Canada: Liberals Lose Parliament Control
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 06-29-2004 - 12:31am |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4256685,00.html
The Liberal Party lost outright control of Parliament on Monday, ending an 11-year monopoly on power, but easily won the largest share of seats and will now try to lead Canada's first minority government since 1979.
Though dogged by scandal, and pressed hard by a newly unified Conservative Party, the Liberals of Prime Minister Paul Martin prevailed by largely holding their ground in Ontario, the most populous province and the pivotal battleground in the election.
Most minority governments in Canada's past have proven unstable and short-lived. The Liberals may try to govern in an informal coalition with the left-wing New Democratic Party, which favors higher taxes on the affluent.
The Liberals had won three straight landslide victories under Jean Chretien, starting in 1993, and there were signs during the campaign that many Canadians were disenchanted with the party and its recent entanglement in a financial scandal.
However, the results suggested a widespread reluctance to turn over power to the Conservatives' relatively untested leader, Stephen Harper, whose stances on tax cuts and social issues prompted concerns about unwelcome change.
Nearly complete returns showed the Liberals winning 134 seats overall, short of the 155 need to single-handedly control the House of Commons, but far more than 93 seats the Conservatives were projected to win.
In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois, which advocates independence for the French-speaking province, did well at the Liberals' expense. The Bloc was on track to boost its share of Quebec's 75 seats from 33 to 56, a performance likely to fuel talk of another separatist attempt to hold a referendum on secession from Canada.
The New Democrats were winning 24 seats, which - added to the Liberals' share - would be just enough to forge a majority.
The final polls taken before the election suggested the Liberals and Conservatives were deadlocked, and many analysts had predicted the Conservatives would win the most seats.
Thus the results, giving the Liberals a comfortable plurality, were a relief to Martin, the 65-year-old Liberal leader who replaced Chretien as prime minister last year. He had called the election five weeks ago, hoping the results would provide a solid mandate for his administration.
The outcome was a deep disappointment for Harper and others who had worked relentlessly in recent years to merge rival right-of-center factions and the divisions that had enabled the Liberals to dominate recent elections. The merger took place last year, but the hoped-for breakthrough in Ontario - home to one-third of the population - failed to materialize.
Among the first-time Liberal winners in Ontario was hockey Hall of Famer Ken Dryden, former star goalie of the Montreal Canadiens.
Although the Liberals and Conservatives had much in common - including support for the national health insurance system and reluctance to deploy troops in Iraq - there were some key differences. Harper wanted to slash taxes for the middle-class, increase the military ranks from 60,000 to 80,000 and pull Canada out of the Kyoto Protocol, which commits industrialized nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
Harper, 45, started the campaign strongly, but was placed on the defensive by repeated Liberal claims that he would try to move Canada to the right on social policies. He denied that he would seek restrictions on abortion, but conveyed some doubts about Canada's steady move toward legalization of same-sex marriage, which already is legal in three provinces.
Roughly 22 million voters were eligible to cast ballots. In the last national election, in 2000, turnout was the lowest ever at 61 percent.
The new Parliament - with 308 seats - will have seven more members than the outgoing one, in which the Liberals hold 168 seats, the Conservatives 73, the Bloc Quebecois 33 and the New Democrats 14. There are nine independents and four vacant seats.


Pages
Increase military ranks – bad idea. They could disband their army we would protect them even though the talk poorly about us.
pull Canada out of the Kyoto Protocol – Very sound idea. Kyoto is a huge mess.>>
:o)
Slashing taxes - bad idea
Many here felt uncomfortable with that notion. We value our health and education systems. Where will the money for that come from? We are glald that our deficit has been lowered and don't want to send it spiralling up again.
Increase military ranks – Good idea. I will freely admit that our military has taken the brunt of previous deficit reduction efforts in the past. Our military needs to be better equipped and we need more highly trained soldiers in order to pull our weight on the international front when it comes to having a voice, and contributing to peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. We may also need a better military in order to be prepared for the possible World War that is currently fermenting in the world thanks to Bush's foolish foray into Iraq. As far as needing protection courtesy of the US, we haven't needed it to date. If we were to be targets I think one of the main reasons woul be our proximity to the US.
So far, Kyoto is the best we've got. I'm not knowledgable enough about that to debate its merits or reasonable alternatives. One thing is for certain. The world NEEDS to get its act together and work on a solution for pollution (hmmmm that rhymes). If Kyoto is a first step in that direction (maybe not a great step) then it's something that I could possibly support.
Typical politician. He has totally misread the results.>>
Actually, he totally read them correctly. This statement was right on the money. In fact, I would call that statement a shining moment. We are all waiting to see if he lives up to it.
<<“Both parties said they would try to increase federal spending on health care and housing and work to block any Canadian involvement in an American continental missile defense system.”
Blocking spending on a missle defense makes sense. Let us spend the money. When it becomes operational they will automatically be protected. Sound financial decision.>>
The weaponization of space is a scarey prospect. It crosses an ethical line that is akin to cloning human beings. No matter who is involved in this it gives one pause. Seeing the type of politician GW Bush is (and his cronies) - it leaves one to wonder if possibly someone worse could one day get into power over there. Combine that with the starry eyed support a large number of people give Bush within the US and a blank check to start wars it is frightening. Just because it is America that plans to launch WMD into space is not all that comforting. Again, I will reiterate what I said earlier. Attacks against Canada may well be a result of our relationship and geographic proximity to the US. If for example, I lived next door to a huge Hollywood star, it doesn't mean that I might be willing to help foot the bill for THEIR much needed security and have armed guards on my property. That being said, it's probably a wiser move to be on the side of those who have all the WMD in space pointing down at the rest of us than those who do not.
I don't think a lot of Canadians wanted tax cuts (we don't want to see a tax raise). You raise a good point that we may be wanting to have our cake and eat it too. However, I don't see a problem in trying to do our best to have that and if it turns out that it's not possible, THEN start compromising.
Who we vote for in Canada is who think or hope will be the best managers of our tax dollars (and who best personifies "Canadian values"). The social programs we hold most dear are not really up to much debate. In that regard there is pretty much a consensus throughout the country. HOW that money is managed and allocated becomes the bigger issue.
I want to tell you a little something about freedom. How about freedom fro worrying about my health and my family's health? How about the peace of mind that comes from knowing your children (or the future generation of your country) are not only growing up in optimun health but are being well educated in a public school sytem that ranks highly on the international stage?
3 years ago, due to the downturn in high-tech my husband and I both lost our jobs. Did we worry about health care for our family? No. We considered buying additional health insurance to cover the extras like perscription drugs, dental etc....but the price is prohibitive. For a couple of years we both did contract work from home (DH is now working and I'm still working from home). Private consultants in the US don't get heatlh coverage if I understand it correctly. I feel totally free and I wouldn't want to live any place else and if that means paying a little more in taxes, well that's a small price to pay.
Edited 7/2/2004 2:16 pm ET ET by suemox
Good to see you again.
Thought you'd be frightend away when we had
"How about freedom from worrying about my health and my family's health? How about the peace of mind that comes from knowing your children (or the future generation of your country) are not only growing up in optimun health but are being well educated in a public school sytem that ranks highly on the international stage?"
In Canada we hold a much different attitude towards the next generation I think. These children are all OUR children and as such, the majority of Canadians do not begrudge our tax dollars to go towards this cause of ensuring that the next generation gets off to as best a start as our society can offer them as well as lending a helping hand to those entrusted to care for them (the biological parents).
Before I had children I had no reservations towards paying taxes to this cause (rather than buying some more shoes and morning lattes....maybe getting my car detailed). Now that I have children of my own I am grateful for this society and for the Canadian people and their sharing attitude towards its citizens.
Also bearing in mind that there are those unfortunate people who have reproduced who are ill-equipped for the job (either through character flaws or bad luck). Should those children pay the ultimate price for that? At the very least their basic needs can be met. This system is set up to help take care of these things which is much better off than writing these kids off, and turning a blind eye until these kids grow up and end up in jail or costing society more money down the road.
Not at all! I would welcome that. However, if someone had proposed we make Canda part of New England, well that would be a different story.
LOL
They did very well, even winning in ridings that are predominantly english (or non-french) What do you think of the renewed talk in the press as the Bloc seeing the victory as a mandate to open the seperatist debate again.....makes me a bit nervous paticularly when Duceppe said that the election wasn't going to be about sovereignty....and they thought Harper had a hidden agenda ;o).
<<"Bloc to push sovereignty
By BRIAN DALY
Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe responds to media questions at a news conference Tuesday, in Montreal. (CP/Jacques Boissinot)
MONTREAL (CP) - The Bloc Quebecois will continue pushing Quebec sovereignty, but not at the exclusion of other issues relevant to Quebec and the rest of Canada, party leader Gilles Duceppe said Tuesday.
Duceppe, fresh off a record-tying 54-seat Bloc landslide in Monday's federal election, said his party wants Quebec independence but acknowledges it won't happen overnight.
"You can't have a referendum in Quebec as long as the Parti Quebecois is not in power," Duceppe told several dozen journalists at a downtown news conference.
"Step by step, we'll see what happens."
Premier Jean Charest's Liberals are in power in Quebec and a referendum is at least several years away, said Duceppe.
A provincial election doesn't have to be held before 2008. But Duceppe didn't deny the Bloc's strong showing would help the cause.
more.......>>
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/2004/06/29/519380-cp.html
Pages