Thanks for the link. It will be interesting to see what the Federal Court has to say.
It was a law drafted by Harper’s government. What point are you trying to make here, exactly?
An Act of Parliament can’t change how elections are called. The law could no more force elections every four years than a motion of no confidence passed by Congress could force a US presidential election.
Look, if that law had any legal force then Harper couldn’t have called the election.
Bad luck? Harper called the election when he did to avoid electoral fallout from the financial crisis!
Here’s an interesting analysis of how Harper messed up his chance for a majority and why he is his own worst enemy - link
Good lord this started in IMHO? No wonder I couldn’t find it earlier.
Anyway - Rysto be fair. The economic storm shifted into high gear 2 weeks ago. Before that it looked like something far less.
I don’t think Rysto is being at all unfair - we’ve known for several months that there was going to be a serious economic downturn. I don’t think any of us thought it was going to be this bad, but I remember several of us saying, in a thread before the election was called, that part of why Harper was publicly saying how “dysfunctional” parliament was had to do with how he knew the crisis was coming and he didn’t want to wear the horns for it.
Damn it, it was The Race is On! and I quoted myself in the above post. Ten yard penalty and second down. What can I say? I didn’t get much sleep last night…
I never said Harper didn’t think there would be a downturn I’m saying he didn’t (and neither did anyone else) think the problem would consume $700 billion US for various bank bailouts, 2 major investment banks dead, AIG nationalized, a combined multinational interest rate rate cut and the sporadic nationalization of various banks by various governments across NA and Europe.
Hell, if I’m a minority leader and I see that coming I’d hold on tight because the opposition would never want to win that set of problems.
I’m curious - what did you expect the federal government to do? consumer protection is generally a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
We’ve dealt with the “illegal election call” issue before, including, IIRC, when the “fixed election date” legislation was first passed. If you read the legislation, it’s very clear - in summary, elections will be held on a fixed date every 4 years (sect 56.2), unless the Governor General decides to call one at some other time (sect 56.1).
Constitutionally, the GG calls the election, and there is no restriction other than the 5-year limit on the GG, which Section 56.1 acknowledges, although rigid convention requires that she/he do so only upon the advice of the PM. In other words, the PM could call an election at any time under this legislation (including delaying more than 4 years) just the same as before it was passed. The election call was perfectly legal, and extremely hypocritical, given the big fuss Harper made about passing the legislation.
I remember that when Brian Mulrooney was in power , there was a point when the libs were basically self destructing and the NDP was crowing that it was the opposition party, once the Kim Campbell govt self destructed, we got the little guy from some place in quebec for almost three terms ,and then Paul Martin.
They will be back , sooner or later.
Declan
See, it’s a funny thing about humans, but while our ears are listening to the words coming out of someone’s mouth, our eyes are picking up subtext from their body language. You may be evolved enough to vote on cold hard facts, but most of the population will vote based on emotion and gut feeling.
Harper’s indirect glance says “closed”, and utterly defeats the “open and approachable” message that the fireside chat in a casual sweater is meant to convey. And just to prove this isn’t just the anti-Stevie show, I’d like to add that I felt the same way about the fact that Layton kept his hand in his pocket in all the NDP ads (though he at least managed to look straight at the camera), Elizabeth May felt the need to stare out the train window while talking in Green party ads, and Dion was all but invisible in the Liberal ads. Fail all around.
Once again, my original complaint is that NONE of the leaders managed to convey the right image in this campaign. I didn’t single out Harper until Leaffan insisted that I was wrong in dismissing his leadership potential.
My biggest criticism of Harper and the Conservative party in this last election is that Harper’s campaign manager needs to be taken out back and shot for gross incompetence. What a bumbling, stumbling campaign from a sitting Prime Minister who should have been making this campaign all about his strengths - he’s a friggin’ economist, for God’s sake, in the middle of the worst economic crises most people alive have ever seen! Let everyone else make the election about the environment; he should have been playing to his strengths the whole time.
He should have gone in knowing that the US economy could melt down at any time (I managed to anticipate the stock plummeting - surely people in the know are better informed than I am), and made that his campaign. I honestly don’t know what his problem is - that he doesn’t listen to any of his advisors, or that his advisors are idiots.
Can’t say I really understand the appeal of André Arthur, but there is apparently a segment of the population of Quebec City’s suburbs who likes what he has to say, enough to elect him in 2006 and re-elect him now. I’ve heard it said that Quebec City is like a big village: I guess it means that outside of the core of public servants in the centre town, people tend to have a “small town” mentality and dislike these public servants, the government, Montreal, etc. Quebec City is a conservative place where these kinds of political or semi-political shock jocks enjoy a rather large following (and where the Conservative party does well, of course).
This said, I don’t think André Arthur is any worse as MP than any similar rural or suburban Conservative MP anywhere in Canada, so I don’t think it’s stupid to elect him. I wouldn’t have voted for him, but I’m sure he’s doing a decent job.
I’m not. A Conservative minority was the result I was hoping for. Sure, with 143 or so MPs they’re a bit close to a majority for comfort, but for now I think we’re going to have a quite decent government.
As an added bonus, my father voted this time, and was actually interested in the election, even watching the debates (I, on the other hand, wasn’t able to catch them). So as far as I’m concerned, our democracy is in great shape, if even he shows interest in the electoral process.
Without making changes to the constitution, there is no way to make this law applicable to motions of no confidence. But without making changes to the constitution, there is no way to remove the Governor General’s power to dissolve the House. We can argue that what Harper did went against the spirit of his law, but it certainly wasn’t illegal. We knew from the start that this law didn’t have any teeth. (This is why unlike Rysto I don’t think the law is unconstitutional: it doesn’t do enough to possibly violate the constitution.)
We don’t “enjoy” anything, we do like everyone else and vote according to our interests. And if the rest of Canada voted in block for Harper, we couldn’t do anything to stop him from getting a majority, so I guess that all of Canada is responsible for the breakdown of the old political system. There’s a point, Frank, where you can’t blame us for all the universe’s problems anymore. 
Breakdown of the old political system? What old political system? Isn’t it the same political system as it was before? Maybe a little less graft and corruption since the Liberals have been out of power, but I assume that isn’t what you are pining for.
Btw, the digs about rural and suburban voters aren’t really necessary. Frankly, those urban voters who think that shutting down industries like the oil sands, which keep them in jobs, are the ones I feel sorry for. How can they sleep at night after voting for putting people out of work?
Some one please correct me if I’m wrong, but the only way that an election can be called that I’m aware of is the GG dissolving parliament. The law says that elections must be held every 4 years, but I don’t see how the House can pass a law that compels the GG to do anything.
The law explicitly says it does not constrain the GG’s ability to dissolve Parliament. It basically amounted to a pledge by Harper to call the next election on the specified date (which he then broke), but there is absolutely no legal force to this pledge. It’s not unconstitutional; it’s just legally insignificant.
Perhaps this is just a matter of definition. From my perspective, there’s a law on the books which says that there must be an election every four years. However, as we’ve all agreed, that law has no legal effect. A PM could ignore the law and serve a full five years if he wanted. Why does it have no legal effect? Because the Constitution does not allow for a Bill to force an election. In my view, that means that the Bill is unconstitutional.
Well,
- It’s a law, not a bill,
- It would only be unconstitutional if it contravened the Constitution. It doesn’t. I’m not sure how much clearer this point can be made, but there’s no section of the Constitution Act that this bill violates. It takes no power away from the Governor-General to call elections, and
- If, by your own admission, it has no legal effect, how can it be unconstitutional anyway? A law is deemed unconstitutional because of its effect.
It has no legal effect because it is explicitly written to have no legal effect. The GG retains the right he/she always had to dissolve parliament, and nothing in the act stops the PM from asking the GG to exercise that authority. I suppose the GG theoretically could point to that law and say “No - you said 4 years; I’m holding you to it”, but nobody in their right mind would ever expect that to happen.
Now IF section 56.1(1) wasn’t in the law, THEN it would be unconstitutional (and still of no effect).