Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[g_bambino]

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".

It's not only "true democracy", but also, as I outlined above, the value of what is old, the place of monarchy in democracy, and the sovereignty of Canada. Indeed, myata's arguments are beefed up mostly with hollow assertions that stand only because he stubbornly ignores contrary fact. If he'd quit that self-righteous pretence, he'd have less to say, but it might actually be more valuable.

[myata]

And here is why, regardless of your intentions, it becomes intolerable to listen to you;

I would expect it to be quite painful to feel utterly right about something yet being utterly unable to put up one meaningful argument to support your position. I'd admit my faults just so you'd feel better, yet in the essence of things, it's nothing to do with me, really. I'm only bringing up my thoughts and ideas here, and I'm very sorry they are triggering that sort of allergic rejection in 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,

Oh, you mean our monarch is a Canadian? When did they last set foot on this land I beg you? Or contributed to our affairs here, in any meaningful way (discounting sentimental and/or patriotical tear shedding for a moment)?

monarchy is anti-democratic,

No, it's all in the word really. One fine individual, of noble bloods, upbringing and bearing telling a crowd of others what they should (and could) do - or not, would be fully "democratic".

and old is inherently bad - but you don't.

No I don't, because I never said anything like that. I freely admit the lack of proficiency in matters historical or constitutional but at least I can read what others say, and write what I mean to.

You simply repeat a Bolshevik-like mantra, mistaking what sounds good with what is intelligent.

And that is no doubt, your good reason for failing to ever coming up with anything resembling an intelligent argument to counter "Bolshevik propaganda" (how original, btw!)? Yes, I believe.

Edited January 26, 2010 by myata

[ToadBrother]

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)

Well, minority governments are not that common in our system. Now maybe we're going to see a generation of minorities, in which case, yes, it is an important issue in the long-term. I don't like prorogation to escape confidence votes, that's for sure. The 2009 prorogation is a lesser evil, in my view.

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

As point out below, you seem to be one of these guys that just wants to fire the cannon, regardless of where it's pointed.

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?

Fixing it means doing things in an intelligent fashion. Prorogation has a purpose. I'm perfectly willing to accept alternatives, but not just knee-jerk reactionary solutions that might only make things worse, or at the very least, won't make it better.

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?

So you're willing to permit the Executive on the advice of the Government decide if events are sufficiently important to recall Parliament, but the inverse, that the Executive on the advice of Government decide when to end a session of Parliament, is wrong?

Maybe your biggest flaw isn't that your overly ideological, maybe it's that you're a sloppy thinker who doesn't really know what you want, but merely reacts to what emotionally, at least, you know you don't want. There's a certain kind of knee-jerkism to your posts. You know what Harper did is bad, so you'll grasp at the easiest (at least on the surface) solution, with little concern for long term effects. That's precisely Harper's problem. From his perspective, proroguing Parliament solves immediate problems. That it potentially sets up dangerous precedents doesn't seem to enter the equation.

I would like a more thoughtful appraisal of events than "monarchs are bad, prorogation is bad, let's change that!"

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.

To a certain extent we have to rely on a potential minority imposing its will. Like I said, I haven't seen any of the anti-prorogation crowd bitching that the Government has far greater procedural powers, in that it effectively controls the goings-ons of the House. The legislative agenda is set up by the Government.

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?

My chief problem here is that democracy is not some homogeneous conceptual glob. There are all sorts of democracies. You have some nebulous "true" democracy that I doubt very much you've even formulated beyond, as I said above, what you know you don't like. That's not the way to reform a system.

There's a balance that has to be struck here, between Parliament's ultimate supremacy in formulating and passing legislation, and a Government's ability to, well, govern; to ensure the various departments and institutions function, to enforce legislation, and most importantly to set out and attempt the achievement of long-term policies.

Things work rather different in some other democratic systems. In the United States, while there is some degree of party discipline, the Executive and the Legislative branches all have overlapping powers, checking and balancing each other. Effectively government in the US constitutes the compromises that the President, Congress and the Senate work out. The President, as Executive, is responsible for much of the day-to-day running of governments via his cabinet and the departments they oversee, but at the end of the day, no single body in the US government has ultimate power. That is a different system than ours. In some ways it is superior, but it also means that it's almost impossible for any policy to survive in full (look at health care reform).

Our system affords the Government much more latitude in this respect, with the basic notion that if a Government goes too far, it is always conceivable for Parliament to replace it. Is it better or worse than the American system? Yes and yes. In some ways, I like the American system, but it does lead to a considerably greater amount of horse trading and sometimes underhanded dealing. In other ways I like our system because it's a lot more adaptable. You call it old, but I call it a survivor. Our system has survived numerous crises; social, economic and even armed conflict. It's institutions have proven extraordinarily malleable with a minimum of concrete principles. It isn't perfect, and it allows some unique abuses, though they have happened rarely enough that I would like to think that perhaps Parliament could clean its own house without resorting to ill-thought alterations. The Opposition could take care of all of this right now by toppling the government. If Harper knew that every time he crossed the line, he'd either be facing election or a potential take over by a coalition, he'd be much less likely to push the button.

[ToadBrother]

Oh, you mean our monarch is a Canadian? When did they last set foot on this land I beg you? Or contributed to our affairs here, in any meaningful way (discounting sentimental and/or patriotical tear shedding for a moment)?

Yes, technically she is. She is the Queen of Canada.

And your tipping your ideological hand again.

[myata]

Yes, technically she is.

Yeagh right. By some technically correct books (for those who believe in them), the world has started in 6 days about five thousand years back.

What I mean is in reality though, just look out that window. Is there any notion, any infinitesimal trace of our monarch's act anywhere in it? Your book reflects the reality as it was 150 years back, and you want our life today be modelled by that book?

No, I'm not ideological in the sense that my ideas or beliefs would dictate or impose on the lives of others. I'm for a simple, transparent and open, and rational system of governance that allows each part of government do their work in a responsible, to citizens, way without interfering with other parts. Especially, with ploys and methods inherited from medieval ages.

Now, who's being "ideological"?

[g_bambino]

I would expect it to be quite painful to feel utterly right about something yet being utterly unable to put up one meaningful argument to support your position.

[bolshevik propaganda removed]

That was hardly more than a long-winded "I know you are, but what am I?" retort and another repeat of the same mantra. And what's the use of responding to your question and points when they've nothing to do with what I was speaking about in response to you? It wasn't the monarch's nationality that you initially cast doubt on, it was Canada's sovereignty. It wasn't the democratic nature of monarchy itself that was in question, it was monarchy's place in democracy. It isn't just that you've claimed the constitution is lacking, but that it is deficient because it is old. How is one to put forward a meaningful argument when you constantly shift the focus of the debate?

[ToadBrother]

Yeagh right. By some technically correct books (for those who believe in them), the world has started in 6 days about five thousand years back.

I vote this one "Non Sequitur of the Day".

What I mean is in reality though, just look out that window. Is there any notion, any infinitesimal trace of our monarch's act anywhere in it? Your book reflects the reality as it was 150 years back, and you want our life today be modelled by that book?

In reality, we have a Governor General who exercises the Royal Prerogatives. She is a Canadian (though an immigrant from Haiti). So your objection seems at best spurious.

No, I'm not ideological in the sense that my ideas or beliefs would dictate or impose on the lives of others. I'm for a simple, transparent and open, and rational system of governance that allows each part of government do their work in a responsible, to citizens, way without interfering with other parts. Especially, with ploys and methods inherited from medieval ages.

Now, who's being "ideological"?

The ideology comes in at the point that you insist that your vague notions of democracy are the only possible ones, and that because something is old, it must therefore be bad.

[g_bambino]

Yeagh right. What I mean is in reality.

I hate to bite at this diversion, but it is just another example of you thinking everything is limited to your personal scope of belief; you set what is "reality", including the definition of "Canadian" - one's physical location and not just contributions to Canadian affairs, but "meaningful" contributions, with the definition of "meaningful", no doubt, also set down by you.

What is "Canadian" is not so narrow as you make it; there are various connotations of the word, depending greatly on context; place of birth isn't the sole definer, nor is physical location, and even law isn't the one true adjudicator of what is Canadian and what is not. In the case of the monarch, she is the personification of the nation, the head of an institution with ancient roots in Canada, the head of state, and the individual in whom the Canadian people trust their sovereign authority. I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue how she fails to be Canadian.

[c/e]

Edited January 26, 2010 by g_bambino

[myata]

In reality, we have a Governor General who exercises the Royal Prerogatives. She is a Canadian (though an immigrant from Haiti). So your objection seems at best spurious.

Wrong again. In reality, as the events most recent shown, she does not exercise anything. The government represening a minority faction of the Parliament has been able to obstruct, ignore and shut down the Parliament and that is the reality. Who cares what fancy words can be found in the dusty books for that event, it doesn't change the reality of things one bit.

The ideology comes in at the point that you insist that your vague notions of democracy are the only possible ones,

No, and one more time (sigh!), not my "vague notions", but obvious and logically sound principles of responsible democratic governance, namely, separation and independence of branches of power. Sorry to remind yet again, but you still haven't explained to us how the ability of the government to shut down legislative branch relates to those principles.

and that because something is old, it must therefore be bad.

Well I'm getting tired to repeat that I never said that. Something that is obviously causing a problem, repeatedly in a short period of time, must be fixed unless we're OK running into that problem over and over. It's just that that old things have higher tendency to break (i.e get out of touch with reality and cause those problems), so statistically you're more likely fixing old things than the new ones. If you actually care to fix broken things, that is.

[ToadBrother]

Wrong again. In reality, as the events most recent shown, she does not exercise anything. The government represening a minority faction of the Parliament has been able to obstruct, ignore and shut down the Parliament and that is the reality. Who cares what fancy words can be found in the dusty books for that event, it doesn't change the reality of things one bit.

No, she prorogued Parliament, on the advice of the Government. To do anything else would stretch beyond the limits of responsible government. I think what you would like is no actual government in Parliament at all.

And what's this "fancy words" crap? What are you, some inbred hillbilly? Come on.

No, and one more time (sigh!), not my "vague notions", but obvious and logically sound principles of responsible democratic governance, namely, separation and independence of branches of power. Sorry to remind yet again, but you still haven't explained to us how the ability of the government to shut down legislative branch relates to those principles.

You seem to be confusing your notions with "logic" and "sound principle". I think you don't know what the hell your talking about. Stephen Harper, as the leader of the largest bloc in Parliament, is the Prime Minister, and he advises the PM. What you really want, though you're not fast to admit it, is for someone else to be PM. I doubt very much you would be crying for changes to the system if the Coalition had worked out.

But as we keep saying, the Opposition has had no shortage of opportunities to bring down the Government. Why aren't you demanding alterations in confidence motions to make them easier? Why aren't you demanding the Government's control of the legislative agenda be weakened? You see, you tip your hand with each and every post.

Well I'm getting tired to repeat that I never said that. Something that is obviously causing a problem, repeatedly in a short period of time, must be fixed unless we're OK running into that problem over and over. It's just that that old things have higher tendency to break (i.e get out of touch with reality and cause those problems), so statistically you're more likely fixing old things than the new ones. If you actually care to fix broken things, that is.

You can't even justify "older things tend to break". Political systems aren't cars. Your other big problem is that you confuse analogies with reality.

Edited January 26, 2010 by ToadBrother

[capricorn]

In reality, as the events most recent shown, she does not exercise anything.

How would you know that myata. The discussions between the PM and the GG on both of Harper's prorogues have not been made public. It is normal that such discussions remain private and this was so even when Liberals were in government. What we do know is that at one point in the discussions, the GG paused to consult her office's constitutional advisers. All we have in the public domain is speculation of what went on behind closed doors.

[ToadBrother]

How would you know that myata. The discussions between the PM and the GG on both of Harper's prorogues have not been made public. It is normal that such discussions remain private and this was so even when Liberals were in government. What we do know is that at one point in the discussions, the GG paused to consult her office's constitutional advisers. All we have in the public domain is speculation of what went on behind closed doors.

I think it's fairly clear that myata doesn't understand our system of government, and seems to have little interest in understanding. The system is bad, because some of its results violate myata's extraordinarily vague notions of "true democracy". I suspect myata has little notion of how the Executive in this country, or any other for that matter, functions.

[myata]

How would you know that myata. The discussions between the PM and the GG on both of Harper's prorogues have not been made public. It is normal that such discussions remain private and this was so even when Liberals were in government. What we do know is that at one point in the discussions, the GG paused to consult her office's constitutional advisers. All we have in the public domain is speculation of what went on behind closed doors.

And, most importantly, we have the result. The government asked to shut down the Parliament; the government got its wish. Twice. Now, how's closed doors, speculations and consultations figure in that conundrum?

To T-B: I notice another trend here, the number of "doesn't understand" escape lines in direct proportion to the number of unanswered questions. Just a coincidence, I know. Have to run now, but will respond with more later.

Edited January 26, 2010 by myata

[g_bambino]

The government asked to shut down the Parliament; the government got its wish.

Which directly contradicts your earlier statement:

he does not exercise anything.

[ToadBrother]

And, most importantly, we have the result. The government asked to shut down the Parliament; the government got its wish. Twice. Now, how's closed doors, speculations and consultations figure in that conundrum?

The Opposition could have toppled the government in January 2009 and they could again topple it in March. The government in any democracy is only as strong as the opposition is weak. I honestly wish the Opposition had toppled Harper last year, even if it meant another election, but they blinked. No system can possibly make up for an Opposition without the balls to back up their anger.

T-B: I notice another trend here, the number of "doesn't understand" escape lines in direct proportion to the number of unanswered questions. Just a coincidence, I know. Have to run now, but will respond with more later.

You mean that I don't endlessly repeat answers to questions already asked and answered. The fact is that you don't like the answers, but rather than say "no, that sucks", you keep rephrasing leading questions.

[ironstone]

Harper is definately not a major league player when it comes to the subject of prorogation.As it turns out,Bob Rae,perhaps Harper's most vocal critic is somewhat of an expert on prorogation.While Premier of Ontario,the holier-than-thou Rae prorogued the legislature at Queen's Park THREE TIMES!

From Dec 19/1991 until April 6/1992.

From Dec 10/1992 until April 13/1992.

From Dec 9/1994 until April 28/1995.

Anyone that remembers Rae's time as Ontario's Premier knows that he was without doubt,the worst in Ontario's history.What's the opposite of the Midas touch?Rae certainly had it in spades.

Notice how many months the Ontario Legislature wasn't sitting because of Bob Rae?

Harper pales in comparison to silver spoon socialist Rae when it comes to prorogation.

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/christina_blizzard/2010/01/25/12605421.html

Any comment about Rae?Perhaps our future Prime Minister I think those of you on the left should look in the mirror.

Can you say HYPOCRITE?

Edited January 27, 2010 by Charles Anthony
merged thread

[William Ashley]

what doesn't appear right for these two..

From Dec 19/1991 until April 6/1992.

From Dec 10/1992 until April 13/1992

did you mean perhaps 1993...? for the second one?

What were the reasons for the prorouge...???

it is not that there was a prorogue but the reason for it.

Although judging by the - responsible costs saving steps taken this could be another example of cost savings.

Edited January 27, 2010 by William Ashley

[ironstone]

My typo,indeed the second date goes from Dec 10/1992 until April 13/1993.

This is from the link I provided.

As premier, he prorogued this legislature not once, not twice — but three times. And for much longer than Harper has prorogued the federal Parliament. Rae’s NDP won power Sept. 6, 1990. On Dec. 19, 1991, Rae prorogued the House. They didn’t come back until April 6, 1992. He then prorogued again, Dec. 10, 1992 — and didn’t come back until April 13, 1993.

By 1994, his government had run out of steam. They were running double-digit deficits and he’d doubled the debt. Some of his experimental policies proved laughable at best and disastrous at worst. Limping badly, he prorogued for the third time on Dec. 9, 1994. The House did not sit again until the legislature was dissolved April 28, 1995.

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

For four-and-a-half months, the province had no sitting legislature. Was there a grassroots uprising of self-righteous people decrying Rae for ending democracy?

Did you even bother to read the article by Christina Blizzard?So you conclude that when Rae prorogues,it's for cost saving?You're pulling my leg you kidder you.

[jbg]

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.

Would you have given Chrétien the same lecture for proroguing in such a manner as to cause the release of the AG's report (you know, Adscam) on Martin's watch?

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.

I agree, a bit cynical. The opposition knew it couldn't risk an election with its very iffy leadership. It knew from public reaction that a coalion attempt would badly backfire.

[Topaz]

Harper is definately not a major league player when it comes to the subject of prorogation.As it turns out,Bob Rae,perhaps Harper's most vocal critic is somewhat of an expert on prorogation.While Premier of Ontario,the holier-than-thou Rae prorogued the legislature at Queen's Park THREE TIMES!

From Dec 19/1991 until April 6/1992.

From Dec 10/1992 until April 13/1992.

From Dec 9/1994 until April 28/1995.

Anyone that remembers Rae's time as Ontario's Premier knows that he was without doubt,the worst in Ontario's history.What's the opposite of the Midas touch?Rae certainly had it in spades.

Notice how many months the Ontario Legislature wasn't sitting because of Bob Rae?

Harper pales in comparison to silver spoon socialist Rae when it comes to prorogation.

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/christina_blizzard/2010/01/25/12605421.html

Any comment about Rae?Perhaps our future Prime Minister I think those of you on the left should look in the mirror.

Can you say HYPOCRITE?

Hey, IF you keep looking at the rear-view mirror, you'll never see what's coming at you!! Bob Rae has said over and over, that as Premier he did make mistakes but the Rae Days, tried to keep people working and have some income coming in. When Harris took over CUPE, I'm sure they had Rae back. He didn't send the OPP on them, he didn't cut jobs, so HARRIS was worst than Rae!!

[robert_viera]

Harper is definately not a major league player when it comes to the subject of prorogation.As it turns out,Bob Rae,perhaps Harper's most vocal critic is somewhat of an expert on prorogation.While Premier of Ontario,the holier-than-thou Rae prorogued the legislature at Queen's Park THREE TIMES!

From Dec 19/1991 until April 6/1992.

From Dec 10/1992 until April 13/1992.

From Dec 9/1994 until April 28/1995.

In each of those instances the Ontario Legislative Assembly was prorogued while it was still sitting. Stephen Harper's latest prorogue occurred when the House of Commons was adjourned for the winter break.

[robert_viera]

I think we need a little historic perspective here. For six years, from 1998-2003, under the Harris/Eves Conservatives in Ontario, the legislative assembly did not sit for a single day in the months of January, February, or March. In 2002 the legislature did not resume sitting until the 9th of May. In 2003 the legislature did not resume sitting until the 30th of April. Many of the members of the Harris/Eves governments are now members of Stephen Harper's government.

Edited January 27, 2010 by robert_viera

[Wilber]

I'm not sure Harper would thank you for being compared in the same light as Rae but carry on.

[ironstone]

The reactions are pretty much what I thought they would be.Everyone glossing over over Rae's record and some jumping all over Mike Harris.

For the record,I am not behind Harper all the way either.There are things he does that remind me all to much of the Liberals,he caters to Quebec too much,government is spending too much and last but not least,he is unwilling or unable to reign in all of the greedy public service unions.

Compared to the alternatives however,Harper stands head and shoulders above them.

[Wild Bill]

Hey, IF you keep looking at the rear-view mirror, you'll never see what's coming at you!! Bob Rae has said over and over, that as Premier he did make mistakes but the Rae Days, tried to keep people working and have some income coming in. When Harris took over CUPE, I'm sure they had Rae back. He didn't send the OPP on them, he didn't cut jobs, so HARRIS was worst than Rae!!

Yes Topaz, everyone makes mistakes. Even Einstein made mistakes. However, the type of mistakes we make can tell everyone how smart we are. There are some approaches that are a real good try and there are some approaches that show the person trying is simply a bonehead!

THAT's why so many people don't respect Bob Rae for his term as Ontario premier! He made BONEHEAD mistakes!

If you saw someone bailing with a bucket held upside down would you keep forgiving him his mistakes? Especially as the water is filling up the boat??!!

Or would you throw him over the side and let someone who at least knows how a bucket WORKS have a try at the job?