Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[g_bambino]

This statement is so over the top.

No kidding.

[ToadBrother]

This statement is so over the top. Democracy does not begin and end with Parliament. I have been viewing televised reports of the anti-prorogation rallies and what I see there is democracy in action in its finest form. Parliament is prorogued but that act has not shut down democracy. As blueblood said, the people will speak again come election time.

Well, some fraction of the people will. The rest will be playing XBox360 or shoving pencils up their noses.

[myata]

I too agree, with the system that is broken in what it allows this sort of abuse, and politicians who won't take a principlesd stand, it's left to the people to speak up, stand up and act. Now as well as at the election time. Which will not only decide the fate of this government, but also whether we deserve the democracy we still have.

P.S. at a rally in Ottawa this afternoon it was said that invitations were sent to all CPC MPs (if I got it correctly in French), yet none has showed up. Reps from the other four parties, including BQ were present. If I were a CPC supporter, that would be the one thing to give me very serious worry. If none of 150 key members of my party could keep open enough mind to see a clear wrong, or a backbone to call it, I should be seriously and even gravely concerned about where it's going.

[capricorn]

Yesterday I posted a link to Ignatieff's comments regarding prorogation where he said.

"Prorogation is part of our constitutional system, but to use it every time you’re in a tight spot seems to me a flagrant abuse of a constitutional power, and that’s why Canadians are angry about it.."

It now looks like he has had a change of opinion.

Mr. Ignatieff stepped away from the podium shortly thereafter and explained to reporters that, quite unlike last week, his side was interested in legislating limits upon a Prime Minister’s ability to request the House of Commons be prorogued.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/23/the-commons-i-shouldnt-have-to-be-here/

So the Liberals have changed their position on prorogation which pretty well is the same as the NDP's. I wonder if Duceppe will make a trifecta.

[William Ashley]

Actually, there's been speculation that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada.

As odd as it seems he was a natural born US citizen by US immigration law at the time, if his father was American, which he was. "Arthur's father was a British-Irish citizen of Scottish descent, who naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843"

Americans born outside the US at this time of US Citizenship Laws would be deemed natural born citizens, even though not born within the United States themselves, as long as one of their parents was American.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

So technically it wouldn't be quite the same. Although if the situation were reversed, eg. Ignateiff was born in the United States and Aquired Canadian citizenship at a later point, he would be eligible to serve as president. And while a Canadian or Australian in the case of Arnold Swartzneger can serve as governor, they cannot serve as president.

[William Ashley]

Actually, there's been speculation that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada.

US Citizenship law has changed since then, since his father was an American citizen he was deemed a Natural born citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

[William Ashley]

Actually, there's been speculation that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada.

Due to US Citizenship law at the time of the birth he was deemed a natural born US citizen, as his father was an american, and anyone born to an american father aquired american citizenship also. Immigraiton law has become more restrictive since those days. Althoug he woulnd't be Canadian, since Canadian citizenship didn't exist then, he would be a British Subject (although his father was Irish). So he would be Irish/American/British and Native American.

[William Ashley]

Actually, there's been speculation that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada.

He was considered a natural born US Citizen because his father was American and Citizenship law at the time stated that anyone who had an American father automatically was an american citizen. Citizenship laws become more restrictive later on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

[jbg]

US Citizenship law has changed since then, since his father was an American citizen he was deemed a Natural born citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

I'm confused. Did Chester A. Arthur influence Harper's decision to prorogue the same way William Lyon MacKenzie King's mother (as a deceased) helped guide him as Prime Minister? Otherwise what does this have to do with the decision to prorogue? I'm totally mystified.

[nicky10013]

I'm confused. Did Chester A. Arthur influence Harper's decision to prorogue the same way William Lyon MacKenzie King's mother (as a deceased) helped guide him as Prime Minister? Otherwise what does this have to do with the decision to prorogue? I'm totally mystified.

Somebody commented that if Ignatieff became PM it would be like a Canadian becoming the President which has of course never happened. I merely posted that there was speculation that Arthur was speculated to have been born in Canada, making him a "Canadian" president even though Canadian citizenship didn't exist at the time. It was merely a short retort to a stupid and old barb against Ignatieff for being American. I didn't realize he would pick it up an try to run with it.

Then again, he seems to have gone even further off the deepend the past few days than I thought possible, so I guess I was just wrong.

[jbg]

Somebody commented that if Ignatieff became PM it would be like a Canadian becoming the President which has of course never happened. I merely posted that there was speculation that Arthur was speculated to have been born in Canada, making him a "Canadian" president even though Canadian citizenship didn't exist at the time. It was merely a short retort to a stupid and old barb against Ignatieff for being American. I didn't realize he would pick it up an try to run with it.

Then again, he seems to have gone even further off the deepend the past few days than I thought possible, so I guess I was just wrong.

Who went further off the deep end, Ignatieff?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well here we go....its Iggy time. On Monday the Liberal Party of Canada gets the drivers seat and Mike is on trial. I am not really sure why Harper set it up this way, but he has given Iggy a shot. Harper has allowed the opposition leader to take the lime light on an agenda going where the PM does not know. This may be a tactical blunder because the Liberals are going up in the polls and the Conservatives going down. I would not think that this would be the right time to spring a trap on Iggy, but we will see.

[ToadBrother]

So the Liberals have changed their position on prorogation which pretty well is the same as the NDP's. I wonder if Duceppe will make a trifecta.

I just don't see how it can be done. The rule is that Reserve Powers are used on the advice of the Government. How do you alter that, without either impinging on the Royal Prerogative (a most definite Constitutional change) or on the role of the Government as the adviser and guider of the Sovereign (also a key Constitutional principle). Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm no constitutional expert, but I just simply don't see how this passes muster. It smells like a constitutional change, in which case we're in amendment territory, and you can't tell me that Iggy's going to be crazy enough to drive that bus, considering the road is already littered with corpses from the last two attempts (which were a lot bigger than just trying to stop a PM from shutting down the House to save his skin).

[Smallc]

But would this kind of Constitutional change require consent from the provinces?

[Keepitsimple]

Interesting column about Bob Rae - I had no clue about this....probably because nobody seemed to care about proroguing until that big, bad Harper did it:

Bob Rae, King of proroguing: Blizzard

As Ontario premier, this former Dipper put the Legislature on hiatus 3 times

By Christina Blizzard

Let me tell you about the biggest rogue who’s a pro when it comes to prorogation.

Stephen Harper, you say?

Absolutely not.

I give you Bob Rae, King of the Prorogues.

Yep, that Bob Rae. Remember when he was premier? Sure, he was a preachy New Democrat back then. Now, he’s a preachy Liberal and part of the cabal slamming Harper for his so-called assault on democracy.

There’s a YouTube video that shows him slamming Harper’s prorogation of Parliament — to the tune of Let It Be.

What a hypocrite!

As premier, he prorogued this Legislature not once, not twice — but three times. And for much longer than Harper has prorogued the federal Parliament.

Rae’s NDP won power Sept. 6, 1990. On Dec. 19, 1991, Rae prorogued the House. They didn’t come back until April 6, 1992. He then prorogued again, Dec. 10, 1992 — and didn’t come back until April 13, 1993.

By 1994, his government had run out of steam. They were running double-digit deficits and he’d doubled the debt. Some of his experimental policies proved laughable at best and disastrous at worst.

Limping badly, he prorogued for the third time on Dec. 9, 1994. The House did not sit again until the legislature was dissolved April 28, 1995.

Rae didn’t even bring in a budget that year.

For four-and-a-half months, this province had no sitting Legislature.

Was there a grass-roots uprising of self-righteous people decrying Rae for ending democracy?

Was there heck? Why?

Our saviour?

Because those smarmy types who like to attack Harper as being undemocratic are the people who think Rae is a genius and the saviour of our country.

The criticisms that have been levelled at Harper are nonsensical — generally expounded by ivory tower types who’d never heard of prorogation until Harper did it in 2008.

......snip

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/christina_blizzard/2010/01/22/12577221.html

Edited January 24, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[ToadBrother]

But would this kind of Constitutional change require consent from the provinces?

It would require majority votes in the Commons, the Senate and 2/3s of the provinces. The Commons they can manage, the Senate is a big question, but getting 2/3s of the provinces, that's a pretty steep hill.

[ToadBrother]

Interesting column about Bob Rae - I had no clue about this....probably because nobody seemed to care about proroguing until that big, bad Harper did it:

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/christina_blizzard/2010/01/22/12577221.html

I don't think Rae's a genius, and yes, Harper is anti-democratic.

[jbg]

Interesting column about Bob Rae - I had no clue about this....probably because nobody seemed to care about proroguing until that big, bad Harper did it:

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/christina_blizzard/2010/01/22/12577221.html

As pointed out earlier in thread, Chretien and Trudeau had their fair share of prorogues.

[Smallc]

It would require majority votes in the Commons, the Senate and 2/3s of the provinces.

But does it need that? I'm not sure that it does:

Fourth, section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982 authorizes amendments to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons, other than those matters referred to in sections 41 and 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The amendments authorized by section 44 are within the exclusive power of the Parliament of Canada.

[Born Free]

Interesting column about Bob Rae - I had no clue about this....probably because nobody seemed to care about proroguing until that big, bad Harper did it:

Bob Rae was an idiot. His prorogue of the Ontario legislature doesnt absolve Harper's actions.

[capricorn]

I just don't see how it can be done. The rule is that Reserve Powers are used on the advice of the Government. How do you alter that, without either impinging on the Royal Prerogative (a most definite Constitutional change) or on the role of the Government as the adviser and guider of the Sovereign (also a key Constitutional principle). Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm no constitutional expert, but I just simply don't see how this passes muster. It smells like a constitutional change, in which case we're in amendment territory, and you can't tell me that Iggy's going to be crazy enough to drive that bus, considering the road is already littered with corpses from the last two attempts (which were a lot bigger than just trying to stop a PM from shutting down the House to save his skin).

Like most of us here I have to rely on the opinions I find in the media from so called experts to make some sense of all this.

The three main reserve powers that a governor general has are to dismiss a prime minister, to dissolve Parliament (or not) and to delay or refuse royal assent to legislation, which has been used only once before, in Alberta during the Depression.

These constitutional conventions are not written down and so involve a fair amount of subjectivity on the part of the incumbent.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/02/f-governor-general.html

I don't recall seeing anything in our Constitution on the reserve powers of the (Crown) GG. Therefore, would it not follow that there is nothing in the Constitution to amend. Maybe the answer lies in adding something to the Constitution but again that would require opening up the Constitution which as you say is fraught with danger.

I am left to conclude that these reserve powers are strictly descendant from convention and tradition found in Parliamentary systems of government and because it is silent on the matter, the Constitution expressly maintains those powers.

The problem is that removing the GG from the process of prorogation also would have the effect of removing the power to dissolve Parliament for an election call or the formation of a coalition government. But what about the remaining reserve powers of the GG such as refusing the passing of legislation? Where are those remaining powers to reside other than leaving them to convention and tradition?

If there is a way to end the GG's reserve powers without Constitutional amendment (that's still not settled ), what would be the purpose of having a GG other than ceremonial duties? I haven't found any experts who address this aspect in their discussion. Many of them seem more concerned that the GG is not explaining her decisions to accept Harper's advice.

I tell you, looking into this issue of reserve powers can make you feel you're running in circles.

[ToadBrother]

If there is a way to end the GG's reserve powers without Constitutional amendment (that's still not settled ), what would be the purpose of having a GG other than ceremonial duties? I haven't found any experts who address this aspect in their discussion. Many of them seem more concerned that the GG is not explaining her decisions to accept Harper's advice.

I tell you, looking into this issue of reserve powers can make you feel you're running in circles.

I don't think the legislation would end the reserve power (the notion is to make prorogation happen only through a vote in the House), it would modify its application. That's why I believe it is constitutional. The GG would still have that power, but now, somehow, it would be expanded from a power used in council (one the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet), to Parliament. The tripping point here is that it modifies who can advise the GG, which has traditionally only been the Ministers, and more narrowly by convention, the Prime Minister.

Of course, it leads to other questions. When the GG prorogues Parliament, both the Commons and the Senate go into recess. This is a nifty way to do things, of course, as the PM is the head of government, both for the Commons and the Senate. For practical purposes, does this mean the Senate should get a vote, too?

Frankly, I think it opens up a kettle of fish. If Harper can argue (as I would if I was him) that this is a constitutional question, not just an ordinary legislative act, then it becomes a bit trickier. If section 44, as SmallC points out, does allow the Federal Parliament to mess with executive powers without the Provinces (another tricky question), then it's still an amendment, but one that the Senate has the power to block. Any idea on what the relative seat counts are going to be in the Senate come March?

And if it is passed, then as much as I dislike Harper's use of prorogation (particularly the 2008 prorogation), this almost certainly opens up an avenue for a sort of Opposition filibustering; "We'll keep Parliament in session until the next election if you don't play nice!", which may not be very desirable either. All of this trouble, and we'll probably have a majority government within the next year or two, rendering it all rather moot. I'm almost sorry I bitched about it now, but it's Harper's fault for abusing the executive for short-term political gain.

This is why some people were against the nature of the repatriation of the Constitution. In the UK, there isn't this kind of difficulty, because there really is no singular document that says "Constitution of the United Kingdom". It is largely defined in terms of convention.

One thing I do know from the UK constitution is that the powers of the Sovereign cannot be altered or removed without the agreement of the Sovereign. This is, to some degree, why the Queen still holds some fairly substantial powers, though, as per the constitution, they are almost always to be exercised solely on the advice of the Government. That may indeed apply here, too.

That raises another spooky question. The GG has one very key reserve power, the ability to refuse Royal Assent. What if Harper advised the GG that this bill stepped on the Royal Prerogative, and should not be signed into law? Here's an interesting one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq_%28Parliamentary_Approval%29_Bill

In that case, the Queen, one the advice of the PM, did refuse Assent, effectively vetoing the bill. This may actually be fairly similar to the situation here, as in both cases the bills make some modification to Royal Prerogative.

[DrGreenthumb]

I don't think the legislation would end the reserve power (the notion is to make prorogation happen only through a vote in the House), it would modify its application. That's why I believe it is constitutional. The GG would still have that power, but now, somehow, it would be expanded from a power used in council (one the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet), to Parliament. The tripping point here is that it modifies who can advise the GG, which has traditionally only been the Ministers, and more narrowly by convention, the Prime Minister.

Of course, it leads to other questions. When the GG prorogues Parliament, both the Commons and the Senate go into recess. This is a nifty way to do things, of course, as the PM is the head of government, both for the Commons and the Senate. For practical purposes, does this mean the Senate should get a vote, too?

Frankly, I think it opens up a kettle of fish. If Harper can argue (as I would if I was him) that this is a constitutional question, not just an ordinary legislative act, then it becomes a bit trickier. If section 44, as SmallC points out, does allow the Federal Parliament to mess with executive powers without the Provinces (another tricky question), then it's still an amendment, but one that the Senate has the power to block. Any idea on what the relative seat counts are going to be in the Senate come March?

And if it is passed, then as much as I dislike Harper's use of prorogation (particularly the 2008 prorogation), this almost certainly opens up an avenue for a sort of Opposition filibustering; "We'll keep Parliament in session until the next election if you don't play nice!", which may not be very desirable either. All of this trouble, and we'll probably have a majority government within the next year or two, rendering it all rather moot. I'm almost sorry I bitched about it now, but it's Harper's fault for abusing the executive for short-term political gain.

This is why some people were against the nature of the repatriation of the Constitution. In the UK, there isn't this kind of difficulty, because there really is no singular document that says "Constitution of the United Kingdom". It is largely defined in terms of convention.

One thing I do know from the UK constitution is that the powers of the Sovereign cannot be altered or removed without the agreement of the Sovereign. This is, to some degree, why the Queen still holds some fairly substantial powers, though, as per the constitution, they are almost always to be exercised solely on the advice of the Government. That may indeed apply here, too.

That raises another spooky question. The GG has one very key reserve power, the ability to refuse Royal Assent. What if Harper advised the GG that this bill stepped on the Royal Prerogative, and should not be signed into law? Here's an interesting one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq_%28Parliamentary_Approval%29_Bill

In that case, the Queen, one the advice of the PM, did refuse Assent, effectively vetoing the bill. This may actually be fairly similar to the situation here, as in both cases the bills make some modification to Royal Prerogative.

Anyone who tried to fight against making prorogation a confidence motion would be committing political suicide.

[ToadBrother]

Anyone who tried to fight against making prorogation a confidence motion would be committing political suicide.

Maybe... maybe not. Harper has pretty much survived two controversial prorogations, and if this law were indeed unconstitutional in that it altered a Royal Prerogative, in a way, Harper might not have much of a choice but to advise the GG not to do it. It could be very interesting.

Of course, I might be talking out of my ass, but I'm not so sure. We've entered a rather strange constitutional realm. You don't easily monkey with the Reserve Powers.

[William Ashley]

My favorite prorogue quote of the day, perhaps of "the great insidious prorogue" so far...

"... the lupine-eyed Stephen Harper has seen his support collapse while he was busy with his annual ritual of filling the toilets with anti-freeze and closing up the House for winter.

"

Got to love liberal media

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prorogation/passion-over-prorogation-pales-next-to-political-apathy/article1442490/

Edited January 25, 2010 by William Ashley