Sharing Daily Discoveries About Personal Finance And Business Topics

Canadian Coalition Government

Off topic, but this has got to be one of the strangest political tactics I have ever seen during my lifetime. Can’t they just focus on issues such as making the economy better? Just to enlighten everyone, we recently had an election here similar to the US and a government was elected. However, the opposing parties are now in the midst of forming a coalition to overthrow the elected winner. As you may have guessed, this is costing more time and money.

It just seems wrong on so many levels to me. For one thing, it doesn’t seem right where the people elected a leader and now they can be so easily overthrown. Another thing is there is this party called the “The Bloc” here in Canada where for as long I’ve known is a separatist party who’s mission is to basically separate the province of Quebec from Canada. I for one wouldn’t want these guys representing the country in a big way and this coalition is kind of giving them that opportunity.

I personally wasn’t too thrilled for any of the parties in particular during the elections and this sure makes the whole process seem trivial. Maybe there is someone that can enlighten me on how this is supposed to be a good idea.




14 Comments to Canadian Coalition Government

  • I do not have an answer for that, rather I am of the same opinion, along with MANY other Canadians.

    I would like to know how people that voted for the NDP now feel about being directly connected to the Liberal’s, who’s difference in political views are about as opposite as day and night, let alone the Bloc party….I will not even go there.

    Eimert 12/2/2008 10:29 am
  • Firstly, Stephen Harper did not win a majority of votes or seats. In fact the conservatives got about 30% of the vote. In Canada, the law says that you need the support of a majority of the house if you want to be prime minister. Harper did not win that.

    If you add up the votes of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc, that represents about 60% of the vote. I look forward to seeing what the coalition can do by cooperating with each other.

    Secondly, forming the coalition government does not cost any more taxpayer money. To me, the coalition is a much better alternative than having another election – which costs us a lot of money.

    Athene Paroupoloulis 12/2/2008 10:31 am
  • Even with that example I would still kind of question what would be the point of having an election then? I’m even trying to think of this from a different angle such as business and personal. For example, if this was some elected company/school president and there were three candidates, does it seem right that if one person defeated the other two individually that the people who lost can then combine both of their votes to kick the other guy out?

    Or let’s say we are all like shareholders and we all voted for our company executives. Now, the people who didn’t win are essentially telling those shareholders that they are just going to form a coalition to kick the other guy out because the two of their votes combined is greater than that one person. Doesn’t seem right to me.

    The costing money part is about how they could be focusing on issues as opposed political strategy which seems like a power game to me. As now it’s almost like paying a bunch a people, with our tax dollars, to sit in a boardroom who should be thinking of ways to help a company grow and prosper but instead they are sitting there strategizing on how to become more powerful in the company chain.

    At this point, as redundant and ironic as it may be, I would think the reasonable thing would be to somehow include the public’s say in this.

    Alan Yu 12/2/2008 9:17 pm
  • Take your business example. Let’s say shareholders elect a board of governors. 4 guys in blue ties, 3 guys in red ties, 2 guys in orange ties.

    The board chooses a guy in a blue tie to be Chairman. He got the most votes, but doesn’t have a majority.

    Then the chairman does a bad job. There’s a recession happening, but the chairman isn’t doing anything to help the company.

    So the red and orange guys come up with a plan. They have more votes on the board. They choose a guy with a red tie to be chairman.

    What’s wrong with that?

    I agree with you on one thing though, the government should be working on fixing the economy instead of all these politics. For that I am angry with all the political parties.

    Athene Paroupoloulis 12/3/2008 10:44 am
  • Take your business example. Let’s say shareholders elect a board of governors. 4 guys in blue ties, 3 guys in red ties, 2 guys in orange ties.

    The board chooses a guy in a blue tie to be Chairman. He got the most votes, but doesn’t have a majority.

    Then the chairman does a bad job. There’s a recession happening, but the chairman isn’t doing anything to help the company.

    So the red and orange guys come up with a plan. They have more votes on the board. They choose a guy with a red tie to be chairman. The vote is 5 red – 4 blue.

    What’s wrong with that?

    I agree with you on one thing though, the government should be working on fixing the economy instead of all these politics. For that I am angry with all the political parties.

    Athene Paroupoloulis 12/3/2008 10:46 am
  • Sorry for the duplicate. I’m getting all worked up about politics!

    Athene Paroupoloulis 12/3/2008 11:13 am
  • I would think what would normally happen in that situation is that the chairman would either continue his duties until the next shareholder meeting or the chairman would voluntarily resign and the duties will temporarily go to the guy right below him. And if the people, meaning the shareholders, really want the blue guy to resign they would be the ones to be vocal about it to add the pressure too. Reminds me of the recent Yahoo! ordeal.

    Just thinking of this example, it could be that the blue guy was elected by the shareholders overall initially because the red guys are not very good when it comes to innovative thinking and the orange guys seem to only have skills in specific areas that people don’t feel is good enough to be the chairman overall. So how do those two groups combining all of a sudden necessarily make them better than the blue group now? They still have the same flaws and it might even turn into a too many chefs in the kitchen scenario.

    Similarly, I know for myself as the shareholder I wouldn’t want that to happen without some kind of say and it would seem kind of wrong for those guys to just bully themselves into a position of power.

    Alan Yu 12/3/2008 3:28 pm
  • Hi Daniel,

    I to have been caught in the political ping-pong game of our so-called democratic elections. I was born (1951) and raised in Toronto and hate to admit that since the Tredeau days, I have pretty much given up on the idea of democracy.

    Now, Michaelle Jean, our Governera General, will have the difficult task of playing a mediator role (Canada cannot, should not be without a governing body). But unlike most mediators, she has only one week to hear all sides of our mud-slinging, politically elite’s high-school antics and best decide what would be best for Canada, with the Queen’s blessings I have been led to believe. She has access to the highest advisors in all fields she may find necessary to consult with.

    What bothers me the most about all the media and public attention this situation is generating, seems to me that most forget what triggered this event. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc didn’t just decide to form a coalition one day because they had nothing better to do. Harper in one of his most underhanded and seditious attacks on Canadian Democracy to date tried to all but eliminate the opposition parties. Harper took control of the government in the manner of a high-school bully as if he had a strong majority rather than a weak minority.

    “The opposition parties all say Flaherty’s mini-budget, which strictly limits federal spending, bans public-sector strikes through 2011″….banning public-sector eh, our politically elite trying to sneak that into effect sorta like the martial law the Americans had thrown at them.

    A combative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Friday the government won’t back down on a single measure, despite the opposition threats.

    Heck, give them their coalition (Dion will be replaced) but only if they agree to tax-payers conditions:

    1. there cannot be another election for three years, tax-payers reserve the right to vote on issues

    2. they implement a complete transparent government including expenditures (GOOGLE FOR GOVERNMENT)

    3. they all work together to clean up or economy, medical system, educational system, garbage problem and implement ways to make Canada green again. Unemployment and poverty would would be minimal as every Canadian would need to be involved in some way, hence being compensated by the some 50% taxes taken from every employed person. I believe it’s time our government became just that, ours.

    BANS PUBLIC-SECTOR FROM STRIKING UP UNTIL 2011…..THEY ARE GOING TO BAN THE TAXPAYERS FROM STRIKING AGAINST FLAHERTY’S BUDGET….THIS IS DEMORACY?????????…WE NEED TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENTING

    Sandy McInnis

    Sandy McInnis 12/3/2008 11:54 pm
  • Canada is a democracy and it’s citizens have the right to choose their leaders. E mail the governor general of Canada. We cannot afford a coalition government, here’s why:

    http://www.fordemocracy.ca

    Maryann 12/4/2008 5:13 am
  • http://www.gopetition.com/online/23806.html
    CANADIAN TRANSPARENT GOVERNING BODY

    Sandy McInnis 12/4/2008 8:26 am
  • It’s true, Stephen Harper was acting like a bully. He didn’t have a majority but was acting like he did.

    Athene Paroupoloulis 12/4/2008 5:58 pm
  • seeing as all leaders knew of the ability to form a coalition (was publicly talked about back in 2000 and on the table of possibilities for all parties) I think this coalition should include the leaders of all four parties (put them all in a dungeon together until they can do the job they fought so hard during the elections to do)with maybe the green party as opposition (just maybe the nation can concentrate on keeping Canada green). the nation is divided on representation (east, central and west)a complete coalition would eliminate the division of our nation (which is being fueled by our governing body)..
    -seeing as the majority of Canadians (including myself) believe that Canada is the best country on the planet, I, personally, would love to form a transparent government that represents Canada from coast to coast so that we can finally get to fixing the issues we face rather than being held hostage to their political ping-pong game of power. GOOGLE FOR GOVERNMENT

    Sandy McInnis 12/9/2008 1:02 am
  • THIS WAS EMAILED TO ME TODAY FROM A GROUP DESTINED TO STOP THE COALITION, AS YOU CAN SEE, I’VE ADDED MY OWN COMMENTS,
    -=-=- Top 10 reasons that a coalition would be bad for Canada -=-=-

    1. A coalition government between the NDP and Liberals, supported by the Bloc Quebecois would undermine democracy because Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe and Michael Ignatieff would govern without the consent of the Canadian voter.
    ALL THE MORE REASON TO IMPLEMENT ‘GOOGLE FOR GOVERNMENT’..TO GIVE IN TO THE DICTATOR, HARPER, WOULD BE AS ASININE AS THIS COALITION. IF YOU TRULY WANT A MORE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNING SYSTEM FOR CANADA THEN ‘GOOGLE FOR GOVERNMENT’ IS THE ONLY AVENUE TO FIGHT FOR, AS OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM PREVENTS US AS CANADIANS FROM ANY TRUE VOICE OF WHO LEADS OUR COUNTRY.

    2. Michael Ignatieff has walked into the leadership of the Liberal party without one vote from the Liberal grassroots. The coalition government would be led by Ignatieff as Prime Minister without earning one vote from Canadians.
    WE AS CANADIANS HAVE NEVER HAD THE VOTE ON WHO LEADS ANY PARTY AND THIS MESS THAT ALL FOUR PARTIES HAVE PUT CANADIANS IN IS DEPLORABLE, LET ALONE ALL THE TAX-PAYERS HARD EARNED MONEY GOING TO SUPPORT THESE IMMATURE HIGH-SCHOOL ANTICS. ‘GOOGLE FOR GOVERNMENT’ WOULD ALLOW ALL CANADIANS A TRUER DEMOCRACY AS TO WHO IS BEST TO DO WHAT AND HOW MUCH OF OUR MONEY IS SPENT IN THE PROCESS.

    3. Mandates are earned not taken. Canadians ought to express their will through the ballot box, not have it tossed aside through backroom deals.
    CANADIANS OUT TO EXPRESS THEIR WILL THROUGH ‘GOOGLE FOR GOVERNMENT’ WHERE EVERYONE FROM COAST TO COAST CAN DISCUSS, ARGUE AND AGREE ON ALL MAJOR ISSUES AND KEEP A “WATCH DOG” ON ALL EXPENDITURES

    4. The Bloc Quebecois should never dictate the terms of our government. Theirs is a party founded on the principle of ripping up Canada and now they want a hand in influencing its governance?
    THE BLOC STILL COULD NOT DICTATE THE TERMS OF OUR GOVERNMENT AS THEY ARE MERELY BEING SUPPORTERS, UNLIKE THE DICTATORSHIP OF HARPER. UNFORTUNATELY, AS I HAVE SPENT MANY HOURS COMMUNICATING WITH A LOT OF WESTERNERS, I HAVE BEEN LEFT WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT IF THEY CANT HAVE HARPER DICTATING (NO STRIKES FOR TAXPAYERS, ATTEMPTS OF ELIMINATING THE VOICE OF THE OPPOSITION) THEY TOO WILL TRY TO RIP CANADA IN HALF, AND THEY ARE MUCH STRONGER THAN THE BLOC.Harper once wanted to join hands with the Bloc Quebecois as well for the same reason and sent it to the Governor General at the time, Adrienne Clarkson.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZpJM2yc-Zk

    5. 74% of Canadians voted against a Liberal government. Now, that’s a majority!
    DOESN’T MEAN THAT 74% (WHERE DID U GET YOUR STATS) VOTED FOR HARPER…NO MAJORITY

    6. In a time of economic crisis, we don’t need a political crisis. In the UK, PM Gord Brown and opposition leader David Cameron have put aside petty partisanship to make government work. Why did Bob Rae say he’ll vote to defeat this government even without looking at its budget?
    FIRST THE ECONOMIC CRISIS IS GLOBAL, NOT JUST CANADIAN, AND SECOND, HARPER GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY CAUSED THE NON-CONFIDENCE WHICH CAUSED POLITICAL SUICIDE FOR DION (HE WAS ON HIS WAY OUT ANYWAY) BECAUSE OF FLAHERTY’S BUDGET WHICH CUT POLITICAL PARTIES FINANCING (SHUSHING THE OPPOSITION), ELIMINATE EQUITY PAY FOR WOMEN, AND MOST DESTRUCTIVE TO DEMOCRACY, REMOVING THE RIGHT TO STRIKE…OF COURSE THEY LOOKED AT IT AND DID THE ONLY THING LEFT FOR THEM TO DO.

    7. Coalition talk is decreasing international confidence in our political and economic stability. On the first day of trading after the coalition plan was unveiled, the Toronto Stock Exchange plunged 864.41 points (9.3%). This is the biggest drop since Black Monday in 1987.
    UNFORTUNATELY, ALL FOUR PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF THIS POLITICALLY ELITE PING-PONG GAME OF POWER…AS CANADIANS, WE SHOULD, COULD, MUST STOP THE LUNACY..’GOOGLE FOR GOVERNMENT

    8. We just had an election! Just a few weeks ago!! The Canadian people gave this current government a mandate. Now let them govern.
    THEY WON A TINY MINORITY, NOT A DICTATORSHIP

    9. The economy is the number one priority of Canadians. Most Canadians don’t care about the usual day-to-day bickering in Ottawa. Canadians care about their families and their jobs. Political brinkmanship reflects how out-of-touch Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe really are with real Canadians.
    CANADIANS CARE ABOUT THEIR FAMILIES, JOBS AND COUNTRY…ITS TIME TO UNITE …GOOGLE FOR GOVERNMENT

    10. Why would the Liberals team up with the NDP anyway? The Liberals themselves have called the NDP “economy damaging”. We have an economist as Prime Minister. When you have a toothache you go to the dentist. When your car breaks down you go to a mechanic. Who better than an economist to deal with the economy?
    GEEESHHHHH…THEY HAD NO ALTERNATIVE….

    Sandy McInnis 12/10/2008 12:40 pm
  • I was asked on another post how I figured Harper forced the coalition, well I will try my best to state this as I have been led to believe it to be.

    Harper’s government introduced (Jim Flaherty’s) mini-budget which has been referred to as one of his most underhanded and seditious attacks on Canadian Democracy to date. Flaherty’s pen slashed at democracy by trying to eliminating the current funding to political parties knowing full well that it would bankrupt most of them, especially in remote regions, (I’m positive he realized they would have to rebel to that one), toughening the plight for women to fight for equal pay (yes another ‘thumb’ on women’s liberties, why are they so afraid of us) but most important to diminish what little democracy we have left by trying to implement a “no strike” policy for three years. (Well I was around when they implemented sales tax, TEMPORARY solution they explained… we all know the tune to that song.

    ** When the concept of unions was conceived, and implemented, working conditions were deplorable u should be thankful u will never have a chance to experience, thanks to the concept of workers unions, hope for a decent existence was finally achievable, workers were finally motivated to dedicate themselves to their job with hope for the future, the introduction of unions pulled bottom dwellers into the work force which any economist knows is imperative to a healthy economy. That was then…now ..we have the knowledge of knowing the extent of corruption that can manipulate top levels, to the constant whining of the fat soakers…yes, I believe unions need some necessary amendments but neither the Harper party (Flaherty’s mini budget) nor any other political party, have the right to eliminate any Canadian’s fundamental right to go on strike (unless all parties agree) since it creates a dangerous precedent.**

    “When the opposition party challenged Harper’s (Flaherty’s) mini-budget, the combative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the government won’t back down on a single measure, despite the opposition threats.”

    Hence the forming of the coalition of the three (most of the discussions that I have read on line seem to have the most disagreement on this issue, as some would like to believe that Harper was caught off guard on this move while others wish to believe the opposition were merely being power hungry with back-room deals)

    I’m convinced Harper deliberately dared the three stooges to form this coalition, which they were so not ready for, (Dion in the process of stepping down and the party in the process of trying to elect a new leader, let alone the joker card, the Bloc, **give me a break**) mainly because he pulled a similar manoeuvre back in 2004, which proves he was so not ignorant of what he was doing. He knew full well Canadians would cry foul, knowing full well Canadians did not want Dion as Prime Minister….Canadians did not want another election….Canadian did not want a weak government during these economically troublesome times…
    Does anyone truly believe Harper is of diminished capacity. knowledge is knowledge

    (this is a copy I found on line of Harpers proposal for a coalition back in 2004, notice the block was also included)

    September 9, 2004

    Her Excellency the Right Honorable Adrienne Clarkson,
    C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
    Governor General
    Rideau Hall
    1 Sussex Drive
    Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
    Excellency,
    As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the
    Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
    to dissolve the 38Th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons
    fail to support some part of the government’s program.
    We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together
    constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We
    believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give
    you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the
    opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising
    your constitutional authority.
    Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
    Sincerely,
    Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
    Leader of the Opposition
    Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
    Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
    Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
    Jack Layton, M.P.
    Leader of the New Democratic Party

    O M G …..WAKE UP CANADA!!!!!!!

    NO ONE TRULY WANTS TO DIMINISH WHAT LITTLE DEMOCRACY WE HAVE LEFT, except maybe the ignorant, arrogant exuberance of those who seem to do little more than spew cheap sarcasms in lieu of constructive thought. Are we not all sick and tired of being held hostage to their political ping-pong game of power while they continue wasting taxpayers hard earned money on exorbitant political expenditures, let along a dooming election.
    These passionate discussions, that have been sparked by this coalition, erupting from coast to coast, cannot be achieved in any other forum.
    We have the technology to finally communicate instantly from coast to coast, therefore making it more difficult for the governing elite to pull the preverbal “wool over our eyes”. Maybe even to prevent them from imposing an undemocratic manoeuvre as the right to strike and disabling them form manipulating Canadians into situations such as the “Martial Law” the Americans recently had imposed on them.

    Heck, give them their coalition, a true coalition the three stooges and Harper…(put them all in a dungeon together until they can do the job they claimed they could do during the elections, with maybe the green party as opposition (just maybe the nation can concentrate on keeping Canada green).
    but only if they agree to Canadians conditions:
    1. they implement a complete transparent government including expenditures
    2. they all work together to clean up or economy, medical system, educational system, garbage problem and implement ways to make Canada green again. Unemployment and poverty would would be minimal as every Canadian would need to be involved in some way, hence being compensated by the some 50% taxes taken from every employed person. I believe it’s time our government became just that, ours.

    WE NEED A TRANSPARENT GOVERNING BODY

    I started posting on line a few years ago, trying to implement a “watch dog” on government spending, which went no where, then I heard of Obama’s GOOGLE FOR GOVERNMENT http://obama.senate.gov/news/060926-obamas_first_la/ …which is a form of transparent governing. The U.S. is starting this “transparent government spending” from the top, their newly elected president, (mainly in the need to try to ease americians’ minds that overspending will now be transparent and that their gazillion dollars will no longer be spent on bailing out failing, antiquated profit greedy institutions), which makes it still a government controlled idea…I believe Canada also needs a “Transparency Act” but instead of being government controlled, it should be citizen controlled, starting from our most local M.P. dealing with local and community issues and expanding to Provincial, Federal and global concerns.
    I believe that every Canadian taxpayer has the right to know how the government spends our tax dollars. I believe that every person that receives a government pay check should be accountable on how tax dollars are spent, after all we do claim to be a democratic society.

    A Google-like search tool that will allow taxpayers to hop online and see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent on federal contracts, grants and earmarks, down to local expenders and will also allow everyone a direct line to express any and all concerns along with positive input as to how to proceed with any and all issues, both in the present and with future concerns.
    With all the horror stories of senseless tax dollar expenditures will we ever have trust in a politician that is against providing taxpayers with details on how well their money is spent.
    Along with demanding fiscal transparency from the federal government, taxpayers should have the expectation that provincial and local governments will also embrace new technologies to make details about spending decisions and performance readily available at a click of the mouse along with the ability to express personal views. We also need to adopt a system to require that the public have at lest three days to review tax and spending bills before they are voted on.
    Several states have already moved forward with some form of transparency reforms, including Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Virginia, Minnesota, Hawaii, South Carolina, Nebraska and Oklahoma.
    We all know government is plagued by red tape, isn’t efficient and doesn’t work as it should. Increasing transparency and accountability is a huge first step. But We also need policymakers to make significant changes after we all get to see the horror and reckless spending that will be revealed by this improved system.
    Initiatives at any level of government that pair transparency with accountability will set us on the road to performance-based government rather then our current system which is plagued by secrecy, wasteful spending and pork projects.
    Taxpayers have to demand that elected officials at all levels of government respect us enough to show us what they’re doing with our tax dollars on our behalf. It is after all our government, our country, our province, our city or town and our money.

    I have recently been informed that Google is American. I’m sure Canadians are intelligent enough to produce a similar Canadianized format for a TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT, the students graduating from tec institutions today are absolutely amazing and they all need jobs.
    I understand there would be security concerns, but consider, we have come a long way since the day we all were convinced (by our government) of the demons that live in cyber…but…think of all the banking done one line now ..secure enough,…or pay pal …anything can be overcome with the right approach…far better this than the BS we are dealing with now, and, as east and west are not that far apart in their beliefs, (ummm, I don’t mean political beliefs) maybe we could stop the governing elite form separating us andy further.
    Don’t let the “issue” fool you. Seeing as the majority of Canadians (including myself) believe that Canada is the best country on the planet, I believe it is time to form a TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT that represents Canada from coast to coast so that we can finally get to fixing the issues we face rather than being held hostage to their political ping-pong game of power.

    The coalition should be dead after the next budget as I think Harper will come up with an acceptable budget…at least he should, but they will continue to play their ping-pong game of power at the tax-payers expense if we, as Canadians, do not implement a TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT. can I add that I think this is the best time to demand this move as most of the nation is paying attention.

    Thank you for listening (some food for thought if nothing else)

    Sandy McInnis

    LIVE YOUR JOURNEY

    Sandy McInnis 12/12/2008 12:28 am

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Menu Title
Loading...