Please pardon the length of this comment; I had a few fish-out-of-water moments while reading this article.
"Under a sunny afternoon sky in Ottawa, Mr. Martin took a leisurely walk to visit Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson's official residence and asked her to dissolve Parliament for the five-week election campaign."
This is my first waitaminnit moment ... The Parliament can be dissolved at any time and a new one elected if the Governor-General so decides? Is the Governor-General analogous to the President of the United States and does he or she outrank the PM? Is this position a hold-over from the British Empire days where Governors of territories were appointed by the Crown and held near-complete autonomy over the colony? As I understand it, Canada being a Commonwealth country, Canadians are still subjects of the Crown, but how much governing control does the Monarch have over Canadian affairs (same question in regard to British Parliament)? This is one of those cultural points Americans don't quite grasp: The President can NEVER dissolve Congress and request new elections of the entire body. The Constitution forbids it. Even in wartime, if Martial Law were instituted, Congress would still be in session and would still control the pursestrings and could (if they were to disagree with the PUSA's instituting Martial Law) impeach the PUSA and restore Civil Law.
What is this "Sponsorship Scandal?"
"The Conservatives may stand to gain some ground based on their election platform. Economists have said that their campaign promise to hand out multibillion-dollar tax cuts while balancing the budget, paying down the debt and maintaining social programs could work."
Conservative thought in America jibes with Canadian Conservatives even up to the point that maintaining existing social programs seems to be a sacred cow that would be abolished if it could, but must not be because too many people view it as necessary. The difference is that many American Conservatives are less concerned with a balanced budget and paying down the debt. Temporary debt can be accrued as long as the economy is growing at a sufficient pace. Budgetary debt tends to keep inflation and interest lower and thus provide more impetus for investors and producers to pile money into the economic cycle. At any rate, this works in America's more free-market style economy where our tax burden is less and social programs fewer. Does Canada's economy tend to operate the same way? If there is enough free market style flexibility in the economy, then the quickest, fairest and most lucrative way to grow government revenue is to slash taxes to provide both incentive to earn and incentive to report earnings. How much sway does the free-market have to establish pricing and earnings based on what the market will bear rather than what the government decree?
"The NDP ... released a health platform last week saying it would drive private health care clinics out of business by increasing funding to public health facilities."
WHAT?! This is a legitimate plank in a platform? Government-approved torpedoing of a private business that is in no violation of civil law? This is acceptable to a block of voters? I can't possibly understand this through my prism of American politics. What is the balance in Canada between Capitalism and Socialism? 60/40? 50/50? Variable depending on the arena? I've never studied Canadian politics, but somewhere in the back of my brain was the assumption that Canadian politics and government was just like America's except with more political parties, allegiance to a Monarch in some vague undefined manner, and a larger welfare program (plus that pesky universal health care). Where have I gone wrong?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
This is why I am confused by Canadian Politics
Date: 2004-05-24 10:26 am (UTC)"Under a sunny afternoon sky in Ottawa, Mr. Martin took a leisurely walk to visit Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson's official residence and asked her to dissolve Parliament for the five-week election campaign."
This is my first waitaminnit moment ... The Parliament can be dissolved at any time and a new one elected if the Governor-General so decides? Is the Governor-General analogous to the President of the United States and does he or she outrank the PM? Is this position a hold-over from the British Empire days where Governors of territories were appointed by the Crown and held near-complete autonomy over the colony? As I understand it, Canada being a Commonwealth country, Canadians are still subjects of the Crown, but how much governing control does the Monarch have over Canadian affairs (same question in regard to British Parliament)? This is one of those cultural points Americans don't quite grasp: The President can NEVER dissolve Congress and request new elections of the entire body. The Constitution forbids it. Even in wartime, if Martial Law were instituted, Congress would still be in session and would still control the pursestrings and could (if they were to disagree with the PUSA's instituting Martial Law) impeach the PUSA and restore Civil Law.
What is this "Sponsorship Scandal?"
"The Conservatives may stand to gain some ground based on their election platform. Economists have said that their campaign promise to hand out multibillion-dollar tax cuts while balancing the budget, paying down the debt and maintaining social programs could work."
Conservative thought in America jibes with Canadian Conservatives even up to the point that maintaining existing social programs seems to be a sacred cow that would be abolished if it could, but must not be because too many people view it as necessary. The difference is that many American Conservatives are less concerned with a balanced budget and paying down the debt. Temporary debt can be accrued as long as the economy is growing at a sufficient pace. Budgetary debt tends to keep inflation and interest lower and thus provide more impetus for investors and producers to pile money into the economic cycle. At any rate, this works in America's more free-market style economy where our tax burden is less and social programs fewer. Does Canada's economy tend to operate the same way? If there is enough free market style flexibility in the economy, then the quickest, fairest and most lucrative way to grow government revenue is to slash taxes to provide both incentive to earn and incentive to report earnings. How much sway does the free-market have to establish pricing and earnings based on what the market will bear rather than what the government decree?
"The NDP ... released a health platform last week saying it would drive private health care clinics out of business by increasing funding to public health facilities."
WHAT?! This is a legitimate plank in a platform? Government-approved torpedoing of a private business that is in no violation of civil law? This is acceptable to a block of voters? I can't possibly understand this through my prism of American politics. What is the balance in Canada between Capitalism and Socialism? 60/40? 50/50? Variable depending on the arena? I've never studied Canadian politics, but somewhere in the back of my brain was the assumption that Canadian politics and government was just like America's except with more political parties, allegiance to a Monarch in some vague undefined manner, and a larger welfare program (plus that pesky universal health care). Where have I gone wrong?