh, the beauties of a multi-party system!

In the end, it seems to me as if Harper is clinging to power, and that this is his last straw. Really, the coalition should be given a chance to prove themselves, and I find it surprising that they did not form government in the first place after the elections. Harper is worried about the Bloc Québécois, believes he has a mandate as leader of the biggest party, and is pissed off that everyone seems to be against him now. But apart from appealing to stability and the worry of Bloc Québécois joining government (even though they don't even want to join the coalition, only 'tolerate' it), there seem to be few arguments for Harper to stay on.

I really hope something good will come from this, and that by January all parties involved will have calmed down a little and made up their minds about how to proceed. What happened now is sad for democracy, and yepp, it does make Canada a de-facto monarchy, but hey, let's hope the best comes from it - the Canadians will sort it out somehow !

[bdw]

They are certainly in danger of making a mountie out of a molehill.

[David Bean]

Well, first of all the right to appoint the Prime Minister in Canada is that of the Governor General, not the Queen, so in no sense could the current constitutional situation be described as absolute monarchy. Second, I entirely support Prime Minister Harper's action, and wish him all the very best. An attempt to overthrow a newly-formed government that hasn't even had the chance to promulgate its own budget in an economic situation such as this one is politics at its lowest, particularly when the proposed solution by the opposition is a coalition deal they promised the voters they would never consider with a party of separatists.

And frankly, I wish Her Majesty would take a similar action in person over here, if only to make the point that her Parliament apparently no longer functions. Here's a laugh: the latest wheeze has Margaret Beckett accusing those MPs who spoke out against the appalling Michael Martin of breaking a "long-standing tradition" that MPs don't undermine the Speaker's office. Hmm, what about the long-standing tradition that the Speaker isn't supposed to allow the government to suborn the police to mount fishing expeditions against members of the Opposition in their own Parliamentary offices, whilst clapping them in irons for doing their job?

If this is a dangerous time for democracy in any of Her Majesty's realms, it sure ain't Canada.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Bean, this is why I dislike multi-party parliamentary systems of government. Are you seriously trying to argue that it's a good thing that a party with less than a majority of seats in Parliament - which clearly DOES NOT have a public mandate since the majority of votes went to parties of an opposite political ideology - has the representative of a hereditary monarch prorogue the elected legislature because the opposition parties are doing something which is entirely within their Constitutional right but which happens to disadvantage the current government?

Not only is that dirty politics, but it certainly violates the principle of democratic government. Now you have a government in place that, because the will of the people wasn't sufficiently behind it, has decided to take steps so that it can rule without reference to the will of the people. The only bright spot is the promise that this is a temporary situation. What worries me is the basic political situation: four leftist parties with a majority of the people's vote behind them are out of government while a rightist party with a minority of the people's vote is governing. Come Jan. 29 this balance of forces won't have changed since elections aren't being called, which means the situation that gave rise to this crisis won't have abated. What steps will be taken in February then? Will Parliament be prorogued again?

Apparently there have been serious protests and riots in Canada. The people aren't happy with the situation - which they ought not to be. What's the point of having elections if the elected representatives are just going to do what they want to do without regard for the people's will? I think that applies to both sides of this issue - the Canadian people clearly wanted a progressive government, so the parties on the left ought to have gone into coalition right away in response to that mandate instead of allowing the Harper government to establish itself. Harper should recognise that his actions are flying in the face of any reasonable reading of the election results and that he doesn't have a democratic leg to stand on in asking that Parliament be prorogued.

How one feels about Harper's policies or about the policies of the opposing parties is irrelevant, this latest crisis just serves to undermine the establishment of process in the Canadian system and it erodes public faith in the government and in Canada's Constitution. This isn't exactly a good thing when you have a seperatist party already being the third largest in Parliament. Why, after all, should Quebec remain in the Dominion if the central government is not going to abide by the spirit of fair play? Sounds like a good reason to me to get out while they can...

[Hennessy]

Why, after all, should Quebec remain in the Dominion if the central government is not going to abide by the spirit of fair play? Sounds like a good reason to me to get out while they can...

And do what exactly? Stagnate further? Become more insular and xenophobic? Continue to retain a grudge against British Canadians because of events that happened nearly a quarter of a millenium ago?

If we'd had any sense when France handed us Quebec in 1763 we'd have given it back to the native Indians for a while, to see if they'd have been quite as tolerant of misplaced Gallic pride as the long-suffering British Canadians have been.

[munchingfoo]

They could become part of France and the French could start rebuilding their empire. Vive le Empereur!

[LonelyPilgrim]

I think I speak for most of the US when I say that we do not want France for a next door neighbour. Besides, it's been my understanding that the French have a very low opinion of the Quebecois. Everyone seems to have a low opinion of the Quebecois (probably a necessary compensation to make up for the very high opinion they have of themselves!).

[Jack2]

Bean, this is why I dislike multi-party parliamentary systems of government. Are you seriously trying to argue that it's a good thing that a party with less than a majority of seats in Parliament - which clearly DOES NOT have a public mandate since the majority of votes went to parties of an opposite political ideology - has the representative of a hereditary monarch prorogue the elected legislature because the opposition parties are doing something which is entirely within their Constitutional right but which happens to disadvantage the current government?

The majority of seats did not go to parties of 'opposite' political ideology. There are four major Canadian parties and they fall all along the political spectrum. The Liberal party (the official opposition) campaigned on the premise that they would never form a coalition with the NDP (the party furthest to the left) because, and I quote, 'they don't understand the economy'.

Secondly, it is within the Prime Minister's right to ask for a proroguation as it is in the opposition's right to ask to form the government. The current governor general, who was appointed by the preceeding Liberal government decided to allow the government time to present its budget. While I'm not a huge fan of Stephen Harper and did not vote for him in the last election, his reasoning of waiting until Obama takes the presidency makes sense. Canada's economy is hugely dependent on what happens in the United States and as such it makes sense to tailor a budget which takes into account American policy.

Not only is that dirty politics, but it certainly violates the principle of democratic government. Now you have a government in place that, because the will of the people wasn't sufficiently behind it, has decided to take steps so that it can rule without reference to the will of the people. The only bright spot is the promise that this is a temporary situation. What worries me is the basic political situation: four leftist parties with a majority of the people's vote behind them are out of government while a rightist party with a minority of the people's vote is governing. Come Jan. 29 this balance of forces won't have changed since elections aren't being called, which means the situation that gave rise to this crisis won't have abated. What steps will be taken in February then? Will Parliament be prorogued again?

While the NDP, Liberals and Bloc together did receive the majority of the vote, the majority of Canadians disapprove of the the coalition. Many people do not want to see the NDP in a position of power during an economic crisis. Most Canadians, though they didn't vote for the Conservatives, still believe that they have a mandate to govern.

Apparently there have been serious protests and riots in Canada.

Riots is a huge stretch. There have been protests, but the protests have been both for and against the coalition.

The people aren't happy with the situation - which they ought not to be. What's the point of having elections if the elected representatives are just going to do what they want to do without regard for the people's will? I think that applies to both sides of this issue - the Canadian people clearly wanted a progressive government, so the parties on the left ought to have gone into coalition right away in response to that mandate instead of allowing the Harper government to establish itself. Harper should recognise that his actions are flying in the face of any reasonable reading of the election results and that he doesn't have a democratic leg to stand on in asking that Parliament be prorogued.

I'm assuming your American. One thing you should know about Canadian politics is that all parties are progressive. To make the Conservatives out to be the Republicans and the Liberals/NDP out to be the Democrats is a fallacy. Secondly, there are reasons why people vote for the NDP over the Liberals or the Liberals over the NDP. Most people I know who vote for one or the other believe the other party to be inept and inadequate. My parents are Liberal voters but would never in a million years vote for the NDP or want an NDP government.

How one feels about Harper's policies or about the policies of the opposing parties is irrelevant, this latest crisis just serves to undermine the establishment of process in the Canadian system and it erodes public faith in the government and in Canada's Constitution. This isn't exactly a good thing when you have a seperatist party already being the third largest in Parliament. Why, after all, should Quebec remain in the Dominion if the central government is not going to abide by the spirit of fair play? Sounds like a good reason to me to get out while they can...

Fair play? This is how many Canadians see the current situation... Harper was elected to govern the country, he wasn't given a strong mandate, but he was given a mandate nonetheless. Stephane Dion, a man very few people want to be Prime Minister and whose party received the lowest support it's had since Confederation has attempted to take over the government after losing an election. He is doing this in a coalition with a party which he claimed again and again could not handle the economy and a party which many people believe would be completely inept in government, especially during a time of economic crisis.

[Lid]

I think I speak for most of the US when I say that we do not want France for a next door neighbour.

Aha, so that's where your concern that Canada is without government comes from. Create a big constitutional issue, and before you know it, the French'll be in. You just watch.

Everyone seems to have a low opinion of the Quebecois

I dunno, Montreal seems quite nice.

As you may notice, I'm struggling to take it all seriously. It's Canada, for heaven's sake.

[1]

Apparently there have been serious protests and riots in Canada. The people aren't happy with the situation - which they ought not to be. What's the point of having elections if the elected representatives are just going to do what they want to do without regard for the people's will? I think that applies to both sides of this issue - the Canadian people clearly wanted a progressive government, so the parties on the left ought to have gone into coalition right away in response to that mandate instead of allowing the Harper government to establish itself. Harper should recognise that his actions are flying in the face of any reasonable reading of the election results and that he doesn't have a democratic leg to stand on in asking that Parliament be prorogued.

I notice no reference is made to evidence of these "riots" perhaps you should back up your statements by reference to a credible source - Seriously Canadians Rioting!?!?! They're hardly the Greeks after all.

Claims with no evidence undermine all other statements you make.

[LonelyPilgrim]

I notice no reference is made to evidence of these "riots" perhaps you should back up your statements by reference to a credible source - Seriously Canadians Rioting!?!?! They're hardly the Greeks after all.

Claims with no evidence undermine all other statements you make.

Hello Mr/Mrs/Ms 1, welcome to this thread. Granted you are 11 days late to this particular discussion, but we appreciate your contribution anyway. This will be a good place for you to detox from the paranoia Kool-Aid. What purpose would be served by my making false claims? I have no financial or political interest in spreading false rumours of civil discontent in the land of maple syrup and hockey pucks. So calm down.

My statements were based on reports I read on www.slate.com and also on the CNN website, which made reference to widespread protests and demands for political reform, and yes, there was mention of rioting. Personally, I can't be bothered to try to find the citations, because I've moved on in my life, but since this is clearly of great importance to you, feel free to comb through the archives of those news providers.

Finally, this is The Sinner, not a peer-reviewed journal, if you have contrary information, feel free to share it, but taking someone angrily to task for not sourcing a statement in a general post is a bit OTT. Have a nice day.

[Jack132]

Hello Mr/Mrs/Ms 1, welcome to this thread. Granted you are 11 days late to this particular discussion, but we appreciate your contribution anyway. This will be a good place for you to detox from the paranoia Kool-Aid. What purpose would be served by my making false claims? I have no financial or political interest in spreading false rumours of civil discontent in the land of maple syrup and hockey pucks. So calm down.

My statements were based on reports I read on http://www.slate.com and also on the CNN website, which made reference to widespread protests and demands for political reform, and yes, there was mention of rioting. Personally, I can't be bothered to try to find the citations, because I've moved on in my life, but since this is clearly of great importance to you, feel free to comb through the archives of those news providers.

Finally, this is The Sinner, not a peer-reviewed journal, if you have contrary information, feel free to share it, but taking someone angrily to task for not sourcing a statement in a general post is a bit OTT. Have a nice day.

During the SARS crisis, CNN showed constant pictures of and implied that all Torontonians were wearing particle masks. This however was not the case. Masks were very few and far between and no more people were wearing them than those who usually wear them because of smog.

As for the crisis, that has essentially come to an end. The coalition is hugely unpopular with Canadians and the new Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, is trying to distance himself as much as he can from it (he promised to continue it when it seemed popular so he can't really distance himself too much without looking like a fool). Stephen Harper has learned not to underestimate the Liberal party and that he cannot govern like he has a majority.

Through all this though, I've heard/read nobody complain about the system. Canadians are generally happy with our current system of government.

[Anon.]

Well, first of all the right to appoint the Prime Minister in Canada is that of the Governor General, not the Queen

The right to appoint the Prime Minister is held by the Crown. The Governor-General is the representative of the Crown and carries out her official functions in the name of Her Majesty.