Election Reform: Bill C-16

Do you support Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act?

  • Yes, with amendment(s)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don't know / Prefer not to respond

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Yesterday, The Honourable Jay Hill, P.C., M.P., the Member for Prince George—Peace River and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Minister for Democratic Reform, introduced Bill C-16, An Act amend the Canada Elections Act. The Act endeavours to legislate pre-set election dates, so that under regular circumstances, elections would be precipitated four years after the previous election.

After having read through the entire draft (it's about a page long, perhaps two), my opposition to this legislation is not as staunch as it has been in recent days. I was elated to see that the Government of Canada included a provision which, in particular, recognizes the right and prerogative of the Governor General of Canada to exercise discretion in dissolving the Parliament of Canada. This ensures that our system continues to have an "emergency" mechanism, which was my major concern. Moreover, the legislation does not compromise the confidence convention, which I am happy to see.

The Conservative Party of Canada is respecting our nature in Canada of administration through convention, rather than through Statute (a practice for which I advocate) — and for this, I can accept a compromise. Insofar as the draft respects existing conventions, then I would be happy to support this legislation; a reasonable compromise between the democratic needs of a country, and the conventions that ensure that Canada is never taken off-guard by some unexpected circumstances.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Damn right, about time, though I believe it is a little weak for now, but until difficult changes can be made in the future this is a pretty good step forward. One step at a time they say!
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Re: Hear, Hear!

It should be noted, Finder, that the expression that you mean to use (after checking in various days of the Hansard and other such records) is hear, hear. Just thought I would point that out, I've noticed you use it a few times now, as "here here". :p
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Re: Recent Amendments

I think in another thread, one of the members above mentioned something to the effect of inquiring as to when the last occasion of attempting to make a change to the constitution had occurred. I would therefore note that the most recent change to the constitution was the Constitution Amendment, 2001 (Newfoundland and Labrador). However, that amendment required only the consent of the House of Commons, the Senate, and the House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador (as per the amending formula set forth in Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982).

The amendment changed the name of "Newfoundland" to "Newfoundland and Labrador."
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: Hear, Hear!

FiveParadox said:
It should be noted, Finder, that the expression that you mean to use (after checking in various days of the Hansard and other such records) is hear, hear. Just thought I would point that out, I've noticed you use it a few times now, as "here here". :p


Your last defence is attacking my grammer... Thats low, so, so low of you. :twisted: (just kidding)