The Canadian Conservative Government VS the Coalition Government (John Adams vs TheKwas)

[RVFVS]

At the moment Canada is divided. On one side there is the Conservative Government, the legitiment government on the other a Coalition consisting of the Liberals, the NDP and the seperatist Bloc Quebecois. Now the Conservative party is the formally elected government of the Canadian people. Stephen Harper is the PM that Canadians wanted. This in itself is the main reason of my argument. It is un-Canadian, nay, un-Democratic to deny the people their rightfully elected leader. If Harper was to be voted out who is next? Any PM could be voted out for any reason. All the parties need to do is band together. This cannot be allowed to happen.

My next argument is one of corruption and desperatness. It is obvious this bid for power is Stephane Dion's last jump for power. He is not going to be leader of the Liberal for any longer. His final bid for power was with the Coalition. This is despicable. Canadian politics were well known to be above the dirt of normal politics and he brought Canada a notch with these recent acts. As for his popularity with the Canadian people, his approval rating is 2.0! Canada cannot have a government that is led by a corrupt man such as Dion.

My next argument has to do with the lowness of the tactics of the Coalition. Layton and Dion both said after losing the election they would NOT form a Coalition. They said that though disappointed with the election they would stand by their party policies. Let me make this known, Layton and Dion HATE each other. Layton said himself that "he (Dion) cannot run his own party let alone the country." It is obvious there is more then one wolf in the pack. He later said, "I underestimated my collegue.(Dion)" It is obvious that Dion has cut a deal with Layton that includes more power and responsibility.

My final argument is the alliance with the Seperatist Bloc Quebecois. Why? Why would a Coalition dominated by Frenco-Canadians want to support a party entirely based on the seperation of Quebec? Need I answer? It is obvious and true that the Coalition is a group of individules that see Canada as a link to power, nothing more. "This coalition is good for
Canada and the SOVERIGNTY of Quebec." Why would Duceppe, the leader of the party say this unless he means to some how seperate the province of Quebec from Canada? Once again Dion, a Frenchman himself, cut a deal. Can we trust a government that cuts deals under the table? I don't think so. But perhaps my opponent can convince us otherwise.

[TheKwas]

At the moment Canada is divided. On one side there is the Conservative Government, the legitiment government on the other a Coalition consisting of the Liberals, the NDP and the seperatist Bloc Quebecois. Now the Conservative party is the formally elected government of the Canadian people. Stephen Harper is the PM that Canadians wanted. This in itself is the main reason of my argument.

You, along with far too many Canadians, misunderstand how Canadian Parliamentary democracy works. The Conservatives make up the 'legitiment' government of Canada only because the Governer General allowed them to. If the Coalition had been formed right after the election and told the GG off the start that they could form government, Stephan Harper would have never seen power.

The Canadian public voted in certain members of parliament, and never did they once vote for Harper as the Prime Minister. In Canada we don't directly vote for our Prime Minister, we simply vote for a representative of our riding, who typically belongs to a political party. The leader of the political party, who is chosen by the party and NOT the Canadian public, that happens to get the largest portion of seats and can get the support of the house is made Prime Minister.

The Conservatives are not the 'formally elected government', they are the formally elected representatives of 143 (out of 308, do the math) seats, which just so happens to be a plurality in the house of commons, but not a majority.

In short, your argument thus far relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of Canadian democracy.

Now, the reason why the opposition has a right--nay, a duty--to form government is because although the Conservatives only won a plurality of seats, they acted as though they had a majority and could force the opposition to do anything it wants. As a result of those actions, which I won't get into at the moment, all the opposition parties lost faith in the conservatives, and thus the Conservatives lost the confidence of the house and the majority of Canadian democratic representatives could not operate under a conservative government. In Parliamentary terms, that means they can not govern. Normally when the government loses the confidence of the house, it means that a new election is held. However, the Canadian public just went through an election, so it was obvious that that was not an option. Therefore, if the opposition parties could not work with the Conservatives, the only option was to work among themselves and replace them. It was their duty to do so in order to avoid another election, or going against their beliefs and those they represented by voting for something they fundamentally disagreed with. Remember that combined, the Canadians that voted for the opposition parties outnumber the number of canadians that voted for the Conservatives.

It should be noted that this is actually extremely common in Parliamentary democracies. New Zealand, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and just about every other Parliamentary democracy on the planet tends to be dominated by coalition governments. Only in Canada and the UK do majority governments and 1-party minorities remain the norm, as far as I can think of off the top of my head.

My next argument is one of corruption and desperatness. It is obvious this bid for power is Stephane Dion's last jump for power. He is not going to be leader of the Liberal for any longer. His final bid for power was with the Coalition. This is despicable. Canadian politics were well known to be above the dirt of normal politics and he brought Canada a notch with these recent acts. As for his popularity with the Canadian people, his approval rating is 2.0! Canada cannot have a government that is led by a corrupt man such as Dion.

Stephane Dion, by the constitution of the Liberal Party, had to step down once a new leader was chosen in May no matter what his position in government was. Quite frankly, characterizing this as a power-grab by Dion is wide speculation. At most, it was Dion trying to establish a legacy before he moved on.

My next argument has to do with the lowness of the tactics of the Coalition. Layton and Dion both said after losing the election they would NOT form a Coalition. They said that though disappointed with the election they would stand by their party policies. Let me make this known, Layton and Dion HATE each other. Layton said himself that "he (Dion) cannot run his own party let alone the country." It is obvious there is more then one wolf in the pack. He later said, "I underestimated my collegue.(Dion)"

Actually, they made no such promise. On the contary, Jack Layton purposely left open the option of a coalition, and has throughout his entire career been supportive of the notion of coalition governments. He even asked Martin for a coalition!

Here Layton, in this CTV article, is saying he is open to the idea of a coalition government with the Liberals. Indeed, it was easy to find since the title is 'Layton open to NDP coalition with Liberals'

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Layton open to NDP coalition with Liberals
Updated Mon. Sep. 22 2008 11:11 AM ET

CTV.ca News

The New Democratic Party is open to forming a coalition with the Liberals if it would help implement the party's policies, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Monday.

Layton, speaking to CTV's Canada AM, hinted he would work with the Liberals if the two parties combined won more seats in Parliament than the Tories on Oct. 14.

"I've worked with any other party, I think people have seen that," Layton said.

"Maybe it goes back to my days as municipal councillor -- you roll up your sleeves and you try to solve a problem. And I think the problem we have is Stephen Harper and his Conservatives."

However, when asked if he'd agree to a formal arrangement, Layton was more evasive.

"I think what I'll do is, hopefully, sit down in the Prime Minister's Office and pull together the leadership of my party and say, 'How can we best serve the country? How can we best get that child-care program that we committed to?"' he said.

"`How can we best get those doctors and nurses trained to deal with these wait times that are really concerning families?' And let's make it happen."

Layton attacked the Tories, saying the party was taking Canada down the "wrong path" with policies that mirror those of U.S. President George Bush.

The NDP leader also repeated his promise to immediately withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan if his party wins the election.

"We've seen soldiers' deaths up, civilian deaths up, (opium) poppy production up, corruption is up. More of the country is too dangerous now to even provide aid or development," he said.

"Let's use the instruments of the UN that we created to reduce conflict, let's have a co-ordinated and comprehensive approach."

Later Monday, during a campaign stop in Hamilton, Ont., Layton said the only real priority of the Harper government was a $50 billion corporate tax cut.

He promised not to implement Tory tax cuts if elected.

Layton will be in Montreal Monday afternoon for a rally.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0922/20080922/

As for this bit:

It is obvious that Dion has cut a deal with Layton that includes more power and responsibility.

The definition of a coalition government is where members from atleast two different parties form one cabinet. So Layton was, almost by definition, promised a cabinet position, which obviously comes with power and responsibility. That's not an argument against coalitions, that's just stating what coalitions are.

My final argument is the alliance with the Seperatist Bloc Quebecois. Why? Why would a Coalition dominated by Frenco-Canadians want to support a party entirely based on the seperation of Quebec? Need I answer? It is obvious and true that the Coalition is a group of individules that see Canada as a link to power, nothing more. "This coalition is good for
Canada and the SOVERIGNTY of Quebec." Why would Duceppe, the leader of the party say this unless he means to some how seperate the province of Quebec from Canada? Once again Dion, a Frenchman himself, cut a deal. Can we trust a government that cuts deals under the table? I don't think so. But perhaps my opponent can convince us otherwise.

You have completely misunderstood (and mis-quoted) the Bloc Quebecois, and even Quebecois culture with comments like 'frenco-Canadian' and 'frenchman'.

First off, the Bloc never ran on a platform of sovereignty in the 2008 election. Yes, it's still ultimately part of the party's philosophy, but they purposely put it on the backburner because they knew that Quebecers had no interest in sovereignty at the current moment. What the Bloc did run on was opposing Stephan Harper's Conservatives and preventing them from having a majority. As you can see from their fairly comprehensive 2008 election dossier here (warning, pdf) they don’t even mention sovereignty anywhere. For all intents and purposes they are acting as a French nationalist party rather than a separatist party. They were elected with a mandate to oppose harper and that’s exactly what they’re doing.

Secondly, Duceppe never said what you said as far as I know. What he did say, in response to a question was “What we’re doing here is good for Quebec, and what’s good for Quebec is good for a sovereign Quebec” along with a head shrug that indicated that what he was saying was obvious, and it is! (Video here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex-gmf79GQ4) This isn’t saying that the coalition will help Quebec separate, but rather the economic gains that affect Quebec now will obvious help any independent Quebec in the future, since the two are the same!

If you want to know what’s bad for separatism, it’s demonizing Quebec’s legitimate, democratically elected representatives the way that harper and his followers have been doing. Pollsters took great notice of how Harper’s rants of ‘separatists in power’ actually boosted the Parti Quebecois’ election numbers in the Quebec election on December 8th. As this news article in the spoiler tags reports:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quebec pollster says Harper's comments gave PQ an election boost
December 9, 2008 - 2:25 pm

By: Tobi Cohen, THE CANADIAN PRESS
MONTREAL – Prime Minister Stephen Harper's comments about Quebec separatists gave the Parti Quebecois a major boost and helped the sovereigntist party close in on the Liberals in the provincial election, a leading pollster said Tuesday.
In a reversal of the historic election-day trend, the PQ performed far better than expected and closed so much of the gap between itself and the Liberals that it nearly deprived Charest of a majority.
The PQ's share of the popular vote was just seven percentage points less than the Liberals - this after polls just days ago placed it 14 points behind - and it held Charest's troops to a three-seat majority.
Jean-Marc Leger, president of Leger Marketing, said a poll suggested 14 per cent of Quebecers changed their vote on the last day, with half making that flip-flop while at the ballot box.
Leger said the largest contributor to the discrepancy between pre-election polling and the final outcome Monday was Harper's anti-Quebec rant in the home stretch of the campaign.
"Some angry comments against Quebec was not something really good and a lot of Quebecers were angry about that and voted for the PQ," he said.
Federal Liberal MP Denis Coderre went further, slamming Harper for "Quebec bashing" during last week's parliamentary crisis which saw the federal Liberals and New Democrats strike a coalition to try and overthrow the Conservatives with support from the Bloc Qubecois.
"Stephen Harper provoked an artificial national unity crisis and identity crisis and he was tyring to beat up Quebecers instead of being one who's supposed to be the link and the bridge-builder," Coderre said in an interview.

http://www.news1130.com/news/nationa...tent=n1209133A

Keep in mind that the Parti Quebecois is the actual party that would do the separating, as a referendum on soveignity would have to come from the provincial government. The Bloc doesn’t even have jurisdiction to separate, but these guys DO.

The most disgusting part of that, however, is that Harper KNEW that his Bloc rants harmed Canadian unity. Why else, during the semi ‘address to the nation’ he had, would he change the words he used to describe the Bloc depending on English or French? In English, he used the prerogative ‘Separatist’, but in the French he changes his wording, without explanation, to the French word for ‘Soverignist’. English Canada’s alienation of Quebecers will help the soverignist goals more than any coalition government.

Third, the Bloc are not a formal member of the coalition, and have no formal say in what the government brings forth. All they promised is not to vote against them during votes of confidences until 2010, which means on most money/economic bills. They can vote against them on any other matters and the Coalition doesn’t have to worry about appeasing the Bloc on any other matters.

However, I must ask the deeper question of what’s wrong with dealing with the Bloc Quebecois even if everything above wasn’t true? We’re a representative democracy, and the Bloc Quebecois are Quebec’s representatives. All parties work with them when they share goals in common on other issues (even the Harper wanted to form a coalition government with them in the past), so why is working with them in this context so different? If I may post a short blog entry from MacCleans in full:

The Bloc Quebecois has existed in some form or another since 1990—formed from a breakaway group of MPs from the Liberal and Conservative sides. In six federal elections, they have received an average of 1.5-million votes and claimed an average of 48 seats. Their popular vote has never represented less than 10% of the popular vote in Canada and 38% of the popular vote in Quebec.

Between 1993 and 1997, they sat in the House of Commons as Her Majesty’s loyal opposition. They participate in Parliamentary committees, the legislative process and Question Period. They have offices on the Hill. Their leaders have had a place in election debates. Their votes have toppled and propped-up Canadian governments.

The Bloc’s founding leader, Lucien Bouchard, is a member of the Queen’s Privy Council and a recipient of the Queen Elizabeth Golden Jubilee Medal. Their current leader, Gilles Duceppe, has won election seven times in his riding, dating back to Aug. 1990.

So, all things considered, what is the quibble with their support for a Liberal-NDP coalition?
By no means—if you believe in a Canada that includes Quebec—is there a defence for the Bloc’s stated goal of separation. But if they are free to participate in the democratic process, free to work within Parliament—and indeed have been doing so for 15 years—why should they not be permitted to participate, indirectly, in a coalition government? How would their support for a Liberal-NDP government be any different than their support for a Conservative government?

If the argument is that they shouldn’t exist at all within the framework of Parliament, then there should be a push for the Conservative government, if it survives, to both never again co-operate with the Bloc and, indeed, move to pass legislation that explicitly denies a separatist from participating fully in Parliament.

Would that be undemocratic and a profound infringement on the rights of all Canadians? Perhaps. But I’m not sure how we can have it both ways. Either they are allowed to participate fully in the business of Parliament, or they’re not.

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/12/02/t...-in-our-house/

Sorry for the length, but explaining the complexities of our democracy and our political enviroment can’t be done in short-form.

[JackDionne]

Good topic and you both make legitimate points in both your arguments.

Here is my problem, at one time I was a political junky getting everything I could read on the topic plus being a big Mike Duffy fan. I finally decided to give it up because it was starting to affect my physical health. What used to really bother me are the half truths all political parties employ to gain the trust of Canadians. Let’s face it, what the average Canadian sees is based on what ever form of media they are watching, reading or listening to on the radio.

Yes it is correct that we only elect members of parliament and the party elects the leader of the party. All politicians are hoping that the average Canadian remains totally ignorant of what they do and what they say, that’s why the conservative where able to put the spin on it they did.

At the same time people who oppose the coalition and are aware of the process still feel if the Bloc is part of it, it cannot be a coalition. The ammunition came from a quote by Jacques Parriseau (not sure of the spelling of his name). It was his quote that added fuel to the conservative agenda. The radio talk shows had a field day and I am sure ratings went up.

Having spent a 25 year career in the military and seeing the utter collapses of our military institution through the Liberal party I cannot be unbiased. As much as I wish politicians should remove the title “honourable” from their names while holding office I will never support the Liberal party. That’s a whole other thread. I actually made the mistake of watching Mike Duffy one day a little while ago and this Liberal MP forget his name was trying to tell the people of Canada how the Liberal party is an supporter of the Canadian military. I gagged and then laughed.

Supporter of the military alright, they wanted to make sure the military had lots of beer and popcorn, remember that one?

[RVFVS]

You make extremely good points. However once again if Dion is so interested in helping Canada and removing the Conservatives why not bing it to an election? This is basically taking the Conservatives out and putting the Liberals in. This may be the way that the Parliamentry system works but it is still preposterous! What has Harper done that is so bad? I can find very little, the economy (short of the last few months) has been booming in Canada and the Conservatives have solidified our economies as one of the best in the world. A few nights ago I was watchintg Cpac (the Canadain political channel) and a man from new York called in to the show. He said that what he saw was a coup. A coup! Though technically it is not a coup it might as well be!

The survey suggests Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean was in tune with public opinion across the country when she agreed Thursday to suspend, or prorogue Parliament until Jan. 26 at the request of Harper. Almost seven in 10 of those surveyed Tuesday and Wednesday gave prorogation a thumbs up.

The Tories also were deemed by almost six in 10 Canadians to be the best managers of the economy in these troubling times.

Results of the wide-ranging survey, conducted exclusively for Canwest News Service and Global National, paint a picture of a population gripped by fear that is largely giving the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt - for now - to lead the country in such uncertain political and economic times.

"Overall, this is breaking quite clearly to the government as opposed to the coalition," said pollster Darrell Bricker.

Fully 60 per cent of those interviewed said they opposed replacing the government with Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc Quebecois, compared with 37 per cent who favoured the idea. Support for the coalition was highest in Quebec at 50 per cent, followed by 44 per cent in Atlantic Canada.

The poll indicates the prospect of the Dion-led coalition has prompted Canadians to rethink the value of an election so soon after the Oct. 14 poll. Fifty-six per cent said they would rather go to the polls than be governed by the coalition.

Bricker said the preference for an election, if the view holds in the coming weeks, will be an important consideration for Jean should the opposition topple Harper's government early in the new year.

"The Governor General is going to be hard-pressed to deny what the Canadian public wants," said Bricker, president of Ipsos Reid.

Bricker said a clear consensus appears to be building in Canada, albeit to a lesser degree in Quebec, that Harper is doing the right thing by trying to hang on to power.

"The idea of having Stephane Dion as the prime minister, combined with the coalition being supported by the Bloc Quebecois, is basically fatal in the minds of the public," Bricker said.

"They want to clear the air with an election as opposed to just handing power over to the coalition. They don't like the fact they haven't been asked their opinion directly of what's being proposed by the coalition."

Bricker said Canadians' unhappiness with the political upheaval now is trumping the question of who is to blame for the crisis. Those surveyed divided almost evenly between blaming the government and the opposition parties.

The poll says more than seven in 10 Canadians, or 72 per cent of those surveyed, said they are "truly scared" for the future of the country because of what is going on in Ottawa.

The fear touches every region and demographic in the country. The rate was highest in Alberta at 90 per cent, and lowest in Quebec at 62 per cent.

Bricker said the Conservatives' spike in popularity appears to reflect a backlash against the Liberals and New Democrats whose support slid to 23 per cent and 13 per cent respectively. The Greens had eight per cent support, while the Bloc polled 37 per cent in Quebec.

Ironically, Bricker said, the prospect of a coalition government involving the Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois may end up allowing Harper to get the majority government he wasn't able to get on his own on Oct. 14.

The survey involved telephone interviews with 1,001 adults. In a sampling of that size, the results are considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points.

So let me recap what this quote from Canada.com says:

60% of Canadians do NOT support the Coalition

37% Do support the Coalition

Is this not enough? Is an election not for CANADIANS? We are a democracy and in a demorcracy a government serves the people not the whims of power hungry Liberals and NDPs! On top of that 6 out of 10 Canadians said that the Torries (Conservatives) are the best government to stand against the economic crisis. Once again proven by Harpers other years in office. Many Canadians are afraid for the future of Canada! Is this what politicians are supposed to do? Make Canadian citizens fear for their country?

the poll also indicates that if Harper was to go back to the polls he would win with a record-breaking 46%! public support and a majority government! Canada is a country for the people and if a democratically elected Priem Minister can be thrown out despite his huge popularity then the counrty is no longer demorcatic.

[TheKwas]

You make extremely good points. However once again if Dion is so interested in helping Canada and removing the Conservatives why not bing it to an election?

Canadians just went through an election, and at the time of the coalition talks, there was no reason to believe that an election would change anything. Harper would have a minority, and the opposition would still not want to cooperate with him due to policy matters. In short, the opposition's lack of confidence in the Conservatives would still exist. I'll get to your polls later.

Mostly importantly however, we're in the middle of an economic crisis, and the main thing the coalition wanted to focus on--the economy--requires immediate action. It's in the interest of Canadians to bring forth a substantial stimulus package as soon as possible, and an election would be counter-productive to those goals.

This may be the way that the Parliamentry system works but it is still preposterous!

What systematic changes would you prefer? An American system where the excutive has next to no accountability and where approval ratings in the 30s are normal? The Parliamentary system is arguably one of the best democratic systems there is, precisely for the reasons that brought about this coalition: it allows every electoral voice count, and a coalition that represents 62% of voters can displace a government that only represents 38% of voters.

What has Harper done that is so bad? I can find very little, the economy (short of the last few months) has been booming in Canada and the Conservatives have solidified our economies as one of the best in the world.

The exact document that scared the opposition parties so much that enemies like the Liberals and the Bloc were willing to work togeather was the economic update. The Canadian economy, like the global economy, is tanking and right now is the time Canada needs leadership on economic matters. The conservatives, instead of providing that economic leadership, went after the Canadian party funding scheme that provides 50% of the NDP's funding, 64% (or so) of the Liberal's funding, and about 75% of the Bloc's funding. In effect, they were trying to radically change Canada's democracy without a public mandate to do just that (which is the Canadian norm when it comes to democracy matters, in Ontario we have a referundum on Proportional Represention, because no political party was willing to change Canadian democracy without a mandate). This is Machiavellian politics at its worse, and Harper was doing this rather than focusing on the economic crisis. You can not run minority governments as if they were majorities, and this political gerrymandering essentially forced the opposition parties to unite against the Conservatives. In the case of the Bloc, their very existence may depend on it.


However, that's just the start. I understand if you're not well-versed in economics, but let it be known that right now a 'economic stimulus' is greatly needed in Canada. This basically means that the government needs a comprehensive plan to spend money on certain industries to protect them from going bankrupt, and to increase individuals spending power so that the economy doesn't sink in further. Most economists agree that this is the course of action needed in all developed nations. The Conservatives did not have a stimulus plan in their update, and made no commitments to a stimulus package. For the sake of the economy, the oppositions had to make sure that such a package was formed.

A few nights ago I was watchintg Cpac (the Canadain political channel) and a man from new York called in to the show. He said that what he saw was a coup. A coup! Though technically it is not a coup it might as well be!

I suppose your New York friend, like you and many other Canadians, also does not understand how the Canadian system works. Pointing out others that are just as ignorant doesn't justify your own. I mean that in a non-flame way.

Coalitions are the norm in Parliamentary systems, and Parliamentary systems were essentially designed for them. Canadians are just unaccustomed to this, but it is time for Canadians to accept this.

So let me recap what this quote from Canada.com says:

60% of Canadians do NOT support the Coalition

37% Do support the Coalition

Fair enough, as I said from the very begining that many Canadians were ignorant of how Parliament works. Just they share your opinion/ignorance doesn't mean I can't still oppose them on the quality of my argument.

That said, it is very unwise to call an election whenever the polls start showing a trend. Democracy isn't rule by polls. We would constantly have a fluctionating government that wouldn't be able to plan ahead longer than months at a time. We would constantly be baraged by Public relations campaigns in order to sway voter opinion every day.

These poll results are essentially a knee-jerk reaction by Canadians (or a very-well managed PR stunt by the Conservatives), but as time goes on and people realize that this isn't a coup, and this isn't a love-in with the separatists, they'll get over their intial dislike of the coalition. If not, then they can vote for new members of Parliament the next time Parliament calls an election. That's how our system works, and I haven't heard any suggestions as to how we should change our system thusfar.


It is also interesting to note that, even with all these reactions to the coalition, the majority of Canadians STILL wouldn't support Harper, but rather still vote for the opposition parties (all of which, including the Greens, support the coalition, making the coalition economic plan the most bi-partisan plan in Canadian history). The numbers are not as straightforward as you make them out to be.

Canada is a country for the people and if a democratically elected Priem Minister can be thrown out despite his huge popularity then the counrty is no longer demorcatic.

Again, Stephan Harper will still hold on to his seat, which is all he was elected to. He was installed as PM by the Governer General, and it will be the Governer General that kicks him out. Repeating sensational claims that are not consistent with the facts of Canadian democracy does not help your case.