myata

Compromising and undermining the role of the elected House by a minority faction using oudated, undemocratic ploys is a direct challenge, and threat to real, functioning democracy. CPC will be held accountable for its actions, or we'll see ourselves on the road to a condition where we'll have the democracy only in the name. That's what the forum is about.

And one more time (sigh... but it has to be done as many times as it takes to sink in, even in the most difficult cases), when Liberals did it, they had a majority, and they could easily have the House vote to prorogue itself (which I think they should have done, instead of taking GG route, but it's little more than a technicality). Which Harper does not have just yet (as he and his supporters seem at times to forget; or not notice). His use of prorogation was entirely to interfere with, and undermine the work of the elected House. And our democracy itself, as a direct consequence. We can let him get away with it only by having credibility of our political system compromised seriously and perhaps, irrevocably.

And one other thing you always forget to remember, and I'll always remember to bring back, until it finally settles in, is that the threat of an unnecessary and costly election by the government that has lost confidence of the elected House, is little short of political blackmail. That was by far the strongest consideration that propped (and continues to prop) this government in power.

And we can do something of our own, just so what the control freak wouldn't get the idea that he can continue to slash and rule like a crowned King or something, without anybody giving a darn about it. I'm going to propose rolling non partisan opposion information sessions in my riding (to Lib, NDP and Green parties - without being member of either), to explain folks on the street the true meaning of this prorogation, and why is it wrong for the government to avoid independent oversight and show contempt to the elected majority. He should not get away with it this time around, this is one strike over.

I would subscribe to that, as it would remove the possibility of abuse by a minority faction, as demonstrated by Harper's government. I would also suggest a procedure for GG to consult with the elected House, as well as PM, in case of non confidence situation. This already would amount to a meaningful democratic evolution of our system. Any takers (Liberals, NDP, Greens and the Bloc)?

I seriously think that if we let Harper get away with this obviously contemptuos kick toward the elected majority and ultimately the people, it could become a turning point in the political evolution of the country. As said by somebody wise long while back, freedom and democracy should not be taken for granted, but earned by each generation, or they'll slip right through our fingers.

And a hint for some naive (or obtuse, deliberately or otherwise) posters here, on the difference between Chretien's and Harper's prorogations. In his terms Chretien's government held a majority in the elected House. They could command the pace of the Parliament's work simply because the people have elected Liberal MPs to hold the majority in the House. The use of prorogation in such situation was not much more than a technical formality (which I still do not advocate). The majority in the House could as much have voted to suspend its work, clear the legislation tray, etc. Harper's act is of course very much different, because, as we all know, he does not have the majority of the House just yet, and his use of propogation is nothing short of interfering with, and subverting the will of the majority of the elected House. This is nothing short of disguised by rhethorics, but nonetheless very real step number two down the slippery slope of erosion of responsible democracy in this country. There's only one more step left to a government claiming (as this one sometimes does already, as e.g in the AECL affair, or military complaints commission & prisoners) that independent oversight, the media and the Parliament are nothing but hurdles and obstacles to its efficient operation. Which would be the final condition of evolution (or degradation, depending from point of view) of the democracy. I said already that I do not advocate the use of these undemocratic ploys by whoever, that even majority government should not be able to escape public scrutiny and responsibility before the elected House, and the country should move toward a modern, open and transparent political system with effective independent checks and balances, and meaningful role of the elected House at all times. It's either that, or the countdown to some government, may be not even very distant one, attempting to push the limits of their power and absense of any meaningful controls of their actions even beyond the existing pathetic condition.

I'd like to think that in a real democracy, the people, their will, is supreme, and the Parliament is the sole legitimate representation of that will. I.e. the minority faction in the Parliament has interfered with, and ultimately subverted, the will of the elected House via manipulation of archaic and undemocratic ploys inherited from (very) old ages of the political system. In that way, people themselves were deprived of their will, and ultimately, left in contempt of, because the will of their only legitimate representation in this system has been ignored and subverted via use of undemocratic means. While having more politically active, independently thinking MPs would certainly be a great benefit to our democracy, the outdated parts of political system also needs to be updated. There's no need to keep these old ploys and tricks whose only use has been to give the government in power instruments to hang on to the control even if/when they lost the confidence of the elected House and should, by all notions democratic, plain and simply clear the way.

Power hungry minority freak wrestling his will on the elected majority and the country, by use of outdated undemocratic ploys, and somebody dares to object? Quelle "apoplexy", indeed! Where's the good old times?! I can speak for myself no need to bother (but thanks for parrotting, for the lack of anything better).

Of course, you're entirely free to close your eyes, plug your ears and turn off your brain. The perfect condition to ignore bothersome reality, and fully enjoy the eternal light and greatness of the infallable omniscient and omnipotent souvereign. Living with another's brain, who needs the democracy?

No, shame - and more and better of this wonderful "democracy" on us all, if we won't kick the bunch out asap, and come up with enough intelligence and will to update the system so that it actually reflects the meaning of "democracy" that is, if I'm not mistaken, "the power of people" (rather power hungry manipulating control freak).

Said, and proven by this government act, and repeatedly. Yet, one more time and in plain English: 1) PM is the leader of a minority party in the elected House 2) Governor General is unelected, appointed by the PM 3) The majority of the House says: "we have no confidence in you and want to form the government that is supported by majority" 4) The unelected GG and minority leader PM say, no way, it's either me or another multimillion election after we just had one not two months back. Result: the minority party uses outdated political system, created in the times before electricity, cars, and women vote, to impose its will on the elected House and the country. If you think this has anything to do with a modern, 21 century democracy you're greatly mistaken. No, it's a ridicule and a travesty of it. If we value our democratic future as much as our past, we should kick the manipulating power lusty bunch out at the first opportunity, and change the system so that these kind of things could never happen again.

Still not answering the main question, should PM have the ability to interfere with, and ultimately, prevent the elected House from expressing its democratic will? If yes, how "democratic" such an arrangement (that essentially says that government trumps the majority will of elected representatives) would be (and is)? Obviously false, we already discussed that in a transparent democracy election in this situation would not be necessary, because there was a democratic coalition of parties with support of majority of elected representatives ready to replace the government that lost the confidence of the House. Another word for "allowed Harper to interfere with the democratic decision of majority of the House"? Yet again (hope you'll notice this time around), as defined by who? Unless the decision of majority of the elected House should be subservient to the government, in that view of democracy. As said, the system is greatly compromised by undemocratic interference of government with the will of the elected House. PM can hold the House, and the entire country hostage by the threat of the election, that would be entirely unwarranted in that situation. Government lost the confidence of the House, government has to go. The alternative, governing with no confidence, is a parody of real democracy. PS: a Facebook group against prorogation. These archaic instruments of interfering with democracy should go where they belong, in the past. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=260348091419

"Grumbled", heh? So our elected representatives, MPs, cannot be trusted with making responsible decisions to govern the country? And who can, then? The Monarch? Her landly incarnation, the holy PM? Some vision of democracy, why does it reminds me of ways medieval, when the souvereign decided the rights from wrongs and lowly peasants got busy executing the supreme will. As defined by who? The same government that hanged on to the power via undemocratic means, against the clear will of the elected House? Right, for the lack of better argument, everything goes.

I think your memory or understanding may not serve you well. It's a well known fact that Harper asked for prorogation before the confidence vote happened, i.e. to avoid facing the elected House. By any notion, there was no reason to request GG's decision before democratic will of the House has been expressed. Harper's moved was solely to avoid having democratic will of the House being expressed. By any notion, this has nothing to do with democracy, everything with government control and dominance of political agenda. In any case, you're saying that some sort of political tricks and ploys should take precedence over the will of the elected House. If that's your understanding of how democracy should work, it's very different from mine. In my view of democracy, almost by definition, government that has lost confidence of the elected House has no legitimate mandate to govern, period and no exception. Governments that hang on to the power by ploy, trick (as well as other means) are well known in other parts of the world. We aren't there just yet, but with a start like that, who knows where it'll take us? No, that would be playing into the rules of obviously outdated, undemocratic system designed in the age of political Old Testament with the sole purpose to allow the government to hang on to the power till impossible and some more. The system that has to be modernised before we become a laughing stock of the democratic world. I see that you prefer Machiavellian politics, while I'm for an open and transparent democracy. The party (or group, accord, coalition of parties) that has the confidence of the elected House has mandate to govern. The one that does not, gets out of the way. This probably explains the difference in our views on the event.

August's forecasts of the future aren't always that close to the mark ))

Please don't be (or appear) so naive. The election has only just happened, and the PM by his arrogant behaviour has lost the confidence of the elected House. Why should it need another costly and messy election to remove him, and perhaps find a better option. Better for the country and the democracy? The (pretended) need for an election every time PM loses confidence is outdated, and a clear obstacle to changing the government that has lost confidence of the elected House that is the only legimiate representation of the will of the people. The government can still govern. Who knows maybe it doesn't want any legislation, just control and rule? And no government that has lost the confidence of the elected House should be able to stick to the power via use of tricks and ploys. If majority of elected representatives are ready to form the government, why should they be prevented from doing so via completely undemocratic archaic and outdated instruments? Great analysis there, answering your own question. Would it be a news also that coalitions are a routine practice in most democracies around the world? Now if only we could do away with the "Reserve Powers" etc, as useless outdated abracadabra from the age of (political) dinosaurs? But it couldn't you see, if it lost the confidence of the elected House. It's either democracy, real one, or holding the country hostage by the threat of unnecessary, unwarranted election to allow a government that lost confidence to stick to the power. That notion could (and should; and I doubt it would even require the dreaded change of constitution) be changed to: act on the advice of the elected House (as the only legitimate representation of the will of the people). E.g. by the Chairman of the House passing its will to GG who'll be required to consult it for the alternative arrangement should the government lose confidence. As I understand it's done in almost all parliamentary democracies other than UK and Canada these days. You can make this conclusion if you state that the will of the elected House should be subservient to the government in power and tradition. That is of course a valid view of democracy. As it was some two hundred years back.

No, I never said that. No, given Harper's now very obvious dislike and mistrust of anything related to public scrutiny and responsibility for his government's actions, be it media access or independent oversight. We have a pattern here of a government that deliberately seeks avoidance of public scrutiny, combined with an outdated system that allows it to do it easily, and that is a legitimate cause for concern for our democracy. It's a tactic that allows the government in power to interfere with, and compromise public oversight of its actions, something it should have no business with, and it has direct implications for the democracy. It, our democracy becomes less open, functional and trustworthy because of it. I do hope that they'll have (the guts), and at the first opportunity, now. If not, it would be even worse sign for all of us here, as it would indicate that in addition to power hungry government, and inefficient political system we also have dysfunctional opposition, and perhaps, disinterested, politically apathetic population. If that is not the cause of grave concern (for the future of democracy), I'm not sure what is. Yet I already explained why it should cause us not fear but concern and desire to change the system, and why these discretions should be removed or severely limited, so that no power thirsty PM in the future would feel the urge to use them to stick on to the power, when they failed the right way of gaining and maintaining the confidence of elected representatives.

Which somehow, looks so much like PM holding the political system, and the country itself hostage to their desire to govern. It's nothing to do with the "Prerogative" or "Powers" really, but everything with respecting the democratic will of people. The election has happened, people pronounced their will and if the acting PM could not carry the confidence of the House, any democratic alliance, coalition of any parties that can, should be able to have their turn. "It's either me or the election" is just another way for the government to impose its will on the elected House, and ultimately, the people of the country. It is now funny, outdated and a bit ridiculous, but I can't vouch that it won't become serious and dangerous some way down the road in this current direction of our political "progress".

It doesn't put to rest the fact that prorogation is now being used as tool of convenience for the government to avoid Parliamentary responsibility and public scrutiny. Is that the direction our democracy should be headed in? Do we want a government that could do away with responsibility and oversight as it pleases? Would such development take us closer to a modern day transparent and responsible government, or perhaps the third world quasi "democracies" we're busy building in Afghanistan, etc?

I found this story that shows how PM Chretien has used prorogation for political convenience: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/11/12/liberals031112.html. Now PM Harper has used it (twice) to avoid political inconvenience. The posts seem to be moving toward government using any of their discretions for any reason of their convenience, whatsoever. Most certainly this is also the direction toward less efficient, less transparent, less functional democracy (all the while a democracy it still is). As said, the problem is not as much with any particular PM, but with the opaque, easily manipulatable system that's been designed to give strong upper hand to the government in power. It must be updated (and upgraded) for the modern age, or federal government out of all scrutiny and/or parliamentary control could become a regular order of political business in this country.

Do we know much about the way our own, Canadian, corporations operate in the remote, uncivilized lands, where freedom of press (along with other freedoms) are unknown? Just like any formal standards (in Canada) for such operations? Occasional stories pop up, like in Africa, New Guinea, or that recent episode in Columbia? where an anti-mining activist have been killed, but how common are these practices (and how serious is the problem)? There's no way to tell until some monitoring and oversight is put in place, and as of now, nobody appears to be interested.

No, a more fair assessment would be that ignorant apathetic people allowed themselves be fooled into that assumption (as well as they could be into a wide array of others). Conscious, intelligent and active population is the only practical guard for a functioning democracy. Without it, any system can be bypassed and compromised. The archaic Canadian system, that does not have any meaningful checks on the government, and gives it huge discretions as to how to conduct its affairs with the public, can be compromised so much easier.

The visuals of this movie (seeing it in 3D, either Dolby or Imax, is a must) are nothing short of stunning. It lives up to the claim of opening a new chapter in the moviemaking. I won't be surprised if a few short years from now 3D will be a standard of moviemaking just like transition from black & white to colour. The storyline simply parallels that of the Europeans/natives encounter only with a mandatory for a Hollywood blockbuster happyending. Which somehow does not seriously diminish the effect of the movie. The question I have from watching this film and District 9, is why so obviously dastardly acts portrayed in there appear completely believable despite our prolonged evolution as a "civilized" society and ever burning desire to do good to others (without much regard whether they ask for it or not). Given that e.g. the government of this country is as reluctant as ever to impose any ethical standards on operation of our businesses overseas (where conflicts of the kind portrayed in the Avatar have been reported), "democracy" in Afghanistan, "weapons" in Iraq, etc, our evolution to the condition where we could rightfully call ourselves fully intelligent human beings, by virtue of recognising and behaving ethically toward other intelligent beings like or unlike us, is going to be a slow and difficult process. I only hope that there is some kind of a natural balance law that will prevent us from being able to explore other planets and stars until we have finally found a handle on our greed, desire for power and control of the others.

A coalition of willing democratic partners "revolutionary" by the sheer volume of rightwing howl and wail who are simply perplexed by such an outrage? (that's become a common matter elsewhere in the modern democracies) OMG! What's next? A word of acting PM or government official questioned? Government actions investigated? Where is this democracy rolling these days?