Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

ToadBrother · February 2, 2010

"More compatible with the declared principles of responsible democracy" would be a better word. Surely, leaving a back door way for the government to interfere with pretty much every aspect of political system cannot be credibly argued to be a model of modern and functional democracy (with checks, balances and meaningful division of powers).

None else but our current PM has shown us all right here and now that thanks to these instruments he can stiffle debates, shut down the issues, shut down the Parliament itself, call elections anytime he feels like it, and by some indications, could shoot down the laws he doesn't like too. All this much without even having to bother with winning a majority support in the Parliament.

Would that state of affairs be closer to a "true" democracy, in your view?

It works, for the most part. Any system can be "gamed", as the con men will tell you. As I have frequently pointed out to you, the Government has far greater powers than prorogation. It's control of the legislative agenda and calendar gives it an enormous edge. Opposition and backbencher bills are far more difficult to get on the agenda than Government bills. I don't exactly see you crying tears for that. You seem oddly obsessed with events of sufficient rarity, when the Government's powers over legislation are far greater.

At any rate, we've already established that the chief reason the Constitution doesn't get amended is in part because no one actually wants to do it, and in part because, despite all your protestations about the archaic nature of our Constitution, it's the modern aspects entrenched in the Constitution Act, 1982, which make the Constitution far more difficult to change. I think, if you actually understood the history of Parliament and what happened after the Glorious Revolution, you would probably pine for the days of William and Mary and the Hanoverian Dynasty, when a constitutional change was as simple as a majority in Parliament, and where the leading figures in the House of Commons found the title of Prime Minister somewhat distasteful, and where political parties as we know them didn't properly exist, and alliances were often shifting affairs.

Wild Bill · February 2, 2010

Also, it's not that we shouldn't TRY to ammend the documnet, but the question I ask is what is worth the attempt? You can't just go out and change the constitution for the sake of changing the constitution. What ammendment to the BNA document is so important for the vitality of Canada?

You really should get out more. Have you read nothing about things like the National Energy Policy or the Crow Rate? Do you have any idea WHY people in less powerful regions of the country can often be so bitter?

A Triple E Senate would have protected them many times in our history. Instead, we had the game always rigged so that farmers out west received low prices for their grain and were forbidden to set up flour mills, so that Central Canada could make high profits for shipping the grain east and doing the milling themselves, then selling the flour back to the farmers.

Nova Scotia was originally one of the richest parts of the country, due to Halifax harbour being the main port for goods from Europe. Opening the St. Laurence Seaway completely changed all that, making the Maritimes into a havenot backwater. While the Seaway may have been a good thing for the country as a whole, perhaps if there had been a real Senate something could have been worked out that was good for both the Atlantic provinces and Ontario/Quebec.

B.C. has had its share of injustices over the years as well. If you read up on this stuff you start to wonder why they've bothered staying in Canada! Maybe its because they've been too poor to leave! Too many folks need the EI and the welfare.

Historically, all the wealth has been favoured to Central Canada. Why do you think that we still don't have the electrical transmission lines for Manitoba to feed into Ontario? There was no problem having them built to set Quebec up as a supplier. Why isn't there big natural gas pipelines running from the west to the east?

During the National Energy Policy, we paid world price for oil for Central Canada and subsidized it down to something much lower. However, Ottawa refused to allow Alberta the same world price for its oil! They were given the ridiculously low subsidized price. In effect, Ottawa cared more for Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Libya than they cared for one of our own provinces.

We've desperately needed a real Upper House to protect regional interests ever since Confederation. Now it seems some recognize that it might happen so they would rather just eliminate the Senate instead. This would ensure that Central Canada would FOREVER call the shots!

The unmitigated arrogance of such an attitude is truly mind-boggling! It's a classic case of "I'm alright, Jack! Who cares about you?"

Smallc · February 2, 2010

Historically, all the wealth has been favoured to Central Canada.

What a bunch of bs.

ToadBrother · February 2, 2010

What a bunch of bs.

But it's this kind of sentiment, or versions of it in the different regions, that leads to the stalemate where we can do nothing. The institutions remain frozen not because of two solitudes, but because of four or five.

We should probably be thankful we're not Belgium, which took a year to form a government, such is the extent of the distrust between the Flemish and the Walloons.

Edited February 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

myata · February 3, 2010

It works, for the most part.

"Worked", you mean? Because if my calendar is telling me right, it's 3rd of February and there's no Parliament in operation, no legistlation, or accountability. What "works" at the moment is the government out of any control, checks or responsibilities.

Any system can be "gamed", as the con men will tell you.

With an implied conclusion that in any state of affairs no improvement is necessary, or useful or possible?

As I have frequently pointed out to you, the Government has far greater powers than prorogation. It's control of the legislative agenda and calendar gives it an enormous edge. Opposition and backbencher bills are far more difficult to get on the agenda than Government bills. I don't exactly see you crying tears for that. You seem oddly obsessed with events of sufficient rarity, when the Government's powers over legislation are far greater.

No, I'm not obssessed, but these are the most obvious, egregious examples of our system allowing the government to operate out of any meaningful bounds that come without saying in any responsible democracy. Obviously, we have to start (modernizing the system) somewhere, and wouldn't removing the most outrageous priveleges offending the very notion of independence of democratic institutions and division of powers be the perfect candidate for the change?

At any rate, we've already established that the chief reason the Constitution doesn't get amended is in part because no one actually wants to do it,

If it was due to conscious desire to refrain from changing things and leave the system as is, I would be fine with that, as long as being honest with ourselves we'd rename our political system to "executive democracy". Because, as demostrated by our present government beyond all doubts and arguments, that would be a much closer term to what the system is in reality and practice.

But could it also be, that "nobody" wants to change it because the process of change is impractical to near impossibility, see below

and in part because, despite all your protestations about the archaic nature of our Constitution, it's the modern aspects entrenched in the Constitution Act, 1982, which make the Constitution far more difficult to change.

OK, a generation back we have come with something that is impractical and does not work. So, do we smoke a pipe about that and go back to sleep? Or attempt to do something?

I think, if you actually understood the history of Parliament and what happened after the Glorious Revolution, you would probably pine for the days of William and Mary and the Hanoverian Dynasty, when a constitutional change was as simple as a majority in Parliament, and where the leading figures in the House of Commons found the title of Prime Minister somewhat distasteful, and where political parties as we know them didn't properly exist, and alliances were often shifting affairs.

Thanks, it's very interesting and educational. Now, if only you could share a (practical) way to back in time to those glorious days..

myata · February 3, 2010

TB, what would be the point of bringing in all the hystory, I mean how it would help us to fix and improve our political system here and now? The unqualified executive priveleges inherited from 17th centrury are wrong in a modern democracy, just as much as the amendment formula that cannot amend anything for all practical means.

If we are to believe that we make the system to serve our society, smoking a pipe and going to sleep in the hope that things will get better in the morning is not an option. We'll have to try ways, solutions and approaches to make things work and fix the system for the better.

If we're still back in the colonial mindset, it's made this way by the King across the sea and there's nothing we can do about back - then yes, just too bad.

g_bambino · February 3, 2010

True enough, and I'm not proposing getting rid of amending formulas (the BNA Act had them), but the Constitution Act, 1982 really seems to have completely entrenched the status quo.

That makes me wonder, though: is it the amending formula that cements the status quo, or is it the nature of the federation that does. Consider, for instance, if the same equation was used for altering the constitution of a country like New Zealand. It would present no difficulty, I imagine. The problem arises when multiple parties are involved in the decision making process; however, as I mentioned before, is it not better to demand the participation of all or most of them rather than have many of them feel slighted by one or two?

My larger point is that Myata rails against the Constitution for all those bits that are supposedly archaic and undemocratic, and yet it is the modern parts of the Constitution that in fact create the largest obstacles to change. It is rather irrelevant, myata seems to have precious little interest in reality, and just wants a free ride for changes that, from what I can tell, have the singular aspect of assuring that the now long-dead Coalition could have taken over with a minimum of difficulty... I think to maintain that key check on a government's power, Parliament needs to have the unhindered capacity to test its confidence. But it needs to be done properly.

Yes, he does seem to have a penchant for using the word "democracy" to palatably disguise a construct that's really only intended to give the present opposition an advantage over this specific government. Nuanced comprehension be damned, all that matters is knee-jerk emotionalism. I agree there are issues with Harper's recent use of his right to advise prorogation, but it alone is not what puts our democracy in peril. That myata chooses to ignore the other elements of the wider scope demonstrates that his main concern isn't democracy at all.

myata · February 3, 2010

Yes, he does seem to have a penchant for using the word "democracy" to palatably disguise a construct that's really only intended to give the present opposition an advantage over this specific government. Nuanced comprehension be damned, all that matters is knee-jerk emotionalism. I agree there are issues with Harper's recent use of his right to advise prorogation, but it alone is not what puts our democracy in peril

What is, then? And if "alone" it does not (put it in danger), does it mean that it shouldn't be fixed - so that next time if and when actually combinded with something else, it actually could (put it in danger)?

That myata chooses to ignore the other elements of the wider scope demonstrates that his main concern isn't democracy at all.

Of course, I cannot prove nor elaborate any of the above in a direct argument with the poster, so I just prefer these innocent comments about that poster, giving me that feel of victory and superiority I simply cannot achieve in the dispute (for obvious, already mentioned reasons).

Edited February 3, 2010 by myata

g_bambino · February 3, 2010

Surely, leaving a back door way for the government to interfere with pretty much every aspect of political system cannot be credibly argued to be a model of modern and functional democracy (with checks, balances and meaningful division of powers).

When every other branch can do the same to the government: yes it can.

g_bambino · February 3, 2010

What is, then? And if "alone" it does not (put it in danger), does it mean that it shouldn't be fixed?

I've already said about 73 times that the way our political parties select their leaders is one of the things most poisonous to our parliamentary democracy, leaving, as it does, MPs without spines. Once that relatively new intrusion was dispensed with, then one could look at any potential issues with the PM's ability to advise prorogations of parliament (though, as TB has pointed out about 74 times, it only ever seems to become a problem in a minority situation wherein the opposition doesn't have the balls to hold the government accountable).

[+]

Edited February 3, 2010 by g_bambino

myata · February 3, 2010

I've already said about 73 times that the way our political parties select their leaders is one of the things most poisonous to our parliamentary democracy, leaving, as it does, MPs without spines. Once that relatively new intrusion was dispensed with,

How is it going to be "dispensed with" though? Did you forget to elaborate? Should we legislate the way political parties elect their leaders? Or maybe make it mandatory for all MPs to have "spines"?

All before addressing that minor and insignificant issue that in our proud and superior version of democracy, ...

then one could look at any potential issues with the PM's ability to advise prorogations of parliament (though, as TB has pointed out about 74 times, it only ever seems to become a problem in a minority situation wherein the opposition doesn't have the balls to hold the government accountable).

[+]

correct, any PM, whether in minority or majority situation can simply pick up the phone and 1) kill any proposed legislation they don't like; 2) shut down the Parliament for as long as they like; 3) avoid an election they don't like, or call one whenever they like. Not to mention real triffles like refusing access to information to our elected representatives, obstructing the work of Parliament or firing "independent" watchdogs.

ToadBrother · February 3, 2010

TB, what would be the point of bringing in all the hystory,

It's called "history", and you learn from a historical analysis the reasons why people built systems the way they did. A rounded comprehension of Parliamentary history is, to my mind, critical, when one discusses alterations to it.

I mean how it would help us to fix and improve our political system here and now? The unqualified executive priveleges inherited from 17th centrury are wrong in a modern democracy, just as much as the amendment formula that cannot amend anything for all practical means.

As I keep (patiently) trying to explain, I think you would much prefer how Parliament ran from the end of the 17th until the last few decades of the 18th. You'd probably know that too, if you had any interests beyond pointless bitching.

If we are to believe that we make the system to serve our society, smoking a pipe and going to sleep in the hope that things will get better in the morning is not an option. We'll have to try ways, solutions and approaches to make things work and fix the system for the better.

Now where have I ever said we shouldn't try to make it better.

If we're still back in the colonial mindset, it's made this way by the King across the sea and there's nothing we can do about back - then yes, just too bad.

And I guess we can add the English colonies to the list of historical entities and events to which you are jaw-droppingly ignorant.

ToadBrother · February 3, 2010

correct, any PM, whether in minority or majority situation can simply pick up the phone and 1) kill any proposed legislation they don't like;

No a PM cannot. Where did you get that idea? A PM could, hypothetically, recommend that the GG not grant assent to a bill modifying the Royal Prerogative, but as that would apply to probably one piece of legislation every 50 or 60 years (if that), the PM does not have universal powers to reject legislation.

2) shut down the Parliament for as long as they like;

That has not been true since Charles I was deposed. Again, if you knew some history, you'd know this. There's no lower limit on how long a session of Parliament lasts, but our Parliament has to meet once a year, at minimum.

You'd know that if you actually knew our Constitution.

3) avoid an election they don't like, or call one whenever they like.

The first point is only true to a point, if the Opposition were bound and determined to take a Government down, prorogation might in fact be the worst thing a PM could do, because prorogation means a new session, which means a Throne Speech, which is a confidence motion, and a PM could most certainly not avoid that, because that is one of those built-in checks in our system. You'd know that if you knew anything about our constitution.

As to the second point, yes, they can call elections whenever they like. But surely you see that that tactic can only work so far. It's a dangerous game that can bite a government in the ass. And again with this allergy to elections. You talk about "modern democracy" and yet seem awfully afraid of that most fundamental democratic act, the casting of the ballot.

Not to mention real triffles like refusing access to information to our elected representatives,

They could only conceivably do that so far. The Opposition, which has the votes, could most certainly find any Minister of the Crown in contempt of Parliament. Delaying is not the same as refusing. I don't like delays, but our system does have ways of dealing with it. You'd know that if you knew anything about our system.

obstructing the work of Parliament or firing "independent" watchdogs.

All bad, and all completely fixable if the Opposition would get to it.

ToadBrother · February 3, 2010

Thanks, it's very interesting and educational. Now, if only you could share a (practical) way to back in time to those glorious days..

There was a downside to it, however. Government was a ponderous affair. Shifting alliances meant major votes required whips for the ministers and other blocs within Parliament to run around like mad dogs trying to find votes.

There are reasons our institutions evolved the way they did. You might consider the period from the end of the Personal Rule until the reign of George III as a rather large experiment in Parliamentary fine-tuning. Political parties, while at times noxious, did offer stability.

The problems with our system, to my mind, are not with the institutions, but the way in which extreme partisanship and far more centralized party structures have warped them. Somewhere in the last forty years, MPs have lost the thread, have lost the knowledge of our history (much as you don't seem to know it at all). An MP like John Pym (if you don't know who he is, it's a contemptible shame on our school system, he being one of the greatest Parliamentarians of all time), would be thrown out on his ear, tossed into the back benches, and the vast forces of the party machine would do everything in its power to assure he exited Parliament at the earliest opportunity. The most his foes could do to him was exhume his body and muck with it a bit.

Want to really fix the system, start looking for MPs of independent mind who don't view leaders as gods in heaven, and there words like commandments from Mount Sinai. I know I won't be voting for any of the intellectual prostitutes wearing party colors the following election. Even if my vote goes to some guy who only gets a dozen, I'll be able to sleep at night.

Edited February 3, 2010 by ToadBrother

g_bambino · February 3, 2010

How is it going to be "dispensed with" though? Should we... make it mandatory for all MPs to have "spines"?

It can be dispensed with the same way it was acquired. Once done, MPs will naturally regrow their metaphorical spines.

[A]ny PM, whether in minority or majority situation can simply pick up the phone and 1) kill any proposed legislation they don't like; 2) shut down the Parliament for as long as they like; 3) avoid an election they don't like, or call one whenever they like. Not to mention real triffles like refusing access to information to our elected representatives, obstructing the work of Parliament or firing "independent" watchdogs.

PMs cannot do 1 without doing the second half of 3, and cannot do the first half of 3 or the second half of 2 at all. The first half of 2, the second half of 3, and all the rest are done only with the permission of the majority of our elected MPs. The answer to why MPs are not more effective at denying their permission lies not in any fault of the constitution, but in their total absence from the selection of their own parties' leaders and, in a minority parliament particularly, with an opposition that places party interests above the maintenance of our democratic institutions.

[+]

Edited February 3, 2010 by g_bambino

g_bambino · February 4, 2010

Some intriguing observations on the matter:

After examining the proposal Mr. Ignatieff put forward last week to limit prime ministerial power in proroguing Parliament, there can now be no doubt about his true intentions. He is trying to prevent Her Excellency from blocking an election he might lose, while still winning enough seats to replace Mr. Harper in a coalition government.
For one thing, the Liberals propose to amend House rules to block a prime minister facing a confidence vote from requesting prorogation. Forget about the Governor-General exercising her discretionary powers, as in 2008. And how else can one explain shutting the door on prorogation in all other situations only in the first year of the mandate – the period beyond which no constitutionalist argues that a governor-general would hand over power without an election?

Although it was said by many last week that Mr. Ignatieff's secondary objective was to trump Jack Layton's legislative approach to achieving the same objective, it quickly became apparent that the two are working together again – notwithstanding the hard feelings after Mr. Ignatieff exploded the coalition.

Yesterday, the Hill Times newspaper reported that Liberals and New Democrats... are discussing the option of knowingly introducing an unconstitutional bill – an inconceivable act in the case of a prime minister in waiting.

[...]

If Mr. Duceppe insists on a constitutional amendment, he could force Mr. Layton to choose between Quebec... and the rest of the country. In British Columbia, I can already hear callers to phone-in shows recoiling at the prospect of another Charlottetown-like failure – at best.

Mr. Ignatieff would face the same decision. However, as leader of the party that gave us the 1982 Constitution without the consent of the National Assembly, and later under Jean Chrétien helped kill the best chance to repair its greatest flaw, his choice could prove fatal for the Liberals, and for his leadership.

For Mr. Duceppe, as it is, the coming months may offer an opportunity too good to pass up: Canada loses and secessionists win, whatever others decide.

Does Michael Ignatieff really want this constitutional dance?

ToadBrother · February 4, 2010

Some intriguing observations on the matter:

It might go a little too far, but it does underline, in general terms, my larger point, that unless you do these sorts of things in a considered and reasoned way, the unintended consequences can come and bite you in the ass. I'd prefer a slightly less "modern" democracy with an intact Canada, then a "modern" Democracy where, for some sort of perceived short-term game, Iggy and Layton lit another Constitutional bomb.

If I were Harper, right now I'd be getting the considered opinion of some constitutional experts to back up a claim that this was a constitutional matter dealing with alterations to the Royal Prerogatives, which means he has a reasonably good chance of having it smacked down in the Senate.

myata · February 4, 2010

Good stuff, TB when facing an inconvenient question, changing subject is a prime escape. No worries, I'll highlight every such case exclusively for your convenience.

No a PM cannot. Where did you get that idea? A PM could, hypothetically, recommend that the GG not grant assent to a bill modifying the Royal Prerogative, but as that would apply to probably one piece of legislation every 50 or 60 years (if that), the PM does not have universal powers to reject legislation.

Do you mean that Souvereign's ability to "advise" GG on effecting legislation is explicitly limited to a limited, specific type of bills? I'll certainly be interested to learn that, but would you know it for certain? Or maybe it's just another unspoken convention?

That has not been true since Charles I was deposed. Again, if you knew some history, you'd know this. There's no lower limit on how long a session of Parliament lasts, but our Parliament has to meet once a year, at minimum.

Do perchance confuse "have happened" with "possible"? They aren't the one and same thing, as I'm patiently trying to explain, there's always fist time. E.g. prorogation to avoid facing confidence didn't happen till recently, according to your own conclusion, but now we have a proud precedent. Things change and so, one more time (btw this is #1 for avoiding a direct question): can the government shut down the Parliament for as long as it wants? Or it cannot?

I'll make a qualification for "one year maximum" (in our situation it'll be till December) though I pretty sure that even then a determined and creative government not unlike we have now could come up with way of extending this limit further, perhaps, much further (according to what I heard on the radio an appeal to Supreme Court on the refusal to hand over documents could take "years"). What if, inspired by previous successes, the government refuses to recall the Parliament and tell opposition the same thing ("see you in the court")?

The first point is only true to a point, if the Opposition were bound and determined to take a Government down, prorogation might in fact be the worst thing a PM could do, because prorogation means a new session, which means a Throne Speech, which is a confidence motion, and a PM could most certainly not avoid that, because that is one of those built-in checks in our system. You'd know that if you knew anything about our constitution.

Thanks. Note also that as we established above, suspension could last a full year, and perhaps longer, many things may change in that time.

You talk about "modern democracy" and yet seem awfully afraid of that most fundamental democratic act, the casting of the ballot.

No, as I'm trying to explain, I'm not afraid but consider any side's manipulation of political system to its advantage as incompatible with principles of modern democracy. The ways in which government could use the ability to call an election to its advantage are innumerable and the excuse that it could "bite them" is lame.

They could only conceivably do that so far. The Opposition, which has the votes, could most certainly find any Minister of the Crown in contempt of Parliament. Delaying is not the same as refusing. I don't like delays, but our system does have ways of dealing with it. You'd know that if you knew anything about our system.

No, they refused to hand in documents now, and the appeals to courts could take years? Would it be the same idea as with amendment formula, they cannot on paper, and can - and do, very well, in reality?

All bad, and all completely fixable if the Opposition would get to it.

Yes, and not just the Opposition but all who value our democracy should get to it, i.e fixing the system. Australia has an elected, and elected proprtionally Senate, that can initiate legislation. New Zealand has a fully propotional election system. UK's system for whatever it is, is their own, created in their history and by their traditions. But we here may very well be the last democratic nation on this planet that simply took somebody else's political system and blindly copied it to govern itself and at that, copied in such way that it's nearly impossible to modify. You can see in it some kind of democratic confidence, but after sponsorship scandal, Chretien's iron rule and Harpers inroads into prerogative powers, how would you know that it's not just plain senility, apathy and ultimate inability to change? Almost just everybod else already moved by us, so what would it take to gather enough will and determination to actually make the change? Or could it even happen, ever?

ToadBrother · February 4, 2010

Good stuff, TB when facing an inconvenient question, changing subject is a prime escape. No worries, I'll highlight every such case exclusively for your convenience.

And what question exactly is that? Cheap bravado may make you feel like you've won an argument, but it sure don't sell me any tickets to the ballgame.

Do you mean that Souvereign's ability to "advise" GG on effecting legislation is explicitly limited to a limited, specific type of bills? I'll certainly be interested to learn that, but would you know it for certain? Or maybe it's just another unspoken convention?

Good grief. Parliament is supreme. The GG can only refuse assent to an extremely rare class of a bill. In effect, any bill that violates the constitution (in the case of a bill attempting to alter the ability of the Government to advise the Sovereign), could a PM essentially say "Don't do it". Now if Parliament wishes to move ahead with a constitutional amendment, using the correct formula for who and what exactly is being effected, then no, the PM could not block that. But if the Opposition is trying to making constitutional changes through the back door, but trying to hide it in simple legislation, then of course it can be checked.

Please note here, as well, that the constitution does afford the Crown the right to refuse assent to any legislation. It happened in the 1930s in Alberta when the Lieutenant Governor refused assent to a bill which effectively tried to stifle newspapers' ability to report on the government:

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

I'd say that this is an awfully good example of how our system can move quickly when a government directly tries to mess with our freedoms. But perhaps you think the Alberta legislature should have had the immediate power to do what it wanted. I dunno. You seem so confused on what powers you want Parliament to have, mainly because I think you only think of things in terms of results, and consider the process to simply be an obstacle.

Do perchance confuse "have happened" with "possible"? They aren't the one and same thing, as I'm patiently trying to explain, there's always fist time. E.g. prorogation to avoid facing confidence didn't happen till recently, according to your own conclusion, but now we have a proud precedent.

We also have a precedent of a government taking a massive hit in the polls, and very seriously for them in key areas of Ontario which threaten their ability to even form another minority government. You seem to be forgetting the popular will in all of this.

Things change and so, one more time (btw this is #1 for avoiding a direct question): can the government shut down the Parliament for as long as it wants? Or it cannot?

No, it cannot. Parliament must meet once a year, and in the case of a prorogation to avoid a confidence motion (which would only apply to a minority government anyways), the constitution states that a new session be started, and all sessions of Parliament start with the Speech from the Throne, which is a confidence motion.

So let's just say we had a hypothetical evil minority government that tried to pull a Charles I, prorogue Parliament and run the show. The longest they could do that would be for a year. At that point Parliament is recalled for a new session. There's a Speech from the Throne which Parliament gets to vote on, and where the Opposition would (if they had any sense of duty or responsibility) vote no confidence. At that moment, the evil minority government ceases to be, and the GG now has the option of calling a new election or selecting someone else to take the reigns, at their discretion. And let's remember here, that because there is no government, the GG is not bound by the evil minority government's leader, who is now just a plain old MP. More than likely, in this kind of a situation, the GG would call a new election, which, as I have said repeatedly, is the best way to deal with such attempts at obstructing Parliament. Let the people decide.

But let's take this further. Let's say this evil minority government attempts to ignore the constitution, and refuses to recall Parliament. Well, that's a clear violation of the constitution (and has been in practice since the Long Parliament ended Charles I ability to prorogue Parliament for indeterminate amounts of time, and was entrenched by the Glorious Revolution some fifty years later), and at that point the Governor General, as Her Majesty's representative, would most certainly recall Parliament. It's quite possible that the GG would also dismiss the Government (see the Australian Constitutional Crisis) and name one of the Opposition parties to at the very least act as a caretaker government until new elections were called. It's inconceivable that a government would even go this far, but the GG holds those reserve powers for precisely that reason, because it is their most sacred of duties to assure responsible government in Canada in the name of the Queen.

You seem to hate history, but I keep throwing it in your face because that is our constitution, the documents and precedents that define how our system works, and why it works the way it does.

I'll make a qualification for "one year maximum" (in our situation it'll be till December) though I pretty sure that even then a determined and creative government not unlike we have now could come up with way of extending this limit further, perhaps, much further (according to what I heard on the radio an appeal to Supreme Court on the refusal to hand over documents could take "years"). What if, inspired by previous successes, the government refuses to recall the Parliament and tell opposition the same thing ("see you in the court")?

I don't know what you would have the Opposition do? Break down the doors to the Prime Minister, beat him up? In law there are sadly many ways in which a party can delay.

But as to not recalling Parliament, well I gave my exposition above. It is a clear violation of a three and half century old tenet that the Executive cannot keep Parliament from sitting for an indefinite period of time. Such an attempt would almost certainly lead the GG to recall Parliament, dismiss the Prime Minister on the spot and either drop the writ or ask the Liberals to form a government. But what you're really asking is "Would Stephen Harper essentially attempt a coup, ignoring the constitution, the Executive and Parliament itself." The answer is most firmly no. I believe he's a slimy little street fighter, but I cannot believe he is a wanton criminal and traitor (because what you're detailing amounts to an act of sedition, and would most certainly see he and his senior ministers end up in prison, and the Tory party utterly destroyed in the process).

It's time for you to come back down to Earth. The kinds of things your suggesting are ludicrous beyond any reasonably measure. No government in Canadian history has ever defied the will of the Sovereign in such matters (though Charles Tupper did try to hang on even after the GG had clearly decided Laurier's Liberals would form government, but though he wailed against the GG's actions, he surrendered government nonetheless).

There's no doubt that Harper is dangerously close to a line by refusing to provide the committees unredacted documents, and while I guess he could push this to a Supreme Court intervention, he's already done enough damage to the Tory brand with the last prorogation that I suspect, at the end of the day, he'll deliver (and Peter MacKay may very well fall, not the first Minister to fall on his sword over this sort of thing).

Thanks. Note also that as we established above, suspension could last a full year, and perhaps longer, many things may change in that time.

No, we established that suspension could last a year. It cannot last any longer, unless we're talking about a government who has basically committed an act of treason against Parliament.

No, as I'm trying to explain, I'm not afraid but consider any side's manipulation of political system to its advantage as incompatible with principles of modern democracy. The ways in which government could use the ability to call an election to its advantage are innumerable and the excuse that it could "bite them" is lame.

I like elections. Why don't you?

No, they refused to hand in documents now, and the appeals to courts could take years? Would it be the same idea as with amendment formula, they cannot on paper, and can - and do, very well, in reality?

Governments do lots of questionable things that end up going to the Supreme Court. Parliament could still vote to hold MacKay in contempt. Will they? I dunno? I don't have a lot of faith in the Oppositions desire to in fact hold this government to task in a meaningful way.

Yes, and not just the Opposition but all who value our democracy should get to it, i.e fixing the system. Australia has an elected, and elected proprtionally Senate, that can initiate legislation. New Zealand has a fully propotional election system. UK's system for whatever it is, is their own, created in their history and by their traditions. But we here may very well be the last democratic nation on this planet that simply took somebody else's political system and blindly copied it to govern itself and at that, copied in such way that it's nearly impossible to modify. You can see in it some kind of democratic confidence, but after sponsorship scandal, Chretien's iron rule and Harpers inroads into prerogative powers, how would you know that it's not just plain senility, apathy and ultimate inability to change? Almost just everybod else already moved by us, so what would it take to gather enough will and determination to actually make the change? Or could it even happen, ever?

And now we're back to amending the constitution, and I will reiterate, it isn't the politicians who are necessarily against it (I'm sure a large number of Tories still want to see a Triple-E senate), it's the fact that the regional makeup of Canada currently makes it impossible. I keep telling you that it's the populace and the Provinces that are blocking constitutional changes, and you keep trying to find the Government responsible. I can forgive any Prime Minister since Mulroney for not want to play that game, it is at least partially responsible for Mulroney's devastatingly awful polling numbers towards the end (by 1990-91, he was the most unpopular leader in the Western World), and ultimately the defeat and near-destruction of the Conservative Party.

What you want won't happen, not because of the Constitution (which has reasonable amendment rules, no more onerous than any other written constitution's amendment rules that I'm aware of), but because Ontario and Quebec will not permit the Senate, which is stacked to their advantage, to be reconstituted in a fashion that would effectively end that dominance.

PIK · February 4, 2010

Gidday everyone, my 1st post, I had to jump in here because IMO Harper did what was right to protect the canadian soldiers. I to believe he did it to stop the constant screaming by the left for another expensive commission. IMO The left has acted very irresponsibly ,by continuing the call for a commision, which in turn could put our soldiers in the hagues charged with war crimes, for doing nothing wrong.I applaued mister harepr for standing up for our boys and girls in uniform. Now that harper has asked to cancel spring break for MP's ,It will be intertesting what the libs do.

Edited February 4, 2010 by PIK

ToadBrother · February 4, 2010

Gidday everyone, my 1st post, I had to jump in here because IMO Harper did what was right to protect the canadian soldiers. I to believe he did it to stop the constant screaming by the left for another expensive commission. IMO The left has acted very irresponsibly ,by continuing the call for a commision, which in turn could put our soldiers in the hagues charged with war crimes, for doing nothing wrong.I applaued mister harepr for standing up for our boys and girls in uniform. Now that harper has asked to cancel spring break for MP's ,It will be intertesting what the libs do.

Which is all very lovely, but still unconstitutional. Harper doesn't have a bloody choice. Parliament is the boss, not Harper, and Parliament can demand whatever it bloody well likes from the Government for any bloody reason it wants. If you think they should not have, then you can justify it in an election campaign, but the most basic law of our land makes it clear; Parliament is supreme, and interference with that is unlawful.

I'll ask you, since your right-wing cohorts (who seem to couple that with a hatred of a constitution that a king actually had to die for to make sure it was entrenched) refuse to even answer the question, is Parliament supreme or not? Yes or no, no justifications, a simple yes or no.

Edited February 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

PIK · February 4, 2010

Which is all very lovely, but still unconstitutional. Harper doesn't have a bloody choice. Parliament is the boss, not Harper, and Parliament can demand whatever it bloody well likes from the Government for any bloody reason it wants. If you think they should not have, then you can justify it in an election campaign, but the most basic law of our land makes it clear; Parliament is supreme, and interference with that is unlawful.

I'll ask you, since your right-wing cohorts (who seem to couple that with a hatred of a constitution that a king actually had to die for to make sure it was entrenched) refuse to even answer the question, is Parliament supreme or not? Yes or no, no justifications, a simple yes or no.

Why all the fake anger over something that has been legally done 105 times and 15 by trudeau and chretien?

Smallc · February 4, 2010

He's not talking about prorogation.

ToadBrother · February 4, 2010

Why all the fake anger over something that has been legally done 105 times and 15 by trudeau and chretien?

We'll get into prorogation another day (the 2008 prorogation was not typical, no matter how many times the Tory spindoctors try to make it, no government in the modern history of our system has ever used prorogation to escape a confidence motion).

I'm talking about refusing to hand over unredacted documents pertaining to the treatment of Afghan prisoners to a Parliamentary committee. That is unconstitutional. Parliament has the absolute right to demand any document from the government. If it is a matter of national security, it can be done behind closed doors, but lawmakers are, in our system, afforded the right to see what the government is doing (what other way are the Opposition and committees permitted to act as overseers).

So, I'll ask again, is Parliament supreme or not?

nicky10013 · February 5, 2010

Why all the fake anger over something that has been legally done 105 times and 15 by trudeau and chretien?

Maybe because he's the first person in history to do it to avoid a confidence motion. Maybe because he's the only PM to kill 30 of his own bills to avoid an investigation. You can talk about protecting the troops you want but that's horse shit and frankly I think we both know it.

I don't care if you defend the PM, just don't use his talking points (like Alta4evr). You demean us all (and the troops) by thinking we'll buy those idiotic lies or question our patriotism.

If prorogation REALLY was about taking the time to consult and get a budget together with more stimulus, then why is Harper all of a sudden taking the breaks away? The government is horribly desperate and thrashing around hoping at least SOMETHING sticks to pull themselves out of this tailspin.

Please, take a look at the act you're trying to follow. It isn't pretty.