Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[myata]

Power hungry minority freak wrestling his will on the elected majority and the country, by use of outdated undemocratic ploys, and somebody dares to object?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).

Edited January 5, 2010 by myata

[Moonbox]

3) The majority of the House says: "we have no confidence in you and want to form the government that is supported by majority"

No, that's not what they ultimately said. They thumped their chests and went on about calling an election, and the GG, a Liberal appointee if I recall correctly, decided that it was stupid to irrationally run into an election immediately after another. Use your brain. Since then the House HAS supported the CPC. Proroguing is a delaying tactic and in last year's case it was put to GOOD use. Nobody wanted an election and nobody wanted a coalition other than the dippers and a few of the more stupid LPC supporters.

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.

The LPC turned out to want nothing to do with it either.

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.

Aren't we dramatic?

[g_bambino]

I can speak for myself no need to bother (but thanks for parrotting, for the lack of anything better).

Indeed, sometimes you provide the absolute best ammo to use against you.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... If we have a governmental concept that has been used continuously in many regions, across many centuries, and through many crises, and a party structure that was invented in and imported from the United States into Canada only a little more than a hundred years ago, how can people rationally convince themselves, almost to the point of self-induced apoplexy, that the former is the cause of our problems rather than the latter? .....

Are you kidding? Now the "cause of our problems" are the Americans...again?

"Damn Americans....I hate those bastards!"

[ToadBrother]

And I still find it both amusing and disturbing that certain people here would rather viciously attack our time-tested constitutional framework without reason instead of shine an analytical spotlight on our relatively new and unique party system. If we have a governmental concept that has been used continuously in many regions, across many centuries, and through many crises, and a party structure that was invented in and imported from the United States into Canada only a little more than a hundred years ago, how can people rationally convince themselves, almost to the point of self-induced apoplexy, that the former is the cause of our problems rather than the latter? An affliction with unadulterated ignorance is the only answer I can come up with.

A couple of things (well three things, actually):

1. The party system as we know it evolved in Great Britain, largely during the time of King George III. The Conservative Party in Canada has its origins in the British Tory party, and the Liberals, through a number of transformations, are essentially the descendants of the Whigs (to some degree, the US party system owes its origins to the exact same rigid divisions that began to form towards the end of the 18th century).

2. I have repeatedly defended our system, but that does not mean it doesn't need some fixing. I think a good change would be to require a vote in the House before even a normal prorogation. This could be set as a Parliamentary procedure, and so far as I can tell, certainly would not require a Constitutional change.

3. So far as I am aware, prorogation has never been used anywhere in the Commonwealth where the Westminster system persists to evade a Confidence Motion. As Andrew Coyne says, it isn't illegal, but it is wrong. Parliament, not the Prime Minister, not his Cabinet, not his party and not the Governor General, is supposed to be Supreme, and if Parliament opts to put in place a new Government based on a coalition of parties, then so be it. Political parties have absolutely no formal Constitutional standing.

Edited January 5, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

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).

Parliament is supreme, not the people. The point here is not that the people were deprived (the polls demonstrated pretty lukewarm support for the Coalition), but rather that Parliament itself, to a greater part by procedural games and by the party system as it stands, is being rendered irrelevant. It would not require a new system to correct things, it would simply require MPs show some backbone, refuse to co-operate with backroom deals and take back the business of governing the country from a small cabal centered around the PMO, and the shadow PMOs that govern the opposition parties. The Liberals pretty much did that, it was largely angry Liberal MPs (in part mad that Dion was still trying to hang on after he clearly no longer had the confidence of the Liberals, and in part because getting in bed with the Bloc and the NDP seemed a worse fate that losing another election) who scuttled the plan. Wouldn't it have been something if those Tory MPs would have forced Harper away from the prorogation and showed that they still could be the true power, and not a small group of advisers centered on the Prime Minister. We would have ended up with the same situation, but at least Parliament would have sent the message to the leaders "you govern only because we say you do."

Edited January 5, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

Are you kidding? Now the "cause of our problems" are the Americans...again?

Are you kidding? Where did I even insinuate such a thing?

[bush_cheney2004]

Parliament is supreme, not the people....

Wow...you mean your Constitution is not "supreme"? That is interesting....kinda defeats the whole purpose in having one.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you kidding? Where did I even insinuate such a thing?

Something about "former vs. latter" above....no rest for the American bogeyman in Canadian politics.

[ToadBrother]

Wow...you mean your Constitution is not "supreme"? That is interesting....kinda defeats the whole purpose in having one.

The problem is that our Constitution is complex. While the Constitution Act, 1982 repatriated the constitution, it is still made up of a significant number of acts, declarations, and rulings that date back nearly a thousand years. Thus Brian Mulroney could stack the Senate using a provision in the BNA Act, 1867 nearly a decade after the Constitution Act, 1982 had been signed.

The reason for why we didn't make our constitution a line in the sand like the Americans is that, despite the fact that it can make things a bit tricky at times, organic constitutions like ours (and pretty much all countries in the Commonwealth which retain the Monarchy) do have a great deal of flexibility. The English Constitution has proven one of the most successful governing systems ever invented, because it is so incredibly adaptable.

[bush_cheney2004]

The problem is that our Constitution is complex. While the Constitution Act, 1982 repatriated the constitution, it is still made up of a significant number of acts, declarations, and rulings that date back nearly a thousand years. Thus Brian Mulroney could stack the Senate using a provision in the BNA Act, 1867 nearly a decade after the Constitution Act, 1982 had been signed.

Roger that....hence my smarmy remarks about letting go....you know...moving out of the basement for good.

The reason for why we didn't make our constitution a line in the sand like the Americans is that, despite the fact that it can make things a bit tricky at times, organic constitutions like ours (and pretty much all countries in the Commonwealth which retain the Monarchy) do have a great deal of flexibility. The English Constitution has proven one of the most successful governing systems ever invented, because it is so incredibly adaptable.

Then why is it subject to so much whining and complaining? On cue, somebody will post that Quebec never even ratified the thing...and certainly not the Magna Carta!

[ToadBrother]

Are you kidding? Where did I even insinuate such a thing?

Um, these are your words:

...and a party structure that was invented in and imported from the United States into Canada only a little more than a hundred years ago...

That as absurdly false. Both the Canadian and American party systems have their origins in the evolution of political parties in the UK that happened during the Hanoverian Dynasty. The American system resembles it less because when the US became independence, the party system had not evolved nearly so far as it did by the time the BNA Act was signed nearly a century later.

[g_bambino]

The party system as we know it evolved in Great Britain, largely during the time of King George III.

Perhaps I'm causing confusion by using the wrong terms or nomenclature. By "party system" I mean the internal selection and role of party leaders and how that then carries over into the workings of the House of Commons. As I understand it, party leaders being elected by the membership is an American thing, whereas, in the UK, the party’s caucus chooses those individuals. Hence, Prime Ministers in the UK are more accountable to their party's MPs than Canadian Prime Ministers are to theirs, leading, in turn, to the ever increasing power of our Prime Minister, the real crux of the various complaints laid out in this thread.

[bush_cheney2004]

The American system resembles it less because when the US became independence, the party system had not evolved nearly so far as it did by the time the BNA Act was signed nearly a century later.

The American party system evolved the way it did for very specific American reasons...the foundation of which was anti-monarchy and anything resembling such a thing....and how to emerge on the other side with either a strong central government or more distributed power (i.e. states rights).

[g_bambino]

That as absurdly false.

See my reply to you above. Further, even if I'm wrong about party structure, that's still not proof that I've blamed Americans for anything.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps I'm causing confusion by using the wrong terms or nomenclature.

Ya think?

.....Hence, Prime Ministers in the UK are more accountable to their party's MPs than Canadian Prime Ministers are to theirs, leading, in turn, to the ever increasing power of our Prime Minister, the real crux of the various complaints laid out in this thread.

OK...but why this PM and not others?

Edited January 5, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think Jerry is talking to himself.

I was actually...typing out loud.

[g_bambino]

OK...but why this PM and not others?

Well, that depends on who you ask. For me, though, it isn't just this PM; every one since Trudeau has been gathering more and more power into the PMO. It was that revered Canadian demi-god who famously, arrogantly, and openly called backbenchers "nobdies".

[Jerry J. Fortin]

wrong. Actually the board would be the house of commons - a managing director (the PM) is appointed by the house with approval of the CEO (gg) usually due to having the most board support (like the speaker) -

Yes the board of directors would be the House of Commons. Having the members of the Commons then elect one of their as a leader or Prime Minister is something I agree with. Provided of course that the newly elected leader was separate from the partisan factions within the house and accountable to all members, so that a non-confidence motion would result only in the removal of the leader, not the removal of all members.

The CEO is rotated once and a while. The managing director can nominate someone, and the owner approves of the selection.

I think the PM should have a term limit of at least 1 year or perhaps two. The CEO, should not be appointed by the PM, but instead elected, with a longer term of office than the PM, perhaps 6 years, and then be subject to term limits prevent consecutive terms. The PM should be in charge of the Commons but not the Senate. The upper house leader should be elected as well, but for less time than the leader of that house, say three years.

If the owner dies then the board of directors selects someone to become the new owner (the owner has a veto on all operations) the board however, has a legal obligation to act in the best interest of her heirs when divesting the business.

If you are speaking of the owner as the PM, then I would suggest that the PM choose a deputy to take the reins in case of some tragic event.

The chairperson is known as the speaker of the house.

I must disagree here and suggest that the CEO should be the leader of the Senate, which would also be the Governor General. If we retain the upper house, and the GG then it would seem to me that the two positions and functions should be combined. Give the GG something to do, and give the Senate something to do while we are at it.

The managing director selects department heads - known as cabinet who are privy to confidential mangement meetings.

Yes, but those department heads should be the best people for the job, not merely elected members.

The managing director can also nominate individuals to the parent company (The senate) when there is a vacancy in their board. The senate has veto on the proposed new operating guidelines of their subsiderary. - the owner of the senate is also the queen and they have the same CEO. They have their own chairperson also.

I would agree that the PM would and should appoint members to the Senate, provided those appointments were made with the consent and approval of the provinces. These people are SUPPOSED to represent the provinces anyway. The Queens representative is and should always be the Governor General, but that position should be elected not appointed as a rubber stamp.

People can vote to appoint directors if they meet the criteria (not all citizens can vote even though the articles of incorporation / the constitution provides for it) since the board disqualified individuals. Shareholders can also run but they need to meet qualification the board set out which requires them to pay to run (which also isn't required by the constitution - which is known as the articles of incorporation.

I agree completely with this, getting the folks from Quebec to swear allegiance to the crown is another matter though.

The board violates the articles based upon how well it benefits their supporters, which is often known as fundamental justice.

When the board violates the articles they should be tried and sentenced for their crimes. Once convicted they should be removed from office.

Oh, but there is one catch the owner also has in place an auditing group known as the courts, which oddly the managing director nominates people to when there is a vacancy. The auditors can say that policy doesn't fit with the articles and so they can't do that. But the auditors often also having the same interests as the board seldom disallow operations that violate the articles, which is then called fundamental justice. Or the auditors don't mind the imbezlement of public interest because they benefit or think other auditors who audited before them allowed the fraudulent practice.

Here we disagree. The courts need to be independent from the government. In other words elected, at least in the case of the Supreme Court.

So Canadians would be share holders, whos shares may eventually allow them to vote on a board director, from a group of people wishing to be directors but they can only vote on a director who is in their market - but the person can be from any market as long as they opt to run in their market.

The shareholder ALWAYS get a vote, on a fixed date on a fixed cycle, determined by democratic decision of the House of Commons.

Oddly they are the product - and the shareholders.

Not oddly at all actually. We are the product of our environmnet.

The Commons is a public corporation and the senate is a private corporation.

I suppose you could look at it that way, but they are really both Crown Corporations.

This is NOT the same model as in the UK where the house of lords is slightly different, as the commons has part ownership in the house of lords.

No it is not the same, it is different and possibly better once made into what we are really talking about.

Canada itself is more like owned by the owner who has two boards/companies the commons and the senate the commons is a public company (shareholders board)and the senateis a management board the CEO is joint CEO of both companies. strategic committes draw from both boards for company business the management team can also draw from each board, but can also draw from anyone - the management team also communicates directly with the CEO (known as governor in council - but the CEO can also sit in on management meetings / participate in management meetings - the chairperson at council meetings but there is also an employee who does the same on behalf of the owner - who is the only department head who often does not change - that being the head of the human resources department whom the CEO often appoints seperately) and acts as a strategic council to the owner - even past managers are still strategic adviers to the owner in regard to company business for life.

Convoluted isn't it. Some revisions are indeed necessary.

the managing director (general manager) commonly comes from the shareholders (but can be any shareholder but this rarely occurs) the GM doesn't even need to be voted on technically but the owner usually lets the public board decide on the matter.

That is part of the problem, but as I said early can be changed for the better.

The senate is an advisory committee but can also propose changes to opperations.

The Senate should function as the auditor general, only with added power. The power to prevent mistakes from happening in the first place. That would be an enhancement from the lonely corner of second thought that it currently is.

[William Ashley]

Provided of course that the newly elected leader was separate from the partisan factions within the house and accountable to all members

This is the reason I don't agree with first past the post. I think everyone should have representation in the legislature. Party politics have stripped equality from Canada, turning it into benefit of the majority of a specific party.

, so that a non-confidence motion would result only in the removal of the leader, not the removal of all members.

This is how it is suppose to work if the majority of the house can decide on an alternative.

I think the PM should have a term limit of at least 1 year or perhaps two.

Why?

The CEO, should not be appointed by the PM,

They arn't, they are nominated, the Queen can say no, especially if her privy councillors recommend it to her. There are many many privy councillors to do this if they so opted.

but instead elected

Do you think the majority of a vote should hold absolute executive power unchecked for a term of 6 years? I don't.

[qoute] The PM should be in charge of the Commons but not the Senate.

The PM isn't in charge of the Senate, the senate much like the house manage their own business. The senate is there to help the commons make good law and add some credentials and quality to the commons, eg. experience and capability and stability, people don't need to hold onto their seat if they are in there for life.

The upper house leader should be elected as well

Much like the speaker of the house of commons, the speaker of the senate is appointed by the house.

but for less time than the leader of that house, say three years.

Why a term of years?

If you are speaking of the owner as the PM

I'm most certainly not. The owner is the Monarch, that being the head of state. The GG is head of Government, and the PM is leader of the government. The role of the PM is to manage the government, not manage the country, that is the GG's role. The role of the Monarch is to insure just rule.

then I would suggest that the PM choose a deputy to take the reins in case of some tragic event.

There is an order of presidence, although the PM ain't the top of that chain.

I must disagree here and suggest that the CEO should be the leader of the Senate

The CEO only oversees how the management team does, and to provide updates to the boards, makes announcements they are more of a CEO/President of the Company. They generally only act to advise or make corporate decisions which effect company operations. Eg. calling for new stockholders elections, steping in to create strategic task forces, or resolving an arguement in the board room. Yes definately the GG.

. If we retain the upper house

I think that is a constitutional challenge for sure, why would you want to get rid of your most experienced and capable employees?

Give the GG something to do

The GG does have things within their job description.

and give the Senate something to do while we are at it.

The senate does have things to do, but I think that both houses are being under used. However, I don't know exactly what quantity of communications they receive, so I can't say for sure, how under tasked they are.

Yes, but those department heads should be the best people for the job

Well that is what the Human resources manager is suppose to do, that is why each department has a deputy who is suppose to run the department. Sometimes you have parliamentary secretaries who arn't actually managers / ministers. The role of the minister even then is to act as eyes and ears to improve department operation - not push partisan objectives to reshape the department for partisan political processes, but instead for board decisions not a segment of that board.

I would agree that the PM would and should appoint members to the Senate

I said he nominates, he does not appoint.

These people are SUPPOSED to represent the provinces anyway.

Sure, they are suppose to come from those provinces. The crux is, if they live in that provience, then how are they going to get to the senate meetings? Perhaps we need more use of video conferencing in parliament?

The Queens representative is and should always be the Governor General

I think the Monarch should be able to represent themselves, should they so choose.

but that position should be elected not appointed as a rubber stamp.

I think public input is a good idea, but a public election could be problematic if direct representation. I do think that the public should be able to appoint a chancellor of state though, but only with oversight, not executive or legislative power. The courts are suppose to fill this role but being partisan it is problematic. Issue of course with a public chancellor is that they can only represent public opinion, not necisarily public interest in mind of hidden information, eg. national security issues. So I think that the chancellor should be able to act on some laws but nothing concerning national security issues, the constitution, courts, legislature etc..

I agree completely with this, getting the folks from Quebec to swear allegiance to the crown is another matter though.

Oddly you could even see a bloc quebeqois chancellor if the party supporters all fell behind it.

When the board violates the articles they should be tried and sentenced for their crimes. Once convicted they should be removed from office.

I think the legislation should be tried and quashed if it doesn't fit the articles, that is why legislation should also get sent to the supreme court - technically though.. ascension is judicial oversight if the queen / gg actually insured it was constitutional - technically though this has to be the supreme court or the queen, I'm not aware the GG is head of the courts (even though they have presidence, the royal perogative doesn't rest with the GG as far as I'm aware, unless this was one of the powers transfered by the letters patent)

The courts need to be independent from the government. In other words elected, at least in the case of the Supreme Court.

Actually if you read my platform/ policy I think that the courts should be elected, and even chosen. I think a total revamping of the courts would be in interest of justice, but I don't trust a sole majority system, I also don't support sole partisan intersts that is why I have an alternative model that removes the direct partisan and majority rule, instead to impower the individual rather than the mob.

The shareholder ALWAYS get a vote, on a fixed date on a fixed cycle, determined by democratic decision of the House of Commons.

well this isn't how it works currently.

Not oddly at all actually. We are the product of our environmnet.

Or do we produce our environment?

I suppose you could look at it that way, but they are really both Crown Corporations.

How so?

The Senate should function as the auditor general, only with added power. The power to prevent mistakes from happening in the first place. That would be an enhancement from the lonely corner of second thought that it currently is.

Senate committees

[Smallc]

Have you seen what the GG does Jerry? She's quite busy.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Have you seen what the GG does Jerry? She's quite busy.

Yes and your point is?

[jbg]

To add to the prorogue pie, over 300 of these people are entitled to collect their pensions at age 55 this year by being in Parliament for 6 years. As long as there's no election to drop some of them, Candians will be paying over 3 million yearly for the next 30+ years!

For the exemplary service and high levels of professionalism and civility exhibited by them (probably the high-water mark was November - December 2008) this is amply earned and deserved.

[jbg]

The reason for why we didn't make our constitution a line in the sand like the Americans is that, despite the fact that it can make things a bit tricky at times, organic constitutions like ours (and pretty much all countries in the Commonwealth which retain the Monarchy) do have a great deal of flexibility. The English Constitution has proven one of the most successful governing systems ever invented, because it is so incredibly adaptable.

This may be out of place, but I think both Constitutions are Rube Goldberg machines. Frankly, both countries work well in spite of their governments, not because of them.

Frankly, most American Presidents and Canadian PM's, over the years, have been low-quality garbage. The people of both countries are productive, self-motivated and driven people that make the systems work.

[Alta4ever]

Isn't funny that while the liberals and the NDP blast harper for giving his Mp's a "vacation" the leaders of these parties are themselves on vacations out of the country while Harper continues to work.