Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Thank you for this.
Well, I acknowledge that asking whether the prime minister wields too much power or influence is a legitimate question, I definitely disagree that a PM with a majority has "essentially unfettered power over the whole country".
I also disagree that achieving "some sort of coalition between Quebec and Ontario" is something easily achieved. In any event, there are plenty of other coalition opportunities out there, including, for example, the western provinces-GTA suburbs coalition that elected Stephen Harper's government for over a decade.
Lastly, even accepting your premise as true (which I obviously don't), I don't really see great evidence that Prime Ministers have wielded this power to plunder Alberta for the benefit of people in Ontario/Quebec. Alberta, not Ontario or Quebec, is the wealthiest, most prosperous province. Obviously, some legislation or policies will, from time to time, benefit some provinces more than others, but Alberta generally seems to be doing just fine under Confederation (and all of its rules, etc). What am I missing?
|
I don't disagree with much of this. However, the non-ontario coalitions can only exist to the degree they don't threaten the benefits conferred upon central canada by Confederation. Conservative parties still tend to be protest vote destinations, even in the case of longer term PMs like Harper. There's a reason why central Canada likes Liberals and Red Tories.
This might sound pedantic (and it is), but I think it's probably more accurate to say that Alberta is the most productive province, rather than the wealthiest. But that distinction is probably not as significant to most people as it is to me.
As for what you are missing: the recent rhetoric around tariff strategy is an excellent indicator of the larger issues I'm referencing. Central Canada is willing to elect politicians that are highly adversarial to the best interests of Western Canada.