Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Still waiting, Jerry.

Fine, in my mind we need to rework the system, in yours not. As I see it the problem can be found with partisan composition of the House of Commons. The issue there is that they are only a rubber stamp for partisan leadership and do not really represent the will of the people that elected them. Now add to that the power vested in the PMO to administer the nation in the absence of any parliamentary oversight through orders in council. So how is it that the will of the people can even be expressed in the House of Commons?

The only means of practical application are found within the constitution, and there are damned few people in this nation aside from myself and a handful of others who dare to would advocate opening that can of worms up to fix the problem. So how do you suggest we deal with the practical application issue?

[Smallc]

The way to fix it may involve changes to parliamentary procedure rather than the Constitution.

[g_bambino]

Fine, in my mind we need to rework the system, in yours not. As I see it the problem can be found with partisan composition of the House of Commons. The issue there is that they are only a rubber stamp for partisan leadership and do not really represent the will of the people that elected them. Now add to that the power vested in the PMO to administer the nation in the absence of any parliamentary oversight through orders in council. So how is it that the will of the people can even be expressed in the House of Commons?

The only means of practical application are found within the constitution, and there are damned few people in this nation aside from myself and a handful of others who dare to would advocate opening that can of worms up to fix the problem. So how do you suggest we deal with the practical application issue?

Actually, I think the difference between you and I lies not in that one thinks there are problems and the other doesn't, but in what we blame for too much power having been hoarded into the PMO; you think it's the fault of our parliamentary system, I think it's because of the way our political parties govern themselves internally. I can't fathom how you reconcile the success of parliamentary democracy around the world with your apparent need to gut it. Instead, I try to see what is different between ours and others, and its become clear to me that the PMO would be deflated and partisanship in the Commons decreased if we abandoned this foreign party system that's been jammed for unknown reasons into our Westminster model legislature. If we again had the British way of selecting party leaders - by vote of the caucus rather than full party membership - the party leader would be accountable to his MPs, as he is not now, and therefore unable to bully them into submission with threats, leaving them to vote more freely and truly hold ministers of the Crown accountable for their actions.

[DrGreenthumb]

Questions for Conservatives. Would you have been more happy if the senate had NOT amended Bill C-6 to remove the provision that allowed warrantless searches of Canadian homes? Was it bad for the senate to do that even though the bill was passed unanimously by the house? Will it be better when a newly stacked Conservative senate passes that bill in its original form? What are your reasons for being willing to submit to this type of state intrusion into your home?

I'm guessing all the Cons are afraid to answer these? The answers don't fit in with your immage of Harper being always right?

When the warrantless searches find your unregistered guns will you still be happy?

Edited January 11, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The way to fix it may involve changes to parliamentary procedure rather than the Constitution.

How so? Those procedures are very nearly written in stone, and they would require extensive work to fix. I will grant you that it is a way to go, but it is realistically a baby step, and at that one which fails to accept the underpinning problems.

[Smallc]

They aren't nearly as written in stone as the Constitution. You already know that I don't accept that there's an underlying problem, because I don't see one.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Smallc

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Actually, I think the difference between you and I lies not in that one thinks there are problems and the other doesn't, but in what we blame for too much power having been hoarded into the PMO; you think it's the fault of our parliamentary system, I think it's because of the way our political parties govern themselves internally. I can't fathom how you reconcile the success of parliamentary democracy around the world with your apparent need to gut it. Instead, I try to see what is different between ours and others, and its become clear to me that the PMO would be deflated and partisanship in the Commons decreased if we abandoned this foreign party system that's been jammed for unknown reasons into our Westminster model legislature. If we again had the British way of selecting party leaders - by vote of the caucus rather than full party membership - the party leader would be accountable to his MPs, as he is not now, and therefore unable to bully them into submission with threats, leaving them to vote more freely and truly hold ministers of the Crown accountable for their actions.

Great a non-partisan form of self governing political parties. Just how do we get there from here?

With all due respect there are many versions of the Parliamentary system, our is only one of them. One that needs work. I do agree the PMO has too much power and control, and I do agree that changing the way we elect the PM would suffice reduce a lot of crap.

Now after all that, you need constitutional changes to get what you want done. I merely suggest that when you open that can of worms you let them all out at once and rewrite the damned thing to include recall legislation, term limits to office and a means of providing for the public to interact with government in decisions that have visible impact on their lives. I would prefer to be able to have the public choose their own leader not the representatives to the House of Commons and I would prefer that the Senate have elected representatives that would act as a regional system of representation in which an equal number of senators were elected from each province, and those elected to that House have a specific function to undertake such as that of an Auditor General and holder of the purse strings.

[Smallc]

I like parts of this (not the Western Standard - hate that):

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2010/01/proroguing-parliament-and-the-death-of-the-canadian-monarchy.html

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I like parts of this (not the Western Standard - hate that):

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2010/01/proroguing-parliament-and-the-death-of-the-canadian-monarchy.html

Simple approach, yet I don't see it as a fix to our current problems. It certainly means that guys like Harper would be in for a ride and I am all for that but it doesn't get to the roots of the problem.

[Smallc]

If there is a problem, it has to be fixed by the people and the Crown. There's really no other way.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If there is a problem, it has to be fixed by the people and the Crown. There's really no other way.

IF ?

[g_bambino]

With all due respect there are many versions of the Parliamentary system, our is only one of them. [Y]ou need constitutional changes to get what you want done. I merely suggest that when you open that can of worms you let them all out at once and rewrite the damned thing to include recall legislation, term limits to office and a means of providing for the public to interact with government in decisions that have visible impact on their lives. I would prefer to be able to have the public choose their own leader not the representatives to the House of Commons and I would prefer that the Senate have elected representatives that would act as a regional system of representation in which an equal number of senators were elected from each province, and those elected to that House have a specific function to undertake such as that of an Auditor General and holder of the purse strings.

There aren't really all that many systems to choose from; most are a variant of the Westminster model. Putting aside all that's wrong with your desires, they can't be worked into our parliamentary structure, anyway; you would have to start completely from scratch. No constitutional changes are required to implement my suggestions, however.

[c/e]

Edited January 11, 2010 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

IF ?

Yes, if. I see what's happened now as a bit abnormal, but it isn't really a problem.

[g_bambino]

The way to fix it may involve changes to parliamentary procedure rather than the Constitution.

I agree. ToadBrother raised some interesting points regarding the supremacy of parliament and the ability of the Cabinet to recommend a prorogation and or dissolution of it. Admittedly, I'm still unclear on the details, but feel there's something to be explored there. And, as the advising of prorogation and dissolution is a conventional matter, rather than a written one, it wouldn't be nearly as difficult to change. I also note that in Britain public bills carry over a prorogation; I'm not sure if that's conventional or legislated.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There aren't really all that many systems to choose from; most are a variant of the Westminster model. Putting aside all that's wrong with your desires, they can't be worked into our parliamentary structure, anyway; you would have to start completely from scratch. No constitutional changes are required to implement my suggestions, however.

[c/e]

As a matter of fact you are right. Now how do you get the PMO to relinquish power for starters?

[g_bambino]

As a matter of fact you are right. Now how do you get the PMO to relinquish power for starters?

Mmm.. A good question. I must be off to bed now, so I'll sleep on it.

[jbg]

As a matter of fact you are right. Now how do you get the PMO to relinquish power for starters?

Best though not perfect way is to make that a campaign issue. The winning candidates usually adhere scrupulously to their pre-election promises.

[Born Free]

I suppose so. You know it's bad when Joe Clarke joined the Liberals.

Actually his endoresement of Paul Martin was not such a bad thing back in the good old days. Remember when Harper's thugs asserted that Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography? It really did tell us a lot about Harper....and not very good stuff .... at least from a character standpoint...

[cybercoma]

Correct....other "English speaking" (and non-English speaking) nations seem to manage without such consistent drama...even with coalitions. So what's Canada's problem? What kind of system has the electorate dreading too many elections, and the cost?

Other countries use proportional representation, which necessitates coalition governments because of fringe parties taking up portions of the house. The first-past-the-post system is the problem. Furthermore, an ineffectual and appointed senate that does not properly represent the regions (Senators ought to be appointed by the provinces after debate in their legislatures, imho) makes matters worse. Voting in Canada is nearly pointless.

[Argus]

You do realize that per capita, Quebec receives one of the lowest amounts of Equalization, right? They actually receive less than Manitoba (about 1/2, and we have a larger economy per capita.

Per capita? Compared to whom? The national average? Wouldn't the national average include Ontario - which gets almost nothing - Alberta, BC, etc, who get nothing?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Per capita? Compared to whom? The national average? Wouldn't the national average include Ontario - which gets almost nothing - Alberta, BC, etc, who get nothing?

Argus we are on a 5 province average now, you know that. What gets me is the language of the agreement which takes Hydro-Quebec out of the accounting situation. If you add that revenue they would likely not get very damned much in equalization. Oh well. its just another "non-issue" for the supporters of high taxes.

[Argus]

Who said any MPs were cognizant? The Minister of Finance sets the budget which then goes to treasury which then sends out the money. No MP would ever be aware of the dealings of some crooks that far down the food chain. The Gomery Inquiry proved as much despite the abuse Chretien recieved from Justice Gomery.

The Gomery inquiry proved nothing of the sort. But like any legal inquiry, it could not make presumptions. Canadians, however, can. And I make two. One, based on the evidence given, there is no way this advertising scheme could have succeded without protection from the PMO. The civil service has a lot of rules about spending money and this scheme violated most of them. The civil servants in Public Works didn't like it, and complained all the way up top the top. When teh minister - Alfonso Gagliano - ignored them, they went to the Clerk of the Privy Council - the highest civil servant in Canada. Only PMO intervention kept it running.

Two, the money stolen was given to the Liberal Party of Canada, not pocketed by the "crooks" involved. I find that highly indicative that a number of high ranking people in the part were well aware of what was happening, especially in light of the protection this program was given by the PMO.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Gomery inquiry proved nothing of the sort. But like any legal inquiry, it could not make presumptions. Canadians, however, can. And I make two. One, based on the evidence given, there is no way this advertising scheme could have succeded without protection from the PMO. The civil service has a lot of rules about spending money and this scheme violated most of them. The civil servants in Public Works didn't like it, and complained all the way up top the top. When teh minister - Alfonso Gagliano - ignored them, they went to the Clerk of the Privy Council - the highest civil servant in Canada. Only PMO intervention kept it running.

Two, the money stolen was given to the Liberal Party of Canada, not pocketed by the "crooks" involved. I find that highly indicative that a number of high ranking people in the part were well aware of what was happening, especially in light of the protection this program was given by the PMO.

So what is happening with the AirBus deal? I see Carl has been shipped back to the Fatherland for trial and possible punishment. but here ole lyin' Brian has yet to have charges made against him. Strange that the guy who created the GST didn't pay any on his "earned" money delivered in brown paper bags at airport hotels. I for one don't know if our former Prime Minister is guilty or not, we need a trial of inquiry to sort that out all nice and legal. Maybe that should happen now, what do you think folks?

[Argus]

Questions for Conservatives. Would you have been more happy if the senate had NOT amended Bill C-6 to remove the provision that allowed warrantless searches of Canadian homes? Was it bad for the senate to do that even though the bill was passed unanimously by the house? Will it be better when a newly stacked Conservative senate passes that bill in its original form? What are your reasons for being willing to submit to this type of state intrusion into your home?

The bill won't apply to me or to most Canadians. It's a consumer safety bill and its applicability is to places which sell products. It is an acknowledgement that today, via the internet, many people are now selling products out of their homes, and those products might be unsafe or even dangerous. In fact, warrantless searches are already allowable under a number of circumstances, esp involving gaming houses and counterfeiting, where obtaining a warrant would be impractical. That doesn't mean a judge would not scrutinize the reasons for entry afterwards because the Constitution does not allow for "unreasonable" search and seizures.

Therefore, despite the paranoia of druggies like yourself, this section is not of any real consequence - unless, of course, you're selling drugs out of your home, perhaps. Any search by consumer product people under this act would have to be justified to a judge at any trial which comes of it, where the judge would decide if the search had been reasonable under the Constitution. As an example, someone selling phoney vaccine or cancer treatment drugs over the internet might have his house searched immediately because every hour of delay could cause harm.

But don't pretend this is something which would allow the police to go on a fishing expedition. It's not. It merely shifts the burden of justifying the search to the judge to AFTER the search, instead of BEFORE it.

[Argus]

So what is happening with the AirBus deal? I see Carl has been shipped back to the Fatherland for trial and possible punishment. but here ole lyin' Brian has yet to have charges made against him. Strange that the guy who created the GST didn't pay any on his "earned" money delivered in brown paper bags at airport hotels. I for one don't know if our former Prime Minister is guilty or not, we need a trial of inquiry to sort that out all nice and legal. Maybe that should happen now, what do you think folks?

You know, the difference is few people defend Mulroney. Yeah, I think he was a crook. And by the way there have already been several inquiries.

But you Liberals would rather slit your wrists and sacrifice your children on a fiery alter than consider the possibility that Jean Chretien, your hero, was a lying crook.