Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Smallc]

But the Senate is prorogued as well. I think there's a clear argument for the Senate being queried.

And I would agree with that as well. Perhaps there should be a prorogation bill?

[capricorn]

I was projecting a hypothetical situation where legislation had already been passed and a decision made by MPs in the House to allow or block a PM from seeking a prorogation. In that scenario the Senate would have no say is what I'm saying.

edit: we're getting ahead of ourselves, any bill cannot be introduced until after the House reconvenes.

Edited January 25, 2010 by capricorn

[g_bambino]

Should any proposed legislation be successful, and if the House of Commons moved to grant or deny a PM's prorogation request, the Senate would not be involved in that process.

Why ever not? We have a Senate precisely so that populist tendencies don't override regional interests.

[Smallc]

I was projecting a hypothetical situation where legislation had already been passed and a decision made by MPs in the House to allow or block a PM from seeking a prorogation. In that scenario the Senate would have no say is what I'm saying.

I'm saying that every prorogation may require a bill. That would mean that the Senate would need to be consulted.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Smallc

[capricorn]

OK smallc, I see what you're saying.

[jbg]

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

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

Maybe this reflects my "Yank" ignorance about Canada, but isn't much of the Canadian Constitution derived from the unwritten British constitution? Thus, isn't much based upon "convention and tradition found in Parliamentary systems of government"? Also, how is an "amendment" different from "additions" to the Constitution? The U.S. Constitution's amendments, for example, contain much new ground not covered in the 1787 Constitution.

[capricorn]

Why ever not? We have a Senate precisely so that populist tendencies don't override regional interests.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Let me try again. I can't see anything in the Liberal proposal that would require a new bill each time a PM asks for a prorogation. If the proposed opposition legislation is tabled and passed, which can only happen when the House is in session, there would be no need for individual legislation every time a PM wants to prorogue. The Senate's involvement would be one-time, i.e. in the passage of the initial law which would come while the House is sitting.

[ToadBrother]

Maybe this reflects my "Yank" ignorance about Canada, but isn't much of the Canadian Constitution derived from the unwritten British constitution? Thus, isn't much based upon "convention and tradition found in Parliamentary systems of government"? Also, how is an "amendment" different from "additions" to the Constitution? The U.S. Constitution's amendments, for example, contain much new ground not covered in the 1787 Constitution.

Yes, much of it is based on convention, but that doesn't mean you can just wantonly alter executive powers. The constitutional nature of executive powers is such that they (Royal Prerogative and Reserve Powers) can only be altered with the assent of the Sovereign or the Governor General. This is very long-standing, and most certainly set down during the Glorious Revolution, which, while limiting the monarch's ability to act independent of Parliament, also essentially protected those powers (see my example of the Queen's refusing assent to a bill in 1999 that would have transferred Her right to declare war to the British Parliament).

I'm not sure what your point is as per amendment/addition. Any alteration to the Constitution, whether to add, alter or limit is an amendment. The Bill of Rights are still the first ten amendments to the US Constitution.

[capricorn]

Maybe this reflects my "Yank" ignorance about Canada, but isn't much of the Canadian Constitution derived from the unwritten British constitution? Thus, isn't much based upon "convention and tradition found in Parliamentary systems of government"? Also, how is an "amendment" different from "additions" to the Constitution? The U.S. Constitution's amendments, for example, contain much new ground not covered in the 1787 Constitution.

Far be it for me to try to enlighten you on this dizzying question. I can't even seem to get my point across here on more mundane issues.

Seriously jbg, I would like very much to engage those issues but I simply don't have the time for proper research to do them justice.

[myata]

The only one that counts, which is the one we have, and not the fantasy land version you have in your head, which has nothing at all to do with the reality of this country.

....Pointless jabbering deleted....

I would go so fast, so that we won't lose that baby.. So, again, what would be the point of executive prorogation in a modern, functional democracy with independent powers and checks and balances to keep each branch operating within constitutional framework?

It means "hard to change". Just about anything can be changed, though some things, like for instance, the Monarchy, would require big enough changes that you might as well create a new constitution.

....More pointless jabbering deleted....

And yet again, not so fast. Having to assume that the answer to Q1 above is "no" (such rational justification) - for the lack of better answer, we find ourselves facing logical conclusion that there's a serious flaw in our old and venerable Constitution that allows one of the branches of government to skew the balance of power in its favour.

Now, and again, speaking logically, we are either 1) a functioning democratic system that is able to change and improve itself, upon need; or 2) a society on a downward trend that is incapable of changing itself anymore. Wouldn't you agree that how we behave in this situation will give us important insight in this question, i.e what kind of society we are?

Then let's be practical, rather than going off on flights of fancy about what-should-bes and the like. The Constitution we have is the one we've got to deal with, and it does have appropriate measures for amendment, if this legislation does indeed turn out to be Constitutional in nature.

We agree about that. The real question is elsewhere though, not in an old and dusty book. Namely, do we have the intelligence, will and persistence to see the change through, when the need for it has been clearly identified?

This is a "baby with the bathwater" argument. You seem to assume because something is old, it is worthless.

I assume no such thing. It was clearly stated that my comments apply exclusively to the parts of Constitution that have lost relevance to the realities of the modern democratic process.

[ToadBrother]

I would go so fast, so that we won't lose that baby.. So, again, what would be the point of executive prorogation in a modern, functional democracy with independent powers and checks and balances to keep each branch operating within constitutional framework?

Hasn't this been dealt with before? Every legislature on the planet (so far as I am aware) has a means of ending a session. In some legislatures, it's actually a fixed calendar, and the inverse is required, the Executive has to in fact recall the legislature for a special session (that's the nonclemature in the US, I believe). But generally, the purpose is to close a session of Parliament when a legislative agenda is completed. So yes, it has a very practical purpose.

And yet again, not so fast. Having to assume that the answer to Q1 above is "no" (such rational justification) - for the lack of better answer, we find ourselves facing logical conclusion that there's a serious flaw in our old and venerable Constitution that allows one of the branches of government to skew the balance of power in its favour.

I've just outlined the purpose. It is practical, but like any essentially procedural rule/power it is open to abuse (ie. filibustering in the US Congress as an example of a rule of that legislative body that can be bent to basically allow someone who has the floor to stay there).

Now, and again, speaking logically, we are either 1) a functioning democratic system that is able to change and improve itself, upon need;

We've already established that there are amending formulas in place, depending on what's being amended.

or 2) a society on a downward trend that is incapable of changing itself anymore. Wouldn't you agree that how we behave in this situation will give us important insight in this question, i.e what kind of society we are?

This is just pointless rhetoric. This is where I get annoyed by you. You can't seem to carry an argument without dipping into pointless irrelevancies. I almost read this as "I want something, if I can't have it, it's a sign that the world is spinning off its axis into oblivion." You seem to want democracy, providing democracy functions the way you want it to.

Surely you must see that caution and sober thought are required here. The balance of the prorogation power is without argument in the Government's court (as are many other things, I don't see you complaining about the legislative agenda, which certainly affords the Government much more power at the expense of the Opposition than prorogation). But could altering who decides when to prorogue tip it the Opposition.

Let's say, for example, that the Opposition wished to interfere with the business of government. Under this proposed change, is it possible for the Opposition to somehow put forward a motion to prorogue, thus effectively killing government bills they don't like without the inconvenience of committee or second or third reading?

We agree about that. The real question is elsewhere though, not in an old and dusty book. Namely, do we have the intelligence, will and persistence to see the change through, when the need for it has been clearly identified?

I think if you can make the argument that the change is necessary, then yes. The question with prorogation is first and foremost, how big a problem is it in the larger context, and secondly, having decided it needs to be altered, what is the best way to do so (ie. will it be constitutional, or just window dressing that can be tossed at the first convenient moment). A couple of us armchair constitutional "experts" are debating just that. Is the legislation going to be able to stick?

I assume no such thing. It was clearly stated that my comments apply exclusively to the parts of Constitution that have lost relevance to the realities of the modern democratic process.

I don't see much evidence that prorogation has lost its relevance. The issue is more along the lines of whether or not trying to change how the GG is advised on whether to prorogue Parliament or not.

Edited January 25, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Riverwind]

What I find ironic are the same people who think they can arbitrarily change constitutional rules on prorogation are the same people who oppose Harper's attempt to limit senators to 8 years because they see it as an arbitrary change to constitutional rules.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

What I find ironic are the same people who think they can arbitrarily change constitutional rules on prorogation are the same people who oppose Harper's attempt to limit senators to 8 years because they see it as an arbitrary change to constitutional rules.

That's really my point. When it's an amendment you want, the fact that the formulas involved create some roadblocks

(sensible in my mind for any constitution) is a sign of an outdated and tyrannical constitution. But if it blocks easy passage of amendments you don't want, suddenly it's an important aspect of democracy!

I don't think any constitutional change should be easy. Probably one of the flaws of the old Westminster system prior to 1982 was that constitutional changes were (and in the UK still are) relatively easy to accomplish (look at Devolution and the emasculation of the House of Lords from the aristocratic house of Parliament to an even worse version of the Canadian Senate). By making changes in our constitution more difficult, it forces proper debate and ensures that the changes are justified and justifiable.

[myata]

I've just outlined the purpose. It is practical, but like any essentially procedural rule/power it is open to abuse (ie. filibustering in the US Congress as an example of a rule of that legislative body that can be bent to basically allow someone who has the floor to stay there).

Oh come on, let's not be (or appear) unnecessarily obtuse. We all know what's at question: hostile prorogation, prorogation against the will of the majority of the elected House. Try again?

This is just pointless rhetoric. This is where I get annoyed by you. You can't seem to carry an argument without dipping into pointless irrelevancies.

Looking in the mirror, "pointless rhetoric"? I think it's one of the most essential questions there's. Who and what I am determines what I'll be. Not what I was, nor what's written about me, or by me, in the books, etc.

I almost read this as "I want something, if I can't have it, it's a sign that the world is spinning off its axis into oblivion." You seem to want democracy, providing democracy functions the way you want it to.

No, wait. If we're really the masters of our own country, in a responsible and souveraign democracy as we like to claim it, why can't we have it (a positive change that makes all and every sense)?

Surely you must see that caution and sober thought are required here. The balance of the prorogation power is without argument in the Government's court (as are many other things, I don't see you complaining about the legislative agenda, which certainly affords the Government much more power at the expense of the Opposition than prorogation). But could altering who decides when to prorogue tip it the Opposition.

But this is about fundamentals. About one branch of power, the executive, even when in minority, being able to interfere with, obstruct, ignore and shut down the other. Does not sound like that perfect model for all and everything, does it? One big stick, last resort, non confidence vote, and no real checks or balances in between. No, I'm used to trusting my own eyes before any of the books. The system is old and desperately out of touch, it only works because of deep democratic tradition elsewhere in the society, and if we care and still capable of meaningful change we'll have it brought back to reality, and if not, good night to us all.

Let's say, for example, that the Opposition wished to interfere with the business of government. Under this proposed change, is it possible for the Opposition to somehow put forward a motion to prorogue, thus effectively killing government bills they don't like without the inconvenience of committee or second or third reading?

But I thought that you were claiming only a short while back that the Parliament is "supreme". Do you mean that its supposed supremacy shouldn't allow it to control its own work?

I don't see much evidence that prorogation has lost its relevance. The issue is more along the lines of whether or not trying to change how the GG is advised on whether to prorogue Parliament or not.

Or, in plain words, who actually controls it? The Parliament that is supposed to be "supreme", or the executive branch, perchance representing only a minority faction in the Parliament?

Edited January 25, 2010 by myata

[Oleg Bach]

Calling the news to take pictures of himself giving a personal donation to gain politically is using their suffering to his advantage. pathetic

It's good promo. Just like a wealthy American movie star doing some charity work for Hatian relief..They actually make money by pretending to give money that belongs to someone else.

[ToadBrother]

Oh come on, let's not be (or appear) unnecessarily obtuse. We all know what's at question: hostile prorogation, prorogation against the will of the majority of the elected House. Try again?

I'm not being obtuse. Prorogation has a purpose in our system, but as I say, things can be twisted. That is the nature of such procedures. You can bend it one way or you can bend it another.

Looking in the mirror, "pointless rhetoric"? I think it's one of the most essential questions there's. Who and what I am determines what I'll be. Not what I was, nor what's written about me, or by me, in the books, etc.

Every time we have one of these discussions, you go off on rather odd tangents about "true democracy", which seems to be mainly defined as being "what myata believes".

No, wait. If we're really the masters of our own country, in a responsible and souveraign democracy as we like to claim it, why can't we have it (a positive change that makes all and every sense)?

First of all,you are once again defining your wishes as the only possible course of action. Second of all, we are sovereign, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

But this is about fundamentals. About one branch of power, the executive, even when in minority, being able to interfere with, obstruct, ignore and shut down the other. Does not sound like that perfect model for all and everything, does it? One big stick, last resort, non confidence vote, and no real checks or balances in between. No, I'm used to trusting my own eyes before any of the books. The system is old and desperately out of touch, it only works because of deep democratic tradition elsewhere in the society, and if we care and still capable of meaningful change we'll have it brought back to reality, and if not, good night to us all.

And here we go again, your baby tossing rhetoric. You don't like prorogation, apparently, and that's fine. To my mind, I'd rather have an American-style schedule; where the House sits between these dates and these dates, but then you still have to empower somebody to gather the House together in times of emergency, so we'd simply be swapping the GG's power to prorogue with the power to recall Parliament. The same problem, in reverse.

But I thought that you were claiming only a short while back that the Parliament is "supreme". Do you mean that its supposed supremacy shouldn't allow it to control its own work?

Translation: At this moment my favorite party will get a bonus power, so I don't give a crap what happens to the Tories.

You're not really about sober change to our system, you're all about giving your guys the up side. You're no different than the Tory supporters who come here bitching about those of us who question the last two prorogations.

Or, in plain words, who actually controls it? The Parliament that is supposed to be "supreme", or the executive branch, perchance representing only a minority faction in the Parliament?

Obviously, on a procedural level, the Government has some powers the Opposition does not. But no legislation can pass in this Parliament without at least pleasing a sufficient number of Opposition members to get a plurality of votes.

Like I said, I'm not against reforming powers like prorogation, or maybe even outright replacing it with a fixed legislative calendar. But I'm not under the illusion that this will produce a Parliament of perfect qualities. Giving the whole Parliament the power to prorogue (or not) essentially delivers the power to the Opposition in a minority situation (in a majority situation, it will be a meaningless vote in the House). A fixed schedule means the Executive will have to be further entrusted, on the advice of the PM, to recall the House in a dire situation (like a state of war or national emergency), which is how it works elsewhere.

There are all kinds of details to this legislation I'd like to see, in this order:

1. Does it impinge upon or alter a Reserve Power, and therefore becomes a amendment to the Constitution.

1a. If so, is this an amendment that requires only the Federal Parliament (Commons and Senate) and the GG's approval, or does it require the wider amending formula of 2/3s of the Provinces.

2. Will this bill (or amendment, if that be the case) require just the House of Commons to vote, or, since the Senate is also prorogued, will it require a majority in both Houses?

I don't think these are unreasonable questions, and I hardly think myself a supporter of ancient ailing institutions that you so seem to despise, for asking them.

[jbg]

Far be it for me to try to enlighten you on this dizzying question. I can't even seem to get my point across here on more mundane issues.

Seriously jbg, I would like very much to engage those issues but I simply don't have the time for proper research to do them justice.

I wouldn't ask you to do that.

I also suspect that there are no "answers" to these questions. I suspect that all PM's prorogue when they need to for some tactical reason. Even majority PM's such as Trudeau and Chretien did this. It is more understandable to me that a PM heading a minority government would prorogue. Apparently Chretien did this in order to toss the AG's report into Martin's lap to deal with.

[capricorn]

I also suspect that there are no "answers" to these questions.

You're right and as Toad pointed out there are many aspects of our Parliamentary system that are based on convention. Yet, they do flow from the Constitution Act of 1867. This whole debate turns on the GG's reserve powers and its relationship of consultation and advice with the PM/Government. The fundamental question is whether changing the rules of prorogation interferes with that relationship to the point of being unconstitutional.

I suspect that all PM's prorogue when they need to for some tactical reason. Even majority PM's such as Trudeau and Chretien did this. It is more understandable to me that a PM heading a minority government would prorogue.

What is interesting is that the Liberals want to amend the rules because, as Ignatieff says, Harper's character is flawed. Why try to amend a system that has been around since Confederation because of someone's character? Harper won't always be PM. As a matter of fact, next time we go to the polls, the voters will pass judgment on Harper directly and decide whether he is worthy of being in power. That's how our system works, and it has served us well.

Apparently Chretien did this in order to toss the AG's report into Martin's lap to deal with.

His motives are still debated today on that count. Whatever, the Liberals would subsequently be unable to escape paying for the sponsorship scandal and other transgressions.

[Oleg Bach]

Whether proroguation was done with evil intent or not is of little consequence. All will come back slightly more in tune and the break may grant a bit of sorely needed wisdom and maturity to the house..it was like a screaming dysfunctinal family for decades now... They had better return reborn and noble.. we need some noble men and woman in the house... not just ambitious self serving cut throat opportunists with no vision for the nation.

[ToadBrother]

What is interesting is that the Liberals want to amend the rules because, as Ignatieff says, Harper's character is flawed. Why try to amend a system that has been around since Confederation because of someone's character? Harper won't always be PM. As a matter of fact, next time we go to the polls, the voters will pass judgment on Harper directly and decide whether he is worthy of being in power. That's how our system works, and it has served us well.

The problem is that every self-serving decision, every decision that minimizes Parliament's role and aggrandizes the Prime Minister's is a serious alteration of the whole nature of our government. Our system affords wide latitudes to the Government, and in return, it has long been seen that in exchange for that, the Government must behave with at least a modicum of honor, with some thought as to how the nature of our constitution gives them the power to create unintended precedents.

The Opposition should be blamed equally. Even if it meant delivering Harper another minority in early 2009, they should have toppled the government, they should have sent the message that Parliament, irrespective of who sits on the Government benches, is the supreme lawmaking body, and evading its will has very real consequences. Because they lost their nerve, they set the precedent as much as the Tories did. The whole Parliament brought itself to shame, so to some respect, popping up a year later and after another prorogation that they could have made some effort to prevent, to suddenly declare that they're going to fix it is a little rich. Still if the Opposition is determined to do it, then do it right. Don't screw it up and make it an unenforceable law that Harper can squeeze out of.

[g_bambino]

Still if the Opposition is determined to do it, then do it right. Don't screw it up and make it an unenforceable law that Harper can squeeze out of.

It would also seem that they're, as usual, focusing effort on the wrong target; rather than deal with the weakening of parliament that results from the way party leaders are chosen, party leaders prefer to protect themselves in that regard and tinker with the centuries-old parliamentary system itself, instead. Then again, it may just all be rhetoric and nothing will be done about anything once this all blows over.

[c/e]

Edited January 26, 2010 by g_bambino

[Shakeyhands]

Best Cartoon EVER!!!!

LOLZZZZZ.

Classic.

[g_bambino]

Best Cartoon EVER!!!!

That is pretty good.

[myata]

I'm not being obtuse. Prorogation has a purpose in our system, but as I say, things can be twisted. That is the nature of such procedures. You can bend it one way or you can bend it another.

Good stuff, finally we're getting somewhere. And if and when intelligent, rational and active (i.e. not terrified of acting and having will and determination to act, when needed) people find out an issue, defect in any one of the instruments in their life, be it a house; car; business; or political system, what do they do?

1) Pretend that it does not exist, or happens so "rarely" that can be written off as irrelevant (the notion of "rarity" being stretched on demand)

2) Get themselves busy with infinite discussions, reports and studies, then do nothing because of #1

3) Fix it, so that the sistem is enhanced and updated with the knowledge and experience of today, rather than our grand-grand-grand-etc ancestors?

Every time we have one of these discussions, you go off on rather odd tangents about "true democracy", which seems to be mainly defined as being "what myata believes".

That is exactly what it is, but what would be wrong with that? Is it possible to improve anything without looking at what's wrong with the existing state of affairs, and what would be the target to aspire to?

First of all,you are once again defining your wishes as the only possible course of action. Second of all, we are sovereign, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

No, you misread. As the course of action that appears to be most logical based on conclusions from logical arguments. We see the same issue coming up twice within a short time interval; the problem is clearly traced to one obvious questionnable instrument in political system. Questionnable I must say based on principles of responsible government and separation and independence of branches of power.

And no, we aren't sovereign or independent unless we can show it in act. And it starts with being able to fix problems in our lives (in whatever aspect ot them) here and now, without looking up to a foreign monarch, or a book written 150 years back for approval.

And here we go again, your baby tossing rhetoric. You don't like prorogation, apparently, and that's fine.

You seem to be misreading, again. It's not a matter of personal liking, no. Rather, I cannot reconsile it with the notion of responsible democracy, as I already explained.

To my mind, I'd rather have an American-style schedule; where the House sits between these dates and these dates, but then you still have to empower somebody to gather the House together in times of emergency, so we'd simply be swapping the GG's power to prorogue with the power to recall Parliament. The same problem, in reverse.

Not at all. I'm all for PM, GG or whoever else recalling the House for emergency. That is not equivalent to "shutting it down at will", should be easy enough to understand?

Translation: At this moment my favorite party will get a bonus power, so I don't give a crap what happens to the Tories.

Not at all, it's about the House being able to exercise its will. Whoever happens to be in majority (standalone or in coalition). As I explained, I do not have political favourites at this time.

You're not really about sober change to our system, you're all about giving your guys the up side. You're no different than the Tory supporters who come here bitching about those of us who question the last two prorogations.

I'd have to ignore this until there's some kind of substantiation. Clearly, the ability of the House to exercise its will will work for every lineup of the House, whether any particular party would be in minority, or otherwise. What would not be allowed, is for a minority faction to dictate and impose its will on the majority. One would think such situtiation would be grossly undemocratic, but then, talk can obscure many things.

Obviously, on a procedural level, the Government has some powers the Opposition does not. But no legislation can pass in this Parliament without at least pleasing a sufficient number of Opposition members to get a plurality of votes.

No, we have to go deeper than that, as I attempted to explain. Should those powers extend as far as compromising the work of legislative branch, and preventing free expression of will of elected House? How would it be compatible with the principles of democracy?

Like I said, I'm not against reforming powers like prorogation, or maybe even outright replacing it with a fixed legislative calendar. But I'm not under the illusion that this will produce a Parliament of perfect qualities. Giving the whole Parliament the power to prorogue (or not) essentially delivers the power to the Opposition in a minority situation (in a majority situation, it will be a meaningless vote in the House). A fixed schedule means the Executive will have to be further entrusted, on the advice of the PM, to recall the House in a dire situation (like a state of war or national emergency), which is how it works elsewhere.

No product of human endeavours is perfect. Should it imply that no improvement should be attempted unless "perfect" outcome is guaranteed?

I don't think these are unreasonable questions, and I hardly think myself a supporter of ancient ailing institutions that you so seem to despise, for asking them.

No I think they are legitimate questions that should be asked, and answered.

[g_bambino]

And it starts with being able to fix problems in our lives (in whatever aspect ot them) here and now, without looking up to a foreign monarch, or a book written 150 years back for approval.

And here is why, regardless of your intentions, it becomes intolerable to listen to you; like a broken record player, you simply repeat the same ignorance over and over, which does nothing but drain others' faith in the arguments you have. Of course, you could try to prove as true what you keep asserting is - i.e. that Canada's monarch is foreign, monarchy is anti-democratic, and old is inherently bad - but you don't. You simply repeat a Bolshevik-like mantra, mistaking what sounds good with what is intelligent.