Will there be a Federal Election in 2009?

[Wilber]

So that under no circumstances that an election can be called whether the government called it or if confidence was lost?

Let's try to knock off becoming personal about it.

I said way back when the law was first introduced that I didn't think it had any teeth. I also wondered if it would not simply bog down things in Parliament because any party could hold up the works because there was no threat of an election.

I can look back but I believe you thought it was not going to happen that an election would be called early. Moreover, I was raked over the goals for even suggesting it could happen.

In my view, an election would be unlikely with today's poll numbers if the Liberals could trust that the Tories were not able to call a snap election any time they felt like it. Or do you disagree with that?

OK, let me ask. Do you honestly care about the legality of their calling those elections or is it just a political point to be scored? I don't blame you for bringing it up but do you really care?

I don't disagree that it has no teeth. However, if fixed dates were in the Constitution, neither one could force an election and they could all save millions on polls, stop waisting time scheming about elections and do what they were elected to do. Govern.

[jdobbin]

OK, let me ask. Do you honestly care about the legality of their calling those elections or is it just a political point to be scored? I don't blame you for bringing it up but do you really care?

I do care. If you are going to write a law, don't fill it with loopholes.

In this case, I said it would have to be a constitutional amendment. I literally got raked over the coals for suggesting that incremental changes couldn't achieve term limits.

I believe you were there when I talked about how the law could be broken. I was told I was fearmongering. Well, I guess you can say that it wasn't fearmongering. And now the strange thing is that the Tory government will have to go to court to say what we actually know: The law can't stop elections.

I don't disagree that it has no teeth. However, if fixed dates were in the Constitution, neither one could force an election and they could all save millions on polls, stop waisting time scheming about elections and do what they were elected to do. Govern.

This, along with the desire for Senate reform, is not something you may wish to revisit. Constitutional amendments have failed twice and famously.

I don't know how you could control the process. Nor do I know if you want to lock the government in four year with no elections period with a multi-party system if it can't govern. If the Opposition can vote down a budget and not face an election or conversely, if a minority can pass a budget with no way to stop it, our system of government might prove to be ungovernable.

[Wilber]

I do care. If you are going to write a law, don't fill it with loopholes.

In this case, I said it would have to be a constitutional amendment. I literally got raked over the coals for suggesting that incremental changes couldn't achieve term limits.

I believe you were there when I talked about how the law could be broken. I was told I was fearmongering. Well, I guess you can say that it wasn't fearmongering. And now the strange thing is that the Tory government will have to go to court to say what we actually know: The law can't stop elections.

This, along with the desire for Senate reform, is not something you may wish to revisit. Constitutional amendments have failed twice and famously.

I don't know how you could control the process. Nor do I know if you want to lock the government in four year with no elections period with a multi-party system if it can't govern. If the Opposition can vote down a budget and not face an election or conversely, if a minority can pass a budget with no way to stop it, our system of government might prove to be ungovernable.

If you look at what goes on in our criminal courts, it seems our laws are riddled with loopholes.

So we should forever stop trying to amend the Constitution? Are we doomed to be stuck in 1982 for eternity?

My whole point is to force them to govern by removing the option of taking the easy way out of their responsibilities. We didn't elect them to spend their days figuring out the most opportune time to have the next election, we elected them to govern.

[Smallc]

My whole point is to force them to govern by removing the option of taking the easy way out of their responsibilities.

You think that an election is an easy thing for a political party?

[Molly]

You beat me, Small C.

Denying access to elections doesn't stop them from taking the easy way out--- rather it gives them all the ultimate easy way out of functioning responsibly.

[Smallc]

Yes, and it happened in Israel when the Prime Minister and parliament were elected separately. There was legislative deadlock, and that's exactly what would happen if we had term limits on Parliament.

[Wilber]

You think that an election is an easy thing for a political party?

What do you mean by easy? It's all about winning and losing. Ask someone who wears a Stanley Cup ring if it was worth the effort. It must be easier than swallowing your ego, putting the country first and reaching a compromise, otherwise it wouldn't be happening.

[Wilber]

Yes, and it happened in Israel when the Prime Minister and parliament were elected separately. There was legislative deadlock, and that's exactly what would happen if we had term limits on Parliament.

Who says Parliament shouldn't choose the Prime Minister? I'm just sick of party leaders having the power of life or death over the people's elected representatives. I'm getting the distinct impression that you people have a mortal fear of the people we elect. You don't really believe in democracy at all.

[jdobbin]

If you look at what goes on in our criminal courts, it seems our laws are riddled with loopholes.

So we should forever stop trying to amend the Constitution? Are we doomed to be stuck in 1982 for eternity?

Just saying that if you do open it, you had better know that you can keep it on topic, have wide agreement about the change being made and know what complications that might happen afterwards.

My whole point is to force them to govern by removing the option of taking the easy way out of their responsibilities. We didn't elect them to spend their days figuring out the most opportune time to have the next election, we elected them to govern.

So why does one party saying they will vote down the next confidence measure upset the applecart? Where is the responsibility from the other parties?

[Wilber]

Just saying that if you do open it, you had better know that you can keep it on topic, have wide agreement about the change being made and know what complications that might happen afterwords.

So why does one party saying they will vote down the next confidence measure upset the applecart? Where is the responsibility from the other parties?

If we knew the complications that might happen afterwords, half the Charter of Rights and the Constitution would hit the shredder. Even Trudeau would probably agree with that.

If you vote non confidence, you want Parliament to dissolve, otherwise you are just playing craps hoping the dice will roll your way.

[jdobbin]

If we knew the complications that might happen afterwords, half the Charter of Rights and the Constitution would hit the shredder. Even Trudeau would probably agree with that.

So in your view, no good came from it.

If you vote non confidence, you want Parliament to dissolve, otherwise you are just playing craps hoping the dice will roll your way.

If you vote non-confidence, it means you have no confidence in the government. What the other parties do is their choice. You are saying only one party matters when it comes to an election. Clearly that is not true.

[Smallc]

If we knew the complications that might happen afterwords, half the Charter of Rights and the Constitution would hit the shredder.

Really? Which half?

[Smallc]

I'm just sick of party leaders having the power of life or death over the people's elected representatives.

That's part of the responsible government system. You know, America has a system very much like what you propose. I can't imagine that the Canada Health Act ever would have passed under such a system....or the Charter....or so many other things. I suppose that would all be ok with you though.

[Wilber]

So in your view, no good came from it.

If you vote non-confidence, it means you have no confidence in the government. What the other parties do is their choice. You are saying only one party matters when it comes to an election. Clearly that is not true.

Don't know, this country wasn't exactly hell to live in before we had them. Much of them sound very noble but is seems to me that the people who get the most mileage out of them are the scumbags of our society.

If you vote non confidence, you want a new government, otherwise you are just playing games. Clearly only one party does matter if it is the one forming the government and it decides to dissolve Parliament. Are you saying opposition parties have no such responsibility when it comes to the results of their actions?

[jdobbin]

Don't know, this country wasn't exactly hell to live in before we had them. Much of them sound very noble but is seems to me that the people who get the most mileage out of them are the scumbags of our society.

The last I saw support for the Charter was as high as 87%.

I'll put you on the other side of ledger.

If you vote non confidence, you want a new government, otherwise you are just playing games. Clearly only one party does matter if it is the one forming the government and it decides to dissolve Parliament. Are you saying opposition parties have no such responsibility when it comes to the results of their actions?

If you vote non-confidence, it means your party does not have confidence that the government is willing to work with your party. It is up to the other parties to work something out including the government.

You believe that the Liberals are the only ones responsible for an election?

Edited September 10, 2009 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

That's part of the responsible government system. You know, America has a system very much like what you propose. I can't imagine that the Canada Health Act ever would have passed under such a system....or the Charter....or so many other things. I suppose that would all be ok with you though.

We are two different countries with different priorities. France has a system similar to the US. All I keep hearing is how good their health care system is.

The Americans got their Constitution and Bill of Rights OK and guess what, they can actually amend them. So you are saying that dictatorial party leaders are solely responsible for everything good that has happened in this country.

[Smallc]

We are two different countries with different priorities. France has a system similar to the US.

Actually, it's quite different. The US is a Presidential Republic, where France is a Semi Presidential Republic. France has a Prime Minister and a cabinet that is responsible to parliament as we do...and their governments can fall, even if their administrator cant (neither can ours, come to think of it).

We can amend our Constitution as well, I just don't really want to see anyone try, and neither do most Canadians I think.

[Wilber]

Actually, it's quite different. The US is a Presidential Republic, where France is a Semi Presidential Republic. France has a Prime Minister and a cabinet that is responsible to parliament as we do...and their governments can fall, even if their administrator cant (neither can ours, come to think of it).

We can amend our Constitution as well, I just don't really want to see anyone try, and neither do most Canadians I think.

So you think the apogee of Canadian enlightenment was 1982 as well. Jeez and you call me a consevative.

[madmax]

Thought I would bump this up....

[OddSox]

We didn't elect them to spend their days figuring out the most opportune time to have the next election, we elected them to govern.

Well, somebody resurrected this thread so...

I think there are many people who believe that the less time "they" spend "governing", the better it is for the country...and that is only partially tongue-in-cheek.

[Bryan]

We can amend our Constitution as well, I just don't really want to see anyone try, and neither do most Canadians I think.

I sure as hell do. When activist judges can just decree that things are "unconstitutional", the government should also have the right to respond to that by just changing the constitution.

It should not be considered a "crisis" if people want to fix that horrific mess that Trudeau foisted on us. The very fact that not all provinces even officially ratified it makes it invalid as far as I'm concerned. If you really want a "set in stone" constitution, you've got to come up with something better than what we have now.

[dlkenny]

Bloomberg

The Gazette

Toronto Star

WSJ

-----

I think that this is a play by Ignatieff to change the perception that it is the Liberals who support or keep the Conservatives in power. Ignatieff wants that default perception to fall to Layton and the NDP.

IOW, Ignatieff wants to remove the stigma that he is the softy who caves in to keep Parliament working - while letting Duceppe and Layton appear to be principled and anti-Harper.

Keep in mind that Harper needs only one of the three: Liberals, NDP or Bloc to avoid an election.

I think the gambit will work and Layton will go for it.

So by this logic, there will be no election this fall. Layton is to give a press conference this afternoon. I'll bet that he offers an olive branch.

-----

Ignatieff's move is about perception and I think it's a smart move.

Ignatieff and the Liberals are power hungry. There's no other way to explain his recent statement that he will oppose any measures that the Conservatives put before the house. He wants the Government to fall, and it doesn't matter whether the spirit of a piece of legislation is supported by the Liberals he won't vote for it. That to me tells me that he's power hungry.

[dlkenny]

I sure as hell do. When activist judges can just decree that things are "unconstitutional", the government should also have the right to respond to that by just changing the constitution.

It should not be considered a "crisis" if people want to fix that horrific mess that Trudeau foisted on us. The very fact that not all provinces even officially ratified it makes it invalid as far as I'm concerned. If you really want a "set in stone" constitution, you've got to come up with something better than what we have now.

This isn't exactly true. While judges can make judgements there does exist the notwithstanding clause that allows parliament to override the judicial system. It makes no sense to be able to change the constitution at the whim of any one political party who happens to be in power.

[jdobbin]

I sure as hell do. When activist judges can just decree that things are "unconstitutional", the government should also have the right to respond to that by just changing the constitution.

They have a right. It is Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is the provincial and federal override of the courts.

[Topaz]

Since you guys are talking about our constitution, I want to ask about Quebec and Harper saying Quebec IS and NATION within a NATION. Does this mean that Quebec is a NATION and not a province and if so, the the Bloc, Tories and Libs who represent Quebec be in the House of Commons? The Bloc representing Quebec only and the Libs and NDP who are federalist can't be if they are from Quebec. Does this make any sense? I keep hearing the Bloc in the House refering to the Quebec Nation, in our Canadian Parliament.