WINNIPEG - In calling an election instead of adhering to his own fixed election law, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s first act will be breaking his word, say Manitoba Liberals.

In a May 30 2006 government press release, the Conservatives promised that the law would benefit Canadians by “eliminating the ability of governing parties to manipulate the timing of elections for partisan advantage.”

In May, 2006, Harper told CTV that, "Fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar. They level the playing field for all parties. The only way we can have justice is to have a fixed election date, because an election without a fixed election date is a tremendous advantage for the party in power."

“When the first thing Stephen Harper does in an election is break his word, how can you believe anything that follows?” said Raymond Simard, MP for St. Boniface “Justice is clearly not a big priority for Mr. Harper.”

Links to the government press release and Mr. Harper’s comments, along with the comments of 23 Conservative MP’s on the importance of fixed election dates follow in the backgrounder.

-30-

BACKGROUNDER

Government press release on the fixed date election law

CTV story with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s quotes on the election law

Quotes by Conservative Members of Parliament on Fixed Election Dates

Stephen Harper in May 2005:

Fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage.

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan - April 23 2007:

Our government does not believe that the governing party should be permitted to time an election to exploit conditions favourable to its re-election. Bill C-16 would put an end to governance according to poll results. We should not have this wild card situation where the prerogative is strictly in the hands of the prime minister to call an election at his or her advantage.

The Hon. Rob Nicholson - April 26, 2006:

In the current system, the governing party has an unfair advantage over opposition parties with the ability to call elections when that suits its purpose. We have seen this done in the past by federal and provincial governments and parties of all stripes. Governments can call elections to coincide with upturns in the economy after large capital projects have been completed or if they are doing well in the polls. This is clearly an unfair advantage for the governing party. Levelling the playing field is an important aspect of democratic government.

The Hon. Carol Skelton Tuesday Sept 19, 2006

People in my riding often come up to me and say that they do not feel the democratic process is working for them any more. Instead, they say, it is working in the interests of those in power and their friends. With this bill, election dates will no longer be set to benefit the ruling party but set to benefit the people.

Russ Hiebert MP for White Rock B.C. Tuesday Sept 19, 2006:

No longer will the governing party be allowed to manipulate the process. Canadians will benefit from knowing exactly when these fixed elections will occur so they can plan their lives and the businesses around it. It improves governance by removing power from the prime minister's office and devolving it to the people, as it should be.

Jay Hill, House Whip

If a prime minister went against the spirit of this legislation and purely called an election because he or she felt the opportunity was ripe, that the situation for his or her particular political party was very advantageous to go to the polls, I suspect that person would quite likely be punished by the Canadian people in the subsequent election campaign.

John Reynolds, former House Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

The interest of calling an early election is always to the benefit of the prime minister and the governing party. When we compete for office, the playing field must be even. All parties must be prepared not just one, otherwise we will not end up with a democratic process.

“It is not democracy in action when a prime minister can call an election any time on any day that gives him political advantage.”

Peter MacKay, (Now Minister of Defense) April 27 2004

Without the benefit of fixed election dates, Canadians are in essence at the gunpoint of the Prime Minister, who has the sole authority to set an election date, just as he currently has the sole authority to appoint judges, which is another shortcoming in our system.

If anything, the media have shown us this political jockeying that has gone on between the current Prime Minister and his own cabinet and caucus. Even the most skilled horseman would be in awe at what an advantage there is in being able to jockey up to the starting line and then decide when the starting bell rings.

Elsie Wayne MP, Saint John April 27 2004

Let us look at the costs...Let us look at the cost of having an election whenever the Prime Minister feels he is up in the polls... polls should not determine when we have an election. It should be a fixed date. It should be an election on what we are doing, whether it is right or wrong, and the people of Canada will determine it, as they do at the local level.

Stockwell Day, Okanagan Coquihalla April 27 2004:

Most countries in the world and the UN accept the idea of fixed election dates, as do communist states and dictatorships. Why does the Prime Minister refuse to accept the idea of fixed election dates? Is it because he is a bigger dictator than the ones who rule in dictatorships?

Chuck Strahl April 27 2004

Although it binds the government to a four year cycle and it does tie the hands of the Prime Minister, what is democratic reform unless it takes some of the power away from the Prime Minister?

Deepak Obhrai, Calgary East, April 27 2004

If we have fixed elections dates, then Canadians will make the real choice, not the Prime Minister. That is the difference. Canadians will make the real choice. They will then see that they are connected to this House which sets the rules under which they are governed...

Look at the cost to the country of this ridiculous notion that the only person who can call the election is the Prime Minister and he will only call it when it suits him. We have to give the power back to the people. By having a fixed election date, we would be giving the power back to the people. We would be telling them, this is how it will be and they would decide, not us.

Gurmant Grewal, (Surrey Central):

The discretion to call an election, however, remains a powerful weapon in the armoury of the Prime Minister to use for partisan advantage...

The way the ruling party can control election dates makes up a huge portion of the democratic deficit that has destroyed the faith of many Canadians in their own government.

With careful polling and strategic spending and policies designed to win over key segments of voters, the ruling party gains a huge advantage. On the other hand, the whole country is left in limbo. One just has to imagine 308 candidates multiplied by at least four parties, plus independent candidates. This is compounded by various campaign managers and campaign teams of all the candidates.

Ken Epp, (Elk Island):

The real issue here is that the Prime Minister is the one who gives the Governor General the signal. That has become the convention. Under the pattern of responsible government, it is still up to the Prime Minister on the governing side to make the decision. The Governor General has not, I think in error, refused the dissolution of Parliament on the last two occasions because in each instance the government had a clear majority. The government has a clear majority now. There is no reason for an election. Legally, the Governor General could stop it, but the Prime Minister alone has the prerogative. That is wrong.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap)

Elections should not be called on the personal whim of a prime minister, depend on favourable political polls, or whatever else the prime minister is worried about. In an era where voter turnout is low, where young people are disenchanted and disinterested in how our country is governed, and where there is great concern about how our tax dollars are spent, such self-serving behaviour is an insult to all Canadians.

Fixed election dates would remove much of the uncertainty we now face. Canadians would not be wondering each day whether the Prime Minister has made a decision...

Pre-election spending sprees would be more identifiable for what they truly are, as would premature campaign visits disguised as government business. There are some who would criticize fixed election dates as too American in style or in nature, that such a system would be inconsistent with the confidence convention that demands a government retain the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons or resign.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CPC):

In the past, other government have seized on the same discretion on when to call an election to stay in power, long after they have worn out their welcome with the voters.

I say, enough. Certainly we can demand better and expect a higher standard of democracy for Canada.

There is no good reason why political parties should not be able to plan their affairs around a pre-determined calendar. The macro-economy would also benefit from the ability to plan around government budgets and fiscal predictability.

Over the past elections there has been a steady decline in the voter turnout in Canada. Setting a fixed election date would be a simple start to the important process of reforming our electoral system so more Canadians can feel there is a reason to vote...

Within our fixed election proposal, it is still possible for the Prime Minister and the government on their own initiative to consult the people and call an election because of a national controversy where perhaps they need a mandate, for example, to change the Constitution or deal with a separating province, and they are looking for a national resolve on a particular problem.

Gerald Keddy on Septemer 18, 2006:

We have an opportunity to take one of the primary tools that past prime ministers in the country have used like a club. They have gone to the people before their five years were up and every political party has suffered from that. I think the Parliament of Canada has suffered from it. … This is the first Prime Minister who is willing to give up that huge tool in his tool chest … This will level the playing field, it will give democracy more of an opportunity to work and it will be a good thing for the public of Canada.

Dean Del Mastro on November 6, 2006:

I think we recognize that the bill is about levelling the playing field for all parties in the House, not to give the government an advantage to call a snap election when perhaps another party is not ready. It would allow for a better debate on policy and on principle so that all parties could go into an election prepared and our voters could make the best decisions.

Scott Reid on February 19, 2007:

The increased electoral fairness through Bill C-16 … will ensure that elections occur once every four years, not when the prime minister chooses to call them based upon whether his or her party is high in the polls. That was a terrible wrong. It was abused by the previous government repeatedly. This initiative will ensure that it is not abused again.

Barry Devolin on April 30, 2007:

This initiative would ensure that elections occurred once every four years and not just on the whim of a prime minister who might choose to call an election on the basis of whether or not his or her party was high in the polls.

Tom Lukiwski on June 18, 2007:

Far too often we saw political parties in power manipulate the voting system to their advantage. In other words, we saw parties in previous years take a look at the polling numbers and if they determined that it would be to their advantage to have an election earlier rather than later, because the polls happened to be advantageous for them, they would call an election at that time.

Labels: Election, Fixed election date, Harper, Liberals, Manitoba, Raymond Simard

posted by Media  # 1:37 PM