Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

g_bambino · January 4, 2010

Proroguing Parliament puts in limbo two key government bills, which would have to be reintroduced if they are to pass.
One of those bills would have created an independent ethics commissioner for both the House and the Senate.

The other was to change electoral boundaries in several provinces. Martin had hoped to have it passed in time for a spring election.

CBC: Decision to prorogue Parliament may make Martin PM sooner

And that puts to rest Nicky's assertions that Liberal Prime Ministers only prorogued after all legislative business was complete.

[+]

Edited January 4, 2010 by g_bambino

ToadBrother · January 4, 2010

I really do favour a republic.

And then the question becomes, what kind of republic? Are we talking here about simply replacing the GG with an elected president (as, say, Ireland did)? In which case how will this improve the situation? If you're talking about a strong executive (ie. France or the United States) then you're basically talking about a massive constitutional change (more like ripping up what we have and replacing it), and considering that not even moderate alterations to our system (Meech Lake and Charlottetown) were blown out of the water, how would you propose to sell that to anyone?

myata · January 4, 2010

And that puts to rest Nicky's assertions that Liberal Prime Ministers only prorogued after all legislative business was complete.

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?

ToadBrother · January 4, 2010

The elected MP's are supposed to choose the leader that is exactly why the coalition was totally in line with how our system is supposed to function. The leader of the party with most seats is given first chance but if he does not command the confidence of the house the GG is supposed to ask parliamentarians if anybody else DOES have that confidence.

It's legal because the Constitution, both the 1982 and the older conventions, really do not specify how Parliament opts to form a government. The convention for at least the last two hundred years and a bit, since about the time of King George III (when the modern party system evolved) has been for the party with the most seats in the House to form the government (one of the pillars of the notion of responsible government). For a Coalition to put its name forward certainly sits within the general framework, but other than a few odd occasions (like the UK's National Government during WWII), we've stuck pretty clearly to that convention.

In the broad picture, it's up to Parliament to decide who and how government is formed. All that is Constitutionally required is that Her Majesty has responsible Ministers reporting to her. Even the office of Prime Minister has no formal existence, but is again a convention that has existed since the end of the 18th century. Prior to that, Parliament functioned in a somewhat more ad hoc fashion, with the Crown appointing Ministers to serve at its pleasure.

The problem for this Coalition is that Constitutionally, the Queen or her GG is obliged to act upon the advice of Her Ministers, which means that a coalition such as the one formed last year really has a major Constitutional handicap in getting their rocket off the ground. The PM, as the senior member of the Cabinet, has the ear of the GG, and can short-circuit things via calling an election or proroguing Parliament (which is what happened last year). The Conventions since the 19th century have been heavily weighted towards these problems being solved by an election, rather than by Royal Prerogative or the application of Reserve Powers.

Edited January 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

Argus · January 4, 2010

I also feel as though I should put my head through the wall. Again, the Liberals prorogued 4 times because it was the end of the session. There's no similarity at all between what happened then and now.

You seem to be a tad confused. If it were the natural end to a session there would be no need to prorogue parliament. That procedure is only used in order to cut a parliamentary session short. And inevitably, that is done for the benefit of the party in power.

And to add, parliament was already closing down for the Christmas holidays and would not have returned until early February in any event. So now they'll return a month later. Not exactly the end of civilization, however overwrought you lefties want to get about it.

myata · January 4, 2010

The Conventions since the 19th century have been heavily weighted towards these problems being solved by an election, rather than by Royal Prerogative or the application of Reserve Powers.

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".

g_bambino · January 4, 2010

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.

But it does eliminate the difference you said existed between former Liberal Prime Ministers who advised prorogation and Harper doing it now. With that gone, the assertions that this event is a danger to democracy have become all the weaker, resting now merely on the obvious fact that Conservative MPs get a reprieve from committees and Question Period. To that, I already asked: so what? It is a temporary rest. It will eventually end. Just like any other prorogation, break for (luxuriantly lengthy) holidays, or recess for dinner. Business will return and the opposition can (and should) hold the Prime Minister to account. (Whether or not they have the guts to do so is another matter.)

Is Harper's request hypocritical? Yes. Is it being done for political gain? Probably. Should it cause us fear for the democracy our society relies on? Mmm.. no, not really.

ToadBrother · January 4, 2010

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.

How so? If Parliament feels that the Government is no longer capable of governing, or is in some way doing things contrary to its wishes, it can always topple the government. At any moment while Parliament is sitting the Opposition, in the current situation, can make a motion of No Confidence and, if successful, an election is called and the electorate will resolve the issue. When Parliament is not sitting, the Government's ability to introduce new law is somewhat limited, so it's unlikely that Harper could do all that much. Any substantial issue would clearly require Parliament to be recalled.

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".

But how would you constitutionally arrange such a thing? Yes, it's possible, and certainly the GG has the technical power to ask someone else to form a government, and it has happened a handful of times in the last two hundred years in the Westminster System, but it's sufficiently rare as to generally be seen as something of an aberration (which is the ruling concept of the Monarch's Reserve Powers, to overcome political impasses and other Constitutional crises).

In general, of course, it's exceedingly rare in the Westminster system, or at least in the major derivatives where the norm is very much for majority governments. We're in something of a unique situation, minority governments (or Hung Parliaments as they are known elsewhere) don't happen very often. Formalized coalitions are even more rare. The Sovereign or Her Representative, in the case of 2008, was faced with an excruciating question. Could the Coalition in fact create a stable government, or was it better to let things cool and see if the current governing party could find a way ahead? As much as the general notion that the Sovereign or Her Representatives only act on the advice of Her Ministers, that is also an important question.

I'm not happy with the 2008 prorogation. It was clearly done to evade the will of Parliament, which is technically supreme, particularly in matters of its own governance and convention. But so rare is the situation in which the Sovereign's authority been used to install a new government from Parliament without an election that I see the 2008 Coalition as being on as tricky a ground as the prorogation. The GG did, in my opinion, the right thing, or rather, chose the lesser of the two evils, the one that most clearly followed the way our constitution works.

Edited January 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

myata · January 4, 2010

But it does eliminate the difference you said existed between former Liberal Prime Ministers who advised prorogation and Harper doing it now.

No, I never said that.

With that gone, the assertions that this event is a danger to democracy have become all the weaker, resting now merely on the obvious fact that Conservative MPs get a reprieve from committees and Question Period.

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.

To that, I already asked: so what? It is a temporary rest. It will eventually end. Just like any other prorogation, break for (luxuriantly lengthy) holidays, or recess for dinner. Business will return and the opposition can (and should) hold the Prime Minister to account. (Whether or not they have the guts to do so is another matter.)

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.

Is Harper's request hypocritical? Yes. Is it being done for political gain? Probably. Should it cause us fear for the democracy our society relies on? Mmm.. no, not really.

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.

Edited January 4, 2010 by myata

Jerry J. Fortin · January 4, 2010

And then the question becomes, what kind of republic? Are we talking here about simply replacing the GG with an elected president (as, say, Ireland did)? In which case how will this improve the situation? If you're talking about a strong executive (ie. France or the United States) then you're basically talking about a massive constitutional change (more like ripping up what we have and replacing it), and considering that not even moderate alterations to our system (Meech Lake and Charlottetown) were blown out of the water, how would you propose to sell that to anyone?

On the basis that the present system as it stands is costing a fortune, 200 million dollars plus per election, which we will have basically yearly because of the perennial minority governments. I would also suggest that the lack of recall legislation prevents the people from tossing bad representatives. I would argue that fixed election dates would prevent governments from manipulating the system to their advantage at public expense. I would declare that a lack of term limits to office create career bureaucrats, self serving little hogs stuck in the public trough at public expense.

But before any of those things were said I would begin by suggesting to the public that this system of ours is no longer able to serve the needs of the people. This nation has changed since it was created. We now face numerous economic and political issues that demand a much greater focus on public administration than the current system allows. We don't need lawyers in charge of farming and we don't need businessmen in charge of social programs. We need to gather the best minds in the nation and have them manage the programs and services that the people desire using the greatest knowledge and most fundamental experience in order to provide the best service delivery systems we can. The nation needs clear and focused leadership dedicated to the needs of the people instead of the whims of partisan affiliation. That leadership needs to to be free from the dictates of party policies and be able to work with all representatives for the best interests of all citizens. The cabinet of the nations leader should be made up of the best qualified individuals for the jobs that need to get done.

The business of the people, that is to say the business of the day should understood to be a tactical situation and the actual operation of a nation should be understood to be a strategic situation. These are two different concepts and they need to be understood by citizens and acted upon by our government. The nations leader should be understood to be serving the long term interests of the people with a method of forward planning and be responsible for the actual operation of government. The tactical or day to day form of government is the purview of the people through their elected representatives.

There are hundreds of reasons to change....what reasons are there to remain in the past knowing that we could do better>

ToadBrother · January 4, 2010

There are hundreds of reasons to change....what reasons are there to remain in the past knowing that we could do better

Because the system is very successful, very resilient and very adaptable to changing circumstances. I think we can certainly improve it, but I don't see how wholesale burning it to the ground, with all the pitfalls great and small that would come along with it, would in fact deliver a better system. Since you seem rather unwilling to even suggest a simple model of a better system, it's hard to take seriously the demand for change simply because, maybe, we can get a better system. Give me some concrete solutions, as well as concrete problems that they would solve.

eyeball · January 4, 2010

Seems pretty obvious.

Touche, I also said its a good start though and don't forget the reforms we could start with that don't require a complete overhaul of everything.

g_bambino · January 4, 2010

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.

They can have their turn, but the circumstances in which a multi-party, coalition government would work are so extremely rare that the turn is almost never requested. What happened a year ago was truly unique; the result of a one in a million confluence of factors. Typically, such an option isn't there and an election is the only available step.

madmax · January 4, 2010

So , just out curiousity who actually voted that Harper is our king? I'd say Argus, August, and Alta4ever 4 sure, but who else wants to fess up?

1) I don't vote in my own polls.

2) I don't like to expose my votes on other polls...

But just for you <_<

1) Prorogue= Yes

2) King = Yes

Yes, early on I put Harper as King and he is fullfilling the role. Thus, I have offered our King or our Queen to the Americans in this thread as we don't need two, but they don't want another Monarchy.

So, lump me in with Argus, August and Alta... if that is your best guess.

But beware, I am the only one in that list who's handle doesn't start with an "A". So I figure you were just going down the Alphabet

g_bambino · January 4, 2010

No, I never said that.

I meant Nicky. I'm sorry.

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.

Well, what more can I say? I don't buy the fear mongering and doomsday predictions, given that they rest only on the notion that Harper is somehow evil incarnate. I mean, can one really believe that, in over two centuries, he's the only person to suddenly discover that prorogations of parliament can be used to permit his reign without impunity? Logic would dictate that such abuse would actually have occurred on a frequent basis in the past, factoring in that the system was the same but the media had far less technology to use for scrutiny. It really does take some acrobatics of logic to see this one month extension of a holiday as a sign of the coming apocalypse.

myata · January 4, 2010

How so? If Parliament feels that the Government is no longer capable of governing, or is in some way doing things contrary to its wishes, it can always topple the government. At any moment while Parliament is sitting the Opposition, in the current situation, can make a motion of No Confidence and, if successful, an election is called and the electorate will resolve the issue.

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.

When Parliament is not sitting, the Government's ability to introduce new law is somewhat limited, so it's unlikely that Harper could do all that much. Any substantial issue would clearly require Parliament to be recalled.

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?

But how would you constitutionally arrange such a thing? Yes, it's possible, and certainly the GG has the technical power to ask someone else to form a government, and it has happened a handful of times in the last two hundred years in the Westminster System, but it's sufficiently rare as to generally be seen as something of an aberration (which is the ruling concept of the Monarch's Reserve Powers, to overcome political impasses and other Constitutional crises).....

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?

Could the Coalition in fact create a stable government, or was it better to let things cool and see if the current governing party could find a way ahead?

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.

As much as the general notion that the Sovereign or Her Representatives only act on the advice of Her Ministers, that is also an important question.

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.

I'm not happy with the 2008 prorogation. It was clearly done to evade the will of Parliament, which is technically supreme, particularly in matters of its own governance and convention. But so rare is the situation in which the Sovereign's authority been used to install a new government from Parliament without an election that I see the 2008 Coalition as being on as tricky a ground as the prorogation.

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.

Edited January 4, 2010 by myata

g_bambino · January 4, 2010

[D]on't forget the reforms we could start with that don't require a complete overhaul of everything.

I'm in no way against change. I only remain cautious about it. That said, I've been this afternoon looking through and reading about the constitutions of other constitutional monarchies and even republican derivatives of that system. While sometimes what we have as convention is elsewhere explicitly written, and vice-versa, the organisms are all essentially the same. Our structure is, therefore, highly tested, through not only time but region as well. What possible changes could we really require, then?

bush_cheney2004 · January 4, 2010

.... Our structure is, therefore, highly tested, through not only time but region as well. What possible changes could we really require, then?

...how about starting with that "Get Out Of Jail Free" provision called the Notwithstanding Clause?

g_bambino · January 4, 2010

On the basis that the present system as it stands is costing a fortune, 200 million dollars plus per election, which we will have basically yearly because of the perennial minority governments. I would also suggest that the lack of recall legislation prevents the people from tossing bad representatives.

Um, so, elections cost too much, but you advocate more elections?

g_bambino · January 4, 2010

...how about starting with that "Get Out Of Jail Free" provision called the Notwithstanding Clause?

Seeing as that clause is the only remaining thread by which parliament holds onto its supremacy, no.

bush_cheney2004 · January 4, 2010

Seeing as that clause is the only remaining thread by which parliament holds onto its supremacy, no.

Understood....but "supremacy" is a problematic choice in a system with so many competing supremes.

eyeball · January 4, 2010

I'm in no way against change. I only remain cautious about it. That said, I've been this afternoon looking through and reading about the constitutions of other constitutional monarchies and even republican derivatives of that system. While sometimes what we have as convention is elsewhere explicitly written, and vice-versa, the organisms are all essentially the same. Our structure is, therefore, highly tested, through not only time but region as well. What possible changes could we really require, then?

I guess it comes down to what constitutes a cautious approach to change then. Incrementalism seems appropriate when events move slowly but when the pace of change leaves everything in it's dust, we're vulnerable.

Failing to adapt is one thing but neglecting to is another.

ToadBrother · January 4, 2010

...how about starting with that "Get Out Of Jail Free" provision called the Notwithstanding Clause?

I'm not saying there aren't amendments that could be made. I'm talking big change here.

ToadBrother · January 4, 2010

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.

Here's my understanding of how the Coalition was supposed to play out. There has to be, election or no, a loss of confidence; in other words the House has to vote that it has lost confidence in the government. Traditionally this means the House is dissolved, but the Coalition, from what I gather, was going to go to the GG and say "Look, we form a majority in the House, we can form a government" and the GG would have the option, not entirely without precedent to ask them to form a government.

The problem here is that Harper, or at least his constitutional advisers were smarter than the Coalition, and managed, effectively, to get to the GG first. In the Australian Constitutional crisis, the PM wasn't so fast on his feet, and lost the day.

If I had been this erstwhile Coalition, I would not in fact have advertised it at all. I would have been waiting outside Rideau Hall for the signal that the House had voted no confidence and then submitted that I had the support of the majority of the House, so that when the PM inevitably came to announce the loss of confidence, the GG would have had the constitutional instrument to affect my coalition's succession to the government.

In effect, the failure of the Coalition had nothing to do with our constitution, and everything to do with the fact that Harper is, ultimately, the smarter fox. If the Coalition leaders had been cleverer, and had played this like a poker game rather than a pissing contest, it's quite possible they would have succeeded. Don't blame the system, blame the players in the game of Replace a Government. They should have been as Machiavellian as Harper has shown himself to be. But let's face it, Layton and Dion have amply demonstrated their failures at tactical thinking.

bush_cheney2004 · January 4, 2010

I'm not saying there aren't amendments that could be made. I'm talking big change here.

OK...but I'm not sure what that means given the history of such things. Does such a process or framework even exist?

I'm presently watching PM Harper get grilled by the press on C-SPAN and it is obvious that Canada cannot escape the working context of an American framework, and it spills over even into this discussion (e.g. republicanism).