Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

g_bambino · February 24, 2010

I'm kind of fishing for some concrete examples here, otherwise you're simply arguing in a similar way to myata, appealing to could-bes and maybes and the like. And, as I said, what's the difference between a party man getting elected to the highest spot or a party man being put there by a Prime Minister from his own party?

There's nothing inherently wrong with could-bes and maybes so long as they're based on sound theory, which myata's certainly were not.

Even if there were no specific past examples to draw from, it hardly seems incredible to opine that a president elected on the policies of his party would be viewed by the party's opponents with extreme suspicion should the president be required to settle an inter-party dispute that threatened the stability of government. Similarly, what would prevent a politically aligned president from enacting legislation that favoured the party of his choice? Rare scenarios, to be sure; but, are they truly impossible? As concrete example: many of the tin pot tyrannies of Africa and South America, either present or former, started out as promising parliamentary republics; not all fell unlawfully. What ever happened to the Weimar republic?

In Canada, specifically, governors general have indeed been party men (and one woman); circumstances I feel were unfortunate for the non-partisan nature of the office. However, at least with governors general there is always the sovereign as the highest authority; you can't talk about the governor general and ignore that Canada is a constitutional monarchy.

I find that there is, in parliamentary constitutional monarchies, a certain comfortable balance between the elected and unelected. It logically follows that, as with any equilibrium, changing one side or the other will result in imbalance.

ToadBrother · February 24, 2010

There's nothing inherently wrong with could-bes and maybes so long as they're based on sound theory, which myata's certainly were not.

Even if there were no specific past examples to draw from, it hardly seems incredible to opine that a president elected on the policies of his party would be viewed by the party's opponents with extreme suspicion should the president be required to settle an inter-party dispute that threatened the stability of government. Similarly, what would prevent a politically aligned president from enacting legislation that favoured the party of his choice? Rare scenarios, to be sure; but, are they truly impossible? As concrete example: many of the tin pot tyrannies of Africa and South America, either present or former, started out as promising parliamentary republics; not all fell unlawfully. What ever happened to the Weimar republic?

Essentially, a concerted effort by a certain Chancellor to undermine it. Mind you, the problem there was that von Hindenburg, by the time the Nazis achieved power, was an ailing old man who seemed utterly incapable of intruding his presence on to the political scene to moderate the Nazis. And before you rail against him for that, ponder that Victor Emmanuel III and Hirihoto, both constitutional sovereigns, did pretty much the same thing.

In Canada, specifically, governors general have indeed been party men (and one woman); circumstances I feel were unfortunate for the non-partisan nature of the office. However, at least with governors general there is always the sovereign as the highest authority; you can't talk about the governor general and ignore that Canada is a constitutional monarchy.

I find that there is, in parliamentary constitutional monarchies, a certain comfortable balance between the elected and unelected. It logically follows that, as with any equilibrium, changing one side or the other will result in imbalance.

So let me get this straight. You have no examples of an elected executive in a parliamentary system actually behaving overly partisan (to the rare degree that such an executive can in such a system), but because you can conceive of a situation, a system whereby a former politician of a certain persuasion can be picked by a political leader to hold that executive position is more reliable?

Seriously, this is myata level thinking. I see very little evidence among the parliamentary republics of the kinds of abuses you suggest ought to happen.

Edited February 24, 2010 by ToadBrother

g_bambino · February 24, 2010

So let me get this straight. You have no examples of an elected executive in a parliamentary system actually behaving overly partisan...

What part about the failed parliamentary republics of Africa and South America did you not understand?

Regerdless, here's some specifics to chew on while I find some more:

Chile, 1925

Germany, 1933

Congo, 1960

Greece, 1985

Zimbabwe, 1987

Albania, 1996

Burma, 2004

East Timor, 2006

Russia, 2000-2008

Italy, 1978, 1990-1992, 2007, 2009

myata · February 24, 2010

First of all, the PM is not the one who has to supply the documents. That's Mackay. That may seem like a quibble, but at the end of the day, Mackay is the one in the firing line.

As to "fixed" elections. Could you be clear here? I know of no fixed election in Federal history, unless you mean something quite different by "fixed".

Bad, bad McKay! How could he dare to disobey our Parliament supremacy respecting, democracy loving Prime Minister, does he deserve spanking! (direct from Castle Anthrax, courtesy of Monty Python).

But you're right, everybody here has yet to see those "fixed election dates" written as they are into our law books. Surprise, isn't it? The book says, "fixed", the government says - "now!" The book says "Supreme!", the PM - "that's enough, go on vacation and don't come back till I tell you". What you read in that (shiny history book) isn't exactly what you get here, eh?

Oh good grief. You're like the energizer bunny. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again. Pretty much every parliamentary democracy works the same; parliament holds the lion's share of the power, the executive is largely bound by the government's decisions. The chief check in parliamentary system is confidence. But that's right, you don't like elections.

No, I just happen to think that there are better ways for the government to operate than under the duress of the ultimate and self destruct button of "supremacy". Where each branch of government operates within its own area of constitutional responsibilities and does not need to or permitted to interfere with the work of other institution. Already understood and used in democracies all around you, so no need to invent the wheel. But of course can't be found in that centuries old book of final and ultimate wisdom we happen to live our (political) lives by, here.

Do you actually know this? Maybe you should pick up a newspaper every once in a while.

Dutch parliament has been in session since January 11, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't see their system as being any more democratic than ours. "Vibrant" is just a pointless adjective that has no quantifiable value.

And some may think that absolute monarchy is democratic too. May just be a matter of vision, which being private I wouldn't bring out to the public forum.

I don't know of a political or legal system ever invented that can't be held up by obstructionism. Could you point me to such a system?

And is the chief reason to not make any, even obvious, improvements in ours?

Yes, there will be work. So what? I doubt it would take very long to get the Afghan investigation going, and remember, if government doesn't co-operate, everyone can always send them packing.

...

The opposition can take the government out within a few weeks if it wants. If that isn't accountability I don't know what it is.

The "self destruct" solution? Sounds smart, doesn't it? Just like dropping thing dead and coming back to pick it up a few months later, just because our government happens to think that it's not the best time for this investigation. You can't admit it, can you, that this ultimate power of the government to shut down the only body that can see over it and hold it to any standard of accountability simply has no place in the modern age? Politically, we still operate in the glorious times of Prince Charles and such.

Ah, I see. Politics would work fine without all those durned politics. What you want, it seems, isn't better rules, you don't really want rules at all.

No, I stated the rules I want to see and those I think don't belong in this reality and need to be changed, and I did it so many times already that I could only attribute that statement to a reading or comprehension disability.

More pointless rhetoric. I have patiently and repeatedly explained the regional situation to you. You keep blaming the system for what is ultimately a socio-political issue. No constitution on the planet can overcome that, which is why Belgium was nearly torn to pieces a couple of years ago.

No, you haven't explained why and how the removal of outdated and unnecessary executive powers of federal government could undermine "regional situation" or any other bs like that. I think it's much more about our duopoly situation where none of the two owners of the political process interested in a meaningful change because they could just wait for their turn and have it all to themselves.

That may be true, but there doesn't appear to be any other party on the horizon with the capacity to do any better. That's not a fault of the system, that's a fault of the electorate. Again, you're shooting at the wrong target.

OK we should start counting the faulties already:

1. The regional situation

2. The Electorate

3. (see below) Other political parties

I.e. almost anything but that dusty peace of paper that tells a PM who's interested to know that he can dominate the political process in the country regardless of his support and just by picking up the phone. And no, it's the only one thing of the above that cannot be changed ever because it was written perfect and final by Queen Mary (OK put another name if you want) herself!

Or it could see us enter another period of political instability, which, this time, we might not come out of. All so your precious Coalition which could not even survive three months, could take power without obeying the general forms of our constitution.

Booga, booga boo! Change is bad! It's risky and it's DANGEROUS! We may all DIE! Let's not even go there and leave things just as they are (i.e. were since 1867).

ToadBrother · February 24, 2010

What part about the failed parliamentary republics of Africa and South America did you not understand?

Regerdless, here's some specifics to chew on while I find some more:

Chile, 1925

Germany, 1933

Congo, 1960

Greece, 1985

Zimbabwe, 1987

Albania, 1996

Burma, 2004

East Timor, 2006

Russia, 2000-2008

Italy, 1978, 1990-1992, 2007, 2009

I'd argue that in some cases, systemic instability lead to most of these. Russia doesn't have a parliamentary democracy, it has a mixed-presidential system like France's. And I'll still bring up Italy under Mussolini and Japan under Tojo. Both those countries had constitutional monarchies, and yet still essentially were military dictatorships. Having a king or an emperor does not automatically make a country immune from this sort of thing.

And Burma's an odd example, as it hasn't had a meaningful parliamentary democracy in decades.

ToadBrother · February 24, 2010

Bad, bad McKay! How could he dare to disobey our Parliament supremacy respecting, democracy loving Prime Minister, does he deserve spanking! (direct from Castle Anthrax, courtesy of Monty Python).

It would very likely see him lose his job, and the political cost would be enormous. Of course, I'm of the opinion that Harper isn't exactly upset about this. Mackay would be his chief competitor if his leadership was ever challenged, but the Opposition will probably put the knife in Mackay's back, thus saving Harper the trouble of figuring out how to do it himself.

But you're right, everybody here has yet to see those "fixed election dates" written as they are into our law books. Surprise, isn't it? The book says, "fixed", the government says - "now!" The book says "Supreme!", the PM - "that's enough, go on vacation and don't come back till I tell you". What you read in that (shiny history book) isn't exactly what you get here, eh?

Ah, fixed election dates. Now I've got you. Well, as a guy who lives in a province that has them, they're not all they're cracked up to be. Now, instead of the government being able to pick the best time for an election, we get to put up with an entire year of electioneering. It's a good idea in principle, in practice, not so much.

No, I just happen to think that there are better ways for the government to operate than under the duress of the ultimate and self destruct button of "supremacy".

Not if it is to remain a parliamentary system. If you wish to move to some other form of system, then by all means, say so. We could have a strong presidential system like the US, which has been built on the concept of overlap of powers as a check and balance (ie. the president can veto bills, but 2/3s majority in Congress can override the veto). In fact, in some respects, I'm a rather large fan of the American system, though it still has its definite downsides.

Where each branch of government operates within its own area of constitutional responsibilities and does not need to or permitted to interfere with the work of other institution.

And yet, if you wanted adequate checks and balances, you need to have the different branches being capable of interfere with each other.

Already understood and used in democracies all around you, so no need to invent the wheel. But of course can't be found in that centuries old book of final and ultimate wisdom we happen to live our (political) lives by, here.

As I have already demonstrated, there are dozens of democracies that use a system very similar to ours. Of course, you try to find even the minutest difference and explode it beyond all reason.

Dutch parliament has been in session since January 11, if I'm not mistaken.

And?

And some may think that absolute monarchy is democratic too. May just be a matter of vision, which being private I wouldn't bring out to the public forum.

Who would think absolutism is democratic?

And is the chief reason to not make any, even obvious, improvements in ours?

Nope, but it does suggest that what you want is pretty much impossible to the extent that you want it. Short of an absolutist system where the executive can basically force on pain of death people to spill the beans or get to their jobs, you'll have some systemic means of obstruction.

The "self destruct" solution? Sounds smart, doesn't it? Just like dropping thing dead and coming back to pick it up a few months later, just because our government happens to think that it's not the best time for this investigation. You can't admit it, can you, that this ultimate power of the government to shut down the only body that can see over it and hold it to any standard of accountability simply has no place in the modern age? Politically, we still operate in the glorious times of Prince Charles and such.

No we don't, because Parliament has to meet once a year. Do you have some sort of memory loss problem?

No, I stated the rules I want to see and those I think don't belong in this reality and need to be changed, and I did it so many times already that I could only attribute that statement to a reading or comprehension disability.

Yes, we know you want rules that would allow the coalition to take power without having first to decide on the confidence of the current government. That's not really a rule, though, that's just demanding some shortcut for some group of fools that you have some pathetic emotional attachment to.

No, you haven't explained why and how the removal of outdated and unnecessary executive powers of federal government could undermine "regional situation" or any other bs like that. I think it's much more about our duopoly situation where none of the two owners of the political process interested in a meaningful change because they could just wait for their turn and have it all to themselves.

I'm sure Harper and gang would love to make changes. A lot of old-time reformers still pine for the Triple-E senate, but as I keep saying, it isn't the politicians per se who are making constitutional change impossible, it's the very makeup of our country. You keep ignoring this, mainly, I suspect, because you know in your heart that it utterly wipes out your complaint. If it's the system that is at fault, you have something to push against, if it's the populace that's at fault, well, you're just plain buggered.

OK we should start counting the faulties already:

1. The regional situation

Which has nothing to do with the Westminster system.

2. The Electorate

That's the same as #1.

3. (see below) Other political parties

I.e. almost anything but that dusty peace of paper that tells a PM who's interested to know that he can dominate the political process in the country regardless of his support and just by picking up the phone. And no, it's the only one thing of the above that cannot be changed ever because it was written perfect and final by Queen Mary (OK put another name if you want) herself!

Well of course a PM can dominate the political process. That's the whole bloody point.

Booga, booga boo! Change is bad! It's risky and it's DANGEROUS! We may all DIE! Let's not even go there and leave things just as they are (i.e. were since 1867).

I'm beginning to think you're either a moron, or about 15 years old. I grew up during the constitutional wranglings that lead to patriation in 1982 and then through Mulroney's attempts at the end of that decade, and then with the near miss that all of that lead to in 1995 when Federalists just barely won in the Quebec referendum. Our system needs fixing, but we need a country much more than we need to fix what are incredibly minor problems. I'd rather have a dozen PMs in a row prorogue parliamenta prematurely to get out of answering tough questions than to say Quebec secede or the federal system collapse. And you know what, that's a view shared by the majority. If democracy means one thing, it means you lose. Even if some of your complaints are justified, the problems are either to risky to fix, or could simply be fixed if MPs did their jobs. In fact, I'd say most of the problems we've seen in Parliament over the last forty years could be fixed if the MPs of every party told their leaders that they were ultimately the bosses, not some guy elected at a leadership convention.

jbg · February 25, 2010

BTW Cretien had a MAJORITY, and so had the support of Parliament to shut down, or prorogue, at ANY time. He certainly didn't shut down the house to evade the will of of the majority of Parliamentarians, when he had the majority of Parliamentarians as members of his own party.

That's sort of like saying that because Nixon was re-elected with over 60% of the vote he should not have been forced to resign. A crime is a crime, as much as a proof is a proof.

Smallc · February 25, 2010

That's sort of like saying that because Nixon was re-elected with over 60% of the vote he should not have been forced to resign.

You don't have a parliamentary system.

A crime is a crime, as much as a proof is a proof.

We're not talking about a crime.

ToadBrother · February 25, 2010

That's sort of like saying that because Nixon was re-elected with over 60% of the vote he should not have been forced to resign. A crime is a crime, as much as a proof is a proof.

Um, since when did prorogation become a crime?

William Ashley · February 25, 2010

You don't have a parliamentary system.

We're not talking about a crime.

what about war crimes.. you know torture?

ToadBrother · February 25, 2010

what about war crimes.. you know torture?

We can hardly charge Afghani authorities with torture. Technically, they are a sovereign government.

myata · February 27, 2010

It would very likely see him lose his job, and the political cost would be enormous. Of course, I'm of the opinion that Harper isn't exactly upset about this. Mackay would be his chief competitor if his leadership was ever challenged, but the Opposition will probably put the knife in Mackay's back, thus saving Harper the trouble of figuring out how to do it himself.

I see, like another poster here you're starting to pass your visions of the future for valid arguments in a discussion. Could it be because you're running short of the real ones? The bottom line is that the system we have allows him to get away with it as it allows the government to obstruct this investigation at will and the Parliament cannot do a thing about it because it cannot even meet other than by an order from the government.

Ah, fixed election dates. Now I've got you. Well, as a guy who lives in a province that has them, they're not all they're cracked up to be. Now, instead of the government being able to pick the best time for an election, we get to put up with an entire year of electioneering. It's a good idea in principle, in practice, not so much.

Gotcha. A law is good - if you (government) likes it. No surprise that these laws, constitutional processes always allow the government an easy out in case they don't like something - not in the least through the use of prerogatives and special powers (want to have election now, rather than three years on - call my appointee GG to set it up; don't like this investigation by the Parliament committee - call my GG to shut it down).

So, the question: do we want to continue playing at democracy, or actually have it, by making all branches of government operate strictly within their constitutional domain and obey laws always and on principle?

Not if it is to remain a parliamentary system. If you wish to move to some other form of system, then by all means, say so. We could have a strong presidential system like the US, which has been built on the concept of overlap of powers as a check and balance (ie. the president can veto bills, but 2/3s majority in Congress can override the veto). In fact, in some respects, I'm a rather large fan of the American system, though it still has its definite downsides.

Wrong, no matter how many times you say it. As we have found on the example of at least two parliamentary system (Ireland and Netherlands), government there does not have exclusive control over the political process and there are real checks and balances preventing any one branch of power from dominating it. One more time and slowly, if in your view "parliamentary" is synonimous with "dominance of political process by the executive branch of government" then I'm sorry to say it, all those mega hours of hystory were lost on you.

And yet, if you wanted adequate checks and balances, you need to have the different branches being capable of interfere with each other.

Good that we're at least starting to explore these questions, that means that one day we may actually question whether it's really right to allow one branch of power to call all shots in the political process, the idea that unchecked power is always wrong being so novel to us. Of course as we deepen our studies we find out that checks and balances are there exactly to prevent political powers from overreaching their constitutional domains of responsibility.

As I have already demonstrated, there are dozens of democracies that use a system very similar to ours. Of course, you try to find even the minutest difference and explode it beyond all reason.

Really, has it happen while you were asleep? On your suggestion we closely examined two of such systems, and found that neither allows unrestricted interference of government with the work of the Parliament a la what we have here. Have you perhaps missed that part?

Who would think absolutism is democratic?

You'll be surprised. Some people here think that it's OK to grant unelected appointee the powers to stop passage of laws, suspend and dissolve the Parliament, dismiss the government, etc. Is it really that far different from "absolutism". And then, as somebody here has stated the Monarch embodies democratics aspirations of the nation via Constitution, yada, how's that not entirely 100% democratics, if we want it to be so?

No we don't, because Parliament has to meet once a year. Do you have some sort of memory loss problem?

Wow, a definite achievement! Who cares that all around you the Parliament is actually a fully independent democratic institution operating by its own schedule, within its own constitutional domain and keeping government in check, right?

Yes, we know you want rules that would allow the coalition to take power without having first to decide on the confidence of the current government. That's not really a rule, though, that's just demanding some shortcut for some group of fools that you have some pathetic emotional attachment to.

Looks like I'll have to give up here. No matter how many times I write it in plain English including detailed argumentation why I believe it to be more efficient and why most advanced democracies have adopted some form of it, for you it'll always be about the unfortunate December coalition. Doesn't seem like there's much more I could do here.

I'm sure Harper and gang would love to make changes. A lot of old-time reformers still pine for the Triple-E senate, but as I keep saying, it isn't the politicians per se who are making constitutional change impossible, it's the very makeup of our country. You keep ignoring this, mainly, I suspect, because you know in your heart that it utterly wipes out your complaint. If it's the system that is at fault, you have something to push against, if it's the populace that's at fault, well, you're just plain buggered.

Well, we can't have another "populace" here but with the system that is so obviously flawed and outdated wouldn't the only logical and rational choice be to attempt to update it, even despite disbelief and resistence of those who directly benefit from backwardness, lack of transparency and competition?

Well of course a PM King can dominate the political process. That's the whole bloody point.

Here, got it for you. Of course it's the whole bloody point - in an absolute monarchy. In a democracy each branch of power operates within its own constitutional domain, under check from other independent democratic institutions. Petit confusion, I understand.

I'm beginning to think you're either a moron, or about 15 years old. I grew up during the constitutional wranglings that lead to patriation in 1982 and then through Mulroney's attempts at the end of that decade, and then with the near miss that all of that lead to in 1995 when Federalists just barely won in the Quebec referendum. Our system needs fixing, but we need a country much more than we need to fix what are incredibly minor problems. I'd rather have a dozen PMs in a row prorogue parliamenta prematurely to get out of answering tough questions than to say Quebec secede or the federal system collapse. And you know what, that's a view shared by the majority. If democracy means one thing, it means you lose. Even if some of your complaints are justified, the problems are either to risky to fix, or could simply be fixed if MPs did their jobs. In fact, I'd say most of the problems we've seen in Parliament over the last forty years could be fixed if the MPs of every party told their leaders that they were ultimately the bosses, not some guy elected at a leadership convention.

Now listen, my boy, Daddy, he's been to many places and he knows BEST. Change is DANGEROUS, we may all DIE! Better sit back enjoy what you have (that is, had since 1867) and don't even dream of tweaking with it.

Shakeyhands · February 27, 2010

A crime is a crime, as much as a proof is a proof.

Why the need for the immaturity? <_<

Oleg Bach · February 27, 2010

Absolute power corrupts abs... Well, I'm sure you know the saying.

HARPER had better get back to some serious work or we will fire the little bugger.

jbg · February 27, 2010

Um, since when did prorogation become a crime?

Prorogation isn't. Shutting down a crime investigation is.

jbg · February 27, 2010

Why the need for the immaturity?

What immaturity? I was quoting perhaps one of the most beautiful and moving scrums ever in the English language. On a par with Churchill.

Smallc · February 27, 2010

Shutting down a crime investigation is.

A criminal investigation can't be shut down by prorogation.

myata · February 28, 2010

A criminal investigation can't be shut down by prorogation.

Confidence motion can (be delayed) and has been

Investigation of government acts by Parliament can be obstructed and delayed and has been

Questioning of government by the Parliment can and has been.

Accountability of the government has been suspended.

Let's admit it finally, despite what we read in the books our Parliament is not an independent and sovereign democratic institution not to say, "supreme". It can and has been pushed and trumped by the government in pretty much whatever way it'd feel like. This is a travesty and ridicule of accountable and responsible democracy.

As a matter of fact, we here should be thankful to Mr Harper for laying it out as clear as can possibly be. I wonder if his acting out is an attempt (conscious or not) to pay back for all the abuses of Parliamentary sovreignty (prorogations, shut downs, theatrics in the Question Period) of Chretien's majority years. If we don't heed him now, we're blind and deaf for all what matters, politically.

Edited February 28, 2010 by myata

Smallc · February 28, 2010

None of that changes what I said.

Shakeyhands · February 28, 2010

What immaturity? I was quoting perhaps one of the most beautiful and moving scrums ever in the English language. On a par with Churchill.

I've heard much worse come from your side of the border friend... sometime between 2000 and 2008 by some W fellow... in fact a bunch of times in that time period.

myata · March 1, 2010

None of that changes what I said.

Neither does it make any better. Our Parliament is not an independent institution, sovereign in its constitutional domain and cannot provide meaningful oversight and check on the work of the government ensuring efficient and transparent working of the government.

Unlike our sports men and women's at the Olympics, hardly an achievement for a 21st century democracy, no matter how much light our PM would attempt to borrow now from glow of their outstanding achievement.

Edited March 1, 2010 by myata

Alta4ever · March 1, 2010

Well the MPS are back in Ottawa, I guess the world didn't end when Parliament was sent to work in their home ridings for an extra month.

William Ashley · March 1, 2010

Neither does it make any better. Our Parliament is not an independent institution

sure it is, just like the courts are an independent institution, and the military is an independent institution.

Each has checks and balances on other sections of the state.

Parliaments role is suppose to be legislative.

sovereign in its constitutional domain and cannot provide meaningful oversight and check on the work of the government

Sure it can. This is done via legislation and house motions and legislative acts. Most of the checks have been outsourced to government offices, which provide the reports to parliament and the public. Committees however do this. Unfortunately Harper and the CPC have the tendency to stop committee work because it shows their poor character and criminal activities.

Alta4ever · March 1, 2010

sure it is, just like the courts are an independent institution, and the military is an independent institution.

Each has checks and balances on other sections of the state.

Parliaments role is suppose to be legislative.

Sure it can. This is done via legislation and house motions and legislative acts. Most of the checks have been outsourced to government offices, which provide the reports to parliament and the public. Committees however do this. Unfortunately Harper and the CPC have the tendency to stop committee work because it shows their poor character and criminal activities.

The military is not independent of the Government it serves as a hand of the government.

myata · March 1, 2010

Well the MPS are back in Ottawa, I guess the world didn't end when Parliament was sent to work in their home ridings for an extra month.

Of course it didn't end. It's just proven what was said and no more. What our Parliament is a democratic decoration around an all powerful government and it has no real powers or instruments to assure its independency or keep the government accountable and responsible. Yes, with the obvious exception of the ultimate self destroy "supremacy" solution few of politicians so very comfy just where they are want to think about.

To W.-A.:

no, you got it all wrong, buddy. PM Harper broke no rules here just as PM Cretien and others before him. Only taken it to the logical end. Through prerogatives and "reserve powers" by proxy a government can achive any number of above listed undemocratic feats and it would be perfectly legal and acceptable in this political system we have now. Finger pointing won't change much, if we want to take a real positive lesson from this situation, changing the system and eliminating overbearing "powers" would be the only option.