Harper's 2008 election call to be challenged

[Wilber]

Oh yeah, I forgot about them....of course they're not elected either.....

So all your checks come from non elected political appointees. I knew you didn't believe in democracy.

[Smallc]

I do believe in democracy, but democracy, like anything else, needs limits. We have a democratic house.....but our entire parliament isn't democratic, and that's by design. The Fathers of Confederation were very wise.

[Wilber]

I believe that the commons can override them after 180 days though, can't they? If that is true, it means that Harper didn't need to stack the Senate to get Senate reform....and he becomes even more of a hypocrite.

Then why does any party in power feel it has to stack the Senate. If this isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

[Smallc]

I have no problem with the Senate. Harper does. That's the difference. As for why a party would stack the Senate, well, 180 days is a long time.

[Smallc]

Looking at things further, I've come to realize that I'm a bit fuzzy on the override. I'll have to look into it more.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Smallc

[Wilber]

I do believe in democracy, but democracy, like anything else, needs limits. We have a democratic house.....but our entire parliament isn't democratic, and that's by design. The Fathers of Confederation were very wise.

Limited by who? Actually the Fathers of Confederation adopted a system that evolved from disputes between the British Monarchy and the British nobility. Why, because it was the only system we were allowed to adopt. A system that resulted from efforts by the nobility to protect its interests. The average joe wasn't even a consideration when the parliamentary sytem came about.

[Smallc]

And that very system continues to work to this day with very few changes.

[Wilber]

I have no problem with the Senate. Harper does. That's the difference. As for why a party would stack the Senate, well, 180 days is a long time.

Then why did the Liberals stack the Senate during their years in power. Must be a reason, no? You're right 180 days is a long time.

[jdobbin]

An unelected house rejecting laws. Fits right in with your concept of supreme party leaders.

We could always get rid of like the provinces did.

I guess you don't like unelected judges as a check either.

[Smallc]

Every party puts people who they think lean their way in the Senate (which is unfortunate, the country's best people should be put there). It hasn't seemed to hurt the operation of the chamber.

[jdobbin]

What amendments? You keep maintaining they aren't possible because of the premiers and in that case the House of Lords would be preferable to nothing.

I am saying in the absence of the 1982 Constitution, you prefer where we went to the House of Lords? They are an unelected body, by the way.

[Smallc]

Ok, with further investigation, I've come to the conclusion that the Senate can reject non money bills from the house, and Constitutional changes that affect only federal powers. They cannot reject money bills or Constitutional changes that affect the powers of the provinces and the federal government together. They can delay those things. I'm not sure of how long the delay can be for money bills, but for Constitutional change, it's up to 180 days.

http://www.senat.fr/senatsdumonde/english/canada.html

[Wilber]

We could always get rid of like the provinces did.

I guess you don't like unelected judges as a check either.

What's your problem with having elected people as a check?

[Wilber]

I am saying in the absence of the 1982 Constitution, you prefer where we went to the House of Lords? They are an unelected body, by the way.

At least we could amend our constitution.

[Smallc]

Again, we still can, it simply requires a broad consensus of a majority of Canadian legislators in some cases, and now by convention, it requires a vote by the people.

[Wilber]

And that very system continues to work to this day with very few changes.

Work for who? You must bear in mind the parliamentary system was originally designed to protect the interests of those who formed parliament. It was designed to be a special interest group to put limits on the Crown, not a democratic institution. For centuries parliaments consisted of exclusively the nobility and the clergy. Eventually, property owners were made eligible. The common Joe is a relatively recent add on.

Our system of confidence votes and disolving parliaments regardless of the outcome of the previous election is an example of it still looking after its own interests.

[Wilber]

Again, we still can, it simply requires a broad consensus of a majority of Canadian legislators in some cases, and now by convention, it requires a vote by the people.

Which means for all practical purposes it is cast in stone. All that stuff is just window dressing designed to appease someones 1982 political agenda with no thought for the future.

[Smallc]

Our system of confidence votes and disolving parliaments regardless of the outcome of the previous election is an example of it still looking after its own interests.

That's only an opinion of yours. Because our system requires the government to keep confidence, it means that they are responsible to a majority of the elected representatives in the Commons. It means that they have to do things that all parties agree on, on behalf of the people of Canada, or they will face a confidence vote and lose. It means that the government of the day has to play nice, and if they don't, then they suffer the consequences. You want to take away the ability for parliament to hold the government to account. I don't think you'll find much support for that, even if Canadians don't like elections.

[Wilber]

That's only an opinion of yours. Because our system requires the government to keep confidence, it means that they are responsible to a majority of the elected representatives in the Commons. It means that they have to do things that all parties agree on, on behalf of the people of Canada, or they will face a confidence vote and lose. It means that the government of the day has to play nice, and if they don't, then they suffer the consequences. You want to take away the ability for parliament to hold the government to account. I don't think you'll find much support for that, even if Canadians don't like elections.

Majority governments are accountable to no one. Minority governments only fail because there is a will for them to fail. It doesn't matter if they play nice or not, if the opposition believes they can bring a government down and gain from an election they will do it in a heart beat. If the government thinks they might get a majority it will dissolve Parliament n a heart beat. Oppositions chose to bring governments down and governments choose to dissolve parliament for their own advantage. The people of Canada don't enter into it other than as tools to get their wish.

[jdobbin]

At least we could amend our constitution.

We still can. It just can't happen unilaterally as Harper wants.

[Smallc]

Majority governments are accountable to no one.

First, a majority is a totally different case. The people in a large enough number of ridings have given a single party the opportunity to govern the house without the support of other parties. It isn't a guarantee of success, but usually it is successful. Second, it's already been pointed out that any government is accountable to at least three bodies and the Constitution...minorities simply have the addition of more accountability in the house.

Minority governments only fail because there is a will for them to fail.

That's right.

It doesn't matter if they play nice or not

That's not. Parties like the Bloc and the NDP are more than happy to prop up any government that is willing to play nice and throw them a bone. To paint the situation in a way that says the government has no where to turn is to be dishonest.

if the opposition believes they can bring a government down and gain from an election they will do it in a heart beat.

I think the Liberals would do that, but I don't see what the other parties would have to gain. The Conservatives have options, but they're probably too stubborn to take advantage of them.

If the government thinks they might get a majority it will dissolve Parliament n a heart beat.

Yes they will...especially the current hypocrite that occupies the top government office in this country.

Oppositions chose to bring governments down and governments choose to dissolve parliament for their own advantage. The people of Canada don't enter into it other than as tools to get their wish.

The people get to vote for their MPs. The people also have a voice through their MPs, the internet, the media, etc. Just because things don't go just as you think they should or even as the majority thinks that they should, it doesn't means that the good of the people was never in the minds of those doing the governing.

[Wilber]

First, a majority is a totally different case. The people in a large enough number of ridings have given a single party the opportunity to govern the house without the support of other parties. It isn't a guarantee of success, but usually it is successful. Second, it's already been pointed out that any government is accountable to at least three bodies and the Constitution...minorities simply have the addition of more accountability in the house.

So all the opposition MP's can go home, their presence is not required.

That's not. Parties like the Bloc and the NDP are more than happy to prop up any government that is willing to play nice and throw them a bone. To paint the situation in a way that says the government has no where to turn is to be dishonest.

Only if they think they have nothing to gain by an election.

I think the Liberals would do that, but I don't see what the other parties would have to gain. The Conservatives have options, but they're probably too stubborn to take advantage of them.

They only have options if the other guys don't think they can win.

Yes they will...especially the current hypocrite that occupies the top government office in this country.

They're all hypocrites when it comes to getting or keeping power. Chretien did it with majorities.

The people get to vote for their MPs. The people also have a voice through their MPs, the internet, the media, etc. Just because things don't go just as you think they should or even as the majority thinks that they should, it doesn't means that the good of the people was never in the minds of those doing the governing.

A voice? They do as they are told or else. If I was a caucus member in one of our parties I would get my ass fired out the door if I said in public what I have said on this thread. Hell, you and I have a freer voice than an elected MP.

[Smallc]

I'm not sure we live in the same country. It seems that you don't like the system and that's it. All that's left to do is say....too bad.

[Wilber]

I'm not sure we live in the same country. It seems that you don't like the system and that's it. All that's left to do is say....too bad.

You say you believe in democracy yet all I hear are reasons why you think it should be limited to as little as absolutely necessary.

I'm not suggesting we dump a parliamentary system despite its faults. I do think our system can be better, more democratic and respect its citizens more.

[Smallc]

You say you believe in democracy yet all I hear are reasons why you think it should be limited to as little as absolutely necessary.

I don't believe in absolute or direct democracy. I think everything should have limits and it seems that we've found a good balance. The Canada experiment has been very successful, and I don't want to mess with a good thing.