The Conservative government of Canada has introduced bills to establish fixed election dates for the House of Commons and reduce terms of new Senators to eight years (currently they serve to age 75).
The issue of the Senate (though not the term length, per se) has already been the topic of a lively thread here at F&V. As for fixed dates for the lower house, I weighed at the already-lively thread over at We Move to Canada.
What I do not understand is why Harper is willing to set the next election for October, 2009, when under current rules he would be able to call an election any time if he anticipates that he could get a parliamentary majority. (And, I thought he was behaving as if that was precisely what he intended to do.) An election could still come earlier–even if this bill becomes law–but only if Harper were to lose a confidence vote. And that would happen only if the parties supporting said vote expected that they, and not the Tories, would benefit from an earlier election.
Also interesting is that while these bills concern “constitutional” matters, they are in fact mere statutes. That is, they do not require provincial consent, and could be changed by a future majority.
Hmm, looks like you posted this while I was composing my comment on the same topic at the other thread, so I’ll link it in here.
I think it’s clear why Harper is willing to prevent himself from calling an election any time he wants: In a minority government such as we have now, the new bill has little effect. If the government loses the support of Parliament, it will lose a confidence (or no-confidence) vote, and an election will be called by the G-G irrespective of this bill.
On the other hand, if Harper wants an election, he’ll do what any self-respecting minority govt would and arrange to lose a confidence vote. Simply find an issue where he feels he has the support of the populace but not the opposition parties, and declare it a confidence vote. If the bill fails, Harper gets his election and can try to blame the election on the opposition. If it passes, Harper gets to enact his policy–and then can dare the opposition to pass another bill even more distasteful to them the next day.
It’s like a game of chicken on a governmental scale
Seed planted by Vasi — 30 May 2006 @ 16:50
Incidentally, the Honourable E Gough Whitlam, the prime minister dismissed in 1975, is a vigourous supporter of fixed term parliaments:
Seed planted by Alan — 30 May 2006 @ 23:00
vasi,
It does restrict Harper’s freedom in the current Parliament a bit. Before, he could call an election whenever he wanted. Now, he has to lose a vote on a matter of confidence. which gives the opposition more options to decide what to fight the election on.
The proposal on Senate reform is strategically brilliant. Bad idea, but brilliant politics.
Seed planted by Pithlord — 31 May 2006 @ 09:36