Canadian Politics

[Nurvingiel]

Alright Canucks, today the Liberals lost a non-confidence vote 133 to 171. The full story is here.

The election will probably be in mid-January. You have the chance to vote for:

• The Bloc Québécois
• The Conservative Party
• The Green Party
• The Liberal Party
• The NDP

Plus an assortment of small parties. However, these five parties are more or less nation-wide.

Do you know who you are going to vote for? Any ideas? Is there anyone you are definitely going to (or not going to) vote for? If so, why?

There are three ways to vote in this country: by party, by candidate, or by leader (and possible PM). You can also spoil your ballot or refuse to vote if you don't like any candidates. (Unfortunately, abstention is not an option on the ballot.)

Which method or combination of methods do you use and why? I am tending towards voting for the party and leader, because it's a lot easier to do reasearch, and I'm thinking more big picture this election. (At the same time, I won't cast my vote for a useless candidate.)

So far I've narrowed down my possible parties that I might vote for. After, I'll eliminate leaders, and if there's still more than one party left, I'll go by candidate.

Already eliminated are:

• The Bloc Québécois - do not have candidates in BC
• The Conservatives - I really wish the old PC was around for me to elect, but sadly, we're stuck with these guys. They are off my list because they are anti gay marriage, and I trust Stephen Harper about as far as I can throw a piano.
• The Green Party - As much as this pains me, I can't vote for the Green Party. I really wanted to, until I read their current policy on forestry. They propose to ban clearcuts. This would be disasterous to BC forestry, and not much better for any other provinces, with the possible exception of the Maritimes. This policy is, as far as I can tell, not based on science*. They also have some rubbish about GMO trees on their site. I'd like to point out that the only country that plants GMO trees is China, so I don't know why the Canadian Green party is wasting their, and my, time.

*There are certainly a number of situations when it's not appropriate to have a clearcut. However, clearcuts are completely appropriate and sustainable in a number of common harvesting situations. I'm quite convinced the Green Party knows jack all about any of this.

I'm sorry for my ranting about the Green Party. I just really wanted to vote for them.

Parties who could still get my vote:

• The Liberals - I like Paul Martin. I think he's intelligent and competant. The Liberals aren't perfect, but they do know how to run a government. However, I have not forgotten the hideous Sponsorship Scandal. The Gomery Report doesn't implicate Paul Martin AFAIK, but I sure do! He was the freaking finance minister. That is the biggest strike against the Liberals in my opinion. They get points for being the government to legalize gay marriage.
• The NDP - I think Jack Layton is a classy guy, and I appreciate his support for gay marriage. I also like the fact that he doesn't just open his mouth to change feet (I'm looking at you Stephen Harper). One thing that might stop me from voting for the NDP is that thing with unions. I need to learn more about this, and I can't access the NDP Constitution without being a member of their site. This "thing" I'm talking about is how I think some union executives automatically have decision-making power in the party. If that's true, I couldn't vote for them. That's just not democracy. I also think unions have too much power in Canada.

So, I'm down to those two parties. I need to research the forestry policies of the NDP and the Liberals to make sure they aren't horrendous like the Green Party's.

What are the important issues for you in this election? Besides forestry, gay marriage, transportation, education, and NAFTA, I will be paying close attention to mud-slinging in this election. If people don't conduct themselves like adults I doubt I'm going to vote for them.

Let's get exciting about voting! You don't have to be a Canuck to join in the election discussion in this thread. This is the Moot, all are welcome.

[Edit: Originally called "Canadian Election: January 2006", but now the election is over, and we've started talking about politics.]

[Nurvingiel]

The election date is set for January 23rd.

Am I the only Canadian posting regularly right now? No one's jazzed about politics? Aren't you Americans curious what your northerly neighbours are up to?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Am I the only Canadian posting regularly right now? No one's jazzed about politics? Aren't you Americans curious what your northerly neighbours are up to?

Perhaps you're the only Entmoot-Canadian who can already vote?

What are clearcuts? Is it when you cut down trees, shrubs and everything in a certain part of the wood? It's not in my dictionary.

[Valandil]

I think a clearcut is taking all the trees on a particular tract of land - as opposed to 'thinning' the area by taking some of the trees and leaving others.

Clearcutting vastly simplifies the logging enterprise.

(and if we think we don't like it, let's think about our demands for wood)

I'm not familiar with the various scientific rationales though. I do think there can be more, and less, responsible ways of harvesting lumber. Mostly, that there be planting to replace the trees taken (something Aldarion took care of in Numenor, but not up the Gwathlo, sadly enough).

Anyway - I just heard on the radio about some hefty corruption in Canadian politics coming to light, but don't know the personalities involved to well or the details.

And hey... what's with this big storm front you guys just sent down here? And must you do it so regularly?

[The Gaffer]

I sympathise with your position, Nurv. I too would like to vote Green (here in UK) but as soon as you look at their actual policies you realise that they are an umbrella organisation for all sorts of nutters. (The deal-breaker for me was a proposed ban on animal testing.)

But that's pretty big news, first time ever a government lost a no-confidence vote. Or it would be, if it wasn't Canada and nobody cares! HA HA HA, just joking. Actually it made the news here, so we're not too parochial it seems.

Looking at the numbers, it seems like you are bound to get a coalition government whatever happens. So, the key question is likely to be who comes third, and therefore holds the balance of power. How are they squaring up?

Unions have a vote in Labour party policy here; I would say don't be put off by that. Union officials are (usually) elected by their membership, and required to represent their interests, which is helluva more democratic than the industry lobbyists who swarm around government and represent people in direct proportion to their wealth.

[The Gaffer]

On a side note, they have been doing clear-cut lately in parts of Scotland, my homeland. I'm sure it is analogous to harvest time in the wheat fields of Oxfordshire, but the end result sure looks like Mordor for years to come.

[Nurvingiel]

I love all you guys for responding! I'm so excited. I'll respond after my Entymology lab exam tomorrow.

You have raised some very interesting points and questions about clearcuts (Val's definition is a good one Eärniel), coalition governments, the Green Party, and all kinds of good stuff.

See you guys later this week! (Possibly Friday.)

Must... resist... Mooting...

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I think a clearcut is taking all the trees on a particular tract of land - as opposed to 'thinning' the area by taking some of the trees and leaving others.

Thanks, I think I know now what the Dutch term is for it. I suppose it would make sense for a green party to ban such a thing (in Belgium clearcuts are regulated by permits and permissions but not banned) but I can see why it would put more strain on the logging economy.

Hey Nurv, notice how we're slowly turning an election thread into a forestry one.

[gollum9630]

man,its has been a long time since i posted.
Anywho, since i can vote now, i figure i will vote conservative. I dont like the liberals, esopecially with the sponsership scandal and everything. How can Paul Martin not know what was going on with the governments money while he was the financial minister. I just dont like NDP and theotehr parties are too fringe for me.

*sidenote*nurv, are u still at UBC. we dont start our exams at SFU untill next wednesday

[Nurvingiel]

Hopefully I can respond to all your lovely posts. *waves to Gollum*

Originally Posted by Valandil

Anyway - I just heard on the radio about some hefty corruption in Canadian politics coming to light, but don't know the personalities involved to well or the details.

Ah, you must be talking about the Sponsorship Scandal. That was about one billion of these -> for all of Canada.
If I recall correctly, there was a federal program to promote unity in Québec (which still has vestiges of seperatism). This program would put various national symbols like the maple leaf in prominent and positive places, like during sports car racing etc. (It was probably originally a better idea than it sounds here.)
The problem was, whoever was in charge of giving the ad grants mismanaged the money to criminal proportions. Millions of dollars were never seen from again, with no results. This was covered up for a while, but when Canadians found out, we were pissed.
At the time of the scandal, Jean Chrétien was Prime Minister, and Paul Martin (now PM) was the Finance Minister. (This is in the Liberal government.)
This is how the Liberals ended up with a minority government in the first place. Stephen Harper's complete incompetence was a big factor in the Conservatives losing the election after the Liberal scandal.

Originally Posted by Valandil

And hey... what's with this big storm front you guys just sent down here? And must you do it so regularly?

We sent you a storm?

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Thanks, I think I know now what the Dutch term is for it. I suppose it would make sense for a green party to ban such a thing (in Belgium clearcuts are regulated by permits and permissions but not banned) but I can see why it would put more strain on the logging economy.

Hey Nurv, notice how we're slowly turning an election thread into a forestry one.

This is the case in Canada as well. With the exception of the Maritime provinces (the eastern 4), most of the land is owned by the government. They don't let people cut trees willy nilly, you have to get a permit which legally requires you to reforest it properly. (This is the case in BC, and I'm quite sure that other provinces have similar situations.) Who can cut timber, and how much, is regulated by the provinces.

Why yes, I did notice this is turning into a forestry thread. (Incidentally, I've bumped "The Environment".) I don't mind, it all started with my rant about the Green Party.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I sympathise with your position, Nurv. I too would like to vote Green (here in UK) but as soon as you look at their actual policies you realise that they are an umbrella organisation for all sorts of nutters. (The deal-breaker for me was a proposed ban on animal testing.)

My beef was impractical environmental policies. Our Green Party attracts a few nutters, but this doesn't bother me at all as long as the policies are based on sound logic and our good for the country. Sadly, this was not to be.
I was looking to the Green Party to be leaders in the environment. I find other parties also have inadequate environmental policies. Unfortunately, the Green Party are not leaders at all. They seem to base their environmental policies on people's feelings. This should be taken into account, but it's part of a whole that must include science, the economy, and the values of all citizens.

Continued...

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

But that's pretty big news, first time ever a government lost a no-confidence vote. Or it would be, if it wasn't Canada and nobody cares! HA HA HA, just joking. Actually it made the news here, so we're not too parochial it seems.

LOL Yes, this is a really big deal. Our last minority government were Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives (who, alas, no longer exist). They lost an election IIRC, rather than losing a non-confidence vote. (I don't know if I got that right, as I didn't exist at the time. )

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Looking at the numbers, it seems like you are bound to get a coalition government whatever happens. So, the key question is likely to be who comes third, and therefore holds the balance of power. How are they squaring up?

It seems that the Liberals and the Conservatives are even closer than they were in the last election. The NDP seems to be doing okay again. (Actually quite well considering they had about two seats two elections ago.)

My dream is this: the Liberals win the election, the Bloc Québécois becomes the Official Opposition, the Conservatives are third or fourth, Jack Layton (NDP leader) wins his seat along with a number of other NDP candidates, and Jim Harris (Green party leader) wins his seat. I want the Green party to do well, because we need someone to argue for the environment (even though I don't agree with them. It makes sense to me).

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Unions have a vote in Labour party policy here; I would say don't be put off by that. Union officials are (usually) elected by their membership, and required to represent their interests, which is helluva more democratic than the industry lobbyists who swarm around government and represent people in direct proportion to their wealth.

That's a good point Gaffer. If anything, that would put me off voting Liberal. The Liberals are good for the economy, but what good is that when one in four (I am not making this up) children in BC live in poverty? This is a tricky one.
However, union representation is just as biased (though more democratic) than the lobyists. It suggests that the party wouldn't represent all constituants equally. I'm not in a union, would I be fairly represented by the NDP?
Why should unions get a vote and not anti-poverty groups, or student associations, or native bands, or another group of Canadian citizens? I feel we should at least attempt to represent all people equally. In practice this doesn't quite work, but we can at least try.

Originally Posted by gollum9630

man,its has been a long time since i posted.
Anywho, since i can vote now, i figure i will vote conservative. I dont like the liberals, esopecially with the sponsership scandal and everything. How can Paul Martin not know what was going on with the governments money while he was the financial minister. I just dont like NDP and theotehr parties are too fringe for me.

I'm glad there's another voting Canadian around here. I hope we can have some great discussions.
I totally agree with you about Paul Martin and the Sponsorship Scandal. As he was the Finance Minister at the time of the scandal he a) was an incompetant finance minister and didn't know about it b) did know about it, and just didn't tell us.
As Martin has demonstrated a great deal of intelligence, I think option B is the only real answer. Why must you make it hard for me to vote for you? Whyyy?

However, I personally find Stephen Harper makes it very, very hard to vote Conservative. (I'm just going to apologize in advance for all the abuse I will no doubt heap upon Stephen Harper. I just want everyone to know, it's not personal. )
Let's take Harper's stance on gay marriage. He was recently quoted in (I think) the National Post as saying he will take gay marriage to a free vote. I can only assume he means a referendum, and simply avoided saying such a loaded word.
This demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and also what Canadians want. The reason gay marriage is legal is because the Supreme courts determined denying couples marriage based on sexuality was descrimination, and in violation of the Charter. The Charter is a document that protects the rights of all Canadians, and therefore laws must be changed to fit the Charter, not the other way around.
If it were otherwise, the Charter would not protect our rights! That includes Harper's right to say he does not agree with gay marriage. Regardless of how people feel about gay marriage (many do not feel it should be a law), most if not all Canadians do not want the Charter touched!
In addition, it is sensibly very difficult to change the Charter. If it really ought to be changed, it would get done, but it's a long and difficult process. Harper makes it sound like a referendum on the issue could overturn current laws. This is so deliberately misleading that he's either lying or incompetent. A referendum most certainly would not overturn freedoms guaranteed in the Charter - just look at how the BC Liberals embarassed themselves with the referendum on the treaty process when they first got elected!

Now, one could easily make the argument that Martin is just as misleading with the Sponsorship scandal (because he must have known what was going on). This is one reason why this is going to be a tough election, and I still don't know who to vote for.

(I realize you already know all that about the Charter and stuff, but I'm directing my rant at the non-Canadian members of this thread too. )

I was a huge fan of the old PCs though. They were socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. That's my kind of party!

Originally Posted by gollum9630

*sidenote*nurv, are u still at UBC. we dont start our exams at SFU untill next wednesday

I am still at UBC! *waves* My first exam is on Wednesday too.


I hope you guys aren't daunted by the incredible length of these posts.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Why yes, I did notice this is turning into a forestry thread. (Incidentally, I've bumped "The Environment".) I don't mind, it all started with my rant about the Green Party.

Interesting to know that your Green Party is a bit like ours. But I'll take that (rant) over to the Environment thread.

But overall it's nice to know that other people's politicians can cause as much embarrassments as ours.

[The Gaffer]

Wow. That Harper bloke sounds like a nasty piece of work. Will there be tactical voting to keep the Conservatives out?

Sorry if I missed it, but what system do you have? Proportional representation?

On the unions, they exist to promote the rights of all workers. If you work, you have already benefitted from unions whether you are a member of one or not. Here in the UK we can thank unions for stuff like having a fixed working week, getting sick pay, paid holidays, equal pay for women, severance pay, not getting fired for no reason, not getting killed or maimed by our unsafe working environment etc etc etc.

That would make them different from a specific interest groups such as anti-poverty campaigners.

Probably seems a bit old-fashioned these days, but IMO it is even more important in a globalised economy to have strong representation of the interests of the workforce.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Interesting to know that your Green Party is a bit like ours. But I'll take that (rant) over to the Environment thread.

But overall it's nice to know that other people's politicians can cause as much embarrassments as ours.

Yes, don't worry, politcians engaging in asshattery is pretty much a universal trait.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Wow. That Harper bloke sounds like a nasty piece of work. Will there be tactical voting to keep the Conservatives out?

We do not like Harperses Precious, he is shifty, we does not trust him, he wants to take the Precious from usssss!

There usually is tactical voting in Canadian elections. For the Conservatives, there isn't so much tactical voting as nobody east of Saskatchewan liking them at all. Aside from one seat in Ontario (won by someone who is now a Liberal), they didn't win a single seat out there last election. I love you Eastern Canada!

There does tend to be tactical voting to try to keep the Liberals out, but that doesn't seem to work all that well. This is, I believe, the fourth consecutive Liberal government. They're just so organized!

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Sorry if I missed it, but what system do you have? Proportional representation?

Our system is a sort of proportional representation hybrid. Israel is true proportional representation. However, in Canada's case, many citizens live in rural areas so proportional representation wouldn't be fair.

I had to look up what our system is called exactly, and the Canadian government website had this to say:

Canada subscribes to a system of responsible government and constitutional monarchy , combined with the features of a federation and parliamentary democracy.

Link It goes on in more detail in the rest of the article if you're curious.

What's the British system called?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

On the unions, they exist to promote the rights of all workers. If you work, you have already benefitted from unions whether you are a member of one or not. Here in the UK we can thank unions for stuff like having a fixed working week, getting sick pay, paid holidays, equal pay for women, severance pay, not getting fired for no reason, not getting killed or maimed by our unsafe working environment etc etc etc.

That would make them different from a specific interest groups such as anti-poverty campaigners.

Probably seems a bit old-fashioned these days, but IMO it is even more important in a globalised economy to have strong representation of the interests of the workforce.

In BC, people are quite polarized about unions. There are a number of very strong unions in the province with very strong support. Some people are very anti-union, perceiving our unions as having too much power. In some ways they do. The provincial government further complicates matters by legislating teachers and nurses back to work almost immediately after they go on strike. This has happened in the two teachers' strikes and nurses' strike that have all taken place within the last five years. As a result, there has been the short term answer of an end to the strike (with some mild money or such thrown at them), but no long term solutions to the problems that caused the strike in the first place.

This has led to what I feel is a sort of militant feeling from unions towards the government. I don't blame them. I'd be pissed if I had a legitimate complaint and the government basically told me to shut the hell up. I think this has caused the unions (and I am generalizing a bit here) to feel like the only way they can open a dialogue with the government is to cause trouble by illegally striking and causing a ruckus. Then, the government's trump card legislation no longer works and they have to negotiate properly. It's all very complicated, and as jobs are on the line sometimes, emotions understandably run high.

I was hesitant to vote NDP which I feel would give the unions more power. Though provincially I think the government has been mishandling recent major strikes, I don't know if giving the unions more power is the answer.
However, maybe this isn't necessarily a terrible thing like I thought before. If the NDP manages to have a half-decent environmental policy (I'm really not asking for much here), then I might be sorely tempted to vote for them. They have a good record of taking care of disadvantaged people; better than the Liberals.

I might have been hasty in writing them off before. I'm glad you gave me a new perspective about the union votes within the NDP Gaffer. I hope my assessment of the unions in BC is somewhat correct. That is what I perceive, but I might be missing some important details or misinterpreting something.

I have worked a few places, and was probably better paid than I would have been without the efforts of unions past and present (not to mention the other great points you brought up). One place I worked was not unionized, and CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees, a catch-all union of there ever was one) really wanted us to join. Most employees didn't join the union because we already got full benefits and more than minimum wage (or they were going to quit soon anyway ). I think one reason those benefits were already in place is they didn't want us to be tempted to join a union.

Sometimes I wish I did, just because we weren't allowed to discuss the union in the break room (!!), but meh, I was quitting soon anyway.

Random factoid: this is our 39th general election.

[Drgnslyer]

*brushes the dust off and looks around*

whew..i'm still hree

Canadian politics...well i suppose any politics is messy business...no offense intended to the people of USA, however their politicians have me laughing everytime an election comes around...steven harper *and his predecessor Stockwell Day* remind me of that approach...stockwell "wetsuit" Day never impressed me, and his religion focused approach is what I feel exactly what politics needs to stay away from.

*May I remind you all..the world is infact round...not flat*

Using religion as a basis for government is IMHO avoidance of genuine issues that a group of people is dealing with. Focusing on gay rights, or rather, the lackthereof, because a book declares it unholy and evil is utter bollocks...and trying to feed on the psyche of people who believe that to be true just to get votes....*shakes head*

Again, this is my opinion, i'm not looking to open a big can of worms here and change the topic of conversation from politics to gay rights...we've already got a massive thread about that...i mention it here because it pertains to the Conservative platform.

Oh...you're asking about the "wetsuit" comment between Stockwell, and his last name Day...

well...speaking of american politics again...back when Mr. Day was running for Prime Minister, he launched a massive TV campaign about how he was a family man, who went to church, and had a dog, and kids, and they were all nice and prim and proper....and then there was this commercial with him playing around on a sea-do/wave runner, and walking up the beach wearing this wetsuit, and a **** eating grin on his face...*hangs head* This was IMHO a low point in canadian politics...oh...and I almost forgot to mention how during a nationally broadcasted debate between the four major party leaders *Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Bloc* he stepped out (yes, out from behind his podium, where they're supposed to stand..and stay) to face Jean Cretien and proceeded to make guns with his hands (like we did when we were 5 years old) and pretend to shoot him!

I consider Stephen Harper our "junior wetsuit*, especially considering the picture of him in Parliment giving a -thumbs up- to his family with a massive **** eating grin on his face, right after finishing the non confidence vote, forcing us to have another election (second one in 17 months) right in the middle of christmas season...

The Liberals...well I'm a fan of them, believe it or not...I'm thinking the school may still be out on Paul Martin..." I didn't know what was going on" during the scandal....considering he was the finance minister at the time...*shakes head* his biggest strike against him. I was always a Jean Cretien fan, I loved his style, and in his time as Prime Minister he did a ton of good for Canada, including all but eliminating our once gargantuan debt.

I'm willing to give Paul Martin another go, and I do have faith in his ability to lead this country.

I'd like to see the NDP become the official oposition...Jack Layton himself has always impressed me, and although I'd like to see what he could do as PM, I'd like to see how effective he'd be as an official oposition leader...he's been doing great with that already being "in fourth place"

I've never really enjoyed listening to the Bloc's platform...not sure why I'd want a seperatist party running the country...but I'd rather them have more seats than the conservatives, instead of the other way around.


***end rant***

[Drgnslyer]

sorry...double post...

[gollum9630]

has the NDP ever won a federal election? In my high school social studies class I remember seeing a chart and I dont really remember seeing the NDP on it. It was always Liberals or conservatives (and their predecesors(sp?))

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What's the British system called?

Constitutional monarchy, which doesn't tell you much. In general elections, people vote for a person who represents their area, or constituency. That person is usually a member of a political party. Whichever party has more than half of the available constituency seats (635 IIRC) gets to form the government. Although in practice people vote along party lines, sometimes local politics intervene. Formally, the Queen invites the leader of the victorious party to form a government.

Informally, this is known as a "first past the post" system, because it's winner take all. Coalition governments are very rare. Much of Europe has some sort of proportional representation (i.e. you get seats in parliament in proportion to how many votes you get overall) and as a result there are more coalitions. Some say this is better (a party might come third in every seat but end up with no MPs and therefore no say at all), some say it's worse (hamstrung government).

I guess you have a federal system in which the provinces have a lot of autonomy. How much power does the federal government have?

Of course, we share the same Head of State. IIRC (again) you got rid of the Privy Council as your highest court of appeal fairly recently, so I wondered what ties remain to Liz. Does she (or her representative, Governor General in Australia, is there one in Canada?) have a role in forming the government?

EDIT: drgnslr, your descriptions of ****eating cracked me up. Sounds like Bliar.

[Drgnslyer]

hahaha...thanks gaffer.

We have the governer general, however as to that position's specific job...I honestly don't really know apart from handing out merit awards/medals...the biggest area of canadian politics that I'm guilty of not knowing enough about IMHO.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by gollum9630

has the NDP ever won a federal election? In my high school social studies class I remember seeing a chart and I dont really remember seeing the NDP on it. It was always Liberals or conservatives (and their predecesors(sp?))

I don't believe the NDP has ever formed the government. The Conservatives' predecessors are the Progressive Conservatives aka the Tories. (The new Conservaties are techincally called the Tories too.)

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Informally, this is known as a "first past the post" system, because it's winner take all. Coalition governments are very rare. Much of Europe has some sort of proportional representation (i.e. you get seats in parliament in proportion to how many votes you get overall) and as a result there are more coalitions. Some say this is better (a party might come third in every seat but end up with no MPs and therefore no say at all), some say it's worse (hamstrung government).

Our system is also "first past the post". But I don't think the alliance between the NDP and the Liberals hamstrung them. (It wasn't technically a coalition government, but they agreed to work together.) Both parties had to make comprimises to get what they wanted, but since Canadians elected a minority government, that's what we wanted too. The Liberals did get a lot done in their one and a half years in government.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I guess you have a federal system in which the provinces have a lot of autonomy. How much power does the federal government have?

Provinces do have autonomy, but not as much as American states. Provinces get money from the federal government as well. Fisheries laws are federal, as well as a number of other laws. I think criminal justice is federal as well. The federal government has a fair amount of power. They also get to impose the goods and services tax (GST) on us (7%).

Stephen Harper says he'll cut the GST to 5% if he's elected. I'm not completely sure this is a good idea, but I am glad he's not going to spend the whole election saying the Liberals engage in "organized crime" and making false promises about gay marriage.

I went for a really long walk today, and got thinking about what I want in the election. (Besides my dream of the Bloc forming the Opposition.) I want a socially just government, so the NDP are really looking more and more attractive (even though I'm not totally sold on the union thing).

I'm also not ready to give up on the Green Party just yet. I found out more about the party. The part of their website where I found the "ban clearcuts" policy was on their Living Platform. This is not official policy, it's policy ideas build by consensus of the website members (I joined). The party leaders will consider the ideas for future platforms.

Right now, the official platform is Platform 2004, which (as far as I can tell) is this. This website is almost as hard to navigate as the UBC website, and that's saying something. Where in the $*%@ is their detailed, official platform?! I remember some of their platform from 2004, and it's not on this short page. Can you guys help me find the detailed platform?
I might send them an email about this.

My vote for the Green Party, at the moment, hinges on their environmental policies, especially forestry.

Originally Posted by Drgnslyer

hahaha...thanks gaffer.

We have the governer general, however as to that position's specific job...I honestly don't really know apart from handing out merit awards/medals...the biggest area of canadian politics that I'm guilty of not knowing enough about IMHO.

The Governor General also disolves parliment, upon request of the Prime Mininster, before an election.

We used to need the GG to sign new laws to put them into effect, until an incident where Lord Byng (GG at the time) refused to sign one. Then the parliment took this power away from the GG and signed the law themselves. Now the GG has a largely ambassadorial function, but if we got rid of this position, we'd have to change our whole system of government. (We too, are technically a constitutional monarchy.)