Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[ToadBrother]

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).

Do try to keep up with what we're talking about here. I was referring to constitutional amendments. There is an amending formula, but that formula requires, depending on the precise nature of the reform, majority votes in both houses of Parliament and if it effects all provinces, 2/3s of all the provinces (a referendum would probably also do it as well). The formula is there, but when Mulroney tried it (twice) it was rejected. If a proposed amendment cannot muster the sufficient support to pass, then that's the end of the road. What are you suggesting, that we have an amending formula that says "If myata wants it, that's what we'll do." You talk a lot about democracy, but I suspect, as with so many ideologues, you're an authoritarian at heart. Democracy is only any damned good when it works the way you think it should work.

[myata]

The formula is there, but when Mulroney tried it (twice) it was rejected. If a proposed amendment cannot muster the sufficient support to pass, then that's the end of the road.

Is the "amendment formula" a given from gods? Would you buy a car that won't move? What's the point of an "amendment formula" that cannot amend anything?

What are you suggesting, that we have an amending formula that says "If myata wants it, that's what we'll do." You talk a lot about democracy, but I suspect, as with so many ideologues, you're an authoritarian at heart. Democracy is only any damned good when it works the way you think it should work.

But of course not. Only a democracy that works, i.e constitution, institution, processes work according to declared principles and constitutional framework that can be updated or fixed when needed.

BTW, good stuff with "ideologues". Sounds very convincing from someone defending a medieval political system with no other logical or rational justification but "that's the way our grand grand... fathers made it for us and in no way can we think of doing anything diffently".

[ToadBrother]

Is the "amendment formula" a given from gods? Would you buy a car that won't move? What's the point of an "amendment formula" that cannot amend anything?

No, but it's fairly reasonable. Changes require majority votes in both houses of Parliament, and if affecting all provinces, requires 2/3s of the provinces to be on board. For changes affecting only a few or one province, that requires majority votes in both Parliament and in the province's legislature. Seems fairly reasonable.

Do you have a specific complaint against the formulae?

But of course not. Only a democracy that works, i.e constitution, institution, processes work according to declared principles and constitutional framework that can be updated or fixed when needed.

And ours can, but it requires sufficient support. I'm getting the feeling you don't like your ignorance being replaced with hard facts, and are now lashing out. Whenever you invoke the word "democracy" it's usually coupled with "why aren't the changes just as as simple as 1-2-3"?

BTW, good stuff with "ideologues". Sounds very convincing from someone defending a medieval political system with no other logical or rational justification but "that's the way our grand grand... fathers made it for us and in no way can we think of doing anything diffently".

I'm getting the feeling you don't actually read anything I write. Another sign of an ideologue is that they don't ever really want to debate, they just simply what to repeat the same statements endlessly and keep accusing the other side of holding views that they don't.

I never said we don't need changes to the constitution. I am saying that, in reality, there is such a vast regional divide over amending the constitution that it currently makes it almost impossible. It has nothing to do with amending formulas, it has everything to do with people. As I said, you don't really give a crap about "real" democracy (as in the majority want something). YOu believe you know best, and are angry that your own ideas can't just simply be enacted without any notion of popular and regional support.

Well welcome to Earth, bucko. On this planet things are rarely if ever straightforward, especially where the popular will is concerned. Like I said, you don't want constitutional amendments, you want to amend people's brains.

When you can explain how you're going to change Ontario and Quebec and the Maritimes views on constitutional changes, then we can talk about the kinds of changes you want. Smarter guys than you or I tried that during Mulroney's two attempts, which even included, in the last go-around having Joe Clark tour the whole bloody country asking people what they wanted, and it still couldn't pass muster.

When you're not too busy being vague and angry, go look up Charlottetown and Meech Lake.

[Wild Bill]

I never said we don't need changes to the constitution. I am saying that, in reality, there is such a vast regional divide over amending the constitution that it currently makes it almost impossible. It has nothing to do with amending formulas, it has everything to do with people. As I said, you don't really give a crap about "real" democracy (as in the majority want something). YOu believe you know best, and are angry that your own ideas can't just simply be enacted without any notion of popular and regional support.

Exactly, TB! Our amendment formula is another of those anti-Liberal jokes we used to hear, where an approach would be defined as a "Liberal Solution", which meant "It doesn't have to work! It's enough to say we've got one!"

It might be worth another thread to discuss if this was done through ignorance or by design. There was a great deal of last minute bargaining amongst all the players to get enough consensus for Trudeau's Liberals to ram the Constitution and Charter through. The omission of property rights was deliberately done to get the NDP onside. Having an amending formula that is almost impossible to ever work is essentially the same thing as casting the deal in stone so that no one can ever change it.

I agree with you that some folks don't really debate but rather keep shouting out their "wishes", with little or no connection to any way to make them real. With this particular poster, I don't know where you find the patience.

[g_bambino]

Having an amending formula that is almost impossible to ever work is essentially the same thing as casting the deal in stone so that no one can ever change it.

Why should the amending formula be easily changed? That would render it useless.

[MontyBurns]

How come the hippy granolas didn't protest when Chretien prorogued parliament?

[Wild Bill]

Why should the amending formula be easily changed? That would render it useless.

There's a difference between easy and impossible! Besides, we're not talking about constantly changing the formula. We're talking about the ability to amend our Constitution and Charter. Every other country has instituted amendments over the years. Times change, needs change and yes, sometimes it's recognized that a Constitution may not have been perfect in all respects in the first place.

With our formula, virtually nothing can be change, ever! The factors involved could never happen in a real world.

Our formula is similar to a system where a party would have to win 95% of the seats IN EVERY PROVINCE to be granted a majority government! That of course is ridiculous! Although we could tell ourselves that the ability to form a majority is there in the real world we would never, ever have anything but minority governments!

[g_bambino]

There's a difference between easy and impossible! Besides, we're not talking about constantly changing the formula. We're talking about the ability to amend our Constitution and Charter. Every other country has instituted amendments over the years. Times change, needs change and yes, sometimes it's recognized that a Constitution may not have been perfect in all respects in the first place.

Sorry, I misread your original post as saying the amending formula was impossible to change. I see now that what you said is impossible is the formula's exercise; though, as its own amendment is covered in it, I suppose I wasn't too far off your point. However, forget other countries, we've amended our constitution since the documents were patriated in '82; provinces have been renamed, territories have been created, education stipulations changed. So, the formula doesn't impede all change. Only the most important elements require the most stringent parameters: the offices of the Queen and her provincial and federal viceroys, a province's right to a certain number of seats in the House of Commons vis-a-vis its number of Senators, the use of English and French, the make-up of the Supreme Court, and amendments to the amending formula itself. Given the centrality of these matters, I don't see what's at all wrong with requiring the approval of all members of Confederation before alterations are made.

[myata]

No, but it's fairly reasonable. Changes require majority votes in both houses of Parliament, and if affecting all provinces, requires 2/3s of the provinces to be on board. For changes affecting only a few or one province, that requires majority votes in both Parliament and in the province's legislature. Seems fairly reasonable.

Yes, it sounds reasonable. And so, presuming that removal of 17th century executive powers and prerogatives on the federal level won't be affecting provinces in any practical way and therefore can be done by a simple majority vote in both houses, why would you be suggesting earlier in this thread that it'd be so desperately impossible that it wouldn't even be worth trying?

Is it another of those cute little inconsistencies like claiming to have the best democracy on the planet and executive priveleges to interfere in all and everything, all at the same time?

And ours can, but it requires sufficient support. I'm getting the feeling you don't like your ignorance being replaced with hard facts, and are now lashing out. Whenever you invoke the word "democracy" it's usually coupled with "why aren't the changes just as as simple as 1-2-3"?

...

I never said we don't need changes to the constitution. I am saying that, in reality, there is such a vast regional divide over amending the constitution that it currently makes it almost impossible. It has nothing to do with amending formulas, it has everything to do with people.

Yet you forgot to explain exactly how removal of outdated executive priveleges of the federal government would be related to those "regional" divides? For all I could reasonably fathom, the interactions between federal institution should be fully within the competence of the federal legislature. Unless of course, using "regional divide" as a convenient alias for "don't even bother trying because (this system has been created etc see earlier in this thread)".

BTW which one of the two: "And ours can, but it requires sufficient support" (TB, line 1), or "that it currently makes it almost impossible" (TB, line 7) would it be, all things settled? If every change in the federal governance system is bound to trigger a full blown process a la Meech Lake accord, with referendums in 5 provinces, I'll agree with the latter, "almost impossible", but would it also imply, for all practical purposes, that the system is set in stone and could never be updated or fixed, barring some truly extraordinary events.

As I said, you don't really give a crap about "real" democracy (as in the majority want something). YOu believe you know best, and are angry

Yeah, it's so much easier to speak for the opponent, than answering direct questions. Great stuff!

that your own ideas can't just simply be enacted without any notion of popular and regional support.

Meaning that other ideas have (been enacted)? Care to cite an example? (of a meaningful constitutional change that happened here in the last say, 50 years)? In the course of normal democratic process, i.e leaving aside one of a kind events like repatriation of constitution? All ears!

Well welcome to Earth, bucko. On this planet things are rarely if ever straightforward, especially where the popular will is concerned. Like I said, you don't want constitutional amendments, you want to amend people's brains.

Thank you. But could you be confusing "straightforward" with "get done"? If not, I'm sure you'll come up with many examples of those meaningful constitutional changes, as requested.

When you can explain how you're going to change Ontario and Quebec and the Maritimes views on constitutional changes, then we can talk about the kinds of changes you want. Smarter guys than you or I tried that during Mulroney's two attempts, which even included, in the last go-around having Joe Clark tour the whole bloody country asking people what they wanted, and it still couldn't pass muster.

Well I wouldn't be able to measure the level of smartness, but for all of it I have I cannot see how a removal of executive prorogative from the federal government should be affecting Ontario, Quebec and Maritimes and Nunavut, in any noticeable way? If you're saying that every trivial change in the book should be tantamount to a monstrous country wide upheaval a la Charlottetown and Meech Lake, then just be honest and say it (as another poster just did) that this formula is only there to be, not to be used.

[nicky10013]

There's a difference between easy and impossible! Besides, we're not talking about constantly changing the formula. We're talking about the ability to amend our Constitution and Charter. Every other country has instituted amendments over the years. Times change, needs change and yes, sometimes it's recognized that a Constitution may not have been perfect in all respects in the first place.

With our formula, virtually nothing can be change, ever! The factors involved could never happen in a real world.

Our formula is similar to a system where a party would have to win 95% of the seats IN EVERY PROVINCE to be granted a majority government! That of course is ridiculous! Although we could tell ourselves that the ability to form a majority is there in the real world we would never, ever have anything but minority governments!

I think you're quite right that nothing can be changed in the document. In the end, however, the document is only part of what the Canadian constitution actually is. A large portion of it isn't written and based on tradition. The BNA act really only sets out the defintion of our federalism. That isn't meant to be changed. You don't necessarily need a change in the constitution to change the way things operate, just new tradition.

Furthermore, your little example and, "a party" is clearly the Conservatives. The HoC is rep by pop. Ontario and Quebec have by far the most people. You want to win a majority then go out and work for Ontario and Quebec and don't throw them under the bus like the Conservatives have done the past few years.

Glad to see EVERY province doesn't include those two.

Edited February 2, 2010 by nicky10013

[Wild Bill]

Given the centrality of these matters, I don't see what's at all wrong with requiring the approval of all members of Confederation before alterations are made.

Well, I guess "centrality" is the operative word! The present status quo is just fine for Ontario and Quebec. Under the amending provisions they can ensure that things never change.

I guess it all depends on where you live, I suppose.

[g_bambino]

Well, I guess "centrality" is the operative word! The present status quo is just fine for Ontario and Quebec. Under the amending provisions they can ensure that things never change.

You're going to have to be more specific; there are various amending provisions that apply to various parts of the constitution. Which are you talking about?

[nicky10013]

You're going to have to be more specific; there are various amending provisions that apply to various parts of the constitution. Which are you talking about?

I'm still curious why the status quo isn't fine for everyone except for Ontario and Quebec. The notion that the constitution somehow works in the favour of Ontario or Quebec rather than the rest of canada is ludicrous. Residents of the rest of the country have the same rights as we do. What's the problem? An elected sentate won't solve anything.

Also, everyone keeps saying that prorgation is part of the Queen's Soverign Reserve power and a law to limit it's use would be unconstitutional. I just read the BNA act and that's no where to be found. Where does it come from? From where I'm sitting right now, prorogation is more of a tradition than a tool and tradition can be changed. Pass a bill saying you need a majority vote and notice for prorogation and there you go, a new precedent.

[nicky10013]

12. All Powers, Authorities, and Functions which under any Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in or exerciseable by the respective Governors or Lieutenant Governors of those Provinces, with the Advice, or with the Advice and Consent, of the respective Executive Councils thereof, or in conjunction with those Councils, or with any Number of Members thereof, or by those Governors or Lieutenant Governors individually, shall, as far as the same continue in existence and capable of being exercised after the Union in relation to the Government of Canada, be vested in and exerciseable by the Governor General, with the Advice or with the Advice and Consent of or in conjunction with the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, or any Members thereof, or by the Governor General individually, as the Case requires, subject nevertheless (except with respect to such as exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) to be abolished or altered by the Parliament of Canada.

[myata]

Also, everyone keeps saying that prorgation is part of the Queen's Soverign Reserve power and a law to limit it's use would be unconstitutional. I just read the BNA act and that's no where to be found. Where does it come from? From where I'm sitting right now, prorogation is more of a tradition than a tool and tradition can be changed. Pass a bill saying you need a majority vote and notice for prorogation and there you go, a new precedent.

It may be buried somewhere else. Anyways, no argument from me that constitutional matters can get complicated. The real question is, should we, given the clear demonstration of how these archaic powers can be abused, still attempt to fix the system i.e. make the Constitution renewed and better, even if running the risk of setbacks, constitutional challenges, etc. Or, as suggested by some posters here, we needn't even try, so useless and desperate the attempt would be?

Only if one still sees themselves as a scrape off of a great Empire somewhere on the other end of the glove, incapable of, unworthy of or with little need for one's own sovereign voice in one's own matters would they take the latter position. Change is risky, it's hard so we're better off forgetting about it and going back to sleep, eh?

[nicky10013]

It may be buried somewhere else. Anyways, no argument from me that constitutional matters can get complicated. The real question is, should we, given the clear demonstration of how these archaic powers can be abused, still attempt to fix the system i.e. make the Constitution renewed and better, even if running the risk of setbacks, constitutional challenges, etc. Or, as suggested by some posters here, we needn't even try, so useless and desperate the attempt would be?

Only if one still sees themselves as a scrape off of a great Empire somewhere on the other end of the glove, incapable of, unworthy of or with little need for one's own sovereign voice in one's own matters would they take the latter position. Change is risky, it's hard so we're better off forgetting about it and going back to sleep, eh?

There's a difference between hard and impossible. Changing the document in Canada is pretty much impossible. As I mentioned before, though, you don't have to change the document to enact meaningful change in parliament. Most of our traditions aren't written down and prorgation seems to be a part of that. Change the tradition and you can change the practice.

Also, it's not that we shouldn't TRY to ammend the documnet, but the question I ask is what is worth the attempt? You can't just go out and change the constitution for the sake of changing the constitution. What ammendment to the BNA document is so important for the vitality of Canada?

[myata]

Also, it's not that we shouldn't TRY to ammend the documnet, but the question I ask is what is worth the attempt? You can't just go out and change the constitution for the sake of changing the constitution. What ammendment to the BNA document is so important for the vitality of Canada?

Removing and/or restricting undemocratic executive powers and "prerogatives" that go against every principle of responsible democratic governance? If that is "not worth it", "not important enough", what more important, pressing issue could it be?

[nicky10013]

Removing and/or restricting undemocratic executive powers and "prerogatives" that go against every principle of responsible democratic governance? If that is "not worth it", "not important enough", what more important, pressing issue could it be?

Where are those powers named in the BNA act. Furthermore, what are they?

[ToadBrother]

Yes, it sounds reasonable. And so, presuming that removal of 17th century executive powers and prerogatives on the federal level won't be affecting provinces in any practical way and therefore can be done by a simple majority vote in both houses, why would you be suggesting earlier in this thread that it'd be so desperately impossible that it wouldn't even be worth trying?

I dunno. Ask your MP to go for it. I'm seeing no great demand from anybody on any side of the House to start the process of amending the Constitution. I'm still not sure that altering Royal Prerogatives, even as they effect only the Federal Parliament, would be considered, for amending purposes, simply the arena of Parliament. So first we'd have to get some considered opinions by constitutional experts on which amending formula to apply, then, and this is probably the hard part, actually convincing the politicians to make the change.

You'll notice that even when the Opposition now talk about some change to prorogation, they talk about doing it without constitutional amendment. I put it to you that your desire for constitutional change is, in fact, shared by almost no one else, and certainly by no one currently sitting in either the House of Commons or the Senate.

As i said, your biggest problem isn't the constitution, it isn't Royal Prerogatives, it's that no one wants to even mention in hushed tones altering the constitution, because the minute you do that, you open the chasm. Mulroney was humiliated twice, and even the ballsiest politician since that time has simply refused to discuss the topic.

BTW which one of the two: "And ours can, but it requires sufficient support" (TB, line 1), or "that it currently makes it almost impossible" (TB, line 7) would it be, all things settled? If every change in the federal governance system is bound to trigger a full blown process a la Meech Lake accord, with referendums in 5 provinces, I'll agree with the latter, "almost impossible", but would it also imply, for all practical purposes, that the system is set in stone and could never be updated or fixed, barring some truly extraordinary events.

What the hell is that you want? I've presented to you that we have amending formulas. Your upset, clearly, that the actual human beings that make up this country seem unwilling to make changes, and so you basically blame the constitution.

For the last time, myata, IT'S NOT THE $#!%ING CONSTITUTION. Our constitution can be changed, the amending formulas are hardly onerous (certainly no more so than most other constitutions, the US makes amending its constitution difficult as well, to assure that amendments are reasoned and debated, and not just simply a majority whim). It's hardly a flaw in the constitution, or the fault of the Glorious Revolution that, in Canada, no one wants to amend the constitution. This is like blaming the car because the driver refuses to put the key in the ignition.

Like I said, you just want things to be easy. You have this idea we have some outmoded constitution, you want it changed, but few people in the country actually share your views, so, in your mind, the obvious answer isn't winning hearts in minds, its just blaming the constitution itself. Your shooting at the wrong target.

You need to enter the real world here. Flights of fancy may amuse you, but you and I are having two entirely different conversations. Your conversation seems to be based in "if myata was king of the world", and mine is based in "this is what we've got".

[g_bambino]

Also, everyone keeps saying that prorgation is part of the Queen's Soverign Reserve power and a law to limit it's use would be unconstitutional. I just read the BNA act and that's no where to be found. Where does it come from?

The Royal Prerogative lives in the unwritten constitutional conventions; but these are as powerful and entrenched as the codified parts. That's well known and upheld by the Supreme Court.

[g_bambino]

Removing and/or restricting undemocratic executive powers and "prerogatives" that go against every principle of responsible democratic governance? If that is "not worth it", "not important enough", what more important, pressing issue could it be?

The question assumes, still, that your version of democracy is the true version of democracy.

[ToadBrother]

The Royal Prerogative lives in the unwritten constitutional conventions; but these are as powerful and entrenched as the codified parts. That's well known and upheld by the Supreme Court.

You know, I'm beginning to think the way our constitution was entrenched in 1982 was the biggest blunder in Canadian history. You look at the extraordinary adaptability of the British constitution, how you can do things like basically reconstitute the House of Lords as an appointed rather than hereditary body simply by an Act of Parliament makes you seriously question whether Trudeau's legacy will forever be a country incapable of even minor tinkering without raising the specter of regional warfare over changes.

If this were the old system, prior to 1982, an Act of Parliament could simply alter the Royal Prerogative. Yes, it's still possible that Harper might consider recommending to the GG to refuse assent, but considering the hammering the Tories have taken over this, I'd wager he probably wouldn't. And because there's no amending formula other than "Parliament wants this", a simple Act, given assent, would constitute an alteration to the Constitution.

Myata is really shooting at the wrong target. Rather than condemning our "modern" constitution from 1982, he (or she, I'm not sure, sorry myata) should be wishing we had the older constitutional arrangement that the Glorious Revolution ushered in. It is with that constitution that Acts of Parliament, ie. the public will, are sufficient to see passage of constitutional changes. Now, of course, the Constitution Act, 1982 has simply entrenched the regional divide, empowering and protecting the Mexican standoff that is our political arrangement.

[g_bambino]

You know, I'm beginning to think the way our constitution was entrenched in 1982 was the biggest blunder in Canadian history. You look at the extraordinary adaptability of the British constitution, how you can do things like basically reconstitute the House of Lords as an appointed rather than hereditary body simply by an Act of Parliament makes you seriously question whether Trudeau's legacy will forever be a country incapable of even minor tinkering without raising the specter of regional warfare over changes.

The difference, though, is that the UK is not a federation. When you have a country like Canada, with its disparate regional, cultural, and political units, how could it survive if a legislature dominated by representatives of the most populace central area could simply amend the constitution at will? Even though it's a unitary state, Britain still faces separatists in the regions farthest away from Westminster.

I can't imagine that the tinkering could be that minor if stringent requirements must first be met; for instance, changing the way Senators are chosen affects the working of the federal parliament, which, in turn, affects the provinces. Why should their input not be sought?

[ToadBrother]

The difference, though, is that the UK is not a federation. When you have a country like Canada, with its disparate regional, cultural, and political units, how could it survive if a legislature dominated by representatives of the most populace central area could simply amend the constitution at will? Even though it's a unitary state, Britain still faces separatists in the regions farthest away from Westminster.

I can't imagine that the tinkering could be that minor if stringent requirements must first be met; for instance, changing the way Senators are chosen affects the working of the federal parliament, which, in turn, affects the provinces. Why should their input not be sought?

True enough, and I'm not proposing getting rid of amending formulas (the BNA Act had them), but the Constitution Act, 1982 really seems to have completely entrenched the status quo. I was never Mulroney's biggest fan, but for trying to change the constitution the way it should have been rebuilt in 1982, I'm willing to forgive him being an insufferable egomaniac and corrupt, bribe-accepting crook. We could have gone a long way towards solving the structural problems, and all for the price of given Quebec a special nod in the Constitution.

My larger point is that Myata rails against the Constitution for all those bits that are supposedly archaic and undemocratic, and yet it is the modern parts of the Constitution that in fact create the largest obstacles to change. It is rather irrelevant, myata seems to have precious little interest in reality, and just wants a free ride for changes that, from what I can tell, have the singular aspect of assuring that the now long-dead Coalition could have taken over with a minimum of difficulty. I have no problem with another group in Parliament taking over, because, well, we don't vote for governments, and, in fact, I think using prorogation to escape a confidence vote was an abuse of the unique power the PM has to advise the GG, but after seeing the Coalition completely melt down in a single month, it's hard to feel anything but relief that Tories did escape defeat. Sometimes, in politics, better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

My other point is that if we are going to change a Royal Prerogative, I'm not allergic to the idea. I think to maintain that key check on a government's power, Parliament needs to have the unhindered capacity to test its confidence. But it needs to be done properly.

Edited February 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

[myata]

The question assumes, still, that your version of democracy is the true version of democracy.

"More compatible with the declared principles of responsible democracy" would be a better word. Surely, leaving a back door way for the government to interfere with pretty much every aspect of political system cannot be credibly argued to be a model of modern and functional democracy (with checks, balances and meaningful division of powers).

None else but our current PM has shown us all right here and now that thanks to these instruments he can stiffle debates, shut down the issues, shut down the Parliament itself, call elections anytime he feels like it, and by some indications, could shoot down the laws he doesn't like too. All this much without even having to bother with winning a majority support in the Parliament.

Would that state of affairs be closer to a "true" democracy, in your view?

Edited February 2, 2010 by myata