| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Questions about Canada; that I hope I won't regret tomorrow | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 8 2006, 02:51 PM (414 Views) | |
| Daniel\ | Sep 8 2006, 02:51 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I have almost no experience discussing politics and religon on a public forum and I have been interested to learn that individual positions often do not fit in "one" category (it is not just me). It is also apparent to me that I am saturated in American culture and history in a way I would have to be born into it- and this brings up something else- I know next to nothing about other places likewise. Top of my list of countries I would like to know more about is Canada. 1. Is Canada part of the UK (in an association)? How does this work? 2. The US is governed by its Constitution. I am assuming Canada has one but why do we never hear about it? 3. Does Canada have a national broadcasting service? Is it governed by federal law? 4. Is there anything like a political party in Canada insisting that Canada is ruled by God's law? 5. Have there been disputed elections in Canada on the order of the US election in 2000? In general- what is it like to live in a country liberal to the extent of having gay marriage, no abortion laws, marijuana a fineable offense? What do you think about why politics is different in the US? ![]() |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| dolmansaxlil | Sep 8 2006, 03:16 PM Post #2 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Keep in mind that the last time I answered most of these questions, it was to a group of grade 6 kids, so if my answers seem simplistic, that would be why. ![]() 1. No. But we still have ties to them. Basically, the Queen is our technical head of state, and she can exercise that power if she really wanted to. But she doesn't do that - or at least never has to my knowledge. We have a Governor General who represents the Queen when she isn't in Canada (in other words, 99.9% of the time). The GG signs bills into law and appoints certain members to the government, but does so on the advice of the Prime Minister. It's pretty much a figure head position. 2. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You can read it here: http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html 3. We have the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and it is, in part, government funded. There are also several branches of CBC radio. 4. Minor parties may exist that operate under that idea, but as for major parties, nope. Interestingly, we do not have a seperation of church and state clause, though religion and government seem to come up as an issue far less often than it does in the US. 5. Nope. The way our elections are run is vastly different, which means that that type of thing can't really happen. Basically, each riding elects one member who will represent them federally (or provincially, as the case may be). That person will likely have a party affiliation (though a few independents always get elected). The party with the most seats wins. The party elects their own leader internally (before the national election) who then becomes the Prime Minister. The only people who see the Prime Minister's name on their ballot are the people in the local riding they are running in. We don't elect our Prime Minister directly. We do, however, sometimes end up with what is called a "Minority Government", which is where the leading party has less than 50% of the seats in the house (we have one right now). When that happens, they either have to align themselves with one of the other parties in order to get things voted in (I love minority governments, because they tend to be fairly moderate). If they don't do that, they usually don't last long, because the other parties will align and use a Confidence Vote to get rid of the ruling party, sparking an election. I love this part of our system. ![]() Our country, on a day to day basis, doesn't act all that much differently than the US. I'm a very liberal Canadian, so I think a lot of what goes on in the US is frighteningly conservative. Others find Canada too liberal. Just like in the US. I think the difference is that our parties aren't as set (there are currently 4 parties with significant showing in the House), and because we have more choices, it's not as often as much of a "the lesser of two evils" situation. We also don't have set election times, and the campaign period is very short compared to the US (usually a couple of months), so the run up to the election looks very different. At least, that's my perspective (though I have tonnes of issues with our electoral process...). And it's not that Canada has always been more liberal - in the middle of the 20th century (? Correct me if I'm wrong in that time period, someone!) we were more Conservative politically than the US. |
|
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson My Flickr Photostream | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Sep 8 2006, 04:43 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
The answers are more sophisticated than the questions. LOL. Sue, AC, I'd like to hear what you might have to say. Dol, thank you very much. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Riley | Sep 8 2006, 04:51 PM Post #4 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'd give my thoughts, but I'm way too high on that barely criminal Marijuana. Plus I have that gay wedding to go to tomorrow. After that I have to get to the hospital for that government funded operation.
|
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Sep 8 2006, 05:33 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Well when you come down... :lol: |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Sep 8 2006, 08:02 PM Post #6 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Thank you Daniel for asking the questions. Dol gave you a good summary. There are number of peculiarities she did not touch upon: 1. Canada had a constitution prior to 1982 called The British North America Act that was held by the British Parliament in Whitehall. Ammendments could only be made through an act of the British Parliament. In 1982 through an act of the Her Majesty's Governemnt in London th BNA Act was repatriated to Canada after the Federal G'ovt of Canada and all its Provinces agreed to an ammending formula and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Contained in this agreement was a notwithstanding clause that permitted the Federal G'ovt and any of the Provincial G'ovts to opt out of any provision of the Charter following a simple majority vote of the legislature. The clause has only been invoked once since repatriation, and only in the province of Quebec to uphold Bill C-10 which does not allow public signage in the English language. 2. The mixing of religion and politics as occurs in the USA does not exist in our political culture 3. Canada is confederation of provinces and territories. The federal g'ovt has no jurisdiction over natural resources, environment, education and heath care delivery in any of the provinces. In the case of natural resources, such as oil and gas, The federal g'ovt has no right of regulation or taxation- those are strictly within the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. The only time the federal g'ovt can impose a tax on oil or gas is when the product crosses either a provincial border or an international border such as the US/Canada border. Suffice to say Canadians take federalist rights very seriously. As KentCouncil once said, Canada is like ten independent countries. Although I am a Canadian citizen by birth I am an Albertan first. In the past twenty years there have been unacceptable encroachments on my province by the the federal g'ovt. I am therefore fully prepared to support any changes to our federal structure that further diminishes the power of the federal g'ovt and, if necessary, work towards all out secession from Confederation for the creation of an independent Alberta or independent Western Canada. Jane and John D'Oh should also wiegh in since they are both Canadians. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Sep 8 2006, 08:29 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
AC, thank you very much. This is an even more complex topic than I thought when I asked the questions. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| dolmansaxlil | Sep 8 2006, 09:19 PM Post #8 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Oh sure, AC. Come in and make my answers look even more simplistic with your added info! ![]() As much as people talk about how boring Canadian politics is, I actually think it's far more interesting (and in many ways more complex) than the US system. But because our system IS more complicated, I think that people know less about how it works. It also seems a bit less "glitzy" than US politics, so it's seen as dull. In truth, it is anything but. Before the federal election last year, there were several "near misses" with Confidence votes. I stayed up watching a confidence vote on CPAC (similar to CSPAN, I believe), because I'm fascinated by the whole idea of us being able to axe a government because it's felt that they don't have the confidence of the members of the house that is needed to govern. I agree with AC's assessment that Canada is kind of like 10 seperate countries. I don't feel the same sense of duty to my province that he does, though. Probably because Ontario is so populous, has more urban centres, etc than other provinces. The result of those things and the fact that the federal govn't is based in Ottawa, Ontario make Ontario kind of seem like the "default" province to those in Ontario. Our needs and provincial culture are very much protected federally (though Quebec definitely shares that protection, and probably has more cultural protection than any other province). I guess one of the biggest faults of Ontarians is that we see our province as being the centre of Canada. We don't have the same kinds of individual interests that are at odds with the interests of the federal government as other provinces, and therefore don't feel that same sense of provincial pride. One of the most honest (and funniest - though hardly comprehensive) summations of Canadian Independence was written by Samantha Bee in "America: The Book". She wrote portions of the book called "Would you mind if I told you how we do it in Canada?". One of them talks about our slow (very, very slow) road to independence. I managed to find that section online: The story of America’s independence from England is very well known, but did you know that Canada was also once part of the British Empire? It’s true! We Canadians threw off the same British yoke as you, only we took a more leisurely route to liberation. In fact, you might say, we’ve been “declaring” our “independence” for more than 200 years! Kind of! Our style of revolution centered less on bloodshed and guerrilla warfare and more on the time-tested strategy of “not making a fuss.” For example, at the same time you were declaring war on the English monarchy, we were enjoying privileges granted to us by King George in the Treaty of Versailles, which gave us fishing rights off the coast of Newfoundland, provided we not dry or cure fish on land. (And by the way, we later got the right to cure and dry fish on land, thank you very much!) All I’m saying here is there is more than one way to skin a cat. Not that I am in any way saying that I would like to harm a cat. Quite the contrary. I like cats. Unless America wants Canada to skin a cat, in which case we will gladly do it. The point is we took our time, waiting for The Canadian Moment to arrive, rather than forcing it upon the world. We waited, in the cold, wathcing the U.S., most of Central and South America, Africa and Asia throw off their colonial oppressors. I think it was us and Belize that held out. And our patience ultimately paid off, for in the glorious year of 1982, we took the bold step of getting permission from England to amend our constitution so we could amend our constitution — without getting permission from England. Let freedom ring! Now the only remants of the tyrannical rule of Queen Elizabeth II are an appointed “Governor General” who represents her in Canadian governmental affairs. And the Queen is still officially our head of state. Plus she’s on all our money. And when we take a government job, we have to swear a loyalty pledge to her. All in all, a small price to pay for an independence achived without bloodshed, violence, glory or independence. I’m sorry if this in any way seems like bragging. Samatha Bee |
|
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson My Flickr Photostream | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Sep 9 2006, 03:22 AM Post #9 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Generally speaking, the original European residents of Canada did not arrive there seeking a home where they could practice their deeply held (and officially unauthorized) religious views more freely. Much of the US was settled by precisely those types of groups, so from its outset, the US had a more specifically religious angle to its public discourse. Considering the low regard held for these groups by England, it might be that they granted them haven in what they considered the least desirable land int he New World, preferring to keep them largely out of the parts of the continent they considered most appealing. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Sep 9 2006, 04:48 AM Post #10 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Is there no clear separation between the "legislative branch" and the "administrative branch" then, seeing that the people elect the parlimentarians ("legislative branch"?) and these elected representatives in turn decide who gets to be ministers and prime minister (the "administrative branch"?) ? How to you appoint/elect judges in courts of law? |
![]() |
|
| bachophile | Sep 9 2006, 05:01 AM Post #11 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
thats simply called the parliamentary system. used by almost all of europe and the commonwealth. yes some argue that there is less clear seperation of executive and legislative. others argue that this actually makes the executive more accountable to the people then a fixed presidential system, as the executive can much more easily be brought down. (wouldnt many like to bring GWB to a no confidence vote??) yes many will argue for hours in favor of this or that, but the truth is there is no golden standard in governments. if the parliamentary system was so evil, then its hard to understand why so many normative countries succeed with it. as for judges, in the us, judges are appointess of the executive, albeit requiring aproval of the legislature. in parliamentary systems, this is the same. |
| "I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen | |
![]() |
|
| dolmansaxlil | Sep 9 2006, 05:06 AM Post #12 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Ax, Part of my post must have been unclear, since I've obviously caused you to have a bit of a misconception about the process. Here's the election process (it applies to both federal and provincial elections - terminology for provincial elections is in brackets). 1. The political parties have a leadership convention where their party members vote for a party leader. 2. During the election, each riding votes for the person who will become the Member of Parliament (provincially Member of Legislative Assembly/Member of Provincial Parliament). 3. The winners in each riding get a seat in the House of Commons (Legislative Assembly). The party with the most MPs (MLAs/MPPs) elected becomes the ruling party. 4. The leader of that ruling party becomes the Prime Minister (provincially: Premier). The leader of the party with the second highest number of votes becomes the leader of the official opposition. So everyone who got a seat in their riding makes up the House of Commons. The House is the first place a vote has to happen when a law is being made. One a law gets through the House, then it is voted on by the Senate. The Senate are appointed positions (appointed by the Governor General under advice by the Prime Minister). The Bill is then given Royal Assent by the Governor General (representing the Queen). Though Senate approval is required for a bill to become a law, the Senate rarely rejects laws that have made it through the reading/voting stages in the House of Commons. What is more, though the members of the Senate can propose new bills, it is usually the House that does so. In fact, there are some types of bills that MUST be proposed by the House. So the House, in practise, has more power than the Senate. |
|
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson My Flickr Photostream | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Sep 9 2006, 05:08 AM Post #13 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Thanks, bachophile. Won't get into the "more/less separation is better" debate here, just trying to understand the Canadian system better. I take it that Israel uses a similar parliamentarian system, yes? |
![]() |
|
| bachophile | Sep 9 2006, 05:19 AM Post #14 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
yes... heres an interesting tidbit... .... since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully transitioned to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully transitioned to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns. As Bruce Ackerman says of the thirty countries to have experimented with American checks and balances, “All of them, without exception, have succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly.” A recent World Bank study found that parliamentary systems are associated with lower corruption. but the disadvantage is less stable governments and more frequent elections.... here is the list of parliament based governments in the world... Countries with a parliamentary system of government Australia, Austria, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Hungary, Iceland, India, Republic of Ireland, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta , Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Poland,Portugal, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United Kingdom. |
| "I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Sep 9 2006, 06:30 AM Post #15 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
That is correct. In fact, when Lower Canada was a colony of France, the French G'ovt did not allow French Hugenots to settle there, insisting that it remain an exclusively Catholic colony. Even the English portions of the country were pretty much made up of Church of England, English Methodists and Scottish Presbyterians. It was not until 30 years after Confederation in 1867, that persecuted religious groups such as Ananbaptist Hutterites from Germany and Russian Doukhobors were allowed to settle in the country. Depending on the province these religious lines are maintained. For example, in Alberta and Saskatchewan Catholic schools and the secular Public schools both receive provincial g'ovt funding. Although they are separate systems they are both public schools. Issues such as school prayer do not occur because it is a school board issue rather than an issue for public debate and g'ovt regulation. Simply put, if you don't want your kids to pray in school- pay your school taxes to the secular Public School Board and send your kids either there. If you want them to pray then you have the option to direct your school taxes to the Catholic Board and send them either to the Catholic schools or a private school. |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Sep 9 2006, 06:39 AM Post #16 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
In Canada judges are appointed not elected. They are appointed based on a combination of demonstrated knowledge of the law and court experience. Once appointed to the bench they continue to be under peer review and can be removed by the Minister of Justice for any number of infractions and breaches of the pubilc trust. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Sep 9 2006, 06:52 AM Post #17 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Thanks, dol, bachophile, and AC. |
![]() |
|
| Jane D'Oh | Sep 9 2006, 10:13 AM Post #18 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I honestly don't feel qualified to comment about the political structure in Canada. You probably know that John and I were both born British and obtained Canadian citizenship after living there for 5 years. I am ashamed to say that the facts I crammed about Canadian Government for the citizenship were forgotten very shortly after the exam... John probably remembers a lot more and could give you his (much more perspecatious) perspective but I'm not sure if he's going to be logging on this week as he's travelling.
In general - not all that different to either the UK or to MA... John notices more differences I think during conversations at the lunch table at work - but 'stay at home mums' are pretty much the same everywhere! And I think that the routines (family values?) of getting the kids into schools, sports and so forth are pretty similar in the three places I've lived. Don't know if that helps at all or not! |
| Pfft. | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Sep 9 2006, 02:31 PM Post #19 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Jane, thank you very much. ![]() The US system had a breakdown in 2000 and 1896 if you do not count 2004 but parliamentary government is something I know nothing about- it seems that this is the main difference between government in the US and in Canada. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Sep 9 2006, 03:28 PM Post #20 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Yes and no. We have a very different federalism. The US system was originally based on strong state governments and a weak federal government. That trend is reversing itself in the US. Canada on the other hand was the opposite but as time goes by the federal governemnt here is becoming weaker as provincial governments grow stronger. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |













12:52 AM Jul 11