This has nothing to do with the election, but if I can veer off topic for a moment, I don’t understand this.
100 Canadians lost are not equivalent to 1,000 Americans lost, “by population” or anything else. A person is a person, and 100 grieving families are 100, and a thousand are a thousand. A Canadian is not worth more than an American, or for that matter worth less than an Australian, just because our population is smaller than the USA but larger than Australia.
If I can now jump BACK on topic, with all due respect, I think you’re way off base here. Canada entered the war in Afghanistan in 2002, when Jean Chretien was Prime Minister and Stephen Harper was in opposition. The basic for our involvement was our obligation as a NATO member, not any alleged “Admiration” for George Bush. It would have been disgusting for Canada to not live up to a treaty that important.
There’s a valid point to be made that NATO should be formulating an exit strategy, but suggesting that we were “sucked into this whole mess” because Stephen Harper likes George Bush (itself a dubious claim) is simply not consistent with the facts.
Also, Barack Obama is on record multiple times saying that the war on Afghanistan is more critical than Iraq, and that he will push NATO allies to contribute more and he will contribute more American soldiers. So really, I don’t think you can spin Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan from an anti-Bush standpoint. This isn’t Iraq - it’s a UN sanctioned effort to stabilize a country in an extremely dangerous part of the world.
Harper’s commitment to Afghanistan (and the other party’s waffling on it) is THE key election issue for me. I’d vote for Harper if I didn’t like any of his policies except the need for Canada to stand up in Afghanistan, and in general to take a more active military role in the world. Canada is uniquely suited to be a major player in the war on terror - we are respected, and for decades we were peacekeepers par-excellence in the world. We have experience in this area that allows us to punch above our weight.
There are selfish reasons for Canada to do this as well. You find that if you have nothing to offer the ‘big boys’, you will not have a voice in world affairs. For the longest time with Martin and Chretien in power, no one gave a damn what Canada thought about anything. We were once leaders in civil rights and used that leadership to promote Canadian values. We lost that under the liberals because they gutted our military and became more isolationist. Today, people listen to Canada. For example, if we don’t like Americans torturing captured insurgents in Afghanistan, we actually have the clout to use hard diplomacy to stop it. Canada is the second-biggest force in Afghanistan, and the U.S. needs us. That means they have to listen to us.
If you want to influence world events, you have to be a player. You have to have carrots and sticks. For the longest time, Canada had neither. It affects everything from trade relationships to issues of sovereignty. Take the arctic waters opening. If it turns out that Russia starts contesting those waters, we can plausibly go to NATO or the UN and demand action, and if we don’t get it we can threaten to withdraw from Afghanistan, rightly pointing out that we’re meeting our responsibilities there and fully expect reciprocity. We can’t do that if we refuse to meet our own obligations, and if we had nothing the other NATO partners wanted, we’d have no way of swaying them.
Of course you are right. I was trying to put it in perspective for any stray Americans who might open a thread about a Canadian election. I have actually had Americans say to me, “How can you talk about Canadian deaths in Afghanistan when it isn’t even 100!!! In the war on terror, there have been over 3,000 American deaths in Iraq!!!”
You are right again. But Mr. Harper has used similar “talking points” as Mr. Bush many times - admittedly not recently. He has little to say about the war at all. As part of NATO we were obliged to go there, but as you point out, NATO should be formulating an exit strategy and I believe that part of the reason it isn’t is that the American government is apparently shifting some attention from Iraq to Afghanistan. I guess it isn’t entirely fair of me to say that Mr. Harper admires George Bush and that it affects our policies - but I think of Maher Arar and Omar Khadr and I think the situation with them owes more to American ideas of “security” than with any Canadian needs.
Still, this election is, IMHO, likely to be even less interesting and relevant than any other election I can think of. The American election is a poweful distraction - I’m sure Mr. Harper took that into consideration. On the other hand, I like the speed of the whole thing. Only 63 days of listening to propaganda from all sides.
Another thing - and this does infuriate me. We have been deluged with electioneering pamphlets from our MP, sent under his frank, a rank violation of the law that says that frank is to be used only to keep constituents informed of what he is doing in office. The one that really enraged me was the one about “junkies” and “used syringes in playgrounds” - and how 13 years of inaction by Liberal governments led to this awful situation, and how the Harper government has worked to fix it. Whenever I want to be fair and rational and give them some credit - something like this comes along and sets my hair on fire.
Sam Stone, I guess we part company on the issue of “playing with the big boys”. I don’t really care about it. I don’t really care whether we have a voice on the world stage. I doubt very much that our presence in Afghanistan or in any similar way is going to protect us when the time comes that the US and/or Russia decides they need the stuff in that refrigerator that is the Great White North.
I think that the dream of changing Afghanistan is a pipe dream, and while I respect and admire Barack Obama, I think he is wrong to think it will lead to much good in the end.
Let’s enumerate the parties I can vote for in this election.
Liberals: they’re quite clearly the party of a larger and more asphyxiating federal government. I mean, they’re the party of Trudeau, Chrétien, and now Dion. I’m going to vote in the riding of Gatineau, which has known decades of worthless and ineffective Liberal MPs and MNAs. This is not surprising since our main economic activity (since the 60s at least) is the federal public service, which certainly benefits from the Liberals being in power. In 2006, amidst the Liberal scandals, we finally elected a Bloc MP who seems to be doing a good job for now. If I want the federal and provincial governments to keep a good relationship, I shouldn’t vote for the Liberals.
Bloc: I’m not all that impressed by Duceppe’s leadership, but he is the most experienced party leader at the time, and he’s honest. And as I’ve said, our current MP seems to be taking its place among the Bloc caucus, in contrast to some of our previous MPs who were backbenchers after 10 years in Parliament. Voting for the Bloc increases the chances of another Conservative minority government (not a bad result, I must say). The Bloc is also a strong voice for provincial rights in Parliament. I don’t agree with all of their positions (for example, while I have misgivings about the mission in Afghanistan, I’m not blatantly opposed to it), but they’re a decent opposition.
Conservatives: while I agree that Harper is a true political beast, I don’t trust him. He isn’t honest, and he’s done many things (same-sex marriage re-vote and Quebec nation motion to name two of them) not because he thought it would do anything, or have any positive consequences, but simply as political posturing. He’s tried to control his ministers and the flow of information out of his office to the journalists. I don’t really know what Harper really believes in and I don’t trust him enough to give him a majority government. Still, I agree somewhat with Sam Stone’s post: his government, while filled with semi-competent ministers, has done some good things. I agree with Sam that we need a stronger military and to be able to protect our sovereignty. That’s what the federal government is supposed to do. Harper’s recent cuts to cultural programs were quite clearly due to the fact that the beneficiary artists didn’t always present “family values” he agreed with, but I question whether subventioning arts should have been the responsibility of the federal government in the first place. The Conservatives are more likely to restrict the federal government to what it should be doing, so another minority government for them isn’t a bad idea.
But now it appears that they’re bailing out large businesses, and they’ve also done a good job antagonizing the governments of Ontario and Newfoundland, so who can follow them, really? :dubious:
NDP: I don’t have anything against the NDP. I voted for them a few years ago, back when I was more of a leftist. And their candidate in our riding this time is our Liberal MP from 2004 to 2006, one of the only good ones we had and whom I was sorry to vote against last time. But I’m less of a leftist now (I consider myself centre-left, in the Quebec political spectrum), so I don’t think I’d agree with them all that much. Unlike, say, the Conservatives, they’re not likely to keep the federal government restricted.
The other parties: I see many people here are voting Green, probably as a protest vote. But why should I? I have a better option.
We’re not talking about separation here. This is a federal election. I mean, even the PQ doesn’t seem to want to push sovereignty anymore. They’re only talking about it to keep their base aboard and keep them from founding yet other radical left-wing pro-independence parties (the current one is the Parti indépendantiste). It’ll probably never happen anyway.
Usually yes. Officially it is the Governor General who dissolves the House, but she acts under the “advice” of the PM, which means that he tells her what to do.
That’s where the situation could become tricky. Since it is officially the Governor General who dissolves the House, she can theoretically refuse when “asked” by the PM. But she’d better have a good reason. Harper losing the election and then calling another one rather than resigning as Prime Minister would probably be reason enough.
See above. Asking her is purely a formality, but yes, she could in theory have the authority to refuse. It won’t happen unless the Prime Minister is quite crazy, though.
Canadian general elections aren’t like American presidential elections, so we can’t really talk about whether it allows lesser-known candidates the time to establish themselves. Usually party leaders in Canada are chosen among people who have spent many years in the legislature and, if possible, who have held government positions. But they’re chosen by their party’s convention, and there is no primary election process in Canada.
I don’t know if it’s an advantage; what I do know is that when we have majority governments, we spend less time campaigning. (It’s not quite the same with minority governments, since elections could happen at any time.)
I know many Canadians (at least here) seem to prefer our Parliamentary system to the US’s Presidential system, while Americans seem to prefer the Presidential system although they’d like to see Bush subjected to Question Period before the House of Representatives, but personally I don’t think any of them is “better”. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
But it’s not just a voice in military affairs. It’s everything. We are helping the U.S. tremendously in Afghanistan. You don’t think that carries over when we start negotiating things like softwood lumber or oil?
Canada is increasing in importance in the world. Dramatically. Only part of that is our increased military engagement. The biggest reason is oil, and it got a whole lot bigger last month when Russia made it clear that it intends to use energy as a hammer against Europe. We are one of the few free, friendly western nations that have significant supplies of oil. The balance of power in the world has been slowly shifting towards the countries that control oil supplies. It gives us more power, but it also opens us up to more challenges and gives us more responsibility.
If Russia and Iran try to use oil to put the screws to their enemies or to play trade hardball, Canada becomes a thorn in their side. They’re not going to attack us or anything silly like that, but they can apply pressure in a host of ways, such as by threatening our sovereignty in the Arctic, or playing hardball with countries that try to negotiate Canadian deliveries if Russia threatens to close off their pipeline.
In addition, the opening of the northern sea route and northwest passage is going to increase challenges to us as the various countries with interests in controlling those routes start jockeying for power. There’s going to be a lot of international and military activity as the Arctic regions grow in geopolitical value. And there may be significant energy discoveries as well, which will further increase tensions. We simply cannot ignore our responsibility as a free country to protect those regions.
The world is getting more dangerous, and Canada is increasingly moving into the big leagues. We need to be prepared for that. We can’t afford to be the little peace-loving Canada that stays home and tries to ignore the world. The world’s coming to us.
It’s important to remember that in Canada, we vote for the party, not the man. I won’t be putting a checkmark beside ‘Stephen Harper’ on a ballot box - I’ll be voting for my local MP. The party that gains a majority takes power, and the leader of the party becomes Prime Minister. But after the election, the party could replace Harper and we’d have a different Prime Minister.
It would be sort of like if the election were just between ‘Republicans’ and ‘Democrats’, and if the Democrats won Harry Reid would become President - or whoever else the Democrats themselves chose to lead them.
I don’t recall being in Afghanistan doing us helping us at all on softwood lumber. The way I remember it, Bush told us to bend over and take it because he could and there was nothing we could do about it.
What has Harper done to earn my support for anyone who would supplant him (or even put him in a minority position that would ensure real participation from other parties)? Let me count the ways, not in any particular order.
Proposed copyright legislation The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a disaster. Emulating it in Canada is a mistake. Creators deserve protection, but users/buyers do too.
Kelowna Accord It was a step towards dealing with the native issues in the country. Repudiation was a bad mistake. The ongoing delay in land claims (Let’s not even talk about clean water.) is inexcusable.
Daycare The ‘trust the market’ approach didn’t work. Adding money to preschoolers parents did not magically create spaces to spend it on.
Afghanistan This one (like many of the others) is shared between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Going into Afghanistan seven years ago was justifiable. Going in in force to free up American resources for Iraq was not. Having the U.S. shape NATO policy on matters like poppy farming does leave us in the position of a client state, not one of the big boys.
Bill C-10 An attempt to pander to the redneck base by being sure that tax money isn’t spent on whatever that base may deem offensive
Cultural funding It’s been gutted.
The GST Tax cutting is nice. Doing it to support a ‘starve the beast’ philosophy is not.
Closed government One of the pillars of the Conservatives’ last election platform was openness. This government has controlled communication more closely that anyting in my experience, including the Ernie Manning governments in Alberta.
Equalization It’s always been a dog’s breakfast. He didn’t create it. But his muddling has only made it worse.
That’s my recollection as well. It’s a personal issue with me, one of my best friends is a lumber broker and I’ve heard a great deal on it over the last years.
Without wishing to insult our American friends, most of whom are perfectly nice people, the fact is that Canada doesn’t have a hope of standing up to the US on trade issues since it is the US that defines “the playing field”. They always say they want a “level” playing field but what it always comes out to is one sloped dramatically their way.
Sam Stone, your post is eloquent and almost persuasive. I agree with more of it than you might think. But the reality is that the US will do as it likes, as usual. Sure we have lots of oil. We have lots of stuff they are going to need. And they will generally dictate the terms upon which they get it.
The other truth is that with the power now vested in multi-national corporations, Canada’s national interest might not be as important as the interests of shareholders in other nations. I see this getting worse all the time, particularly in agriculture and resource industries.
eta: Happy Booker, I agree with a number of your points.
Sort of, but that depends on what type of “proportional representation” you have in mind. With a two-vote mixed member proportional system, you also vote for a particular person as your riding representative. If your system uses open lists, you also have to order your party’s list, so you choose people on it. And even with our first-past-the-post system, I think most people think of the party rather than their local candidate when they cast their vote.
I know you really really like proportional representation, BrainGlutton, but keep in mind that introducing it when you’ve always used first-past-the-post changes a lot of things in your political system, including some you wouldn’t have thought of. It’s likely it will be adopted by some Canadian provinces before there’s even semi-serious talk of going there on the federal level. Some provinces have actually tried to introduce new electoral systems in the last few years, but either the laws were defeated by the population in referendums, or the discussion didn’t even make it to law.
True enough, but I think the Bloc is still more useful.
Only sort of. As Sam points out, the day after the election, the Conservatives could decide to elevate Joe Blow to the party leader spot and the country’s voters couldn’t do squat about it.
Thank you for your continued obsession with our country’s method of electing its legislature and your oversimplified point.
Of course, a person casting a vote is voting for both his local MP AND the party. We’re sufficiently sophisticated to have figured this out.
Of course this, too, has very little to do with the election. However, your memory is wrong. The dispute - which goes back a hell of a lot longer than George Bush’s presidency - went through the NAFTA dispute resolution process, and was settled. It took awhile and there were a variety of appeals and cross-arguments, but a deal was reached.
Contrary to popular Canadian belief, the sortwood lumber dispute was not some evil American plot to rob ordinary Canadians; it was an argument where both sides had legitimate points. The original U.S. complaint, which was that Canada was subsidizing the industry and dumping cheap lumber into their market, was absolutely justified; the counterargument was that Canada felt the tariffs imposed were unjustifiably high. The deal - which basically amounts to the U.S. keeping some of the tariffs, but giving most of them back - is quite fair.
It was a common trade dispute that was rationally (by the standards of government, anyway) and fairly settled.
I disagree that the US was “absolutely justified”, but I won’t argue that point. Since I live in BC, I have perhaps a different view of the forest industry than you do. Maybe I can’t see the forest for the trees.
However, the US did indeed “keep” some of the tariffs - by giving that money to the very US timber companies that brought the complaint in the first place. The instigators of the dispute were lumber companies in the southern US, where the timber industry operates under rules very unlike ours. Moreover, several of those companies also operate in BC - Weyerhauser, for one. How could they lose?
In the long run the dispute and the enormously unfair countervailing duties were a salutory lesson. It has left us less vulnerable in the present slowdown of housing starts in the US. Not “invulnerable”, but less.
What if she doesn’t have good reason, but refuses anyways? Is there a check on her?
It is similar in my mind to the system in England where the Queen must give “Assent” to any bill passed by Parliament and has done so with every single bill since the 1700s. But what would happen if the current Queen decided that since she was getting older, she wanted to be a pain in the ass and start refusing assent to some things, or even everything. There is no check on that. There is no similar thing to a veto override like the U.S. has…
It won’t happen unless the Prime Minister is quite crazy, though.