[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Loser:
Quick question to all those who don't think too highly of Bush: do you have anything to say about John McCain?

Never heard of....

(Or was it the lead character in the Die hard trilogy?)

[ May 14, 2003, 16:35: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Ruatha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loser:
Quick question to all those who don't think too highly of Bush: do you have anything to say about John McCain?

Never heard of....

(Or was it the lead character in the Die hard trilogy?)

---

No no no, that's McClane.
And you have to say that with a suitable Alan Rickman vague Eurosomething-accent.

Geoschmo

[Loser]

Originally posted by Ruatha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loser:
Quick question to all those who don't think too highly of Bush: do you have anything to say about John McCain?

Never heard of....

(Or was it the lead character in the Die hard trilogy?)

---

That's kind of nice. At least non-U.S.-residents aren't all aware of all the details of the U.S. political scene.

It often surprises me that you all are aware of the names of some of our states. I don't know that I could even name a city in Sweden, but Ruatha mostly like knows a thing or two about Texas, California, and maybe even Utah.

Wait.. I might have one... Is Helsinki in Sweden?

[dogscoff]

It often surprises me that you all are aware of the names of some of our states.

Well, we've all been brought up on US TV, US films, US values... this is why there is such a strong anti-american sentiment out there. People feel their own cultures and ways of life are being drowned under a flood of US imports.

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Loser:


Wait.. I might have one... Is Helsinki in Sweden?

Nope, but not so bad after all though.
It was in Sweden until 1809 IIRC, then we lost it to Russia in one of our Last wars, now it's Finlands capital!
(The Last one we fought was 1814)

My big sister was a Donny Osmond fan so I know some of Utah. I've seen Dallas, a soap from Texas. And one of the Die hard movies was in california right?

Se I know aaaaaalll about the US, and it's all based on fact!

[ May 14, 2003, 17:15: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Loser]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
People feel their own cultures and ways of life are being drowned under a flood of US imports.

Yeah... Just not sure why anyone in the U.S. should feel responsible for the importing habits of people in other parts of the world.

Those other people like the U.S. stuff, the U.S. likes (really, really likes) selling its stuff. This is win-win.

There's a big gap in understanding here, so I'd guess that I'm missing something. If you could help me out here, I'd much appreciate it.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Loser:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tbontob:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loser:
Terribly sorry that I misread you.

If you would correct me in a PM, if not in this thread, I would appreciate it.

Ooops, my sincere apologies.

When I posted, I did not realize I would be embarrassing you. I was just trying to correct what I perceived to be an irroneous impression.

Sometimes I have to think longer before I yak.

---

That's not the way i meant that. I am not embarrassed. I just wanted to know how the Canadian legislative system works, if I got it wrong. If you were not going to correct my description of it in this thread, I still wanted to know.

---

Loser

When I read this, I was really confused.

Like you are not embarrassed by want a private message?

Upon reflection, I am guessing you were trying to give me an option. At least I hope it is because if not there is a serious communication gap here.

Well, you would be right to say I am not into national politics.

Probably the best the place to start is to have some idea of our history.

It’s been a while since I’ve learned this stuff, so I may be a bit vague in some areas.

Prior to the American Revolution, our country was defeated by the British on the Plains of Abraham just outside of Quebec, Quebec. (Forget the date).

At the time it was totally French, although the Hudson’s Bay Company operated out of the Hudson Bay under a British Royal Charter of 1671. They owned Rupertsland which was an enormous area as it encompassed all the lands within which the rivers drained into the Hudsons Bay.

When the Americans revolted, a large number of loyalists came and settled in what was then Upper Canada (Ontario), Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

As a result, there were resentments and conflicts between the French and the loyalists. The reasons were many, but basically,
1) Different language
2) Different customs.
3) Different religions
4) Different laws - Quebec had civil law which is derived from Napoleonic Law which I understand has it’s basis in Roman Law. In contrast the rest of Canada, like the U.S. had common law which had its origins in British common law which in turn is based on precedent.

Understandably, the French speaking Canadians did not want their culture to be submerged within the culture of the loyalists.

Various acts were passed by the British Parliament which attempted to deal with the issue, none of them really effective.

Finally, on July 1,1867 (Canada’s official birthday), the British North America Act was passed by Britain which officially created Canada and
1) Gave the right to Canadians to govern themselves internally. Foreign relations/policy was retained by Britain.
2) Created a Federal Government.
3) Specifically stated the rights, powers and privileges of the provinces and the Federal Government.
4) Basically enshrined the right to enact laws governing language, customs, laws and religion to the provinces.

The original four signatories were Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Somewhat like your 13 colonies. : )

In 1931, Britain passed the statute of Westminster by which Canada and the other dominions obtained the right to make its own laws regarding its foreign relations such as making treaties etc.

Numerous other statutes had been passed, but those are the main ones. As compared to the U.S. Canada’s growth to maturity has been slow and gradual and accounts for some of the differences between our systems.

From here on, I will limit myself to the Federal government, although the provincial governments generally have an equivalent structure.

Federally, Canada has three branches of Government:
1) Executive Branch comprised of the Prime minister, his Cabinet and the public service.
2) Legislative Branch comprised of the Governor General, the House of Commons and the Senate.
3) Judicial Branch

Canada can be described as a constitutional monarchy, a federation and a democracy all rolled into one.

Even though Canada is completely sovereign from Britain, the Queen is our head of state. But as the Queen is above politics, she does not tell us what to do.

But saying that, technically, all the rights and powers and privileges of the three branches of Canadian government flow from the Crown.

As the Queen cannot be here in person, she is represented by the Governor General to whom she has delegated her powers. These powers are largely symbolic and ceremonial but do play a part in the functioning of our government.

The Governor General is the Head of State (as opposed to the head of government which is the Prime Minster). The Prime Minister selects the Governor General and submits his selection to the Queen who formally makes the appointment, usually for 5 years.

In the 19th century, the Governor Generals tended to be Britains. This changed in the Last century when most if not all Governor Generals were Canadians.

The prime minister and his cabinet basically propose new laws and amendments to existing ones. These then go to the House of Commons where it is extensively debated and if passed, goes to the Senate.

The prime minister has the right to appoint members to the Senate. In theory, the Senate is supposed to be a part of the checks and balances to ensure the government will not act improperly. If it feels a bill would be extremely offensive, it has the right to send it back to the House of Commons for further reconsideration. IIRC, it can only do this three times at which time it will pass into law.

It is well know that the prime minister will often reward a political friend by appointing him to the senate. It is a lifetime appointment although it expires when the senator reaches age 75.

At times, the senate has become a topic of great controversy. There is the general perception, that it serves little real purpose. While it may be politically aligned to the government, which has been in power the longest, the only real power it has IMO is to send a bill back to the House of Commons three times…a power it has seldom exercised.

It should be noted however, that on the few occasions, the Senate did send a bill back to the House of Commons for reconsideration; the country did sit up and take notice.

Bills to abolish the Senate or amend it have not gone anywhere and the Senate is perceived by many Canadians to be a form of pension or retirement home. : )

The House of Commons is comprised of elected representatives and are aligned according to political Groups. Currently we have 10 registered political parties of which 5 have members (MP’s) in parliament

The party which has the most representatives elected in an election gets to form the next government. If it has less than 50% of the members, it will be called a “minority government” and is unlikely to remain in power long as a successful “no-confidence” vote or the failure of a vote on a major bill will bring it down. Even a government with a bare majority can be brought down as members don’t always vote as they “should” and some members have been known to cross party lines. A government with a solid “majority” can normally expect to remain in power until it decides to call the next election which must be within 5 years.

I do not have a lot of knowledge about electoral districts, so I could be wrong about a point or two.

House of Commons representatives (Members of Parliament or MP’s) are elected from districts. Currently I believe we have just over 300. Districts may created, destroyed or modified after each census. There is a complicated formula, which is partly defined by the BNA Act, but basically, as I understand it, the aim is to have districts of the same population size. So, you will not get something like one district having 10,000 voters and another having 100,000.

Some districts may be small geographically like metropolitan Toronto, and large if it is a dispersed farming community. But whatever their physical size, the aim is to have districts of equal populations within their boundaries.

Since most of Canada’s population lives in urban populations, most of the MP’s come from the cities and large towns.

About western dissatisfaction, the reasons are numerous and diverse. I don’t claim to know them all but will mention a few.

Alberta in particular was unhappy for economic reasons because the Federal government imposed a special tax on gas and oil when prices were high. At the time Alberta was the only major producer of oil and gas in the country. The effect was to substantially reduce its revenues.

The Federal government also redistributed the wealth from the richer provinces to the poorer one. British Columbia and Alberta being richer provinces were somewhat unhappy about it but IMO their objections were somewhat subdued because there was a politically correct element about it all. Understandably this was not an issue with Saskatchewan or Manitoba as they were recipients of these payments.

All four western provinces felt that the Federal government was not listening to their complaints. In part, Ottawa was focused upon Quebec and it’s bid for seccession. So, I suspect they took a page out of Quebec’s book and started talking seccession too. It did get Ottawa’s attention and cause it to pay more attention to them and not just assume they would go along with whatever Ottawa decides.

I don’t feel seccession was really a major issue in Western Canada, but it could have become one if Ottawa didn’t listen to the issues they felt were important. To its credit, Ottawa realized this and did pay more attention to the western provinces.

Also, any change to the constitution requires the agreement of all the provinces.

Having very upset western provinces means no changes to the constitution.

Hope this helps you and is what you want.

[Loser]

Originally posted by tbontob:
a whole lot of things

Thank you.

[Narrew]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Well, we've all been brought up on US TV, US films, US values... this is why there is such a strong anti-american sentiment out there. People feel their own cultures and ways of life are being drowned under a flood of US imports.

I was raised on Benny Hill and Absoluty Fabulous No wonder I am messed up.

Ok, seriously. Whos fault is it for the imports? Its not like we are dropping propaganda from our bombers to smother you in our way of life. We are a capitalist country, if you dont buy, you aint going to get this stuff for free! The argument that the US is smothering other countries is absurd. An example I can think of is Japan. They eat up western movies and other items, but are still respectfull of their society (even if they are wearing blue jeans).

I respectfully disagree.

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Narrew:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Well, we've all been brought up on US TV, US films, US values... this is why there is such a strong anti-american sentiment out there. People feel their own cultures and ways of life are being drowned under a flood of US imports.

I was raised on Benny Hill and Absoluty Fabulous No wonder I am messed up.

Ok, seriously. Whos fault is it for the imports? Its not like we are dropping propaganda from our bombers to smother you in our way of life. We are a capitalist country, if you dont buy, you aint going to get this stuff for free! The argument that the US is smothering other countries is absurd. An example I can think of is Japan. They eat up western movies and other items, but are still respectfull of their society (even if they are wearing blue jeans).

I respectfully disagree.

---

Disagree all you want but DS has a valid point there.
No matter the reasons many feel that the anglo-american influence is too strong.
The US capitalistic system produces too much to cheap.

So, please raise your prices, cut production and reduce the quality, then we can all get along nicely!