Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[William Ashley]

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

The Cheif of Staff is independent on a sub state basis (the state and government are not the same - the COS takes orders from state not from government). Parliament can empower the DND in some ways via the National Defence act and provides funding. the GG and Queen are the commander in cheif - while the cheif of the defence staff the highest ranking member of the CF is the operational commander. the Minister of Defence is a liaison between government and the CF. Additionally they are a liaison between the government and parliament.

The Military is independent of parliament - and is independent of the courts --- the courts have their own branch to deal with military matters, their own branch of law, much like the courts are independent of the public they are still charged with ruling on matters of law that deal with the public.

You use terms government and parliament...

The government ministires are a seperate body from the CF.

You like to have them firmly under beck and order of the ministers but this isn't it exactly, the MND is an advisory body.

Cabinet - and the Privy Council like most other matters can levy deployment and disposition orders such as to conduct war operations - however the Royal Prerogative applies.

So while yes the advice is given the command structure itself excludes the houses of parliament the Minister of Defence and the Prime minister.

The commander in cheif is the Monarch - which extends to the Governor General - and the Cheif of Staff is the de facto head of the Canadian Forces.

Parliament has some reserve powers to legilslate certain measures that can effect the operations of the military. However the military has operational guidelines that are ongoing that effect the status and operations of the military. While the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister can set some direction in how the CF is to conduct itself ultimately the CF is in charge of its own operations - and while subject to both funding and legislation the queen still technically has oversight. The role of the government is to give advice to the monarch, not to take command of the forces.

The PM appoints the head of the forces...

The Armed Forces Council is the senior military body in Canada. It meets to advise the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) on matters concerning the command, control and administration of the Canadian Forces (CF) as well as to help the CDS make decisions regarding these matters. The council replaced the committee of the Chiefs of Staff after Unification in 1968.

The CDS is not the minister of defence and vice versa.

Edited March 1, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

To W.-A.:

no, you got it all wrong, buddy.

Does thinking that help you sleep better at night. Living in a dream world both sleeping and sleeping.

PM Harper broke no rules

He broke laws.

by proxy a government can achive any number of above listed undemocratic feats and it would be perfectly legal and acceptable

I disagree, the last part is most important.

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.

There is a more direct option, that is electing responsible democratic government rather than trolls and power freaks like Harper.

Edited March 1, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

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.

And yet Parliament could still bring down a Government t its pleasure. As Frank Herbert once said "The power to destroy is the power to control."

[myata]

Yes I rememember that and even at the time of reading thought that one could hardly come with a more absurd "wisdom". Of course only most primitive things, creatures and processes can be "controlled" only by threat of destruction. That may be one of the reasons it's so rarely used now in our civilised lives. Other than our federal politics, granted.

Edited March 2, 2010 by myata

[ToadBrother]

Yes I rememember that and even at the time of reading thought that one could hardly come with a more absurd "wisdom". Of course only most primitive things, creatures and processes can be "controlled" only by threat of destruction. That may be one of the reasons it's so rarely used now in our civilised lives. Other than our federal politics, granted.

I'm of the opinion after long, exhaustive debate with you, that there isn't a political system on Earth you would like, if you bothered to find out how they work. You don't know how to read constitutions, and thus quite happily read whatever you like into them. If it's ours, it's evil and bad and old and creaky, if it's someone else's, well, you just sort of semi-comprehend, declare the system better and walk on. In fact, so far as the Irish constitution goes, you actually read something that wasn't even there, which was kind of fascinating.

At any rate, I think I've stated my case to my satisfaction. I didn't exactly see anyone coming to your defense.

[myata]

Right on, if you can't address the point, make general comments about the poster, next best & good stuff!

I'm of the opinion after long, exhaustive debate with you, that there isn't a political system on Earth you would like, if you bothered to find out how they work.

Maybe you right, but see, I don't really need to love or even like them. Enough (for me) is just to see them working, the more efficiently and transparently, the better. Which brings us back to the point: 1) Where's our independent and supreme Parliament been for the last two months? Correct and 2) Where's our extremely busy "prorogation and recalibration" Prime Minister has been for the last two week (note that the latter is not at all unrelated to the former)?

You don't know how to read constitutions, and thus quite happily read whatever you like into them. If it's ours, it's evil and bad and old and creaky, if it's someone else's, well, you just sort of semi-comprehend, declare the system better and walk on. In fact, so far as the Irish constitution goes, you actually read something that wasn't even there, which was kind of fascinating.

Thanks for these thoughtful comments, I guess they should somehow obscure the fact that in none of the systems we considered closely government has unrestricted ability to the dismiss elected Parliament whenever it wishes, for whatever reason and for all practical purposes, as long as it wishes.

At any rate, I think I've stated my case to my satisfaction. I didn't exactly see anyone coming to your defense.

Yes, that should certainly do it, good try!

[g_bambino]

Thanks for these thoughtful comments, I guess they should somehow obscure the fact that in none of the systems we considered closely government has unrestricted ability to the dismiss elected Parliament whenever it wishes, for whatever reason and for all practical purposes, as long as it wishes.

Actually, that retort just proved correct the statement it was in response to. Well done!

[g_bambino]

I'd argue that in some cases, systemic instability lead to most of these. Having a king or an emperor does not automatically make a country immune from this sort of thing.

Yes, but is the system's stability compromised by leaving its pinnacle wide open to occupancy by individuals concerned more with their own interests than constitutional tradition? Of course monarchies aren't immune to failure simply because they don't have presidents; but, when Westminster style monarchies in the modern era have failed, the monarchs typically resisted the rising anti-democratic power. As for Japan: it certainly wasn't a constitutional monarchy based on the British model; it completely lacked responsible government.

[ToadBrother]

Yes, but is the system's stability compromised by leaving its pinnacle wide open to occupancy by individuals concerned more with their own interests than constitutional tradition? Of course monarchies aren't immune to failure simply because they don't have presidents; but, when Westminster style monarchies in the modern era have failed, the monarchs typically resisted the rising anti-democratic power. As for Japan: it certainly wasn't a constitutional monarchy based on the British model; it completely lacked responsible government.

But Italy was, ostensibly, a Constitutional Monarchy, as was Spain up to the civil war. I think there are enough examples of constitutional monarchies that either collapsed or turned into various kinds of dictatorships (and let's face it, most constitutional monarchies from the 19th century onward were to one degree or another modeled on the Westminster system) to suggest that it isn't having a hereditary monarchy atop a parliamentary system that gives the entire system strength, so much as a tradition of stable, responsible government. That's why Ireland and India have persisted (the latter most certainly having vast external and internal pressures that ought to have seen it collapse), whereas the Italy, Spain, Yugoslavia and Greece (to name some off the top of my head), despite the trappings of constitutional monarchy, ultimately saw those monarchies fail or rendered essentially impotent to be overwhelmed by dictators.

It is this reason that I suspect that so many of the former British African colonies essentially collapsed into despotism. Simply put the socio-political landscape, for any number of reasons, was not there at decolonization to assure viable parliamentary republics, and they fell into dictatorial presidential regimes. I suspect, in large part, it was because the African states had borders of convenience for the Colonial Powers, with little regard for internal divisions. While India, before the British Raj, was a divided region, there were enough common cultural threads that even extended past gaps as large as entirely different language families (Indo-Aryan and Dravidian) to give the imported Westminster-styled system some traction and strength.

Edited March 3, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Right on, if you can't address the point, make general comments about the poster, next best & good stuff!

Other posters will attest, I'm sure, that I addressed every point you raised. You simply ignored or ridiculed my answers, then raised the points again. I don't even care that you don't agree with me, that's fine, but this pretense you had that I didn't answer your questions or deal with your points, well that's just plain dishonest. At best, you confuse lack of concession with lack of response, at worst, you're not really interested in what I have to say and simply resurrect points dealt with for rhetorical effect (and, despite my basic nature to believe in the honesty and goodwill of people, in your case, I'm leaning to the latter).

Edited March 3, 2010 by ToadBrother

[myata]

Other posters will attest, I'm sure, that I addressed every point you raised. You simply ignored or ridiculed my answers, then raised the points again. I don't even care that you don't agree with me, that's fine, but this pretense you had that I didn't answer your questions or deal with your points, well that's just plain dishonest. At best, you confuse lack of concession with lack of response, at worst, you're not really interested in what I have to say and simply resurrect points dealt with for rhetorical effect (and, despite my basic nature to believe in the honesty and goodwill of people, in your case, I'm leaning to the latter).

Repeating is not addressing though. It's a fact that the work of our Parliament has been compromised, it's a fact that it is allowed by special powers vested in the government by proxy of unelected GG and it's yet another fact that in neither of the two parliamentary system we examined closely we found any evidence of governments control over the business of Parliament to such extent as here. In one (Ireland) it's balanced by explicit powers of elected President; in another (Netherlands) it's simply impossible as the Parliament has set session dates.

I'm not sure what points you think you have addressed and if you did then maybe only to yourself. And I'm not sure what kind of response one'd expect to an argument like "we shouldn't attempt to change that paragraph in the book because whole country could blow up I know because I've been there". Nothing serious, for sure.

[PIK]

Well the world did not end ,they are back to work and the country did not fall apart. To bad the liberals wasted their time trying find scandals that are not there, to bring the goverment down instead of coming up with ideas ,why canadians should vote for them.The liberals are a few years away from be able to run the country and they have proved one thing for canadians is that minorities do not work and we need a harper majority as fast as possible.

[ToadBrother]

Repeating is not addressing though. It's a fact that the work of our Parliament has been compromised, it's a fact that it is allowed by special powers vested in the government by proxy of unelected GG and it's yet another fact that in neither of the two parliamentary system we examined closely we found any evidence of governments control over the business of Parliament to such extent as here. In one (Ireland) it's balanced by explicit powers of elected President;

The elected President still acts on the advice of government. Like I said, you have real problems with basic constitutional literacy.

in another (Netherlands) it's simply impossible as the Parliament has set session dates.

Which is largely how the UK works, and I have no problem with that either. I have said this repeatedly.

I'm not sure what points you think you have addressed and if you did then maybe only to yourself. And I'm not sure what kind of response one'd expect to an argument like "we shouldn't attempt to change that paragraph in the book because whole country could blow up I know because I've been there". Nothing serious, for sure.

Trying to taunt me back into debating you with an unadorned lie ain't gonna work. Maybe you didn't agree with what I said, but you're doing now is just plain dishonest. So screw you. I have wasted more than enough time dealing with you, and at the end, this is the pathetic schoolyard BS you try to throw at me.

[ToadBrother]

Well the world did not end

Did anyone say it would?

,they are back to work and the country did not fall apart. To bad the liberals wasted their time trying find scandals that are not there, to bring the goverment down instead of coming up with ideas ,why canadians should vote for them.The liberals are a few years away from be able to run the country and they have proved one thing for canadians is that minorities do not work and we need a harper majority as fast as possible.

What's been proven to me is that Tory supporters are simpering morons.

[DrGreenthumb]

Did anyone say it would?

What's been proven to me is that Tory supporters are simpering morons.

That's been painfully obvious to me for a long time.

[Alta4ever]

Its been more then proven that Liberal and NDP supporters are quixotic urbanites.

Shall we degrade this thread further into a your momma contest?

Edited March 4, 2010 by Alta4ever

[g_bambino]

But Italy was, ostensibly, a Constitutional Monarchy, as was Spain up to the civil war. I think there are enough examples of constitutional monarchies that either collapsed or turned into various kinds of dictatorships... to suggest that it isn't having a hereditary monarchy atop a parliamentary system that gives the entire system strength, so much as a tradition of stable, responsible government. That's why Ireland and India have persisted, whereas the Italy, Spain, Yugoslavia and Greece (to name some off the top of my head), despite the trappings of constitutional monarchy, ultimately saw those monarchies fail or rendered essentially impotent to be overwhelmed by dictators.

I never said constitutional monarchies were imperishable. Similarly, I didn't claim a Westminster system headed by a president would undoubtedly self-destruct. However, is the tradition of stable, responsible government not better upheld in a system where the holder of all power is above the whims of factious politics? Even in the extreme cases you cite, and others like them in the first half of the 20th century, what constitutional monarch put their personally preferred ideology or even their thrones above ensuring as much stability for their people as possible? Victor Emanuel put up with Mussolini to avoid the greater instability of a civil war. Alfonso XIII stepped aside willingly when the majority elected republican politicians to represent them. Yet (and ignoring the fact that every election is inherently political and destabilising to some degree), even outside of such dire circumstances, presidents of parliamentary republics have quite brazenly stuck their noses into partisan political affairs, causing the system to teeter to a degree relative to the level of intrusion. Some republics have, so far, stuck to the tenets of Westminster parliamentary democracy; but, none for terribly long. Most have only emerged since the end of the Second World War, and the track record isn't terribly good.

As a post script: it seems the President of Ireland (nearly all of whom have been associated with particular political parties) hasn't been immune to stepping over boundaries into political affairs; Mary McAleese quite uncautiously made partisan comments about Northern Ireland politics that riled up all sorts of protests. A mild example, I know; but still...

[+]

Edited March 4, 2010 by g_bambino

[myata]

The elected President still acts on the advice of government. Like I said, you have real problems with basic constitutional literacy.

Other than in prescribed situations for which he has explicitly defined powers. And to clarify, democratically legitimate sovereign powers, being elected by direct popular vote.

And, there's no reference to possibility of dismissal of prorogation of Parliament.

So who has problems with basic literacy here?

Which is largely how the UK works, and I have no problem with that either. I have said this repeatedly.

Good stuff, we agree on something. That would be a really good start to a meaningful and practical independence of Parliament (just hold off a little more for "supremacy"). Now let's try to estimate how long it'll take us to get there. My bet is two generations, any better ideas?

Well, as a matter of fact if we just stop supporting the dysfunctional democratic duo here and now, there may yet be a chance of us seeing the change with our own eyes.

[Topaz]

Its been more then proven that Liberal and NDP supporters are quixotic urbanites.

Shall we degrade this thread further into a your momma contest?

Alta4ever. serious question, what would Harper have to do for you NOT to vote for him?? Second question, ae you more into Harper or the party?

[jbg]

Alta4ever. serious question, what would Harper have to do for you NOT to vote for him?? Second question, ae you more into Harper or the party?

Given that the choices are a party that stands for nothing, a party headed by a showboater/exhibitionist and another party steeped in treason, even I'd only vote CPC.

[Alta4ever]

Alta4ever. serious question, what would Harper have to do for you NOT to vote for him?? Second question, ae you more into Harper or the party?

Given the choices the other parties offer, lobotomize me.

I very much like my MP he is a stand up guy. I like the conservative blue book.

[Smallc]

I'm glad you support universal healthcare, a strong federation, and unwavering support for our system of Constitutional Monarchy. I do too.

[Topaz]

I wonder if Harper would try to prorogue Parliament for a third time? Why I ask is now things are heating up with the detainees documents and there may be proof that the government did want some detainess tortured for informantion. I really can't see Harper doing another prorogue, mostly like he would call an election to get rid of it. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/05/afghan-attaran005.html

[DrGreenthumb]

I wonder if Harper would try to prorogue Parliament for a third time? Why I ask is now things are heating up with the detainees documents and there may be proof that the government did want some detainess tortured for informantion. I really can't see Harper doing another prorogue, mostly like he would call an election to get rid of it. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/05/afghan-attaran005.html

I heard on the news yesterday that the documents will show that prisoners were turned over for the PURPOSE of torture. No wonder they prorogued to avoid the public seeing these documents. If the minister's office was in the loop on this Peter MacKay WILL be guilty of war crimes.

[capricorn]

I suppose you're referring to Amir Attaran.

Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert.

If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.

"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said.

"There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. That's what's in these documents, and that's why the government is covering up as hard as it can."

---

Until now, the controversy has centred on whether the government turned a blind eye to abuse of Afghan detainees.

However, Attaran said the full versions of the documents show that Canada went even further in intentionally handing over prisoners to torturers.

"And it wasn't accidental; it was done for a reason," he said. "It was done so that they could be interrogated using harsher methods."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/05/afghan-attaran005.html

These are quite the accusations. Mr. Attaran needs to answer a few questions. Did Attaran see all the documents unredacted? Was it simply through an access to information request? Why did he wait one year before going public with this? Did Mr. Attaran show the documents he obtained to any parliamentarians? Other questions come to mind and others will no doubt be raised in the media in the coming days.

Since Mr. Iacobucci's terms of reference are open ended, perhaps he should interview Mr. Attaran and ask him some questions.