Harper wants to remain in power till 2009

The Conservative government will soon introduce legislation to implement fixed dates for federal elections, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.

Harper told the Victoria Chamber of Commerce his minority government will introduce a bill next week calling for fixed election dates every four years. Senate reform legislation will also be introduced next week, he said.

But Harper steered away from questions about elected senators, saying it was his government's ambition to have an elected senate, but that will take time.

Harper said the fixed election bill will propose the next election take place in the fall of 2009.

"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," he said. "Fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar. They level the playing field for all parties. The rules are clear for everybody."

Harper said fixed election dates are part of his democratic reform measures.

British Columbia, Ontario and Newfoundland-Labrador have fixed election dates.

Harper said fixed election dates don't mean a government stays in power until the set date.

Governments can be toppled in non-confidence votes or by Opposition forces, he said.

"Under fixed election legislation, nothing prevents the Opposition from defeating the government at any time," Harper said.

But he appeared to be suggesting his minority government should stay in power until 2009.

"Unless we're defeated or prevented from governing, we want to keep moving forward to make this minority parliament work over the next three-a-half years," Harper said.

"Hopefully in the next election we can run on our record and we won't need the manipulation of the electoral calendar."

Bill Graham, interim leader of the Liberal party, said it's ironic that a government with the slimmest minority in Canadian history is proposing four-year terms.

Graham said his party will review the idea to see if it's appropriate for Canada's democratic system.

"There are those in our party who see merit in the idea, there are others who believe that we have to move very cautiously if we're going to tamper with the very basics of the way in which a parliamentary democracy works," he said.

"Mr. Harper and his government owe it to Canadians to not rush into radical changes at a time when we need reflection, when we need to understand how they're going to work for the benefits of all Canadians in our democracy."

The May 2005 B.C. election was the first fixed provincial election date in Canadian history.

Premier Gordon Campbell's Liberals promised fixed election dates before they were elected to their first term in May 2001.

Campbell has since said fixed-election dates are here to stay, but has mused about changing the time of year the elections are held to the fall every four years from the current spring elections.

In British Columbia, the Opposition New Democrats accused Campbell's Liberals of firing up their election machine at least six months before last May's election, launching a multi-billion-dollar spending spree that saw the government promise new roads and recreation centres across the province.

The Liberals countered by saying the fixed date also allowed traditional New Democrat support groups like big labour and social organizations to mount huge anti-government advertising campaigns months prior to the vote.

Harper said nothing can stop a government from doing what it believes is governing.

Fixed election dates are a useful democratic reform that include advantages and disadvantages, he said.

"This a significant advantage for the government that we are willing to give up," said Harper.

The Senate reform law his government will introduce next week is the start of what Harper called a move toward reforming an institution in need of modernization.

"This institution should be reformed to better reflect the modern democratic needs of all of Canada's regions," he said.

He said his government has begun to tackle issues that British Columbia raised during the election campaign.

"The very first bill our government introduced had to do with government accountability," he said.

"It signals our commitment to clean up Ottawa after the sponsorship scandal."

Harper said he wants British Columbia to have its fair share of federal seats, but wouldn't say what he considers a fair number.

He said he would want more seats up for grabs in British Columbia by the next election.

--

I support Fixed election dates, but I think that is for majorities so they have four years in power and that they fall or stay after four years. I don't think minorities should have 4 year terms. Or fixed elections.

Fixed election dates or not if the government does not have support of the parliment then an election will be called or the GG will ask the leader of the oppisition to form a new government. I don't think fixed elections would change this.

I guess the loophole to go around a fixed election were to have members of the ruling party not show up for a vote of conf thus losing on purpose and having an election?

Anyhow I support Fixed election dates. The Liberals used the old system to hold elections when it was politically right for them, often holding elections way before the end of there mandate when they had the largest support of the people in the polls.

Is he suggesting the PM will no longer be able to request the GG dissolve parliament?

Yes. It appears so. You will have an election every for years, unless by non-cofidence or something else.

that's how actually it is, I guess. No?

Exactly.

What Harper is doing is curtailing the power of the PMO to pick and choose the most advantageous moment for an election. This is an exceptionally principled stance and should be widely supported.

Indeed, Harper is handing the initiative to the Opposition in this minority situation. ONLY the Opposition will be able to force an election before the 4 year term is up.

How about a little well-deserved praise for the stance taken by Harper?

kudos to him and the Conservative Party.

No right now in a majority the government can make the government fall whenever it wants especially when it is high in popularity. With fixed elections they will have to hold an election every four years in a majority.

Not exactly, Harper can always make the government fall if he wanted too.

Isn't that what I said?

This is what Harper is trying to change......it is democratic reform, pure and simple.

I said it before.

I don't get it. Unless he's etching in stone exactly the opposite of what he was screaming for all last year all he's doing is changing the term from 5 years to 4. Has he put forth a bill?

No.

What he is doing is making taking the initiative away from the Prime Minister........

remember chretien? For no good reason we had elections every three years.....whenever the government thought the ball was in their court, whenever they thought they held an edge........this is a terrific advantage to the government in power.

Under Harper's plan the PMO could no longer set election times. Unless the Opposistion chose to defeat the government with a no-confidence motion, the election could ONLY be held on fixed dates, every four years.

Great, fixed election dates. That means we'll have election campaigns a year or two long, as happens in the United States, running up to the next fixed date, instead of the mere 60 or so days of campaigning we have to endure now. Just what we need.

What happens if a government falls 6 months before the next fixed date? We have an election, then another one in six months? Or does the date of the next election shift forward four years from that date, unless a government falls again in the meantime? I don't see what's broken that this fixes. We already have approximately fixed dates for elections: no government can continue for more than five years from the return of the writs for choosing the House. Fixed election dates, in the sense Harper's proposing, to me don't seem consistent with the principles of responsible government as they've evolved in British parliamentary systems. This is not a simple change in the way things are done, this is a deep and profound change to the whole system, with unpredictable results.

I think this is a dumb idea that hasn't been thought through.

what do you mean no? you mean there's no bill put forward?

Sorry, that was misleading wasn't it?

Honestly, Idon't know if there is a Bill put forward, or whether he was just stating his intentions.

Anyone else.......?

It will be a piece of legislation, which means that it could be reversed at any time. While I congradulate the idea behind Mr. Harper's plan, its like the Alberta legislation saying that it is against the law for the Province to go into debt. Nothing but fluff.

That is true, is't it?

I wonder, though, how the electorate would react to some future government cancelling set four year elections, thus handing themselves an extra year in power, or playing to temporary political advantage?

Not well, I would hope.

Same as Alberta's "no debt" law. Any government that cancelled it would be doing themselves harm, IMHO.

Depends how its being presented. If they are simply ammending it to offer an election as a referendum... They could easily get away with it.

As for the Alberta law, its BS. I don't want the Goverment of Alberta to go into debt, but I'd rather the debt be consolidated under the Province instead of split over all the smaller beaurocracies (like the education and health boards) like it has been in the past when the Province made its cuts.

Oh, and Jersay, what a plainly bias thread title. Common, you almost justify comments from the other side about how anything Mr. Harper does is justified, no matter how bad, by the actions of the Liberals. Seriously.

I oppose endeavours to introduce pre-set election dates.

One of the important aspects of the Westminster-style of government that Canada uses is its inherent adaptability to particular situations. If this legislation is passed, then our system is going to lose, or at the very least compromise, one of the cornerstones of the system, which could rattle down the ladder of institutions to cause our system to become rigid and inflexible.

The only way I would support this legislation is if Section 15 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (extending the duration of a Parliament of Canada during invasion or insurrection) is continued, and if the Governor General of Canada continues to have the right and prerogative to prorogue or dissolve the Parliament under emergency or exigent circumstances; and, the confidence convention would have to be continued.

sounds like a bunch of tinkerputt to me. at a glance it strikes me as foolish to not allow a government to dissolve itself. after all that was the song of the year last year.

"put itself out of its misery" comes to mind.

Fiveparadox, almost every Westminster style of government has made reforms to how they do things. Ontario which uses a style of Westminster had fixed dates and... well nobody cares or really notices, but it removes the power from our PM to just call an election whenever he wants.

Also I believe Harper couldn't change the fact that if a Government lost confidence an election would still be called. I think this is more geared towards the magority governments then minorities.

I really think the title of this thread and perhaps a few stories made on this have been mis-represented to make it look as if Harper is trying to make his minority hold by changing the law.

No I think Harper is doing the right thing. Though I've lost confidence in him as a democratic reformer with his antics after getting his government I must say he is on the right track with this.

I like the idea of 4 year terms instead of 5. I'll have to wait to hear the rest next week.

It's a stupid idea which result in perpetual campaigning similar to the US.

I believe what will happen is that when a gov.falls on a confidence vote,they will set a date approx.4 years from the election date. Remember Martin saying he would not call an election until the sponsorship scandal was fully investigated.He then realized his party was in depp doo-doo and called a quick election hoping to have a majority to carry the libs for another 5 years.It didn't work out that way,but a fixed date should stop that crap from happening.

Martin only set the date because he had to set a date after the budget update got non-conned. I don't see how what Harper is proposing will do anything about that.

good for harper

No bitwhys,I mean the election before that one.Martin tried to pull a Chretien.

I like the change proposed. The set timing evens out the playing field more than in the past. It's especially good for parties to plan leadership changes and have their team well entrenched ahead of time. Parties like the Greens don't have the resources to scramble up an election campaign at the last moment and will not have to fly by the seat of their pants.