Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[ToadBrother]

There is a bit more to it than that. As a parliament wears on, it tends to lose focus as events and a pesky opposition raise issues not covered in a throne speech. Prorogation can be used to refocus the government efforts when they have become scattered. Minority governments tend to bog down after while and everyone takes an entrenched position with gridlock as a result. A proprogation provides an opportunity for a fresh start.

That's a delightful story. Little resemblance to reality. I'm sure the Royalists tried to spin the same tale when Charles I began the Personal Rule.

"Oh you know, we need to refocus!"

If you're not an astroturfer, your a rube.

Edited January 29, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

The troika threatened a non-confidence vote, and had they been serious, nothing could have stopped them when parliament next sat at the end of January.

But the threat alone was enough to send Harper running to Rideau Hall. Certainly, prorogation meant only a postponement of the impending confidence motion, but it was an evasion of the immediate hazard, nonetheless. Well, two hazards, really: a non-confidence motion for Harper and an imploding coalition for the rest of us. Be fair with ToadBrother, though; he's pointed out repeatedly that the events of December '08 were highly unusual and there wasn't really any good way out of them.

[ToadBrother]

But the threat alone was enough to send Harper running to Rideau Hall. Certainly, prorogation meant only a postponement of the impending confidence motion, but it was an evasion of the immediate hazard, nonetheless. Well, two hazards, really: a non-confidence motion for Harper and an imploding coalition for the rest of us. Be fair with ToadBrother, though; he's pointed out repeatedly that the events of December '08 were highly unusual and there wasn't really any good way out of them.

Let's put it this way, it was a duel of constitutionality. On the one side, we had a government facing certain defeat, on the other an obviously unstable coalition (no matter what the coalition's supporters now say) that was going to try to claim it could govern.

But let's be very clear how our constitution works. Until the Government is defeated in a confidence motion, it is still the Government. Until that moment, it has the Crown's ear, and the Crown is bound by our constitution to act only on its advice. This is why I say that the Coalition should not have been running around with its d*** in its hand until after the vote. The second the Government is defeated, it ceases to be a government. The Prime Minister is in no position to dissolve Parliament, because he isn't technically Prime Minister any long. At that point, the Coalition can now stand up, wave its hands and say "We can form a government!" Since there's no Government to advise the Crown on dissolution, the GG now can opt for the Coalition forming the government. In fact, even the absence of a formal coalition, she would have had the right to name the Liberals the government (see the King-Byng Affair where that is exactly what happened, the Conservatives had less seats than the Liberals, and yet could still form a government, though it was a short lived one).

Even now the Liberals could topple the Tories and still conceivably form a government, though the GG would probably decide that sufficient time had passed that the more appropriate option would be to call an election. This is what makes our constitution so malleable and adaptable. It can afford a number of outcomes, the GG being able to judge which is the most fitting based on the situation at hand. Our current GG seems a very sensible person, and I have a good deal of faith that whatever her decision, it will be with our best interests at heart. I wish I could say the same of the party leaders in the Commons right now.

And before the Tory supporters, apologists and astroturfers start making rude noises about coalitions with Separatists, it is most certain that the person that inspired the 2008 Liberal-NDP-Bloc Coalition was Stephen Harper when he made the precise same suggestion to the GG just three years before. It's difficult to take the protestations of dealing with Separatists seriously when the very guy instructing his minions around the country with friendly talking points about coups and traitors was more than happy to get into bed with them if it meant he could be PM in a coalition government.

[Wilber]

There is a bit more to it than that. As a parliament wears on, it tends to lose focus as events and a pesky opposition raise issues not covered in a throne speech. Prorogation can be used to refocus the government efforts when they have become scattered. Minority governments tend to bog down after while and everyone takes an entrenched position with gridlock as a result. A proprogation provides an opportunity for a fresh start.

Nice spin but Parliament doesn't belong to the PM, minority or otherwise.

[capricorn]

Even now the Liberals could topple the Tories and still conceivably form a government, though the GG would probably decide that sufficient time had passed that the more appropriate option would be to call an election.

A major obstacle to an opposition coalition taking government is the PM's power to prorogue. Once Parliament resumes, the opposition will bring in rules via amendments to the Standing Orders to limit that power. Only when these rule are in place will the opposition vote non confidence where those rules will be tested. Of course, all this would be unnecessary if the Liberals thought they could win the next election.

[ToadBrother]

A major obstacle to an opposition coalition taking government is the PM's power to prorogue.

They could always defeat the Government after the Throne Speech.

Once Parliament resumes, the opposition will bring in rules via amendments to the Standing Orders to limit that power. Only when these rule are in place will the opposition vote non confidence where those rules will be tested. Of course, all this would be unnecessary if the Liberals thought they could win the next election.

The constitutionality of these maneuvers is highly questionable.

[g_bambino]

Of course, all this would be unnecessary if the Liberals thought they could win the next election.

So, the rules of parliament are to bend around whether or not a party leader thinks his party can win an election? Isn't that rather like putting the cart before the horse?

[myata]

It's difficult to understand how you come to think so when one's left wondering how you separate "our own" democratic institutions from "this system"; they are one and the same thing, not "our own" because every part of it was transported here by our British and French forbearers, but "our own" in that it is now completely under our stewardship.

If you want to say that the Queen of England is that, i.e. "now completely under our stewardship", I'm all ears. Because according to the earlier recitals of her powers and prerogatives etc by other posters, she can still deny passage of legislation, or refuse to accept Prime Minister.

All democracies have similar elements in a system akin to ours; you may object to monarchy and prefer a republic on other grounds (another debate all-together),

Precisely: I object to monarchy playing active part in a presumably democratic political system. A monarchy can be be many things but one that it is hard to reconcile with is a democracy. Because demo-cracy means "power of people", while monarchy, "of one particular individual".

but the end result will still be a parliamentary system with three main branches indented to keep each other in check.

Intended it may have been, but as was already pointed out, in this particular system and for all practical purposes, it is not. Because as we have seen just recently: 1) the Parliament has no real, enforceable ways to keep the government accountable; and 2) the government can obstruct and interfere with the work of Parliament in pretty much any way possible.

None has an uncontrolled legislature;

But this one is quite close to government out of (any meaningful) control?

which means you must believe all democracies are total failures.

All democracies without meaningful checks and balances certainly run higher chances of failures.

As I said: difficult to understand.

Don't give up, it's coming!

[capricorn]

They could always defeat the Government after the Throne Speech.

They could. But Ignatieff has already said no.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he has no interest in trying to force an election this spring, even though his party appears to be on the comeback trail.

--

And he says he's learned his lesson about making election threats.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100129/poll_numbers_100129/20100129?hub=Canada

He didn't even qualify his statement that the contents of the March budget might make him change his mind. Essentially, he's saying he will be supporting the budget before having seen it.

Canadians must be wondering, if he is so incensed about the conduct of the Harper government as he demonstrates, why does he not come out swinging that he'll defeat it at the first opportunity.

The constitutionality of these maneuvers is highly questionable.

And as pointed out earlier in the thread, even if rules were changed as proposed by the Liberals, the PM may simply ignore them altogether.

[capricorn]

So, the rules of parliament are to bend around whether or not a party leader thinks his party can win an election? Isn't that rather like putting the cart before the horse?

I don't understand what you're asking bambino.

[g_bambino]

If you want to say that the Queen of England is that, i.e. "now completely under our stewardship", I'm all ears. Because according to the earlier recitals of her powers and prerogatives etc by other posters, she can still deny passage of legislation, or refuse to accept Prime Minister.

You're changing the course of the discussion again: the use of the reserve powers have nothing to do with our stewardship over our governmental institutions, including the monarchy. Perhaps you're confusing "personal union" for "colonial relationship".

I object to monarchy playing active part in a presumably democratic political system. A monarchy can be be many things but one that it is hard to reconcile with is a democracy. Because demo-cracy means "power of people", while monarchy, "of one particular individual".

So you keep saying. Maybe you're confusing constitutional monarchy with absolute monarchy.

Intended it may have been, but as was already pointed out, in this particular system and for all practical purposes, it is not. Because as we have seen just recently: 1) the Parliament has no real, enforceable ways to keep the government accountable; and 2) the government can obstruct and interfere with the work of Parliament in pretty much any way possible.

And it has already been pointed out nearly countless times that parliament has been weakened by internal party policies. A complete and reckless gutting of our constitution is not the solution to the problem.

But this one is quite close to government out of (any meaningful) control?

Ridiculous hyperbole.

[fix ext link]

Edited January 29, 2010 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

I don't understand what you're asking bambino.

Mmm... perhaps I incorrectly read what you wrote. I gathered from it that the opposition was proposing to implement rules that would allow them to prevent a prorogation if they felt they couldn't win the next election.

[myata]

OK, we seem to be narrowing down on a small number of question that seem to be in the essense of our discussion, so I'll first attempt to logically group statements.

1) Meaningful checks and balances

The Opposition could still have voted no confidence, and still could. Bringing down a government is a pretty damned big check on its powers (at least in a minority).

Why not? I'll wager Americans wish they had a way to bring down a president mid-term.

But Parliament can still boot out a government. If a government were truly supreme, it would be invulnerable. Again, you're blaming the system when you should be blaming cowardly, poll-gazing opposition parties.

Elections are impediments to democratic will?

Actually, for the most part, up until the summer, the Liberals basically owned the Conservatives. The Liberals failures and weakening came because Iggy made some tactical blunders (like announcing that every day he was going to bring down the government). The interference came later in the year, and largely seems to have revolved around the Afghan prisoner issue. And I'm no fan of prorogation used for that purpose, though neither am I fan of investigations that appear to be nothing more than leading questions, since no one actually seems to believe Canadian soldiers abused anybody. Still, I support Parliament's right, even if wrong-headed, to compel the government of the day.

Like toppling government.

So, as not to repeat, is the (compromised in some ways, but still actual) ability to call an election, as the only meanigful way to ensure government's accounability sufficient in adequate in a modern political system? Not in any logical sense, and not for me. For all practical means it tells us that the government operates perfectly until it messes up utterly and irrevocably. Sorry, but this is not the way we run our businesses, private affairs, houses etc, and I dont' think it's a great way to run a political system either.

There're different levels of "supremacy", from the "total invulnerability" to ability to compromise and interfere with democratic process and finally down to transparent and efficient checks and balances that keep each branch of power within its own constitutional domain, without interference with other democratic institutions. I think from that perspective, our system is still very close to its ancestorial "government dominance" model. Will it be as good in these times as several centuries back? I wouldn't bet because as I already tried to point out, the lives we're living now are much different from those in the 17 century.

Yes, a meaningless election call for no other reason but to punish the opposition for bringing down the government would go counter to open democratic process. The people expressed their will by electing their representatives, and the will of majority of MPs should never be allowed to be ignored, obstructed or compromised.

2) The role of executive branch

Surely you will admit that in our kind of system, having the government gaining some sort of a limited advantage is not completely bad. I'd prefer it to the kind of horse trading you see in the American system, with its predilection for vast omnibus bills with every manner of pork glued on for good measure.

I'm sorry, how do you remove executive privileges from a majority government?

So what exactly would you replace it with? I mean, for most of our history, we've had majorities, so it's hard to justify calling it "anti-democratic" for about 99% of our Parliament's history.

I'm not into disputing the choice of terms (like "limited"). But is it, the government out of any and all meaningful checks or controls, actually good and efficient system in a modern society. As already explained, I doubt that hightly.

I outlined that while ability to act cannot be taken from a government that is supported by majority of MPs, checks and balances on its work, such as 1) truly independent watchdogs, 2) unhindered access to information, and 3) uncompromised sessions of Parliament should be left intact and protected. This btw is the third and final time I listed it, so all further claims that there were no offered solutions will be ignored.

3) Work of Parliamentary system

You see, it's not that you don't want governments to fall, you just want your outcome to be the only one. You don't want a more democratic institution, you simply want one that appeals to your emotional attachment to the coalition.

The rules are for the most part perfectly clear. A government falls, if another party or group of parties can form a government, they get the chance. If not, we got to an election.

And that's the way it would work, and probably still could work, but Iggy clearly has little interested in getting chummy with the NDP and Bloc, and wants a majority government. Your coalition didn't die because of Harper, prorogation or anti-democratic institutions, it died because a lot of Liberal MPs hated the idea. That suggests that it was a pretty weak plan.

The first claim is an obvious nonsense. If the process was enforced in the actual operation of our system it wouldn't benefit any one side or party. As you yourself have pointed out, CPC and LPC considered coalitions at different times. What it will do though, is to remove the lifeline dependency of the Parliament on the government, and make the claim of its "supremacy" much more believable.

Regarding the second part, I'd like to see some confirmation of it. It was indeed such a clear and obvious part of our system, the megawails about "conspiracy", "coup d'etat" etc would have been hard to explain.

4) Possibility of change, history and the future

You keep saying this, but other than moaning about prorogation, you never actually demonstrate it. You can't even really define "modern democracy". How is our democracy any less modern than say, any other? I want examples here, not nebulous claims.

The system has survived upheavals far greater than the one here. You really need to crack open the history books, my friend.

History suggests otherwise.

So your problem is with political parties? That has precious little to do with the way Parliament functions.

But if you don't get people to the voting booth, change is pointless.

We've been discussing some examples already (see question #2, proposals 1,2,3 above). The practice of coalitions and fall of government not causing continuous elections is common in many democracies. Limiting executive powers and prerogatives is another one. Enough detail already (note none is new) so that it doesn't appear so nebulous anymore?

I said before that past, even glorious one is no guarantee of the future, and there practical reasons why I think that the system is inadequate to the demands of modern times. I don't think I said or implied anything about the parties, rather that the outdated system makes operation of existing parties far less efficient for the society as a whole, and the emergence of new ones practically near impossible (see what happened to Greens). And yes, people would be less and less likely to participate in less and less meanigful, grossly inadequate and outdated political process

[ToadBrother]

OK, we seem to be narrowing down on a small number of question that seem to be in the essense of our discussion, so I'll first attempt to logically group statements.

1) Meaningful checks and balances

So, as not to repeat, is the (compromised in some ways, but still actual) ability to call an election, as the only meanigful way to ensure government's accounability sufficient in adequate in a modern political system? Not in any logical sense, and not for me. For all practical means it tells us that the government operates perfectly until it messes up utterly and irrevocably. Sorry, but this is not the way we run our businesses, private affairs, houses etc, and I dont' think it's a great way to run a political system either.

I can't really follow your logic here. First of all, governments aren't businesses, and I find trying to draw analogies from one to place into another usually ends up falling quite short. What you've written really makes no sense. Are you saying that confidence motions should be more frequent, or the effects of a confidence motion not be to bring down a government? I don't even know where you coming from. Either I'm dull-witted today, or what you wrote is incredibly poorly worded. I hate to comment on something I'm clearly missing a piece to.

There're different levels of "supremacy", from the "total invulnerability" to ability to compromise and interfere with democratic process and finally down to transparent and efficient checks and balances that keep each branch of power within its own constitutional domain, without interference with other democratic institutions.

What other institutions are we talking about? The only institution that is interfered with by a prorogation is Parliament. The Crown and the Supreme Court, and in fact, the machinery of government, continue to function whether Parliament sits or not. The trouble comes, obviously, over legislation, and in a purely functional sense, over money bills.

I think from that perspective, our system is still very close to its ancestorial "government dominance" model.

There isn't a system out there that isn't like that to some degree. Maybe some very loose confederations might have a weaker notion of "government". As egalitarian as we'd like to imagine ourselves, at some point, someone has to be in charge. Early on Parliament didn't quite function like that. The King appointed ministers who directed His policy and managed the day to day business of government. Parliament's role was legislative, and particularly after Charles I's disastrous reign, as an overseer. In some ways, Parliament, being less constrained by party politics (formalized parties really didn't evolve into the end of the 18th century), was a lot freer in some regards. Coalitions were usually short-lived, often tentative. In some respects it more resembled the American system, where if you wanted some legislation passed, you had to find the votes, and that often made government a slower and more cumbersome process. There is a reason that the party system evolved, though I'd assert that it's benefits are more and more being superseded by the downside; which is a permanent state of partisan warfare coupled with the requirement of strong leaders who more and more take on authoritarian airs. But again, that isn't a problem with our constitution, that's a problem with our Members of Parliament.

Will it be as good in these times as several centuries back? I wouldn't bet because as I already tried to point out, the lives we're living now are much different from those in the 17 century.

And I'm trying to point out that the system as it existed in the 17th century isn't the system you think it was. You really really really need to read up on the history of Parliament here.

Yes, a meaningless election call for no other reason but to punish the opposition for bringing down the government would go counter to open democratic process. The people expressed their will by electing their representatives, and the will of majority of MPs should never be allowed to be ignored, obstructed or compromised.

This is completely subjective. "Meaningless"? Meaningless to who? To you? To the government? To my mind, an election is by far the preferable way to choose who governs. Having the Crown offer government to another group in Parliament should only be reserved for relatively rare occasions, which, of course, only appear when we have minorities. Since minorities are so rare, I'm not sure why vast reforms are needed, and what long-term good such an overhaul would produce. Assuming that the current minority situation is like the other brief periods in our history, it will disappear, and votes on whether to prorogue Parliament or not will become pointless exercises.

2) The role of executive branch

I'm not into disputing the choice of terms (like "limited"). But is it, the government out of any and all meaningful checks or controls, actually good and efficient system in a modern society. As already explained, I doubt that hightly.

With pretty flimsy evidence of a couple of prorogations. Like I said, as much as you rail against the executive's powers, it seems to boil down to them not being applied the way you would like.

I outlined that while ability to act cannot be taken from a government that is supported by majority of MPs, checks and balances on its work, such as 1) truly independent watchdogs, 2) unhindered access to information, and 3) uncompromised sessions of Parliament should be left intact and protected. This btw is the third and final time I listed it, so all further claims that there were no offered solutions will be ignored.

Let's take these one at a time:

1. Independent watchdogs - Yes, we need more, or at least watchdogs with far greater freedom. This only requires legislation. So vote for the party that you feel will most likely deliver.

2. Unhindered access to information - In principle and in general, a good idea. Harper's depriving Parliament of full documents on the activities of our troops in Afghanistan is clearly a violation of that. But there are already solutions to that problem, in particular, ministers who do not provide the information can be found in contempt of Parliament. I will note that free access to information only really applies to Parliament. If information truly does pertain to issues of national security, and revealing it could compromise that, then the government has some justification in assuring that it is not published.

3. Uncompromised sessions of Parliament - Another odd phrase that I can't be sure what it means. Like I said, some of your concepts are poorly worded, so I hesitate to make comments. Can you elucidate this for me?

3) Work of Parliamentary system

The first claim is an obvious nonsense. If the process was enforced in the actual operation of our system it wouldn't benefit any one side or party. As you yourself have pointed out, CPC and LPC considered coalitions at different times. What it will do though, is to remove the lifeline dependency of the Parliament on the government, and make the claim of its "supremacy" much more believable.

Our constitution already separates Parliament from the Government. The principle is clear; the electorate chooses the Parliament, Parliament makes the Government. If Harper had not prorogued Parliament, and had been defeated, it is almost certain that the Coalition would have become the new government. Of course, the inherent instability of the Coalition meant it couldn't even last a month and a half. But if they had, at the end of January 2009, when Parliament returned, the constitution requires a Throne Speech that must be voted on, and there's your confidence measure. Again, the fault lies not in the system, but in the politicians. The Coalition, if it hadn't completely fallen apart in the meantime, could have brought down the government, and I'd say that it would have been a safe bet that the GG would have asked the Coalition to take the government benches.

Regarding the second part, I'd like to see some confirmation of it. It was indeed such a clear and obvious part of our system, the megawails about "conspiracy", "coup d'etat" etc would have been hard to explain.

Oh come on. Don't be so damned naive. What are you suggesting, that we make lying illegal? The fact is that most people, you included, don't seem to understand the system. Most Canadians, I'm sorry to say, have this strange idea that we have an almost American system. It's a failing of our educational system, I suppose, but the principle has been clear since the end of the 18th century; the electorate chooses the Parliament, Parliament chooses the government.

Yes, Tory astroturfers and supporters spread a thick layer of bullcrap. But that, in a word, is politics. There isn't a democratic system invented that doesn't prevent people from being suckered in by BSers. You don't want to amend our constitution, you want to amend human nature.

4) Possibility of change, history and the future

We've been discussing some examples already (see question #2, proposals 1,2,3 above). The practice of coalitions and fall of government not causing continuous elections is common in many democracies.

First of all, I can't quite figure out your allergy to elections. Some people here want us voting on everything, you seem to be the opposite. You don't seem to want us to have many votes at all.

But as I have repeatedly stated, our system affords a way for a new government to be constituted from a sitting Parliament. It probably would have happened even in January 2009, if the Coalition hadn't collapsed. It most likely would not happen now, even if Iggy decided to hop into bed with the NDP and the Bloc, because sufficient time has passed to justify an election. Mind you, up until the five years are up (the maximum lifespan of a Parliament), the GG could conceivably do it. Is that what you want?

Limiting executive powers and prerogatives is another one. Enough detail already (note none is new) so that it doesn't appear so nebulous anymore?

Limit them in what way? Who would take them over? I've made my suggestions, but they raise other issues. But be specific, which Prerogatives and Reserve Powers do you want limited?

I said before that past, even glorious one is no guarantee of the future, and there practical reasons why I think that the system is inadequate to the demands of modern times. I don't think I said or implied anything about the parties, rather that the outdated system makes operation of existing parties far less efficient for the society as a whole, and the emergence of new ones practically near impossible (see what happened to Greens).

The Greens simply do not have enough support. Worse for them they had an absolute moron for a leader. Our system shouldn't be modified to make losers into winners.

At any rate, the problem is I see it is with the parties, not with the system. If we are to make changes, I think the changes would be better made to assure MPs gain more independence from the party leadership. That doesn't require tinkering with the constitution, that takes electing independent-minded MPs.

And yes, people would be less and less likely to participate in less and less meanigful, grossly inadequate and outdated political process

That may be. But none of what you have suggested (as much as you have suggested, which ain't much) seems likely to engage voters.

Oh and as an aside, I've been talking about Charles II getting booted out of England. It was of course Charles II's son, James II that was dethroned and forced into exile, when Parliament offered the throne to William and Mary.

Edited January 29, 2010 by ToadBrother

[jbg]

He didn't even qualify his statement that the contents of the March budget might make him change his mind. Essentially, he's saying he will be supporting the budget before having seen it.

Canadians must be wondering, if he is so incensed about the conduct of the Harper government as he demonstrates, why does he not come out swinging that he'll defeat it at the first opportunity.

I'm wondering the same thing.

I had always thought that one thing that distinguished the Liberal Party generally and Ignatieff especially was strong and firm convictions. Interestingly, last fall Ignatieff stated that he would no longer prop up the Conservative government. Then he thought better of having a defeat of the home improvement credit causing an election so he at held fire until Layton thought better of toppling the government. Now Ignatieff is saying he'll support the government.

I am shocked and dismayed to see people who are apparently as principled as the Liberal Party of Canada changing direction so readily.

Edited February 1, 2010 by jbg

[g_bambino]

I am shocked and dismayed to see people who are apparently as principled as the Liberal Party of Canada changing direction so readily.

It's been going on for some time, really. Since I became old enough to be cognisant of politics, the Liberal Party has slid into a practice of preaching whatever polls say it should, but covering this behind an insinuation that they know what Canadians want because Canadians are naturally Liberal. Thus, the Liberal Party is the one that naturally should be governing Canada.

By the time Martin was appointed Prime Minister, I'd become thoroughly fed up of the Liberal Party telling me what true Canadians thought, implying that, if I didn't agree with Liberal policy, I wasn't a true Canadian. Pure hubris on their part. I thought Harper was better, in that regard. He has, however, disappointed me in many other ways; arrogance of a different kind.

[+]

Edited January 30, 2010 by g_bambino

[Argus]

People who make racist jokes are racist by definition, no?

I know a very liberal guy who mocks Harper every chance he gets, doesn't have a bigoted or homophobic bone in his body, but tells lots of ethnic jokes, including homo jokes.

[Argus]

No offense, but your comment warranted you being fired. At best the joke was in bad taste, more likely it was taken as a racist insult. When you said, "I don't need one; I don't beat my wife," you implied that those who were wearing one do beat their wives. In particular, the person handing you one was an East Indian and already suffered from the stereotype of being abusive. I don't know any workplace in the country that would allow a racist insult like that go unpunished.

What a tortured stream of assumptions! I can't believe anyone would be fired for making a joke like that. I don't consider it in poor taste at all, and only a politically correct zealot of the first order, the kind who worships at the alter of political correctness and desperately looks to be offended everywhere he goes would think otherwise.

[Argus]

You should then be reprimanded for uttering such a statement as the one you just did. After all, you've now labelled someone a racist - one of the most injurous stigmas that can be attached to an individual in our contemporary society, even if only an accusation - based on nothing but your own imaginative infill of an incomplete story. Disgusting.

I've noticed that almost none of those who are most eager to label people as racist have much of a clue as to what racism is. Nor are they interested in educating themselves. Their accusations seem to be more about labelling and denouncing people who don't share their political ideology.

[g_bambino]

What a tortured stream of assumptions! I can't believe anyone would be fired for making a joke like that. I don't consider it in poor taste at all, and only a politically correct zealot of the first order, the kind who worships at the alter of political correctness and desperately looks to be offended everywhere he goes would think otherwise.

That's pretty much what I was trying to get at; but, because it was so OT, I decided to drop the matter. You've summed up my position here, anyway.

[Topaz]

I think so everyone has what the Libs are saying should read what they do think and is on their website. The reasons for this coming forward is the way Harper feels about being King and can do whatever he wants. Thank God above the voters never gave him a majority! Anyway, this is what the Libs think about the changes to proroguing. http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/17360_liberals-pledge-to-prevent-abuse-of-prorogation

[g_bambino]

Anyway, this is what the Libs think about the changes to proroguing.

http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/17360_liberals-pledge-to-prevent-abuse-of-prorogation

Those are meaningless. Without constitutional amendment, the Governor General will remain able to prorogue parliament, and, per convention, unable to, without causing a constitutional crisis, dismiss her prime minister's advice without the House of Commons first voting non-confidence in him. The Liberals are here proposing that parliament become an intermediary step between a prime minister and the Governor General, approving advice before its given. As with the case of parliament trying to do the same in the United Kingdom over the Royal Prerogative to declare war, what the Liberals are suggesting is unconstitutional. There must be an amendment first, which requires provincial input.

[Smallc]

But I still have a question. Can a law be put forward prohibiting the Prime Minister from advising a prorogation without the consent of parliament? It would probably be as meaningless as the fixed election law, but on the other hand, it might not be, given that Parliament, in the Constitution, has exclusive jurisdiction over the executive power of the government.

[Born Free]

Those are meaningless. Without constitutional amendment, the Governor General will remain able to prorogue parliament, and, per convention, unable to, without causing a constitutional crisis, dismiss her prime minister's advice without the House of Commons first voting non-confidence in him. The Liberals are here proposing that parliament become an intermediary step between a prime minister and the Governor General, approving advice before its given. As with the case of parliament trying to do the same in the United Kingdom over the Royal Prerogative to declare war, what the Liberals are suggesting is unconstitutional. There must be an amendment first, which requires provincial input.

Proroguing should only be permitted if the PM's intention is to "recalibrate"..

GLOBE STORY

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Proroguing should only be permitted if the PM's intention is to "recalibrate"..

GLOBE STORY

Garbage. The only reason worthy to suspend the citizens rights to oppose the government would be to elect a new government.