Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

cybercoma · February 8, 2010

Neither woman had any other known skills or training, and certainly none in the kinds of duties the job entailed.

It doesn't take a whole lot of training for a figurehead to scribble her name with a pen.

ToadBrother · February 8, 2010

Yes but as already mentioned, Australia has proportionally elected Senate. And, it actually has an active debate going about moving on to the republican model, maybe even a referendum, not sure about that.

They had a referendum in 1999, and a republican system was rejected, in large part because the republicans are so heavily divided on what kind of a system they want to see.

And New Zealand has had proportional elections in all of its legislation for a while now. We here appear to be the last and only sorry democracy of this world that uses foreign political system entirely as is without as much as a minuscule native modification, and then cry "dear William come save us poor and unworthy we're messed up with that system of yours and we just can't figure it out ourselves".

There are several Commonwealth countries that use similar systems. Jamaica, for instance.

And I never said "Dear William, come and save us". Quit being so damned infantile, or I'm just going to bloody well let you soak in your ignorance. You don't win arguments by being a jerk.

All I said was that if we wanted a GG who had a good grounding on constitutional principles, you couldn't go wrong with the heir to the throne. He certainly knows more about our constitution than most Governor Generals who have ever occupied Rideau Hall.

I listed my preferences so many times already my tongue is getting sore to repeat it while fingers - to type. But to begin small and practical, how about doing away with those royal/crown, etc privileges, powers and prerogatives that as been explained have nothing to do with operation of modern, independent and responsible democracy?

But those powers are in the constitution. If you're going to alter them, then why do half measures? I mean, if risking unity and long drawn out constitutional wrangling, why screw around with just the powers? That makes the least amount of sense of any option.

Unless of course you're going for a Swedish-style "bicycle monarchy", where the monarch's role is purely ceremonial, with no political powers at all (the Swedish monarch's royal prerogatives have been utterly dispensed with, much like Japan's). I've never particularly seen the point to that from a strictly structual point of view (retaining the Japanese monarchy was more about ensuring national unity during the occupation of Japan). If you're going to dispense with all powers attached to the monarchy, then why not turf it, and simply have a Governor General who no longer has a constitutional role?

But that sort of system, to my mind, only further entrenches the very things you don't want; the Prime Minister's power to advise the executive is now transformed into an unhindered executive position, without even the theoretical constraints of the Royal Prerogatives.

So, back to the point, why bother with your half-way measures? If you want to turf the monarchy, then turf the monarchy. So I'll ask again, what kind of republic do you want?

myata · February 8, 2010

There are several Commonwealth countries that use similar systems. Jamaica, for instance.

Oh yeah those countries.. sorry. Great role models (hard to tell though are they moving to us, or we - to their level).

All I said was that if we wanted a GG who had a good grounding on constitutional principles, you couldn't go wrong with the heir to the throne. He certainly knows more about our constitution than most Governor Generals who have ever occupied Rideau Hall.

But I thought that in our system GG is simply a ceremonial rubberstamp of the PM? So what good would the "good" (grounding) do to anybody but GG himself, feeling so good about their good grounding?

If not and GG is required to play active political role, wouldn't it be like going all the way back in time to Laurier and beyond?

But those powers are in the constitution. If you're going to alter them, then why do half measures? I mean, if risking unity and long drawn out constitutional wrangling, why screw around with just the powers? That makes the least amount of sense of any option.

I know. But we here seem to be so terrifyingly scared of even an insignificant minuscule change that saying anything like "comprehensive Constitutional reform" would have an effect of a major earthquake on the political landscape.

If you're going to dispense with all powers attached to the monarchy, then why not turf it, and simply have a Governor General who no longer has a constitutional role?

I appreciate your warm feelings, but I already commented on the relation of monarchy and democracy, in the sense that they cannot coexist without one being completely powerless and ceremonial. How could one justify a special and active political role for an individual by birth, while also maintaining the notion of equality?

Anyways it's a deviation from the topic. At issue here is not the monarchy per se, but disproportionate and undemocratic privileges granted to the executive branch as a residual effect of our monarchic past.

But that sort of system, to my mind, only further entrenches the very things you don't want; the Prime Minister's power to advise the executive is now transformed into an unhindered executive position, without even the theoretical constraints of the Royal Prerogatives.

No, it doesn't because (in most advanced democracies) the role of monarch has long been superceded by strict constituonal process, clear division of powers and checks and balances preventing dispropotionate concentration and/or abuse of power by any branch.

So, back to the point, why bother with your half-way measures? If you want to turf the monarchy, then turf the monarchy. So I'll ask again, what kind of republic do you want?

Without any drastic changes, we could start with removing all executive prerogatives and privileges - except may be to reset the Parliament (with its consent) and recall it on emergency, and instead explicitly define limits and interactions of powers in the Constitution.

Edited February 8, 2010 by myata

PIK · February 8, 2010

That's not really the point, now is it?

There's nothing fake about my anger. The joke is some guy appearing out of nowhere, mouthing idiotic Tory talking points. Now that's stupid.

The last sentence is a non sequitur. The first may be true.

But I will ask you, and if you don't answer it plainly, I'll know for truth that either your too ignorant or too dishonest to face the fine point of this.

Is Parliament supreme, or is it not? Does it have the right to demand any and all documents from the government of the day or not?

Skip all the Tory talking points about the Olympics, about the Opposition trying to dig up dirt. Let's see if you are either intellectually capable or intellectually honest enough to answer the question.

No it is not and has not been for along time, I don't care what the law says but the PMO is supreme and it has been for along time.

PIK · February 8, 2010

You really have no bloody idea what you're talking about. Go back to those incestuous little Tory forums where everyone intellectually masturbates each other to pictures of Stephen Harper.

LOL Now that is funny, go back and read what his wife said and again have you ever been with someone dying and on alot of drugs and sat there and listen to what they say on thier last days on earth, have you???? And why does the left hate so much, and I am not joking ,this site is the worse so far for name calling and pure hate, so uncanadian.

bush_cheney2004 · February 8, 2010

.... And why does the left hate so much, and I am not joking ,this site is the worse so far for name calling and pure hate, so uncanadian.

Gosh...you mean Heather Mallick (CBC) is not Canadian?

ToadBrother · February 8, 2010

Oh yeah those countries.. sorry. Great role models (hard to tell though are they moving to us, or we - to their level).

You could just say "I was wrong."

But I thought that in our system GG is simply a ceremonial rubberstamp of the PM? So what good would the "good" (grounding) do to anybody but GG himself, feeling so good about their good grounding?

If not and GG is required to play active political role, wouldn't it be like going all the way back in time to Laurier and beyond?

I really despair of our little conversations sometimes. Out of thousands of words I've written in conversation with you over the last couple of weeks, how many have you read. I never said our GG's role is entirely ceremonial. Obviously it is not. There's a very distinct line between purely ceremonial heads of state like the Swedish or Japanese monarchies, and a constitutional monarchy. Because government in our system functions entirely on whether it has the confidence of Parliament or not, there are clearly moments (rare enough) where a loss of confidence means that there is, temporarily no government at all, save for the Crown. At those moments, the GG's role becomes very active indeed, having to decide whether another party in the Commons has sufficient support to form a new government, or whether it is necessary to go to the polls.

I hope, after having typed this sort for at least the fourth or fifth time, it's relatively clear to you now. Having a head of state who does not normally exercise power without the counsel of the government is not the same thing as having a head of state who can never exercise power.

I know. But we here seem to be so terrifyingly scared of even an insignificant minuscule change that saying anything like "comprehensive Constitutional reform" would have an effect of a major earthquake on the political landscape.

If we can't do minuscule changes, there's no point in even talking about big ones. The fact remains that regional divides make any constitutional changes very likely. I'm afraid, for better or for worse, we're stuck with what we've got for some time to come, which is why I think moderate and evolutionary changes are much preferable to revolutionary alterations which trigger all sorts of unintended consequences. Like I said, I'd much rather have our system as it stands, than a "better" system (however you measure that), if it means Quebec breaks away, or we weaken Confederation to the point where it just simply floats apart.

I appreciate your warm feelings, but I already commented on the relation of monarchy and democracy, in the sense that they cannot coexist without one being completely powerless and ceremonial. How could one justify a special and active political role for an individual by birth, while also maintaining the notion of equality?

And this is where you wander from the realm of practicality into the realm of ideology. Yes, the monarchy means a very few people are born into privilege and into power, but because their capacity to use that power without the advise and oversight of the elected legislature is minimal at best, it has worked very well. As much as the monarch is kept in check, so too has Parliament, which has not fallen into the trap that a number of legislatures around the world have, being overtaken by populists and crypto-dictators who ultimately undermine or even ultimately obliterate the democratic systems. Our system is a weird hybrid, but when you look at the contortions that countries like France has gone through, I'd say we have, all in all, been much better off.

Anyways it's a deviation from the topic. At issue here is not the monarchy per se, but disproportionate and undemocratic privileges granted to the executive branch as a residual effect of our monarchic past.

Since the executive power can only be exercised on the advise of the government of the day, it is no longer a pure monarchy, full stop. It is a constitutional monarchy. I go through this above.

No, it doesn't because (in most advanced democracies) the role of monarch has long been superceded by strict constituonal process, clear division of powers and checks and balances preventing dispropotionate concentration and/or abuse of power by any branch.

And waddya know, that's what we have. In about a month and a half's time, there will be a Throne Speech, and if the Opposition finds the government wanting then, they can vote no confidence, topple it, and present their case that they should form their own government. Of course, they might instead get an election, and we know how much you, the advocate of modern, true democracies, seems to dislike elections.

Without any drastic changes, we could start with removing all executive prerogatives and privileges - except may be to reset the Parliament (with its consent) and recall it on emergency, and instead explicitly define limits and interactions of powers in the Constitution.

No we couldn't, because those are constitutional changes. How many times do I have to repeat myself. The House of Commons alone cannot simply declare "Today we change the Constitution!" WTF do you think Trudeau had to convene meetings of the Premiers to repatriate the constitution? Why do you think Mulroney twice tried to get changes through with negotiations, and in the last attempt, had Joe Clark hosting various meetings across the country?

And before you once again blame the Queen or the PM or whoever it is that you think is at fault, the problem lies in the intractable deadlock that regionalism in this country has created. The problem lies in the populace, not in the institutions. There are relatively simple and straightforward ways to amend our constitution, but if opening the door leads to a decade of constitutional wrangling ending with yet another sovereignty referendum in Quebec, then what have we gained, other than another period of uncertainty?

ToadBrother · February 8, 2010

No it is not and has not been for along time, I don't care what the law says but the PMO is supreme and it has been for along time.

I figured as much. You're an advocate of unconstitutional tyranny, mate.

Oleg Bach · February 8, 2010

Proroguement of parliment might just be a statement saying that a bunch in supposed control of a nation don't have a clue on what to do so they simply pull the plug breaking the machine so no one else can step in who might have a good idea - it might be born of sheer spite and malice.

g_bambino · February 9, 2010

We here appear to be the last and only sorry democracy of this world that uses foreign political system entirely as is without as much as a minuscule native modification, and then cry "dear William come save us poor and unworthy we're messed up with that system of yours and we just can't figure it out ourselves".
But to begin small and practical, how about doing away with those royal/crown, etc privileges, powers and prerogatives that as been explained have nothing to do with operation of modern, independent and responsible democracy?

You know, after all this time, through engaging with you myself and reading your back-and-forth with ToadBrother, I've come to the conclusion that you're simply a vandal: ignorant, careless, flippant, you lash out at the establishment like a disgruntled teenage rebel, replete with hollow t-shirt slogans as pseudo-justification for your defacement, and simple mockery of any facts that challenge you to accept the difference between your overly-inflated personal opinion and actuality.

Of course, you'll counter that I'm a sycophant, an adoring toady to the system, and too afraid to challenge it. The difference, though, is that I can back up my position with knowledge and fact. You merely ejaculate insults - towards history and rationally constructed institutions - and close your ears to everything you dislike because it never gave you - all important you - what you wanted. Just like a vandal.

PIK · February 9, 2010

I figured as much. You're an advocate of unconstitutional tyranny, mate.

Not at all, you asked and I told you my opinion on who I think is supreme, legal or not, and you insult me. Why does the left has to be so insulting,or at least on this board.

ToadBrother · February 9, 2010

Not at all, you asked and I told you my opinion on who I think is supreme, legal or not, and you insult me. Why does the left has to be so insulting,or at least on this board.

It's no insult. You seem to be a Harper hero worshipper. You also seem to approve of concentration of power in the office of PM.

Oh, and what makes you think I'm on the left? What, because I don't bow down at the altar of Harper? Is that the modern conservative notion of someone on the left, someone who isn't an ideological drone?

myata · February 9, 2010

Jamaica...You could just say "I was wrong."

Indeed I have to fully admit the error of my ways. With inspiring examples of these democracies (and I shouldn't forget to mention other glorious ones to guide and inspire us with sophistication of their system, e.g. Iraq and Afghanstian, anyways), with inspiring examples like that, it was completely wrong of me to say that we are "the only democracy" to copy over another country's political system as is, without even a minor local modification.

I'll try qualify my statement maybe by saying "the last and only first world democracy" instead but that too could correct itself quite soon (in historical terms).

More later.

PIK · February 9, 2010

It's no insult. You seem to be a Harper hero worshipper. You also seem to approve of concentration of power in the office of PM.

Oh, and what makes you think I'm on the left? What, because I don't bow down at the altar of Harper? Is that the modern conservative notion of someone on the left, someone who isn't an ideological drone?

I happen to think he is doing all right ,I don't base my opinion on personality. And are you telling me that iggy is not a ideological drone,with him wanting to takes kid and put them into school at a very early age, the same as what mcguinty would like to do, talk about wanting to make kids little liberals right from the start. Let kids be kids for a while before they have to enter the world. What has harper done that is so evil that people on this board seem to foam at the mouth at the mention of his name, compared to what chretien did,especially when it comes to china.

g_bambino · February 9, 2010

I'll try qualify my statement maybe by saying "the last and only first world democracy" instead but that too could correct itself quite soon (in historical terms).

Allow me to correct it for you: There are probably others I'm forgetting, but, differences from the original: confederated, a fully appointed federal upper chamber, a supreme court, federal and provincial viceroys exercising equal co-sovereignty, co-existence of French-derived civil code and British-derived common law, and bilingualism.

g_bambino · February 9, 2010

I happen to think he is doing all right ,I don't base my opinion on personality. And are you telling me that iggy is not a ideological drone,with him wanting to takes kid and put them into school at a very early age, the same as what mcguinty would like to do, talk about wanting to make kids little liberals right from the start. Let kids be kids for a while before they have to enter the world. What has harper done that is so evil that people on this board seem to foam at the mouth at the mention of his name, compared to what chretien did,especially when it comes to china.

This avoids the point completely. You said parliament was subject to the PMO, not the other way around. If you support that arrangement, you do indeed cheer for totalitarianism. Did you mean otherwise when you said the PMO was supreme?

PIK · February 9, 2010

Gosh...you mean Heather Mallick (CBC) is not Canadian?

She sure does not act like it.

ToadBrother · February 9, 2010

I happen to think he is doing all right ,I don't base my opinion on personality. And are you telling me that iggy is not a ideological drone,with him wanting to takes kid and put them into school at a very early age, the same as what mcguinty would like to do, talk about wanting to make kids little liberals right from the start. Let kids be kids for a while before they have to enter the world. What has harper done that is so evil that people on this board seem to foam at the mouth at the mention of his name, compared to what chretien did,especially when it comes to china.

I'm not defending Iggy at all. If Iggy had actually cared about democracy, he would have brought down the government in January 2009 to make the point clear that Parliament is the ultimate arbiter of power, not the Government, not the Cabinet, and not the PMO. Sir John A tried something similar during the dying days of his political career to try to avoid censure by the House, the GG prorogued on his request, but found the House as determined as ever to punish him. The Opposition in 2009, consumed by the collapsing coalition, utterly navel gazing and as fearful of democracy as Harper obviously is, did not due their own due diligence in bringing down a government that had abused to the Royal Prerogative to stay alive.

You continue to make the mistake of assuming that I'm a Liberal. I'm not. You can't just toss my statements into the "rotten lefty bin" and march on your way.

By definition, a Prime Minister who defies the constitution is not doing a good job, he's stepping over the line. For better or for worse, he has no right to defy Parliament's will on those documents, and to do so is to behave as a power unto himself, unaccountable to that body which, through constitution and tradition, is the supreme legislative body in our system.

As I said, when you talk to me, get the notion out of your head that I'm a Liberal, or I'm an NDPer, or I was a pro-Coalition type. Get into your head that I advocate the rule of law, that no man in this nation is above the law, and that Parliament, which I do vote for, is supreme over the Prime Minister, which I do not vote for. Now keeping that in mind, it matters not a whit whether Harper is the greatest PM that ever was, and keeping also in mind that I'm not in favor of the Afghan investigation, which is nothing more than a fishing expedition. Right or wrong, Parliament constrains and commands the Prime Minister, not the other way around, and if a Prime Minister ceases to abide by that constitutional rule which has governed our system since Charles I was lightened by the weight of his head, then that Prime Minister should no longer serve.

Edited February 9, 2010 by ToadBrother

ToadBrother · February 9, 2010

Indeed I have to fully admit the error of my ways. With inspiring examples of these democracies (and I shouldn't forget to mention other glorious ones to guide and inspire us with sophistication of their system, e.g. Iraq and Afghanstian, anyways), with inspiring examples like that, it was completely wrong of me to say that we are "the only democracy" to copy over another country's political system as is, without even a minor local modification.

More cheap petulance. I was talking about Commonwealth states that still have first-past-the-post voting systems. Clearly neither Iraq or Afghanistan are Commonwealth countries, so other than some idiotic bit of hyperbole, there was no point in bringing them up, no?

You seem decidedly unwilling to actually discuss the points I raise, probably because you're too lazy to read them, so you go off on these mindless tangents which don't really have much to do with what I say at all.

I'll try qualify my statement maybe by saying "the last and only first world democracy" instead but that too could correct itself quite soon (in historical terms).

More later.

How about you just read what I write, try to keep my words in the context in which they're written, and go from there?

PIK · February 9, 2010

I'm not defending Iggy at all. If Iggy had actually cared about democracy, he would have brought down the government in January 2009 to make the point clear that Parliament is the ultimate arbiter of power, not the Government, not the Cabinet, and not the PMO. Sir John A tried something similar during the dying days of his political career to try to avoid censure by the House, the GG prorogued on his request, but found the House as determined as ever to punish him. The Opposition in 2009, consumed by the collapsing coalition, utterly navel gazing and as fearful of democracy as Harper obviously is, did not due their own due diligence in bringing down a government that had abused to the Royal Prerogative to stay alive.

You continue to make the mistake of assuming that I'm a Liberal. I'm not. You can't just toss my statements into the "rotten lefty bin" and march on your way.

By definition, a Prime Minister who defies the constitution is not doing a good job, he's stepping over the line. For better or for worse, he has no right to defy Parliament's will on those documents, and to do so is to behave as a power unto himself, unaccountable to that body which, through constitution and tradition, is the supreme legislative body in our system.

As I said, when you talk to me, get the notion out of your head that I'm a Liberal, or I'm an NDPer, or I was a pro-Coalition type. Get into your head that I advocate the rule of law, that no man in this nation is above the law, and that Parliament, which I do vote for, is supreme over the Prime Minister, which I do not vote for. Now keeping that in mind, it matters not a whit whether Harper is the greatest PM that ever was, and keeping also in mind that I'm not in favor of the Afghan investigation, which is nothing more than a fishing expedition. Right or wrong, Parliament constrains and commands the Prime Minister, not the other way around, and if a Prime Minister ceases to abide by that constitutional rule which has governed our system since Charles I was lightened by the weight of his head, then that Prime Minister should no longer serve.

Excuse me chum ,but you brought the ideological drone into this . And I don't toss your opinions out in the lefty bin, I actually read them, I am not afraid to learn something here. I agree with the you that parliment is sumpreme,but as I said it has not been that way in along time.

ToadBrother · February 9, 2010

Excuse me chum ,but you brought the ideological drone into this . And I don't toss your opinions out in the lefty bin, I actually read them, I am not afraid to learn something here. I agree with the you that parliment is sumpreme,but as I said it has not been that way in along time.

There is a solution, and it involves ignoring political brands for a moment and imagining how political leaders would act if their supporters weren't simply cheerleaders who feel it is their duty to go around waving the banner going "Our leader is the best, anyone who disagrees is whiney and a lefty/righty/whatevery". Clearly the PM (and all party leaders, really) hold far too much power, the solution is simple, and that's for MPs to recognize that first and foremost they are parliamentarians, and secondly that they belong to a party. Perhaps if Tory MPs and Tory supporters like yourself had publicly said "We think proroguing Parliament under the current circumstances is wrong", Harper would not have done it, and perhaps you wouldn't have seen 14 points shed from your favorite party as Canadians, who generally are not ideologues, reacted strongly to yet another stunt aimed squarely at evading the supremacy of Parliament.

PIK · February 9, 2010

The PM is more powerful then a president,it has alway been like that. But this proroguing does not bother me at all, even when any other PM did it . More work is probaly geting done without having then sitting and yelling at each other all day. I dopn't agree with everything they do, and he pisses me off at time. But to change the goverment over it and put in a party that is not ready for prime time yet ,is a very dangerous idea. This is why I get upset at the ''fake anger '' out there. I think back to the creation of multiculturism, and was that ever debated or researched, if I remember it was not ,trudeau just went ahead and put it thru. A major policy and no debate or was I to young to remember it?

g_bambino · February 9, 2010

By definition, a Prime Minister who defies the constitution is not doing a good job, he's stepping over the line. For better or for worse, he has no right to defy Parliament's will on those documents, and to do so is to behave as a power unto himself, unaccountable to that body which, through constitution and tradition, is the supreme legislative body in our system.

I think we need to be careful before coming to the conclusion that Harper's yet done anything unconstitutional. If we do, we'll therefore imply that the Governor General hasn't done her ultimate job, which is to prevent such things; of all the players in the latest parliamentary circus acts, Michaelle Jean's been the most commendable. I think you're trying to say that if Harper continues, once parliament has reconvened, to ignore its will, then he'll be treading ever closer into dangerous, unconstitutional areas; but it could be read another way, and there are certainly those here who would like to do so.

g_bambino · February 9, 2010

The PM is more powerful then a president,it has alway been like that. But this proroguing does not bother me at all, even when any other PM did it. More work is probaly geting done without having then sitting and yelling at each other all day. I dopn't agree with everything they do, and he pisses me off at time. But to change the goverment over it and put in a party that is not ready for prime time yet ,is a very dangerous idea. This is why I get upset at the ''fake anger '' out there. I think back to the creation of multiculturism, and was that ever debated or researched, if I remember it was not ,trudeau just went ahead and put it thru. A major policy and no debate or was I to young to remember it?

Yet, a PM can be PM one day and a mere MP the next, in our system; US Presidents sit for four years without contest, ignoring the Herculean - and so far never successful - effort of an impeachment. The thrust, however, is not merely this latest prorogation, but a wider pattern that includes Harper's contempt for parliament - expressed both through words and actions - and its place in the longer process of gradual usurpation of power by the PMO; each successive PM becomes more emboldened as MPs become ever more castrated and party fortunes trump democracy's persistence.

ToadBrother · February 9, 2010

The PM is more powerful then a president,it has alway been like that. But this proroguing does not bother me at all, even when any other PM did it . More work is probaly geting done without having then sitting and yelling at each other all day. I dopn't agree with everything they do, and he pisses me off at time. But to change the goverment over it and put in a party that is not ready for prime time yet ,is a very dangerous idea. This is why I get upset at the ''fake anger '' out there. I think back to the creation of multiculturism, and was that ever debated or researched, if I remember it was not ,trudeau just went ahead and put it thru. A major policy and no debate or was I to young to remember it?

I'm referring to denying parliament full and unredacted documents pertaining Afghan prisoner transfers. The last prorogation is questionable, to be sure, but do you agree or not that the Government ultimately has no choice in delivering those documents?