Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[jbg]

I find it funny how people like you refer to Alberta as "the country"

He was referring to the Royal Dominion of Canada, not Alberta.

[g_bambino]

The federal government in terms of power is above the provinces.

That is absolutely, 100% wrong. The provincial and federal governments are equal under the one Crown; the provinces covet (obviously) this relationship, even though Ottawa has attempted time and time again to hoard a greater amount of power for itself.

[-]

Edited January 10, 2010 by g_bambino

[nicky10013]

That is absolutely, 100% wrong. The provincial and federal governments are equal under the one Crown; the provinces covet (obviously) this relationship, even though Ottawa has attempted time and time again to hoard a greater amount of power for itself.

[-]

The jurisdiction of powers in the constitution makes it quite clear that the federal government was to be a powerful, unifying force in the country. People can say legally provinces and the federal government are defined as equal but that section of the BNA act proves otherwise. If they're equal entities then why ditribute reserve power to the federal government?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Furthermore, using the US system as a comparison isn't paying lip service. The crippling inefficiency of congress is what would happen here.

The "crippling inefficiency" of the US Congress is by design (bi-cameral sloth, checks, balances, etc.). Such comparisons are a diversion from the domestic governance cracks in Canada, real or perceived. Good luck with that....

[nicky10013]

The "crippling inefficiency" of the US Congress is by design (bi-cameral sloth, checks, balances, etc.). Such comparisons are a diversion from the domestic governance cracks in Canada, real or perceived. Good luck with that....

I know they're by design. It also causes horrendous amounts of corruption. Easy to vote down a bill when you're getting hundreds of thousands from special interests.

I don't want that. I'm secure enough in the strength of our democracy to eliminate a check or two. We obviously need a change or two but not a change of the constitution.

[jbg]

Trudeau...centralized power in his office and ruled with an iron fist....Mulroney... was used to giving orders and having them obeyed - not questioned.....Jean Chretien was even more of a micromanaging dictator than Trudeau....Now whatever Harper's inclincations might have been they have turned, in a minority parliament, into a siege mentality which says "we stick together or we fall" and so again, power is centralized and controlled, all talking-points carefully crafted so the government doesn't go "off message" and nobody allows the opposition - including the media - to seize on some misstatement to create a media sensation.

I don't think mother-seancing King was much better.

[g_bambino]

The jurisdiction of powers in the constitution makes it quite clear that the federal government was to be a powerful, unifying force in the country. People can say legally provinces and the federal government are defined as equal but that section of the BNA act proves otherwise. If they're equal entities then why ditribute reserve power to the federal government?

No, the Crown is the powerful, unifying force in Canada; first paragraph of the Constitution Act 1867:

WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom...

Constitution Act 1867

That single institution - now the Crown of Canada - isn't an agent of the federal government or federal parliament, it is above those things, and all eleven governments and legislatures in the country derive their authority from it equally.

The monarch thus reigns impartially over the nation as a whole, meaning that the sovereignty of the provinces is passed on not by the Governor General or federal parliament, but through the overreaching Crown itself to the monarch's viceregal representatives in the provinces...

Monarchy in the Canadian provinces

It certainly was the original intent of the Fathers of Confederation to create the provinces as subordinate to the federal government; hence, Lieutenant Governors were made, and remain, appointees of the Governor General-in-Council, rather than the Queen directly, as is done in the Australian states. However, an 1882 ruling by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London established that the Canadian provinces were, in fact, co-sovereign with Ottawa, not inferiors. The constitution may presently give to the federal government whatever powers not explicitly defined in the constitution, but changes to the arrangement cannot be made by the federal government alone; provincial input and consent is absolutely necessary.

[c/e]

Edited January 10, 2010 by g_bambino

[nicky10013]

No, the Crown is the powerful, unifying force in Canada; first paragraph of the Constitution Act 1867:

That single institution - now the Crown of Canada - isn't an agent of the federal government or federal parliament, it is above those things, and all eleven governments and legislatures in the country derive their authority from it equally.

It certainly was the original intent of the Fathers of Confederation to create the provinces as subordinate to the federal government; hence, Lieutenant Governors were made, and remain, appointees of the Governor General-in-Council, rather than the Queen directly, as is done in the Australian states. However, an 1882 ruling by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London established that the Canadian provinces were, in fact, co-sovereign with Ottawa, not inferiors. The constitution may presently give to the federal government whatever powers not explicitly defined in the constitution, but changes to the arrangement cannot be made by the federal government alone; provincial input and consent is absolutely necessary.

[c/e]

My point exactly. The provinces have to give their assent in changing the constitution but considering that's never been done it might as well be a moot point. Despite whatever official designation, the federal governmnet has more power.

[g_bambino]

The provinces have to give their assent in changing the constitution but considering that's never been done it might as well be a moot point. Despite whatever official designation, the federal governmnet has more power.

Pardon me? Even before the present amending formula was instituted in 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that Trudeau needed the consent of at least the majority of the provinces before the proposed changes could be made. After that, it was one member of the Alberta Manitoba Legislative Assembly that thwarted the efforts of Mulroney to implement the Meech Lake Accord. So, I've no idea where you get the idea that the necessary provincial approval has never been sought.

[Corrected per jbg's watchful eye]

Edited January 10, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

I don't think mother-seancing King was much better.

Neither was Sir John A. It's pretty clear from the BNA Act that Ottawa was the center of Dominion, and thus pre-eminate.

[bush_cheney2004]

I know they're by design. It also causes horrendous amounts of corruption. Easy to vote down a bill when you're getting hundreds of thousands from special interests.

Then it's not inefficiency at all.

I don't want that. I'm secure enough in the strength of our democracy to eliminate a check or two. We obviously need a change or two but not a change of the constitution.

Constitutions change....also by design. If you don't think monied interests impact your "democracy", you are being very naive.

[jbg]

After that, it was one member of the Alberta Legislative Assembly that thwarted the efforts of Mulroney to implement the Meech Lake Accord.

Wrong province. Manitoba.

[jbg]

Neither was Sir John A. It's pretty clear from the BNA Act that Ottawa was the center of Dominion, and thus pre-eminate.

You mixed up who you're responding to. I was writing not about provinces v. Ottawa but about the Prime Minister's dictatorial control over the caucus and especially the Cabinet.

[nicky10013]

Then it's not inefficiency at all.

Constitutions change....also by design. If you don't think monied interests impact your "democracy", you are being very naive.

I don't believe bribery is free speech. Considering most votes in the house are whipped, it doesn't allow MPs to take money for yes or no votes. There is monied interests, but it's no where near the level it's at in the US.

CHANGE OF SUBJECT.

People here were getting on Ignatieff for having the balls to go after Harper. New ads to air on TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QbXftg3Iu8&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyU_Y52ro_c&feature=player_embedded

[g_bambino]

Wrong province. Manitoba.

Gak! Indeed; and I knew that, too. Stupid brain.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The first volley then. This may become interesting.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't believe bribery is free speech. Considering most votes in the house are whipped, it doesn't allow MPs to take money for yes or no votes. There is monied interests, but it's no where near the level it's at in the US.

Has nothing to do with free speech, but a whipped house sure isn't any better, and in many respects, far worse. If corruption by lockstep caucus be your preference, then you are good to go as things stand.

[nicky10013]

Has nothing to do with free speech, but a whipped house sure isn't any better, and in many respects, far worse. If corruption by lockstep caucus be your preference, then you are good to go as things stand.

You vote for your candidate and the party. You don't vote for private interests in back rooms handing your representative cheques.

[nicky10013]

The first volley then. This may become interesting.

There's been a second. The CPC released a statement accusing this as a cheapshot against the troops.

[bush_cheney2004]

You vote for your candidate and the party. You don't vote for private interests in back rooms handing your representative cheques.

Yes you do...see Adscam.

[ToadBrother]

You vote for your candidate and the party. You don't vote for private interests in back rooms handing your representative cheques.

In a perfect world anyways. Parties are the toxic sewer of democracy.

[nicky10013]

Yes you do...see Adscam.

That' really not the way it happened. Some people in the party who were tasked with paying out money on advertising contracts got a little greedy and skimmed some off the top. It's no where near the same as the FBI (or whoever it was) finding $500,000 in the freezer of a congressman.

[bush_cheney2004]

That' really not the way it happened. Some people in the party who were tasked with paying out money on advertising contracts got a little greedy and skimmed some off the top. It's no where near the same as the FBI (or whoever it was) finding $500,000 in the freezer of a congressman.

You're right...the congressman was actually prosecuted and sentenced to 13 years...that doesn't happen in Canada.

[nicky10013]

You're right...the congressman was actually prosecuted and sentenced to 13 years...that doesn't happen in Canada.

The guys that skimmed off the top were put in prison as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

The guys that skimmed off the top were put in prison as well.

But not the cognizant MPs or PM....natch!