Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Too tired or bothered to see the full picture? Or not telling it, yet again? As said, Harper is using this outdated, created in times of political Noahs system to hold the country hostage. There's absolutely no way to rid ourselves of his kingly boots and atticks without going through a costly and entirely unnecessary at this time election.

It maybe hard to realize (or say it honestly) that the need to call an election every time a government has screwed up, is also the one major obstacle to expression of democratic will (of the population, as represented by the elected House). It does provide the ultimate outlet to remove a government that's become completely intolerable (and in that sense we're still some way ahead of obvious dictatorships), but it also prevents democratic will of the elected House from being expressed efficiently and without government's interference and obstruction (and in this sense, our system is far behind what has become the norm in most democratic countries around the globe, namely, that a government that does not hold the confidence of the elected House should not have mandate to govern).

In a normal, transparent democracy it does not have to be that way, the process would be simple and efficient:

- the government loses confidence of the House;

- non confidence motion is passed and the government is out;

- another candidate is invited to form government;

- only if nobody else (in the House) wants to form government, single faction or coalition, an election is called.

Obviously, inefficient opposition as we have now is a problem for a democracy. It's not the same problem that is being discussed here (try to understand that), namely a government that has lost the confidence of the elected House, and is trying to hang on to the power using direct and indirect advantages given it by an outdated, unfair in true democratic sense, system.

I like what you just said! Nice post!

[Argus]

The reason the senate gave for amending it was to prevent it from being used as a backdoor way of searching Canadian homes without a warrant.

If inspectors - note, not police - come across your stash while searching through all the cheap, Chinese vitanins you're peddling that's your tough luck. I don't think most people need to be concerned with it, though.

I am not a law expert but many liberal senators are. If the senate says that the bill needed to be amended to prevent this type of abuse, I believe them.

Funny how neither the NDP nor the Liberals nor the BQ were concerned about this, eh? Guess they just dont' have the "expertise" the senate has at its disposal.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If inspectors - note, not police - come across your stash while searching through all the cheap, Chinese vitanins you're peddling that's your tough luck. I don't think most people need to be concerned with it, though.

Funny how neither the NDP nor the Liberals nor the BQ were concerned about this, eh? Guess they just dont' have the "expertise" the senate has at its disposal.

Give the Upper House some credit. Every once in a while they find a pet project and actually do some good.

[ToadBrother]

The reason the senate gave for amending it was to prevent it from being used as a backdoor way of searching Canadian homes without a warrant. I am not a law expert but many liberal senators are. If the senate says that the bill needed to be amended to prevent this type of abuse, I believe them. That is the ONLY thing they changed. It is not like they gutted the bill as Conservative would have people believe.

I read the bill. I saw no evidence that it could ever be used as that. Since the overwhelming majority of Canadians don't sell herbal remedies, it would make a pretty crappy back door.

Like I said, when this all first came to light, I actually went and read the bill, and nothing in it suggested anything other than an inspection regime which pretty much looks like the food safety inspection regime. The reason you allow spot inspections is because if you give a heads up, bad players will often clean things up to get through the inspection, which means before and after they could very well be causing harm.

[g_bambino]

Too tired or bothered to see the full picture? Harper is using this outdated, created in times of political Noahs system to hold the country hostage.

Obviously, inefficient opposition as we have now is a problem for a democracy. It's not the same problem that is being discussed here (try to understand that), namely a government that has lost the confidence of the elected House, and is trying to hang on to the power using direct and indirect advantages given it by an outdated, unfair in true democratic sense, system.

Myata, your frustration stems only from the absence of your imaginary non-confidence vote from the full picture I see. No wonder, then, that you think I'm the one concentrating on the wrong issue. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but it's precisely because of the present internal weaknesses of the opposition parties that there hasn't yet been a non-confidence vote; even after this supposedly most evil of all actions - like, ever! - HM's Loyal Opposition has admitted that they still won't bring down His Gloriousness The Most Undoubted Overlord when parliament reconvenes. They will have every opportunity to select a replacement - by coalition or whatever other means - and vote non-confidence in Harper, thus changing the Prime Minister without an election; but, they apparently choose not to. That you blame our entire system of parliamentary democracy for the partisan inanity of our political parties is really just a joke.

[nicky10013]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/stephen-harper-disinclined-to-let-games-begin-in-the-house/article1428075/

[Alta4ever]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/stephen-harper-disinclined-to-let-games-begin-in-the-house/article1428075/

IF you seem to think all articals from the right can be dismissed why do not those from Jane taber, the left get the same treatment, oh yes I have even gone one step furtherer then you my friend I have actually read the artical, something you refused to do on the artical from the right wing columist in the other thread.

While throwing out your claims of hyper partisanship, you are showing that trait in yourself.

[myata]

They will have every opportunity to select a replacement - by coalition or whatever other means - and vote non-confidence in Harper, thus changing the Prime Minister without an election; but, they apparently choose not to. That you blame our entire system of parliamentary democracy for the partisan inanity of our political parties is really just a joke.

Wrong. Harper has, is and will dangle the threat of an election before such motion is even conceived and the first thing he'll do if it's passed would be to ask our unelected GG to dissolve the Parliament. Regardless of whether there is a coalition in waiting or not. As said, the threat of an election as unavoidable consequence of no-confidence motion is the one major obstacle to effective and open expression of democratic will by the elected House.

But you know what, you're well on the way to convincing me. If I see Harper returning from this self gifted break and putting in a motion to change Parliamentary procedure requiring GG to consult with the House before dissolving the Parliament, I'll believe you completely. Shish, if that actually happens, I give you a solemn witnessed promise to vote for CPC in the next election (consistent to what I said previously, I'll vote for the party that will propose and execute meaningful democratic reforms, ideological differences aside).

[DrGreenthumb]

I read the bill. I saw no evidence that it could ever be used as that. Since the overwhelming majority of Canadians don't sell herbal remedies, it would make a pretty crappy back door.

Like I said, when this all first came to light, I actually went and read the bill, and nothing in it suggested anything other than an inspection regime which pretty much looks like the food safety inspection regime. The reason you allow spot inspections is because if you give a heads up, bad players will often clean things up to get through the inspection, which means before and after they could very well be causing harm.

And what exactly are your legal qualifications that make your interpretation carry more weight than the experts in the senate? Unless you are some sort of lawyer or constitutional expert I think that your assessment of the possible uses of this bill mean precisely squat. Forgive me if I place more weight on the senate opinion than that of an anonymous web-poster. And like I've said nobody informs a person ahead of time that a warrant is being applied for to search their home so there is no heads up, that is just BS. Do they phone a suspected heroin dealer before they get a warrant to search HIS home? I didn't think so, so that is a moot point. The bill did not even require proof that a person is in fact selling chinese herbal remedies before conducting the search, hence the backdoor to sidestep warrants. Also if selling heroin is not considered dangerous enough to allow for warrantless searches of a "suspect's" home then I fail to see how selling chinese herbal remedies IS.

[g_bambino]

Harper has, is and will dangle the threat of an election before such motion is even conceived and the first thing he'll do if it's passed would be to ask our unelected GG to dissolve the Parliament.

He could only do so if aware in advance of any plans to topple him. As ToadBrother astutely pointed out a few days ago: if, in 2008, the opposition had the finesse to keep their plan under wraps until after a confidence motion, rather than their sophomoric chest-thumping all over Canada, Harper would never have had the chance to get over to the Queen's residence and request the prorogation. You see, only after the Commons has officially registered its withdrawal of confidence can the Governor General consider taking advice from elsewhere other than her Prime Minister.

I won't say (and haven't so far haven't said) there aren't some issues to look at. Not to fawn over ToadBrother too much, but he also raised some interesting points to consider regarding the supremacy of parliament and the ability of the Crown to dissolve it. I need to understand more of the nuances before I can comment, though. There's also the matter, clear in my mind, of the problems within our political parties and how those bleed into, and gunk up, our parliamentary machinery. But, there's no need to pick the whole thing up by one corner with the tips of two fingers and toss it aside with a haughty sniff of "hmph, too old"; talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[c/e]

Edited January 12, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

And what exactly are your legal qualifications that make your interpretation carry more weight than the experts in the senate? Unless you are some sort of lawyer or constitutional expert I think that your assessment of the possible uses of this bill mean precisely squat. Forgive me if I place more weight on the senate opinion than that of an anonymous web-poster. And like I've said nobody informs a person ahead of time that a warrant is being applied for to search their home so there is no heads up, that is just BS. Do they phone a suspected heroin dealer before they get a warrant to search HIS home? I didn't think so, so that is a moot point. The bill did not even require proof that a person is in fact selling chinese herbal remedies before conducting the search, hence the backdoor to sidestep warrants. Also if selling heroin is not considered dangerous enough to allow for warrantless searches of a "suspect's" home then I fail to see how selling chinese herbal remedies IS.

I'm sorry, this was supposed to be a measured response? Where are the legal qualifications of the quackery industry, which has been attacking this bill for some time now. The Bill is not written in Norman French or Latin, so you can read it, compare it to other bills that set up inspection regimes, and draw your conclusions.

I'm wagering you've never even read the bill.

[myata]

He could only do so if aware in advance of any plans to topple him. As ToadBrother astutely pointed out a few days ago: if, in 2008, the opposition had the finesse to keep their plan under wraps until after a confidence motion, rather than their sophomoric chest-thumping all over Canada, Harper would never have had the chance to get over to the Queen's residence and request the prorogation. You see, only after the Commons has officially registered its withdrawal of confidence can the Governor General consider taking advice from elsewhere other than her Prime Minister.

So naive, are we (yes I believe; thought it's getting stretchy)? With the "conspiracy" whine hitting the fan as it did, imagine the extent of "democratic" indignation if the deal was indeed made covertly and behind the closed doors?

Good stuff turning the notions of openness and fairness upside down, btw: the Opposition was wrong in declaring their intentions openly, while Harper was right in using outdated undemocratic ploy to avoid facing the Parliament. As comes straight from Orwell (or Maciavelli; whichever one you prefer). BTW that's exactly what's going to happen to our ailing democracy if we fail to attend to the problem NOW.

But, there's no need to pick the whole thing up by one corner with the tips of two fingers and toss it aside with a haughty sniff of "hmph, too old"; talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Nope, note that it's only you who's saying that. The point was that in a true Parliamentary democracy, the will of the elected House must be respected in all cases, and no government should be allowed to stay in power without confidence of the elected House.

[ToadBrother]

So naive, are we (yes I believe; thought it's getting stretchy)? With the "conspiracy" whine hitting the fan as it did, imagine the extent of "democratic" indignation if the deal was indeed made covertly and behind the closed doors?

Good stuff turning the notions of openness and fairness upside down, btw: the Opposition was wrong in declaring their intentions openly, while Harper was right in using outdated undemocratic ploy to avoid facing the Parliament. As comes straight from Orwell (or Maciavelli; whichever one you prefer). BTW that's exactly what's going to happen to our ailing democracy if we fail to attend to the problem NOW.

I'm not saying it would necessarily have been right (I was opposed to the plan, for reasons that had more to do with stability of such a government more than anything else). But if you're going to play with as savvy an operator as Harper, you're not going to get a goal through without misdirection. They gave him the time to find a solution. They had, in fact, formulated the whole thing behind closed doors. They could have delayed its announcement until after the Confidence Vote and they were on the doorstep and ringing the doorbell at Rideau Hall. Would a few days have made that much difference to the ethical (or unethical, if that's your bent) aspects of their plan?

Nope, note that it's only you who's saying that. The point was that in a true Parliamentary democracy, the will of the elected House must be respected in all cases, and no government should be allowed to stay in power without confidence of the elected House.

The trick is testing Confidence. The normal tact is a confidence vote, then you figure out what to do. Under normal circumstances, this means an election, but our system does afford the opportunity of another party within Parliament to form a government. This was why the chest thumping was such an error. Technically, choosing the Coalition could not have even been a possibility until the loss of confidence.

I'm not so much upset at the result. The GG did what she had to do, no one has provided me any evidence that the Coalition would have lasted any time, and a fair chunk of the Liberal caucus was clearly not very happy about getting into bed with Layton and the Separatists. But to my mind of key importance here is not whether we had an election in December of 2008 or the Coalition collapsed within a few months, or whether Harper survived. That is all, ultimately irrelevant speculation. What does count is that Harper abused the Royal Prerogative to evade that most key of checks on a government's power, the ability of Parliament, which is what forms the damned government in the first place, to decide whether that government can still stand, or needs to be replaced.

So it's not partisanship that drives me to repeat myself endlessly, because I think the Coalition was a bad idea, but rather that a key pillar of our democracy is being undermined for the short-term gain of a political party.

[DrGreenthumb]

I'm sorry, this was supposed to be a measured response? Where are the legal qualifications of the quackery industry, which has been attacking this bill for some time now. The Bill is not written in Norman French or Latin, so you can read it, compare it to other bills that set up inspection regimes, and draw your conclusions.

I'm wagering you've never even read the bill.

Are you going to even attempt to answer any of my questions as to your qualifications to determine the possible use of this law vs that of the senate commitee's qualifications?? How about admitting that applying for a search warrant is not "tipping off" anybody? Why does suspicion of selling herbal remedies justify warrantless searches when even suspicion of selling illegal drugs, or weapons does not? That just makes no sense to me. Also we are not talking about inspecting people's business we are talking about warrantless searches of people's homes.

[myata]

They could have delayed its announcement until after the Confidence Vote and they were on the doorstep and ringing the doorbell at Rideau Hall. Would a few days have made that much difference to the ethical (or unethical, if that's your bent) aspects of their plan?

We have already been at this. Why does it have to be played with tricks and ploys (exposing one to accusations such as: "undemocratic" behavior (sic); or "conspiracy" or even "coup d'etat") and not through an open, fair and democratic process? What does it add to the value and standing of our democracy?

This was why the chest thumping was such an error. Technically, choosing the Coalition could not have even been a possibility until the loss of confidence.

You're basically saying that following an open, democratic and transparent line of action was a mistake? What is the way to eliminate this problem once and forever, to outplay crooked player at his game, or fix the system that no crooked play is possible or necessary?

The GG did what she had to do, no one has provided me any evidence that the Coalition would have lasted any time,

The accord has been signed for a set time, but of course it does not prove anything with 100% certainty. The real question is, should it really be an unelected official appointed by the government in power, who would pronounce final judgement on matters such as confidence in a proposed government line up?

I mean, in a real, functional democracy?

That is all, ultimately irrelevant speculation. What does count is that Harper abused the Royal Prerogative to evade that most key of checks on a government's power, the ability of Parliament, which is what forms the damned government in the first place, to decide whether that government can still stand, or needs to be replaced.

I too fully subscribe to that assessment.

So it's not partisanship that drives me to repeat myself endlessly, because I think the Coalition was a bad idea,

And here, we maybe would have to split our ways (or maybe, not) depending on the key question of whether it should be sole and unrestricted power of the elected House to decide on the government's mandate to govern. If such powers should be truly and solely vested in the Parliament, without any possibility of interference or obstruction by the government in power, there has to be a working and efficient process of removing government that has failed the test of confidence in the elected House. If such process does not exist, if removing failing government means a national havoc in the form of unwarranted election, it means only one thing, a compromised and less functional democracy.

[ToadBrother]

Are you going to even attempt to answer any of my questions as to your qualifications to determine the possible use of this law vs that of the senate commitee's qualifications?? How about admitting that applying for a search warrant is not "tipping off" anybody? Why does suspicion of selling herbal remedies justify warrantless searches when even suspicion of selling illegal drugs, or weapons does not? That just makes no sense to me. Also we are not talking about inspecting people's business we are talking about warrantless searches of people's homes.

1. I'm not a lawyer, and never said I was.

2. I want you to point out in the bill (that is section and clause) where searches of the kind you claim can be done against people's homes.

3. Read the bill, not an assessment by a group with a very clear self-interest in seeing it not passed.

Edited January 12, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

We have already been at this. Why does it have to be played with tricks and ploys (exposing one to accusations such as: "undemocratic" behavior (sic); or "conspiracy" or even "coup d'etat") and not through an open, fair and democratic process? What does it add to the value and standing of our democracy?

Because you either want to topple Harper's government, or you want to give him an opportunity to avoid a confidence motion. That was the situation at the end of 2008. The more important principle than how you shake hands is how Parliament as a whole is factored into the equation. Harper clearly fears Parliament, or he wouldn't spend so much of his political capital trying to keep it away. To my mind, a Prime Minister that fears MPs doesn't deserve the job, and maybe should find a country where such feelings about lawmakers are more the norm.

And here, we maybe would have to split our ways (or maybe, not) depending on the key question of whether it should be sole and unrestricted power of the elected House to decide on the government's mandate to govern. If such powers should be truly and solely vested in the Parliament, without any possibility of interference or obstruction by the government in power, there has to be a working and efficient process of removing government that has failed the test of confidence in the elected House. If such process does not exist, if removing failing government means a national havoc in the form of unwarranted election, it means only one thing, a compromised and less functional democracy.

I think the House has every right to submit to the GG that another group can form a government. I think the Coalition was wrong, in the respect that it clearly did not have the wide base of support in the Liberal caucus necessary to guarantee stability, but right or wrong, it is Parliament that chooses the government.

So we agree and disagree, I suppose. That I think the Coalition was a bad idea doesn't mean I think a ploy to avoid the confidence vote was better, or in any way justified.

Edited January 12, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Mr.Canada]

When Jesus comes back he's going to be pissed at the Liberals and will take out his vengance on them.

[myata]

So we agree and disagree, I suppose. That I think the Coalition was a bad idea doesn't mean I think a ploy to avoid the confidence vote was better, or in any way justified.

We only seem to disagree in the assessment of that particular coalition attempt, myself not being ready to judge its potential, but certainly the majority in the House had every right to come up with such idea, and the government should not have been able to avoid it with a ploy through an undemocratic (albeit constitutional) legality. If that gap in our system is not fixed now, that the problem has been identified, somebody else may (and probably will) be tempted to follow in this PM's steps.

[ToadBrother]

When Jesus comes back he's going to be pissed at the Liberals and will take out his vengance on them.

Would you stop being in an insufferable idiot for ten seconds? It's like having a conversation with an answering machine, no matter what you say, you get the same response.

[ToadBrother]

We only seem to disagree in the assessment of that particular coalition attempt, myself not being ready to judge its potential, but certainly the majority in the House had every right to come up with such idea, and the government should not have been able to avoid it with a ploy through an undemocratic (albeit constitutional) legality. If that gap in our system is not fixed now, that the problem has been identified, somebody else may (and probably will) be tempted to follow in this PM's steps.

Like I said, at this point I could care less whether such a coalition worked or not. If it didn't, it would fall. There are far worse things in this world than elections, methinks.

[g_bambino]

The point was that in a true Parliamentary democracy, the will of the elected House must be respected in all cases, and no government should be allowed to stay in power without confidence of the elected House.

No, it shouldn't. And the confidence our elected house places in government can be revoked, should the opposition so choose. The Throne Speech at the beginning of the session is a perfect opportunity to do so. If the opposition votes it down, expressing their loss of confidence in Harper, then the Governor General can no longer accept the Prime Minister's advice without question. Should the opposition parties together approach her and say they have another person to whom they've given their support, the Governor General very well can appoint that person as her chief advisor. Should they not, she calls an election. She cannot, however, assume that showboating attacks on the prime minister or letters notifying her of an available coalition are a sure signal of a loss of confidence on the part of the Commons. Only when the Commons has voted can anyone be sure.

With their amateur strategies, the opposition at the end of 2008 bungled their attempt to topple Harper; but, they still had the chance to vote him down at the beginning of 2009. They didn't. They will have another chance in March of this year. Whether or not they go through with it depends, sadly, more on party fortunes than on any concern for democracy on their part or because of the parliamentary structure itself.

[sp]

Edited January 13, 2010 by g_bambino

[DrGreenthumb]

1. I'm not a lawyer, and never said I was.

2. I want you to point out in the bill (that is section and clause) where searches of the kind you claim can be done against people's homes.

3. Read the bill, not an assessment by a group with a very clear self-interest in seeing it not passed.

I still havn't heard any reason why warrantless searches are justified, in ANY case. I don't care what the health food nuts say about the bill, I do however beleive what the senate says about it. I see no benefit to the senate in sensationalizing the consequences of passing the bill unamended. If they say that there was a constitutional problem with the bill I have no reason to doubt them. Not all senators are as incompetant as the Harper appointees. Mike Duffy??? ARe you kidding me?

[jbg]

He could only do so if aware in advance of any plans to topple him. As ToadBrother astutely pointed out a few days ago: if, in 2008, the opposition had the finesse to keep their plan under wraps until after a confidence motion, rather than their sophomoric chest-thumping all over Canada, Harper would never have had the chance to get over to the Queen's residence and request the prorogation. You see, only after the Commons has officially registered its withdrawal of confidence can the Governor General consider taking advice from elsewhere other than her Prime Minister.

You don't seriously believe that all of about 165 MP's of the LPOC, Bloc and NDP could be trusted not to leak to Harper that a coup attempt coalition formation was under way? You've got to be kidding.

[g_bambino]

You don't seriously believe that all of about 165 MP's of the LPOC, Bloc and NDP could be trusted not to leak to Harper that a coup attempt coalition formation was under way? You've got to be kidding.

As it would be in their best interests to do so, it should be believable. It's not of absolute importance, though; merely the threat of the coalition drove Harper to make bizarre statements on television and run to Rideau Hall to seek a reprieve, during which time he backed down from his rabidly confrontational stance, returning to parliament in early 2009 obviously subdued enough for the opposition to tolerate.