"Never vote again" clause from Mr. "Just Watch Me"

[Murray B.]

It is interesting how politicians now all seem to have the gift of prophesy and can tell us what the other guys are going to do for sure. Seeing as there are a few liars out there perhaps we should give more weight to what has already been done.

Here's one from good old Mr. "Just Watch Me":

It's in the Constitution act of 1982 which can be seen at <http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#I>:

Note the text,"4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members."

This looks good, an election every five years, but read on.

Now look at ,"In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be."

What is an apprehended insurrection? Who decides this?

Now look closely at " not opposed by...more than one third." This means the government will continue forever if they can stop some of the oppostion from voting. As little as a federal policeman with a jug of pepper spray could do that. It's not hard to prevent a few from voting. Shouldn't this clause read "supported by ... more than two thirds"?

If I can see this then you have to know that Mr. "Just Watch Me" who was a trained lawyer also knew exactly what it meant.

I'm not making this up.

I'm not allowed to make things up.

Choose your Canada!

[sage]

An interesting provision, though I believe the Governor General would actually play some role in all this. I am just guessing, but I would think if the G. G. didn't feel the use of the provision was appropriate in the circumstances she could dissolve Parliament on her own.

Actually kind of a scary suggestion, considering the role we generally have the GG play.

[August1991]

Murray, you raise several interesting points but they don't concern Trudeau directly.

Because of World War I, the parliament elected in 1911 sat until 1917 without a general election.

This was in accordance with Canada's electoral law which permitted a parliament to sit if two-thirds of the House agreed that war or insurrection justified sitting. The Constitution Act of 1982 moved this act of parliament into the constitution, giving it stronger authority.

Harper has said that he wants to institute "fixed term" election dates. In effect, Harper merely wants to shorten parliament's lifespan from an absolute maximum of six years to four years. A government would have to hold an election after four years, but it could hold one on a date of its choosing after less time.

The idea of fixed election dates is anathema to a parliamentary system of government.

[Murray B.]

Sage, the G.G. is now appointed by the PM so I don't think that this would be as much of a problem as it first seems.

"...permitted a parliament to sit if two-thirds of the House agreed that war or insurrection justified sitting. The Constitution Act of 1982 moved this act of parliament into the constitution, giving it stronger authority..."

There is a world of difference between, "supported by more than two-thirds" and "not opposed by more that one third". The similarities were probably intentional but the actual meaning of the text diverges when it is examined closely. The two-thirds requirement makes it very difficult to continue the government but the '82 version makes it easy.

What is their real agenda?

[August1991]

There is a world of difference between, "supported by more than two-thirds" and "not opposed by more that one third".

Really?

What is it?

[Wilber]

"The idea of fixed election dates is anathema to a parliamentary system of government."

How so? We have them in BC. It just means that elections cannot be called at the whim of the first minister for mere political gain as in 2000 or in an attempt to save their political ass as in 2004. It does not mean there wouldn't be an election if the Government lost the confidence of Parliament.

Every time a PM calls an election before its term, all the peoples business before Parliament goes in the dumptster and must be started from scratch at the next one, if at all. This is a real anathema to a parliamentary system and an insult to the electorate.

[August1991]

"The idea of fixed election dates is anathema to a parliamentary system of government."

How so? We have them in BC. It just means that elections cannot be called at the whim of the first minister for mere political gain as in 2000 or in an attempt to save their political ass as in 2004. It does not mean there wouldn't be an election if the Government lost the confidence of Parliament.

Every time a PM calls an election before its term, all the peoples business before Parliament goes in the dumptster and must be started from scratch at the next one, if at all. This is a real anathema to a parliamentary system and an insult to the electorate.

Wilbur, we have fixed elections now. A parliament cannot sit beyond five years, and a government cannot govern more than one year without convening parliament. Usually, governments call an election before that limit.

The BC legislation simply shortens that period to four years. Nothing stops a government calling an election before that limit.

Politicians "never" call an election on a whim. They always have some reason for seeking a mandate.

----

A parliamentary government stands or falls on its support in parliament and that is never assured. Hence, fixed election dates are anathema to parliamentary democracy.

A president is elected for a specific term and if the president cannot fulfil the term, a designate fulfils it.

I will not be voting for a government today; I will be voting for a member of Parliament. If Harper wants to limit the power of the PMO, I think enhancing the power of MPs is a better route than fooling around with fixed election dates.

[Murray B.]

There is a world of difference between, "supported by more than two-thirds" and "not opposed by more that one third".

Really?

What is it?

"Supported by" means that the government only continues when the opposition is allowed to vote. Prevent their vote and the government ends. The other way if you prevent most members from voting the government continues indefinitely.

The logic of Boole is not your strong point, I take it?

The wording is not accidental either. They knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote it.

[Wilber]

"The BC legislation simply shortens that period to four years. Nothing stops a government calling an election before that limit."

Not so. Election dates are now fixed in BC. The only exception is a loss of confidence.

BC electoral reform

Perhaps whim is not accurate but in 2000 Chretien was only 3 years into his mandate and had a sizable majority. The Alliance had just been formed with Day as leader. He saw the weakness and called an election. In 2004 Adscam hit and Martin called a snap election in hopes of retaining that majority. In neither case was the good of Canadians a consideration.

[Murray B.]

Not so. Election dates are now fixed in BC. The only exception is a loss of confidence.

What if the government apprehends an insurrection? Can they continue in those circumstances?

Would the legions of law abiding gun owners in B.C. become a problem if the government continued without a vote for too long?

See, the gun registry makes perfect sense once you start to understand what the agenda really is.

It never was about the safety of the citizens.

[Wilber]

Not so. Election dates are now fixed in BC. The only exception is a loss of confidence.

What if the government apprehends an insurrection? Can they continue in those circumstances?

Would the legions of law abiding gun owners in B.C. become a problem if the government continued without a vote for too long?

See, the gun registry makes perfect sense once you start to understand what the agenda really is.

It never was about the safety of the citizens.

Thanks Murray, it's much clearer now. We are apprehending insurrections on a weekly basis out here in the wild west. August is right, fixed election dates are nonsense, or is it the gun registry?

[geoffrey]

No Murray's got a point. Let me clarify because it seems like he's struggling to, at least to August.

More than 2/3 support and 1/3 non-support don't equal.

Locking out the opposition prevents 1/3 non-support pretty quick.

Say I had 155 seat majority, I just lock the doors and pass a bill to continue the government. That works.

Where as if it said I needed 2/3 support, I'd need another 50 MP's to pass it and would therefore need the opposition.

In a majority government situation it would be constitutional possible to continue the government forever. However, I don't think this would ever happen. Nonetheless, Murray is right, 2/3 support makes way more sense to me.

[Murray B.]

Locking out the opposition prevents 1/3 non-support pretty quick.

Nonetheless, Murray is right, 2/3 support makes way more sense to me.

Thank you geoffrey, but what would the millions of law abiding gun owners do if the government of the day actually invoked this clause?

Maybe the gun registry will make more sense once we figure out what they're really up to.

P.S. Even if I'm paranoid that does not mean that THEY are not out to get me.

[geoffrey]

Locking out the opposition prevents 1/3 non-support pretty quick.

Nonetheless, Murray is right, 2/3 support makes way more sense to me.

Thank you geoffrey, but what would the millions of law abiding gun owners do if the government of the day actually invoked this clause?

Maybe the gun registry will make more sense once we figure out what they're really up to.

P.S. Even if I'm paranoid that does not mean that THEY are not out to get me.

The government wouldn't. It can't. It couldn't possibly. I can forsee any ability for this to actually happen.

That doesn't mean this clause can't be fixed though.

[Riverwind]

"The BC legislation simply shortens that period to four years. Nothing stops a government calling an election before that limit."

Not so. Election dates are now fixed in BC. The only exception is a loss of confidence.

In other words, you are saying election dates are not fixed: the maximum term has been reduced from 5 years to 4 years. Any gov't can engineer a non-confidence vote if they want to go to the polls early.

Also, a future gov't could repeal the 'fixed' election dates act if they wanted.

[geoffrey]

"The BC legislation simply shortens that period to four years. Nothing stops a government calling an election before that limit."

Not so. Election dates are now fixed in BC. The only exception is a loss of confidence.

In other words, you are saying election dates are not fixed: the maximum term has been reduced from 5 years to 4 years. Any gov't can engineer a non-confidence vote if they want to go to the polls early.

Also, a future gov't could repeal the 'fixed' election dates act if they wanted.

Good point Sparhawk, but I'd say your only right in a minority situation (in which case fixed election dates do nothing). In a majority, if a government rigged its own non-confidence motion, it'd be open season next election.

[Wilber]

"The BC legislation simply shortens that period to four years. Nothing stops a government calling an election before that limit."

Not so. Election dates are now fixed in BC. The only exception is a loss of confidence.

In other words, you are saying election dates are not fixed: the maximum term has been reduced from 5 years to 4 years. Any gov't can engineer a non-confidence vote if they want to go to the polls early.

Also, a future gov't could repeal the 'fixed' election dates act if they wanted.

If they had a majority, they would have to vote non-confidence in themselves. Wouldn't that be a great platform to run on in the subsequent election.

They probably could change the law but they would have to convince the public there was a need to change it so they could have an election. Also risky.

[Murray B.]

The government wouldn't. It can't. It couldn't possibly. I can forsee any ability for this to actually happen.

That doesn't mean this clause can't be fixed though.

You are so nice to give them the benefit of any doubt. I mean aren't all of us Canadians just so nice that not one would ever consider doing any such thing? This sort of thing can only happen south of the border, can't it?

The only problem with that is this constitution is completely "made in Canada" and there is no doubt about what it says. There is also no large doubt that the drafters, some of which were skilled lawyers, also knew exactly what it said. They knew and they intentionally changed the clause from the more restrictive text in an earlier constitutional document.

Now the "disarm the victims" gun laws have increased crime with firearms. There is no surprise there. The streets are much safer for criminals, after all. Despite this, they do not repeal the ill conceived law but have further strenghtened it. Are they really so stupid?

No, methinks that they are deceptive and it is we that are being stupid.