Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

Born Free · January 25, 2010

My favorite prorogue quote of the day, perhaps of "the great insidious prorogue" so far...

"... the lupine-eyed Stephen Harper has seen his support collapse while he was busy with his annual ritual of filling the toilets with anti-freeze and closing up the House for winter.

"

Got to love liberal media

Maybe the Globe story should have written "his second annual ritual..."

myata · January 25, 2010

We've entered a rather strange constitutional realm. You don't easily monkey with the Reserve Powers.

No, that would be simply inconceivable. The prerogatives, grants and royal powers should stay exactly as they were in the times of Adam, Eve Charles 1st and (political) dinosaurs. Or the sky itself could start crumbling and falling. Unlike every single other aspect of our life, the political system must remain exactly as it was ten generations back, when all cars had exactly one horsepower and there was no notion of electric light, or women's voting, OR ELSE....

g_bambino · January 25, 2010

No, that would be simply inconceivable.

Would it? You're the only one saying so.

myata · January 25, 2010

Would it? You're the only one saying so.

Now, you really made me feel ashamed of myself . No, away with the silly doubts, I'm all ready to join the consensus that democratic change is possible, and needed that appears to be settling here.

ToadBrother · January 25, 2010

No, that would be simply inconceivable. The prerogatives, grants and royal powers should stay exactly as they were in the times of Adam, Eve Charles 1st and (political) dinosaurs. Or the sky itself could start crumbling and falling. Unlike every single other aspect of our life, the political system must remain exactly as it was ten generations back, when all cars had exactly one horsepower and there was no notion of electric light, or women's voting, OR ELSE....

Maybe you shouldn't assume what I'm thinking. I'm saying changing a Reserve Power is not just a matter of passing a piece of legislation. As we can see from the example in the UK of an attempt by Parliament to essentially co-opt one of the Royal Prerogatives, the Government, as the Council of the Queen, basically advised the Queen not to permit a bill to go forward which touched on Her powers. I can quite conceive of Harper doing precisely the same thing with this potential bill.

I'm not saying that such a bill is a bad idea, though its utility for anything save minority governments is pretty questionable. Well, actually, it would be meaningless in a majority government. But I'm telling you right now you're dealing with a constitutional manner, and one that, from what I can tell, Harper still has the upper hand in.

g_bambino · January 25, 2010

Now, you really made me feel ashamed of myself.

And so you should for inferring people said what you wanted rather that what they did.

myata · January 25, 2010

Maybe you shouldn't assume what I'm thinking.

My apologies

I'm saying changing a Reserve Power is not just a matter of passing a piece of legislation. As we can see from the example in the UK of an attempt by Parliament to essentially co-opt one of the Royal Prerogatives, the Government, as the Council of the Queen, basically advised the Queen not to permit a bill to go forward which touched on Her powers. I can quite conceive of Harper doing precisely the same thing with this potential bill.

Well, let's look at it, logically:

1) If our body of elected representatives cannot change an essential law of our country governing the progression of democratic process, do we really and in actuality, have a souveraign and fully responsible democracy here?

2) Regardless of the answer to #1, if we want to have a fully responsible democracy in this country, complete with ability of the elected body of people's representatives to decide on all matters pertaining to this country, AND the existing system of governance would not allow such development, could and should the matter be taken outside of the existing system of governance?

I'm not saying that such a bill is a bad idea, though its utility for anything save minority governments is pretty questionable. Well, actually, it would be meaningless in a majority government.

Certainly, to limit the ability of minority governments to use these relic instruments in an undemocratic manner, so obviously demonstrated by Harper's government. I'll add that I wouldn't be at all against having some checks on the ability of majoity governments to avoid Parliamentary responsibility. That is also a necessity in a modern, tranparent and functioning democracy.

But I'm telling you right now you're dealing with a constitutional manner, and one that, from what I can tell, Harper still has the upper hand in.

No, that "two year old" conundrum is simply not acceptable for democratic population that feels the need to assert control over the fate of their own country. The question should be turned around, i.e. will the solution be made possible within the existing system, or if not, the system itself will be updated, modified, changed, etc, to make the solution possible.

capricorn · January 25, 2010

As we can see from the example in the UK of an attempt by Parliament to essentially co-opt one of the Royal Prerogatives, the Government, as the Council of the Queen, basically advised the Queen not to permit a bill to go forward which touched on Her powers. I can quite conceive of Harper doing precisely the same thing with this potential bill.

Essentially, what the NDP and the Liberals are proposing is to insert a step, or a layer, between the PM and the (Crown) GG in the prorogation process. That additional step is that the PM must seek the approval of the House of Commons before approaching the GG. In that revised process, whenever a PM would call on the GG, he would be making a prorogation request reflective of the will of the House of Commons. In a minority situation the vote would not be reflective of the will of the Executive. Any time the House votes down a PM's request to prorogue, the PM would be deprived of rendering his advice to the GG who commands that Executive power.

The Canadian Constitution (Constitution Act, 1867) places executive power in the Queen. However, in practice this power is exercised by the prime minister and his ministers. The governor general acts on the advice of the prime minister and the government, but has the right to advise, to encourage and to warn.

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=13264

Not to mention the inevitable unintended consequences of forcing a vote on prorogation. For example, in a minority situation, such a revised process would present opportunities for erecting capricious and frivolous impediments.

I simply can't see how such legislation could receive the Royal stamp.

I'm not saying that such a bill is a bad idea, though its utility for anything save minority governments is pretty questionable. Well, actually, it would be meaningless in a majority government. But I'm telling you right now you're dealing with a constitutional manner, and one that, from what I can tell, Harper still has the upper hand in.

I too think there is a Constitutional question at play. Layton and Ignatieff don't think so. Ignatieff did say Liberal "experts" are looking into that aspect.

Smallc · January 25, 2010

Second, the Constitution of Canada then sets out other amending formulae, all of which are exceptions to the 7 50 formula. Section 41, which applies to a limited number of matters, requires the unanimous consent of the Senate and House of Commons and the legislative assembly of each province. The matters requiring unanimous consent are the following:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

( the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

© subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;

(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and

(e) an amendment to this Part.

Third, another exception to the 7 50 formula is found in section 43 and concerns any provision that "applies to one or more but not all, provinces", including alterations to boundaries between provinces and language within a province. Amendments in respect of these matters require the consent of the Senate and House of Commons and the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.

Fourth, section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982 authorizes amendments to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons, other than those matters referred to in sections 41 and 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The amendments authorized by section 44 are within the exclusive power of the Parliament of Canada.

I'm not sure which procedure this would fall under. It would either be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament, or, it would be under unanimous consent.

Topaz · January 25, 2010

If proroguing was used for the "good" of the country than Canadians wouldn't be against Harper, but, in HIS case he to stop the inquiry into the detainees and would show the guilt of the government. This all about "THEM" and not about what is the truth, which most Canadians always want. If the opposition can't change the rule, then I'm sure the voters will change the PMO!!!!

Argus · January 25, 2010

Bob Rae was an idiot. His prorogue of the Ontario legislature doesnt absolve Harper's actions.

and yet, it does remind that every liberal and NDP prime minister/premier has prorogued without all you lefties going ape over it. But when Stephen harper, your anti-Christ does it, you go bananas, running around gnashing your teeth, frothing at the mouth and clawing at your face and hair.

You guys need to get over yourselves.

g_bambino · January 25, 2010

If proroguing was used for the "good" of the country than Canadians wouldn't be against Harper, but, in HIS case he to stop the inquiry into the detainees...

Pause. Not stop. Pause the inquiry. The opposition can (and should) go full bore once parliament has resumed.

g_bambino · January 25, 2010

If our body of elected representatives cannot change an essential law of our country governing the progression of democratic process, do we really and in actuality, have a souveraign and fully responsible democracy here?

Your question assumes that your "if" was redundant. Of course our parliament can change essential laws; that doesn't mean, however, it should be easy for them to do so. Do you believe parliament should place on itself no restrictions on scope or power? Imagine if it simply passed an amendment removing the constitutional requirement for elections.

Certainly, to limit the ability of minority governments to use these relic instruments in an undemocratic manner, so obviously demonstrated by Harper's government.

Must you always be so sneering when referring to our constitution? You probably shouldn't be, given that you've not as yet put forward any detailed outline of how your modern and hip legislature would function without "relic" prorogations.

[c/e]

Edited January 25, 2010 by g_bambino

ToadBrother · January 25, 2010

Essentially, what the NDP and the Liberals are proposing is to insert a step, or a layer, between the PM and the (Crown) GG in the prorogation process. That additional step is that the PM must seek the approval of the House of Commons before approaching the GG. In that revised process, whenever a PM would call on the GG, he would be making a prorogation request reflective of the will of the House of Commons. In a minority situation the vote would not be reflective of the will of the Executive. Any time the House votes down a PM's request to prorogue, the PM would be deprived of rendering his advice to the GG who commands that Executive power.

And that is where this becomes a real issue. The Executive powers are always used within the context of "In Council". It's littered all over the place in our constitutional framework. "In council" has always meant "on the advice of His/Her Majesty's Ministers", and in modern times, pretty much means the Prime Minister.

I simply can't see how such legislation could receive the Royal stamp.

If it's constitutional matter, then it needs to be dealt with as such. The amending formula, however it is applied in this situation, needs to be gone through. There's no point in passing legislation of this kind only to have it thrown out at some later point because Parliament didn't do its due diligence and do things right.

I too think there is a Constitutional question at play. Layton and Ignatieff don't think so. Ignatieff did say Liberal "experts" are looking into that aspect.

I can't see how it cannot be a constitutional question. You're dealing with how precisely the GG acts on the advice of the Government. I don't necessarily have a problem with the concept of Parliament having greater control of prorogation, but this needs to be done in an intelligent and thoughtful way. Rather than consulting Liberal experts, why aren't they consulting some of the general constitutional experts out there, unless they're just looking to have their question affirmed.

ToadBrother · January 25, 2010

Well, let's look at it, logically:

1) If our body of elected representatives cannot change an essential law of our country governing the progression of democratic process, do we really and in actuality, have a souveraign and fully responsible democracy here?

2) Regardless of the answer to #1, if we want to have a fully responsible democracy in this country, complete with ability of the elected body of people's representatives to decide on all matters pertaining to this country, AND the existing system of governance would not allow such development, could and should the matter be taken outside of the existing system of governance?

AGGGHHHHH!!! It's like dealing with a chimpanzee that only knows one response.

If this is a constitutional question, then it needs to be dealt with appropriately. If simply passing legislation does not in fact legally alter the way prorogation is used, then not only have you not actually solved the problem, you've now created a whole rat's nest of issues that someone else is going to have to clean up.

Constitutions are supposed to be hard to change, or at the very least those seeking to change them need to put thought into them. It's not supposed to be "Oh, that's a stinky ol' clause, let's turf it!" I suspect if this was other aspects of our constitution, like, say, the Charter and some group in Parliament was talking about modifying or turfing one of the enshrined rights, you'd be in my position, and at least demanding that if it is done, it be done through the appropriate mechanisms.

In a worst case scenario, this isn't done right, and either Harper or some future government comes along, says "This law modifies the Executive powers and the Royal Prerogative, and was never done in the context of an amendment, and thus Parliament exceeded its powers (for instance, if it is an amendment, the Senate has to sign off on it as well), and thus we end up with the Supreme Court having to rule on the legitimacy of the act.

I realize you're a one note nelly on this whole issue, but if we're going to change the Constitution, then surely you must agree that we should just bloody well change it, rather than trying some semi-legal or potentially even unconstitutional bit of legislation that could spell all sorts of idiotic troubles down the road.

Edited January 25, 2010 by ToadBrother

Smallc · January 25, 2010

I'm still not sure that this part of the Constitution that would be hard to change. It would not alter the powers of the Governor General as far as I can tell, and therefor, it may fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.

ToadBrother · January 25, 2010

and yet, it does remind that every liberal and NDP prime minister/premier has prorogued without all you lefties going ape over it. But when Stephen harper, your anti-Christ does it, you go bananas, running around gnashing your teeth, frothing at the mouth and clawing at your face and hair.

You guys need to get over yourselves.

Well, we wouldn't be in this damned boat if that guy you seem to intellectually masturbate to hadn't used it to flee a confidence motion. As much as I think this legislation may actually end us in a pot much worse than the one we're cooking in right now, Harper is no innocent party. To my mind this ain't no Lefty-vs-Righty debate, but rather an important question of the limitations of a government to use the Reserve Powers to defy or flee the will of Parliament. Whether you agree with any or all the players in this, it is now coming close to generating a serious constitutional question.

ToadBrother · January 25, 2010

I'm still not sure that this part of the Constitution that would be hard to change. It would not alter the powers of the Governor General as far as I can tell, and therefor, it may fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.

But it does alter the powers of the GG, in a way, because the GG is supposed to use the Reserve Powers on the advice of the Government. If some other body (ie. a Committee of the Whole, aka Parliament) is now injected in here, then it modifies the application. Who exactly is the GG listening to under a new law? That's a constitutional question. It's not so much whether it modifies the GG's powers, it's that it modifies who the GG picks up the phone to.

Smallc · January 25, 2010

But it does alter the powers of the GG, in a way, because the GG is supposed to use the Reserve Powers on the advice of the Government.

She would still be doing that though The government would simply need permission for Parliament to make the recommendation....it's tricky ground, I realize. It's either a really easy amendment, or the most difficult possible one.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Smallc

g_bambino · January 25, 2010

To my mind this ain't no Lefty-vs-Righty debate, but rather an important question of the limitations of a government to use the Reserve Powers to defy or flee the will of Parliament. Whether you agree with any or all the players in this, it is now coming close to generating a serious constitutional question.

I agree; but aren't there the questions of whether or not fleeing means for forever or just temporarily, and if the Prime Minister fleeing from parliament can actually be a beneficial option for all of us?

[c/e]

Edited January 25, 2010 by g_bambino

myata · January 25, 2010

AGGGHHHHH!!! It's like dealing with a chimpanzee that only knows one response.

Please spare us this. The brilliance of your argument isn't amplified in any way by use of freely recyclable diatribes.

If this is a constitutional question, then it needs to be dealt with appropriately.

Agreed. What constituion though? The one created by free people to make an efficient, democratic and transparent system of government. Or the one inherited, through a sequence of coincidences, deals and compromises from the times of political dinosaurs?

If we assume the former frame of reference (i.e that of a modern, responsible and open democracy), we could not but ask ourselves a question, what exactly would be the intent of such a power in the hands of executive branch of government? So please, your first chance to demonstrate political brilliance:

Q1: in an open and responsible system of governance, why should the executive power have a power to suspend, interfere with, and obstruct the legislative branch.

Now if we consider possibility of the second scenario, then it's still OK, given peculiarities of our history nobody could deny, but then we're still stuck with another question, no less important to understand and find answer to:

Q2: if we have on our hands an outdated system that comes in conflict with the realities of modern democracy, should there be a working, practical way to bring it (the system) back in line with the times?

If simply passing legislation does not in fact legally alter the way prorogation is used, then not only have you not actually solved the problem, you've now created a whole rat's nest of issues that someone else is going to have to clean up.

Constitutions are supposed to be hard to change, or at the very least those seeking to change them need to put thought into them. It's not supposed to be "Oh, that's a stinky ol' clause, let's turf it!" I suspect if this was other aspects of our constitution, like, say, the Charter and some group in Parliament was talking about modifying or turfing one of the enshrined rights, you'd be in my position, and at least demanding that if it is done, it be done through the appropriate mechanisms.

OK, point taken. But should "hard thought to change" be synonimous to "impossible to change" as it often sounds? We do not need to have here a logical paradox a la Zenon. Either Q1 has a meaningful, rational explanation in an open and functional democrtatic system of governance. Or, the answer to Q2 should allow us to change those aspects of our system that fall out of line with the reality of our life. Otherwise, we'll look silly or even stupid, here we've got a problem on our hands but we're going to be stuck with it forever because it's written in an old book and we don't know how to change it. From Darwin, we know which way societies, species and individuals that behave that way are heading.

In a worst case scenario, this isn't done right, and either Harper or some future government comes along, says "This law modifies the Executive powers and the Royal Prerogative, and was never done in the context of an amendment, and thus Parliament exceeded its powers (for instance, if it is an amendment, the Senate has to sign off on it as well), and thus we end up with the Supreme Court having to rule on the legitimacy of the act.

No, you'll have no argument from me that it should be done right. But it has to be done, still.

I realize you're a one note nelly on this whole issue, but if we're going to change the Constitution, then surely you must agree that we should just bloody well change it, rather than trying some semi-legal or potentially even unconstitutional bit of legislation that could spell all sorts of idiotic troubles down the road.

I agree, we should change it. As we shouldn't be afraid to change it every time it comes in conflict with the times. Leaving by a book of rules that never change would take us in only one direction, down.

capricorn · January 25, 2010

She would still be doing that though The government would simply need permission for Parliament to make the recommendation....

The permission would be sought from the House of Commons, not Parliament. I say this because, as you know, the GG and the Senate too are part of Parliament. 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.

ToadBrother · January 25, 2010

Please spare us this. The brilliance of your argument isn't amplified in any way by use of freely recyclable diatribes.

It's you who just keeps repeating yourself.

Agreed. What constituion though?

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....

OK, point taken. But should "hard thought to change" be synonimous to "impossible to change" as it often sounds?

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....

No, you'll have no argument from me that it should be done right. But it has to be done, still.

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.

I agree, we should change it. As we shouldn't be afraid to change it every time it comes in conflict with the times. Leaving by a book of rules that never change would take us in only one direction, down.

This is a "baby with the bathwater" argument. You seem to assume because something is old, it is worthless. I, on the other hand, feel that our constitution, which has been altered plenty over the last few centuries, isn't all old and out of date. It's pretty versatile, which is why it has survived.

ToadBrother · January 25, 2010

The permission would be sought from the House of Commons, not Parliament. I say this because, as you know, the GG and the Senate too are part of Parliament. 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.

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

Smallc · January 25, 2010

The permission would be sought from the House of Commons, not Parliament.

You are right of course on that. It still doesn't change anything though. The government would still be doing the advising. They would simply need permission to give the advice.