Harper Moves On Election Reforms

Written By: 4Canada
Date: 2006-05-31 13:33:00
<a href="/article/83323750-harper-moves-on-election-reforms">Article Link</a>

The changes Harper envisions would significantly alter more-than-century-old power dynamics in federal politics. The bid for a fixed federal election date in Canada arrived in the form of legislation before the Commons yesterday morning. It says simply that Canada would have federal elections every four years, on the third Monday of October and the first fixed vote would take place on Oct. 19, 2009. The big exception — and it's an important one in the current climate — is with minority governments, which can still be defeated to force an earlier election. The four-year term would begin again after the earlier election. Several hours after the election bill was launched, another bill landed in the Senate proposing that senators, who are appointed by a prime minister, would no longer sit in the chamber until they're 75 as they do now. <a href='http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1149027011883&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home'>Toronto Star</a> [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on June 1, 2006]

Wow, a PM actually trying to accomplish election promises! Will wonders never cease!

If he keeps this up, he might get that majority.

Stephen Harper... Pro democracy or anti democracy?

All the people with fixed ideologies instead of opinions on this site would have their head explode debating this topic.

I say kudos to him for doing something right!

"I say kudos to him for doing something right!"
Shouldn't that be EXRTEME right

---
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.... : Albert Einstein

I like he's actually following up on his promises, but I think this is a bad idea. A corrupt government should be defeated immediately, not in 3 or 4 years.

To me, this election promise is taking away what little democracy we had left. And it wasn't what I though the promise was. I was hoping for something along the direct democracy or proportional representation line.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

Please explain how limiting the terms of senators is bad for democracy.

I was under the impression that at most times the elections were called at around four years. It is still assumed that in the meantime the government can still be ousted by the same measures as before. A minority government would/should not be guaranteed power for the four years. To me a minority government is just a temporary government and can loose it's position in a non-confidence vote. Having a set date on the calander will only allow three years of actual business and the last year for politicking.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

It isn't. A minority government is still defeated (or any government can be defeated) at any time by a vote of non confidence. The election for that is held immediately. However, in the case of majority governments (or minorities that just go on and on), they have been able to hold power for between 3 and 5 years... and the goverment in power can decide when the polls favour them and hold the vote then. With this ammendment however, it tells everyone when exactly the next vote is. No more holding snap elections or clinging to power for as long as possible.

That's ridiculous, majority governments are complete fictions. The liberals under chretien had a decade of majority governments with no more support than Harper now has.

The whole reason for wanting fixed election dates was to KEEP minority governments going. Every other country except the US and Britain function under permanent minority governments, its called Proportional Representation. Most polls since Chretien left have shown that canadians are quite happy to have minority governments. Polls right up to the last election showed most canadians didn't want an election, and now the thinking is even more vehement. The 'corrupt' government line is ludicrous, a non confidence vote has little to do with corruption, hell, just count up the number of cabinet ministers across the country at both senior levels of government who have been investigated for allegations of corruption. I think virtually every Finance Minister is in that group.

Under a majority there is wiggle room, but so what? Name one federal election where the government called a 'snap election' because polls showed they were high.

This falls under the 'its better than nothing' guidebook that is always so popular in canadian politics. That's hardly keeping his promises to 'reform the senate'. As we've said before, if you want to see REAL conservative progress on electoral reform, go look at Scott Reid's website where that MP has already had four referenda on various public policies. THATS reform. There's absolutely nothing stopping Harper from having a referendum tomorrow on Afghanistan, Kyoto, senate reform, or any other policy. Until I hear a referendum called, he's just another liberal with a blue suit.

Michael, <blockquote>With this amendment however, it tells everyone when exactly the next vote is. No more holding snap elections or clinging to power for as long as possible.</blockquote> even were this bill enacted, couldn’t a government finagle a snap election by having its MPs vote against themselves on a confidence motion, e.g. Schröder’s manœuvre which led to the recent German election? Does anyone know of a URL where the text of this bill can be found?--- Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth. 
 
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan

I wasn't speaking of senatorial reform. Hence, my not using the terms 'Senate' or it's derivatives. I like that part. I was talking fixed election cycles for Parlament.

That's the part I feel is anti-democratic.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

Agreed 100%. When pressed the CONS had to admit they can still call an election before the four years even without the government falling.

Senate good, House - bad bad bad.

Harper - the best President Canada ever had.

---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

Isn't it funny that so many Conservatives claim to be traditionalists, or more to the point - do so when politically expedient? Case in point - the flag flap and now this. The Cons claimed they were reversing the Liberal decision and bringing us back to the way things used to be. But now, they are reversing Canadian history and precedent for their own means, but conveniently leave out any mention of tradition.

Doth I dare say hypocritical?

---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

<blockquote>Prime Minister Stephen Harper is making a bid to stretch his own term in office to October 2009, while at the same time trying to radically shorten the terms of service in the Senate.</blockquote> The first part of the above sentence (part A) says it clearly enough: Harper wants to extend his term in office. The second part of the sentence (part B) is the carrot he's offering up in exchange: trying to radically shorten the terms of service in the Senate.. (A) at best cancels out (B) leaving us with at best nothing, and at worst a more lengthy rule under a so-called majority government dominated by neocons. It is noteworthy to mention that both the so-called majority liberal government under Chretien, and the current minority neocon government under Harper have about the same amount of public support in terms of votes cast in their favor. Most (or perhaps all?) of our governments have been minority governments in terms of votes. If Harper really wanted to make an electoral change that would actually improve Canadas' broken democracy, he would propose ditching the currently dysfunctional system in favor of a proportional electoral system. Harper's true nature should be transparent enough by now, and it amazes me to see anyone still expressing their approval towards his policies. I suppose if you like GW Bush, then you'll love Harper as well.

1. "Fixed election dates" is an extremely bad idea. I do not know how many countries in the world use it. See what it is currently doing in the US (and has likely done so for many years): Everything in government is geared toward the next election date. There is no long term vision of what really needs to be done, what is best for the country or what should be done in a time frame beyond the nest voting date. Everything is done so that those in office have the best chance to be re-elected. And what is written on the Peace Tower in Ottawa? "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

2. It is actually a crude and simplistic idea; I have no idea who developed it (for the US). Time is a continuum, and the current "Canadian way" (inherited from Great Britain, I guess) is that MP's are elected for a maximum period of 5 years. It is the prerogative of a Prime Minister (who is a normally elected MP who happens to be the leader of the party with the most seats) to request the Governor General to end the mandate of Parliament and to set a date for a general election. This would normally be (1) after five years is up; (2) when the governing party is defeated on a money bill; or (3) at any other time when the PM thinks he needs a new mandate from the electorate, and would be able to get it with his party "platform". (This time may be very close to the five year limit or it may be at his whim; I guess climatic conditions are important for Canadian elections. That's why we have had elections at previously undetermined dates.)

3. It would be even worse if Canadian elections would be synchronized with elections in the US. Canada would then really become a puppy dog. Note that the US has mid-term elections (halfway between "presidential election dates", and Canada would always be ideologically jump-frogging. Just imagine how much the US would be able to influence (I meant so say the word "bully") Canadian politics.

4. So let's keep our Canadian system. I believe the 1991 Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing (the one Mulroney orchestrated and of which he discarded the results because he did not like them) did not recommend it. Canadian sovereignty is at stake.

5. Can somebody please inform me how this was part of Harper's election promises? If so, I guess it would be foolish to implement it with a minority government; he does not have the mandate to do this. (In jest: We need another Royal Commission of Enquiry.) If not so, who dreamt it up?