What American's Ought to Know About Canada, But Don't

[Tingkai]

So it is okay for a leader to fire someone for flagrant insubordination which undermines public respect for the party? Or is this something that should require a party-wide vote?

[notyoueither]

I think that only caucus should be able to expel from caucus.

That does not require a party wide vote. That trusts our MPs with the power we granted them by voting for them.

Parrish should have been chucked by the Liberal caucus (which she would have been in a New York minute after saying she couldn't give a **** about any of them winning again) not by Martin.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Even if stripped of all power in the Commons, something that is unlikely to happen, the PM would still be head of the government and have power over the civil service as well as holding the power to appoint judges and senators.

That would be a little bit more than a manager, don't you think?

Most managers that I know have the power to determine day-to-day operations and to attend meetings where policies are determined.

Even those who delegate power, ultimately control it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Most managers that I know have the power to determine day-to-day operations and to attend meetings where policies are determined.

Even those who delegate power, ultimately control it.

And indeed, the PM would still control the agenda of any Parliament by virtue of control over cabinet and government bills.

What is sought is not a powerless PM, but more powerful MPs.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think that only caucus should be able to expel from caucus.

That does not require a party wide vote. That trusts our MPs with the power we granted them by voting for them.

Parrish should have been chucked by the Liberal caucus (which she would have been in a New York minute after saying she couldn't give a **** about any of them winning again) not by Martin.

So you want rule by committee rather rule by a leader?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And indeed, the PM would still control the agenda of any Parliament by virtue of control over cabinet and government bills.

What is sought is not a powerless PM, but more powerful MPs.

How would the PM have control over bills? Are you saying you want to change the system so that only the PM can decide which bills get introduced into Parliament?

Edit: And what are the benefits of forcing the PM out of Parliament? Wouldn't this make the PM less answerable to his critics (the opposition would not longer be able to question him).

[notyoueither]

Only the PM (and Cabinet) decide what is a government bill that will have party discipline applied to it.

Only the PM and cabinet decide on budgets.

How far down do you want to split this hair?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


So you want rule by committee rather rule by a leader?

Where did I say that, sweetheart?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


How would the PM have control over bills? Are you saying you want to change the system so that only the PM can decide which bills get introduced into Parliament?

Edit: And what are the benefits of forcing the PM out of Parliament? Wouldn't this make the PM less answerable to his critics (the opposition would not longer be able to question him).

Get back to me when you don't want to ask retarded questions.

[Tingkai]

I'm just trying to figure out the NYEverse.

You seem to want a PM who has the power to decide.... well not much.

The NYEverse PM can't make any decisions unless he gets the okay from the cabinet. Rule by committe in other words. The PM would have to have cabinet approval to fire a disloyal MP, to determine budgets and to determine which bills party MPs must vote for.

Seems like a pretty lame PM. And lord knows why don't want the PM in Parliament.

And in the NYEverse, if people wanted to create a party with a real leader, they would have to get the approval of Canadian voters before an election. Party members would not be allowed to decide their own party rules.

Yes, the NYEverse is a mighty strange place.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Bull****.

The problem IS the ability of all leaders to veto nominations. It isn't anything to do with the ability of parties to pick their candidates.

If you think that Mulroney, or the next Tory PM, would not use that power I would like to call you Ned.

Get it straight. Power of the party and MPs over power of leaders and Prime Ministers.

Why is this such a struggle?

Would you guys be happier with Castro?

Hah! NYE, I agree with you so don't go using my name in vain.

BTW, I one-fourth Canadian. My Grandmother fled to marry my Grandfather who had a farm on the American side of the St. Lawrence.

[Ned]

I think that the Federalist Papers should be required reading of all Canadians. Your love of an all-powerful parliament would soon vanish.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The vast, vast majority of that oil is shale oil. Because shale is a very friable stone with extremel low porosity and permiability it is almost impossible to extract most of Alberta's oil. Thus dispite having high amounts of oil in the ground Alberta's yearly out put is a fraction of Saudi Arabia.

In the US and Canada the highest Petroleum producers are:

1) Texas
2) Alaska
3) Alberta
4) California
5) Louisiana

The technology to get that oil out, and the oil out of the oil sands, has just come around.

Good times are ahead.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Ned
I think that the Federalist Papers should be required reading of all Canadians. Your love of an all-powerful parliament would soon vanish.

Do you never let an opportunity pass to make us all look like arogant, ethnocentric ******?

But seriously, as a New Englander in Canada I do follow Canadian politics. I actually love Canadian politics. Its actually incredibly easy to understand, especially as an American... despite what people say. I'll give a quick overview on Canadian politics for American dummies.

The truth is, the American system is based on the British system too, just with one extra branch and some changed names (essentially), so there's no need to get all confused right on the onset. I'll make some parallels so Americans can understand... even if they're not 100%, but its still enough.

Basically if you took the American system, removed the office of the President and made the House Majority Leader the leader of the country, you'd have Canada... more or less.

-The Congress is Parliament.
-The House of Reps is the House of Commons (basically elected the same way... they're called MPs, Members of Parliament)
-Senate is the Senate... only in Canada they're not elected, but appointed (kind of pointless)
-House Majority Leader is the Prime Minister
-House Minority Leader is the leader of the opposition
-Governor General is President (She's a figurehead who represents the crown... she has ceremonial duties and spends alot of money... she's technically the head of state of Canada, but the PM has all the power).

The Provinces each have a mini version of this, just like States have mini versions of the Fed. Government. Only in Canada the Governor is a Premier, and members of the House are called MPPs (members of provincial parliament) or MHAs (members of the house of assembly).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
Che : When were you in Winnipeg ? I'm assuming you went to VJ's drive in or Juniors for the cheeseburger & fries. (same family)

Sep, 1991. Juniors seems to ring a bell.