A Fall 2007 Federal Election?

[Shakeyhands]

If you recall, last Spring, just before the summer adjournment, House business degenerated into bedlam with all sorts of maneuvers being used to shut down committee work. If that should happen in the new session Harper would have an argument to pull the plug.

If Harper truely doesn't want an election now, perhaps he'll ask those CPC in committee's to not do the things they did last session to stall them.... just a thought.

[maldon_road]

If Harper truely doesn't want an election now, perhaps he'll ask those CPC in committee's to not do the things they did last session to stall them.... just a thought.

Not just the Tories. The opposition was stalling too.

[jbg]

Bluth, you make it sound as if the decision is entirely in the hands of Dion.

I think Harper has set this up well. It looks like Dion wants an election when in fact it's Harper that wants it.

Anyway, I think that it's a foregone conclusion now. Dion wants the modified Clean Air Act back on the order paper and Harper has refused to do it. Neither will likely back down on this issue.

Well technically the choice is now a collective one; Dion, Layton and Duceppe need to "want" an election and have all of their respecive MP's present for the vote on the Throne Speech. With last week's bi-election result even the support of the NDP alone is enough to keep the government in power, unless some CPC MP's need to visit their cute infant nephews and nieces, or granny.

[jbg]

It may be that Harper calls an election whatever the result are for the throne speech. He could go to the Governor-General and say that he has lot the confidence of Parliament despite the vote. His reasoning might be that the Opposition will re-introduce the Clean Air Act regardless of whether the government does so.

He technically can no longer do that. I suppose he could make the Clean Air and Climate Change Act (the proper name now) a confidence vote.

[Michael Bluth]

Bluth, you make it sound as if the decision is entirely in the hands of Dion.

I think Harper has set this up well. It looks like Dion wants an election when in fact it's Harper that wants it.

Harper is shrewd, but if he really does want an election then things have fallen into place for him far beyond anything he could have planned.

Duceppe and Layton have drawn lines in the sand that Harper can easily ignore without abandoning his centrist positioning.

This leaves a game of chicken between Harper and Dion. A game Harper that is win-win for Harper and lose-lose for Dion.

If the Liberals best messaging is that "Harper is the one who really wanted the election, not us" then it will probably work as well as their "Grinch opposition parties forced a winter election" did in 2006.

[jdobbin]

He technically can no longer do that. I suppose he could make the Clean Air and Climate Change Act (the proper name now) a confidence vote.

The legislation doesn't says that the government has to hold a vote regarding confidence. Read it.

[geoffrey]

The legislation doesn't says that the government has to hold a vote regarding confidence. Read it.

I'm pretty sure the government can make any bill it wants a vote of confidence.

[Michael Bluth]

I'm pretty sure the government can make any bill it wants a vote of confidence.

Yes it can.

"Read it"

[jdobbin]

I'm pretty sure the government can make any bill it wants a vote of confidence.

There isn't any indication that there needs to be a vote at all in regards to confidence. The prime minister can go to the Governor-General and say he has lost the confidence of Parliament. He could say stalling tactics were an issue of confidence.

Edited September 26, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Dion opens door to voting for throne speech.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has set four demands for the upcoming speech from the throne, saying his party will vote against it unless the Conservatives meet his party's requirements.

Speaking after a Liberal caucus meeting on Wednesday, Dion said the Oct. 16 speech must include Bill C-30 on climate change, make strides on ending poverty and helping families, address international economic concerns and provide clarity on Afghanistan.

His comments seemed to suggest the Liberals would be willing to uphold the plan, staving off an election, if the Conservatives are willing to make some relatively minor concessions.

"My reading of this news conference is that there won't be an election. That was the impact of it to me," said CTV's Chief Political Correspondent Craig Oliver, following the news conference.

Oliver said the NDP and Bloc have both made demands of the Throne Speech that would be impossible for the government to meet, leaving it up to the Liberals to make a compromise in order to prop up the government and avoid an election.

It looks like the Tories could make a deal with the Liberals if they want to on the throne speech.

[M.Dancer]

Dion opens door to voting for throne speech.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

It looks like the Tories could make a deal with the Liberals if they want to on the throne speech.

I am forced to wonder though, why they would bother?

[August1991]

It looks like the Tories could make a deal with the Liberals if they want to on the throne speech.

Now we're in the world of spin, Dobbin. And the Liberals are doing this well, as usual.

From link above:

"We just heard the Liberal leader throwing it back at the prime minister. And ... it seems to me, if the prime minister doesn't want an election he has sent him a message that will allow Harper not to have one. In other words those were not intolerable conditions laid out by Mr. Dion," Oliver told CTV Newsnet.

So, Craig Oliver thinks that Dion is being reasonable and if the government falls, then it is Harper who is being unreasonable. Right.

For those who watch this kind of thing closely (eg. people on this forum), we can unravel the nuance of these steps. For most people, it just won't matter. The campaign will quickly turn to other issues.

----

Harper has plainly said that he will not re-introduce the new (opposition) version of C-30 (the Clean Air Watchathing Act) so I guess Dion has drawn his line in the sand. Indeed, Dion's four requirements seem like the basis of his campaign platform.

I'm now convinced that we'll have an election in November/December.

Last point: I heard Dion on CBC Radio explaining this after the Liberal caucus today. In English, not only is he whiny (like in French) but he's also incomprehensible. He better clean up his speaking skills otherwise he's gone. Sad in a way. Dion would bring alot to federal politics if he could figure out a way to express himself better.

[maldon_road]

Last point: I heard Dion on CBC Radio explaining this after the Liberal caucus today. In English, not only is he whiny (like in French) but he's also incomprehensible. He better clean up his speaking skills otherwise he's gone. Sad in a way. Dion would bring alot to federal politics if he could figure out a way to express himself better.

I'm setting up a meeting with Dion for a group I deal with. I suggested to the Lib I am dealing with that it might be better if the meeting was in French. The guy was all over me arguing that "there is nothing wrong" with Dion's English. If they really believe that that might explain why the Liberals are in the pickle they are.

[jdobbin]

I am forced to wonder though, why they would bother?

They wouldn't if they truly are comfortable with the prospect of a possible minority.

[jdobbin]

Now we're in the world of spin, Dobbin. And the Liberals are doing this well, as usual.

So, Craig Oliver thinks that Dion is being reasonable and if the government falls, then it is Harper who is being unreasonable. Right.

For those who watch this kind of thing closely (eg. people on this forum), we can unravel the nuance of these steps. For most people, it just won't matter. The campaign will quickly turn to other issues.

----

Harper has plainly said that he will not re-introduce the new (opposition) version of C-30 (the Clean Air Watchathing Act) so I guess Dion has drawn his line in the sand. Indeed, Dion's four requirements seem like the basis of his campaign platform.

I'm now convinced that we'll have an election in November/December.

Last point: I heard Dion on CBC Radio explaining this after the Liberal caucus today. In English, not only is he whiny (like in French) but he's also incomprehensible. He better clean up his speaking skills otherwise he's gone. Sad in a way. Dion would bring alot to federal politics if he could figure out a way to express himself better.

I think Dion should have said today that his party will probably support the throne speech, set no conditions and then re-introduce C-30 as a private members bill. He should let Harper make the move to call an election this fall if he really wants to go.

[capricorn]

I am forced to wonder though, why they would bother?

From the comments Harper made that an election would probably end in another minority government, I can't see him making any deals with the opposition.

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic...ECTIONS-COL.XML

I sense a real thirst for an election on the part of the Conservatives. The best scenario for Harper is if the opposition forces an election this fall. He can then play to the sentiments of those Canadians who don't want an election and say "I didn't want it, you didn't want it...it's their fault now punish them."

Personally, I want a late fall election.

[August1991]

Talk about spin:

The federal Liberals will determine whether the minority Conservative government survives or Canada is thrown into another election, New Democrats predicted yesterday.

National Post

So, we have the New Democrats who want to give the impression that if we have an election, it's Dion's doing. It appears that the NDP is aiming very deliberately for Liberal voters. At the same time, the National Post leads with this in the first sentence. IOW, the Tories are quite happy that Dion is going to get blamed. My head is spinning.

In the coming campaign, the NDP is going to take on the Liberals and the BQ for urban votes. The NDP slogan will be "Peace Now!" and watch for Jack and Olivia to campaign in Kanuk coats.

I think Dion should have said today that his party will probably support the throne speech, set no conditions and then re-introduce C-30 as a private members bill. He should let Harper make the move to call an election this fall if he really wants to go.

Hmmm.

That wouldn't quite do it now, would it?

[jdobbin]

Talk about

So, we have the New Democrats who want to give the impression that if we have an election, it's Dion's doing. It appears that the NDP is aiming very deliberately for Liberal voters. At the same time, the National Post leads with this in the first sentence. IOW, the Tories are quite happy that Dion is going to get blamed. My head is spinning.

In the coming campaign, the NDP is going to take on the Liberals and the BQ for urban votes. The NDP slogan will be "Peace Now!" and watch for Jack and Olivia to campaign in Kanuk coats.

Hmmm.

That wouldn't quite do it now, would it?

The BQ are also blaming the Liberals if an election is to take place.

The NDP are preparing to fight an election as if the Liberals were still in place. The BQ will have to cast aside any idea about fighting the Liberals for the most part because their big threat is Tories gunning for their rural seats.

Dion is trying to dial it back because all parties will point to him as being responsible for an election or for the lack of election. My think all along is that he should approach it this way: There is work to be done in Ottawa and nothing is to be gained from an election that produces another minority government. Better to make Parliament work.

[maldon_road]

Harper should bring in the Speech from the Throne that properly reflects his views - a debate and vote on Afghanistan "in due course" and his support for the "alternative" approach to the global warming. This will inflame the opposition. But I bet the Libs still won't force an election over it; they are in too much turmoil.

[jbg]

The legislation doesn't says that the government has to hold a vote regarding confidence. Read it.

No, but it says that the government cannot "call" an election unless defeated on a confidence vote or motion.

[jbg]

I'm setting up a meeting with Dion for a group I deal with. I suggested to the Lib I am dealing with that it might be better if the meeting was in French. The guy was all over me arguing that "there is nothing wrong" with Dion's English. If they really believe that that might explain why the Liberals are in the pickle they are.

Why in French? The Liberals have a leader who doesn't consider it important to talk in Canada's (majority) language.

[jdobbin]

No, but it says that the government cannot "call" an election unless defeated on a confidence vote or motion.

Can you please cite that reference?

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/lgs/default.asp?L...=20060530_e.htm

This does not affect the prerogative of the Prime Minister to advise dissolution at any time prior to the stipulated date, in the event of a loss of confidence. Where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, a general election would be held in accordance with existing practices. The general election following this would then be set for the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year.

No mention of a vote anywhere. In fact the vagueness of the wording has been mention in several articles in the media. The legislation only seems to prevent a snap election. It doesn't prevent the government from claiming loss of confidence whether there is a vote or not.

Edited September 27, 2007 by jdobbin

[maldon_road]

Why in French? The Liberals have a leader who doesn't consider it important to talk in Canada's (majority) language.

For the same reason if I was setting up a group to meet with Layton it would be in English. To maximize communication. We need to tell him something and it will be easier in French. As for his not considering "it important to talk in Canada's (majority) language" the voters will eventually judge him on that.

[Michael Bluth]

No mention of a vote anywhere. In fact the vagueness of the wording has been mention in several articles in the media.

Citations please.

Yes, the word vote is not in the act. Has a Government ever gone to the GG and claimed to have lost the confidence of the house without losing a vote of non-confidence in the House.

Seems like another fabrication aimed at painting the Conservatives in the worst possible light. Then again, providing some citations and historical proof where such a nefarious task has been undertaken would certainly enhance your credibility.

[jdobbin]

Here is what Harper said about fixed election dates.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/05/26/...ote-060526.html

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says his government will introduce a bill next week to establish fixed federal election dates every four years except in cases where the government is defeated in a House of Commons vote or is otherwise "prevented from governing."

Confidence is whatever the government says it is.

Professor Don Desserud has been interviewed a few times on the problems of fixed election dates and what the government can and cannot do under it. Some of his thoughts have been expressed in an Elections Canada article.

http://www.elections.ca/eca/eim/article_se...;textonly=false

This is the problem facing those who would like to fix election dates: Attempts to fix election dates cannot restrict the right and ability of the prime minister to request a dissolution, or of the Governor General to grant it. To do so would undermine the principle of responsible government. If nothing else, it is unlikely that Canadian courts would regard such measures favourably, as the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Ontario Public Service Employees' Union v. Ontario (Attorney General) suggests. Although this case dealt with the right of a provincial government to restrict civil servants from participating in federal politics, the Court made it clear that provinces lacked the authority to "bring about a profound constitutional upheaval by the introduction of political institutions foreign to and incompatible with the Canadian system." Furthermore,

"it is uncertain, to say the least, that a province could touch upon the power of the Lieutenant-Governor to dissolve the legislature, or his power to appoint and dismiss ministers, without unconstitutionally touching his office itself."

The wording of the legislation is vague and does not require a vote of confidence for the government to act. The prime minister is left with the power to call an election because the Constitution says so. The Governor General is not bound by the legislation of fixed election dates. If the prime minister goes to her and asks for dissolution, she has to determine if an election can be called.

The Hill Times said the legislation should be called the flexible fixed election legislation.

http://www.fireweeddemocracyproject.ca/ind...hp/en/news/2006

"The Fixed Date Election Bill, C-16, should really be called the "Flexible Fixed Election Bill," say government and opposition MPs because a government can and will still be defeated earlier than every four years, the Governor General will still have the authority to call an election on the advice of the Prime Minister or to not call an election, and the set date under the upcoming law can change if the third Monday in October conflicts with a cultural or religious holiday...Because of this, critics say the bill is not true electoral reform, but the government argues it's a step in the right direction and that Canada's Parliamentary system means that fixed election dates will be indeed flexible."

The Hill Times - Legislative Process — October 2, 2006

Rob Nicholson basically said in a speech in Parliament that the prime minister could call an election if he felt he had to.

http://www.fireweeddemocracyproject.ca/ind.../2006/09/18/455

The Prime Minister has to retain his prerogative to advise dissolution to allow for situations when the government loses the confidence of the House. That has to be there. This is a fundamental principle of our system of responsible government...This legislation provides greater fairness, increased transparency and predictability, improved policy planning, increased voter turnout, and will help to attract the best qualified Canadians to public life."

Hansard - Government Orders - Canada Elections Act — September 18, 2006

You'll note he never mentions an actual vote and Harper himself said anything that "prevented (the government) from governing" could take the people to the polls.

The legislation is vague. The government says it has to be because we don't have the same system of balance of power that some other countries have.

The Ottawa citizen mentioned the possibility of a Senate-Commons clash as well as how the prime minister could fiddle around with things and then go the Governor-General anyways.

http://www.fireweeddemocracyproject.ca/ind.../2006/06/16/361

As for "fixing" them so nothing can intervene, suppose a prime minister tells a governor general an issue has arisen so important that, though he controls the House, it would be improper to push legislation through on it without ensuring the House reflects prevailing opinion. If, say, a free-trade agreement emerges from negotiations not synchronized with our election cycle. Or Finance boffins finish drafting major tax changes. Or a war starts.

The Americans handle such problems totally differently. But our constitutional system, "similar in Principle to the United Kingdom," is already finely tuned to deal with them. Hammering a square republican peg of fixed election dates into the round parliamentary hole of dissolving the House at suitable moments isn't reform, it's ignorant vandalism. Which is why Bill C-16 actually says: "Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion." Promising fixed dates is, um, disingenuous.

Now take the proposal to limit senators to eight-year terms ... please. Its sugary coating of nonsense is that it could be enacted at all. Constitutional changes affecting provincial interests require an amending process that, deliberately or not, is unworkable. And a more effective Senate with current seat distribution would harm under-represented provinces such as B.C., while changing that distribution would harm overrepresented ones such as P.E.I. and, oh, what's that one where they speak French that's occasionally a constitutional issue?

Its bitter core is the Senate's function as a chamber of sober second thought that can delay rash initiatives and improve technically faulty legislation but not obstruct the House. If various reforms give it democratic legitimacy, how shall we break a Senate-Commons deadlock? With fixed election dates we couldn't even dissolve the House to give a new one the moral force of a fresh mandate. And you can't dissolve the Senate, period.

Edited September 27, 2007 by jdobbin