What's the possiblility of a conservative majority?

[FiveParadox]

Re: Central Government

So take it you're a centralist?

You’d be correct! :smile:

Wouldn't we have more representation in a more decentralized system, whre the government is closer to the local population, as opposed to hundreds of km's away in Ottawa?

Well, OK, I am in Ottawa right now, but you understand what I mean. For a Victorian, does it make sense to have all the power in Ottawa?

In my view, Canadians should place a much higher precedence on the nation, than on the provinces—provincial borders should exist exclusively as separators between areas of administration, with the provincial governments performing such administration tasks as are needed to provide for more time for better national government and leadership. I am not a huge fan of major decisions being made at the provincial level, because I feel that major decisions should be national issues, with the greater good of the entirety of Canada being the driving force behind those decisions.

There has been a dangerous movement toward enhanced provincial jurisdiction (ever since we switched to the Honourable the Supreme Court of Canada, rather than having appeals go to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty The Queen’s Most Honourable Privy Council of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). The Constitution Act, 1867 was constructed with the vision of a powerful central government, supported by provincial governments with narrow and restrictive areas of jurisdiction.

I disagree with the notion of ten nation-states with competing interests—rather, we should have ten provinces that are governed by one government, each with a provincial government to support that national government’s role. This is why the Governor General of Canada has the vested authority to veto provincial legislation, and it is why federal legislation has paramountcy over provincial legislation.

 

[Machjo]

You’d be correct! :smile:


In my view, Canadians should place a much higher precedence on the nation, than on the provinces—provincial borders should exist exclusively as separators between areas of administration, with the provincial governments performing such administration tasks as are needed to provide for more time for better national government and leadership. I am not a huge fan of major decisions being made at the provincial level, because I feel that major decisions should be national issues, with the greater good of the entirety of Canada being the driving force behind those decisions.

There has been a dangerous movement toward enhanced provincial jurisdiction (ever since we switched to the Honourable the Supreme Court of Canada, rather than having appeals go to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty The Queen’s Most Honourable Privy Council of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). The Constitution Act, 1867 was constructed with the vision of a powerful central government, supported by provincial governments with narrow and restrictive areas of jurisdiction.

I disagree with the notion of ten nation-states with competing interests—rather, we should have ten provinces that are governed by one government, each with a provincial government to support that national government’s role. This is why the Governor General of Canada has the vested authority to veto provincial legislation, and it is why federal legislation has paramountcy over provincial legislation.

One issue with centralism in the Canadian context though is the danger of cultural imperialism on the part of the majority against the minority. For example, there's no denying that Quebec's culture is as different from the ROC's as France's is from Britain's. In Nunavut, we have at least four official languages, and 8% of the population knows neither of Canada's European languages. Canadian culture is so diverse that centralism would likely cruwh the minority cultures underfoot over time. How do we deal with that?

 

[FiveParadox]

One issue with centralism in the Canadian context though is the danger of cultural imperialism on the part of the majority against the minority. For example, there's no denying that Quebec's culture is as different from the ROC's as France's is from Britain's. In Nunavut, we have at least four official languages, and 8% of the population knows neither of Canada's European languages. Canadian culture is so diverse that centralism would likely cruwh the minority cultures underfoot over time. How do we deal with that?

I think that our Parliament has proven on several occasions that it is amicable to the preservation of unique Canadian cultures and languages—for passage of the Official Languages Act is only one example, as is the fact that honourable senators are able to address the chamber using Native languages.

 

[Machjo]

I think that our Parliament has proven on several occasions that it is amicable to the preservation of unique Canadian cultures and languages—for passage of the Official Languages Act is only one example, as is the fact that honourable senators are able to address the chamber using Native languages.

Notice the double standard there. Official Bilingualism promotes French and English from coast to coast to coast. Not so Inuktitut, Cree, or Algonquin. Another example of where decentralization could help to promote the local language.

In fact, an older friend of mine was telling me how he remembered when the Official Languages Act was passed, one First Nations friend of his was livid.

Seems Official bilingualism is a bad example of the virtues of centralization in a multi-cultural society.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Half you guys must be on BC Bud or something. Canada will never have another majority government as long as the Bloc Quebecois exists and the the Libs and Cons are united. Mulroney got his majorities in the 1980s before the BQ came into existence, and Chretien got his majorities in the 1990s when the Reform party split the PCs. Coalitions will never happen.

I made another thread discussing how the BQ has got to go. But no, the new majority likes to talk about everything. Perhaps they will bore the BQ out of existence.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

The possibility of a conservative majority in this country is zero for the foreseeable future. A Conservative majority in Parliament is somewhat more likely, though still a long shot at the moment unless several people seriously shoot themselves in both feet, but would be greatly improved by a more personable and likable leader.

 

[L Gilbert]

Yes, perhaps it does—but the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut has only 19 members. It would be much easier to run a consensus style of government with a legislature on that scale than it would be to run such a system with three hundred eight members of the House of Commons. It would also cause the procedures of the House to become chaotic and unruly

rofl You ever watch the parliament channel? It already IS unruly and chaotic. Those children are lucky I'm not speaker. If anyone deserved good spankings it is them.

—members tend to be chosen to speak based on party precedence to make sure that each party, and member, has an appropriate chance to debate issues. Debates would probably run much longer under a consensus style of government—and if restrictions were placed on the length of debate, many members’ (and therefore constituencies’) views would go unheard before the appropriate vote.

I think that parties are an essential evil, but they must be managed properly.

For example, the party leader should not be selected by leadership fora across the nation—rather, a party leader should be selected by the caucus. A leader should have to be receptive to the concerns of one’s caucus—as the present system stands, it’s the other way around. Cuacus members are forced to toe the leader’s opinions, whereas the leader should have to make sure that caucus members are happy, lest he or she be thrown out.

Uhuh. I hear dogma from deists and theists, too. lol

 

[L Gilbert]

I think the opposite: Provincial governments’ only use is to take care of issues that the federal Government does not have the time or the resources to legislate on.

And the federal gov't shouldn't stick its stupid beak into affairs provinces can handle. So?

 

[L Gilbert]

Wouldn't we have more representation in a more decentralized system, whre the government is closer to the local population, as opposed to hundreds of km's away in Ottawa?

Of course it would. And it's thousands of kms if you are over here. Like I mentioned before, what does Joe office manager in Toronto know about ranching in BC? Yet he has just as much say or more as to what goes on at John Rancher's backyard. Most easterners think that's just peachy, but it sure doesn't do much for Joe Rancher.

Well, OK, I am in Ottawa right now, but you understand what I mean. For a Victorian, does it make sense to have all the power in Ottawa?

Only to people in central Canada. Everyone else is SOL and f'd in the ear.

 

[L Gilbert]

Just had an idea: besides having ministers of Aboriginal Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Oceans, and whatnot, maybe we could have ministers of provinces and territories. Anytime Minister Putz from Ontario decides Canada should be subjected to widgets, but it would adversely affect Newfieland or BC, those ministers could thump the idiot on the beak and say, "no, can't do that." I'll volunteer for BC for a modest 35K a year plus travel expenses.

 

[Machjo]

Just had an idea: besides having ministers of Aboriginal Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Oceans, and whatnot, maybe we could have ministers of provinces and territories. Anytime Minister Putz from Ontario decides Canada should be subjected to widgets, but it would adversely affect Newfieland or BC, those ministers could thump the idiot on the beak and say, "no, can't do that." I'll volunteer for BC for a modest 35K a year plus travel expenses.

Simpler solution. Just decentralize.

Anything a local government can handle, let it have at it. Anything that can't be handled at the local level but can at the provincial or territorial level, then give it to them. Anything that can be handled at neither the local nor provincial level, then let the feds deal with it. For the most part, that would be limited to:

The military
International relations
Currency
Natural resources
National police

Beyond that, it should just establish principles and leave the details to lower levels of government.

 

[Machjo]

Or for the sake of national unity, maybe we should take a more centralist approach. I'm sure Parliament would love to debate municipal road infrastructure projects for downtown Nanaimo.

 

[YukonJack]

What's the possiblility of a conservative majority?​

The question reminds me of one of the "Crocodile Dundee" movies, whan a punk asked Dundee about Dundee's chances of getting out of the dive?​

Dundee replied: "BETTER THAN AVERAGE!"​

 

[lone wolf]

Yeah ... but reality sez: Like a snowball's in Hell....

 

[YukonJack]

There are idiots who oppose for the sake of opposing.

Good bet that that if I had said that the Conservatives have absolutely no chance of a majority, the howling wolf would have predicted a Conservative landslide.

 

[lone wolf]

There are idiots who oppose for the sake of opposing.

Good bet that that if I had said that the Conservatives have absolutely no chance of a majority, the howling wolf would have predicted a Conservative landslide.

Then there are idiots who fight for the sake of fighting. Hi Jerk!

 

[YukonJack]

lone wolf, take notice, that in spite of our differences, I have not sunk to your lebel of name-calling. My statement was meant in a general sense.

 

[lone wolf]

...today, anyhow.

You have assumed to know my thoughts. I stand behind the statement.