Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

William Ashley · February 13, 2010

Okay. Link and quote:

The Governor in Council (who sits at the PM's as per cabinet determination primarily) could be ousted or removed - this cabinet could alter or change handling of departments and agencies.

Some more reference would help, I vaugely remember this - I think what I was saying here is related to the capacity of government to alter the way in which ministers liaised with parliament.

The G.I.C. is the governor general in consent of the governor general in council (a dual role with the governments cabinet more or less, cabinet does not wholly compose the institution of the GGIC)

I'll need more reference to this to expand on that more.

I didn't see the link where is it?

A little more into this - is that I think in some instances the GGIC can act without the GIC having given consent to specific actions.. some of these do allow a certain measure of power without GIC consent - only some ministries and ministers would have those powers in specific executive powers.

I think this may be what I was getting at. I'll need a larger reference and specific link to redress my understanding of the quote - as they can be taken out of context.

GIC consent is usually related to specific measures LEGAL and OFFICIAL based, there are executive capacities in some ministires empowered by certain acts that abrogated the requirement of consent for executive enforcement.

Edited February 13, 2010 by William Ashley

g_bambino · February 13, 2010

Some more reference would help, I vaugely remember this.

What more reference do you want? You said it, I repeated it for you, and the link to where you said it is embedded in the quote (see the little arced arrow at the top left corner?).

William Ashley · February 13, 2010

Why was proroguing parliament wrong?

It delays the legislative process - if parliament wants to do this they ought to table a motion or question

not delete the process.

If the notion of the governments agenda is finished this does not mean that parliaments agenda is finished.

The government ought to be accountable to parliament.

myata · February 13, 2010

I'd say it's pretty much identical to any other Westminster parliament's:

Article 13

2.1. The Dail Eireann (Lower House) shall be summoned and dissolved by the President on the advice of the Taoisearch (Prime Minister).

2.2. The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve the Dail Eireann on the advice of the Taoisearch who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in the Dail Eireann.

2.3. The President may at any time, after consultation with the Council of State, convene a meeting of either or both of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Aside the "identical" that is so very much like "unlike", Ireland's constitution gives explicit power to the independent, elected President to reject the advice of PM when his government's confidence status is in question.

Unlike our system here, it's a serious check on the executive in controlling the Parliament (and of course in the other example, Germany it simply does not exist). If we here had anything like that there's every possibility that Harper would not even attempt to try his prorogation gimmicks.

And so, my earlier statement stands intact, no other first world democracy examined so far grants its executive such overwhelming and unqualified powers as we here in Canada. We'll continue this examination so that at least those who are interested could get a hint of the actual state of affairs here, as opposed to glancy picture book we learn in school. Self praise, apathy and aversion to change won't get us far. The embarrasment at the Olympics ceremony, glitch in the flame ceremeny immediately following a generous dollop of most glutenous self praise (to which btw I couldn't immediately find a parallel to in other games) could be a great parallel, or is it a hint from the above, whatever you happen to believe.

William Ashley · February 13, 2010

What more reference do you want? You said it, I repeated it for you, and the link to where you said it is embedded in the quote (see the little arced arrow at the top left corner?).

Ah that was a typo but it was a little confusing -

It should of read governor general in council not governor in council. What I meant here is that the Govenor General by appointing a new PM could force a change of ministry. Although not stated that the Govenor General as being able to appoint any officer could just remove any particular cabinet minister. Likewise cabinet ministers are by law required to assist the govenor general as they request.

g_bambino · February 13, 2010

It should of read governor general in council not governor in council.

Sounds like the same thing to me.

What I meant here is that the Govenor General by appointing a new PM could force a change of ministry. Although not stated that the Govenor General as being able to appoint any officer could just remove any particular cabinet minister. Likewise cabinet ministers are by law required to assist the govenor general as they request.

Here's where what you now say seems to differ from what you said earlier: "The Governor in Council (who sits at the PM's as per cabinet determination primarily) could be ousted or removed..." clearly reads as saying the viceroy exists at the Prime Minister's discretion and could be eliminated from Cabinet at his whim. Now you say it's the near opposite: the Prime Minister could be replaced by the Governor General at any point.

Regardless, while the latter is technically true, it doesn't support in the way you wanted it to your claim regarding the suspension of government. A governor general being advised by a prime minister not supported by the Commons is still a governor-in-council, which is constitutionally synonymous with "government".

[sp]

Edited February 13, 2010 by g_bambino

g_bambino · February 13, 2010

Aside the "identical" that is so very much like "unlike", Ireland's constitution gives explicit power to the independent, elected President to reject the advice of PM when his government's confidence status is in question.

Repeating that doesn't make it true. In fact, I explicity proved the above statement to be quite spurious. Care to deal with that, instead?

[sp]

Edited February 13, 2010 by g_bambino

ToadBrother · February 13, 2010

Aside the "identical" that is so very much like "unlike", Ireland's constitution gives explicit power to the independent, elected President to reject the advice of PM when his government's confidence status is in question.

Okay, that settles it. You are clearly illiterate. Read the passage:

2.2. The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve the Dail Eireann on the advice of the Taoisearch who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in the Dail Eireann.

The key phrase is "has ceased to retain the support". That is clearly an issue of confidence.

Unlike our system here, it's a serious check on the executive in controlling the Parliament (and of course in the other example, Germany it simply does not exist). If we here had anything like that there's every possibility that Harper would not even attempt to try his prorogation gimmicks.

And so, my earlier statement stands intact, no other first world democracy examined so far grants its executive such overwhelming and unqualified powers as we here in Canada. We'll continue this examination so that at least those who are interested could get a hint of the actual state of affairs here, as opposed to glancy picture book we learn in school. Self praise, apathy and aversion to change won't get us far. The embarrasment at the Olympics ceremony, glitch in the flame ceremeny immediately following a generous dollop of most glutenous self praise (to which btw I couldn't immediately find a parallel to in other games) could be a great parallel, or is it a hint from the above, whatever you happen to believe.

You are either blind or functionally illiterate. One thing is for sure, you're even more ignorant of parliamentary systems than I ever could have imagined.

ToadBrother · February 13, 2010

Repeating that doesn't make it true. In fact, I explicity proved the above statement to be quite spurious. Care to deal with that, instead?

[sp]

Don't even give him that. REad the section again:

2.2. The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve the Dail Eireann on the advice of the Taoisearch who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in the Dail Eireann.

The only way to cease having support of the majority of the parliament in a parliamentary system is a vote of confidence. They don't call it a vote of confidence, but "ceased to retain the support of the majority" could only happen if there was some sort of vote, and since Ireland still uses a slightly modified Westminster system, that is a clear reference to a vote of confidence.

Myata can't be illiterate, but he apparently knows absolutely nothing about constitutional language. I'm not to sure at this point whether there's any point in debating with someone whose capacity to comprehend with any reliability plainly spoken English is so questionable.

For myata's benefit (if it will do any good), what it says is that a Prime Minister who has lost the support of the Irish Parliament cannot ask for dissolution. That is identical to our system. If a Prime Minister in our Parliament loses a confidence vote, he can't ask for dissolution either (and that's, because, when a government loses confidence vote, they immediately cease to be the government).

Edited February 13, 2010 by ToadBrother

g_bambino · February 13, 2010

For myata's benefit (if it will do any good), what it says is that a Prime Minister who has lost the support of the Irish Parliament cannot ask for dissolution. That is identical to our system.

Yes, precisely as I said in the second part of my post here. He completely ignored it; an all too commonly used tactic to defend his position.

William Ashley · February 13, 2010

Sounds like the same thing to me.

From what I understand governor general in council is the governor general acting on advice of the privy council - specifically the current government cabinet (there are other privy and queens council though) - while the governor in council is the signing authority of the governor general as to utilize the power of office to bring about an order.

They are slightly different in meaning removing the govenor general in council is like saying I am removing the cabinet or ousting the cabinet - removing the governor in council is like saying I am removing the need for the governor generals signing authority. GGIC is the council GIC is the head. This is how I understand the legal difference of the terminology

Here's where what you now say seems to differ from what you said earlier: "The Governor in Council (who sits at the PM's as per cabinet determination primarily) could be ousted or removed..." clearly reads as saying the viceroy exists at the Prime Minister's discretion

What it meant is that cabinet sits at the PM's discretion (although the Governor General can also technically remove them - as it is within their powers of the letter patent creating the office.

and could be eliminated from Cabinet at his whim. Now you say it's the near opposite: the Prime Minister could be replaced by the Governor General at any point.

Yes.. the GGIC isn't the GG per se, but more or less the governments cabinet.

Regardless, while the latter is technically true, it doesn't support in the way you wanted it to your claim regarding the suspension of government.

How else would you suspend government but by dismissing the ministers?

It is only part of the equation - the other half is repealing the legislation making the departments.

dissolving parliament would be the last step. Parliament is an organ of the government. Although a very unique one like the courts, in that it in some ways is independent of the government. It is a quasi state organ.

State does not = government they are different, but most states have governments and most governments have states.

But they are not mutually required.

A governor general being advised by a prime minister not supported by the Commons is still a governor-in-council, which is constitutionally synonymous with "government".
[sp]

The GG does not only take advice from the government - but a much larger group of individuals and generally is to act on advice of councilors of state - privy councilors, etc... there is the issue of standing though.

By law though Canadians are equal The GG's office is not only a legal instrument though it is functionary.

Edited February 13, 2010 by William Ashley

myata · February 13, 2010

Okay, that settles it. You are clearly illiterate. Read the passage:

2.2. The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve the Dail Eireann on the advice of the Taoisearch who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in the Dail Eireann.

The key phrase is "has ceased to retain the support". That is clearly an issue of confidence.

You obviously not hearing (or not interested to hear) the truth of the matter. In Ireland an elected by popular vote President has both constitutionally defined powers and democratic legitimacy to reject the advice of the executive. Explicitly mentioned in the cited passage is the advice of dissolution, but in the absence of otherwise indication, there's no reason to expect that similar processes wouldn't exists for other cases of advice.

There's no indication of whether Irish PM (Tao..etc) indeed has constitutional powers to interrupt, or suspend the work of the Parliament, I could not find specific references to who controls the workings of the Parliament, but even if they do have that option, the President clearly may have the powers and democratic legitimacy to reject questionnable advice.

Here of course, GG is elected by nobody, and so is clearly lacking any democratic legitimacy to make sovereign decisions. If they do, it would an obvious violation of democratic principles. And if they don't, for all practical matters they become plain and simply a conduit of the will of the executive (as what we see if we aren't being blind that is). None of which sounds anywhere near the level of sophistication of checks and balances found in the Irish constitution.

You are either blind or functionally illiterate. One thing is for sure, you're even more ignorant of parliamentary systems than I ever could have imagined.

OK, let's summarise the facts we know for certain:

Republic of Ireland:

Parliament is elected by proportional vote

Has the sole authority to pass laws (executive cannot reject laws, or advise etc.. - only refer them to the court)

Has the sole authority to declare wars and allow government to participate in wars

Elects the executive

Passes confidence motions

President is elected by popular vote

Has explicit constitutional roles and responsibilities, including the authority to reject advice of the executive in certain cases

And here, in Canada:

The executive appoints GG

Unelected GG appoints the executive following elections

Executive can (directly or via "advice" to unelected GG who cares): obstruct work of Parliament, suspend it for up to a year, refuse passage of any laws, etc

The Parliament can: pass confidence motions...pass confidence motions .. (to infinity)

Still sounds like "the same" or at least "similar"? Well, depending on who's really being "blind" and "illiterate" (or both?) here.

Edited February 13, 2010 by myata

William Ashley · February 13, 2010

Here of course, GG is elected by nobody

Not true - it is actually a rather streamlined process conventionally - same as the senate

step one - people vote on MP's

a majority of MP's can say who they want to be the PM (although not alway required hence the legacy)

then when there is a vacancy the PM gives a suggestion

then the monarch who is elected by parliament when there is a vacancy confirms the choice

it is not so much unelected but that there isn't universal suffrage with the post

the same is true of the monarch when they are appointed.

some aspects are determined by legally binding contract.

You don't like it.. start your own government and state. I did.

Canada isn't a democracy it is a constitutional monarchy.

the US isn't a democrachy either it is a confederation of states which select representatives to pick a president (much like our system) the difference is term is for life or until resignation in canada and there is only one.. in the US there is only one who runs the state while they are appointed for life in title.

It is a bit like thinking you are eating real beef when you are really geting a bit of beef and a whole bunch of meal worm.

You can think it is beef but it ain't all beef.

Edited February 13, 2010 by William Ashley

g_bambino · February 13, 2010

From what I understand governor general in council is the governor general acting on advice of the privy council... while the governor in council is the signing authority of the governor general as to utilize the power of office to bring about an order.

Yes, as I said, the same thing.

How else would you suspend government but by dismissing the ministers?

Who cares how else? My point was that it's impossible within the parameters of the constitution. The council that advises the Governor General on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative is required by the Constitution Act 1867.

fix

Edited February 13, 2010 by g_bambino

William Ashley · February 13, 2010

Yes, as I said, the same thing.

Yes the GIC is actually the governor general confirming the advice of council - the governor general in council really ought to be called the govenrnor generals council, not governor general in council - however traditionally the GG would sit in with the cabinet which is where the name comes from -- the GG was the govenor of the council.

Who cares how else?

It is a topic of discussion. There are lots of ways to suspend a government, not all are legal.

Oddly it is only illegal to suggest the violent overthrow of government - not the overthrow.

Peaceful overthrows are legal.

This goes back to the whole civil government and martial government thing.

My point was that it's impossible within the parameters of the constitution.

I wouldn't agree with that statement - one might ask why the government would suspend itself though..

There are many pseudo instances of this closure of departments, work stopages, dismisals, resignations.

The government does have the authority in concert with state to destroy itself.

The council that advises the Governor General on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative is required by the Constitution Act 1867.
fix

The constitution act of 1867 can be amended.

myata · February 13, 2010

You can think it is beef but it ain't all beef.

Or you could think that this melee has anything to do with rationality or logic. There are however things people have established that allow them to distinguish e.g. a cow from an ameba which are both living creatures and yes are so different and unique in their own right nonetheless for that.

The principles of modern representative democracy dictate democratic legitimacy of all powers, independendce, division of powers and checks and balances between democratic institutions. From that point of view, Canada's variant of democracy rates quite poor and cannot be classified as "modern" for the obvious reason that it grants by far excessive, unchecked and unqualified powers and privileges to one, executive branch of power, leaving political process in the country open to possibility of abuse, and the democracy - compromised. As can be obviously seen by anybody who has not lost ability to see or still cares to.

ToadBrother · February 13, 2010

You obviously not hearing (or not interested to hear) the truth of the matter. In Ireland an elected by popular vote President has both constitutionally defined powers and democratic legitimacy to reject the advice of the executive. Explicitly mentioned in the cited passage is the advice of dissolution, but in the absence of otherwise indication, there's no reason to expect that similar processes wouldn't exists for other cases of advice.

[... crap deleted ...]

You're so damned transparent. You didn't read the Irish constitution carefully, thought you had me, but it turns out that the Irish constitution affords the executive precisely the same powers as our constitution does. The elected president of Ireland has no more power than the Queen or the GG, except when a government loses the confidence of Parliament, in which case, president, GG or Queen, the executive now essentially takes on that much larger role.

We can go back forth all day on whether an elected executive, an appointed one or a hereditary one is more legitimate (for whatever exact value of that word you want, yours being nothing more than a circular reasoning).

As I have pointed out and now demonstrated very clearly, the constitutional monarchic system developed in Britain between the end of the 17th century up to the 19th is a much copied one, a highly successful system of government. Yes, every country that adopts it will make some innovations, but the general layout of a constitutionally limited non-partisan executive acting only the advice of the government of the day, save in time of crisis (like a loss of confidence in the government), where well-established parameters guide the executive in a limited number of decisions (basically dissolve parliament and call elections or ask someone else to form a government).

You can go in circles to your eyes turn blue, but whether you believe the GG is less legitimate than the Irish president (elected by the people) or the Indian president (selected by parliament) or the US president (elected via electoral college) or one of the other combinations, our system works. It has its wrinkles, and seeing the German constitution, there is room for improvement.

But come on. Concede that you were mistaken in the nature of the Irish president's power. Show me that you have some intention of debating rationally and honorably.

g_bambino · February 13, 2010

Still sounds like "the same" or at least "similar"?

Of course not. But you intentionally and disingenuously imbalanced the comparison to suit your agenda.

Let's try the comparison without crooked ideology and smarmy tricks:

Republic of Ireland:

- The President is popularly elected.

- The President may be removed only through impeachment; is otherwise unaccountable to the Oireachtas.

- The Dáil selects the Taoiseach.

- The Taoiseach selects other ministers for Cabinet.

- Ministers must come from the Oireachtas, most from the Dáil

- The President appoints the Taoiseach and other ministers to office.

- The President follows the advice of the Taoiseach unless otherwise stated.

- The Dáil may vote non-confidence in the Taoiseach.

- The Oireachtas is composed of three parts:

-- The President

-- The Seanad, partly appointed by the President, partly elected by graduates of two universities, and partly elected by a group comprised of members of the Dáil, other Senators, and councillors.

-- The Dáil, elected by proportional representation.

- The Oireachtas must meet at least once per year.

- The Oireachtas has the sole authority to pass laws.

- The President's assent is required to make a bill into law.

- The President may refuse assent to a bill on the advice of the Taoiseach and must pass it to the Supreme Court for review.

- The President dissolves the Dáil on the advice of the Taoiseach.

- Only when the Taoiseach has lost the confidence of the Dáil may the President ignore the Taoiseach's advice for dissolution.

- The President has supreme command of the armed forces.

- The President is bound by law in commanding the armed forces.

- War cannot be declared by the President without the consent of the Dáil.

Kingdom of Canada:

- The monarch is selected by hereditary lineage within the bounds of constitutional law.

- The monarch may be removed by constitutional amendment requiring consent of all legislatures in Canada.

- The Governor General is appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister

- The Governor General may be removed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister.

- The House of Commons selects the Prime Minister.

- The Prime Minister selects other ministers for Cabinet.

- Ministers must come from the Parliament, most from the House of Commons

- The Governor General appoints the Prime Minister and other ministers to office.

- The Governor General follows the advice of the Prime Minister unless otherwise stated.

- The House of Commons may vote non-confidence in the Prime Minister.

- The Parliament is composed of three parts:

-- The monarch

-- The Senate, appointed by the Governor General.

-- The House of Commons, elected by first-past-the-post balloting.

- The Parliament must meet at least once per year.

- The Parliament has the sole authority to pass laws.

- The monarch's or Governor General's assent is required to make a bill into law.

- The Governor General may refuse assent to a bill on the advice of the Prime Minister.

- The Governor General dissolves the Parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister.

- Only when the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the House of Commons may the Governor General ignore the Prime Minister's advice for dissolution.

- The monarch has supreme command of the armed forces.

- The monarch is bound by law in commanding the armed forces.

- War is declared by the monarch or Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

So, yea, pretty f*cking similar.

[fix]

Edited February 14, 2010 by g_bambino

g_bambino · February 13, 2010

It is a topic of discussion. There are lots of ways to suspend a government, not all are legal.

But not the topic of discussion we were focusing on earlier, which was the suspension of government by removing the Governor General from council.

I wouldn't agree with that statement.

Well, feel free to disagree. However, until you can prove otherwise, my assertion stands.

The constitution act of 1867 can be amended.

True.

[fix]

Edited February 13, 2010 by g_bambino

William Ashley · February 14, 2010

Of course not. But you intentionally and disingenuously imbalanced the comparison to suit your agenda.

Let's try the comparison without crooked ideology and smarmy tricks:

Your description of Canada isn't accurate.

Edited February 14, 2010 by William Ashley

William Ashley · February 14, 2010

But not the topic of discussion we were focusing on earlier, which was the suspension of government by removing the Governor General from council.

Well, feel free to disagree. However, until you can prove otherwise, my assertion stands.

True.

[fix]

Blind much - the constitution provides for its change. If that isn't evidence enough then whatever.

It wouldn't be the first time the constitution was changed. The amending formula was much easier only requiring the governor general in council to amend it prior to the repeal in 1982 with the constitution act of 1982.

Government suspending government is not a complex issue. It is like asking yourself to stop eating meals., it can be done, but why would you want to.

g_bambino · February 14, 2010

Your description of Canada isn't accurate.

So says you.

g_bambino · February 14, 2010

[T]he constitution provides for its change. If that isn't evidence enough then whatever.

Yes, hence I said what you said was true. But, what's it supposed to be evidence of? That government can be suspended by constitutional amendment? Well, if that's the case, then, okay... But, I doubt you're going to get ten provinces and the federal parliament to agree to that.

William Ashley · February 14, 2010

Yes, hence I said what you said was true. But, what's it supposed to be evidence of? That government can be suspended by constitutional amendment? Well, if that's the case, then, okay... But, I doubt you're going to get ten provinces and the federal parliament to agree to that.

As I said, there are multiple means; you would just rather concede to a weaker point.

Edited February 14, 2010 by William Ashley

g_bambino · February 14, 2010

[Y]ou would just rather concede to a weaker point.

Do you have any clue what you're talking about? Because I don't. Perhaps you're confusing this conversation with your other one about the government surreptitiously burning down CTV?

[link]

Edited February 14, 2010 by g_bambino