The Federal Republic of Canada

[Guest TrueMetis]

It would be "uniquely Canadian" because we used the number 5 instead of the number 4? Gotta be a bit more creative than that if you want something to be "unique".

3114141 minutes roughly 6 years having the numbers represent a letter you get

3 1 14 1 4 1

C A N A D A

[jbg]

No, 5 years is important in our system, because it's a constitutional requirement. When making a (seemingly useless) fixed elections law, as we did, perhaps we should have used the fixed date that was already in place. It could have been something uniquely Canadian then.

The "fixed date" law was seemingly designed to deal with majority governments so that those couldn't pull premature "snap elections" when the polling numbers were good. Chretien's April 1997 election and November 2000 election both occurred roughly 3 1/2 years into his respective first and second mandates. Clearly the timing was to coincide with good poll numbers and to throw the Opposition off stride, so they couldn't get ready for the election.

[Smallc]

The "fixed date" law was seemingly designed to deal with majority governments so that those couldn't pull premature "snap elections" when the polling numbers were good.

And yet it doesn't do that at all, because it's worded incorrectly.

[benny]

I find it difficult to elaborate on a failure to communicate.

Try anyway!

[jbg]

And yet it doesn't do that at all, because it's worded incorrectly.

How doesn't it?

[Smallc]

The Prime Minister can always find a way around the law, because he isn't prohibited from asking the Governor General for an election.

[benny]

The Prime Minister can always find a way around the law, because he isn't prohibited from asking the Governor General for an election.

A lawmaker is necessarily always somehow above the law.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Prime Minister can always find a way around the law, because he isn't prohibited from asking the Governor General for an election.

Isn't that part of the problem? A lack of sufficient legal framework to prevent an end run attempt by anyone from evading the rule of law?

[Smallc]

There wasn't really a need for a law in the first place, and if we wanted to have a law, we could have crafted it so that it would have been effective. This has nothing to do with any lackings in the constitution and everything to do with deceit by Harper.

[benny]

There wasn't really a need for a law in the first place, and if we wanted to have a law, we could have crafted it so that it would have been effective.

The days after popular revolutions are very sickening.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There wasn't really a need for a law in the first place, and if we wanted to have a law, we could have crafted it so that it would have been effective. This has nothing to do with any lackings in the constitution and everything to do with deceit by Harper.

I can't agree with that. Harper is going around the laws of the land. Yes he is deceitful in the manner in which he is doing it, but the fact that he can also means that others can as well. So what you have is a way around a problem due to the lack of legal framework in place to prevent it.

Allowing governments and leaders to act in the absence of legislation is exactly what provides fro the unlimited powers of government. You are foolish to believe that the absence of law is not the problem here because if a law was in place what they are doing could not be done and the problem would not be an issue of mere political consequence but a matter of actual legal consequences.

[benny]

I can't agree with that. Harper is going around the laws of the land. Yes he is deceitful in the manner in which he is doing it, but the fact that he can also means that others can as well. So what you have is a way around a problem due to the lack of legal framework in place to prevent it.

Allowing governments and leaders to act in the absence of legislation is exactly what provides fro the unlimited powers of government. You are foolish to believe that the absence of law is not the problem here because if a law was in place what they are doing could not be done and the problem would not be an issue of mere political consequence but a matter of actual legal consequences.

In order to avoid cross-posting, here where you can find the basics about law:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14590

[jbg]

Harper is going around the laws of the land. Yes he is deceitful in the manner in which he is doing it, but the fact that he can also means that others can as well. So what you have is a way around a problem due to the lack of legal framework in place to prevent it.

The problem with that view is that the law cannot possibly apply to minority governments. In a minority milieu, the Opposition, if joined by the Bloc, can always pull the plug on the Government. To not give the Government the same right would be to castrate the governing party, which after all obtained more seats than the LPOC, the Bloc, and the NDP.

The purpose of the law was to prevent a majority government from strategically calling elections, since obviously the Opposition can't defeat a majority government. The law ensures some degree of symetry and fairness in a majority government, since as I posted above Chretien made calling elections ahead of the normal four-year schedule an art form. The elections in which the Liberal Party won majority victories were held October 25, 1993, June 2, 1997 and November 28, 2000, or after 43 months and 42 months, respectively. The "snap" nature of these elections caught any possible opposition unprepared. The law was meant to address this imbalance.

By contrast, during a minority government, any number of events besides the PM's diktat can trigger an election. There is nothing deceitful about Harper's actions.

[Smallc]

The purpose of the law was to prevent a majority government from strategically calling elections, since obviously the Opposition can't defeat a majority government.

A minority shouldn't have the right to simply ask for a dissolution if a majority shouldn't. The number of seats that each party has is irrelevant, you still have to keep confidence, and that's what it should be about.

[benny]

A minority shouldn't have the right to simply ask for a dissolution if a majority shouldn't. The number of seats that each party has is irrelevant, you still have to keep confidence, and that's what it should be about.

Yes. And also, the non-confidence vote of the Bloc should always be assumed.

[jbg]

A minority shouldn't have the right to simply ask for a dissolution if a majority shouldn't. The number of seats that each party has is irrelevant, you still have to keep confidence, and that's what it should be about.

Except that it is almost impossible for a majority government to lose confidence. In a minority government confidence granting or loss is almost purely tactical (sorry if this sounds like a "Benny-one-liner").

[g_bambino]

[D]uring a minority government, any number of events besides the PM's diktat can trigger an election. There is nothing deceitful about Harper's actions.

Exactly. And I think the unknown element is what Jerry fails to take into consideration; unwritten convention has allowed our system to flex over the centuries, wherein some rules are recognized as being guiding principles, adaptable to suit unforeseen circumstances, unlike laws written with uncompromising rigidity.

Throughout the time when there was much talk about fixed election dates, I knew whatever ended up being passed would not be able to deny the Governor General her ability to call elections - a government losing the confidence of the House being the most evident of possible events that could occur regardless of what some law said. In the end, the legislation passed specifically stated that the act had no effect on the Governor General's power to dissolve parliament and drop the writs; and at that point, in terms of fixing election dates, I knew the law was a sham. All it did was lessen the maximum life of a parliament from five years to four; and if I could figure that out, I'm sure any legislator who voted on the bill was able to do so as well.

[Smallc]

Except that it is almost impossible for a majority government to lose confidence. In a minority government confidence granting or loss is almost purely tactical (sorry if this sounds like a "Benny-one-liner").

That's true, but you can't have the Prime Minister having an ability sometimes and not at other times. The law has no purpose and should have been left out of Canada's legal framework. Hopefully, it is repealed as some Senators are proposing.

[benny]

Except that it is almost impossible for a majority government to lose confidence.

A majority government is composed of individuals who can revolt at any time.

[WestViking]

That's true, but you can't have the Prime Minister having an ability sometimes and not at other times. The law has no purpose and should have been left out of Canada's legal framework. Hopefully, it is repealed as some Senators are proposing.

Why not pray tell? If the balance of power in the house shifts, so do the PMs powers. Fact of life.

[WestViking]

A majority government is composed of individuals who can revolt at any time.

Or when the LPC reigns, be revolting. Edited July 27, 2009 by WestViking

[jbg]

That's true, but you can't have the Prime Minister having an ability sometimes and not at other times. The law has no purpose and should have been left out of Canada's legal framework. Hopefully, it is repealed as some Senators are proposing.

There is a huge difference between using the threat of election in a minority government, which is often as elegant as a brawl at Jane and Finch, and in a majority government as a way of calling an election when the Opposition may not even have ready candidates in every riding.

[Smallc]

The balance of power is never certain in a parliamentary system, even when you hold a majority. The way that the government operates in the house may change in a minority, but the Prime Minister can either ask for an election any time or they can't. Right now they can, despite the law, so nothing has changed.

[WestViking]

The balance of power is never certain in a parliamentary system, even when you hold a majority. The way that the government operates in the house may change in a minority, but the Prime Minister can either ask for an election any time or they can't. Right now they can, despite the law, so nothing has changed.

Horseshit. Show us one incident in Canadian history where a majority government was defeated.

[Smallc]

The past doesn't predict what will happen in the future. We can't just look back and say that it has never happened and never will happen. Either we leave the advising power for elections in the hands of the ministry or we take it away and give it to parliament. Having some complicated system where the power could appear and disappear with a single seat change isn't going to work. I say that the Prime Minister should never have the power. They can engineer their own defeat in the house during a majoirty as governments often do. They don't need to simply ask as Harper did.