Regime change in Ottawa?

[AcdnluvsUSA]

For those of you who do care whats going on in Canada,
we have alot of protestors across the country calling on Bush to give Canadians a new regime change too.

i find that awesome since we do have a dictator more powers then any head of government , including the states president.

It would be awesome if you guys actually did give us a regime change, i'm for it.

[LoKi-11]

why did you leave where ever your from anyway riki. Why didnt you just stay there.

Oh, maybe its because you actually wanted to have a shot at making money and freedom.

Its easy to talk shit about a place and people you are jealous of.

[AcdnluvsUSA]

Well your entitled to your opinion, I just think it's awesome that people are finally barking about regime change, because we actually do not have any rights here, "notwithstanding" that limits the freedoms of people here whenever law decides it.
We're being told we have rights and freedoms but it's a smoke screen, we don't have any rights and we're being dictated to by our asshole pm and his caucus that are just sheep to him.
He can change and appoint and fire anybody ...

Why would you want to live in a place like that?
I can't wait to move to the states so I can finally be at peace with my fiance. Fuck the Canadian Government and his fucking french seals.

[Bergs]

The French? Are you kidding me. When it comes to warfare they are 0 for the last 200 years.

Unless you meant that the arab guerillas make the french look good you have no point

[JJJ187LiQuid]

OK heres the part of your logic I do not understand.

You believe all Americans are Zionist for some reason. We are not brainwashed like the people of the middle east.

Iraq- sadaam gasses his own people for rebelling and trying to use free speach. There is no freedom in iraq. In america if one speaks freely of the government he/she is not tortured/killed/raped.

In afghanistan women get stoned to death for no particular reason. HOW the hell is this a good functioning society? Why do you feel that its right to kill people to get order in your society.

THis is the problem with the people of the middle east. they have been brainwashed and feared their whole life to hate all americans and anyone who supports peace. Tehy kill their own and gass their own and rape and murder their own women and children. There is no freedom and no opportunity for people to express their feelings.

the middle east is an example of the old world. LIke the medieval times when people were killed all over the place. The middle east is lawless with its corrupt leaders and brainwashed citizens.

Rimariku i cant understand you, and i will not listen to your words when you fully state you have no problem with murders. I dont care what your religion is killing is a sin. If anyone feels comfterable with killings there is something wrong with them. WITh people like this in the world sometimes i cant wait until GOD comes down and rips a new A HOLE into this earth.

[Stanky105]

I am surprised people are still arguing with Rikimaru, hes saying this stuff just to piss you guys off. Thinking Saddam is powerful, the french can fight, and all that stuff, hes just saying these things to piss ya guys off, ignore him and he might just go away.

[Sas]

France has troops!? The only thing I've seen is people in military gear with white flags flapping in the breeze! Well, I guess that might be about the same as Saddams troops... So would that make them "elite" too? :p

[Bergs]

Exactly and everytime france does decide to support a military coflict where are its troops? No where, they dont fight. American forces always compose of the vast majority of any western coalition followed by the british. The French army barely even exist. And we have certainly seen the effectiveness of the FRench legion. Theyve been around forever and france has been losing forever. SOunds pretty tough huh

[BlueMind]

Baha.
France has an excellent military strategy. They surrender.

I think the French should be in Iraq. I mean, someone has to teach Saddam how to surrender.

[Bergs]

damn straight bluemind

[Coven66]

hey, i'm also a canadian and i thik that america is one of the worse countrys in the world. freedom for all but anyone who isn't a white middle class male with a gun. thats america. why don't u ask yourself who put saddam into power in the first place, just so he could fight Iran. america preaches democracy, but they keep more dictatores in power around the world. most of the 9-11 hijackers were soudi, not iraqie and guess who keeps the brutal Saudi dictator in power. the people are pissed and i can fully understand why they are willing to strap a bobm to there chest. because they have lost everything and have nothing to lose. america assasinates rebal leaders who want to install a democracy in there country, they kept noriaga in power untill he started to talk about using the panima canal to make his people rich, but no the US branded him a drug dealer and assasinated him. so who is really to blame for the mess were all in. this same situation happened about 1000 years ago to a little place i call Rome. and we all know how that ended:mad:

[Johnny_canuck]

lol,

You truley believe that rights in Canda are a smoke screen, and the US is a free and open country? That is by far the funniest post i have ever read on this whole site... have you ever read the "Patriot Act". It basically suspends those garunteed rights of americans if you are deemed a threat. Part II of the act gets even beter, secret arrests, stripping people of citizen ship, holding people until the end of time without being charged. The charter of rights and freedomes protects us, as well as due process... * cough cough taliban "POWs" and terror suspects from 9\11 still being held in camp X-ray CUBA! Wanna talk about tourture and killing why dont you give that place a try...**

... and im sure you will feel alot better when you escape our "opressive regime" and can hapily vote freely in the states, Republican or Democrat...

Want chretien gone try voting him out of power, its called " Democracy" and he's only acting in accordance with the views of the canadian people and our long standing foreign policy.
If anyone ever needed a regime change, its the US.

[AcdnluvsUSA]

SOMETHING TO OPEN YOUR EYES:

A Canadian Prime Minister can appoint judges, ratify treaties, send Canadian men and women into war, negotiate trade agreements, make patronage appointments, set the date of elections to suit his or her political advantage, determine when Parliament will be prorogued, when it will be recalled, and appoint the most senior public servants, all without reference to the MPs Canadians have elected to represent them. This is a parliamentary dictatorship and it must be brought to an end.

Canada is not a democracy, but rather, a Constitutional Monarchy.

The head of the government is not an elected representative, not even a Canadian (residing in or born in), but rather an un-elected British monarch. The United States does have an elected head of state, yet it too, is not a democracy in strictest sense of the word. Rather, the US can best be described as a Republic.

Both countries are democratic in that the will of the people is exercised by elected officials. However, in examining the question of democracy in the modern sense of the word, one must look beyond symbolic sovereign rulers and traditional definitions and examine the underlying foundations on which the countries rest.

In Canada the Monarchy has full executive powers, but does not wield them. Then who does? For all practical purposes the answer is the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister (PM), while not directly elected by the people in national elections, is traditionally an elected representative of the party that has the most seats in the House of Commons. Besides being able to preside as an un-elected official in the Senate (this has happened twice in Canada's history), the appointed leader has a host of unilateral powers, some of which include the authority:

To appoint the Governor General of Canada (through whom the PM technically exercises most of his/her powers);
To appoint Senators to the Canadian Senate;
To appoint Supreme Court justices and other federal justices;
To appoint all members of the Cabinet;
To appoint the entire board of the Bank of Canada;
To appoint the heads of the military, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and other government agencies;
To appoint CEO's and Chairs of crown corporations such as CBC;
To dissolve Parliament and choose the time of the next federal election (within a 5 year limit);
To run for re-election indefinitely (no term limits);
To remove Members of Parliament (MPs) from the ruling party's caucus;
To deny any MP the right to participate in Parliamentary debate or run for re-election;
To dismiss individuals or groups of representatives from serving in Parliament;
To veto (by denying royal assent to) any legislation passed in Parliament;
To ratify treaties; and
To declare war.
It should be noted, that the final five powers which are called "prerogative powers", are rarely used by a Prime Minister; primarily because they have not proven politically expedient, and would be unpopular if used. All appointments made by the PM are his/her sole discretion. While the United States has confirmation hearings for all presidential appointments, there are no confirmation hearings for any appointments including cabinet members, Supreme Court Justices and Senators in Canada. Arguably, the PM is one of the most powerful elected leaders of any democratic nation. The checks in the Canadian system are limited to either outright revolt within the PM's party, an action that has never taken place in Canada, or refusal by the Governor General to assent to an action proposed by the PM. This is a doubtful course of action since the Governor General is appointed "on the advice of", which is to say effectively appointed directly, by the PM.

"The Prime Minister used to be described as 'the first among equals' in the cabinet, or as 'a moon among minor stars'. This is no longer so. He (she) is now incomparably more powerful than any colleague. The Prime Minister chooses the ministers in the first place, and can also ask any of them to resign; if the minister refuses, the Prime Minister can advise the Governor General to remove that minister and the advice would invariably be followed. Cabinet decisions do not necessarily go by majority vote. A strong prime minister, having listened to everyone's opinion, may simply announce that his (her) view is the policy of the government, even if most, or all, the other ministers are opposed. Unless the dissenting ministers are prepared to resign, they must bow to the decision."

In many ways the absolute powers that Kings and Queens of yore once had, have merely been passed along to Prime Ministers of today. A sampling of the Prime Minister's far-reaching powers can be found by looking at the Black v. Chretien (September 12, 2000) case, in which the current PM used the Crown's prerogative powers to interfere with the appointment of Conrad Black to the British House of Lords. The Prime Minister cited an obscure resolution signed in 1919 which requested the King of England refrain from giving honorary titles to any of the King's Canadian subjects as the basis for his objection. Mr. Black stated for the record that he felt the objection to be an abuse of Prime Ministerial power that was being exercised because of a personal vendetta directed towards himself by the PM and due to the frequent appearance of unfavorable commentary in the National Post. However, the judge decided that the issue was non-justiciable because the Crown's powers cannot be questioned. As such, he could not rule on the question of abuse of power, since motivation behind or scope of royal prerogative cannot be reviewed by the judiciary. Indeed, Parliament itself cannot even debate any changes to the Crown's power without the Crown's consent. Although prerogative powers have lessened over the years, the preceding example does offer a glimpse into the kind of power that is at the disposal of a so-called "strong" Prime Minister.

Both the Prime Minister and the President have two legislative branches with which they deal with. However, the Prime Minister, by default, controls the House of Commons since he/she is chosen by the majority party there, and in modern days simply does not have to be concerned with the appointed Senate. Although the Senate can amend and debate bills brought to it by the House of Commons and even introduce bills of its own, it rarely, if ever votes against a bill passed in the House. If Canadian Senators were to start to "rock the boat", the public might well raise an eyebrow to what is widely perceived as illegitimate powers given to elderly friends of the Prime Minister. Senators receive in excess of $100,000 salaries plus extravagant pensions upon retirement. Of course, if the Senate does block legislation, the PM has the power to add 8 additional seats in the Senate (s. 26), as Brian Mulroney did to pass the General Sales Tax (GST).

Another major factor weakening democracy in Canada's Parliamentary system is strict party discipline. A PM, by use of the party's Whip, can ensure members within his party vote along party lines. A carrot and stick approach is often used, the carrot being a much sought after cabinet position with all its added stature and monetary benefits, and the stick being dismissal from the party (an example being John Nunziata). Indeed, in this leader-centered political age, the PM will often remind members of his/her caucus that it is the his/her visage which got them their position in the first place. This all results in a "hive mind" mentality where MPs rarely vote against their own party, even if they feel it is not in the best interest of their constituents. Prime Minister Trudeau was once quoted as referring to his Liberal backbenchers as "trained donkeys".

By contrast, US Congressmen often vote against their own party and/or President. For example, when the House of Representatives was asked to vote on the Farm Security Act of 2001; 151 Republicans, 139 Democrats, and 1 Independent voted in favor; 58 Republicans, 61 Democrats, and 1 Independent voted against. When the Parliament of Canada voted on the Farm Credit Corporation Act; 150 Liberals, 4 Alliance, 0 Bloc Quebecois, 9 Conservatives, and 9 New Democrats voted in favor; 0 Liberals, 39 Alliance, 32 Bloc Quebecois, 0 Conservatives, and 0 New Democrats voted against. The results are similar for virtually every bit of legislation passed in the United States and Canada respectively. Although Canadians often hear from the US media of partisan politics, it does not even compare to the rigid party politics in Canada. It should be noted that the Canadian Alliance is the one and only Canadian party which allows "free votes" for its own party members.

[AcdnluvsUSA]

n Canada, a ruling majority government allows the opposition to debate a piece of legislation, and even ask questions during a question period. However, increasingly closure and time allocation votes are used to silence the opposition and push legislation through. Furthermore, because of strict party discipline, attempting to convince members in other parties to vote against their own party is completely futile. In contrast, one need only watch a session of Congress on C-SPAN to see how US Congressmen go to great lengths to persuade and convince, by use of charts, graphs, statistics and supporting information, other Congressmen to vote with them despite their political affiliation, and, successfully do so in many instances. This sort of lobbying is rarely, if ever, seen in Parliament. More often, the members of the opposition parties in the House of Commons use their time to attempt to embarrass the ruling party in the hope that the media will show it to the public rather than using the time to attempt to gain support from other members. Tactics employed by members are ones like booing, yelling and making slanderous accusations. Although autocratic rule may not be felt outside Parliament, it is surely exercised within the halls of Parliament Hill.

Advocates of the parliamentary system often state that this system of government is more efficient by allowing a government to pass legislation without "political wrangling". However, it may be argued that democracy is not designed for efficiency, but for accountability. If efficiency were a primary goal of government, we could all live under "efficient" dictatorships which exercised law by instant fiat instead of requiring months of debate. Gridlock can actually be a desirable thing for it limits the powers of any one branch of government and provides a harness for what otherwise would be un-checked power run rampant. Additionally, are not discussion, debate and lobbying desirable parts of a successful democratic system? Is not a government which must bend and shape policy so that the majority of the representatives, acting as individual representatives, believe in it? Yes it is true that US Presidents will often blame the Congress for not passing a law which they promised to enact. However, it is a fact that promises are broken in any system. For example, over a decade ago, Jean Chrétien, who was at that point leader of the opposition, promised that once in power he would both eliminate the GST and renegotiate NAFTA. In 1993 he was given a majority government as a result of having made the above stated as well as many other "promises". As of 2003, he continues to hold a majority Government and yet both of the previously mentioned promises remain unfulfilled.

The United States was formed with a system of checks and balances and separation of powers. Therefore, the President of the United States has a more limited power within the US system than the Canadian PM has within the Canadian system. The President nominates Supreme Court Justices, and all other federal judges, Cabinet members, and signs treaties. However, all of these decisions are subject to review by the US Senate. This is why it is not uncommon to see members of opposing parties in administration cabinet positions, as is the case for Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, a Democrat in the Bush administration.

The President often faces either a House or a Senate that has a majority of the opposing party, and even when both are of the same party, Congress almost never bows unconditionally to the President's will. Republican President George Bush Sr. faced not only a critical Democrat majority in Congress in the early 90s, but also had to deal with a majority of Republican Congressmen who did not back him in passing deficit and tax legislation. As of 2003, President George W. Bush has both a Republican Senate and House, yet, he too cannot pass any legislation he wishes without worry. So-called "moderate Republicans" have already joined with Democrats to stop initiatives like the Bush tax cut, oil drilling in Alaska, and increased logging in national forests. Presidents do have powers to make important decisions both domestically and abroad. However, the "power of the purse" lies in Congress and any action can significantly be hindered, if not outright halted, by a Congress that refuses to fund a Presidential initiative. The same is true in Canada. However, as has been discussed before, strict party discipline has prevented any such actions in Canada. Also, the Canadian PM has shifted much government responsibility over to committees. Committee appointment is yet another "carrot" which is regularly used by the PM to secure member support. Finally, a President who attempts to overstep his bounds can be impeached and thrown out of office by the Congress.

Examples of this course of action include the proposed impeachment of Presidents Johnson, Clinton and Nixon. While President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives because of the Monica Lewinsky affair, Prime Minister Chrétien has no such worry in regards to the Grand-Mère affair. The only internal check in the Canadian system is an ethics counselor appointed by none other than the Prime Minister himself.

So, while the US seems to have learned from the pitfalls of Westminster system, with its appropriate checks and balances, Canada has fallen further into a centralization of power, so much so, that now it is described by some as a Prime Ministerial Dictatorship. In fact, even a British Prime Minister is considerably less powerful than his Canadian counterpart, partly because party discipline has weakened in the UK, but also because the British government is immensely larger, and thus, most Parliamentarians know they will never receive a cabinet position which effectively nullifies the power of this particular "carrot".

THAT IS WHY I WOULD RATHER LIVE IN AMERICA THEN IN CANADUH...

GOD DAMN, IF PEOPLE LIKE YOU ONLY KNEW.

OH AND ON THE "CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOM"
SINCE YOU THINK YOU HAVE RIGHTS, LET ME SHOW YOU SOMETHING DEAR.

A true democracy is one that is representative of the people. One where people are represented in government; not where the government represents people. A democratic system should spell out the absolute rights of its citizens in a clear and understandable manner; not the absolute rights of a sovereign to rule, whether symbolically or otherwise, for all eternity. Furthermore, these rights should not be allowed to be cast away by use of a notwithstanding clause. Indeed, limiting a persons liberty should be very difficult for a government to change through legislation.


Can it be claimed that it is truly a democracy, when a system allows one man who is not even nationally elected, to wield supreme executive power with little restraint? Might it not be said that the US model is a much more democratically representative system which forces a greater consensus among representatives?

Under section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution, the Federal parliament or a provincial legislature may declare a law or part of a law to apply "notwithstanding" certain sections of the Charter or they may use it to negate any Judicial review. This is done by including a section in the Constitutional law specifying which rights have been overridden. Such a declaration lapses after five years or a lesser time specified in the clause. It may be re-enacted.


If our freedom of conscience or religion can be taken away by a law which operates notwithstanding the Charter, if our right to life or liberty can be taken not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, what freedom do we have?


The notwithstanding clause is a dagger pointed at the heart of our fundamental freedoms, and it should be abolished. Although it does not apply to the whole Charter of Rights, it does apply to a very large number of the rights and freedoms otherwise guaranteed. ...

Clearly, then, it gives federal and provincial legislators very wide powers to do as they see fit in limiting or denying those rights and freedoms. The Charter would not have protected the Japanese-Canadians who were forcibly interned during World War II. Nor will it protect anyone advocating an unpopular cause today.

Perhaps none of our legislatures will use the notwithstanding clause again. But it is there. And if this dragger is flung, the courts will be as powerless to protect our rights as they were before there was a Charter of Rights.


This is why I hate our government.
:mad: