Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[ToadBrother]

OK...but I'm not sure what that means given the history of such things. Does such a process or framework even exist?

It depends on what it is. Those things which are essentially defined via convention (ie. the office of Prime Minister or the voting method used to select MPs) could, theoretically, be changed by Parliament. Other changes, like Senate reform, because the methods of appointing Senators, are defined in the Constitution Act, 1982 and the British North America Act) would require an amendment (and we have amendment formulas just like the US). In fact, it isn't all that different. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate pretty much control how they do their business, but if you want to change how folks get selected to those bodies (ie. the 17th Amendment) requires an amendment.

I'm presently watching PM Harper get grilled by the press on C-SPAN and it is obvious that Canada cannot escape the working context of an American framework, and it spills over even into this discussion (e.g. republicanism).

And again the issue is, what sort of republic? If we adopt the American or French stylings of an elected executive, we aren't talking about a constitutional amendment or two, we're pretty much talking about abandoning in almost its entirety the system of government that has existed since 1688 (and even earlier, if you choose to include the era of Absolutism, remember our government doesn't begin in 1982 or 1867, but is part of the Parliamentary system dating back, in one form or another, to the pre-Norman English Witenagemot, which in turn is derived from the old councils to the Germanic chieftains or kings). If you're simply talking about replacing the GG with an equally constrained President (like Ireland did), then other than as some sort of egalitarian statement, you have done nothing, because the Prime Minister still holds the same effective powers, and the executive is still bound to listen to him or her.

Edited January 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

And again the issue is, what sort of republic? If we adopt the American or French stylings of an elected executive, we aren't talking about a constitutional amendment or two, we're pretty much talking about abandoning in almost its entirety the system of government that has existed since 1688 (and even earlier, if you choose to include the era of Absolutism, remember our government doesn't begin in 1982 or 1867, but is part of the Parliamentary system dating back, in one form or another, to the pre-Norman English Witenagemot, which in turn is derived from the old councils to the Germanic chieftains or kings).

Very well done, but methinks you have identified one of the main challenges / issues. Roots that reach back that far will never yield a different kind of tree or fruit. My American bias would quickly invoke the chain saw for such clinging notions, but Canada is not the USA, land of rebel "bastards". Yet the Canadian electorate is subjected to many tantalizing possibilities from afar, which only begs at what could / should be. No doubt there will be anothe thread about proportioanl representation before the next election....east vs. west vs. Maritimes vs. ....

If you're simply talking about replacing the GG with an equally constrained President (like Ireland did), then other than as some sort of egalitarian statement, you have done nothing, because the Prime Minister still holds the same effective powers, and the executive is still bound to listen to him or her.

We know that a Canadian PM is arguably the most powerful executive in any "western democracy", with only very clumsy and blunt instruments to check his/her policies.

[ToadBrother]

Very well done, but methinks you have identified one of the main challenges / issues. Roots that reach back that far will never yield a different kind of tree or fruit. My American bias would quickly invoke the chain saw for such clinging notions, but Canada is not the USA, land of rebel "bastards". Yet the Canadian electorate is subjected to many tantalizing possibilities from afar, which only begs at what could / should be. No doubt there will be anothe thread about proportioanl representation before the next election....east vs. west vs. Maritimes vs. ....

Even the rebel bastards retained the Common Law, so it's not like the Madison and Gang rewrote everything from the ground up.

We know that a Canadian PM is arguably the most powerful executive in any "western democracy", with only very clumsy and blunt instruments to check his/her policies.

But the problems are, in large part, psychological. There's nothing in our system to prevent what happened to Thatcher in the UK, if they'd just get the balls to do it. The problems are Parliament suffers are timidity and an unwillingness to piss off the party leadership. The solutions do not require vast alterations to our system. In fact, most of the solutions, at least as far as the Commons are concerned, could be accomplished in situ, with nary a constitutional question. It doesn't matter what system you have if the elected representatives behave like chickens with the fox outside.

Harper isn't really all that powerful. Yes, he controls the machinery of government, but his big advantage hasn't come from any constitutional flaw, but rather from the fact that he has, for the most part, outthought and outcompeted his opponents. One could well imagine that if there was a Trudeau or a Chretien sitting on the Opposition side, Harper would be in for a far more difficult ride. The rule of our system, and it has been so since the office evolved, is that a Prime Minister is only as strong as his party is compliant and his opponents are weak. If that balance tips in any way (as Thatcher did with the poll tax), then you're finished.

Edited January 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

Even the rebel bastards retained the Common Law, so it's not like the Madison and Gang rewrote everything from the ground up.

Again, you are ignoring the main point, which is the very notion of cleaving away from a very old rock. "Madison and Gang" inventoried many possibilities and reached a design forced by compromise, yet it was a new design that categorically rejected the governance instruments that had been used before.

But the problems are, in large part, psychological. There's nothing in our system to prevent what happened to Thatcher in the UK, if they'd just get the balls to do it. The problems are Parliament suffers are timidity and an unwillingness to piss off the party leadership. The solutions do not require vast alterations to our system. In fact, most of the solutions, at least as far as the Commons are concerned, could be accomplished in situ, with nary a constitutional question. It doesn't matter what system you have if the elected representatives behave like chickens with the fox outside.

You are using codewords that we know to be regionalism, separatism, and several other "isms". Since a civil war is something only the uncivilized Americans would do, then another approach will have to be found. Oh, and it must cost far less that $200 million dollars it would seem.

[ToadBrother]

You are using codewords that we know to be regionalism, separatism, and several other "isms". Since a civil war is something only the uncivilized Americans would do, then another approach will have to be found. Oh, and it must cost far less that $200 million dollars it would seem.

I haven't used any code words so far as I can tell. And no matter what system you have, "isms" won't go away. Let's see how the US is faring in a generation or two when Spanish-speaking Mexican-Americans outnumber the more traditional white and black voters and begin to flex their muscles at the Federal level like Quebec does up here.

[William Ashley]

Hate to break it to you but the PM has no constitutional powers, only the Queen is stated as being Executive Head of State. That is the law, your revisionism with illegal rewritting of Canadian law is amusing.

[William Ashley]

Hate to break it to you but the PM has no constitutional powers, only the Queen is stated as being Executive Head of State. That is the law, your revisionism with illegal rewritting of Canadian law is amusing.

Minister's role is to advise parliament and carry out their wishes. The PM is no different in that they advise on who should be in Cabinet, and other posts, but it is the Executive or their proxy which has to powers to place.

This whole - automatic vending machine concept is totally legally false, and it is a shame that you are criminalizing Canada with fantasies of process. Both the GG and the Queen can override the PM if they have grounds to do so. The role of the head of state is much a benevolent dictator legally rather than ceremonial head.

The convention isn't established and changes by the decade.

[g_bambino]

The problems are Parliament suffers are timidity and an unwillingness to piss off the party leadership.

Precisely! As I said in another post: our system of government is no different to dozens around the world. If we have issues with an ever more presidentialised PMO, it's not because of the system, but what we've grafted onto it: namely, our rather unique party structure. In other parliaments, MPs have more influence because the Prime Minister is chosen by, and is thus accountable to, caucus, rather than being elected by a party membership he really never has to face, leaving him able to threaten his MPs into silence.

[c/e]

Edited January 4, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

Hate to break it to you but the PM has no constitutional powers, only the Queen is stated as being Executive Head of State. That is the law, your revisionism with illegal rewritting of Canadian law is amusing.

The PM doesn't have "official" existence3, but the Cabinet, as Her Majesty's Ministers does, as she (or her vice-regal) acts only on the advice of said Ministers. This is the way it's been since 1688, when Parliament offered the throne to William III and Mary providing they recognized the Supremacy of Parliament (or, as it's called with good reason the Glorious Revolution).

Again, the Royal Prerogative is only to be used upon the advice of His or Her Majesty's Ministers.

Edited January 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Minister's role is to advise parliament and carry out their wishes. The PM is no different in that they advise on who should be in Cabinet, and other posts, but it is the Executive or their proxy which has to powers to place.

This whole - automatic vending machine concept is totally legally false, and it is a shame that you are criminalizing Canada with fantasies of process. Both the GG and the Queen can override the PM if they have grounds to do so. The role of the head of state is much a benevolent dictator legally rather than ceremonial head.

The convention isn't established and changes by the decade.

Convention is quite clear, and has been since 1688. The Monarch acts only on the advice of His or Her Ministers. Period. In certain very rare situations (like the King-Byng Affair and the Australian Constitutional Crisis) the Vice-regal may use those Reserve Powers, but they are so rare as to pretty much be the exceptions that make the rule.

[bush_cheney2004]

I haven't used any code words so far as I can tell. And no matter what system you have, "isms" won't go away. Let's see how the US is faring in a generation or two when Spanish-speaking Mexican-Americans outnumber the more traditional white and black voters and begin to flex their muscles at the Federal level like Quebec does up here.

Hispanics already outnumber "black" voters in the USA...to President Barack Obama's delight. Yet there is no talk of a constituional crisis.

Forget the damn Americans (if you can)....if the perfectly legal prorogueing of Parliament is just another bitching contest, then is there a problem at all, besides petty politics?

[William Ashley]

Convention is quite clear, and has been since 1688. The Monarch acts only on the advice of His or Her Ministers. Period. In certain very rare situations (like the King-Byng Affair and the Australian Constitutional Crisis) the Vice-regal may use those Reserve Powers, but they are so rare as to pretty much be the exceptions that make the rule.

Not really, the Monarch has made many of their own decisions. Acting on advice does not equal following the orders of.

[William Ashley]

Not really, the Monarch has made many of their own decisions. Acting on advice does not equal following the orders of.

"the standard though is not to medle in politics"

medling in law, to uphold it is another matter.

[ToadBrother]

Not really, the Monarch has made many of their own decisions. Acting on advice does not equal following the orders of.

Perhaps you would be good enough to give say, five examples in the last 100 years where the Monarch or their Vice-regal representative have acted without or against the advice of their Ministers? They can't even get married without Parliament's consent.

[William Ashley]

Perhaps you would be good enough to give say, five examples in the last 100 years where the Monarch or their Vice-regal representative have acted without or against the advice of their Ministers? They can't even get married without Parliament's consent.

I don't think the Queen calls up Harper to see if she can whipe her anus, sorry try again.

Is that an offer to make me a P.C.? With access to all cabinet records for the last 100 years?

[ToadBrother]

I don't think the Queen calls up Harper to see if she can whipe her anus, sorry try again.

Is that an offer to make me a P.C.? With access to all cabinet records for the last 100 years?

Is there some reason you didn't answer my question? If you don't have evidence for a claim, the appropriate thing to do is not to make the claim. And if you are caught making a claim that you cannot provide evidence for, the appropriate response is to retract, not hope that your interlocutor is so timid or stupid as to take petulance and goalpost shifting as a replacement for fact.

Edited January 5, 2010 by ToadBrother

[William Ashley]

Is there some reason you didn't answer my question? If you don't have evidence for a claim, the appropriate thing to do is not to make the claim. And if you are caught making a claim that you cannot provide evidence for, the appropriate response is to retract, not hope that your interlocutor is so timid or stupid as to take petulance and goalpost shifting as a replacement for fact.

Sure there are lots of examples. Some of them already mentioned - the issue is though what appears to be publically true may not be the truth.

How many times was the war measures act enacted?

What I do know is Canadian History, and right up to the abdication of the English Throne and even after it, there was a lot of liberty in how the Crown exercised their powers, although seriously minded taking into consideration the advice of their advisors. The structure itself of the royalty was that ministers themselves were royals. Also bear in mind Canada was part of Britain up until the last 30 or so years, with british citizenship existing in place of Canadian citizenship. Bear in mind the UK has something known as the house of lords, an in part hereditary legislature.

Edited January 5, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

"Madison and Gang" inventoried many possibilities and reached a design forced by compromise, yet it was a new design that categorically rejected the governance instruments that had been used before.

In the contemporary context, it actually wasn't all that new; the equivalents to the King and the House of Lords were both elected, but, as in Britain at the end of the 18th century, the chief executive was very much also the active head of government, surrounded by a court, unaccountable to parliament, and able to veto legislation. In some ways, the US system now looks unique because it has remained somewhat fossilised as the Westminster form evolved.

[g_bambino]

What I do know is Canadian History.

No, I'm afraid you don't.

[g_bambino]

Convention is quite clear, and has been since 1688. The Monarch acts only on the advice of His or Her Ministers. Period.

I'm not sure that the date is so definite. The Glorious Revolution brought about a number of changes, but the selection of ministers and the acceptance of their advice remained very haphazard until about the time of William IV. I believe the cabinet system and responsible government are the result of an evolution rather than an immediate implementation.

[ToadBrother]

I'm not sure that the date is so definite. The Glorious Revolution brought about a number of changes, but the selection of ministers and the acceptance of their advice remained very haphazard until about the time of William IV. I believe the cabinet system and responsible government are the result of an evolution rather than an immediate implementation.

I mention 1688 because it's at that point that Parliament became Supreme, any notion of absolutism was ended and Britain became a true constitutional monarchy. one could argue for the signing of the Magna Carta, but it's pretty clear that the Stuarts didn't buy into any notions of limits on their power, which is why Charles I ended being lighter the weight of his head, and why ultimately James II was chased out of England (well, that, and the fact that he was a Catholic, and the Glorious Revolution solved that little problem too) and William and Mary were offered the job.

Responsible government, at least as we recognize it, didn't ultimately come about for about another century, but 1688 is key because the Monarch could only use his or her prerogatives with the advice and consent of Parliament. What took time was a final organization of Parliament, and that required both the evolution of the Cabinet and of the party system (which largely evolved during the reign of George III). By Victoria's time, the Constitutional Monarchy had largely evolved into the system we recognize today, with a formalized cabinet selected by the Prime Minister (rather than the Monarch, though, technically, the Monarch still appoints the Cabinet based on the advice of the Prime Minister).

[ToadBrother]

Sure there are lots of examples. Some of them already mentioned - the issue is though what appears to be publically true may not be the truth.

How many times was the war measures act enacted?

What I do know is Canadian History, and right up to the abdication of the English Throne and even after it, there was a lot of liberty in how the Crown exercised their powers, although seriously minded taking into consideration the advice of their advisors. The structure itself of the royalty was that ministers themselves were royals. Also bear in mind Canada was part of Britain up until the last 30 or so years, with british citizenship existing in place of Canadian citizenship. Bear in mind the UK has something known as the house of lords, an in part hereditary legislature.

In short, in place of evidence, you provide a conspiracy theory. I take it you're not going to provide any examples. I can think of exactly two in the last hundred years; the King-Byng Affair and the Australian Constitutional Crisis, where Reserve Powers have been used without or in defiance of the will of a Prime Minister and Cabinet. As I said, such instances are so rare that they essentially prove the rule; the Monarch reigns, but on the advice of His or Her Government. There has been no absolutist monarch in our system since 1688.

Edited January 5, 2010 by ToadBrother

[DrGreenthumb]

In short, in place of evidence, you provide a conspiracy theory. I take it you're not going to provide any examples. I can think of exactly two in the last hundred years; the King-Byng Affair and the Australian Constitutional Crisis, where Reserve Powers have been used without or in defiance of the will of a Prime Minister and Cabinet. As I said, such instances are so rare that they essentially prove the rule; the Monarch reigns, but on the advice of His or Her Government. There has been no absolutist monarch in our system since 1688.

Did anyone watch The Hour with Strombo tonight? He really tore a strip off Harper, and Andrew Coyne, his guest wasn't too impressed with Prime Minister Perogy either. Hopefully this issue will stay in the press for the next two months and Canada can finally throw this Harper bum to the curb. I'll post a link to the video when it becomes available. Hopefully Mercer will take a few swipes at him tommorrow night.

[jbg]

Nothing compared to the Civil War. Thanks for your comments

The only way to avoid Civil War is to appease Quebec?

[jbg]

Hate to break it to you but the PM has no constitutional powers, only the Queen is stated as being Executive Head of State. That is the law, your revisionism with illegal rewritting of Canadian law is amusing.

WhoWhereWhatYouSaying?