Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

g_bambino · January 28, 2010

In particular, the person handing you one was an East Indian and already suffered from the stereotype of being abusive. I don't know any workplace in the country that would allow a racist insult like that go unpunished.

You should then be reprimanded for uttering such a statement as the one you just did. After all, you've now labelled someone a racist - one of the most injurous stigmas that can be attached to an individual in our contemporary society, even if only an accusation - based on nothing but your own imaginative infill of an incomplete story. Disgusting.

None of that has anything to do with proroguing parliament though.

Indeed.

cybercoma · January 28, 2010

You should then be reprimanded for uttering such a statement as the one you just did. After all, you've now labelled someone a racist - one of the most injurous stigmas that can be attached to an individual in our contemporary society, even if only an accusation - based on nothing but your own imaginative infill of an incomplete story. Disgusting.

I did no such thing. I said his joke could be considered, very easily I might add, racist and that no company (although that's not true) in the country would allow a racist joke, comment, or insult to go unpunished. Not once did I claim that the person was a racist.

Edited January 28, 2010 by cybercoma

g_bambino · January 28, 2010

Those who contend that Harper’s proroguing is unique or that we need to curb the use of proroguing are ignorant of our institutions, history and of the sound reasons to employ prorogation. The current hysteria is irrational and pathetic.

The hysteria is embarrassing, yes. However, there is a kind of "straw that broke the camel's back" element to the present situation; dissolutions have for some time been an implement for political gain, and now it seems we're to add prorogations to the politicking tool box, as well, all of which adds to the gradual diminishing of the influence of parliament that began with Trudeau's premiership. Thus, Harper is not the only person to shut down democracy (to employ the left's hyperbole), but he may be the one who went too far too fast, or is merely a victim of circumstance having done it at the unforeseen tipping point, and people are now waking up to and becoming concerned with the Prime Minister's steady presidentialisation, each successive one governing less with influence of parliament and the Cabinet, and more with a court of hand-picked sycophants in the PMO, undermining the very meaning of responsible government. Of course, the opposition is still empowered to vote non-confidence in the ministry and bring it down; so, the wails of Harper as the new Attila the Hun are nothing but blubbering over-exaggeration. But, the question is, if nobody speaks out about these uses of the Royal Prerogative to dissolve and prorogue the house, won't the next PM just continue the steady accumulation of power back to the executive, undoing what has been done since Charles I tried the same?

g_bambino · January 28, 2010

Not once did I claim that the person was a racist.

People who make racist jokes are racist by definition, no?

cybercoma · January 28, 2010

Not necessarily.

DrGreenthumb · January 28, 2010

I don't think the joke was racist at all, and if that is really the reason he got fired that is all kinds of bullshit. I kinda doubt that is the full story though. I'd like to see the job postings that said "no white males need apply" before I believe that though. I did try to apply to the RCMP when Mulroney was Prime Minister and was told that they were only hiring women, french, and visible minorities. That was in MB so I doubt that Rae was to blame. I don't think that was ever OFFICIALLY a policy, it wouldn't be found in writing anywhere I'll bet. I have to admit that I have felt discriminated against at times for being a white male, when it comes to applying for government, or crown corporation jobs. When I applied for a Hydro job years ago I went through all the interviews, met all the qualifications, finished Hydro boot camp, and while I was waiting to hear back I found out that all the positions had been given to natives from a northern reserve. Hydro had to actually pay all of these candidates to go back to school and get their math and physics qualifications, that I already had, so that they could meet the qualifications.

So while I agree with the idea behind affirmative action initiatives, I can also identify with the people who feel they have been wronged by the programs.

The problem with these types of programs is that they assume that two wrongs make a right. Because past generations discriminated against women and minorities it is somehow deemed ok for this generation to discriminate against white males as some sort of payback.

None of this excuses suspending democracy and this topic should probably have its own thread, instead of causing this thread to drift away from the topic of Harper's undemocratic attack on our democracy.

myata · January 28, 2010

The GG has a number of powers that could potentially interfere with Parliament. Much greater, in theory at least, is the power to refuse assent. It's only happened in modern times in Westminster parliaments a handful of times (actually two that I know of; the aforementioned refusal of assent by the Queen of legislation in the British parliament that would have transferred a Royal Prerogative to the legislature, and the refusal of assent to some pretty awful anti-free press legislation by the Alberta Social Credit government by the Lieutenant Governor back in the 1930s).

If you insist on quoting the political experiences of a foreign country for substantiation of events, here supposedly independent and fully sovereign in our affairs. But anyways, thanks for admitting quite obvious, that our political system gives enourmously unbalanced advantage to the executive power, with the one and only (as the recent events in the Parliament has clearly demonstrated) check, in the form of non confidence/electon.

Of course, there's absolutely no surprise in that as I already explained that the system has been historically created to give any sort of advantage to the government of the "Sovereign", and as you yourself aptly pointed out, it, the former, is quite reluctant to give any of it back.

Ironically (if it wasn't so sad of course), even our newest developments emulate and propagate that pattern. E.g now we have fixed election dates (before the government of Their Majesties could pick one to the best of their advantage), except when the government of their Majesties would like to have on a day that gives them the best of advantage.

Your outrage is incredibly lopsided. Your angry about prorogation, which is probably a lesser of the Reserve Powers, but have nothing to say on potentially more wide-reaching Reserve Powers.

Well it's not because it's only lopsided in your interpretation. I said and not so far back, the quote shouldn't be too hard to find, that I'd like to see the removal or maximum limitation of all undemocratic instruments. Trusting your good knowledge of the system I fully believe (and expect) that prorogation would only be one of such instruments.

The 2008 prorogation was a bad thing for accountability, I won't deny it. Confidence is a key check on government.

Let's ask ourselves though, should it be the only meaningful check? In the light of Harper's government acts (on detainees issue, independent watchdogs - RCMP, AECL) it's hard to argue otherwise. Wouldn't it be fairer, i.e. closer to the actual reality of things to rename our system as "executive democracy", in which the Government is supreme, and the Parliament is subservient to it executing its legislative agenda?

At the same time, you have already voiced your notion that an election was not necessary, that the Coalition could just have stepped in. You seem to want Parliament to work in a way that makes results you deem desirable more likely.

What makes you think that? I already said (and probably three is as far as I will go) that I want a clear and transparent set of rules for each branch of power to operate within its domain and not interfere with the work of other branches. While the government has support in the Legislature, it should be able to govern. If it's lost confidence, it must go away without causing a major upheaval for the country in the form of two elections in as many months. I said it already and will say it one last time that the need (assumed, implied and actual) to call an election every time government loses confidence is 1) a major obstacle to open and unimpeded expession of democratic will - that is because opposition voting no confidence has to think about it, for all practical sense, as voting for an election; and 2) very clear indication that it's the Government, and not the Parliament that is supreme in this system, in real and practical sense. That hasn't really changed since the times of Charles 1, no matter what the book says.

At any rate, the 2008 prorogation lasted just over a month, but the Opposition coalition, which already had spokes falling off the wheel before Harper visited Rideau Hall, was completely dead by the time Parliament reconvened. And this is the Coalition that people like you seem to insist was better than the Harper government.

It may seem to you, but no I do not insist on anything like that. I insist only on clear, transparent and democratic rules to decide who gets to govern this country. We might have had a week government (or not, there's no way of telling that for sure). What we got instead is a demonstration of supremacy of executive power representing a minority of the Parliament. And maybe for the best, but not in the sense you mean it. It appears that the system is finally driving itself to the logical absurd end, and to me it points at a possibility of a meaningful change couple of generations down the road, one must remain hopeful after all.

If Parliament wanted to take Harper out since that prorogation, they have had plenty of opportunities. I wish they had of. They're as guilty of limiting Parliament's role as he is.

I know and I fully agree. And I think it may not be a coincidence, but related to my previous comment about this system driving itself into the absurd dead end. I'll attempt to elaborate on that at some later time.

You keep saying this, but it keeps turning out that you have little notion of what you intend by "modern and responsible" democracy. From what I can tell, you want a government that is effectively emasculated, at least in minority. How you propose to fix shortcomings when a government has a majority is missing. That's largely because I don't think you really give that much of a damn. You were obviously a supporter of the coalition, and angry that Harper outmaneuvered them.

No, I'd like to see more checks on majority governments also and I stated it a number of times which you must have missed. I asked for open access to information, that would apply regardless of majority situation. I asked for removal of undemocratic powers, privileges and "prerogatives" allowing executive power to interfere with the work of the Parliament. I asked for truly independent (i.e appointed by the Parliament with full public review) independent watchdogs. And finally, I'll add that I'm not at all against some form of more proportional representation.

So why didn't the majority take Harper out in January 2009? I mean, every new session of Parliament has to open with a Speech from the Throne, and Iggy and Co. could have blown Harper out of the water right then and there.

Here's two reasons I can think of:

1) Internal politics in the opposition, most importantly, Liberal party.

2) Reluctance to call and election, that could not at all excluded in the system we have, with an immediate blame being assigned to Opposition for causing it.

I already said that #2 is a major obstacle to a responsible democratic process, and in essense, nothing else but another instrument for a government to hold on to the power, as I said, till at all possible, and then some.

That unelected official has two choices; call an election or ask someone else to form Parliament. That hardly resembles some sort of vast undemocratic conspiracy against Parliament.

No, not a "conspiracy" but an impediment and obstacle to the responsible democratic process playing nearly always to the benefit of the government in power. I can't see any logical need for it, other than to enforce the government's hold on power. You had your turn in power; you screwed up; you're out; next. Only when there's no viable contenders to form the government, an election is called.

The status quo means only one thing: the Parliament is there for the government, it comes and goes with it. Hardly "supremacy" except in a flattering word that has little to do with reality.

Now hold on a minute here. You can't blame the GG, Harper or anyone else for the short memory spans of voters.

No, I'm not going to do anything like that. The problem is in our system that is desperately out of date with the realities of modern democracy, and it has to be fixed right there.

That demonstrates just how little you know about our system. In the olden days, MPs were considerably more vocal when the government went awry of Parliament's will. Heck, in Britain in the last two decades there have been at least three attempts (one successful, two unsuccessful) by a governing party's MPs to unseat a leader. The flaw is not in the system, the flaw is in MPs and the electorate.

See my comment above. It may be that the system is playing itself out near its logical end. In the world with highly fractured interests and opinions, with realities changing quickly and demanding fast and efficient response, two monster parties that are concerned with little else than their mandate to govern (or kick the opponent) are more and more resembling the fossils of politics, rather than active and efficient instruments of it.

I never defended anything on the basis of simply existing. But our system isn't the weak-kneed anti-democratic institution you make it out to be.

You'd be able to prove it, then. Let's start with meaningful checks and balances.

What often seems to be is the electorate itself.

It's easier to change the system (books, laws etc) than the "electorate" so why dont' we start with it?

ToadBrother · January 28, 2010

If you insist on quoting the political experiences of a foreign country for substantiation of events, here supposedly independent and fully sovereign in our affairs.

It's usually relevant where the systems are similar. While not identical in every detail, Canada and the UK share a considerable amount (including a number of similar Reserve Powers, after all, we have the same Queen).

But anyways, thanks for admitting quite obvious, that our political system gives enourmously unbalanced advantage to the executive power, with the one and only (as the recent events in the Parliament has clearly demonstrated) check, in the form of non confidence/electon.

The Opposition could still have voted no confidence, and still could. Bringing down a government is a pretty damned big check on its powers (at least in a minority).

Of course, there's absolutely no surprise in that as I already explained that the system has been historically created to give any sort of advantage to the government of the "Sovereign", and as you yourself aptly pointed out, it, the former, is quite reluctant to give any of it back.

Surely you will admit that in our kind of system, having the government gaining some sort of a limited advantage is not completely bad. I'd prefer it to the kind of horse trading you see in the American system, with its predilection for vast omnibus bills with every manner of pork glued on for good measure.

Ironically (if it wasn't so sad of course), even our newest developments emulate and propagate that pattern. E.g now we have fixed election dates (before the government of Their Majesties could pick one to the best of their advantage), except when the government of their Majesties would like to have on a day that gives them the best of advantage.

The experience here in BC is that fixed election dates merely make elections longer. I used to think it was a great idea, now I just see it as entrenching an entire quarter of a government's term spent trying to buy my vote. How exactly that differs from a government being able to call an election at its pleasure has eluded me.

Well it's not because it's only lopsided in your interpretation. I said and not so far back, the quote shouldn't be too hard to find, that I'd like to see the removal or maximum limitation of all undemocratic instruments. Trusting your good knowledge of the system I fully believe (and expect) that prorogation would only be one of such instruments.

So what exactly would you replace it with? I mean, for most of our history, we've had majorities, so it's hard to justify calling it "anti-democratic" for about 99% of our Parliament's history.

Let's ask ourselves though, should it be the only meaningful check?

Why not? I'll wager Americans wish they had a way to bring down a president mid-term.

In the light of Harper's government acts (on detainees issue, independent watchdogs - RCMP, AECL) it's hard to argue otherwise. Wouldn't it be fairer, i.e. closer to the actual reality of things to rename our system as "executive democracy", in which the Government is supreme, and the Parliament is subservient to it executing its legislative agenda?

But Parliament can still boot out a government. If a government were truly supreme, it would be invulnerable. Again, you're blaming the system when you should be blaming cowardly, poll-gazing opposition parties.

What makes you think that? I already said (and probably three is as far as I will go) that I want a clear and transparent set of rules for each branch of power to operate within its domain and not interfere with the work of other branches. While the government has support in the Legislature, it should be able to govern. If it's lost confidence, it must go away without causing a major upheaval for the country in the form of two elections in as many months.

You see, it's not that you don't want governments to fall, you just want your outcome to be the only one. You don't want a more democratic institution, you simply want one that appeals to your emotional attachment to the coalition.

I said it already and will say it one last time that the need (assumed, implied and actual) to call an election every time government loses confidence is 1) a major obstacle to open and unimpeded expession of democratic will - that is because opposition voting no confidence has to think about it, for all practical sense, as voting for an election;

Elections are impediments to democratic will?

and 2) very clear indication that it's the Government, and not the Parliament that is supreme in this system, in real and practical sense. That hasn't really changed since the times of Charles 1, no matter what the book says.

The Opposition's opportunities to bring down the government and present its coalition were many of the last 12 months, except for the problem that the coalition collapsed.

It may seem to you, but no I do not insist on anything like that. I insist only on clear, transparent and democratic rules to decide who gets to govern this country.

The rules are for the most part perfectly clear. A government falls, if another party or group of parties can form a government, they get the chance. If not, we got to an election.

We might have had a week government (or not, there's no way of telling that for sure). What we got instead is a demonstration of supremacy of executive power representing a minority of the Parliament.

Actually, for the most part, up until the summer, the Liberals basically owned the Conservatives. The Liberals failures and weakening came because Iggy made some tactical blunders (like announcing that every day he was going to bring down the government). The interference came later in the year, and largely seems to have revolved around the Afghan prisoner issue. And I'm no fan of prorogation used for that purpose, though neither am I fan of investigations that appear to be nothing more than leading questions, since no one actually seems to believe Canadian soldiers abused anybody. Still, I support Parliament's right, even if wrong-headed, to compel the government of the day.

And maybe for the best, but not in the sense you mean it. It appears that the system is finally driving itself to the logical absurd end, and to me it points at a possibility of a meaningful change couple of generations down the road, one must remain hopeful after all.

The system has survived upheavals far greater than the one here. You really need to crack open the history books, my friend.

I know and I fully agree. And I think it may not be a coincidence, but related to my previous comment about this system driving itself into the absurd dead end. I'll attempt to elaborate on that at some later time.

No, I'd like to see more checks on majority governments also and I stated it a number of times which you must have missed. I asked for open access to information, that would apply regardless of majority situation. I asked for removal of undemocratic powers, privileges and "prerogatives" allowing executive power to interfere with the work of the Parliament. I asked for truly independent (i.e appointed by the Parliament with full public review) independent watchdogs. And finally, I'll add that I'm not at all against some form of more proportional representation.

I'm sorry, how do you remove executive privileges from a majority government?

Here's two reasons I can think of:

1) Internal politics in the opposition, most importantly, Liberal party.

2) Reluctance to call and election, that could not at all excluded in the system we have, with an immediate blame being assigned to Opposition for causing it.

I already said that #2 is a major obstacle to a responsible democratic process, and in essense, nothing else but another instrument for a government to hold on to the power, as I said, till at all possible, and then some.

And we're back to "elections are bad for democracy".

No, not a "conspiracy" but an impediment and obstacle to the responsible democratic process playing nearly always to the benefit of the government in power. I can't see any logical need for it, other than to enforce the government's hold on power. You had your turn in power; you screwed up; you're out; next. Only when there's no viable contenders to form the government, an election is called.

And that's the way it would work, and probably still could work, but Iggy clearly has little interested in getting chummy with the NDP and Bloc, and wants a majority government. Your coalition didn't die because of Harper, prorogation or anti-democratic institutions, it died because a lot of Liberal MPs hated the idea. That suggests that it was a pretty weak plan.

The status quo means only one thing: the Parliament is there for the government, it comes and goes with it. Hardly "supremacy" except in a flattering word that has little to do with reality.

The opportunities to bring down the government are many. It's still possible that Iggy could be tapped to form PM, though considering the Liberal seat count and the lack of even an informal coalition, it seems unlikely.

No, I'm not going to do anything like that. The problem is in our system that is desperately out of date with the realities of modern democracy, and it has to be fixed right there.

You keep saying this, but other than moaning about prorogation, you never actually demonstrate it. You can't even really define "modern democracy". How is our democracy any less modern than say, any other? I want examples here, not nebulous claims.

See my comment above. It may be that the system is playing itself out near its logical end.

History suggests otherwise.

In the world with highly fractured interests and opinions, with realities changing quickly and demanding fast and efficient response, two monster parties that are concerned with little else than their mandate to govern (or kick the opponent) are more and more resembling the fossils of politics, rather than active and efficient instruments of it.

So your problem is with political parties? That has precious little to do with the way Parliament functions.

You'd be able to prove it, then. Let's start with meaningful checks and balances.

Like toppling government.

It's easier to change the system (books, laws etc) than the "electorate" so why dont' we start with it?

But if you don't get people to the voting booth, change is pointless.

ToadBrother · January 28, 2010

It is not difficult to establish that since confederation, Canada’s parliament has been prorogued 118 times. From confederation to the end of WW-II, Prime Ministers employed prorogation 80 times or an average of once every 1.3 years.

From the end of WW-II to the present, Prime ministers have employed proroguing 38 times, or an average of once every 1.7 years. The record by Prime Minister is:

Mackenzie King - 4

St. Laurent - 11

Diefenbaker - 4

Pearson - 3

Trudeau - 7

Mulroney - 3

Chretien - 4

Harper – 2

Those who contend that Harper’s proroguing is unique or that we need to curb the use of proroguing are ignorant of our institutions, history and of the sound reasons to employ prorogation. The current hysteria is irrational and pathetic.

You astroturfers are incredibly annoying. At any rate, I openly challenge you to point out how many of those were prorogations used to evade a confidence motion.

g_bambino · January 28, 2010

Of course, there's absolutely no surprise in that as I already explained that the system has been historically created to give any sort of advantage to the government of the "Sovereign", and as you yourself aptly pointed out, it, the former, is quite reluctant to give any of it back.

Surely you must be joking. It's a sad statement on the quality of education in this country if you've grown up to believe such a thing, seeing as you'd need to be completely ignorant of constitutional development since at least the Glorious Revolution, if not back to the Magna Carta, to formulate the thought.

Quite the opposite to what you say, the system has evolved over centuries by gradually detatching the monarch from direct governance and placing that job with a council of ministers accountable to a body of legislators elected by the populace; you know, responsible government, and all that? Ever heard of it?

I don't think anyone here has denied that there's been a notable reversal of the trend in this country in recent decades, with successive changes weakening parliament's ability to keep the prime minister accountable for the advice he tenders to the sovereign - hence, TB has been consistently referring to Charles I, who triggered the Glorious Revolution in the first place. But, to say the system is at fault for this is ignorant exaggeration. A weak opposition and internal party policies imported from foreign orders are two very obvious things to blame; the system functioned perfectly fine before they were introduced.

I'd like to see the removal or maximum limitation of all undemocratic instruments. Trusting your good knowledge of the system I fully believe (and expect) that prorogation would only be one of such instruments.

Thanks for the proof that my earlier statement, about you wanting an unfettered legislature, was accurate.

capricorn · January 28, 2010

But anyways, thanks for admitting quite obvious, that our political system gives enourmously unbalanced advantage to the executive power, with the one and only (as the recent events in the Parliament has clearly demonstrated) check, in the form of non confidence/electon.

Wrong. Non confidence and elections are not the only check in the system. One of the GG's reserve powers is to dismiss the Prime Minister.

As the Constitution Act, 1867, vests all executive power in Canada in the nation's sovereign,[6] the reserve powers belong to that figure. However, the same act mandates some powers specifically to the Governor General, and King George VI in 1947 issued letters patent permitting the Governor General of Canada "to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us [the King] in respect of Canada."[7] The reserve power of dismissal has never been used in Canada, although other reserve powers have been used to force the Prime Minister to resign on two occasions: The first took place in 1896, when Prime Minister Charles Tupper refused to resign after losing the 1896 election, leading Governor General The Earl of Aberdeen to no longer recognize Tupper as the Prime Minister, disapproving of several appointments Tupper had recommended. On the second occasion, known as the King-Byng Affair, in 1925 The Viscount Byng of Vimy refused to dissolve the new parliament after his prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, looking to avoid an upcoming non-confidence motion, had advised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power#Canada

Edited January 28, 2010 by capricorn

g_bambino · January 28, 2010

Non confidence and elections are not the only check in the system. One of the GG's reserve powers is to dismiss the Prime Minister.

Ah, but myata will simply dismiss that as irrelevant because the Governor General is a figure from the age of mediæval dinosaurs (just like the use of typographic ligatures, no doubt), an appointee of the government, and monarchy has no place in a "modern" "21st century" democracy. (Don't expect an explanation as to why, though.)

[c/e]

Edited January 28, 2010 by g_bambino

myata · January 28, 2010

Wrong. Non confidence and elections are not the only check in the system. One of the GG's reserve powers is to dismiss the Prime Minister.

Cool. Yes I see, if a Prime Minister refuses to honour the results of an election we would only have the GG (or Their Majesties themselves) as the last hope for our democracy. There's why we need all those prerogatives, powers, bells and whistles from the ages of Abraham, Moses and dinosaurs.

g_bambino · January 28, 2010

Yes I see, if a Prime Minister refuses to honour the results of an election we would only have the GG (or Their Majesties themselves) as the last hope for our democracy. There's why we need all those prerogatives, powers, bells and whistles from the ages of Abraham, Moses and dinosaurs.

See! :lol: Exactly as predicted.

Ah well, despite the tone of mockery, at least you're 100% correct.

ToadBrother · January 28, 2010

Cool. Yes I see, if a Prime Minister refuses to honour the results of an election we would only have the GG (or Their Majesties themselves) as the last hope for our democracy. There's why we need all those prerogatives, powers, bells and whistles from the ages of Abraham, Moses and dinosaurs.

The only time I'm aware a Prime Minister refused to step down was Charles Tupper in 1896:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tupper#Prime_Minister_of_Canada.2C_May-July_1896

And guess what, the GG dismissed him.

Translation: The system works.

myata · January 28, 2010

Ah well, despite the tone of mockery, at least you're 100% correct.

Thanks. I think it also makes me correct in the earlier observation that by keeping this system we're making our own democratic institutes less relevant (because they are assumed either incapable of addressing this kind of crisis, or could not be trusted with such task).

Hence, must enter Their Majesty.

To save us - from ourlselves.

As in the good old times.

Amen.

bjre · January 28, 2010

Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN? Why do they want to run and what are they hiding?
Poll: Government accountability and transparency check (39 member(s) have cast votes)

Will Harper try to prorogue parliament again to avoid questioning of his government on Afghan detainees

Should Harper be allowed to prorogue parliament every time his government gets itself in hot water?

Is that so important?

If parliament not prorogued what else can they do?

Just for replace Harper with another similar one?

Any problem can be solved?

Economy can rise faster or army in Afghanistan can be back sooner?

I can not expect difference except for meaningless daily quarrels.

g_bambino · January 28, 2010

I think it also makes me correct in the earlier observation that by keeping this system we're making our own democratic institutes less relevant (because they are assumed either incapable of addressing this kind of crisis, or could not be trusted with such task).

It's difficult to understand how you come to think so when one's left wondering how you separate "our own" democratic institutions from "this system"; they are one and the same thing, not "our own" because every part of it was transported here by our British and French forbearers, but "our own" in that it is now completely under our stewardship.

All democracies have similar elements in a system akin to ours; you may object to monarchy and prefer a republic on other grounds (another debate all-together), but the end result will still be a parliamentary system with three main branches indented to keep each other in check. None has an uncontrolled legislature; which means you must believe all democracies are total failures. As I said: difficult to understand.

[c/e]

Edited January 28, 2010 by g_bambino

ToadBrother · January 28, 2010

Andrew Coyne has me almost sold that alterations to prorogation may in fact be constitutional:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/26/a-caroline-precedent/

To crib the larger part of the blog entry (which Coyne cribbed himself):

An Act to prevent inconveniences which may happen by the untimely adjourning proroguing or dissolving of this present Parliament, May 10, 1641. 17 Car. I. cap. 7. Statutes of the Realm, Vol. 103

Whereas great sums of money must of necessity be speedily advanced and provided for the relief of His Majesty’s army and people in the northern parts of this realm, and for preventing the imminent danger it is in, and for supply of other His Majesty’s present and urgent occasions, which cannot be so timely effected as is requisite without credit for raising the laid monies; which credit cannot be obtained until such obstacles be first removed as are occasioned by fears, jealousies and apprehensions of divers His Majesty’s loyal subjects, that this present Parliament may be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved, before justice shall be duly executed upon delinquents, public grievances redressed, a firm peace between the two nations of England and Scotland concluded, and before sufficient provision be made for the re-payment of the said monies so to be raised; all which the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, having duly considered, do therefore most humbly beseech your Majesty that it may be declared and enacted.

And be it declared and enacted by the King, our Sovereign Lord, with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that this present Parliament now assembled shall not be dissolved unless it be by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose; nor shall be, at any time or times, during the continuance thereof, prorogued or adjourned, unless it be by Act of Parliament to be likewise passed for that purpose; and that the House of Peers shall not at any time or times during this present Parliament be adjourned, unless it be by themselves or by their own order; and in like manner, that the House of Commons shall not, at any time or times, during this present Parliament, be adjourned, unless it be by themselves or by their own order; and that all and every thing or things whatsoever done, or to be done for the adjournment, proroguing, or dissolving of this present Parliament, contrary to this Act, shall be utterly void and of none effect.

This is likely one of the constitutional precedents for the notion that the Sovereign can only act on the advice of Parliament, but still, it does demonstrate in its own right that the precedent to alter or revise the advisory capacity is there.

jbg · January 29, 2010

However, there is a kind of "straw that broke the camel's back" element to the present situation; dissolutions have for some time been an implement for political gain, and now it seems we're to add prorogations to the politicking tool box, as well, all of which adds to the gradual diminishing of the influence of parliament that began with Trudeau's premiership.

It appears from WestViking's statistics that St. Laurent prorogued around 11 times in 8 years. Given that those were majority governments I wonder what was going on.

But, the question is, if nobody speaks out about these uses of the Royal Prerogative to dissolve and prorogue the house, won't the next PM just continue the steady accumulation of power back to the executive, undoing what has been done since Charles I tried the same?

I wouldn't want a PM to go out of his head the way Charles did. Edited January 29, 2010 by jbg

jbg · January 29, 2010

You astroturfers are incredibly annoying. At any rate, I openly challenge you to point out how many of those were prorogations used to evade a confidence motion.

What's an "astroturfer"? From what little I can tell WV is an excellent poster.

As far as the motive sfor prorogations what about such events when designed to push off investigations?

WestViking · January 29, 2010

You astroturfers are incredibly annoying. At any rate, I openly challenge you to point out how many of those were prorogations used to evade a confidence motion.

None - zero. Take that to the bank, pal. It never happened. The troika threatened a non-confidence vote, and had they been serious, nothing could have stopped them when parliament next sat at the end of January. The LPC made Dion walk the plank rather then make good the non-confidence threat. Try again with some real sense of what happened. The infamous troika folded like a cardboard suitcase in a monsoon. The truth is tiresome when it does not support your contentions.

Edited January 29, 2010 by WestViking

Wilber · January 29, 2010

It appears from WestViking's statistics that St. Laurent prorogued around 11 times in 8 years. Given that those were majority governments I wonder what was going on.

I wouldn't want a PM to go out of his head the way Charles did.

The intent of prorogation is to end a session once all the business contained in the throne speech has been completed. In this respect it is perfectly legitimate. Why have Parliament sitting around doing basically nothing? The real question should not be how many times prorogation has been used but how many times it has been used for reasons other than it was intended.

WestViking · January 29, 2010

The intent of prorogation is to end a session once all the business contained in the throne speech has been completed. In this respect it is perfectly legitimate. Why have Parliament sitting around doing basically nothing? The real question should not be how many times prorogation has been used but how many times it has been used for reasons other than it was intended.

There is a bit more to it than that. As a parliament wears on, it tends to lose focus as events and a pesky opposition raise issues not covered in a throne speech. Prorogation can be used to refocus the government efforts when they have become scattered. Minority governments tend to bog down after while and everyone takes an entrenched position with gridlock as a result. A proprogation provides an opportunity for a fresh start.

g_bambino · January 29, 2010

It appears from WestViking's statistics that St. Laurent prorogued around 11 times in 8 years. Given that those were majority governments I wonder what was going on.

Prorogations have being going on for centuries; they're a regular part of parliament's operation. I can't say, though, whether St. Laurent ever advised prorogation for personal gain or merely always because the legislative agendas were finished. St. Laurent doesn't appear to have had any scandals to avoid.

Self-serving prorogations, however, are merely a symptom of the bigger problem of the growing imbalance in the PMO-parliament relationship that started back when Trudeau rendered his backbench MPs as what he called "trained seals".