The Harper Fix

[fern hill]

The fix is in. Fixed election dates, fixed terms for senators. From an exclusive interview with CTV and Globe:

Harper would like Senate elections in next vote
Updated Wed. May. 31 2006 7:16 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Prime Minister Stephen Harper would like to see Canadians in a position to start electing their senators by the time of the next federal election.
Harper announced plans Tuesday to impose eight-year term limits on new senators, part of new democratic reforms.
In an exclusive interview with CTV News and The Globe and Mail, the prime minister was asked why he wouldn't go all the way to electing senators.
"That is a more controversial measure and one that I am prepared to look at in this term of government. What we thought we would start with would be a measure that we thought everyone could agree with," Harper said.
In terms of electing a senator in the next federal election, he said: "I hope so. We're still looking at exactly how we're going to do that."

Someone more enlightened, please enlighten me on fixed terms. If we have fixed terms, does that do away with no-confidence votes? (I love no-confidence votes. I was in Florida when Joe Clark's government fell. Making chitchat with a travel agent who was arranging my flight back to Canada, I said conversationally: 'Well, it's an interesting time to go back. The government has just fallen.' The woman's jaw dropped. I realized my mistake, but then went on to fulfil my self-appointed role as Canadian envoy to Florida -- disinformation. Yes, Canada was a banana republic. We had regular coups. Yes, we were communists. But I digress.)

On matters senatorial -- he can't open this can of worms without opening the constitutional bucket of snakes, can he?

CTV link: http://tinyurl.com/oojxb

[skdadl]

I think fixed terms for the Commons is wrong wrong all wrong, and pretty much for the reasons you say. Parliamentary democracy really should rely on the confidence of the House. Fixed terms are disrespectful of our traditions and won't work because they shouldn't.

At the moment, I think Senate reform is anyone's fantasy.

Why is this man wasting our time this way?

[Alix]

Because it's the American system to have fixed terms, and pretty much Harper's been taking many of his plays directly from their playbook.

He just ignores the fact that we aren't a de facto two party system, so it is very possible (I mean, he's living it) to have a minority government. In the U.S., someone's probably going to have a majority, even if it's barely 51%.

[shaolin]

Do fixed terms really mean the government can't fall?  How...what...why...HUH?  I need to break out my political science text books!  How exactly is Harper going to get that passed??

[anne cameron]

I don't think the bufoon particularly cares if he gets any of his crap passed or not.  He just wants to get everyone all riled up; if we're squabbling with each other over several different versions of How many angels can dance on the head of a pin we might not notice when the Bufoon suddenly sends the troops off to the next Amurricun pre-emptive strike...if we're yammering and bitching about how many elected senators Quebec should have and why B.C. has one-fifth as many and should Quebec have any at all because so many are possibly closet seperatists and ganging up on Newfoundland/Labrador and taking pot shots at Saskatchewan and generally acting like a pack of badly behaved kids at the ruination of someone's birthday party Creeperino can slide in some really horrible amendments to Nafta.  He's got the fed's meeting with the yanks over the softwood lumber thing and already two amendments have been added which aren't in the original draft B.C. agreed to and if they are left in would make any "settlement" a mockery and allow the US to continue to bleed the lumber industry dry.. Both are in violation of Nafta, but both would please the yanks very much indeed.  And little attention is being paid to that sell-out.  With enough little bullshit bits of potential dissent tossed into the mix he can continue to pack on weight, look more and more like an over-stuffed weiner, and hand us over to the corporations.  Bad enough previous governments sold us out.  This bumbler is giving us away!

I just can't figure out what his eventual reward is going to be.  Maybe on the board of directors of some Enron type company?

[John_D]

Whether fixed terms are constitutional or not is sort of an open question - but it's already been done in BC, and the next election in Ontario and in N&L will be held on a fixed date. In Ontario it will be held next year, on my birthday no less - which is a fine date as far as I'm concerned - and in Newfoundland it'll be held a few weeks later.

Fixed election dates, as they've been implemented so far, do not preclude early elections in the event of a no confidence vote. If that were to happen, an election would be called right away, and then the next one would be set for four years from that date (give or take a day or two - most provinces have rules that elections must be held on the same day of the week each time - here in Nova Scotia, it's always on a Tuesday, for example).