Canadian Politics

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The Liberal Party of Canda's colour is red, like the American Republicans. However, their policies are very different. The Liberals don't spend a lot on the military, and didn't support Iraq. They passed the gay marriage law and I don't think they are anti-abortion (though even Stephen Harper won't touch that issue with a ten foot pole). Liberal usually means "left wing" I think, except here the NDP and the Green party are more "left". The Liberals are actually quite central.

Canada's liberals definitely sound like ours.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Yes, I'm aware they'd need a place somewhere. I suppose I'm just a bit confused as to why put them specifically in the cities and why somebody else would put money into making a daft ad about it like it's a big issue? Politicians...

All the political ads are really inane. I actually haven't seen any NDP or Bloc ads, and I doubt the Green have any, but if they did, they'd all be as banal as the Liberal and Conservative ads I've seen.

We have soldiers stationed from Vancouver to Alert (a tiny base so far North it's practically on the other side of the world). I think some soldiers should be in cities, and some should be other strategic places. I trust General Rick Hillier or whoever is in charge to decide that.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Canada's liberals definitely sound like ours.

The Liberals just wouldn't be living up to their name if they weren't liberal. Do you consider the Democrats to be liberal?

Oh Inked, the articles you find...

Actually, gay marriage hasn't been a big issue in the election. Stephen Harper did say earlier on that he'd put the gay marriage to a free vote (just say "referendum", weiner), but I think he realised that most Canadians aren't all that interested in changing or eliminating the gay marriage law. On a somewhat related note, Paul Martin did say he'd remove the notwithstanding clause from the Charter.

IIRC, we have never used this clause, but if we did, I think it could be used to overturn a law that was made from interpreting the Charter (such as the gay marriage law). I don't really understand the fine points of this clause though.

About the first article (written by unknown?):
My rebuttle is directed at the author, but feel free to defend him since he's not here Inked. (Since this is only half-election issue, I might move this to the gay marriage thread. What do other participants of this thread think?)

So Prove It, Elf-Boy!
In Canada, so-called ‘mercy-killing’, unlimited abortion of the unborn, same-sex ‘marriage’, and other carefully prepared-for innovations have jumped to the forefront of national debate. A radicalized political and judicial establishment has taken up these causes, so that the current Prime Minister can say the following in public this week:

First of all Git, can I call you Git? we do not have unlimited abortions. What a ridiculous and needlessly inflammatory statement. Abortions are obviously limited by the law that you can only have one in your first (and second I think) trimester, and also by the fact that most pregnant women do not want an abortion.

Secondly, it's gay marriage. Not 'marriage', with your condescending little single quotations. Gay people can get married the same as straight people in Canada, even in a church if the church is cool with that, and if you don't like it, well, you're probably not Canadian anyway so cares that you're offended by our laws? But if you are Canadian, you should realize that the Charter that gives gay people the right to marry whom they wish, also gives you that same right. Don't take your rights for granted just because you've had them longer.

Thirdly, when did abortion and gay marriage come to the forefront of the national debate? Are you referring to the election debates? Because if you are, you must be watching different election coverage than I - neither issue is big in this election. No one has mentioned abortion - any wise politician wouldn't touch that with a ten meter pole during an election, but gay marriage is an issue. It's just not as big as corruption, military spending, and health care.

Fourth, "So Prove it Elf-Boy"? What kind of title is that?

“Let me be very, very clear. The fact is that same-sex marriage and a woman’s right to an abortion are the kind of Canadian values that built this country. They are the values of my father and great Canadians like Tommy Douglas and I will not be the Prime Minister who goes down in history as having taken them away. The fact is that they are fundamentally more important than the preservation of Canada’s single-tier public health care system.”

I see where Martin is going with this, but I don't think gay rights and abortion rights built this country. I think they have shaped the Canada we know and love today. I do agree with the rest of his quote though. (Not that that's a liscence to demolish health care or anything though.)

Indeed– “more important” than anything, since the Prime Minister’s proposal would utterly mutate our democracy by giving the government-appointed Supreme Court absolute rule over Canada in all matters, unfettered by the voice of the people, or the legislative branch– as guided by the noisiest and most radical special interest groups (tax-funded, of course). How bizarre. Such ‘values’ did not build Canada, are not preserving her, and cannot give her true life in the future.

"Our" democracy? You must be Canadian then. Well, too bad for you that Stephen Harper is the only representation you have on gay marriage. He's not doing a very good job in that department, which is probably why he dropped the issue.

I doubted you were Canadian before, because you seem to have little or no understanding about how the government works.

The statements "unfettered" and "absolute rule over all matters" are as ridiculous as they are incorrect. Firstly, the Supreme Court does not, and never has, make law. They interpret law, and in the case of gay rights, they interpreted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which led to the elected legislature passing the gay marriage law.

Secondly, the Supreme Court does not rule Canada in all things. We do not have a puppet government. You have not done your research. The Supreme Court interprets law to resolve the cases brought before them. They do not make up cases for the sole purpose of running every aspect of our lives. They do not make laws, and they cannot override the Charter, which protects the rights of all Canadians.

Thirdly, you think it's "bizarre" that minority groups can lobby the Supreme Court? Perhaps those pesky minorities should stop making such a scene with their fighting for their rights nonsense. You should remember this if you ever find yourself discriminated against.

I can concede gay rights and abortion rights did not build Canada, but if you want to make statements like "[gay and abortion rights] are not preserving her, and cannot give her true life in the future," you had better have some evidence, which I note that you don't.

As for the ‘values’ of his father’s generation, a longtime Martin family friend, L. Earle Wicklum, stated in an open letter to the Prime Minister, “I wept when I read about the enthusiastic endorsement that you, Prime Minister Paul Martin Jr., gave to a bill going through parliament legitimizing same-sex ‘marriage’.” A generation ago, Paul Martin Sr. refused to go along with then Prime Minister “Pierre Trudeau’s legalization of abortion and was banished to the Senate for his principled stand.”

Oh, Martin's dad didn't agree with Trudeau's legalisation of abortion? Well big deal. I don't care what Martin's father thinks, I care what Prime Minister Martin thinks now.

Therefore, what Paul Martin claims and asserts in the above quote is actually ahistorical and unCanadian nonsense, and just as much a fiction and fabrication as the ‘finding’ of a new ‘right’ to same-sex ‘marriage’ in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He appears to be just makin’ stuff up, to justify what others have told him are good things.

Your opinion in this article has been backed up by misunderstanding Canadian government and law, and nothing else. Paul Martin is backed by the Charter, which exists to prevent discrimination against all Canadians.

I followed the link after the article, but it looks like a Canadian VirtueOnline to me. (Especially if the above drivel came from it.)

Inked, I know you like those websites and it's nothing personal, but I'm not going to waste time reading misinformed crap when I have to read the St'at'imc Nation land use plan and part of the Squamish plan for Monday.

[Drgnslyer]

Great points Nurv!

I saw an ad today from the Liberals...mentioning that harper was saying that he would have to either raise taxes, or run a defecit to maintain all of his election promises *military spending and whatnot among those*

the ad then states:

"wow....he isn't even elected yet.....and he's already running a defecit?!?"


I had a good little laugh about it...looks like the Liberals are going for a big push at the end like they did last election...keep in mind, the conservatives were in the lead last time around, and the liberals took it in the homestretch...infact this tatic can work well...at this point most people are just sick of hearing conservative propoganda, it's almost refreshing to hear liberal propoganda, and so close to voting day, it could play in their favor!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Drgnslyer

Great points Nurv!

I saw an ad today from the Liberals...mentioning that harper was saying that he would have to either raise taxes, or run a defecit to maintain all of his election promises *military spending and whatnot among those*

the ad then states:

"wow....he isn't even elected yet.....and he's already running a defecit?!?"

Hee. This ad sounds marginally better than the rest of their campaign ads. No party has impressed me in that department. (Though I have had some laughs at both the Conservative and Liberal ads, but only because they were stupid.) I should probably stop complaining about dumb ads now. I'm done now. Really.

Harper does have a lot of expensive projects in mind. I think that most of them aren't worth the cost. The NDP, if you crunched the numbers, would probably run a defecit too. That is part of the reason I never thought I'd vote for them (and the union thing bugged me, but I'm cool with that now). However, almost all the programs they suggest I think are fantastic ideas.

Some NDP programs are one time deals like the $400 million that would come to BC for the pine beetle. We'll only need that once, thank goodness. I note Harper would give us $100 million over ten years. The Liberal government already promised us some money, but they didn't put that in their platform as far as I can tell. Maybe because they promised us before the election? The Green party would probably tell us to screw us and our forest industry, we get nothing. Okay, that last bit is bitterness over the Green's clearcut policy talking. (I wanted to vote for them and they broke my heart. )

I would actually like to see the number crunching on this one. They probably just added up the expense of the projects for one year and took it off this year's government revenue. That would make sense.

Originally Posted by Drgnslyer

I had a good little laugh about it...looks like the Liberals are going for a big push at the end like they did last election...keep in mind, the conservatives were in the lead last time around, and the liberals took it in the homestretch...infact this tatic can work well...at this point most people are just sick of hearing conservative propoganda, it's almost refreshing to hear liberal propoganda, and so close to voting day, it could play in their favor!

If the Liberals want to win, they had better push way more effectively than they did last time, because they barely scraped by last time, and they are much less popular now. Don't let me down Liberals! Let's see the Conservatives come third! NDP Opposition and Liberal government! Woo!

I'd like to see the Liberals win another minority government, and then make a lot of comprimises with the NDP so that the NDP prop them up for 4 years until the next election. That would be rad. Imagine Liberal economy-boosting and budgeting powers combined with NDP social and environmental policy! It would be awesome!

Plus, if Harper does poorly in this election, he will probably lose the leadership. Harper is an effective leader, so this will weaken the Conservatives. Maybe Peter McKay would be elected leader in this event. IIRC he's Conservative but pro-gay. If that's so, I'd love to see him leader! That would be awesome!

I'm really excited about the election.

[inked]

Nurv,

It is incumbent upon incumbents or their challengers to someone only in opposition to America? I had no idea the Canadian identity crisis was so problematic.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...149365,00.html

Sounds as though the Liberals are desperate - manufacturing right wing imaginations for TV ads. A genuine American touch that, as the Tories rightly observed.

Ah, Canada!

[Nurvingiel]

"We do know he's very popular with right-wingers in the U.S. They have money. Maybe they helped?"

Aren't political ads terrible? That's one heck of a specious argument.

So when strategists for the ruling Liberal Party unveiled 12 schlock-horror ads last week, three of which linked Harper to "right-wingers in the U.S." (read: the Bush Administration), they may have thought they had pulled off a political masterstroke. Never mind that the charges are at best misleading. This is election time in Canada, and truth gets as much respect as a mouse cornered by a hungry cat.

Awesome. I have no faith whatsoever in any of the "facts" put forth in any political ads. There are plenty of actual, truthful reasons you can find to vote, or not vote, for a party. What's disappointing about this particular series of ads is the Liberals could be saying why we should vote for them by citing, say, what they've done to reduce the defecit. Instead, they're reduced to making things up about Harper in an attempt to discredit him. Lame. The Conservative ads are equally weak IMO.

But Canada may not be quite what it used to be. Polls indicate that despite the anti-U.S. attacks, Conservatives are likely to be the big winners in the Jan. 23 federal vote. That would make Harper, 46, Canada's first Conservative Prime Minister since 1993.

That's true, the Conservatives are favoured in the polls right now. The pre-election polls don't always get it right - last year it was predicted to be a Conservative landslide before the election, but the Liberals won a minority government. I suspect that if the Conservatives win this election, it will also be a minority government.

While he originally supported the Iraq war and promotes such traditional Tory issues as tax cuts and a tougher stance on crime, he is also pushing such centrist initiatives as tax credits for people who buy mass-transit passes. Harper has vowed to revisit the issue of same-sex marriage, which is now legal in Canada, by putting it to a vote in Parliament, but he has promised not to touch abortion rights.

If a law enacted by Parliment is found to be against the Charter, it would be overturned. Just sayin'.
Tax credits sound all awesome, but they really just subtract from your taxable income. You get a bit of money, but meh. I mean, I'll take it, but I'd rather see mass transit subsidised.
I think Harper's best idea was a secret ballot in Parlimentary votes. I think there's a lot of merit to that. (That being said, I'll probably not vote for them. )

Interesting article Inked, thanks for posting. Who do you like best in the election?

[inked]

Nurv, why the conservative, of course!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Nurv, why the conservative, of course!

Oh yeah.
Harper's running an effective campaign. It looks like he learned from his mistakes in the last election (much to my disappointment ).

Jack Layton was interviewed in the Xtra West (Vancouver's Gay and Lesbian Newspaper). The article is here. I was impressed to learn that Layton has been advocating gay rights since 1976! Another reason for me to vote NDP. (I'm still undecided.)

[inked]

Hey, there is hope for Canada, Nurv! Lookie here...

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jan/06011809.html

The question is, "Should elected officials be required to take classes staffed by Fudge and/ Umbridge?"

[Nurvingiel]

I have made this double-post magically disappear.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, there is hope for Canada, Nurv! Lookie here...

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jan/06011809.html

The question is, "Should elected officials be required to take classes staffed by Fudge and/ Umbridge?"

That is so cool!

Odd that in the article, the real school of mystical studies for adults only is compared to a fictional school modeled after the British educational system for children, and thus, they have almost nothing in common, but never mind that.
(And I think Umbridge should be forced to take Firenze's class. )

In other news...


The results are in!

We have elected Stephen Harper as Canada's 22nd Prime Minister, leader of the Conservative minority government. He's also Canada's 5th youngest Prime Minister (Joe Clark was the youngest).

I'm suppressing all the references to the military I noticed in Harper's speech, as well as his comment about "we will reform our justice system to make it stronger." His closing statement, "God bless Canada," is too much like, "God bless America," for my taste. *repress repress*

There could be positive effects of this government, so for now I will focus on the positive, such as Harper's declaration: "Canada. Strong, united, independent, and free!" He also said he would operate the government as the minority that it is, and acknowledged the other parties. This suggests he will be ready to comprimise. He said as well that he will be working for all Canadians, those who voted for him and those who did not. (Anything not in quotations is paraphrased.)

Seats:
Conservative - 124
Liberal - 103
Bloc Québécois - 51
NDP - 29
Independent - 1
Green - 0

Percent of popular vote:
Conservative - 36.3
Liberal - 30.1
Bloc Québécois - 10.5
NDP - 17.5
Independent - 1.1
Green - 4.5

Change in percent vote from the 2004 election:
Conservative - +6.7
Liberal - -6.5
Bloc Québécois - -1.9
NDP - +1.8
Independent - (not given, but I don't think any independent candidates were elected last time)
Green - (went up by a small amount I think)

These numbers make it look like the NDP took Bloc votes and the Conservatives took Liberal votes, and while this did happen, the relationship is more complicated. There was a shift of votes between all the parties.


Paul Martin resigned as the Leader of the Liberal Party. He won his seat, so he will enter the House as a Member of Parliment. However, he won't be the leader of the Official Opposition. The government probably won't get underway until April, so maybe the Liberals will have elected a new leader. I'm sorry to see Martin go as leader, but the panelists (and Martin) felt it was best for the party. Had their positions been reversed, Harper would have probably done the same.

Olivia Chow and Jack Layton both won their seats, making them the second married couple to be elected. (The first were the Greysons [I think], in the last election.)

I have a few more notes from the coverage, but that's all the major points.

Someone wrote in to Rex Murphy (one of the CBC panelists) that he wants to make a bumper sticket that says, "Don't blame me, I voted Liberal." Hee.

Thoughts? Comments? Questions?

[The Gaffer]

So, a minority government. With whom will he make alliance?

[Nurvingiel]

I bet the Conservatives will make an alliance with the Bloc Québécois. However, the NDP and especially the Liberals all have a significant number of seats as well. The Globe and Mail described it as a "pizza parliment". Hee. (Unfortunately there were no newspapers left when I went out to buy one. I really wanted to read that paper today. )

The panelists on election night said no one really has the balance of power. But from what I can tell, the Bloc has that balance (but only just). If the Conservatives can get them all on board, the two parties together will have 155 seats, which is the majority (by 1).

I think that Harper will make comprimises with all the parties so he can get things done with more than just scraping by in each vote. He hinted that he would do this in his speech after he won the election.

I think the real challenge will be budget time. Will the Conservatives be able to convice the other parties (none of whom support it at the moment) to agree to cutting the GST to 6% (it would be 6% in the upcoming budget, and down to 5% later)? Will they agree to the amounts he desires for increased military spending? I suspect the more fiscally conservative parties will force him to temper those promises a bit. In the case of the NDP, they are as fiscally liberal (< correct term?) as the Conservatives, they would just rather spend their money elsewhere. It's kind of ironic that the Conservatives aren't fiscally conservative.

I hope that the Liberals push for their tuition promise in one of the comprimises. Had they formed the government, they would have given post secondary students $3000 in their first year for tuition, and $3000 in their last year. Talk about directly combatting student debt!

[hectorberlioz]

Stephen Harper looks coservative compared with your Canadian liberals Nurvvy, but I guess he doesn't want to upset the "Law of the Land" on the gay marriage and abortion issues. I'm conservative and I wish he would try to, but it's not my country. The only issue that I really pray he'll address is the one that prevents opposers of abortion and gay marriage from protesting.
In England they were going to pass a bill that prevented people from hate-talking about christians, (apperantly it was that bad), but I don't think it ever made it through.

I'd better not hope for too much, but in France it's very possible that a conservative will be elected soon (not necessarily in the next or the one after...). I read about this guy Jean-marie Le Pen, and he very well might be very powerful politically in pushing for a more conservative France. His main issue is migration. I think he'd vie for something like Tony Blair did after the attacks in London, export the radicals.

[The Gaffer]

Chirac is a conservative. Le Pen is an extremist whose campaigns have been almost solely based on race and immigration and have plugged into a quite strong and vocal racialist element in some parts of French society. In the last French Presidential election, Le Pen shocked everyone by coming second in the first ballot, which meant that he ran off against Chirac. As a result, everyone, including socialists, voted for Chirac so that Le Pen wouldn't get in.

Le Pen will never be French president.

"Hate talking" about Christians is not that bad here, either. The proposal was to ban "incitement to religious hatred" (we already have a law that bans "incitement to racial hatred'). It ran into the inevitable semantic quagmire, fortunately.

The main motivation was equality. Under our current laws, it is illegal to make anti-Jewish statements (because they qualify under the racial laws) but you can say what you like about Muslims (because that's a religion).

However, 'tis deeply flawed in my view and was nailed in the House of Lords, thankfully.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Stephen Harper looks coservative compared with your Canadian liberals Nurvvy, but I guess he doesn't want to upset the "Law of the Land" on the gay marriage and abortion issues. I'm conservative and I wish he would try to, but it's not my country. The only issue that I really pray he'll address is the one that prevents opposers of abortion and gay marriage from protesting.

The Conservatives are indeed more conservative than the Liberals. They're "right", the Liberals are "centrist", and the NDP is "left". I don't really know what the Green are doing. I don't think they really qualify as "left". I'm not quite sure where the Bloc Québécois stand (aside from wanting to separate) but I'd guess "centrist".

I'm pretty sure people are allowed to protest anything. However, there are rules against discrimination. If someone wanted to protest Chinese people immigrating to Canada, they wouldn't be allowed to because that's racial discrimination, not because you are banned from protesting certain things necessarily. Similarly, protesting gay marriage could be considered discrimination. (There is a tiny bit of wiggle room, but I personally think it is discrimination.)
I'm pretty sure anti-gay marriage protests have been held in Canada.

Abortion is something you're allowed to protest, because doing so is not discriminitory. I believe there are some rules about the distance you have to be away from an abortion clinic.

There was some controversy over the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) displays that took place on the UBC campus a couple years ago. GAP is a group who protests abortion. The display had very graphic images of aborted fetuses, and likened abortion to genocide. They passed out pamphlets with their views on abortion and why it should not be legal.
A pro abortion group held a protest near them, handing out leaflets of why they think abortion should be legal. The two groups were separated by a 5m wide lane marked with yellow tape. Campus security looked on. Both protests were completely peaceful.

I don't think Harper has any plans at all to change rules around protesting. He mentioned that addressing gay marriage is also not one of his government's priorities. He has enough problems trying to keep his minority government afloat! He has even more work cut out for him than the Liberals did last time, because the Conservatives have less seats.

While I'm sorry the Liberals didn't win (their platform appealed to me, and I wanted our local Liberal candidate to be in the government), I am prepared to give Harper and the Conservatives a chance. I feel more open-minded about them, because why not, it's not like I want to go to the polls any time soon.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

His main issue is migration. I think he'd vie for something like Tony Blair did after the attacks in London, export the radicals.

If the radicals are Brits, what did Blair do, dump 'em in the Thames? (Cookies to whoever gets the reference.)
But seriously, I am wondering where you export (deport?) someone who is your own citizen.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

"Hate talking" about Christians is not that bad here, either. The proposal was to ban "incitement to religious hatred" (we already have a law that bans "incitement to racial hatred'). It ran into the inevitable semantic quagmire, fortunately.

What specifically did you not like about banning "incitement to religiuos hatred"? It sounds like a good idea to me. I'm glad that there isn't a lot of hate talking against Christians, I hope this extends to other religions as well.

[The Gaffer]

Well, originally I was in favour of it because of the increasing amount of, particularly anti-Muslim (note: not anti-Christian) sentiment flying around. Muslims also made a point that they are not protected in the same way as Jews (under race legislation) and Christians (under our existing, ancient blasphemy laws).

However, on reflection I thought that it would, in practice, open up a huge can of worms around interpretation (do Druids count? what about Jedi Knights? and what if you are criticising a religion's particular stance on, say, the treatment of women? what if you are satirising it? when does it become "incitement to hatred").

The religious crowd didn't do themselves any favours by mounting ridiculous campaigns against, for example, Jerry Springer the Opera while all this was being debated. This highlighted how any such law could very easily become a fundamentalist/extremist/nutter's mandate.

Finally, these fights tend to be played out in odd places, particularly in the arts and media. The last time the blasphemy law was used was against an underground hippie newspaper in the 60s. So, it seemed that the very areas where we most want to safeguard our freedom of expression were the areas that would be most likely to suffer from it.

Back on topic, how does it work in the Canadian parliament? Does the official opposition always vote against Government proposals, as they generally do here, meaning that the one seat majority is all-important?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Chirac is a conservative. Le Pen is an extremist whose campaigns have been almost solely based on race and immigration and have plugged into a quite strong and vocal racialist element in some parts of French society. In the last French Presidential election, Le Pen shocked everyone by coming second in the first ballot, which meant that he ran off against Chirac. As a result, everyone, including socialists, voted for Chirac so that Le Pen wouldn't get in.

Chirac is conservative? On the ballot maybe.
But otherwise, what you've said, I didn't know, but I guess it's not surprising that Le Pen is (or is considered) extremist over there. Anymore than Chirac is conservative .

Le Pen will never be French president.

With what you've explained, you're probably right...I mean left

"Hate talking" about Christians is not that bad here, either. The proposal was to ban "incitement to religious hatred" (we already have a law that bans "incitement to racial hatred'). It ran into the inevitable semantic quagmire, fortunately.

Actually I didn't say I agreed with the proposal. In fact, I don't agree with it for the reasons it was rejected, however uncomfortable it is for christians over there (and don't imagine that I imagine good, meek christians surounded by angry mobs of atheists). But I do disagree with Canada's prohibiting anti-gay marriage protests. (If it was protesting gays themselves that prompted the new law, I'm wrong, and maybe they needed the law.)

The main motivation was equality. Under our current laws, it is illegal to make anti-Jewish statements (because they qualify under the racial laws) but you can say what you like about Muslims (because that's a religion).

However, 'tis deeply flawed in my view and was nailed in the House of Lords, thankfully.

Well, I'll get back to you guys soon. I'm bieng kicked off the computer.

[Nurvingiel]

I see what you mean about the incitement to religious hatred thing now. Yikes. Wait a second, you guys have a blasphemy law!? (Well, you could be all "Christians are horrible!" without blaspheming, but still.)

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Back on topic, how does it work in the Canadian parliament? Does the official opposition always vote against Government proposals, as they generally do here, meaning that the one seat majority is all-important?

I'm actually not completely sure how it works. I think the way the opposition votes depends on the situation. If a majority government was passing their budget, I bet the opposition would vote against it. But Stephen Harper knows he has to get his budget passed, so I bet he will make comprimises in the budget with say, the NDP, so that they will also vote for it and pass the budget. The government has to get its budget passed. If not, I think it actually counts as a non-confidence vote (that's what brought down our previous minority government).

With laws and bills, sometimes the other parties agree with it too, even though they aren't in the government. The Opposition and other Members of Parliment are part of the governing process. They are especially important now, with a minority government, because the government needs them to prop them up.

[inked]

Nurv,

I am worried. Given that Canada has a lot of snow and ice built up, now that a conservative has been elected, will those melt and raise the sea level, inundating coastal cities and killing millions if not billions? And, since many Americans think Prs Bush was responsible for Katrina, what is Canada going to do for the world when this event as a result of Canadian political activity brings about the end of the world as we know it? Reparations might mess up the Canadian economy - unless ya'll use the backup funds saved from the American military safety net you have been under for a century!