Fixed Dates Part II
In April last year, in a post entitled, “Fixed Dates,” I talked about the need for certain provisions to be met before I fully endorse fixed election date legislation. Not that I’m against fixed dates, but I believe that some concerns needed to be addressed before something should come forward.
Today, the Senate should be doing the third reading of Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. It is likely to pass without problem, and soon be designated for royal assent. Bill C-16 was first read in the House at the end of May (after my post).
Now, I mentioned two things. One is the possible length of campaigning. Of course, the sheer legislative nightmare of saying what’s campaigning and what’s not and such is obviously difficult. For example, I drove through Fort Macleod the other day and saw a sign for its MP that said, “Proud to support Ford MacLeod.” Now, given the possibility of an election and the rallying of troops, I suspect it’s a preemptive strike - but it’s not really campaigning, is it? I mean, you want your constituents to know who you are and come talk to you if they have concerns, so putting up signs could very well be a way of ‘helping’ constituents… That would easily be an argument for this sign. So, controlling the length of campaigning, while a nice goal, is legislatively difficult (wow. I expected the spell checker to pick out ‘legislatively’. huh). This is what I said last year:
Not only that, but if the censorship route takes precidence, now we have to somehow define what is allowable or not. But you really can’t say, “You are not allowed to talk to people about any forthcoming elections that you may or may not run in.” So, you will have loopholes. And, like any situation, the honest politicians (stop laughing) will wait whereas others will use the loopholes to their advantage
The second concern I had was with the date issue, which, I said, “is easy enough to find some sort of solution to, although I worry that it will not be addressed.” Well, C-16 does actually address that issue, and sets it as:
(2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.
So, once this receives assent, we will be on the road to fixed elections (always assuming, of course, that the government does not collapse, which this still has provisions for). I think my first concern can wait to be addressed until after we’ve had some practice at this fixed election thing - who knows, we may not need it. But I’ve always been one to exercise legislative caution - just because something doesn’t happen now, doesn’t mean it won’t. Either way, it’s something we can do in the future, if needed…
3 Responses to “Fixed Dates Part II”
fixed elections FTW.
I think you mean fixed date…
I hope…
yes… yes that’s exactly what I meant.
Leave a Reply