Minority Liberals to oppose Bloc amendment, put government on line
 

Canadian Press


Thursday, October 07, 2004


ADVERTISEMENT



OTTAWA -- Paul Martin's minority government is set to put its political life on the line Thursday by opposing a Bloc Quebecois amendment to the throne speech.

But it's a risk it expects to survive.

Transport Minister Jean Lapierre, Martin's Quebec lieutenant, told the House of Commons that the government can't back a separatist amendment.

''It's impossible to support this sub-amendment by the Bloc Quebecois, made in bad faith, and seemingly inspired by Jacques Parizeau,'' he said.

The amendment, which is to be voted on early Thursday evening, asks Ottawa to respect provincial jurisdictions and take into account that federal taxing powers weaken provincial ability to raise revenues.

The government will need the support of some New Democrats and Tories - or their absence from the Commons - to survive because it has declared the motion a confidence vote.

The 99 Conservatives and 54 Bloc MPs would have the power to vote down the 134 Liberals and 19 New Democrats provided they get the support of the one independent - a former Tory - in the 308-seat House. Speaker Peter Milliken, a Liberal, only votes in a tie.


But Conservative Leader Stephen Harper signalled Wednesday that he will not use the throne speech to bring down the government.


I didn't expect something like this so soon. I mean, I'm totally sure the Liberals don't have to worry... it's just more windbagging by the Separatists, but if hell freezes over anytime soon... Canada could be looking at more elections. And it's been what, three months or so since the last set?

As bad as it sounds having another election we could have one and still complete the two elections in less time than it takes the US to elect a President!

LOL. I know. It's one of the things I hate about American government. If we get lumped with a dud, there's little we can do to get him out. There's impeachment, but that's only for etreme cases, and it's pretty rare. Twice in the entire history of the American government.

In a parliamentary system, if a government's not working out, you just exchange it for a new one. Like in Spain after the Madrid attacks... they felt that the government hadn't done its job, so they called for new elections and got a new one.

LOL. I know. It's one of the things I hate about American government. If we get lumped with a dud, there's little we can do to get him out. There's impeachment, but that's only for etreme cases, and it's pretty rare. Twice in the entire history of the American government.

In a parliamentary system, if a government's not working out, you just exchange it for a new one. Like in Spain after the Madrid attacks... they felt that the government hadn't done its job, so they called for new elections and got a new one.


Slight correction here; the elections in Spain had been scheduled before the Madrid bombings occurred, not after. The bombers probably decided to strike when they did since they thought they might be able to influence the elections.

Point taken. But, even if they hadn't been, they could have been called for, which was the point.

Point taken. But, even if they hadn't been, they could have been called for, which was the point.


I don't quite understand the issue at hand in the article you posted....

Speaking of U.S. elections, it's an unjust universe.  The fascists have exactly the guy they need to push their agenda to reality, George W. Bush.  The liberals and progressives have only John Kerry.  In the Europe and the UK commonwealth, Kerry would be considered moderately conservative.  In the U.S., the Dems are trying to push him as the rational liberal answer we need, and the Republicans are (falsely) calling him the "most liberal senator."
I sure wish he was the most liberal senator.  The most liberal senator for certain was the late Paul Wellestone.  He and several members of his family and staff were killed in a plane crash before the 2002 mid-term elections.  I have no evidence to show it was right-wing sabotage, but I wouldn't be surprised.

LOL. I know. It's one of the things I hate about American government. If we get lumped with a dud, there's little we can do to get him out. There's impeachment, but that's only for etreme cases, and it's pretty rare. Twice in the entire history of the American government.

In a parliamentary system, if a government's not working out, you just exchange it for a new one. Like in Spain after the Madrid attacks... they felt that the government hadn't done its job, so they called for new elections and got a new one.


I also agree that a parlimentary system is more democratic than ours.  If you want to understand why we have the system we do, read James Madison's Federalist Paper # 10.  It was designed to be aurocratic,