[Scape]

With no real issue at stake, our country's major concerns are left to languish

Quote:

If someone told you that a country, any country, was heading into its fourth general election in less than six years, you would say: That country is broken.

Is Canada broken?

Right now, the Canadian political juggernaut is lurching toward the defeat of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government, even though there is no real issue at stake (Employment Insurance reform? Come on) and no likelihood, according to the polls, that the election race will result in anything beyond yet another unstable minority government.

“We are in a continuous election campaign with no discussion of issues,” observes Ned Franks, a political scientist at Queen's University and a leading authority on Canada's Parliament.

Major concerns – from immigration to the environment to the very fate of the federal government within Confederation – languish, as the parties use Parliament for an elaborate and futile game of political chicken.

A political system designed to produce majority governments or, at the least, stable minority governments, has malfunctioned, throwing up instead a succession of regimes so fragile that the campaign for the next election begins with the first Speech from the Throne.

This is nowhere better reflected than in data presented by Prof. Franks at a recent gathering of the Public Policy Forum, an Ottawa think tank.

From 1969 to 1973, Parliament sat, on average, 163 days a year. From 2004 to 2008, it was down to 105.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, 96 per cent of legislation introduced into Parliament became law. In Lester B Pearson's minority governments, the figure was 91 per cent. Brian Mulroney only got 73 per cent of his agenda through Parliament; for Stephen Harper, the figure is 48 per cent. Most of what gets introduced into Parliament now never becomes enshrined in law.

“Parliament as an instrument is not being used properly either by the opposition or the government,” Prof. Franks says. “It's not sitting enough to do what I think it should do for Canada.”

Dysfunction like this can break a country.

Except that Canada doesn't act like it's broken, contends Richard French, a well-known University of Ottawa political scientist, former public servant and Quebec provincial politician.

While the United States claws its way out of vicious economic crisis, Canada is recovering nicely from a reasonably mild recession, thanks to the federal government's sound fiscal and monetary policies. Most Canadians have good jobs and receive excellent government services, from education to health care. Most people are content.

Given how well Canadians live, thanks in no small measure to their governments, Prof. French asks, “what justifies this terrible, dark view of the country that Canadian intellectuals constantly indulge in?”

Fair question.

Few would deny that the chickens released in the 1990s have come home to roost today. To rid itself of deficits, Jean Chretien's government offloaded to the provinces increased responsibilities for running health care, education, welfare, environmental policies and a plethora of other duties, without providing sufficient funding.

The provinces, once they stopped howling, set about raising revenue and taking on their new mandates. Today, Canada is a nation of strong provinces with a weak federal government, hobbled by minority Parliaments and uncertain of its own relevance.

The nineties also witnessed the rise of the Bloc Quebecois and the threat of Quebec separation. That threat has receded, but the Bloc remains, immovable, commanding a majority of Quebec seats and making it extremely difficult for any other party to establish a majority.

But the other parties are regional, too. The Liberal Party has become principally the party of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, while the Conservatives are the party of Alberta and rural English Canada, although they are steadily encroaching on the Liberals' remaining urban bastions. In that sense, the major parties encompass the solitudes of urban and rural, multicultural and white, Alberta and the rest.

The country is also divided along generational fault lines. Fewer voters are turning out, and participation among voters under 30 is dismal. Contrast that with south of the border, where Barack Obama's landmark campaign married the power of Web-based social networking to a progressive message as a means of galvanizing younger voters, who turned out in force to help make him president.

The fifty- and sixty-something white men who head up Canada's major political parties speak neither to its multicultural reality nor to the younger cohort of voters.

“It's very important” that the political party elites “open up their parties to the broader public” insists Alison Loat, executive director of Samara, a nonprofit organization that fosters researches on public policy, citizenship and the media. “It's not just limited to the young. It's across the board.”

Though the Prime Minister is convinced he can win a majority this time, the polls, unless they change, say we are headed for another minority. The question then is whether the leadership of the political parties can grow up, and can begin providing the stable, productive government that characterized the minority governments of Mackenzie King and Lester B. Pearson.

“I would be delighted to see [a Parliament] where we're a little more comfortable with compromise,” hopes Ms. Loat. That means having leaders “more willing to have tough discussions without backing themselves into corners that are tough to get out of.”

But that would require a change of culture in Ottawa, a recognition that the day of the political party as a national institution brokering interests within its own ranks and governing within a majority consensus – or at least a large minority one – is at an end, because no party is likely to receive such a mandate in this election or the next.

Party leaders must look at each other as legitimate representatives of sectional interests whose needs deserve to be accommodated. That is no easy concession in any Parliament, and especially difficult to imagine in this one.

If the election returns another conservative minority government, the future of every party leader will be in question. Yet there are no obvious successors.

Perhaps we need these elections to burn through the remaining crop of politicians who rose to prominence in the last century. Perhaps we're waiting for a political party to realize that this century's Canada needs a new generation of leaders. Perhaps we will end this foolishness when we elect a Parliament that resembles the Canada that is to come.

[Akhenaten]

I await the Liberal bobbleheads to come running here to exclaim that Harper's 'breaking the country', proving to all they refuse to read or accept the article.

I also await the collection of American Glen Beck wannabes to swoop in, declare Canada dead and then claim, "See? This is what socialism does to a country", proving after years of yakking about it they're no closer to a correct or reasoned definition of socailism than they ever were.

[Praxius]

"Perhaps we will end this foolishness when we elect a Parliament that resembles the Canada that is to come."

^ How the hell does one go about doing that when we can't even figure out what Canada currently resembles?

The report is right about one thing.... the provinces in Canada are getting jack sh*t from the federal government and have to take matters into their own hands.

When we get to this point where our own provinces are having to do everything on their own while our federal government is more interested in soap opera wrestling bitch outs then doing their damn jobs..... where's the incentive of remaining in such a country except to keep the name "Canada" going on?

[Praxius]

Akhenaten wrote:

I await the Liberal bobbleheads to come running here to exclaim that Harper's 'breaking the country', proving to all they refuse to read or accept the article.

You do realize that this article was pointing fingers at all the parties, not just the Liberals.

This isn't just one party's problem/fault.... this is the current system's and all the parties fault to allow things to get so bad.

It's Harper/Conservatives fault for not being able to lead properly to avoid so many elections & not working or bending to requests from other parties as one must do in a minority and it's every other parties' fault for not doing the right things to correct this cycle and use elections simply as a blame-shift tactic to plop in the laps of the other parties.

Quote:

I also await the collection of American Glen Beck wannabes to swoop in, declare Canada dead and then claim, "See? This is what socialism does to a country", proving after years of yakking about it they're no closer to a correct or reasoned definition of socailism than they ever were.

Well Americans arn't in any position to talk such things, since they too are about an election or two away from self distruction.

Obama is their last chance to haul that country out of the hole Bush put it in and if Obama fails, then everything is going to go in the crapper for them. The cracks are already showing over this whole health care situation down there.

No nation is perfect, and certainly not their governments.

[Akhenaten]

Quote:

Quote:

I await the Liberal bobbleheads to come running here to exclaim that Harper's 'breaking the country', proving to all they refuse to read or accept the article.

You do realize that this article was pointing fingers at all the parties, not just the Liberals.

I do. The question is, will they? Because that never stopped them before. In fact it's really got nothing to do with the parties so much as the need for the parties to work together and it askes the question, "Is that too much to expect?". The answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. When the parlementary system is working well it's a thing of pure beauty. When it's not working well it -- well it looks broken. You're right. The parties of today are more or less beside the point of the article.

Quote:

Well Americans arn't in any position to talk such things, since they too are about an election or two away from self distruction.

They're one 'responsible gun owner'-turned-'irresponsible' away from total chaos.

[Praxius]

Akhenaten wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

I await the Liberal bobbleheads to come running here to exclaim that Harper's 'breaking the country', proving to all they refuse to read or accept the article.

You do realize that this article was pointing fingers at all the parties, not just the Liberals.

I do. The question is, will they? Because that never stopped them before. In fact it's really got nothing to do with the parties so much as the need for the parties to work together and it askes the question, "Is that too much to expect?". The answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. When the parlementary system is working well it's a thing of pure beauty. When it's not working well it -- well it looks broken. You're right. The parties of today are more or less beside the point of the article.

Quote:

Well Americans arn't in any position to talk such things, since they too are about an election or two away from self distruction.

They're one 'responsible gun owner'-turned-'irresponsible' away from total chaos.

True... a number of things can trigger chaos. While they're still hyped up over the election there, many of the problems that revolved around this election in the US haven't been addressed.

People continuing to lose their homes and living on the streets, people losing their health coverage & life insurance, two wars continue on with no end and no clear objectives, their president getting shot at and perhaps killed.... the list goes on.

But in regards to our own government, all of the parties have to realize that yes, they each represent certain ideologies and should try and push some of their ideologies that people voted for, but each party is not the sole answer to our country's problems.

They all must work together or move aside for other parties/leaders to do the job right. Each has to learn how to bend and let other parties and ideals pass through. If not, then how do you expect others to let your own ideals and plans pass?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

In other words, fuck partisanship and go with what's best for Canada, regardless of ideaology. Both sides have some good ideas, and both sides have some really bad ideas. All we, the taxpaying voter ask, is that we have a government that is a LOT less self-absorbed.

[Wada]

Agreed and perhaps we could have been spared the last election had the GG given a Liberal coalition a chance to try.

[Zipperfish]

If there is an election,, I have no doubt that it is Ignatieff and the Liberals that will be punished by the electorate. The Conservatives don't want an election and neither do Canadians. I don't think I've ever seen such a unanimity of opinion on that count in Canada. If the Liberals push this, they may well give Harper the majority he craves.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Well I'm talkin about Parliamentary and election reforms. Something that will never happen short of a revolution.

[gigs]

Wada wrote:

Agreed and perhaps we could have been spared the last election had the GG given a Liberal coalition a chance to try.

The coalition was triggered when the CPC won the last election.

[Praxius]

Wada wrote:

Agreed and perhaps we could have been spared the last election had the GG given a Liberal coalition a chance to try.

Which was their legal right to do so under our system of government.... yet she instead prorogued our government at the request of Harper in order for him to avoid losing power and gave him time to re-write his plans so he could cover his ass.

All that did was open the door for any future PM to pull the same stunt anytime they face a non-confidence.

I lost a lot of respect for the GG over that stunt.

[Scape]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

All we, the taxpaying voter ask, is that we have a government that is a LOT less self-absorbed.

How is that possible when the base for each of the parties elected is opposed to such actions?

[Praxius]

Zipperfish wrote:

If there is an election,, I have no doubt that it is Ignatieff and the Liberals that will be punished by the electorate. The Conservatives don't want an election and neither do Canadians. I don't think I've ever seen such a unanimity of opinion on that count in Canada. If the Liberals push this, they may well give Harper the majority he craves.

And perhaps expect the NDP to take opposition, or at least gain further seats then ever before from the Liberal implosion.

Even if the Cons get Majority, if the Liberals have another dismal election and lose even more seats, I'll be laughing my a-hole inside out.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish wrote:

If there is an election,, I have no doubt that it is Ignatieff and the Liberals that will be punished by the electorate. The Conservatives don't want an election and neither do Canadians. I don't think I've ever seen such a unanimity of opinion on that count in Canada. If the Liberals push this, they may well give Harper the majority he craves.

There's a good chance the Liberals could end up with single digit seats over this unless they have something REALLLLYYYY good hidden up their collective sleeves. And by good I mean good for Canada, not the party's position.

And I don't necessarily wanna see that happen either. Wouldn't be a best case scenario for this country.


SCAPE: Read my post after that and you'll see why it won't happen anyway