Kickback scandal brings down Canadian government
Liberal government defeated: Canadians to hit the polls in rare winter vote
I’ve always loved Canada. It’s a wonderful place, the people are easygoing, and they play the best hockey in the world. Sadly, though, like most Americans, my knowledge of Canadian politics could only be described as minimal at best. I’m probably a bit more familiar with things Canadian than most American, but it’s a matter of degree. I grew up two hours south of the Canadian border and the pop machines in my small northern Minnesota town accepted Candian money. I know that Canadian football is a 12-man game played on a 110-yard field with 25-yard end zones. I know that gasoline is sold by the liter. Unfortunately, that’s about as far as it goes. So, like most Americans, when I heard that the Canadian government fell, my reaction was “Gee, I hope no one was hurt….”
It’s in moment’s like this when I turn to my favorite Canadian (and defacto TPRS IT guru), James Bow, who as a student of the political process, has few peers in the blogosphere. In addition, James is also having an election contest. I’m not certain what the prizes are yet (Argonauts season tickets? A year’s supply of Molson? A lifetime of free donuts at Tim Horton’s?), but this promises to be interesting. Of course, for most of us south of the 49th Parallel, election forecasting will involved little more than random blind guessing, the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket at 7-11.
Above all else, it’s refreshing to discover a government in North America that is actually held accountable. Unlike our own, which only has to propagandize the Sheeple every four years, and then can carry on as it sees fit, the Canadian system requires accountability, honesty, and performance.
Yes, Canada has it’s issues. Anyone who has spent any time in Western and Eastern Canada will have recognized the tensions between French- and English-speaking Canadians. Nonetheless, Canada has managed to maintain the world’s respect as a neutral member of the international community, a country that is involved in trying to make things better without trying to advance an agenda. Would that our own country could follow suit.
I can’t begin to understand the intricacies of Canadian politics, but I do admire their parliamentary system, while holds government constantly accountable to it’s employers- the Canadian people. It’s certainly not a perfect system- too much time can be lost to political infighting- but it does feature the one thing lacking in our own system- ACCOUNTABILITY. Yes, there are those who will argue that the opportunity for accountability comes every four years, but what if a candidate steals an election (Florida, circa 2000)? Then we’re stuck with the thief for four (or in this case, eight) years.
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin’s minority government was defeated Monday, setting the stage for a Jan. 23 election and a brutish winter campaign despite the opinions of many Canadians who have said they do not want to see politicians at their doors at Christmastime.
The prime minister will meet Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean this morning to tell her he has lost the confidence of the House of Commons and ask her to dissolve Parliament, sending Canadians to the polls for the second time in 17 months.
Campaign buses and planes, painted with party logos, are ready to roll this afternoon with the four political leaders fanning out across the country to begin their 56-day campaign to woo voters - the longest campaign in 21 years.
The non-confidence motion, introduced by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and seconded by NDP Leader Jack Layton, passed by a 171-133 margin and ended weeks of bitter political manoeuvring by all parties.
It’s the first time a government has fallen on a straight motion of non-confidence in Parliament. Other minority governments have been forced into elections after losing budget votes or censure motions interpreted as loss of confidence. The Martin Liberals had survived an earlier challenge last spring when a Tory motion lost by one vote after Belinda Stronach, one of the Conservatives’ star MPs bolted the party to join the Grit cabinet.
Now, being your typical ignorant, ethnocentric American, I don’t understand half of what that is all about, but let’s just fantasize for a moment, shall we? What if Our Glorious Leader was held to this same standard? What might it sound like? Ah, be still, my foolish heart….
WASHINGTON - Our Glorious Leader’s minority government was defeated Monday, setting the stage for a Jan. 23 election and a brutish winter campaign despite the opinions of many Americans who have said they do not want to see politicians at their doors at Christmastime.
The President will meet Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) this morning to tell him he has lost the confidence of the American People and ask him to dissolve Congress, sending Americans to the polls for the second time in 14 months.
Kinda has a nice ring to it, eh? We could learn something from these Canadians, don’t you think? Ah, well, ‘tis after all only a fantasy, and most of what will happen north of the border will barely get a mention in the US. After all, as far as most Americans are concerned, Canada’s leading exports are cold fronts, hockey players, and Michael J. Fox. Most Americans would frankly be surprised to learn that there are actually people living north of the border.
Good luck, y’all. There are few things I can think of that would be more miserable than conducting a national election campaign in the middle of a Canadian winter. Game on, eh??
Well, the thing to understand about the Canadian system is that we have the same division of powers as the American system (Congress, Senate, President), except that we call them different things (House of Commons, Senate, Governor-General) and we divide up the powers in different ways, but the principles remain roughly the same. Both the American and Canadian systems descend from the British parliamentary tradition. The only difference is, the American system has fallen further from the tree.
In the Canadian system, the bulk of the power is concentrated in the House, which is the same as Congress. The Prime Minister of Canada is the leader of the party with the most seats in the House. If Tom Delay hadn't been indicted, and America was operating under the Canadian system, he'd be the Prime Minister of the United States.
We accord the Prime Minister a lot of power. Our Senate is not elected, but largely appointed by the Prime Minister. And the Governor-General, our link to the British Monarchy, is a largely ceremonial position. She's our nominal head of state, and in between elections, she provides the continuity from one parliament to the next.
I should point out that the only reason this government was able to be defeated, and a new election forced, was because in 2004, the last election yielded a parliament wherein no party received a majority of seats. Remember, we have four viable political parties here in Canada, as opposed to two. In a minority parliament, a government can only govern if it can show that it can continue to put forward its agenda. If it loses key votes, like the Throne Speech (which establishes the agenda for the coming session of parliament), or budget measures, or an explicit opposition motion of non-confidence (a vote of censure), then there's no point in keeping this prime minister around. Either the Governor General asks another member of parliament (usually the leader of the opposition -- who happens to be the leader of the party with the second-most seats in parliament) to form a majority coalition, or she desolves parliament and calls an election. And, usually, if a government has been around for nine months or more, an election is called.
Thanks for the explanation James, it was clear, consise, and in my case just a little dangerous...
...I nearly injured myself while falling off of my chair laughing at the concept of "Prime Minister Tom Delay."
Actually I think James sort of oversimplified things there about our politics here in the Great White North.
While it's technically true that the GG occupies the same role as the Prez, it's politically incorrect. The GG's role is ceremonial, with her only real function being to uphold the constitutional perogatives of the monarch. In essence this amounts to deciding when to fire the prime minister, should he start to operate outside the normal bounds of Parliamentary democracy (ie. should he lose a confidence vote in the House and refuse to resign, or as once happened provincially, should he try and extend his mandate beyond five years). Practically however, the President's role as the Executive Branch (at the head of the Cabinet) is performed by the Prime Minister and his ministers, all of whom are part of the Legislative Branch. The GG has no policy making function.
As to whether or not Tom Delay would qualify as PM in our system, I tend to think not. In the Congressional system, the most powerful member is the Speaker, and so Dennis Hastert would tend to be the equvalent of our PM (actually they sort of resemble one another). In a Parliamentary system Tom Delay would most probably be the House Leader or the Government Whip, which is to say the PM's goon. So I guess on either side of the border some things don't change.
Cheers
HC
One thing to note: The GG constitutional powers are broad and undefined. By convention the GG is nothing, but in times of crisis a GG can do pretty much whatever they want. It's one of the arguments of favor of constitutional monarchy.
So, does this mean that ALL parliamentary seats are up for re-election? Will all of the incumbents be running for re-election? Will they have legitimate opponents running against them, given the apparently short time frame until the election? What are the chances that the newly elected parliament will look much different than the current lineup?
So many questions, but I'm interested in learning more. Actually, I should know more, seeing as my parents are native Manitobans. I guess I spent more time learning the nuances of the neutral zone trap than about Canadian government! ;-)
Drew,
The answers to your questions are:
Yes
Yes
Yes, all the parties have most of their candidates nominated already
50/50. Incumbency is still a real advantage in Canada (the name you know, etc.) but not always. 24 members of the last Parliament aren't running again and there are probably on the order of 40-50 additional seats which are in play (or 1/6th of the total). Given that a swing of only 20 seats from the Liberals to the Tories would make Stephen Harper PM, there exists a very real possibility that there could be a minority Conservative government (note, the Tories picked up 25 seats in the last election).
Beyond that, if Martin fails to get a majority, his days will tuly be numbered. If he loses, expect him to retire by summer. So yes, the new Parliament could look quite a bit different.