Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

Born Free · January 30, 2010

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

Hi Jerry,

I wrote it with tongue in cheek.

To calibrate is simply to test a measuring device and adjust it as necessary so that it measures accurately to a national standard so that accuracy is supported by objective evidence that it indeed meets the national standard normally held at NRC.

In politics, to calibrate means to move the bull shit pile to another location. To recalibrate is to move it again in the hope that the public will forget where the original pile was located.

Harpo has a habit of not telling the truth to our faces..............

Harpo passes a law requiring fixed election dates. - You can be sure he will call an election ignoring the legislated date.

Harpo declares before the last election that there will be no recession - We were already in recession when he said that.

Harpo says that he does not "cut and run!" - He gets in trouble in Parliament and with the help of the GG he cuts and runs.

Harpo tells us that he is by profession an economist. - So just when he needs the money he cuts the GST.

Harpo when opposition, declares that the Canadian Army needs to be sent to Iraq. - In government he says that he only said that to scare Sadam.

myata · January 30, 2010

Thanks for thoughtful comments, TB. I was trying to bring the discussion to a more compact context with a fewer points, as I do not have time or desire to write a full political essay daily. So, on the matters of checks and balances and accountability.

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.

Unless it relates to core, framework ways of doing things. It's no good to start a renovation project without ever once checking the progress against the original design, or actual situation; it's no good as practice in business; not useful as a general way of approaching life. And there's no logical reason to expect it should be the way to run the political system. The only reason it is, is because the government can because, as already explained, this system has originated from the all powerful government model and has not underwent any serious modernisations since.

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.

Yet it was all stated, and you agreed with some or most. There must be real, meaningful checks on the work of goevrnment while it is still operating, not as a final coup de grace than it cannot, anymore. There must be a standard, legalised and established way to replace a failing government without causing continuous elections. And there should be no way for the executive branch to interfere with the work of Parliament.

There isn't a system out there that isn't like that to some degree.

Would you care to support this statement with some factual information, as you asked of me? Is it really so, that in most, majority of Parliamentary systems, perhaps outside of British colonial model in which we already know it to be the case, the government has instruments to obstruct and shut down the elected legislature at will?

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.

The reason is the same one where a structure appears in otherwise unordered group, media, etc and immediately shows superior results in achieving its goals, so the rest of the group has no choice but to organise. Anyways, it's a sidetrack, the parties, organisations etc are a given in any advanced societies, and the issue is in creating a political system that would make them operate efficiently to the benefit of the society as a whole.

The system we have now does little of such thing. The two dominant parties know from the start that they are the only candidates appointed to the role of governance and much, if not all of their will and energy is devoted to two things, putting down the opponent; and finding any way to not screw up majorly, for which doing nothing or as little as possible is the best recipe. No surprise that we see less and less down, and will see even less going forward unless the system is changed.

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.

Then please point it out with facts. What is it what we have now that was not there in the 17th century and that allows the system operate better i.e in more transparent and efficient way. I mean 1) real; and 2) working and functional parts of the system, institutions and instruments, obviously.

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.

Meaningless only means that running another election within two, three, six months of another one is pointless, costly and well, useless. If the preferences of the population are split evenly between the two governance parties in a majoritary system, the way out is not running the elections to death, but to make parties cooperate and govern in accord to the benefit of the country. The system we have make such accords a curiousity, oddity beyond all recognition, while it should be a normal, modern way to govern the country.

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.

Wouldn't that be like assuming that this exhaust pipe that's falling off my car will stick itself back to its place and the car will run nicely and smoothly as before. This bit assumption of course neglects to take into account another very commont truth from our (human) history, ie. that there's first time for everything.

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.

No, I pointed out other examples too (obstructed investigations, ignored or fired watchdogs) that clearly demonstrate that executive power has near complete dominance over the Parliament and the only remedy of the latter is the costly election. But tape player discussions is the least I'm intereted in. If you want to believe that we have a modern system with fair balance of powers and meaningful checks and balances believe you should, because one thing you wouldn't be able to do, especially in the light of fully constitutional acts of the current government is to prove it, with facts and logic.

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?

Government obstructing work of the Parliament, or shutting it downright.

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.

Does it mean that you couldn't come up with anything in the existing procedure that states it clearly and inambiguously? Thought so. Now we have a traffic code that describes how one has to stop for a traffic light in a minuscule detail. But we have nothing there, not in a clear and consise way to define exactly how our governments are formed. Makes a lot of sense. Keep stating that it's the best system there is.

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.

Obviously, there're limits to stretching. Don't you think that if that law, procedure, constitution etc stated loud and clear how the governments, including coalition governments are formed, that bullcrap would have never happened?

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?

Prorogations should only be used by consent of Parliament - government cannot call an election at will, it's set in the calendar, or called by the head of state when there's no government - government cannot advise to the head on Parliamentary affairs

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.

They have close to 10% of active voter support. In countries with proportionate system they were in coalition governments and have impacted goevrnment policies. This is simply not possible here, not because of the party, but the way the system is set. In this 17 century setup, one can support the government, or oppose it, everything else, ideas, priorieties, interests is swept under the rug.

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.

That's sure a fairy recepy, like going back in times. I'm sure for greater party democracy, but in this system where winner takes all and bothers about nothing, there's simply not a single minuscule chance of it happening. As we can see, the most ruthless and least principled player has all the advantages of taking the prize, and that factor will eventually drive the system to irrelevance and extintion in this modern age.

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.

More transparent and functional political system may. When voters see that the government has to account for its act. When the Parliament can conduct meaninful work on holding the government accountable. When independent oversight means independent. And finally, when the Parliament, and the government represent full spectrum of the political composition of the society, rather than its filter by 18th century mold.

ToadBrother · January 30, 2010

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.

The problem here is that a Royal Prerogative cannot be removed or modified without the consent of the GG. That consent would only be given on the advice of the Government. Simply put, if Parliament passed legislation requiring a vote in the House to prorogue, the Prime Minister could advise the GG not to give assent to the bill (much as the Labour Government did in 1999 with a bill that would have essentially ended the Queen's Royal Prerogative to declare war).

Now maybe Harper, having felt the sting from the anti-prorogation sentiment, might decide he wasn't going to pull that stunt again, and would acquiesce. But I think it would be irresponsible of the Opposition to risk a constitutional crisis far larger than the problem it is supposed to solve.

Some experts seem to be suggested a non-binding motion by the Opposition setting down the principle that Parliament should be consulted before it is prorogued. While not forcing the GG into any particular position, it might be sufficient for her to refuse prorogation where Parliament's consent has not be sought, on general principle.

Oh, and myata, I will get back to you. May be tonight or tomorrow night, though.

Edited January 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

Born Free · January 30, 2010

When independent oversight means independent.

There will never be any such thing.

Smallc · January 30, 2010

The problem here is that a Royal Prerogative cannot be removed or modified without the consent of the GG. That consent would only be given on the advice of the Government. Simply put, if Parliament passed legislation requiring a vote in the House to prorogue, the Prime Minister could advise the GG not to give assent to the bill (much as the Labour Government did in 1999 with a bill that would have essentially ended the Queen's Royal Prerogative to declare war).

But the government doesn't have supreme authority over changes to executive powers of the government, Parliament does.

ToadBrother · January 30, 2010

But the government doesn't have supreme authority over changes to executive powers of the government, Parliament does.

If they wish to invoke an amending formula, yes. No one is using that word, though. They seem to be quite keen to insist that no amendment is necessary. Because we now have the Constitution Act, 1982, legislation alone seems quite insufficient to modify something like a Royal Prerogative.

jbg · January 30, 2010

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.

No.

I don't believe that a mere law can alter the ability of a PM to give advice to the GG or Queen.

As far as the fixed election law goes, my understanding always was that it applied to majority governments only, to prevent hair-trigger trips to the polls when the Opposition was in disarray and/or not expecting an election. Examples would be both of Chrétien's trips to the polls, in April 1997 and November 2000, both six months early.

If the law were to apply to a minority government, it would give the government a serious disadvantage to the Opposition, since the Opposition could tank the Government whenever it wanted to, but the Government couldn't pull the plug when the Opposition, fearing an election, merely rendered Parliamentary committee and other procedures chaotic.

Smallc · January 30, 2010

No.

I don't believe that a mere law can alter the ability of a PM to give advice to the GG or Queen.

It wouldn't necessarily be a mere law. It would not affect the the powers of the governor general, but rather the executive powers of the government. Parliament, on its own, should be able to make the change.

As far as the fixed election law goes, my understanding always was that it applied to majority governments only,

No, it wasn't. It was supposed to prevent the government for calling for an election in the absence of a confidence vote, something that it obviously didn't do.

Smallc · January 30, 2010

They seem to be quite keen to insist that no amendment is necessary.

I think that's because they're a bunch of spineless talkers. They don't really want to make a change, they just want to make a bunch of noise.

myata · January 30, 2010

The problem here is that a Royal Prerogative cannot be removed or modified without the consent of the GG. That consent would only be given on the advice of the Government. Simply put, if Parliament passed legislation requiring a vote in the House to prorogue, the Prime Minister could advise the GG not to give assent to the bill (much as the Labour Government did in 1999 with a bill that would have essentially ended the Queen's Royal Prerogative to declare war).

Wait, TB, didn't you only a short while back in our discussion insist on Parliament's power to pass legislation as one of the tokens of its supremacy? Now, with this statement things appear to be not so clear, and a government can still "advise" (read: order) GG to not effect any legislation it did not like.

So, is it really "supreme"? Or only supreme conditionally, pending approval from the government? Is it yet another of obscure powers and prerogatives that can be explored by future governments to ensure their advantage and domination in the political process, now that creative precedents have been set? And finally:

If we do see our democracy as a vibrant and funcional system for the future, wouldn't we better off ditching the 17th priveleges, prerogatives and such out, and in their stead creating clear and transparent set of rules for the branches of power to interact with each other?

nicky10013 · January 30, 2010

Wait, TB, didn't you only a short while back in our discussion insist on Parliament's power to pass legislation as one of the tokens of its supremacy? Now, with this statement things appear to be not so clear, and a government can still "advise" (read: order) GG to not effect any legislation it did not like.

So, is it really "supreme"? Or only supreme conditionally, pending approval from the government? Is it yet another of obscure powers and prerogatives that can be explored by future governments to ensure their advantage and domination in the political process, now that creative precedents have been set? And finally:

If we do see our democracy as a vibrant and funcional system for the future, wouldn't we better off ditching the 17th priveleges, prerogatives and such out, and in their stead creating clear and transparent set of rules for the branches of power to interact with each other?

Constitutionally, everyone agrees the GG is supposed to take advice of the government when the house has confidence in the government implying that the will of the house is supreme to that of the government. The GG can't overturn votes in the house on advice from the PM simply due to the fact that on that particular bill, the government clearly doesn't have the confidence of the house.

Politically, Harper can't do it. There has been so much backlash over his political prorogation of parliament. He's singlehandedly turned a potential conservative majority into a horse race. Asking the GG to kill this bill turns a horse race into a liberal majority.

ToadBrother · January 31, 2010

Wait, TB, didn't you only a short while back in our discussion insist on Parliament's power to pass legislation as one of the tokens of its supremacy? Now, with this statement things appear to be not so clear, and a government can still "advise" (read: order) GG to not effect any legislation it did not like.

So, is it really "supreme"? Or only supreme conditionally, pending approval from the government? Is it yet another of obscure powers and prerogatives that can be explored by future governments to ensure their advantage and domination in the political process, now that creative precedents have been set? And finally:

If we do see our democracy as a vibrant and funcional system for the future, wouldn't we better off ditching the 17th priveleges, prerogatives and such out, and in their stead creating clear and transparent set of rules for the branches of power to interact with each other?

Can Parliament pass legislation declaring anyone using the moniker "myata" on the Internet be taken out and beaten up?

Why not? Why, we have a constitution that forbids such laws. If Parliament were to pass a law that violated the Constitution, that law could be thrown out.

But I think others have pegged it right. You want an unconstrained legislative body whose only bounds are whatever kneejerk notions you have.

myata · January 31, 2010

Why not? Why, we have a constitution that forbids such laws. If Parliament were to pass a law that violated the Constitution, that law could be thrown out.

Good example. But irrelevant. We're talking about the government's privilege to not effect laws it does not like. That would be something entirely different than determining constitutionality.

You see, in full and sovereign democracies, constitutionality of laws can be determined only by the judiciary, the third branch of power that keeps the balance between the executive and legislature. Because neither one of the two is supreme, on paper or otherwise, other than in its own domain of responsibilities.

We here, though need that unelected GG as the left hand of the government, to determine how good a particular law is, and on occasion refusing to effect those laws it does not like. As well as play in many other things, perchance deciding who will govern us, at other times - when is a good time for a political debate, a vote of confidence, or an election.

And even now, in the new laws we make, like that fixed election dates, we still leave the government that out, to obey the law unless it doesn't feel like obeying it. You must know what it means, do you? I'll spill it: we still, after all those glorious years do not feel confident and independent enough to trust in our own political system and our own independent institutions working by our own rules and serving the realities of our life here. What we have here is a phenomenon known as infantilism, an adult who has not yet achieved full independency and relies on others to make important decisions in their life. Next time I'll attempt to explain how and why it came to be this way.

But I think others have pegged it right. You want an unconstrained legislative body whose only bounds are whatever kneejerk notions you have.

No, that is not what I want and I clearly stated that so many times already. I rather think that you can't admit the obvious flaws of that system, the ones that used to look harmless and even cute as relics and memoirs of a glorious age, but now not so funny with indiscriminate politicians coming to understand how they could take real advantage of them to fasten their grip on power and political agenda. And, being unable to admit that, you're now taking an easy out in accusing your oppenent in sins outrageous, not unlike Harper in that coalition business. Good stuff!

ToadBrother · January 31, 2010

Good example. But irrelevant. We're talking about the government's privilege to not effect laws it does not like. That would be something entirely different than determining constitutionality.

No we're talking about altering constitutional arrangements.

You see, in full and sovereign democracies, constitutionality of laws can be determined only by the judiciary, the third branch of power that keeps the balance between the executive and legislature. Because neither one of the two is supreme, on paper or otherwise, other than in its own domain of responsibilities.

Constitutionality can only be formally determined, but it doesn't take a frickin' rocket scientist to figure out that if you mess with a Royal Prerogative, you're altering the constitution, and if it isn't done as an amendment, it can be challenged and in all likelihood would fail. Like I keep saying over and over, if prorogation needs to be limited, then do it right, because otherwise it was a complete waste of time to do it at all.

We here, though need that unelected GG as the left hand of the government, to determine how good a particular law is, and on occasion refusing to effect those laws it does not like. As well as play in many other things, perchance deciding who will govern us, at other times - when is a good time for a political debate, a vote of confidence, or an election.

The GG doesn't determine how good or bad a law is. He or she acts on the advice of Government. I'm sure that if the House passed some anti-prorogation law and Harper was too timid to advise against it, it would pass. It would still likely be unconstitutional, but it would pass. Of course, at any time that he or some later minority PM decided to dispense with it, a court challenge would be all it would take. I'm of a mind, myself, that passing blatantly unconstitutional laws is a bad thing, even if you don't necessarily agree with the clause in the constitution that you're planning on superseding illegitimately.

And even now, in the new laws we make, like that fixed election dates, we still leave the government that out, to obey the law unless it doesn't feel like obeying it.

Because fixed election dates are anathema in our system. How can you have fixed election dates when a government only governs through the confidence of Parliament? Yes, technically, majority governments are immune, but the reality is that fixed election dates can at best be considered a sort of agreed-upon convenience in a system where a government requires confidence, and not just a date on the calendar every four years, to stay in power.

You must know what it means, do you? I'll spill it: we still, after all those glorious years do not feel confident and independent enough to trust in our own political system and our own independent institutions working by our own rules and serving the realities of our life here. What we have here is a phenomenon known as infantilism, an adult who has not yet achieved full independency and relies on others to make important decisions in their life. Next time I'll attempt to explain how and why it came to be this way.

It means nothing of the kind. I've explained why fixed date legislation is absurd, at least as far as minorities go. Your extrapolation makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, do you even understand the most basic framework of our system? I'm getting the feeling that you probably slept through Social Studies.

Besides, fixed election dates are no panacea. What happens is it takes a 30 day election campaign and stretches it into a 12 month election campaign. I live in BC, believe me, it isn't what it was advertised to be.

No, that is not what I want and I clearly stated that so many times already.

You state it, and then you say things that make it clear that that's not what you think. You clearly seem to think that Parliament should be able to enact unconstitutional laws, based solely on whether you dislike that aspect of the constitution being tampered with.

I rather think that you can't admit the obvious flaws of that system, the ones that used to look harmless and even cute as relics and memoirs of a glorious age, but now not so funny with indiscriminate politicians coming to understand how they could take real advantage of them to fasten their grip on power and political agenda. And, being unable to admit that, you're now taking an easy out in accusing your oppenent in sins outrageous, not unlike Harper in that coalition business. Good stuff!

I think I've been keeping up with all your claims, and keeping ahead of them. Part of the reason is that you don't really have any clear ideas, just emotionally-charged notions that THINGS ARE WRONG!!!!

myata · January 31, 2010

Constitutionality can only be formally determined, but it doesn't take a frickin' rocket scientist to figure out that if you mess with a Royal Prerogative, you're altering the constitution, and if it isn't done as an amendment, it can be challenged and in all likelihood would fail.

No, it needn't any sort of rocket scientist to figure that out of course, the question is how and by whom it is challenged? Is it challenged by an independent and impartial institution made of experts in law, or by an unelected official on request, read order of government? In a sovereign and responsibile democracy, the process would make all the difference. Because the former does actually mean the separation of powers, checks and balances while the latter is only barely disguised prevalence of the executive power to have its way.

The GG doesn't determine how good or bad a law is. He or she acts on the advice of Government. I'm sure that if the House passed some anti-prorogation law and Harper was too timid to advise against it, it would pass. It would still likely be unconstitutional, but it would pass. Of course, at any time that he or some later minority PM decided to dispense with it, a court challenge would be all it would take. I'm of a mind, myself, that passing blatantly unconstitutional laws is a bad thing, even if you don't necessarily agree with the clause in the constitution that you're planning on superseding illegitimately.

Well yes, it needs to be changed constitutionally and changed in a serious and profound way if we want to start living in the modern age of politics. As it stands the system is little more than an hugely skewed in favour of the executive powers version of populist democracy where the government has an upper hand in pretty much every aspect of political system and is only checked, no not by the Parliament forget that empty rhethoric, but by electorate itself in case it screws up badly and majorly. Till such time it has a free hand in every affair forget that nonsense about checks and balances you read about in school but that means so little in reality, as everybody with open eyes and more importantly, open mind can see.

Because fixed election dates are anathema in our system. How can you have fixed election dates when a government only governs through the confidence of Parliament? Yes, technically, majority governments are immune, but the reality is that fixed election dates can at best be considered a sort of agreed-upon convenience in a system where a government requires confidence, and not just a date on the calendar every four years, to stay in power.

Hasn't it been the case of a minority government triggering an election against the wishes of the majority in the Parliament? Want to try again, or anything goes?

I agree that a majority case is somewhat more complicated. In that situation, the will of majority is synonimous with the position of the government, and for protection of democracy against the dictate of majority it may very well worth the trouble to create a clear and fair criteria when an election can be called.

It means nothing of the kind. I've explained why fixed date legislation is absurd, at least as far as minorities go. Your extrapolation makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, do you even understand the most basic framework of our system? I'm getting the feeling that you probably slept through Social Studies.

I understand that government has a direct line to the GG and through that line our system allows it to manipulate many many things in our political system. I have an impression that this part of our system is much less discussed in high schools than the glorious episodes (in truth, the subject didn't inspire me much exactly for the prevalence of pointless historics over common sense, rationality and logic).

You state it, and then you say things that make it clear that that's not what you think. You clearly seem to think that Parliament should be able to enact unconstitutional laws, based solely on whether you dislike that aspect of the constitution being tampered with.

No, just that constitutionality of any law is decided by an independent and impartial instution, rather than an appointee of the government. That actually means independent checks and separtion of powers. Direct line from PM to unelected GG to stop a law is obviously, not, more like a ridicule or theatrical pantomime of it (i.e. transparent democratic process).

From now on each and every PM has been invited to make full use of those priveleges, powers and prerogatives so unless we want to discover even more surprising ways in which the government of the day could mess with the working of our democracy, we better start reexamining it, the system not in the least from the principles of modern democracy. If not, we're running risk of sliding back down all the way to the times of Charles 1 and such. As said, nothing is given for free and for granted. It takes thought and work to just keep what one has; and it takes more intelligent analysis and hard work to advance. If we want just to sail on the achievements of our grand ancestors one day we'll wake up for an unpleasant surprise.

I think I've been keeping up with all your claims, and keeping ahead of them. Part of the reason is that you don't really have any clear ideas, just emotionally-charged notions that THINGS ARE WRONG!!!!

Well, I described quite clearly what I think is wrong, and some ways in which it can be improved, it's all here. Of course it can be brushed of as "rare", "insignificant" and so on. For a while, till the reality comes knocking on the door, and once in a while knocking hard.

Edited February 1, 2010 by myata

jbg · January 31, 2010

Besides, fixed election dates are no panacea. What happens is it takes a 30 day election campaign and stretches it into a 12 month election campaign. I live in BC, believe me, it isn't what it was advertised to be.

You're new at the game. Our last Presidential election campaign started around Super Bowl Sunday in 2007, by which time Hilary and B. Hussein were in the race.

myata · February 1, 2010

Politically, Harper can't do it. There has been so much backlash over his political prorogation of parliament. He's singlehandedly turned a potential conservative majority into a horse race. Asking the GG to kill this bill turns a horse race into a liberal majority.

Actually, as I tend to agree with other posters, the problems goes much deeper into the core of our political system tnat just the use of one particular instrument, and needs to be addressed properly within the constitutional process. I understand that some parties would like insted to grasp short term political benefits from voters disappointment with undemocratic acts of the government and the appearance of doing "something". However without serious look on the system as a whole, especially as discussed at length here, the ability of the executive to interfere with the work of other democratic instituions, fixing only the prorogation issue won't do much on its own, mind also the concerns about constitutionality of proposed act.

And I can see only two possible avenues for that change, one, a party or coalition champions the program of democratic reforms perhaps and very likely, in a non partisan accord with other parties.

Or, we'll limit ourselves to minor tweaks and the system will be allowed to drive itself further down the path of inefficiency and irrationality so that at some point in the future it'd simply collapse with no possibility or repair - I could see one possible scenario in voters losing all interest in federal politics, and stopping voting, like with voter participation dropping below 50% - and we arent' that far from that mark already - and would have to be redesigned from ground up (which btw happened at some time and in some form in most modern democracies, with the exception of the British colonial model countries, which could explain politically infantile, i.e. lacking the confidence in own political processes and instituions, nature of our political system).

ToadBrother · February 1, 2010

And I can see only two possible avenues for that change, one, a party or coalition champions the program of democratic reforms perhaps and very likely, in a non partisan accord with other parties.

Mulroney tried it twice, and both times ended up getting his b*lls handed back to him for his trouble. Good or bad, constitutional amendments of any substance will not happen in the near future simply because every time they're brought up, it causes nothing but grief.

The best reform this country could have is to elect about 50 independents to the Parliament. In the minority climate it would utterly undermine the mainline parties. That would do more good than all the constitutional amendments in the world.

ToadBrother · February 1, 2010

No, it needn't any sort of rocket scientist to figure that out of course, the question is how and by whom it is challenged?

Obviously by the government.

Is it challenged by an independent and impartial institution made of experts in law, or by an unelected official on request, read order of government? In a sovereign and responsibile democracy, the process would make all the difference. Because the former does actually mean the separation of powers, checks and balances while the latter is only barely disguised prevalence of the executive power to have its way.

So you're hip with unconstitutional laws? Is this your idea of a "sovereign and responsible democracy" that it violates the constitution because, well, you think that's a good idea?

Well yes, it needs to be changed constitutionally and changed in a serious and profound way if we want to start living in the modern age of politics. As it stands the system is little more than an hugely skewed in favour of the executive powers version of populist democracy where the government has an upper hand in pretty much every aspect of political system and is only checked, no not by the Parliament forget that empty rhethoric, but by electorate itself in case it screws up badly and majorly. Till such time it has a free hand in every affair forget that nonsense about checks and balances you read about in school but that means so little in reality, as everybody with open eyes and more importantly, open mind can see.

Can we have this discussion without the t-shirt slogans?

Hasn't it been the case of a minority government triggering an election against the wishes of the majority in the Parliament? Want to try again, or anything goes?

When exactly did that happen. I don't recall the Opposition being all that upset about the 2008 election, that is until Dion revealed himself to be a complete moron. Then suddenly it became "Oooh, Harper does snap elections, oooh!"

I agree that a majority case is somewhat more complicated. In that situation, the will of majority is synonimous with the position of the government, and for protection of democracy against the dictate of majority it may very well worth the trouble to create a clear and fair criteria when an election can be called.

Then you're talking about a massive change in the very nature of Parliament. So lay it on the line. What exactly are you proposing here?

I understand that government has a direct line to the GG and through that line our system allows it to manipulate many many things in our political system. I have an impression that this part of our system is much less discussed in high schools than the glorious episodes (in truth, the subject didn't inspire me much exactly for the prevalence of pointless historics over common sense, rationality and logic).

Translation: I'm intellectually lazy, so I never really bothered listening, but now I'm mad as hell. Common sense, as Einstein said, is the name we give to the set of prejudices we've gathered by the age of 18. As to rationality and logic, how can one formulate those when one has no historical perspective? If you know nothing about Parliament, how can you possibly identify what changes are necessary? Like I said, your emotional, you don't know how our system works nor do you seem to care. It is curable. Instead of constantly popping out phrases like "modern democracy", you could, for instance, explore how other democracies function, and probably just as importantly, how our democracy functions.

No, just that constitutionality of any law is decided by an independent and impartial instution, rather than an appointee of the government. That actually means independent checks and separtion of powers. Direct line from PM to unelected GG to stop a law is obviously, not, more like a ridicule or theatrical pantomime of it (i.e. transparent democratic process).

I'm sorry, out of this long bit of verbiage, what exactly is your point? Are you complaining about how the Supreme Court is constituted? I mean, Harper is the one that has at least made the step towards vetting of justices through Parliament. But again, you're so damned vague (in part because I doubt you really understand the system, so you can't make specific critiques), that it's hard to sort out what or who your pointing the finger at.

From now on each and every PM has been invited to make full use of those priveleges, powers and prerogatives so unless we want to discover even more surprising ways in which the government of the day could mess with the working of our democracy, we better start reexamining it, the system not in the least from the principles of modern democracy. If not, we're running risk of sliding back down all the way to the times of Charles 1 and such. As said, nothing is given for free and for granted. It takes thought and work to just keep what one has; and it takes more intelligent analysis and hard work to advance. If we want just to sail on the achievements of our grand ancestors one day we'll wake up for an unpleasant surprise.

If those truly are achievements, why do we need to eliminate them?

Well, I described quite clearly what I think is wrong, and some ways in which it can be improved, it's all here. Of course it can be brushed of as "rare", "insignificant" and so on. For a while, till the reality comes knocking on the door, and once in a while knocking hard.

But you never really do describe what's wrong. You pop out generalities like "the executive can defy the will of Parliament" or some such, but it always seems to boil down to one thing, you were a Coalition supporter and Harper found a way to evade a confidence motion for a month and a half.

myata · February 1, 2010

Good or bad, constitutional amendments of any substance will not happen in the near future simply because every time they're brought up, it causes nothing but grief.

Bad, as far as I'm concerned. Any system that is incapable of reforming and adapting itself is heading one way, to extinction (barring quasi religious belief in inborn and eternal infallability inspired from above, by glorious founding fathers, etc).

Edited February 1, 2010 by myata

Jerry J. Fortin · February 1, 2010

I agree with ToadBrother in that it would be interesting to watch what would happen if you had 50 independents in the Commons.

ToadBrother · February 1, 2010

Bad, as far as I'm concerned. Any system that is incapable of reforming and adapting itself is heading one way, to extinction (barring quasi religious belief in inborn and eternal infallability inspired from above, by glorious founding fathers, etc).

The system, as in the actual process of amendment is straightforward. The problems are simply that every time we bring up constitutional change, we get into internecine warfare between the various regions and interests. Quebec and Ontario won't go for anything that loosens their constitutional position, and neither will the Maritimes. The West feels stifled and chomps at the bit to get a better constitutional arrangement, and thus no one seems capable of coming up with a solution that someone won't shoot down.

Again, the problem isn't the system, the problem is human beings.

Argus · February 1, 2010

I agree with ToadBrother in that it would be interesting to watch what would happen if you had 50 independents in the Commons.

You just have to look at what happens in the US Congress to see what would happen in that case. The government would need to bribe a wole lot of people to get any legislation through. Want a foreign treaty approved? You need to build a bridge or refurbish a city hall somewhere. Want to get your budget passed? You'll need to make sure there's money in there for farmers - or miners - or tractor makers - or whatever is the main industry in that riding. Want to get an economic incentive program passed? You'll have to ensure there's money for the widget factory in Mr. Independant's riding.

Multiplied by 50 of course.

ToadBrother · February 1, 2010

You just have to look at what happens in the US Congress to see what would happen in that case. The government would need to bribe a wole lot of people to get any legislation through. Want a foreign treaty approved? You need to build a bridge or refurbish a city hall somewhere. Want to get your budget passed? You'll need to make sure there's money in there for farmers - or miners - or tractor makers - or whatever is the main industry in that riding. Want to get an economic incentive program passed? You'll have to ensure there's money for the widget factory in Mr. Independant's riding.

Multiplied by 50 of course.

And what, you don't think governments in Canada won't flood iffy ridings with largesse in the hopes of swinging fence-sitting voters?

Look, if MPs didn't sell themselves into slavery, none of this would be necessary. Parties are not supposed to run Parliament, MPs are. The concentration of power in the PMO is not a good thing, and if card-carrying MPs are too cowardly to openly defy the leadership, then maybe some independents will shake things up.

Look at the UK and look at us. In the UK, the governing party brought down a sitting Prime Minister in full public view. Here guys like Chretien and Harper basically treat their MPs like voting machines.

I'll take independents over the pack of intellectual whores we have now.

myata · February 1, 2010

Again, the problem isn't the system, the problem is human beings.

That would depend on the point of view, is it a system for the human beings, or people for the system. If it's the latter, sure, but don't know how much that setting would have to do with democracy? If the former, then human beings, people should be able to find a way to modify the system as and when necessary. Otherwise we would be back to square one (road to extinction, a la dinosaurs that forgot how to reform and adapt themselves at some point in their evolution).

To J-F: yes I would be interested to see that too, like many other things from the domain of wishful and fantastic. Fixing obvious flaws in the system is a practical act though and if we are inherently incapable of such feat, the best analogy would be like wishing for the same 50 independent MPs to drop out of thin air and push your car to the mechanic rather than taking out that jack and changing that tire that went flat.