The Federal Republic of Canada

[whowhere]

If the Liberals had a majority and a mandate, doesn't that mean they therefore have the voice of the people?

We don't vote in parties we vote for people who happen to be a liberal, a conservative, or whatever. No one has a clue which party will form the government because there is no direct vote for the "liberal" party. The system is, if the elected are of a party and they hold the majority or minority numbers of seats they form the Cabinet who controls the decisions of the Government Bureacracy. By convention the party also provides a Prime Minister who has no mention in the BNA act or the 1982 Constitution.

So no we do not elect the the party, we elect the people who happen to be of a party. To know what people really want would have to be asked to them directly via a referundum. Not done because most politicians know their shite won't fly.

Canada's parliament has never made a decision that required the "peoples" say, so why would it start now?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We don't vote in parties we vote for people who happen to be a liberal, a conservative, or whatever. No one has a clue which party will form the government because there is no direct vote for the "liberal" party. The system is, if the elected are of a party and they hold the majority or minority numbers of seats they form the Cabinet who controls the decisions of the Government Bureacracy. By convention the party also provides a Prime Minister who has no mention in the BNA act or the 1982 Constitution.

So no we do not elect the the party, we elect the people who happen to be of a party. To know what people really want would have to be asked to them directly via a referundum. Not done because most politicians know their shite won't fly.

Canada's parliament has never made a decision that required the "peoples" say, so why would it start now?

It should start now, but it won't. At least not until the citizens start electing representatives that are accountable to them instead of party leaders.

[benny]

It should start now, but it won't. At least not until the citizens start electing representatives that are accountable to them instead of party leaders.

Being accountable is almost meaningless until we elaborate on the type of communication implicated.

[jbg]

If you don't want bureaucracies, I recommend you go live in a hunter-gatherer tribe. They're small enough not to require bureaucracies. But the minute we started building large scale planned urbanized societies, bureaucracies were inevitable.

I agree with you. I didn't say I didn't want bureauracies. What I said was that a system of checks and balances is no worse than a Westminister system in spawning them. Edited July 24, 2009 by jbg

[jbg]

No, the reform was started by a group of right wing nutjobs unhappy about the way Mulroney was destroying the Conservatives.

I don't see how they were "nutjobs" if, as you correctly state Mulroney was wrecking the PCPC.

Also, I fail to see your point about Mulroney. He went from the largest majority in history to 2 seats in the HoC. He lost his mandate. Democracy in action.

Sure it is, but even when his approval ratings were in the tank throughout much of 1991 and all of 1992 he could still whip legislation with no good way to stop him. Ditto Trudeau during 1980-1984. He pushed through the Charter and the repatriation without much of a public mandate to do so.

[jbg]

The founding fathers were so afraid of tyranny, that they wouldn't allow people to vote in majority governments like we do here. In essence, they didn't want their leaders to do much for fear that they'd steal power.Canada weathered the storm, we never reverted to authoritarianism. Why switch to a system that has outlived its use?

Something such as compelled bi-lingualism in the ROC and unilingual French in Quebec is exactly the mischief that would never happen in the U.S. Trudeau's trying to force massive change when there is zero consensus for that change has damaged Canada severely. Edited July 24, 2009 by jbg

[jbg]

I'm not sure where we got this idea that we needed a 4 year election anyway. We are mandated to have one every 5 years, and there is no mention of 4 years in the Constitution.

Tradition following British practice.

[Smallc]

Tradition following British practice.

There really is no tradition...and if there is it's stupid. Canadians hate elections. We should probably have as few as are necessary.

[Smallc]

Something such as compelled bi-lingualism in the ROC and unilingual French in Quebec

What are you talking about exactly? The federal government is bilingual in every province. Not all provinces are.

[jbg]

Being accountable is almost meaningless until we elaborate on the type of communication implicated.

I find it difficult to elaborate on a failure to communicate.

[lily]

Something such as compelled bi-lingualism in the ROC and unilingual French in Quebec is exactl the mischief that would never happen in the U.S. Trudeau's trying to force massive change when there is zero consensus for that change has damaged Canada severely.

You're right.

I remember when they looked into the best way to have Canada be bilingual. They looked at several countries, and found the best model was Switzerland, where each official language had its own area.

Then we chose to make ther entire country, spread out as we are, completely bilingual.

[Smallc]

The idea was that any Canadian could be at home anywhere in this country. We haven't gotten where we need to be yet, but that doesn't mean that we should stop trying.

[jbg]

What are you talking about exactly? The federal government is bilingual in every province. Not all provinces are.

The civil service having to be bi-lingual in areas with no demand for such services. Bi-lingual labeling requirements. The list goes on.

[Smallc]

The civil service having to be bi-lingual in areas with no demand for such services.

They don't have to be if there is no demand.

[Bonam]

Canadians hate elections.

Got any evidence for such a preposterous statement?

[Smallc]

Have you ever seen a poll showing that Canadians wanted an election? There are many polls that show otherwise.

[Bonam]

Have you ever seen a poll showing that Canadians wanted an election? There are many polls that show otherwise.

The polls speak to whether people want to have an election right then and there, not to whether people like or dislike elections in general. Surely you see the distinction? Elections are a cornerstone of how democracy works in Canada, and I would be highly surprised if any more than a tiny minority of Canadians really "hate elections".

[jbg]

Then we chose to make ther entire country, spread out as we are, completely bilingual.

Except for Quebec which preached huggy-huggy inclusiveness for the ROC but not itself.

[Smallc]

The polls speak to whether people want to have an election right then and there,

Have you ever seen one showing that people wanted an election right then and there, because I haven't. People don't hate democracy, but they hate the process that they have to go to. I think you were taking what I was saying far to literally. When it comes to voting, and elections, people hate to be bothered by such things. The whole point of what I was saying is that we don't need to have elections every 4 years, and there's really no reason to under a majority government. People generally don't cry for elections, and they hate to be bothered with them.

[Bonam]

People don't hate democracy, but they hate the process that they have to go to. I think you were taking what I was saying far to literally. When it comes to voting, and elections, people hate to be bothered by such things.

Perhaps that could be rectified by the proposals mentioned in some of the electronic voting threads. In any case, I think the main factor most people are annoyed with is the perceived "waste of money" that carrying out campaigns and conducting an election entails. The actual act of going and voting is not a major hassle for anyone I've ever talked to.

The whole point of what I was saying is that we don't need to have elections every 4 years, and there's really no reason to under a majority government. People generally don't cry for elections, and they hate to be bothered with them.

A majority government is exactly when having regular elections is most important. A minority is kept in check by the opposition, but a majority can pretty much take the country where they please. Whether it's 4 years or 5 is rather arbitrary, but people need to have a chance to remove their mandate on a sufficiently frequent basis to minimize the abuse of power. Those that can't be bothered to vote... well too bad for them really, they are given the opportunity and are free to choose whether to take it or not.

[Smallc]

Elections are important, but I'm simply trying to make the point that 4 years really is nothing significant in Canada. 5 years is our magic number and we seem to ignore that.

[Bonam]

I agree there's nothing special about 4 years. Or 5 for that matter. It could be 4.5 years, or 1000 days, or 50 months, or 1/2 of an orbit of Jupiter. I don't care. But elections need to be held on a somewhat regular and relatively frequent basis.

[Smallc]

No, 5 years is important in our system, because it's a constitutional requirement. When making a (seemingly useless) fixed elections law, as we did, perhaps we should have used the fixed date that was already in place. It could have been something uniquely Canadian then.

[Bonam]

It could have been something uniquely Canadian then.

It would be "uniquely Canadian" because we used the number 5 instead of the number 4? Gotta be a bit more creative than that if you want something to be "unique".

[Smallc]

My point is, we simply seem to be following someone elses cycle (be it England or America)...for some unknown reason. We set up a law with fixed dates...when we already had a law with fixed dates. Its probably nothing, but I simply find the idea bothersome.