Which is guess is the point - what the hell kind of system only gives you 100 days to do anything? 
The number I’ve heard is that it takes about 18 months to get a bill through the federal Parliament. That’s not because of gridlock, but because the emphasis is to study a proposal, make sure you understand the up-side and the down-side, get it drafted in both languages, make sure the draft is consistent with other legislation and consider whether other legislation needs to be amended, introduce it, let it go through the committee process in the House, then if it passes there, go to the Senate, where there can be additional reviews (the Senate’s traditional function of “sober second thought”), and then if the Senate thinks amendments are desirable, they go back to the Commons for the Commons to consider and possibly pass.
And that’s only one bill. If the Government introduces a large number of bills, it takes time for those bills to go through the Commons and the Senate. There is only so much time in the legislative calendar.
Good policy can take time to be implemented through legislation.
Although there are occasions where speed is important, in general most legislation should be carefully debated and worded. Sometimes this happens, and sometimes less so. Lots of good legislation was approved but did not become law.
But yes, I often prefer it to the American system. Still, there are good ideas that come up time and time again during elections then disappear. There are some good laws being passed in the US which Canada should consider more carefully. There are needed reforms that would be very popular that parties ignore. I presume sone real debate happens when making law, but on CPAC you get political theatre in votre choix des langues officielles.
That is true. I’ll point out that Barbados, which used to have Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state (as Queen of Barbados), just became a republic in the last few days. Interestingly, MP Stéphane Bergeron of the Bloc québécois proposed a motion in the (Canadian) House of Commons to congratulate the Barbadians on abolishing the monarchy, Conservative MPs opposed the tabling of the motion (as I understand it, unscheduled motions need unanimous consent), and then some Conservative MPs started singing God Save the Queen in the House in response. I find this funny for some reason, even though I’m not quite sure what the takeaway should be.
I have no idea what the world will look like in 100 years, so I couldn’t possibly start making a guess on this.
I’m not quite sure what your point is, actually. It reminds me of when people object to calling the US “America”, since of course America is much more than just the US. I mean, yes, it obviously is, but when someone from, say, Europe mentions “America”, you know what they’re talking about, and it’s not Peru. But it seems to be the other way around: a Latin American (or a Canadian) may consider that “America” should include their country and resent its being used in a way that excludes them. You, on the other hand, are offended, not by “Canada” being used in a way that excludes you, which nobody would ever think of doing, but by people in Canada not using the term to describe themselves. It’s very nationalistic in a way. At least I can commend you for not expecting loud displays of Canadian national pride from me. I can assure you, if that’s your concern, that yes, I recognize that Quebec is politically a province of Canada, and that I obey Canadian laws.
As well as Islam, certainly.
Doubtful, if you’re thinking of Arabs. Only 20% of the global population of Muslims live in the Middle East, and in that area, the two largest Muslim populations are Iranian and Turkish, not Arab.
Actually, lots of provinces use specific terms to refer to other provinces, and other Canadians.
In the Maritimes, people from Ontario are often referred to as being from “Upper Canada”. It’s a joke, but also it isn’t.
When I was a student in Montreal, French students called Anglo students “les Kraft Dinners”. Not true! Ramen noodles were cheaper.
Out West, there have been Trudeaunian references to “those Eastern bastards”, but this was in times of (energy) crisis.
I have heard other words used in BC to describe their Alberta neighbours, and other words used in several places to describe Quebec. (Are you friz?)
Much of this is not meant seriously, and Canadians do tend to pull together and donate money and manpower when times are hard. Canada is hardly the only place where good fences sometimes make good neighbours.
You are arguing against the opposite point H.G. was making.
At one time, wasn’t that the official name for more or less present-day Ontario?
Yes, from 1791 to 1841, the portion of what is now Ontario along the St. Lawrence and the lower Great Lakes was the colony of Upper Canada. It didn’t go as far north as current Ontario, as its northern boundary was set by Rupert’s Land, and it was unclear how far west it extended, over the upper Great Lakes.
Yes and no. As often happened in the history of Canada’s provinces, the original colony of Upper Canada was a lot smaller than today’s Ontario. Today’s Ontario–the shape of it anyway–has only existed since 1912.
Interestingly, the bar association in Ontario was known as “The Law Society of Upper Canada” until recently.
That being said, the vast majority of Ontarians reside in the portion of the province that was Upper Canada.
Upper Canada is a historical name. I heard the phrase dozens of times during two years in the Maritimes, but have never heard it socially in decades of living in Ontario - just in regard to organizations and in museums. Canadians who can laugh at themselves (far from all) often have a self-deprecatory streak to their humour.
The implication sometimes seemed to be that the Maritimes were, by contrast, labelled as “Lower Canada” and might be both more down-to-earth and less uppity. The phrase is usually meant in a good natured way. “You’ve got a good sense of humour for an Upper Canadian”. Maritimes are usually very easy going people.
I would like to point out that while “Upper Canadian” is used in jest, Maritimers would never refer to themselves as Lower Canada (that’s just too historically inaccurate).
Cape Bretoners are Capers, Mainland Nova Scotians are Mainlanders, both are Bluenosers; PEI folks are Islanders, and those from “The rock” are Newfies/Newfs.
Lower Canada was what is now known as Quebec. Maritimers would never call themselves that. They were quite distinct from Canada until 1867.
Ah, cool. TIL.
Thank-you for that.
And New Brunswickers are Herring Chokers.
As a further comment on government budget issues, this is much less contentious than in the US. When a budget bill is introduced, there will first be a vote on “interim supply”, which allocates partial funding (usually 5/12ths of the previous year’s budget for each department), and is passed as a routine measure. Then the actual budget debate follows. If there is a risk of the interim funding running out before a budget is approved, then additional funding can be provided through one or more “Governor-General’s warrants”. I don’t know of any modern case of Canadian government departments shutting down due to lack of funding.
Note that a failure by the government to get their budget approved is a MAJOR political issue, however, as it is one of the “non-confidence” voters that automatically triggers a change of government (which may or may not be via an election). In Canada, as in other UK-style systems, a Prime Minister is there not as a direct result of an election, but because he/she was able to convince the Governor-General that he/she has the “confidence of Parliament” and can count on the support of the majority of MPs. A formal display of “non-confidence” means someone else has the chance to be PM, usually involving calling an election, but sometimes the Opposition leader can muster enough support to got to the G-G and ask to be allowed to form a new government without needing an election.
It should be said that the Lower Canada thing was a theory of mine. I never actually heard a Maritimer use this phrase. However, a few tiny hamlets in New Brunswick are divided into Upper and Lower parts based on elevation. I know quite a few who made a point of saying they were from Lower Hamletname.
And to the Newfies, pretty much everyone else is a Mainlander, or “From Away”.
Well, there’s a bit of a difference. I’ve never heard the term “Herring choker” used in a context that is outside of making fun of the word “herring choker”.
This is different as the others are kinda used often. Even “Upper Canadian,” while having playful connotations, it is used. The rest are used in everyday normal speech too. However if you drop “herring choker” in a sentence people will take notice and laugh.
Nova Scotians use that term too (“Come from aways”). I, truly, hate it. I mentally associate it with a type of “old stock” nativist sentiments.
This is a unfavourable and hostile interpretation for a folksy phrase, but I always, personally, heard it with tinges of that weight.
Come to think of it; while I’m musing on these silly labels.
The term I used “old stock” (or the French equivalent “de souche”) are also not the most PC of terms. While they are “useful” they can be exclusionary in elevating/separating Canadians of a certain ethnic origin apart from Canadians who have origins as recent immigrants.
I would like to point out that I use these terms without attaching any value to them.