Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Well, It's About Time...

In the brief time I have to glance at the paper or browse other news, I was excited to see talk about changing things up in Ottawa. I must say that it is certainly refreshing to see a discussion about fixed election dates and changes in the Senate.

I don't have much time to comment on them but my take is that these are good things. I think that having a vote every four years, of course barring confidence motions and that jazz, will renew some people's confidence in government. Elections in the past and particularly in recent years have been rightly criticized for being what they were: attempts to ride high public opinion and secure another mandate with little potential for negative fallout.

I really do see a fixed term as a way to level the playing field for the parties involved. It reduces the ability of the governing party to act according to the polls. Most importantly, I view this as a method of restoring Canadians' confidence in their system of government. It shows regular folks like me that more of our leaders will be able to act in a less selfish way.

I'd like to comment on the Senate soon when I have a decent break from my job. Things have picked up lately as the weather has been cooperating, thus allowing us to actually get some work done. Among my many new duties this year, I will be able to cut Jason Smith's lawn. Yes. That Jason Smith: Captain of the Edmonton Oilers. Should be fun!

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only problem is that fixed election dates violate the constitution.

But I have yet to hear any mention of this little fact in any news article or political discussion (aside from the ones where I throw it in).

3:26 p.m.  
Blogger Jason said...

I'll admit that that's the first I've heard of it so thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I think if the constitution needs to be changed, we should go for it. I think though that the PM is touching on an area where there is interest. Several premiers have expressed a variety of beliefs on what should be done with democratic reform.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

7:36 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I absolutely don't object to changing the constitution to bring this about, if done correctly. Though it is an argument I never hear.

As it stands, the GG has the constitutional right to dissolve parliament, and constitutional convention states that the GG does this open the request of the Prime Minister (as you know). This law cannot be legal if it circumvents this process.

At best, it won't be binding in the slightest.

8:33 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"upon the request of the PM" I meant :(

8:33 p.m.  
Blogger Jason said...

Some have criticized the "piecemeal" approach to change as proposed by the PM. If the comments above show anything is that real change is going to take work and it's going to take time.

I do find it highly refreshing that this time around we have what appears to be more than just words on the issue. There's more than just an idea that "sure, we should look at democratic reform." There are a few specific proposals out there on the table and it gives a lot of people the opportunity to start talking about it and hammering out the details.

It won't be easy and it will involve a lot of hard work. I'm excited to see what kinds of solutions people come up with to make these plans a reality.

10:28 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I fear that the age of contested federalism we live in won't allow any such changes to occur.

2:51 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard that Jason Smith has an extremely beautiful wife...wish I was cutting his grass.......oh.......you mean lawn, as in...lawn.........

never mind

5:25 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home