Dissolution.
May 10, 2005 4:47 PM   Subscribe

No confidence vote in the Canadian house of commons passes, 153 to 150. [mi]
posted by shepd (84 comments total)
 
While normally a vote of no confidence causes the Prime Minister to resign and forces an election, it is expected the ruling Liberal party will instead ignore the vote of no confidence, leaving the Governor General (Queen's Advocate) in the unenviable position of either choosing to forcibly remove the Prime Minister from office, or choosing to ignore the majority decision of elected members of parliament.
posted by shepd at 4:47 PM on May 10, 2005


thanks for being impartial, newsfilter post!

Liberal House Leader Tony Valeri called Tuesday's motion — which asks the public accounts committee to rewrite a report so that it calls on the government to resign — “procedural” and said the government would remain in power until the Opposition mounted a valid confidence vote.
posted by blacklite at 4:55 PM on May 10, 2005


Hey, it's good to see that governments other than our own are perfectly capable of doing stupid shit. Stupid stupid stupid. Step down, dumbass.
posted by graventy at 4:58 PM on May 10, 2005


What would count as a "valid confidence vote"?
posted by bshort at 4:59 PM on May 10, 2005


Tuesday's motion passed by a razor-thin margin, with 153 MPs — representing a union of Conservatives and members of the Bloc Québécois — voting in favour, while 150 voted against it.

The Conservatives think they can take the position? What if an election is held and Liberal wins again? (and what happens to same-sex marriage?)
posted by amberglow at 5:02 PM on May 10, 2005


Does anyone know on what possible grounds the Liberals could ignore this vote? If that's even a possibility, the whole idea of non-confidence votes must never have been enshrined in Canadian law; but from a practical perspective I've never heard anyone suggest until now that losing a non-confidence vote could mean anything but the end of the government.
posted by louigi at 5:06 PM on May 10, 2005


Damn. Parliamentary systems are WAAAAY more fun. We are really missing out.
posted by tkchrist at 5:07 PM on May 10, 2005


Does anyone know on what possible grounds the Liberals could ignore this vote?

I think that a confidence vote is supposed to say that the government has lost the confidence of the House and should therefore resign. This vote is to ask a committee to recommend that the government resign.

I know that the government can intentionally turn any motion into a vote of confidence in order to flex its muscle (or test the waters or demonstrate accountability) but I wasn't aware that the House could do so without explicitly calling for resignation. I could be wrong, though.
posted by dreamsign at 5:14 PM on May 10, 2005


So does this mean Senator Palpatine takes over as Prime Minister in his stead?
posted by shmegegge at 5:15 PM on May 10, 2005


Does anyone know on what possible grounds the Liberals could ignore this vote?

It doesn't involve money.
posted by docgonzo at 5:16 PM on May 10, 2005


What would count as a "valid confidence vote"?

The classic "no confidence" motion says, in more or less so many words, "resolved, this house has no confidence in the government of Prime Minister ________". There's a good Wikipedia article on the subject.

So does this mean Senator Palpatine takes over as Prime Minister in his stead?

Only if Jar-Jar so moves.
posted by Zonker at 5:17 PM on May 10, 2005


The hell with that- I'm gonna kick back and watch the chaos ensue, with buttered popcorn, beer, and my comfy lawnchair.
posted by id at 5:20 PM on May 10, 2005


Bush: Dang. Looks like I'm gonna hafta rememberize a NOTHER Canada prime mister!
posted by longsleeves at 5:24 PM on May 10, 2005


As has now been mentioned, this is not what one would traditionally consider a "non confidence vote". Perhaps the post was prepared in haste - not unlike this choice section of the article:

Earlier in the day, Conservative Deputy Leader Peter MacKay said the failure of a the Liberal minority government to recognize a successful vote calling for its resignation would mark a new low in Canadian political history.

“Well, I think that that will be, perhaps, one of the lowest points in Canadian history,” Mr. MacKay told CBC Newsworld.

“If we see a government so desperate, so self-motivated, and clinging to power and ignore the democratic will of the house of commons, I think we would have hit a new low point in our Canadian history.”


When you are done fearing for Canadian history, you may prefer the CBC's take on this (it has less rambling, at least).
posted by warcode at 5:29 PM on May 10, 2005


So does this mean Senator Palpatine takes over as Prime Minister in his stead?

Only if Jar-Jar so moves.


"Meesa no like the Prime Minister," said MP Binks. The pseudo-Rastafarian has surprising clout in the Bloc Quebecois, the Toronto Star reported.
posted by jonp72 at 5:32 PM on May 10, 2005


This is so silly. I mean, the Liberals are being complete jackasses, but why don't the conservatives just put up a serious, no-ifs-ands-or-buts confidence motion here? Not a "We recommend that such and such subcomittee recommend that the government consider resigning" motion, but a flat out "The house has no confidence in this government and demands that it resign" motion. That would pretty much make it impossible for the Liberals to spin it any other way, and then we could stop worrying about how the Liberals wasted all kinds of money, and instead start worrying about how the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT is wasting all kinds of money on an annual election process because nobody believes in any of them.
posted by antifuse at 5:34 PM on May 10, 2005


“Well, I think that that will be, perhaps, one of the lowest points in Canadian history,” Mr. MacKay told CBC Newsworld.

As low as promising not to merge your Progressive Conservative Party with the Reform Party --in writing-- in order to win the PC's leadership vote and then doing exactly that, just days later, Peter?

I knew Elmer MacKay, and you're no Elmer MacKay.
posted by docgonzo at 5:34 PM on May 10, 2005


OK... It either WAS a no-confidence vote, or it was not.

Which was it? Any Canadian friends want to explain it to the ignorant Americans? How can something as (I thought) simple as that be a matter of opinion?
posted by InnocentBystander at 5:38 PM on May 10, 2005


but why don't the conservatives just put up a serious, no-ifs-ands-or-buts confidence motion here?

Because opposition parties have very limited opportunities to introduce legislation/motions to the House of Commons and the Liberals are gaming the system to put off those opportunities.

The more Paulie Walnuts &co can push any potential election into summer-BBQ-slow-pitch season, the more traction their inevitable political message of "the Tories want to force an election on the Canadian population; we just want to govern" will have with M. et Mme. Six Pack.
posted by docgonzo at 5:38 PM on May 10, 2005


Amberglow:

If the House dissolves and an election is called, as seems likely sometime later this month, the same-sex malegislation currently before Parliament dies. If the Conservatives are elected, the bill would not be reintroduced.

However the same-sex marriages which are taking place in most of the country at the moment are as a result of court decisions and will continue unless the new government passes a bill which says they are banned notwithstanding the charter of rights.

This is our parliamentary nuclear option and I see it as unlikely.

If the Liberals are re-elected in a parliamentary minority then we're back to square one, with nothing preventing this whole mess from happening again except hopefully some good sense from the Conservative side of the house.
posted by bowline at 5:45 PM on May 10, 2005


This is our parliamentary nuclear option and I see it as unlikely.

That is exactly right. What is driving the issue is not the government legislation but: the broad-based, national acceptance of homosexuality; the demand of queer activists that only full marriage rights are acceptable; and court decisions continually reaffirming that anything less than full marriage rights violate the equality provisions of the Charter.

The Conservatives may win this battle. But they will lose the war -- just as they've lost over the recognition of Quebec; abortion rights; women's equality and any other social issue you'd care to mention.
posted by docgonzo at 5:56 PM on May 10, 2005


All independent assessments by experts in parliamentary procedure have concluded that this motion does not count as a vote of No Confidence. I know it sounds confusing but this vote was a procedural motion that was tacked on to an unrelated bill in some sub-committee.

Nevertheless, the opposition is being shrewd in exploiting this tactic. No legal weight whatsoever but a hard political blow to the government of the day.

A real vote of no confidence would be a defeat of the budget or a motion of no confidence submitted by the parties in opposition. The Conservative party has an opportunity to present such a motion during an "Opposition Day", where opposition parties are allowed to intiate motions and even introduce legislation in the House.

However, the Liberals have deliberately booked the Opposition Days at the end of the month. Basically, they're stalling.

Behind all this are some tactical considerations: the opposition parties can band together to vote against the budget and thus cause the government to fall. But the Conservative party does not want to have to deal with what is sure to be the Liberal refrain during such an election "The Canadian people did not want an election; they wanted the political parties to work together to provide government. The Conservatives have voted against a budget that they were involved in crafting and have thus betrayed your trust in them".

Nor do the Conservatives want to wait until the end of the month. If the government falls at the end of May, an election must be called within 30 days (or so). That means that campaigning would begin at the beginning of June and voting would occur when everyone would rather be drinking beer by the lake.

The Liberals, meanwhile, are playing a tough game: they have to stall the election as long as possible, preferably while making the Conservatives look foolish, but without opening themselves up to (facile, but still resonant) accusations of being arrogant or anti-democratic.

In my view, the only parties that come out of this looking good are the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois.
posted by bumpkin at 5:59 PM on May 10, 2005


That's not the way it works in the Canadian system. The liberals are not gaming the system. The other parties get specific days when they control the agenda. You can definitely expect a real challenge then.

The current vote is what the liberals are calling it...trivial. There are certain things, such as a budget, that are considered confidence votes and those are where a governing party's defeat would trigger an election.

Part of the issue is that a couple of Liberals were out of town or jetlagged over the weekend for VE day events in Europe. I suspect with a full turnout and the support of the NDP they will withstand any serious votes because some members of the Bloc or Conservatives will balk or be bought off. After all they are gambling with their own already won seats.

They did this vote knowing it was just showboating and they tweaked the liberals...It will be interesting to see what happens in the polls once people think there will actually be an election..
posted by srboisvert at 6:05 PM on May 10, 2005


When you are done fearing for Canadian history, you may prefer the CBC's take on this (it has less rambling, at least).
posted by warcode at 5:29 PM PST on May 10 [!]


shepd is to the cbc as water is to oil...
posted by jikel_morten at 6:08 PM on May 10, 2005


The proper thing to do now for the party of Government is to call for a Motion of Confidence. Otherwise you just look shifty and weak.
posted by meehawl at 6:16 PM on May 10, 2005


I think the Bloc really fucked-up on this one. I cannot imagine any reason, other than perhaps a separatist bent (that Duceppe has seemingly been playing down in the past few months) why they would throw in with Harper and his corporate pimps.

Every time I see that swarmy SOB I just want to slap him. As others have said in past threads, if the Conservatives ever win a majority government, I'm out of here. There's no way in hell I'm going to live in the 51st state.
posted by purephase at 6:18 PM on May 10, 2005


So when a MeFi writeup is factually incorrect (it was not a no confidence vote and there has been no dissolution), shouldn't the story be deleted?

This isn't merely a case of shepd holding an opinion which may or may not be unpopular; it is factually incorrect.
posted by solid-one-love at 6:23 PM on May 10, 2005


I think the Bloc has been playing this one perfectly. This is the scenario I was worrying about at the end of March (when it was looking like the Gomery was finally going to unearth some real dirt).

* Gomery hits some real dirt: government money taking a not - so - circuitious route into Liberal party coffers.

* General outrage and posturing. Bla bla woof woof. Bloc is particularly indignant, capturing the mood of most Quebecois perfectly.

* Government falls.

* Liberals get re-elected or not; what is certain is that they take a hit in Quebec. Bloc rides high; pro-sovereignty movement acquires big boost.

* Provincial Liberal party keeps becoming less and less popular. Next provincial election, the PQ are in.

* Referendum on sovereignty within a year of PQ government.

What galls me is that the Conservatives are content to play their part in inflaming the sovereigntist cause.
posted by bumpkin at 6:33 PM on May 10, 2005


Referendum on sovereignty within a year of PQ government.

Next time a referendum on sovereignty could be called is 2008, and even if the PQ gets in, the youth vote is increasingly anti-separation. I don't see any referendum being more successful than the last one.

What galls me is that the Conservatives are content to play their part in inflaming the sovereigntist cause.

If the Liberals are smart, they'll run pictures of Harper and Duceppe side-by-side on a black background with the slogan "do you want these two to lead your country?" It'd play astoundingly well everywhere in English Canada.

Conservative supporters in the West do not want a Conservative-Bloc alliance. Being very pointed about who would co-rule with Harper would definitely lose the CPC some seats in the West.
posted by solid-one-love at 6:44 PM on May 10, 2005


More on minority governments surviving defeats. From a CBC article (scroll down) referencing Pearson's defeat in the House with a subsequent survival of a confidence vote.
>Pearson managed to get a motion passed that indicated the defeat of the tax bill was not a vote of non-confidence in the government.

> ...government loses a vote of confidence on a major motion in the House of Commons (for example, on the vote to accept a budget).

Some more on Canadian federal minority governments such as Meighan being asked to form a government even though he didn't win an election. Maybe we will see a Martin-Clarkson affair. And maybe John Ralston Saul will donate a trophy to the NHL.
posted by philfromhavelock at 6:49 PM on May 10, 2005


Referendum on sovereignty within a year of PQ government.

As solid-one-love said, the referendum is hardly a done deal. I strongly believe that the Bloc's popularity in Quebec is not because of a sovereigntist bent in the province but because it is a decent party that has actually done some good things for the province. Hell, if I lived there I'd probably vote for them instead of the NDP or Liberals.

I think Duceppe's decision to side with the Conservatives is political suicide since, at this point, Harper has nothing to lose in Quebec due to the extreme unpopularity of the Conservatives in the province. Gilles should be smarter than this.
posted by purephase at 6:55 PM on May 10, 2005


This is just political maneuvering by Conservatives to try to make the Liberals look bad. They will control the agenda at the end of the month and can introduce a proper non-confident motion then, and the government will fall.

My only hope is that the Canadian electorate punish Harper & Duceppe for their unholy union: Conservatives in bed with seperatists, the left-wing Bloc in bed with conservatives. Both of them should pay (not that Martin shouldn't ... I guess that leaves Jack Layton!).
posted by Ardbeg at 7:14 PM on May 10, 2005


Not to be too snarky, but is anyone surprised that an initiative shaped by the Bloc is somewhat less than clear?

I do think the NDP have positioned themselves quite well for an upcoming election, if only because the Liberals can't exactly sling mud at them during an upcoming election campaign the way they can at the Tories. I'll hold out hope for an NDP-Liberal coalition... but I won't hold my breath.
posted by Johnny Assay at 7:48 PM on May 10, 2005


This isn't merely a case of shepd holding an opinion which may or may not be unpopular; it is factually incorrect.

Really, it's bad enough to call it a vote of no confidence without mention of the fact that it's technically not, when the linked article says as much in the second paragraph. I guess it could be argued that it should be considered a matter of confidence, even if the procedural rules seem to indicate that it's not. But on repeating the assertion by linking to the Wikipedia description of a standard "motion of no confidence", implying that that's what this was, makes it a blatant lie. The honorable member of number 10342 has brought shame and dishonour upon this metafilter.

If the Liberals are re-elected in a parliamentary minority then we're back to square one, with nothing preventing this whole mess from happening again ...

Ah, but the odds of getting another 153-153 split, where a motion of confidence or the like is decided at random based on who happens to be out sick that day would be pretty small.
posted by sfenders at 7:59 PM on May 10, 2005


I think Duceppe's decision to side with the Conservatives is political suicide since, at this point, Harper has nothing to lose in Quebec due to the extreme unpopularity of the Conservatives in the province.

Not at all. To the extent that the Conservatives do well in Quebec, the Bloc wins. They aren't going to win any significant number of seats in the province, but in some places they might well take enough Liberal votes away for the Bloc to win. At least, in the one riding I know about it looks pretty likely to go that way.
posted by sfenders at 8:05 PM on May 10, 2005


Ok, so this vote is more rhetorical than consequential. How did the voters line up? There are 308 seats, which means 5 MPs didn't show. Did the independants support the government that has given them enormous influence?. Did any conservatives break rank and actually listen to their constituents, who just want them to govern?

On a side note, I think Harper has played his position in the minority government very poorly. With his numbers, He could have forced Martin into a very conservative-friendly budget. Instead, Harper pushed it too far and got the opposite: a liberal alignment with the NDP. When you think about it, Canadians elected a liberal - conservative alliance. Their refusal to obey the will of the people is disheartening.
posted by Popular Ethics at 8:36 PM on May 10, 2005




There are perfectly valid ways of bringing about a non-confidence vote. This wasn't one of them. British Parliamentary procedures have very strict rules.

Perhaps Harper and Duceppe can splurge and buy a copy of Robert's Rules of Order and educate themselves.

Personally I was considering voting Bloc for the upcoming election, but I'm really not interested in encouraging a party which has apparently given up representing the interests of Quebecers and would instead risk bringing about a reactionary, Bush-arse-kissing Conservative government for the sake of gaining an additional couple of seats in Parliament. It's one thing to be in favor of sovereignty, quite another to "jump-start" a popular vote for independence by putting into power a party which hates Quebec.
posted by clevershark at 8:46 PM on May 10, 2005


bumpkin writes "Referendum on sovereignty within a year of PQ government."

Perhaps, but THAT's not gonna happen for at least another 3 years. The provincial libs have a majority in the Assemblee Nationale (provincial parliament).
posted by clevershark at 8:50 PM on May 10, 2005


I know that the government can intentionally turn any motion into a vote of confidence

Pretty sure only budgetary or loss of supply votes can be used to defeat a government in a no confidence vote. Far as I understand it there are a couple options after a vote of no confidence, one of which doesn't necessarily mean the calling of a general election. The government can be forced to resign and the Governor General can put a new party in power or a general election can be called.

Did any conservatives break rank and actually listen to their constituents, who just want them to govern?

Not here, my MP sent out a flyer requesting input as to whether his constituents wanted an election or not, I don't think he listened.

man what a cluster phuck *goes off and makes a voodoo doll of Preston Manning Steven Harper*
posted by squeak at 9:15 PM on May 10, 2005


Pretty sure only budgetary or loss of supply votes can be used to defeat a government in a no confidence vote. Far as I understand it there are a couple options after a vote of no confidence, one of which doesn't necessarily mean the calling of a general election. The government can be forced to resign and the Governor General can put a new party in power or a general election can be called.

What was meant is that, e.g. right now, the Liberals can declare anything to be a vote of confidence. They haven't. Budgetary/supply votes are votes of confidence without any declaration needed.
posted by blacklite at 9:34 PM on May 10, 2005


What is driving the issue is not the government legislation but: the broad-based, national acceptance of homosexuality

Surveys have shown that the majority of Canadians are, by a slight margin, against gay marriage (but not civil unions) -- noteworthy, though, is the breakdown by age and nationality of birth -- far more younger Canadians are for it, and far more Canadian-born are, too. We have our own conservative elements here.

There's no way to avoid the Charter implications, though, without using the Override. Almost all legal experts agree on that. Whether they act or not, the courts will, and soon. (unlike so many issues where the SCC will not step into public debate -- anything bordering on discrimination on an enumerated or analogous ground is fair game)

This is just political maneuvering by Conservatives to try to make the Liberals look bad.

Blah. If the opposition forces an election, I'll be one of many who punish them for it. Pouncing before the inquiry is through is an intentional attempt to use public opinion against Martin while he's still weak -- and while the full truth is not yet out. While I'm not a fan of the Liberals, we've got worse possibilities, and while I'm uncertain of Martin's innocense, I can see the other leaders clearly enough.
posted by dreamsign at 10:17 PM on May 10, 2005


Sure they can but only two real ways to go about doing it, today wasn't one of them and kinda wasn't my point.

*goes off to find pins for the doll*
posted by squeak at 10:26 PM on May 10, 2005


It's one thing to be in favor of sovereignty, quite another to "jump-start" a popular vote for independence by putting into power a party which hates Quebec.


Unless of course your entire agenda is to drive Quebec out of Canada ......
posted by bowline at 10:39 PM on May 10, 2005


bowline writes " Unless of course your entire agenda is to drive Quebec out of Canada ..."

That premise just doesn't hold for a federal party though. If anything this whole business might well prompt people to ask themselves whether there's really even a place for the Bloc Quebecois at all in Ottawa, because evidently they can't be trusted to represent any interests besides their own. That is, of course, not the way they "sell" the party to voters.
posted by clevershark at 12:59 AM on May 11, 2005


I think the Bloc really fucked-up on this one. I cannot imagine any reason, other than perhaps a separatist bent (that Duceppe has seemingly been playing down in the past few months) why they would throw in with Harper and his corporate pimps.

Luckily you've imagined the actual reason, so you don't need another one. In any case it's obvious that the Conservatives will be totally unable to govern the country under the current electoral system, not to mention that if you think the Liberals are in any way less beholden to corporate pimps than the Conservatives, you are living in a fantasy world. And if you think Duceppe's been downplaying separatism, think again. A quotation from a BQ congress a month or so ago: "Il faut mettre l’accent sur la seule solution viable pour le Québec, soit la souveraineté." (Rough translation: One must emphasize the only viable solution for Quebec, which is sovereignty.) Possibly what you have in mind is the caution that comes with the fact that the PQ has to win the provincial election before they can have a referendum: "Et comme le Parti libéral du Québec de Jean Charest en a encore pour possiblement trois ans au pouvoir, «faire des prédictions sur trois ans, ce serait téméraire», a conclu M. Duceppe."

Here's hoping all this crap leads to a slightly more civilized form of government, ie proportional representation.

Also, a note to the people complaining about this post for the apparent reason that you agree with the Liberals and disagree with the opposition: you are a bunch of pedants. Class dismissed.
posted by paul! at 3:51 AM on May 11, 2005


Also, a note to the people complaining about this post for the apparent reason that you agree with the Liberals and disagree with the opposition: you are a bunch of pedants. Class dismissed.

I should clarify here. The people I'm talking about are those who argue that the post should be deleted because it's "inaccurate."
posted by paul! at 3:56 AM on May 11, 2005


the more traction their inevitable political message...will have with M. et Mme. Six Pack.

They're manipulating the stupid, drunk Francos, eh? Or were you trying to say somehing else by suddenly shifting to French honorifics?

Why does Canada make such a big show of being tolerant when this kind of animosity is just under the surface? Don't ever say another fucking word about the US's bad attitude towards differences, dude.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:53 AM on May 11, 2005


The people I'm talking about are those who argue that the post should be deleted because it's "inaccurate."

That would be exactly one person so far. Not me. It's not so much "inaccurate" as it is willfullly deceptive, but deleting it wouldn't do any good. Wouldn't change the fact that someone was willing to post it, and now someone to defend it. It's got nothing to do with the Liberal or even the Conservative opinion on the subject. Actually I agree with the Conservatives when they say that the PM should now call for a confidence vote. I don't understand why he doesn't. His chances of winning it wouldn't be any worse than in the budget vote that will happen within a week anyway.

They're manipulating the stupid, drunk Francos, eh?

Mayor Curley. ... what the fuck, dude? Are you under the impression that only stupid people drink beer? Si j'utilise quelques mots francais, sans accents parce-que j'suis trop stupide pour les trouves sur ce petit clavier, tu veux m'appele intolerant? Animosity? I don't get it.
posted by sfenders at 6:12 AM on May 11, 2005


I don't think MeFi can handle accents anyway.
posted by blacklite at 6:26 AM on May 11, 2005


Here's hoping all this crap leads to a slightly more civilized form of government, ie proportional representation.

Are you kidding? Proportional representation would consistently give us minority governments like this one. Imagine a future where every reasonable legislation is hijacked by fringe interests in order to secure a few extra votes; where elections are called every 18 months! No thanks!
posted by Popular Ethics at 6:45 AM on May 11, 2005


what the fuck, dude? Are you under the impression that only stupid people drink beer?

No, I'm under the impression that a common anglophone canadian stereotype of francos is that they're alcoholics. So suddenly shifting to "M. et Mme. Six Pack" when French wasn't used previously suggests that these people who the Liberals are manipulating are francos.

I reiterate: We all know that "Joe Six Pack" is slang for "ignorant, pedestrian member of the general public." Why did docgonzo suddenly shift to french when describing this group that the Liberals can control with the waiting game?

I know, I know. If you'll even acknowledge that anti-francophone prejudice existed, you'll claim it's in the past. It's just a coincidence that the theoretical plebe voters are french.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:58 AM on May 11, 2005


I don't care if I wake up tomorrow and see Paul Martin standing naked at the foot of my bed with a machete in one hand and my wallet in the other - I'll still vote for him.

I don't want Canada to turn into a particular Margaret Lawrence novel.
posted by CynicalKnight at 7:22 AM on May 11, 2005


I don't want Canada to turn into a particular Margaret Lawrence novel.

Um, you mean Margaret Atwood, right?
posted by Johnny Assay at 8:07 AM on May 11, 2005


the more traction their inevitable political message...will have with M. et Mme. Six Pack.
posted by docgonzo at 5:38 PM PST on May 10


...

They're manipulating the stupid, drunk Francos, eh? Or were you trying to say somehing else by suddenly shifting to French honorifics?

Why does Canada make such a big show of being tolerant when this kind of animosity is just under the surface? Don't ever say another fucking word about the US's bad attitude towards differences, dude.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:53 AM PST on May 11 [!]

I think you've totally misinterpreted docgonzo here. The six-pack comment is a fairly common, innocuous synonym to John Q. Public, no? I don't think docgonzo was taking a shot at Quebecois here. I could be wrong, and please let me know if I was, docgonzo.
posted by jikel_morten at 8:08 AM on May 11, 2005


you mean Margaret Atwood

Ack, yes. Thanks for the correction and the link.
posted by CynicalKnight at 8:15 AM on May 11, 2005


The six-pack comment is a fairly common, innocuous synonym to John Q. Public, no?

It would be very telling if Canada's english vernacular used "M." rather than "Mr." with "Joe Sixpack." Especially seeing as how it's used to denote people that the speaker considers his social lessers. (Sure, sure-- you use "Joe Sixpack" all the time to refer to people just like yourself.)

I don't think docgonzo was taking a shot at Quebecois here. I could be wrong, and please let me know if I was, docgonzo.

Yeah, like someone who's trying to be subtle in their ugly characterizations will own up to them. Or even always be conscious of them.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:22 AM on May 11, 2005


Yeah, like someone who's trying to be subtle in their ugly characterizations will own up to them. Or even always be conscious of them.

As a former resident of Quebec and a proud voter for the Bloc, PQ and 'yes' in 1995, I gotta say the questioning of my "ugly characterizations" is the funniest thing I've read all day.

Sometimes, a pipe is just a pipe, tabernac
posted by docgonzo at 9:07 AM on May 11, 2005


Yeah, like someone who's trying to be subtle in their ugly characterizations will own up to them. Or even always be conscious of them.

As a former resident of Quebec and a proud voter for the Bloc, PQ and 'yes' in 1995, I gotta say the questioning of my "ugly characterizations" is the funniest thing I've read all day.

Sometimes, a pipe is just a pipe, S-D crisse de tabernac.
posted by docgonzo at 9:20 AM on May 11, 2005


No, I'm under the impression that a common anglophone canadian stereotype of francos is that they're alcoholics.

You know, of all the misinformed Quebecois stereotypes I've heard in my 30 years living in pretty much every region of Canada - de h'exagerrated h'accents, the Pepsi-philia, all of it - I've honestly never seen rampant alcoholism enter into the equation. In fact, probably the most pervasive "Canadian drunkard" stereotype is the Bob & Doug schtick, which is a send-up of small-town Ontarians.

So I'm afraid, Mayor Curley, that I've gotta call "bullshit" on your hamfisted attempt to use docgonzo's French honorifics to delegitimize any and all Canadian criticism of American intolerance.
posted by gompa at 10:02 AM on May 11, 2005


Sorry all for lacking a bit of impartiality. I was scanning the google headlines, trying to pick the meatiest story on this development, and I clearly didn't quote it exactly.

I do think if you take the gestalt of what I said, I was reasonably on the ball.

I also do try to avoid making political posts that favour a party. It might make this place a bit more "newsfiltery" but I think impartial information trumps the slight bit of drudgery that brings. You might also note I avoid posting political opinions of mine to my political FPPs. It's not my job to convince you how to vote. I do so love the colour of this page...

As far as my opinions on the CBC go (yes, they are strong), I *have* linked their newsservice in the past. I just happened to get my hands on these stories instead. DON'T CRUCIFY ME. :-D

Besides, at 50+ comments, I think at least *some* from metafilter are interested in the topic at hand. :-)
posted by shepd at 10:15 AM on May 11, 2005


We all know that "Joe Six Pack" is slang for "ignorant, pedestrian member of the general public."

Wrong.

John Q. Public? Yes.
posted by futureproof at 10:36 AM on May 11, 2005


Even though the opposition would have had the chance to table their own no confidence vote at the end of May, the Prime Minister today announced that the Budget vote will be May 19th. (If the vote on the Budget fails it is seen as a vote of no confidence (for serious))

As an aside, in response to this quote:
Earlier in the day, Conservative Deputy Leader Peter MacKay said the failure of a the Liberal minority government to recognize a successful vote calling for its resignation would mark a new low in Canadian political history.

“Well, I think that that will be, perhaps, one of the lowest points in Canadian history,” Mr. MacKay told CBC Newsworld.


At twenty four years of age my personal experience in politics is limited. Personally, my political low was in Toronto in May of 2003 at the Leadership Convention of the Progressive Conservatives. The day of voting was long as there was quite a number of ballots (four or five). Just before the last ballot, I had a chance to speak personally with Mr. Peter Mackay. When my friend and I first stopped to talk to him, his aide told him that he didn't have time to talk and he must continue on to wherever it was he was going. Peter stopped anyways. He listened closely as we asked him what all this talk about a "signed document" was. I shook his hand and he looked me in the eyes as he promised that he would not merge the Progressive Conservatives with the social conservative Reform Party (now branded the Canadian Alliance). I believed so strongly against nearly everything that Mackay stood for that I was honestly in tears after casting my vote in his favour, as I believed a vote for Prentice would most certainly bring about the dissolution of the founding party of Canada. Just a few months later I watched as Mr. Mackay sat smiling, beside an even more smiling Harper, as Harper was saying he felt it "was like christmas", announcing the new merger of parties into the Conservatives.

If his girlfriend Belinda wasn't such a hottie I might actually hate the guy.
posted by futureproof at 10:57 AM on May 11, 2005


I do think if you take the gestalt of what I said, I was reasonably on the ball.

I dunno, suggesting that the Governor General might be obligated to intervene here seems pretty far out. Even the Conservatives seem to have given up on their former insistence that this would be a vote of non-confidence. I don't think there was ever a chance they would convince whatever committee of experts on parliamentary procudure would be required to make it effectively count as one against the wishes of the government. If it was seriously considered, how 'bout a link that mentions it?

But then, I get much of my information on this stuff from the CBC. And I just heard Paul Martin on there saying they'll vote on the budget May 19th. And Harper replies that he can't wait that long, wants it to happen right now, like within 30 seconds, or else!
posted by sfenders at 11:04 AM on May 11, 2005


Are you kidding? Proportional representation would consistently give us minority governments like this one.

Functioning PR-based democracies around the world manage with often very stable coalitions. The minority government doesn't work in Canada precisely because we don't have PR.

Imagine a future where every reasonable legislation is hijacked by fringe interests in order to secure a few extra votes; where elections are called every 18 months!

Imagine a present where virtually every major piece of legislation is directly shaped by the interests of the wealthy backers of the established parties, and widespread political views that don't correspond to the agenda of those couple of major parties can't ever have any political effect, because voting for smaller parties is considered to be throwing your vote away! Imagine young people catching on to the fact that their political system doesn't offer them real political choices and, as a result, simply not bothering to vote! Imagine actually informing yourself on the way that PR works in virtually every democracy in the world!
posted by paul! at 11:05 AM on May 11, 2005


shepd
Since this thread has moved off topic anyway, I want to ask your personal opinion, as an esteemed member from across the aisle: How can you consider this motion at all productive? What has changed since the last election that warrants another? (Honestly, nothing has come out the Gomery inquiry wasn't known last fall.) What gives the Conservatives the right to waste everyone's time pushing for a new election, instead of actually governing like we told them to do? And if there is an election this summer, and the conservatives win a minority government, would they expect the opposition to treat their government better than they have treated the liberals?
posted by Popular Ethics at 11:07 AM on May 11, 2005


No legal weight whatsoever but a hard political blow to the government of the day.

I dunno about that. I, and I suspect a lot of Canadians, see this as bullshit. I very much want the Gomery commission to run its course before there's an election.

It's not that I want the Liberals in power, but that I want a full reckoning, and I don't think that's gonna happen if the Liberals are defeated.

I'm under the impression that a common anglophone canadian stereotype of francos is that they're alcoholics.

Eh? Not one that I've every heard. Newfies, sure, but not our Quebecois.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:21 AM on May 11, 2005


What gives the Conservatives the right to waste everyone's time pushing for a new election, instead of actually governing like we told them to do?

If people elect the conservatives after a no-confidence vote, I guess that'll mean that what "we tell them to do" will be to govern in that situation. If people don't want a no-confidence vote they can punish the party that proposes it by voting against them.
posted by paul! at 11:23 AM on May 11, 2005


It's not that I want the Liberals in power, but that I want a full reckoning, and I don't think that's gonna happen if the Liberals are defeated.

What is the thinking behind this idea? That a Conservative government will like the Liberals so much they'll stop the Gomery commission?
posted by paul! at 11:25 AM on May 11, 2005


Imagine actually informing yourself on the way that PR works in virtually every democracy in the world!

Good post paul! It's always important to consider the hazards of the "do-nothing" option. You're wrong in calling me uninformed however. I've been studying PR systems since the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform was formed to look into the issue last year. There are good examples of proportional governments that fall freqently, or are vulnerable to fringe interests.
posted by Popular Ethics at 11:33 AM on May 11, 2005


The Liberals are smart. You think Chrétien just talked about golf balls on a whim. No.
"Ogilvie Renault, you know, Mr. Roy and Mr. Mulroney and Madame Gomery are all members of that firm," Chretien quipped. Word.

The Liberals have chosen when the Budget will be voted upon. The only reason Harper wants an election called now and not in a week is that if the election is called in a week and not now it is Martin with "the power" and not Harper. If the election is called before the Gomery Report is issued I don't see how the Liberals could lose their minority. And if for some strange reason (not unherad of in Canadian politics) the Conservatives form a minority, it wouldn't last more than six months.
posted by futureproof at 11:50 AM on May 11, 2005


I've been studying PR systems since the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform was formed to look into the issue last year

As a result of the Assembly, those of us in BC are voting on whether or not to adopt the Single Transferable Vote on May 17th.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:53 AM on May 11, 2005


dreamsign: Blah. If the opposition forces an election, I'll be one of many who punish them for it.

Exactly, The Bloc and New Reform can't hold it for three weeks? It's really bizarre that the conservatives are pushing for an election so bad, Jack must be laughing his ass off. It seems so unlikely the conservatives will gain any seats. They already have all the western conservative types and their outspoken support for the Iraq war looking more foolish everyday I can't see them picking up many votes in Ontario.
posted by Mitheral at 11:54 AM on May 11, 2005


How can you consider this motion at all productive?

Well, I don't. However, considering my business hangs (somewhat) on not having a Liberal government, I have a personal stake in enjoying anything that gets the Liberals squirming. :-D

What has changed since the last election that warrants another?

Not particularly much. HOWEVER, we have heard testimony lately fingering not just the Liberal party in general (as before), but now testimony against Paul Martin personally.

Considering Paul Martin wanted to ensure everyone involved would "pay" for their crimes, if he's true to his word, we could be facing a country run from behind bars. Of course, he won't be, so what the hell... :-D

What gives the Conservatives the right to waste everyone's time pushing for a new election, instead of actually governing like we told them to do?

The Conservative platform and Liberal platform are basically at 100% odds to each other. As it stands, with the Conservatives and Bloc ganging up, the government could be deadlocked indefinitely. Hey, I suppose this is a good reason for point #1. Any adjustment of the seats that takes us away from permanent deadlock would be good.

Better for them to waste time now than have 4 years more of castrated governing, IMHO.

And if there is an election this summer, and the conservatives win a minority government, would they expect the opposition to treat their government better than they have treated the liberals?

Hell no. I think what the conservatives are aiming for is to break the cycle of Liberal abuse. The Liberals have proven that 4 terms is clearly too long for any government party to stay in power.

Once the conservatives are in power they can properly see just what the level of Liberal corruption is up to (There may be more than just AdScam!) and they could expose it all. They don't need a majority to do that. Just control at any level.

Oh dear, I broke my rules. I'm sorry. Oh well.
posted by shepd at 12:06 PM on May 11, 2005


Imagine a future where every reasonable legislation is hijacked by fringe interests

Yes, just imagine...

Frist Mingling Religion, Politics

where elections are called every 18 months! No thanks!

Oh the horror of letting the *people* vote for themselves. Whatever will they think of next, congressional elections every two years or something mad like that.
posted by meehawl at 12:12 PM on May 11, 2005


I don't care about PR, but I want my STV.

we have heard testimony lately fingering not just the Liberal party in general (as before), but now testimony against Paul Martin personally.

Therefore he's guilty. And should resign. Just like Judy Sgro.
posted by sfenders at 1:44 PM on May 11, 2005




(I'm thinking sfenders tongue was in his cheek, but it was probably good to make that clear).
posted by Popular Ethics at 2:15 PM on May 11, 2005


Right, well I assume futureproof was providing the link for people who have somehow managed to read this far despite not knowing who Judy Sgro is. Now *that* was a low point in Canadian politics.

She resigned her post as minister of immigration, in large part as a result of allegations made by a pizza shop owner, who said that he was able to buy some ministerial intervention in his immigration case in exchange for some free pizza. He recently admitted, now that he's been deported (presumably in part because he's been convicted for passport forgery and "child smuggling"), that he was lying. The opposition made lots of noise about it at the time, with Stephen Harper saying such things as "Judy Sgro may be gone from the portfolio, but not only has the damage been done by her and her predecessors, we see her successor has some links to the latest scandal" and "This was obvious to everybody months ago that this minister had to go." There were three such made-up "scandal" accusations made, and all of them turned out to be pretty much completely bogus.

It was ridiculous at the time, it's even more so in hindsight.
posted by sfenders at 3:31 PM on May 11, 2005


I think what the conservatives are aiming for is to break the cycle of Liberal abuse. The Liberals have proven that 4 terms is clearly too long for any government party to stay in power.

Mulroney proved that any term with a Conservative in power is too long. May that bastard rot in hell for eternity.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:55 PM on May 11, 2005


Mulroney proved that any term with a Conservative in power is too long. May that bastard rot in hell for eternity.
So true.

At the Tory leadership convention I mentioned above, Mulroney gave one of the greatest speeches I've ever had the pleasure of listening to.

The lies rolled off his tounge like silk and it took great energy, lies aside, to not respect the guy.
posted by futureproof at 4:49 PM on May 11, 2005


fivefreshfish apropos of No legal weight whatsoever but a hard political blow to the government of the day.

writes

I dunno about that. I, and I suspect a lot of Canadians, see this as bullshit. I very much want the Gomery commission to run its course before there's an election.

I, too, see this as bullshit. I see an Opposition that has simply jumped at the first free helping of outrage to try and topple the government. However, I maintain that this is a hard blow. First, the Lib'ruls were taking it seriously was evident by the fact that they trotted out all but two of their MP's. Second, from scanning Google News Canada (my main connection with Canadian news on this, the wrong side of the border) I note that the print media seems to be happy to show the Liberals as being put to the fire.

But regardless, I am with you on seeing no point for an election before the end of Gomery and in the meantime the Bloc and Conservative parties are abusing the trust of the electorate by doing their damndest to grind the government to a halt. (I am, however, somewhat pleased that the NDP appear likely to come out of this as the least tarnished players).

Finally, wrt to the next referendum on sovereignty. It is true that we will have to wait 3 years until the provincial Liberals get kicked out. But that's 3 years of a dysfunctional Parliament and bad and unpopular government by Jean Charest.... I dunno, I think its looking good to move back to Montreal in three years.
posted by bumpkin at 4:52 PM on May 11, 2005




In a vote that had gays and lesbians along with members of Parliament on the edges of their chairs...

[Fish imagines a flambouyant scene, feather boas and net stockings crossed over barstools, all dressed in sparkles and ritz, cigarettes in long-stemmed holders, leaning toward the spotlit stage where sits the Governer General, Adrienne Clarkson, about to speak...]
posted by five fresh fish at 8:37 PM on May 19, 2005


« Older Christian fundamentalists and radical Islam: Two...   |   It's not the length so much as the girth... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments