Rule Number One When Fiddling With an 800 Year Old System of Government: Dont.

Harper seems to have decided to bring about democratic reform in a piecemeal manner, one small step at a time.

The problem is that the steps appear haphazard, and ill advised.

Two major bills have been proposed to this end, one, a term limit for the house of commons, the other, a term limit for senators.

Both have serious constitutional considerations that need to be adressed.

A copy of the House bill setting the term limit for the commons can be found here

What the bill does is rather simple, it reduces the term limit of a Prime Minister from fice years to four.

Yes, it actually is that pathetic.

It states that, "subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament," an election must be held 4 years after the general election, and it sets the date as being the third monday of October.

Who has the power to dissolve parliament at will? The Governor General.

Presently there is no law stipulating that the Governor General cannot dissolve Parliament, nor has one been put to the house.

Specifically, the Governor General may still dissolve parliament at her discretion.

The process of dissolving parliament is a bit of a complicated one, it goes back 800 years, of course its complicated. Effectively, it is the Prime Ministers duty to go to Rideau Hall when he or she wishes to dissolve parliament and request dissolution of parliament. It is at that moment that the Governor General has a number of options, she can send him back and say no (which is almost never done), she can call up the leader of the opposition to attempt to form government (which hasnt been done in a long time, and so is effectively no longer doable thanks to the way our system works), or she can dissolve parliament.

And thus, is this proposed new law useless for all intents and purposes other than to attempt to limit the 5 year term to 4, which I am unsure if that is even constitutional (though I assume it is).

As for Senate Reform...

We have all been hoping for this for a long time, I must admit, when Harper appointed Fortier, I started to believe he wasnt serious about senate reform, but this is a step in the right direction.

A copy of the Senate bill limiting the term of senators to 8 years can be found here

I must say, I dearly do enjoy the whereas statements in this bill, definitely a step in the right direction.

A small step.

A tiny step.

A miniscule step.

But it is a step.

All that this bill does is ensure that all newly appointed senators (as of the passing of this bill) will have an 8 year term.

This does precisely what the whereas statements outline, it maintains the sober second thought while reducing the term of office.

If this is enacted, then you will see a somewhat greater turnover in the senate, which is probably good, get some fresh blood, and the ability to re-appoint. So for example, if a particularly excellent senator is forced to leave the senate after his or her 8 years is over, the PM of the day can choose to re-appoint that person, or, if they spend most of their time in Mexico, they can choose to not re-appoint.

It sort of allows for a sober second thought of the sober second thought.

This bill will also serve as a prelude to an elected senate, though no mention of that is made in the bill (for obvious and understandable reasons).

On the note of my title...

I dont like this seemingly willy-nilly style of change. What I want to see is a comprehensive reform package. If you fiddle here, and fiddle there, you could see an unbalancing affect. As was pointed out by a friend, the longevity of a system does not determine whether or not it should continue unmodified.

What it DOES lead to is a very complicated system, filled with intricacies that virtually no one could ever fully understand. To tinker and toy with it is to invite trouble and an unbalancing situation, as well as to further complicate an already extremely complicated system.

I dont want to see another band-aid slapped on to the system, I dont want a duct tape solution, I want a well thought out and debated plan which brings all of the elements of change that the tories want together in one package.

Harpers Boycott of the National Media and the Current State of Affairs in Parliament

Since very few outlets are really covering this, I thought I would take a moment to outline some thoughts I have on Harpers decision to effectively ignore the national media.

Why has Harper done this?

The short answer is because he can.

If the Grits had their house in order, they would be jumping up and down screaming and ranting over it. Harper would be facing a brand new rat pack in the commons caterwauling and grinding things to a halt in a (likely very succesful) attempt to frustrate Harper into either opening up to the media or call an election to simply shut them up.

Unfortunately for Canada, the Liberals are in dissaray, without a leader, divided, broke, and crashing in the polls.

And so that job falls on the other opposition parties...

Except the Bloc is doing everything possible to not rock the boat. The latest Ipsos-Reid poll of Quebec placed the Tories at 33% and rising compared to the Bloc's 38% and falling.

If the Bloc are forced into another election, they will lose a lot of ground to the tories. Which will put a huge lift in the sails of Quebec federalists, just shortly before a major provincial election.

The Bloc's main goal now is to ride out this parliament until after Charest calls an election in Quebec, which will likely happen sometime in early 2007.

The NDP? The NDP hold historic seat totals, they havent seen this many seats since the 80's and they desparately dont want to risk that with another election while Harper is riding so high in the polls.

Besides which, the Liberals are the only party that really has the respectability to do the kicking and screaming.

So long as the opposition is meek, Harper can continue to ignore the media with impunity.

What does this mean for Canada?

It means that we all lose out. When it comes to government accountability and government transparency, we lose. It is the media's job to hold the government to account. It was the media that broke the Watergate, Whitewater, Shawinigate, the Fast Ferries and so many others.

Its the media that delivers the message of these things to the people. Without the media, we have no means of knowing whats going on in Ottawa.

And thats how Harper likes it, the only message we see is his message. And its working wonderfully for him.

Will it last?

No, it cant.

Come the new year, the Grits will have a new leader (whomever he is, I say he, as the only real options are white males) and will be looking to even the score.

All sides know from the last election that anyone can take Quebec and Ontario these days, both are up for grabs.

We're walking into a whole new era in canadian federal politics, and everyone is angling to be the hegemonic power for the next decade, it'll be an interesting year in 2007 to be sure.

The Patmeister Posts on Politics

...and other bonus points for extended use of alliteration.

Well, Ive spent a fair amount of time as an amateur political commentator, and being one to frequent various politically driven blogs/sites, I felt it was time I jumped into the 'blogosphere' game.

First things first, I hate the word 'blogosphere'. Whoever came up with it was most certainly not a modern day Marshall McLuhan. The sad fact of the matter is though, political blogs have become a major force in the political world, and as a longstanding bandwagoner, its time I jump on that bandwagon.

So what will I post about on this blog? Political musings on all things, federal politics, provincial politics, student politics, american politics, you name it, it could appear here.

And thus the launch, heres hoping I can fire off a real update before I leave for work.