Any Canadians here who want to explain election results to us?

[TexasSissy]

In Canada, what is the Conservative Party? What is the Liberal Party? Is the Green Party there the same as here? What's the BQ?

I gather than even though the Liberals won, it is not good news for them, because they had a huge majority before, and they lost a lot of ground to the Conservative Party. Correct?

So that makes the Liberal Party still the leading party, but only with a slight majority percentage-wise to the next leading party, which because of this election, is now the Conservative Party?

Which party has a platform similar to America's Dem. Party?
---Against Iraq War (or the way and timing we went in)
---Healthcare for all citizens
---Pro-choice (does that exist in Catholic Canada?)
---Compassionate programs trying to help those at the bottom, if only temporarily (school lunch programs, food stamps, etc.)

Which party has a platform similar to America's Repub. Party?
---Extreme pro-business stance (what's good for corporations is by definition what's always good for America)
---Anti-folks at the bottom stance (a sort of belief that those at the bottom created their own problems and are accountable for them; a belief that those who WANT to work CAN find a job in any economic period, if only they'd get off their ___ and look)
---Against healthcare for all (lazy people who don't work are not entitled to healthcare, since "MY" taxes would pay for it)
---Free trade (they include employees in this definition, as products to be traded)
---Against a minimum wage at all (against free enterprise system)

[papau]

1. I am also interested in hearing from Canadian DUers - it seemed

that liberal/NDP drop from 182 to 154, as the right is up from 73 to 99, and and liberal but separatist BQ is up from 33 to 54 and 9 independents are now 1

Other than increasing the size of Parliament from 301 to 308, it does not seem to be a "major" swing - except in Quebec.

But 154 is only half of 308 - not a majority.

So how does one govern?

[TexasSissy]

2. NDP is a separate party, isn't it? That hurt the liberals? Because NDP

broke out from the Liberal Party? I t hink I heard a commentator say that...if all the liberals had stayed together, they'd have won big time.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

19. The NDP are not the Liberal Party and have never been part of it.

The NDP aren't Liberals, they're Social Democrats and Socialists.

[GirlinContempt]

29. The liberals campaign on the left

and govern on the right.
The NDP holding the balance of power (which we're missing by ONE seat :cry:) would force the liberals to actually adhere to their campaign promises.

We don't WANT the liberals winning big time. That is a BAD THING(tm)

[metis]

3. minority govt

Definition: In Canada, the party which wins the most seats in a general election forms the government. If the party wins just half or fewer than half of the seats in the House of Commons or legislative assembly, then the party forms a minority government. A minority government has to negotiate with other parties and adjust policies to get enough votes from other parties to pass legislation. A minority government must constantly work to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons or legislative assembly to stay in power.

[SidDithers]

4. Canadian Election Results...

I'll take a try at replying :)

There are 4 main parties in Canadian politics. The specifics are a bit different, but The Liberals would be most similar to your Dems, the Conservatives - much like your Pugs, The New Democratic Party (NDP) are left of the Liberals, and the Bloc Quebecois - who are socially left of the Liberals, but want more power to the provinces, and want to separate the Province of Quebec from the rest of Canada.

The Liberals won the most seats in the election, so they will get to form the government. Governing is done in Parliament, where legislation is passed by a vote, usually along party lines, of all 308 members. A majority government is when the party with the most seats has enough votes to pass any legislation (in this case 155 or more seats). A minority government is what we've got as of today. Paul Martin will continue to be Prime Minister, but his party no longer has enough votes in Parliament to pass legislation without the help of another party. And in the Canadian system of government, if the governing party proposes legislation, and then loses the ensuing vote in parliament, the government falls and we go back to the polls for another election.

As far as party platforms, Universal Health Care is the 3rd rail of Canadian politics. A party which didn't support publicly financed, universal health care, wouldn't have enough supporters to have a good hockey game. The conservatives, however, do think that if you've got the money, you should be able to "jump the line" and buy some health care services right away.

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc were all against the war in Iraq. The conservatives, had they been in government, would probably have sent troops.

Canada is not a Catholic country. Religion doesn't factor into our politics. We have separation of church and state up here :).
Abortion is legal, and will remain so.

As far as compassionate programs. The Liberals are probably more "socially liberal" than the Dems. But the NDP and Bloc are more liberal than the Liberals. Most social spending, however, is the domain of provincial governments. The Liberals did cut transfer payments to the provinces, causing program cuts, during the mid-late 90's, to try to deal with deficits.

The Conservatives support versions of the positions that you listed for the Republicans, with the exception of health care (see above).

Others will have their opinions on how "left" the Liberals are, just as you've got divisions within the Democratic party. In truth, the Liberals are more centre-left, but that seems to be where the majority of the Canadian population is. Unfortunately, the Liberals have been a majority government for 12 years, and have become arrogant and wasteful. The population felt it was time to punish the Liberals.

My guess on how long the government lasts? Who knows? If the Liberals and NDP had 155 seats combined, instead of 154, I would have said 2-3 years, with the government getting pulled left. With 154, someone else's support is needed to pass legislation. It will be interesting to watch this play out, but I don't think will mean any significant changes to the way Canada operates, either at home or internationally.

Sid

[TexasSissy]

5. That's a great lesson in Canadian politics. Thanks!

I think I understand.

[regularguy]

6. Great post, thanks.

Yo Canada!

[papau]

7. Thanks for the excellent summary - any chance of you folks agreeing to

accept the US as a additional provincial gov - with no votes at the Federal level?

Would sure solve a lot of our GOP Theft problems.

[kikiek]

8. Sounds good to me. Do they take immigrants from US?

[lastliberalintexas]

16. No offense,

but your system still stinks- just not as much as ours. Count me as one of the many uninformed Americans who had previously paid more attention to Mexico than Canada simply b/c of geography. So I'm certainly no expert on this matter.

But when I was watching the Canadian results come in last night, I noticed that there were several districts/precincts that went to the Cons b/c of a divided vote of the left. And in many cases, the votes of the Liberal and NDP candidates *far* outpaced those of the Con when added together. I counted 3-8 seats that could have gone left if not for a divided vote (tho I'm not sure of the exact number since it was hard for me to keep the seats straight!).

Now, I don't blame the Liberals or the NDP- I just blame the system. I don't think the number of seats which went to each party really reflect the percentage of voters who voted for a leftist candidate (and therefore the left's positions on issues). Is there any chance of you folks getting runoff voting so that the Parliament could more accurately reflect the voters' intent?


Thanks for the primer on Canadian politics, btw!!

[yvr girl]

20. We have a multi-party system

In Canada the Liberals are a centrist party. If the Liberal party went away, some voters would go to the conservatives and some would go to the NDP. On my ballot yesterday, there were eight candidates.

The Green party got about 6% of the vote in BC (4% nationally) but that didn't translate to any seats.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the Liberals and NDP to merge. Not going to happen.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. Welcome to DU :^)

[lastliberalintexas]

38. Welcome to DU!

I didn't mean to imply that I wanted the NDP and Liberals to merge- quite the contrary. I wish we actually had those kinds of choices down here.

It was just rather irritating to see several seats go the Cons when they were so comically outnumbered by the combined votes of the NDP and Liberals. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the majority of voters in those parties would align against the Cons in a runoff system, thereby electing a center left or left candidate.

So maybe the answer is a proportional system, as stated by another? Just know that you Canadians are so very lucky to have these types of elction "problems" rather than those we face!

Again, welcome to DU!

[GirlinContempt]

26. OK see

the liberals are NOT a left wing party, they're a CENTER party.
And the problem is our population distrobution. We need proportional representation.
It ISN'T a divided left, however.

[lastliberalintexas]

37. But aren't they center left?

That's why I used the term leftist, not left wing. Yes, I know that your Liberals would be called Socialists down here even though they are not (heck, your Cons would be called Socialists down here, but that's another thread altogether!). I just got the impression that the Liberals and NDP had more in common than not, and that if runoff voting were available, several seats that went to the Cons would have gone to either the NDP or the Liberals if the voters had been given a second chance.

What kind of proprtional rep plan is being discussed? Would it solve these types of problems where the Cons got seats I don't think they earned?

It would be interesting to see data concerning the percentage of voters who actually voted for the Cons versus the percentage of Parliamentary seats they received. I'd be willing to bet that the latter is the higher number.


And I can most deinitely sympathize with the population distribution problems. We in the US may like to pretend that we have a "one person, one vote" system, but that certainly is not reality. Because of our electoral college system at the presidential level, the vote of a citizen of Wyoming actually is more weighted than the vote of a Californian or Texan. Though discounting we Texans' votes hasn't been such a bad thing here lately!

[iverglas]

41. popular vote vs. representation in the House of Commons

It would be interesting to see data concerning the percentage of voters who actually voted for the Cons versus the percentage of Parliamentary seats they received. I'd be willing to bet that the latter is the higher number.

You'd win. ;) (Sorry to those who keep seeing info like this in the various places it's getting posted, but there seems to be interest.)

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/29/canada/elxn_wrap040629

Popular vote:

Liberals: 36.71%
Conservatives: 29.61%
Bloc: 12.40%
NDP: 15.69%
Other: 5.47%

Noteworthy:

The NDP has a larger share of the national popular vote than the BQ, but 19 seats to the BQ's 54.

The BQ has 12.4% of the popular vote and 17.5% of the seats.
The NDP has 15.7% of the popular vote and 6% of the seats.
The Liberals have 36.7% of the popular vote and 43.8% of the seats.
The Conservatives have 29.6% of the popular vote and 32% of the seats.

The Green Party did not get any seats in BC after all, but did get enough of the popular vote (I think it was 3.2%) to entitle it to public campaign funding next election.

The "one person, one vote" thing is interesting. That actually is not the philosophical basis of Canada's electoral district system, but that's a whole 'nother, and complicated, issue. I'd have to dredge up the sources for some research thingies I recently had to read to talk about it usefully.

There is a collectivist basis to the Canadian system. Members of Parliament represent the constituency as a whole, and its collective interests. Minority groups are entitled to effective representation of their collective interests in the House, which means that the dilution of minority group votes that would occur if districts were divided up purely mathematically is counterbalanced by allowing for considerable variation (+/- 25% from the basic number for constituencies each province, which also varies from province to province) in the demographic size of constituencies.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/e-3/

15. (1) In preparing its report <on the periodic adjustment of electoral district boundaries>, each commission for a province shall, subject to subsection (2), be governed by the following rules:

(a) the division of the province into electoral districts and the description of the boundaries thereof shall proceed on the basis that the population of each electoral district in the province as a result thereof shall, as close as reasonably possible, correspond to the electoral quota for the province, that is to say, the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the province as ascertained by the census by the number of members of the House of Commons to be assigned to the province as calculated by the Chief Electoral Officer under subsection 14(1); and

(b) the commission shall consider the following in determining reasonable electoral district boundaries:

(i) the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, and

(ii) a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province.

(2) The commission may depart from the application of the rule set out in paragraph (1)(a) in any case where the commission considers it necessary or desirable to depart therefrom

(a) in order to respect the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, or

(b) in order to maintain a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province,

but, in departing from the application of the rule set out in paragraph (1)(a), the commission shall make every effort to ensure that, except in circumstances viewed by the commission as being extraordinary, the population of each electoral district in the province remains within twenty-five per cent more or twenty-five per cent less of the electoral quota for the province.

There is a case in the courts now involving the French-speaking Acadian community in New Brunswick (the source of your Cajun population). The proposed boundary adjustments have resulted in some small Acadian communities being moved into anglo constituencies where their votes are simply overwhelmed, and where they would not have the kind of relationship with their representative, their MP, that they now have.

But all this is going far beyond what yer average Canadian is even aware of when it comes to the philosophy or workings of the electoral system. ;)


(html fixed)

[yvr girl]

18. We are more liberal in Canada

Our conservative party is more liberal than yours. Our Liberals are a centre left party in Canada, but I would say that they are socially close to a liberal democrat. The NDP would frighten middle America. They are pretty much a socialist party. The Bloc only applies in la belle province.

Much of our social programs are governed by the provinces, but the federal government makes transfer payments to help pay for them. The federal government often cuts payments to balance the budget.

Things that are different in Canada:

1. Universal health care. This is a sacred cow. There are problems like waiting list for some procedures, but overall a good system. By the way, my premiums for basic medical are about $45/ month

2. 1 year paid maternity leave. (This is actually a combo of maternity leave and parental leave. The mother can either take it all, or dad can avail himself of the parental leave.)

3. University tuition - way cheaper up here. Depending on your program your undergrad degree will run you about $5000-$6000 per year for tuition, fees and books.

4. Abortion Laws - we don't have any. The Canadian Medical Association may have some guidelines, but it is completely legal in Canada.

5. Gay marriage - legal in several provinces. Did not create nearly the uproar here.

6. Drugs - you'd be hard-pressed to get arrested for smoking a joint in Canada. They recently had a demonstration on parliament hill. People were freely smoking with the police just quietly observing the protest.

[smirkymonkey]

21. Great Post..

thanks for the clear, concise breakdown.

One thing, though. The US is not a "Catholic" country either. Some are trying to make it a "Christian" country, but most of those people belong to various Protestant denominations (many of whom despise Catholics (Papists) as much as they despise Athiests). Either way, the separation of Church and State is fundamental in a democracy and I am happy to see that Canada embraces that concept.

Thanks Again! :)

[AntiCoup2K4]

27. So the "Liberals" are really more like the DLC then, and NDP are ....

...the true Liberals. But not "progressives" because the conservatives hijacked that term. If Bush forces me to move to Canada, I think I'd be confused for a little while :crazy:

[GirlinContempt]

28. You seem to have it

the Prog. Cons. were basically socially progressive but economically Conservative

The liberals generally campaign on the left and govern on the right.

[CanSocDem]

40. The 'nader effect' in Canada's heartland.

Here, in the birthplace of social democracy(in Canada), fear of the right forced many progressives to vote Liberal. We lost many long time NDP MP's.......but, hey!! We got rid of the right wing looney!!

[Minstrel Boy]

43. That f*cking evil Liberal ploy of "strategic voting"

did a lot of harm.

Look at Oshawa: 34% of NDP supporters in Oshawa voted Liberal because they were convinced by Martin's fearmongering that they must in order to defeat Harper. And what happened? Oshawa elected a Conservative by a tiny margin over the NDP, and the Liberals finished third. (http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=35&t=000563) If they'd only voted their conscience, there would be one less Conservative MP. And that story was repeated often enough Monday night that it makes me sick to think of what should have been.

All I could charitably say to them is I hope you f*cking remember this next time.

[Spazito]

9. I just want to add a little aside here...

Canada uses paper ballots, the old x marks the spot ones, and we had a winner called about 2 hours after the last polls closed. I will always believe in the paper ballot and am very glad that it is the system we use here. I hope the US will be able to get voter-verified paper ballots for your upcoming election given the debacle in Florida in 2000.

[Cheswick2.0]

10. thank you for posting this

I have been saying that you all use paper ballots and do just fine with them. I hope we go back to paper ballots. I do not trust electronic voting even with paper trail.
But to go to paper ballots would require we also create a system where people can't just take a ballot box home for the night.

[Blue Wally]

13. Also.....

Both paties have done this in the past, the ballot counter has a bandaid on his finger with a bit of pencil lead inside. He/she then voids ballots for the opposing party by making an extra "X" on the ballot and disqualifying it.

[Spazito]

14. It seems to me that it would make more sense to "police" the ...

counters better than to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" which is what seems to have been done in the US and the "new" system is worse than the old with even more opportunity for fraud.

[Blue Wally]

15. No more so.....

Remember the old mechanical voting machines? We had them in Detroit. All they gave you was a final number. Favorite trick was to stick a matchstick under the opponents lever so it wouldn't go all the way down. Union politcs in the big cities was tough business.

[Spazito]

17. See, machines are not the magic solution that pencil and paper are...

we do not have a problem with fraud here so we must have a good system that could be emulated if the US were to adopt VVPB.

[iverglas]

22. here's the pic of the ballot again

So neat, so simple ...



Well, except that most of them had about twice that many candidates listed. ;)

[Spazito]

24. Thanks, iverglas!

A picture like this saves a hundred words trying to explain it!

[Lisa]

32. they'd have to get to all those "little old ladies" who do the counting!

I was an official observer (scrutineer) last night -- not only were the staff scrupulous about the recounts, but there were a lot of witnesses in case of potential irregularities, and any problems that cropped up were easily fixed. (Compare sharpening a pencil to trying to fix a fancy electronic voting machine.)

Another bonus is that we have a solid corps of expertise in running elections, and I actually know of people who have helped the UN supervise elections in other countries based on their work with Elections Canada.

[iverglas]

35. expert little old ladies

I'll tell ya, I've run into some doozies though, not always of the female variety. The racist asshole DRO who kept trying to interfere with "my" DRO as we were tallying up last election, we having had a couple of glitches, was one of them.

A couple of provincial elections ago, the poll clerks had apparently been instructed to bring their own bibles with them for people to swear on if necessary. (This I found dubious to start with.) Ours had brought his Book of Mormon, which sat prominently on the table beside him all day.

Then there were the actual little old ladies who greeted a voter who chose to speak French in the polling station, in a very bilingual part of the country, back in the '74 election, with the equivalent of "speak white". When the ballot that had been marked "P - Q - P - Q" all down the circles came out of the box, it was pretty obvious whose it was, and he'd certainly encountered nothing that day to change his mind.

The single big instruction I gave the co-vivant, who was scrutineering for the first time this year, was "do not annoy your poll clerk and DRO". Our biggest problem this year was that the church hall being used for the polling station was just too small, and instead of having their own table next to each poll table, the scrutineers were stuck on chairs in the middle of the room, feeling sort of like we were caught in a bad game of musical chairs, and had to rely on the poll clerks calling out the names and numbers of voters as they came in, or getting a chance to snatch the lists away and update our own.

(For the foreigners: "inside scrutineers" perform a dual function for candidates. The official function is to observe the vote and challenge any irregularities; the unofficial function is to pass on info to outside scrutineers about who has voted, who use it to drag out any voters already identified as "ours" who haven't gone to the polls yet.)

But anyhow, yes, you're right: Canadian election officials -- the full-time ones -- are in demand elsewhere for assistance in organizing elections.

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=gen&document=ec90770&dir=bkg&lang=e&textonly=false

ELECTIONS CANADA ON THE WORLD SCENE: SHARING
EXPERIENCE WITH DEVELOPING DEMOCRACIES

Recognized as an ardent supporter of democracy around the world, Canada has helped establish a variety of multilateral and bilateral programs offering professional support and technical assistance to countries developing democratic institutions. Since 1990, Elections Canada has organized more than 355 international democratic development missions in some 94 countries around the world.

... Elections Canada has extensive experience in conducting electoral events in a bilingual and multicultural context over a vast and diverse territory. However, its missions abroad do not seek to promote Canada's electoral system or Canadian procedures. Rather, they identify the choices available to each host country, taking into account its specific challenges and opportunities, and help select and implement the option best suited to the country's laws, customs and environment.

Elections Canada's international missions range in length from ten days to six months or more. International projects vary widely, and can include the following activities: ...

I kind of like the system used in municipal elections here last time. The voter still marks a circle with pencil, but then the paper ballot is fed into a reading machine that looks sort of like a fax, and counts it. If there is any problem with the ballot (illegible mark, more than one candidate marked, etc.) it is identified by the machine while the voter is still standing there, and can be corrected. And the paper ballots are retained for any recounts needed.

[Lisa]

39. good advice!

"do not annoy your poll clerk and DRO"

I got together with the Liberal poll captain, and the two of us requested to be allowed to sit at the end of the table. When the Conservative reps arrived, we pulled up extra chairs for them -- this nonpartisan gesture pleased the election officials, so we were allowed to stay there while the poll clerks read out the voter list numbers to all of us.

As in your case, it was a cramped church hall, and given how busy things were during the day, the suggested new system where we'd review the poll books periodically wasn't practical -- hardly any slack periods between voters.

No Bibles in sight. I liked how our poll clerk kept the elections rulebook on top of the ballot box instead (to prevent voters from putting in ballots before she had a chance to tear off the counterfoil portion) -- in previous times it would have been a Bible.

[TrogL]

25. Difficult to do with scrutineers watching

I was standing two feet away watching the ballots unfolding. So were three other scrutineers and the returning officer.

[AntiCoup2K4]

34. That's easy enough

But to go to paper ballots would require we also create a system where people can't just take a ballot box home for the night.

Use those cable-lock systems like a lot of retail stores use for pricey merchandise (electronics, leather jackets, inc)to chain the ballot boxes to a table, and only give the alarm keys to certified impartial observers (i.e. not Kate Harris types who are chairing a candidates' campaign.

[iverglas]

36. ya can't take 'em with you

Our ballot boxes are just cardboard with a slot in the lid, sealed up before voting starts and not unsealed until the doors are locked and the last voter gone. The candidates' representatives inspect them to make sure they are empty before the vote starts so there's no prior stuffing, and after all the votes are counted to make sure none were missed.

The Deputy Returning Officer and poll clerk for each poll (our poll had 200 people actually vote) put the ballots for each candidate (and the leftover ballots, spoiled ballots and rejected ballots) in separate envelopes, which are sealed with a sticky label and signed by them and by the candidates' scrutineers who have observed the count.

The DRO then gives a signed official statement of the count, broken down by candidate, to the scrutineers, so the candidates have that official info no matter what happens to the ballots. The DRO takes the sealed yellow plastic envelope containing the packages of ballots and various documents directly and immediately to the central Elections Canada office for the constituency. The candidates can also have representatives at that office during election day.

Btw, this process is absolutely uniform for the whole country. It's a federal election, so there are federal rules, and the election is run by a federal agency.

Really -- it's easy!

[SidDithers]

11. Great point, Spazito...

forgot to mention that :)

Sid

[iverglas]

12. Minority Government

I have a thread in LBN with links to up to date news reports - although even now they aren't entirely up to date.

The Toronto Star article I linked there does a good job of explaining the technicalities, although it's out of date. Final results are 99 for the Conservatives, not 97, and 19 for the NDP, not 21, and this makes all the difference.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1088460611245&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

The combined NDP and Liberal (135) seats make 154, exactly half of 208 (minus the Speaker to be appointed) -- not an automatic majority after all.

It really is not possible to make any Democratic/Republican equivalency in Canada, or in most of the rest of the world, for that matter. The paradigms are simply completely different.

The NDP is social-democrat / democratic-socialist. There is no equivalent in the US. "Extreme liberal Democrat" might come close, but the basic premises are still different.

The Liberal Party is "liberal" by US standards: it was the Liberal govt. that stayed out of Iraq and is nominally committed to preserving our health care system, and makes constant unkept promises to expand social services like childcare, to end child poverty, blah blah. It's just a right-wing party -- by Canadian standards -- in expedient clothing. On personal-rights issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, the Liberals take progressive positions but govern more by neglect in that respect, claiming commitment to constitutional equality rights but leaving it to the courts to sort it all out.

The present Conservative Party is in a Republican mold, which makes it unCanadian. Historic Conservatives were *not* of that ilk. Much of the Conservative vote yesterday was in protest against Liberal govt. scandals and arrogance, although of course much of it was also the rump of ugly Canadians who oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.

"Catholic Canada" (about 45% of Canadians are RC) is largely Quebec, which is the most socially progressive province -- it has had civil unions for same-sex couples for a couple of years, and is not opposing judicial decisions allowing same-sex marriage; there is a higher proportion of unmarried couples in Quebec than elsewhere; Quebec hospitals were the first back in the 80s to start ignoring the restrictive rules that then existed (in the Criminal Code, which is federal) about abortion, Quebec has the best childcare system in North America, etc. A few right-wing bishops around the country (notably in Alberta) try sticking their oars in from time to time, and are widely ignored.

We have virtually no one who would take a position like opposing minimum wage, except for far right-wing think tanks like the Fraser Institute. Even Fraser doesn't advocate doing away with the public health care system ... just undermining (and eventually ruining) it by allowing a parallel private system.

[emc]

30. Crime rate? Taxes

Just out of curiosity, whats your crime rates, as I stated plural---and your tax rates----property, state and federal---
I understand from someone else that I wrote to before they are not as bad as one would expect----the difference being everyone pays in Canada, not like the US where only those of moderate income classify for taxation---

I also understand its a forgone conclusion that Universal Health care is an intouchable----wish we had it here---


I don't understand, why Canada from what has been discussed here is so liberal in-comparison to the US----how did this evolve---discontents leaving the US for better pastures or just evolved because you have a better press---TV or what---

I am particularly interested in the fact that you have separation of state and church-----how in the hell has it been kept that way---
If you want we can send you some Southern Baptists up there....

[Spazito]

33. Here is a good site that will answer some of your questions

The link is to our statistics, just scroll down to the crime ones and it will give you the #s, etc:

http://www.statcan.ca:8081/english/clf/query.html?qt=National+Crime+rates+for+2003&GO%21=GO%21&col=canstate&ht=0&qp=&qs=&qc=0&pw=100%25&ws=0&la=en&qm=0&st=1&oq=&rq=0&si=0&rf=0

Universal Health care is, indeed, widely supported by Canadians who support fixing the problems rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

re you question on how each country evolved differently, here are my thoughts:

The US was threw off the British yoke through war and founded the country based on individual and states rights and limited federal power whereas:

Canada was formed via a war between the British and the French, the British won. Once Canada came into being our foundation is based on the collective good with the power in the hands of the federal government.

It really is the individual rights (US) and the "collective good" (Canada) that caused the two countries to evolve in different directions, imo.

Separation of Church and State has never been a big issue in all my years (50) and it could be that, the percentage of Canadians that give a religious affiliation on the census is lower than that of the US for whatever that fact might be worth.

I hope I have answered your questions in a way that was helpful.

[emc]

42. thanks---

thanks for the come back

I will check out your link today----

[sandnsea]

31. Thank You Canada!!!!!

That's all I've got to say. THANK YOU!!!!