canadian government held in contemp
fife
Posts: 3,327
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... tempt.html
what do my fellow Canadians think about this. do you see this as a major issues and why. will an election come from this?
what do my fellow Canadians think about this. do you see this as a major issues and why. will an election come from this?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Of course this is a major issue, but not so unexpected. This is how Harper runs the government. Will an election come from this? probably. Will there be a change in the government? Probably not. Until the liberals change leadership this is Harpers country. I am by no means a Harper supporter, but the alternative is even less appealing.
Not a major issue for me. The budget coming down today would probably had enough goodies in the budget to satisfy the opposition to make it tough for them to vote against it and bring about an election.
The opposition are just looking for ways to get an election and to make it look like Harper's fault. I could be wrong but he is playing Layton and Iggy like a fiddle. Harper wants and election, he has double digit support in the most recent polls.
Conservatives best party to deliver trustworthy government: election poll
Read more: http://www.canada.com/Conservatives+bes ... z1HLAi9wIy
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/can ... story.html
This was done while the contempt of parliament hearings were taking place.
I am personally more concerned about the economy, jobs, taxes, inflation, interest rates and so on. Not wether politicians can get along. If anyone has watched how they carry on in the house of commons, they are all in contempt.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The contempt ruling is just one issue among many. The budget could very well force the election, unless Layton or Duceppe support it. I suppose we'll know by tomorrow on the budget part (Layton has said at least 24 hours to read/think about it, unlike the Liberals), and by the end of the week for anything else. But I agree that little will change, and that Ignatieff is the likely reason, so it's deja vu all over again. My real hope for this campaign is that they do the intelligent thing with the debates; Layton isn't going to be PM, Duceppe can't, and May doesn't even have a seat (where is she running this time?), so let's have one debate solely between Harper and Ignatieff, then we can do the direct comparison without Layton questioning the PMs fashion sense...
If we had a US style system of directly electing the boss, I'd give short odds on none-of-the-above being our next PM.
How can leave 2 guys out of the debate that have over 60 seats, or whatever they have?
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Duceppe because he doesn't run a national campaign. I admit Layton is much harder to justify (and maybe I haven't justified Duceppe either), but every additional person getting air-time from the moderator reduces the time given to either of the potential PMs; I just don't think that Layton or May have any shot, for better or worse. There has been some talk in the media about having debates with fewer participants, although mainly in the G&M if my memory isn't completely shot. I'd actually like to see a debate among potential finance ministers, but it might be tricky.
it's not so much in the grand scheme of things as decisions get made based stricly on polling ... which is absolutely absurd ... this minority gov't is dysfunctional primarily for these reasons:
* Harper refuses to come to the centre
* Liberals have no balls and are still controlled by the old-school powers that sent them in flames
* The populace are extremely polarized
We used to be a country that believed in certain principles - we no longer share those beliefs and this is the result ...
Duceppe has the majority of support in Quebec, just can't see leaving him out of the debate. I really don't see much changing with an election call, other than it costing us 300 million. I also think if the opposition was seriously they would have attached a no confidence to these contempt hearings, which they did not.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I can certainly think of better ways for us to spend tax dollars than on an election that will accomplish the status quo. I suspect the opposition feels that the public doesn't view the contempt issue as an election-forcer, but that's a complete gut feeling on my part. Also the Liberals have a scandal-filled recent past (albeit on different grounds) so for them it's easier to carve the Tories about corporate taxes and F-35s. Would love to be wrong but I suspect voter turnout might not be too strong...
I agree voter turn out won't be strong, around 40%. I suspect Iggy really don't want an election, I suspect if he loses, then he'll be replaced. I keep hearing Bob Rae's name as a possible replacement, so Harper must just salivate at that prospect.
I have maintained that for things to change all three national parties need a change in leadership with fresh faces and fresh ideas, not faces like Rae.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
It's gotten to the point of farce in some respects. The opposition is so weak as to be laughable, precisely what Chretien faced but in the other direction. Replacing Ignatieff with Rae is admitting a mistake, but can Rae win an election, given his history in Ontario? Also have to wonder who's next for the NDP, because Jack's been at this a long time. And it has to be close to time for Harper if it's another minority, and again the question is who's next?
I need to look at the riding map too (when not at work perhaps...). I think that it's changing this time with more representation for ON, AB, and maybe BC (all of which is about bloody time, it's ridiculous that the maritimes is so over-represented). That might alter voter turnout a bit, although I tend to agree with your prediction. Shall we start a pool?
Edit: the bill that would have brought that change was scrapped in December 2010...
the liberals tried that ... but a $1 million negative attack ad on stepahane dion was eaten up by our not too bright public ... and that was that ...
in ontario we had a chance to vote for proportional representation which is the foundation of much of the problems we have federally ... but that didn't make it either ...
edit: I'm an ijit - bad quote...:oops:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... vance.html
The Conservatives have called the NDP into an "important" budget meeting, a spokesperson for the NDP said Tuesday, possibly indicating a last-minute push to earn the party's support.
An email from an NDP official says the governing Conservatives sent the request, calling it an "important meeting" between Minister of State for Finance Ted Menzies, NDP finance critic Thomas Mulcair and deputy finance critic Chris Charlton.
The meeting was set for 1 p.m. ET, around the time the parties usually get briefed on the budget's contents.
Release of the budget is set for 4 p.m.
"This is highly unusual. New Democrats were available before to discuss our budget priorities," the spokesperson said in the email.
"It looks like the Conservatives are feeling the heat surrounding their ethical problems and now want to make a last-minute pitch for their budget."
"Despite the last-minute nature of the request and its timing, we have agreed to the meeting."
Dimitri Soudas, spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, however, says the meeting is the usual budget briefing meeting.
Earlier Tuesday, NDP Leader Jack Layton wouldn't say whether his party would support the federal budget, despite leaks indicating he'll get some of his wishes.
Leaks to the media Monday hinted at a budget the NDP could support, with several of the party's demands covered.
But Layton wants to see the whole budget once it's tabled, and will talk to his MPs before deciding whether the party will support it.
"We're going to study the document and see whether it's evident what needs to be done or whether we need some further discussion," Layton told CBC News Network. "Of course there's rumours of all kinds everywhere around this place right now. I wouldn't believe too many of the rumours if I were you."
Layton says it may be clear as soon as they read the budget whether the Conservatives have responded to the NDP's proposals.
Budget details leaked
CBC News has learned the Conservative government's budget will include student loan forgiveness for rural doctors and nurses, $400 million to renew a home energy retrofit program and a new program to link veterans with job training opportunities.
According to a government source, the budget will provide for student loan forgiveness of up to $40,000 for doctors and up to $20,000 for nurses in remote or rural areas.
The source said the budget will also include $50 million for Waterloo's Perimeter Institute and $4 million for Thunder Bay's Regional Research Institute.
The source said the budget will have four main themes: job creation; families and communities; research, innovation and training; and "preserving Canada's fiscal advantage."
One of those training initiatives, the source said, is to help Canadian Forces veterans find apprenticeship opportunities in the construction industry.
Layton met with Harper last month and said the NDP wanted to see the home retrofit program renewed, as well as a plan for more doctors.
He also asked for the government to take the five per cent GST off home heating bills and for changes to the Canada Pension Plan. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has said another NDP wish, an increase in the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, will be in the budget.
But a deal to compensate Quebec for implementing the harmonized sales tax (HST) that the Bloc Québécois wants to see in Tuesday's budget is not done yet and won't be part of the budget, according to Flaherty.
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe demanded to know in question period Monday whether the budget will include $2.2 billion in compensation for Quebec for harmonizing its provincial sales tax with the GST in the 1990s. Quebec and Ottawa have been working on a deal for months, similar to the ones reached with Ontario and British Columbia.
Duceppe said Quebec's finance minister has sent a draft agreement to Flaherty and the province is waiting for him to sign off on it. It has already taken far too long for the federal government to conclude the negotiations, Duceppe said.
NDP MP Thomas Mulcair suggested Monday the Conservatives are deliberately stalling on reaching a deal for political reasons.
He said the Conservatives might be withholding the money for Quebec in Tuesday's budget because it would mean the Bloc Québécois would be more inclined to vote for it. While the Conservatives need the support of an opposition party to pass the budget, the Conservatives don't want to be seen as being propped up by a separatist party, Mulcair suggested.
He also suggested the Conservatives might be holding on to news about a deal until a campaign is underway, if one is triggered in the next few days. The government faces possible non-confidence motions in addition to budget votes in the coming days.
Flaherty told the House of Commons that negotiations are going well and that progress has been made but there is still more work to do. "We will continue our negotiations," he said.
Earlier in the day, Flaherty held the traditional pre-budget day photo op, posing for the cameras but letting no details slip on the government's fiscal plan for the year.
It's tradition for the finance minister to buy a new pair of shoes to wear on budget day, but Flaherty opted to have an old pair repaired at an Ottawa store.
On Tuesday at 4 p.m. Flaherty will deliver his sixth federal budget as finance minister in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet. It's not expected to be a blockbuster; Flaherty and Harper have warned it will contain little in the way of major new spending programs.
However, what could be a lacklustre budget might still spark the government's downfall, depending on how the parliamentary calendar shapes up this week.
If the opposition parties decide they want to bring down the government, they could do it on the first vote related to the budget, but a non-confidence motion related to a committee finding that the government should be found in contempt of Parliament might come first. If successful, that would bring down the government before its budget could be passed.
'Stay on course'
Flaherty said Monday the government will continue to follow its plan to get the country back to a balanced budget in the coming years.
"One of the goals of the budget is to make sure we stay on course, that we maintain the fiscal track that we set out in the fall economic update, that we move back to a balanced budget but at the same time, make some investments to promote economic growth, jobs," Flaherty said during the photo-op on Monday.
He wouldn't say whether he thought there would be enough in the budget to persuade one of the opposition parties to support it. The Conservatives need the votes from at least one of the three parties in order to stay in power and avoid an election.
It is possible the government could fall this week on a non-confidence motion, based on a report from a Commons committee that found the government in contempt of Parliament, before Flaherty's budget is even debated by the House.
Flaherty has dropped hints about the government doing more to support senior citizens, though he hasn't specified how it might do that. The CBC's Greg Weston reported last week that the budget would include a $700-million increase in old age security payments. The average Guaranteed Income Supplement is currently worth $455 per month and the average basic old age security cheque amounts to $493
More flip-flopping from Harper about how democratic coalitions are....
Do you think that proportional representation wasn't well explained when offered to Ontario?
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I think he's playing games, doesn't mean the opposition has to take the bait. I do believe that he can go either way on the election issue. Whether there is an election next month or next year, is the opposition going to become effective?
I was wrong on the budget, I thought there would be enough in it to keep at least 1 party happy. So it looks like we vote, and very likely the same or similar results.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
it wasn't well explained nor was it discussed much leading up to the election ... having said that - i'm not convinced ontarians are engaged enough as a whole to care ...
I don't think the Liberals and PC's are interested in it all that much, that might likely cost them support.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
definitely ...
it's at the federal level where we most need it I think ...
My guess is the same federally, the big 2 parties have no interest, a binding referendum should be held on the issue.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I read the description of that kind of representation and it sounded like a bad idea to me. I mean sure some of the seats would go to small parties based on the percentage of total votes they get. But at the same time if there is a pool of seats that are based on voting percentage, most of them are going to go to the major parties. And who do you think they are going to put in those seats. It is not going to be actual politicians who are accountable to the people, it is going to be the hackiest party hacks that ever hacked. And with those people at least some of them are going to get to keep their seats for ever. I would prefer less appointed politicians not more. And in federal politics we already have a senate full of appointed politicians, which is basically a nice retirement package for anyone who has been super loyal to the ruling party for a long enough time.
That's absolutely correct. I like to call these people INDUSTRIAL DOOR MATS
1998: Barrie
2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
2006: Toronto X2
2009: Toronto
2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2023: Chicago X2
2024: New York X2
I will admit that I'm not totally informed on this issue, however, I do think before we change our elected system it would have to be done with a referendum. A referendum was held in Ontario on this very issue and it was voted down. I am sure that most people did not understand the system, because it was not as well explained as you seem to have done.
We need so many changes to our political system. One of the things I would loved changed is that politicians are elected to run the mundane aspects of government, but all major issue's like tax increase, implementing HST, environmental issue, trade agreements etc. go to referendum, I think people are tired of only having a say every 4 years and in between they do as they please. I also think this might get voter turnout up and get people more engaged.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
the system needs to change ... the greens got like almost 7% of the popular vote with no seats ...
The last election the liberals got 26% of the vote and the conservatives got almost 38% of the vote. With proportional representation they would have been allowed to appoint house of commons members into seats based on those percentages. So sure the green party might get 1 or 2 of those seats, but the liberals would get 4 times as many seats and the conservatives would get 5 times as many. And they could appoint, the most party loyal cronies into those seats. I would prefer the system where I elect a representative for my riding who has the represent the people of my riding, rather than a system where the party gets to appoint people who answer to the party leader.
Take the potential federal election, there has already been talk that if Harper wins a minority the other 3 parties might form a coalition government which under our current system is allowed, but we all know that's not what the voters want. I would be open to a referendum on that issue, and the political parties would have to live with the results, or at the very least the 3 parties that plan on forming this coalition need to state their intent before the election.
The bottom line is we don't need an election, the budget was decent, many economist were happy with the budget, did Layton get everything he wanted? of course not, did he expect to? He took the bait.
I suppose it's still possible to avoid an election, that could come if Quebec reaches an agreement with Harper over the HST money in Quebec.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
proportional representation would allow minority voices to be heard in government whereas now they aren't ...
i find it interesting that people want to blame the ndp for this election ... the fact of the matter is that Harper hasn't worked with the other parties at all and he's shown an absolute disdain for democracy ... i'm not sure about the liberals but the last thing the ndp want is another election ... but you can't continue to do what the conservatives are doing and let them get away with it ...
the conservatives WANT an election - that is why they presented this bullshit vague budget ...
You can correct me if I am wrong but here is my understanding of proportional representation. There is a pool of seats that are just seats at large given based on the percentage of popular vote. If the pool of seats was 100 then based on the last federal election the Green Party would get seven seats. The liberals got 26% of the vote so they would get 26 seats. 26/7= 3.7 approximately 4 times the seats. The conservatives got 38% of the vote for 38 seats. 38/7= 5.4 so the conservatives would get 5 times as many seats from that pool as the green party. And like I said all of those seats would be appointed rather than directly elected and would go to total party loyalists. So if you want to talk about the minority getting a voice in government, sure a party like the green party might get one or two token seats, but at the same time the big parties would get a bunch more seats in comparison and those members of parliment would only answer to their party leader, not the voters.
And I imagine too that to accomodate this the ridings would be made bigger (since there would be less actually elected members), so my MP would represent more people, and as a voter I would have even less of a voice.
oh ... you are talking about the multiple of seats over the smaller parties (ie green) ... in that case - you might as well say 30 times because right now, every party has an infinite times seats over the greens ...
at the end of the day - sure, you may lose some local representation but let's face it ... candidates are often parachuted in anyways and for the most part all vote along party lines ... so, i'm not seeing much of a variance except that we don't have overstated power (see conservatives and bloc) and under-representation of other voices ...
goto fairvote.ca for more info
at the end of the day ... most democracies use this system and its worked ... i think norway has been operating as a coalition of minorities for decades now ...
Today, MPs will debate Jim Flaherty's 2011 budget--a budget that reflects the lack of imagination, vision, or plan of the Conservative government.
Here’s what we liked
• $400 million to extend the ecoENERGY Home Retrofit program for one year.
• $300 million to benefit low-income seniors.
• $300 a year in Family Caregiver Tax Credits for family members looking after sick or disabled relatives.
• Forgiving a portion of education loans for doctors and nurses if they work in rural and remote communities.
Here’s what outright scared us
• The budget doesn’t even mention the $29.3 billion (Parliamentary Budget Office estimate) the Harper government plans to spend on 65 fighter jets.
• Also unaccounted for is the estimated $9 billion for building new prisons that the Harper government is committed to--despite the fact that crime rates are falling!
That’s $40 billion of spending (as much as transfers to all the provinces or total support for seniors) that’s missing from this budget. That’s not financially responsible.
And here’s what made us roll our eyes
• $400 million to support the nuclear industry but nothing to support alternative energy.
• $1 billion in subsidies to oil and gas companies that already made a profit of over $8 billion in 2010.
• $10 million for the Grey Cup and Calgary Stampede versus $2.5 million for the Great Lakes (which supply drinking water to 8.5 million Canadians) shows pretty clearly how much the current government values clean water.
“Canada faces a triple deficit. We have an economic deficit, an ecological deficit, and a social deficit,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “While there are a number of small, but welcome, changes in this year’s budget, overall, the government has missed the chance to address these growing deficits. The government is still in denial about the structural deficit. A government serious about eliminating the economic deficit would not continue to cut corporate tax rates.”
That's one system, pretty much as used in New Zealand and Germany, possibly others. In NZ it's called MMP (mixed-member proportional), and I recall some talk of them either changing it or dumping it altogether. The Aussies and others use a single transferable vote (SVT) system, which I completely fail to understand even after the help of wiki. This was what the BC referendum was about, and at the time I think that its proponents put the loss down to it being poorly explained. Not sure about SVT, but I also despise MMP because of the party hack thing, and as someone pointed out here with already have a chamber full of friends/cronies/fiends in Ottawa. Federally the Greens and NDP would probably love it, and I suspect the same of the Bloc, but I can't see the other two being too interested, the Tories in particular. And I assume that changing from our present system would require a constitutional amendment, which is very difficult to get. Regardless, I'm not entirely convinced that it would change anything; Canadians are a pretty centrist bunch, and the centre is covered pretty well. We need fresh leadership more than a different electoral system, imo.