Is the Canadian government dispute an abuse of rules?

[tanker]

First of all, I would like to say hi, I've been lurking here for a while (and finally bothered to register), and I know there are some Canadians here and I'm somewhat surprised hadn't seen anything on what's going on up here. Admittedly, I was out of the loop in the end of term crunch...until I read what was going on...

Anyway, the situation is we just had an election less than a month ago. The conservative party gained seats but did not win a majority. Now, the three opposing parties (Liberals, the further left New Democrats, and the separatist Bloc Quebecois) have agreed to form a coalition government and bring down the current government in the next confidence motion. The proposed government would include Liberal and New Democrat ministers, with the Bloc agreeing to vote with those two on confidence motions. Parliament is suspended until the 26th of January right now.

So I ask what do you think about this; and it doesn't even need to be Canada specific: is it fair (right?) for the winning government to be defeated by the opposition, with a separatist party having essentially a veto vote?

What I think is that it isn't. The people gave a (somewhat) increased mandate for the Conservatives to govern, and now the opposition is simply...dunno, seems like they're ganging up on the Conservatives almost because they can - the opposition got less share of the votes in the election three weeks ago - so it seems horribly like an abuse of the rules. There was every opportunity to do this before the election: why now? And the seperatists: if they had fulfilled their goal and seceded from Canada, the conservatives would have a majority and we wouldn't be in this mess.

I *do* prefer the conservatives, and I suppose I lean centre right (by Canadian standards), but I don't have a problem with the Liberal party; it's just that their leader (who would become prime minister in this agreement) is simply not prime minister material (can barely speak English, has a very naive outlook on the world based on his promised policies). He is new, probably chosen by idealistic young "forward thinkers," and was essentially humiliated by losing seats for the Liberals, and announced he would step down not to long ago - but now he could be prime minister?

Sorry for that wall of text but I wanted to make a good go of my first post, and I would like to say that this forum is great: has a good mix of people from many different backgrounds and opinions - but the discussion is (almost) always respectful. If anyone wants to know, I'm a second year honours math and physics student at UBC who took a course last year on Canadian government (because we need 18 Arts credits, and it's somewhat of an interest of mine).

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I would love to comment on this but as an American I'm essentially mentally disabled by being unable to imagine how a political system with more than two viable parties works. At least that's one up from people coming from China or the Soviet Union who can only comprehend a single party state, I guess. I hope that everything goes well for you Canadians with this and that the good guys win, whoever they may be.

⚛​

 

[physics girl phd]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't turned "hot"... I'd love to hear what y'all up north are thinking about this...

 

[Gokul43201]

I was thinking about starting a thread titled: "Is Canada still a British Territory?"

That would have bought me some instant love from my northern neighbors!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/05/america/canada.php

 

[George Jones]

Yikes, more of this. This is what I talk about with my colleagues at work, particularly in the lunchroom, and with my wife when I get home from work! If I feel the need to vent even more, I might write some stuff.

Off topic question: physics girl phd, after reading Sakurai, did your cat find itself in an existential quandary?

 

[Evo]

When I read yesterday that the Canadian Prime Minister was allowed to suspend Parliament in order to avoid being removed, I realized how little I understand of how things work in Canada.

 

[turbo]

It seems like Michaelle Jean has established a precedent that could allow the designed-in check-and-balance of the no-confidence vote to be subverted. I have no dog in this fight, but if the queen's representative can interpret the constitution of Canada (and is the final authority - no appeal) in such a way as to allow a minority Prime Minister to shut down Parliament, then Canada's form of government has been altered, presumably against the will of the people who voted the ministers of the coalition's minority parties into power.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm a liberal, but I too have difficulty with this move. Harper got his vote of confidence from the people twice (though with much grumbling the second time). to take it away just because they don't like it seems wrong.

However, I see the logic of the counter-argument.

1] By forming an official pact (not merely one of convenience), the Libs, PC and NDP are better representing the people than the Conservatives. This is key, because...

2] In our system, it is not 'one party wins the others lose'. They are all charged with running the country - Libs, PCs and NDPs have a part to play in ensuring our country stays on the rails. This means they are not "overthrowing the governing body" or anything like that. They are doing what they are charged with doing.

and finally,

3] We vote for the party, not the man. Who is leading the party is not as important as which party. So Dion is just a player like everyone else.

 

[NeoDevin]

Let's try to inject a little knowledge of Canadian government into this conversation, shall we?

So I ask what do you think about this; and it doesn't even need to be Canada specific: is it fair (right?) for the winning government to be defeated by the opposition, with a separatist party having essentially a veto vote?

In Canada (as with any parliamentary democracy), the government is formed by ALL elected members of parliament (MPs), not just the party with the most seats. So what actually happened is the minority conservative party is being defeated by the winning government (which includes the conservative party).

What I think is that it isn't. The people gave a (somewhat) increased mandate for the Conservatives to govern, and now the opposition is simply...dunno, seems like they're ganging up on the Conservatives almost because they can - the opposition got less share of the votes in the election three weeks ago - so it seems horribly like an abuse of the rules.

The people gave these Liberal, NDP, and Bloc MPs the authority to do this by electing them.

I *do* prefer the conservatives, and I suppose I lean centre right (by Canadian standards), but I don't have a problem with the Liberal party; it's just that their leader (who would become prime minister in this agreement) is simply not prime minister material (can barely speak English, has a very naive outlook on the world based on his promised policies). He is new, probably chosen by idealistic young "forward thinkers," and was essentially humiliated by losing seats for the Liberals, and announced he would step down not to long ago - but now he could be prime minister?

Stephan Dion has already announced his resignation from the position of Liberal leader on October 20. He only continues to serve in that capacity until the Liberal leadership convention (April 30 - May 3, new leader to be chosen on May 2)

who took a course last year on Canadian government

You should ask for your money back.

When I read yesterday that the Canadian Prime Minister was allowed to suspend Parliament in order to avoid being removed, I realized how little I understand of how things work in Canada.

Basically they completed all the objectives which were officially presented, scheduled the budget release for Jan 27, and then could legitimately say they had nothing to discuss until then. This has given him a little under two months to come up with a budget that the opposition will agree to. As long as he's not unreasonable, the opposition parties will have no choice but to go along with it, if they want to have any hope of reelection.

It seems like Michaelle Jean has established a precedent that could allow the designed-in check-and-balance of the no-confidence vote to be subverted. I have no dog in this fight, but if the queen's representative can interpret the constitution of Canada (and is the final authority - no appeal) in such a way as to allow a minority Prime Minister to shut down Parliament, then Canada's form of government has been altered, presumably against the will of the people who voted the ministers of the coalition's minority parties into power.

Michaëlle Jean, the Governor General (the Queen's representative in Canada), is basically a rubber stamp position. Technically she has the authority to make decisions, but in reality, if she were to refuse a legitimate request from the House of Commons (such as Mr. Harper's request to prorogue, or the opposition's request to for a coalition, should they decide to request it after they resume), the position would most likely simply be eliminated. Her role in modern day is mostly ceremonial, being a yes-woman for the house.

 

[NeoDevin]

2] In our system, it is not 'one party wins the others lose'. They are all charged with running the country - Libs, PCs and NDPs have a part to play in ensuring our country stays on the rails. This means they are not "overthrowing the governing body" or anything like that. They are doing what they are charged with doing.

Exactly correct.

3] We vote for the party, not the man. Who is leading the party is not as important as which party.

Not quite so correct. We vote for out local representative who may or may not be affiliated with one of the parties (and can even decide to change parties while serving). You don't vote for a party, and you don't vote for the PM (unless you happen to be in the riding he is running in).

 

[NeoDevin]

For more information about the dispute, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute" .

A further note from the above link on the powers of the Governor General:

The Statute of Westminster in 1931 clarified the independence the dominions (then, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and the Irish Free State) from Britain, and also clarified the role of the Governor General as one subordinate to the dominion government—not the British government—notwithstanding the dominions and Britain all had the same monarch. The historic "indivisibility of the crown" was transformed into an abstract concept, in which the crown is not a literal person or a thing but an idea represented by a person, thus enabling the one monarch, and his/her governors general and lieutenant, to serve each different country according to its own national traditions.

Therefore she is only there to serve the current government.

 

[Art]

When I read yesterday that the Canadian Prime Minister was allowed to suspend Parliament in order to avoid being removed, I realized how little I understand of how things work in Canada.

The same here. I thought the Canadian government was very closely modeled on the British parliamentary system.

The idea that the Canadian PM can suspend parliament to avoid being kicked out of office through a no confidence motion doesn't sound exactly democratic. The last person to suspend parliament in Britain in order to cling to power was Charles 1 who ended up having his head lopped off

Several gov'ts in Britain and other European countries have fallen by virtue of no confidence motions and it is not unusual in the least for opposition parties to form coalitions to gather the necessary votes to take power. The fact one of the would be coalition parties in Canada is secessionist is neither here nor there. The fact is they were elected and so are as entitled as any other elected representative to vote and to be heard.

I'm curious as to what advantage the Conservatives expect to gain through this manoeuvre. Most legislation will require parliamentary approval and so it is hard to see how they can govern effectively now.

 

[Danger]

Jean's position pretty much mandates that she has to agree with the current PM on issues such as this. Even though she is technically the head of our government, she is just a figurehead in practical terms.
In addition to pointing that out, NeoDevin covered most of the stuff that I have to say. This election had one of the lowest voter turnouts in history, but the large majority of those voted against the Conservatives. Problem was, those votes were split among Liberal, NDP, Bloc, Green, Martian... you name it. If the proposed coalition members do manage to work together, then they will in fact represent the majority of the population.
While I would be overjoyed to see Harper given the boot, the Bloc veto capability does worry me a tad. Still, separatist or not, they are duly elected representatives who deserve their say.
By the way, the situation isn't exactly unprecedented. Specifics vary, of course, but essentially the same thing happened before. (I'm not going to bother looking it up, but I believe that it was in 1913; I'm not good at history.)
Gokul, we are not a British Territory in the sense that the term is normally used. We're a fully independent nation, but still a member of the British Empire. As such, we are pledged to support the sitting monarch of England. We are not obliged to follow anything put forth by the civil government of England.
It's all very complicated, and I still have trouble following it myself. NeoDevin's doing a great job of explaining it.

 

[NeoDevin]

More information on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute#Precedents"

 

[Art]

Jean's position pretty much mandates that she has to agree with the current PM on issues such as this. Even though she is technically the head of our government, she is just a figurehead in practical terms.
In addition to pointing that out, NeoDevin covered most of the stuff that I have to say. This election had one of the lowest voter turnouts in history, but the large majority of those voted against the Conservatives. Problem was, those votes were split among Liberal, NDP, Bloc, Green, Martian... you name it. If the proposed coalition members do manage to work together, then they will in fact represent the majority of the population.
While I would be overjoyed to see Harper given the boot, the Bloc veto capability does worry me a tad. Still, separatist or not, they are duly elected representatives who deserve their say.
By the way, the situation isn't exactly unprecedented. Specifics vary, of course, but essentially the same thing happened before. (I'm not going to bother looking it up, but I believe that it was in 1913; I'm not good at history.)
Gokul, we are not a British Territory in the sense that the term is normally used. We're a fully independent nation, but still a member of the British Empire. As such, we are pledged to support the sitting monarch of England. We are not obliged to follow anything put forth by the civil government of England.
It's all very complicated, and I still have trouble following it myself. NeoDevin's doing a great job of explaining it.

Canada hasn't been a member of the now defunct British empire since the Statute of Westminster Act (1930). I think you meant Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth which is essentially a trading bloc of former empire territories still nominally headed by the queen of England.

 

[NeoDevin]

Canada hasn't been a member of the now defunct British empire since the Statute of Westminster Act (1930). I think you meant Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth which is essentially a trading bloc of former empire territories still nominally headed by the queen of England.

Except for the fact that it was 1931, you are correct.

 

[Danger]

I think you meant Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth

That is correct. We still refer to it, in common usage (at least where I live), as the Empire. Sorry for the imprecision.

 

[Art]

Except for the fact that it was 1931, you are correct.

My mistake. It was penned in 1930 but didn't receive royal assent until 1931.

As a piece of trivia it is ironic that one of the major drivers for Canadian independence following WWI was actually named King. (W. L. Mackenzie King, leader of the Liberal Party)

 

[tanker]

I would love to comment on this but as an American I'm essentially mentally disabled by being unable to imagine how a political system with more than two viable parties works.

Effectively, there are only two. The New Democrats consistently come in fourth place behind the separatist bloc. We up here call it the "two and a half party system."

The people gave these Liberal, NDP, and Bloc MPs the authority to do this by electing them.

Then why not do this before the election? Again, it seems to me that they went: "oh no, they're gaining seats, better go stop them!" Really, I would have much less of a problem (hardly any) if they had done it with more seats and not right after an election.

Still, separatist or not, they are duly elected representatives who deserve their say.

You are right, but they are elected by the people of Quebec for the only reason to wield power in parliament to get Quebec to secede. The irony of this whole thing is that if Quebec did not exist in this whole affair, we wouldn't be having this conversation as the Conservatives would have had a majority. The other reason I very much dislike the existence of the Bloc Quebecois is that Quebec ends up being a pit where both the Liberals and Conservatives throw their money, since it's such a huge province (= more seats), so Quebec gets tons of money in order to be more loyal to one of the two mainstream parties (but vote Bloc anyway).

When I read yesterday that the Canadian Prime Minister was allowed to suspend Parliament in order to avoid being removed, I realized how little I understand of how things work in Canada.

Indeed! Hell I didn't know the Prime Minister could suspend government like that (maybe I should ask for my money back for POLI 101, but it gave me 3 Arts credits I needed), and for certain I have reservations about that. He is a minority prime minister after all, and THAT seems "cheap." Still, it doesn't make him a dictator or anything (local paper letters are fun!) since he can't actually do anything while it's suspended, just day-to-day stuff, so no Anarchy either. The real question is whether he can still do anything once the 26th rolls around and if the other three parties have backed off.

 

[NeoDevin]

Effectively, there are only two. The New Democrats consistently come in fourth place behind the separatist bloc. We up here call it the "two and a half party system."

I don't know where "up here" is, but I've never heard it referred to as such.

Then why not do this before the election? Again, it seems to me that they went: "oh no, they're gaining seats, better go stop them!" Really, I would have much less of a problem (hardly any) if they had done it with more seats and not right after an election.

Because they did not have the authority to do this until after the election. In addition, they had no reason for non-confidence in the conservatives until after it was clear that the conservatives were not going to do what (the coalition believes) is best for Canada.

The irony of this whole thing is that if Quebec did not exist in this whole affair, we wouldn't be having this conversation as the Conservatives would have had a majority.

If Quebec did not exist in this whole affair, the entire political situation would be different, and it's impossible to say how things would have gone.

The other reason I very much dislike the existence of the Bloc Quebecois is that Quebec ends up being a pit where both the Liberals and Conservatives throw their money, since it's such a huge province (= more seats), so Quebec gets tons of money in order to be more loyal to one of the two mainstream parties (but vote Bloc anyway).

A good argument for some form of proportional representation.

Indeed! Hell I didn't know the Prime Minister could suspend government like that (maybe I should ask for my money back for POLI 101, but it gave me 3 Arts credits I needed), and for certain I have reservations about that. He is a minority prime minister after all, and THAT seems "cheap." Still, it doesn't make him a dictator or anything (local paper letters are fun!) since he can't actually do anything while it's suspended, just day-to-day stuff, so no Anarchy either. The real question is whether he can still do anything once the 26th rolls around and if the other three parties have backed off.

He can't just do it at will, whenever he feels like it. The entire agenda must be completed, and there can't be anything scheduled for the period of prorogation. You are correct that it is neither a dictatorship, nor anarchy for the time being. If the Conservatives come up with a good budget and plays nice, the other parties will most likely back off. If they continue to refuse to cooperate with the other parties, I expect to see a non-confidence vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogue#Prorogation

In the British and Canadian parliamentary systems, this is usually due to the completion of the agenda set forth in the Speech from the Throne (in the UK, called the legislative programme, and also "the Queen's Speech"). Legislatures and parliaments, once prorogued, remain in recess until summoned again by the Queen, Governor General, or Lieutenant Governor, and a new session is begun with the State Opening of Parliament and the Speech from the Throne.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then why not do this before the election? Again, it seems to me that they went: "oh no, they're gaining seats, better go stop them!" Really, I would have much less of a problem (hardly any) if they had done it with more seats and not right after an election.

Again, it is not like Harper and his conservatives are meant to run the country while everyone else twiddles their thumbs till next election. They are all running the country together. Loosely, Harper needs to create a budget that everyone can live with (more or less) to succeed. In failing to do so, he has effectively let down the other parties and thus the rest of the country. (I'm not arguing this as my position or opinion, just putting it forth as the ideal case of how things are supposed to work. I think.)

Add to this the fact that he called an election when no one wanted it or needed it, followed by a claim that he has "a clear mandate"...

... and have a whole bunch of people who have lost confidence that he is doing what is in the people's interests. << And that's the crux.

 

[Danger]

One thing that must be remembered, as well, is that as much as we'd like to, we cannot unlock our system from the US. Many of we non-Conservatives see Harper as being in Bush's pocket. They're both essentially right-wing fanatics. Harper is only a Conservative because his Alliance Party (basically a western separative Christian movement) fell apart due to its untenable position. Obama winning the Presidential election has changed a lot of perspectives up here. The hope that we see in him influences our outlook toward our own system.
I can't speak for other Canuks, but that's how a lot of my friends and I see it.

 

[mgb_phys]

One of the big problems with the British consituency style elections is that you can only have minority parties that are concentrated in a particular area (you win a seat for a majority in the area covered by that seat) so although the greens got as many votes across Canada as the Bloc they got no seats. It's the samein the UK the liberals come third with about 25% of the votes, but because they tend to come second or third in each seat they only have a handfull of seats, the Scottish and Welsh nationalists get fewer votes but more seats because their votes are concentrated in a few places.

You could argue that since more people voted for Liberal/NDP/Bloc they were atually voting for a coallition of these parties to be in charge.

 

[Danger]

You could argue that since more people voted for Liberal/NDP/Bloc they were atually voting for a coallition of these parties to be in charge.

In a way, they were. At least, most were hoping for a minority government if the Conservatives happened to get back in.

 

[DaveC426913]

Obama winning the Presidential election has changed a lot of perspectives up here. The hope that we see in him influences our outlook toward our own system.
I can't speak for other Canuks, but that's how a lot of my friends and I see it.

I've heard it mentioned that possibly one of the motivations for Harper to have called the election when he did was to ensure it happened before Obama got in, knowing that Obama's example might set a precedent for change that would not help Harper's cause.

 

[Danger]

I never heard that particular theory, but it certainly makes sense.

 

[tanker]

I don't know where "up here" is, but I've never heard it referred to as such.

Oh, it was in my polisci textbook.

One thing that must be remembered, as well, is that as much as we'd like to, we cannot unlock our system from the US. Many of we non-Conservatives see Harper as being in Bush's pocket. They're both essentially right-wing fanatics. Harper is only a Conservative because his Alliance Party (basically a western separative Christian movement) fell apart due to its untenable position. Obama winning the Presidential election has changed a lot of perspectives up here. The hope that we see in him influences our outlook toward our own system.
I can't speak for other Canuks, but that's how a lot of my friends and I see it.

Before Harper won the first time, I kinda thought the same, that Harper was too right wing. But I think that during his minority stint he was quite reasonable and not a nutcase.

About the US and Canada thing, for better or for worse, Canada has to be good friends with the US. We depend on them too much.

And a little observation from people I hang out with: A lot of people where I am (some I might even call friends) think Harper = Right wing = Bush = (America) = evil. Seriously. It's just like the whole Obama = communist thing (which is complete bull). Come on now, Harper is no Bush.

You could argue that since more people voted for Liberal/NDP/Bloc they were atually voting for a coallition of these parties to be in charge.

But the Liberal/NDP/Bloc got less of the vote share in this election than last time.

 

[tmc]

Before Harper won the first time, I kinda thought the same, that Harper was too right wing. But I think that during his minority stint he was quite reasonable and not a nutcase.

And then he tried to cut funding for the other parties, remove right to strike for federal employees, freeze their wages and remove equity between men and women.
That's what he proposed as a minority leader. Imagine if he had had a majority...

But the Liberal/NDP/Bloc got less of the vote share in this election than last time.

They still got more of the vote share than the conservatives. As such, they're entitled to form the government if they agree to form a coalition.

 

[tanker]

And then he tried to cut funding for the other parties,

Cut public funding for all parties. Quite honestly, seeing taxes go towards a party that most certainly doesn't have my (and most Canadians') interests in mind (i.e. the Bloc) irks me somewhat (a lot). I'd rather see my money go to the greens, hell any other party.

Sure, the Conservatives stand to lose the least from this, but show me a government/party that isn't opportunistic like that - maybe two certain parties trying to form a government "in the interests of Canadians" by using a party that again, most certainly doesn't operate in the interests of (most) Canadians? And the those whose interests that it does represent don't want to be part of Canada.

remove right to strike for federal employees, freeze their wages

Ok, sure, I'll give you that one. But then again, I'm not a huge fan of unions...here in BC the provincial NDP was pretty much held at ransom for ten years by unions.

and remove equity between men and women.

Source? I've seen nothing about that.

globeandmail.com and other recent polls show the conservatives gaining support in provinces that aren't Quebec. Massive losses in Quebec though (shocking).

 

[tmc]

Cut public funding for all parties. Quite honestly, seeing taxes go towards a party that most certainly doesn't have my (and most Canadians') interests in mind (i.e. the Bloc) irks me somewhat (a lot). I'd rather see my money go to the greens, hell any other party.

Sure, the Conservatives stand to lose the least from this, but show me a government/party that isn't opportunistic like that - maybe two certain parties trying to form a government "in the interests of Canadians" by using a party that again, most certainly doesn't operate in the interests of (most) Canadians? And the those whose interests that it does represent don't want to be part of Canada.

The role of public funding is to ensure fair elections, to prevent a richer party, or a party whose supporters are richer and more able to make donations, from basically buying an election. It's a stable of our democratic system.

The Bloc has the interests of Quebecers in mind, who are Canadians, and they won a clear majority of support in that province (the support for the Bloc is far, far above the support for the separation of Quebec).

Public funding also goes to the Communist Party, or to the Marxist-Leninist Party. Should we remove those as well? Who should decide who gets money?

Not to mention, this is a very small amount of money anyways in the grand scheme of things, at least for what it brings in terms of fairness for elections.

Also, there's a difference between being opportunistic, and trying to pass a law which would pretty much kill another party (the Liberals) for the next few years, allowing the conservatives, who are right now pretty rich (while the Liberals are broke) to buy the next election which might happen very soon.

Source? I've seen nothing about that.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Canadian_political_dispute): "The document was fiercely rejected by the opposition for not fiscally stimulating the economy during the economic crisis,[7][8] for suspending the right of federal civil servants to strike, and for suspending the right for women to seek recourse from the courts for pay equity issues."

globeandmail.com and other recent polls show the conservatives gaining support in provinces that aren't Quebec. Massive losses in Quebec though (shocking).

Note that Quebec was initially against the coalition, since Dion is hated in Quebec, by separatists, and they feel that the Bloc's alliance with him is a treason. This support changed rapidly, however, when Harper decided to start blaming everything on Quebec and on the Bloc, which is a surefire way to reignite the separatist ideas in Quebec, and to lose him all his votes in that province.

 

[tanker]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Canadian_political_dispute "The document was fiercely rejected by the opposition for not fiscally stimulating the economy during the economic crisis,[7][8] for suspending the right of federal civil servants to strike, and for suspending the right for women to seek recourse from the courts for pay equity issues."

Checked it out, and I couldn't see the source of the claim in wiki. If this is true, though, I stand corrected and shocked.
Edit: I also couldn't find a source in the wiki article about the strike suspension, even though the article claims it as well.

Interesting about that funding stuff. Why are the Conservatives so wealthy, and why are the Liberals broke? The Liberals, after all, were in power for 10+ years, while the Conservatives were hardly on the map during that time. What changed?

As for those fringe parties, well their non existent public support means they hardly get any money anyway, so so what. For the better, too, since then we don't have to have the Family Values religious types pushing pamphlets in our face or Karl Marx worshipers on the other end...

 

[tmc]

The Liberals are poor for two reasons. First, donations went way down during the scandals and due to internal splitting between Chretien and Martin camps, and have yet to fully recover from those. They were at the top for a while, and while it worked they were indeed rich (while the conservatives were quite poor, especially before the two parties merged...the Canadian alliance basically depended on the public subsidies to stay alive, which is why it's ironic to see now the conservatives trying to remove this funding). Second, they've had a lot of spending lately, with many election campaigns, leadership races, etc. There's been a lot of internal action in the Liberals that other parties haven't seen.

The Conservatives are wealthy because, one, they're not as broke as the Liberals, and two, their donations have gone up with Alberta's wealth and with the merger of all right-wing parties, while the left is still broken up in various parties (Alberta is rich, and is full of conservative supporters, which translates into lots of donations).

 

[GeorginaS]

And then he tried to cut funding for the other parties, remove right to strike for federal employees, freeze their wages and remove equity between men and women.
That's what he proposed as a minority leader. Imagine if he had had a majority...


They still got more of the vote share than the conservatives. As such, they're entitled to form the government if they agree to form a coalition.

And cutting funding would have effectively bankrupted all other parties save the Conservatives.

Thank you, tmc, for injecting the reasoning and rationale behind the introduction of the idea of the coalition formation in the first place. The open post represented it as a power-play by the Liberals and NDP existing in a vacuum. And that not being the case, it was a tad annoying.

 

[NeoDevin]

The open post represented it as a power-play by the Liberals and NDP existing in a vacuum.

Conservative propaganda has convinced a lot of Canadians that that is the case.

 

[Danger]

I think that it's time to introduce the 'First Danger Law of Politics': Anyone possessed of the type of mentality needed to run for public office is unfit to hold it.