Jump to content

Discussion of Canadian democracy


Recommended Posts

....and the viceroy may legitimately ask the opposition if they feel they can form a government.

OK, that translates as "unelected official appointed by the government in power decides whether to give the opposition a chance to form the government". Thanks for pointing it so succinctly. I'll leave it up to you to see for yourself how democratic the procedure is.

If the Prime Minister advises an election before non-confidence can be voted, then it's up to the electorate to let their opinions be known.

That's another story, thank you. Indeed, unlike e.g. a president elected by people in a separate universal vote, should a leader of minority faction be allowed to dissolve the Parliament against it's will? (if the House voted to have election, that's no problem with me). How and why would that signify the "supremacy of Parliament" in practice rather than on paper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Whats wrong with this, I would vote in election after election if the opposition kept bringing the government down. eventually we would have a majority government either formed by the opposition because they were right or by those forming the minority government. This is one of the things that is fundamental in democracy, the more elections the better.

I don't think you can extend that infinitely. Too many elections and you no longer possess a stable government. There's a delicate balance here. As much as I want Parliament to behave as a democratic body, and not just three or or four factions filled with willing little henchmen doing what they're told, I also don't want a government that's so unstable it can't get anything done. One has to look to Italy where, for much of its post-war history, it's political class has been completely wrapped up in games of king of the hill and survival, opening the door for every manner of dirty trick along the way. I think, in the normal scope of things, four or five years is not unreasonable for a government, permitting it time to at least get some of its policies and medium term strategies off the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, that translates as "unelected official appointed by the government in power decides whether to give the opposition a chance to form the government". Thanks for pointing it so succinctly. I'll leave it up to you to see for yourself how democratic the procedure is.

Even if it were the Queen herself, it would be the same. Save in extraordinary circumstances, the Regal or Vice-regal figure is bound in our system of government to act only on the advice of His or Her Ministers. You complain about this system, and yet it has worked extraordinarily well for well over three hundred years, through some very hard times. Think about it, our system has survived threats like Napoleonic France, mass insurrection of valuable colonies (the American Revolution), two world wars with Germany and its allies, economic downturns of absolutely monolithic scales and internal crises. People keep moaning about the Queen or about how our Governor General is selected, and yet, all in all, our system has remained strong and yet adaptable.

We have problems, but those problems are as much because of a lazy, apathetic and navel-gazing electorate who doesn't march down en masse to their local MP every time he or she does something wrong. I'll say it again, if every Conservative MP in this country had been subjected to mass letter writing campaigns by constituents, maybe even the odd angry rabble outside the Constituency Office demanding he or she get back to work, and enough voices vowing to turf the guy if he doesn't immediately set the Prime Minister straight, I can tell you right now those MPs would have the strength to go into caucus and tell the Cabinet "we ain't playing that game, Stephen".

But the electorate doesn't bloody care. They're too busy watching Dancing With The Stars and new episodes of 24, or just simply sleeping their lives away. MPs are left like shepherd-less cattle, and of course will bend to the strong arm tactics of their leaders, rather than making their leaders bend to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that Canada is functioning economically well in this recession is a result of good local governance is not true in my opinion.

Canada has done well because of diversity. Not so much ethnic or language based (although we do have French and English as main languages)

But because of the five big Canadian banks, and seperate and safer lending practices for "trusts" (some would say more leftist lending practices.) To be perfectly honest - the banking system of Canada is much more like the Emperor-like Imperialist Chinese system (before communism) and the governance system most definitely British Imperial Law (of which is still mostly applicable to Canada in 2010)

Canada has definitely followed the economic practices of the "Chinese local grocer, selling pick axes to the gold rush miners" Which is - Financially sound investments.

The US main problem is that they tend to conglomerize into one gigantic entity "too quickly, to an actual fault" like the melting pot, and gigantic banks that are "too big to fail" - and yet they do. Borgification while having strengths - does have serious flaws as well.

The US with 350 million citizens no doubt would have weathered the recession better if they had closer to perhaps 10 to 20 "main banks"

Canada has taken a slightly different approach where we have put redundancies in the economic and social system with more realistic growth.

As for democracy - we are barely crawling our way to representational democracy if we were not under the shadow of the Crown. I don't know if Canada has the military capacity or even the population density to think about a true indepenant form of democracy without having serious issues that must be ironed out first (which the Government should be doing instead of prorogueing every year and spending 90% of their time on beaureaucratic shuffles)

Edited by ZenOps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that Canada is functioning economically well in this recession is a result of good local governance is not true in my opinion.

Countries with rational banking regulations are doing better than countries without. I'd say that's probably a sign of some good governance.

As for democracy - we are barely crawling our way to representational democracy if we were not under the shadow of the Crown. I don't know if Canada has the military capacity or even the population density to think about a true indepenant form of democracy without having serious issues that must be ironed out first (which the Government should be doing instead of prorogueing every year and spending 90% of their time on beaureaucratic shuffles)

Oh good grief. The Crown acts only on the advice of Parliament. The system works, and has worked for some length of time.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh good grief. The Crown acts only on the advice of Parliament.

They won't get it. All that Dancing With the Stars and 24 watching has also embedded in their minds the American myth that democracy only exists when everyone votes for everything. Of course, even though that country has perpetuated it, the myth isn't even true for that country; those who drafted the US constitution were well aware of the dangers of excess voting; hell, they even seriously toyed with the idea of their own American monarch. But, hey, what do facts matter, right? The illusion that monarchy and democracy are inherently incompatible is obviously more important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfectly democratic, of course. Unlike some people, I realise that democracy isn't solely about ballot boxes.

Well of course from that perspective, a good and benevolent King ruling all and everything to the good of all (and everything) would also be "perfectly democratic", and there's nothing left to discuss, welcome to the ages of King Arthur, etc. I want to talk to individuals who value independence and real, practical empowerment of our elected representatives, and for us the question of why an unelected official appointed should be deciding on the majority's will to form a government, would be far from clear. As clear as a day is that it's got little to do with open, transparent and vibrant democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well of course from that perspective, a good and benevolent King ruling all and everything to the good of all (and everything) would also be "perfectly democratic", and there's nothing left to discuss, welcome to the ages of King Arthur, etc. I want to talk to individuals who value independence and real, practical empowerment of our elected representatives, and for us the question of why an unelected official appointed should be deciding on the majority's will to form a government, would be far from clear. As clear as a day is that it's got little to do with open, transparent and vibrant democracy.

Have you got cotton in your ears. Since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the Monarch or His or Her Vice-regal representatives can only act on the advice of His or Her Ministers, and more generally, on the will of Parliament. Your complaint is clearly based on some other system of government than the one we've got. The Monarchy lost the power, effectively to do whatever it wanted with the Magna Carta, most certainly lost the power to override Parliament when Charles I was beheaded, and, finally, reiterated when Charles II was given the boot and the Crown was offered to William and Mary, providing they recognized the Supremacy of Parliament.

Where did you go to school? Or did you go to school? Because you clearly know absolutely nothing about our governing system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the electorate doesn't bloody care. They're too busy watching Dancing With The Stars and new episodes of 24, or just simply sleeping their lives away. MPs are left like shepherd-less cattle, and of course will bend to the strong arm tactics of their leaders, rather than making their leaders bend to them.

All true. And in a strange way, we're lucky that way. Why ? Because we have the freedom to focus on our day-to-day lives. It means that the system that got to this point worked.

But we need to adjust it now, to account for low participation and apathy. The model whereby every citizen needs to participate is no longer desirable. If we elevate the quality of debate, we can move our democracy to a subset of citizens, who are more interested and can spend more time thinking through issues. Happily, it seems that the subset will represent all points in the spectrum, as happens on MLW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All true. And in a strange way, we're lucky that way. Why ? Because we have the freedom to focus on our day-to-day lives. It means that the system that got to this point worked.

But we need to adjust it now, to account for low participation and apathy. The model whereby every citizen needs to participate is no longer desirable. If we elevate the quality of debate, we can move our democracy to a subset of citizens, who are more interested and can spend more time thinking through issues. Happily, it seems that the subset will represent all points in the spectrum, as happens on MLW.

Brrr.... Robert A. Heinlein called and wants his future state back!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur with your points about the Senate, but it has been largely ineffectual for years now and so I don't think hurts democracy, just wastes money.

Having the MPs dump the PM would be nice, but I think MacKenzie Bowell had effectively the same thing happen. And it's a rarity anyway, so that doesn't mark our system as being that much better.

The part about the sham debate - that strikes me as being the same as the UK.

As far as improvements - I'd like to see Service Canada expanded, and have large sections of ministries concerned with service delivery moved to branches of service Canada - to be overseen by multiparty committees.

That's it, the only improvement you have to the basic governance is to move some civil servants from one office to another?

You have it backwards too on removingt the PM by vote of the MPs in that party: the Brits have that and it is superior to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly we don't live in the same country. Since when does PM = provost major.

Real coups involve physical violence to upsurp control, not forming a government with a majority of the house charged with forming government.

Since when did the PMO have the ability to control the House? Since 1867. Here is a exercise for you: count the number of members bills (govt or Opposition) that pass in any given session. The number is generally zero. Where does the legislative inmpetus and the party Whip take their orders from? PMO of course. In norma;l times, it runs the country without input or interference from anybody or anything. The very existence of an Opposition is largely irrelevant, as witness watch their antics in the House any day. Theater, and bad theater at that.

Coups need not involve violence at all, where did you get that odd idea? The Coalition lost the election again to the Tories, who very nearly had a majority, and were facing more years of eating the steady diet of turd sandwiches they had enjoyed so much. They took their (legal) chance at doing what the elctorate did not want, and lost. Harper took the (legal) option of dissolving Parliament and revealing what Candians really thought about the Coalition. In the meantime, Rome burned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your complaint is clearly based on some other system of government than the one we've got. The Monarchy lost the power, effectively to do whatever it wanted with the Magna Carta, most certainly lost the power to override Parliament when Charles I was beheaded, and, finally, reiterated when Charles II was given the boot and the Crown was offered to William and Mary, providing they recognized the Supremacy of Parliament.

I was responding to a certain comment and it's in the context of that exchange that my message should be read. So, one more time,

1) Why would the ability of unelected "viceroy" to decide on whether to allow the majority of the elected House to form a government be "perfectly democratic"? Detailed explanatioin, please.

2) How exactly is it different from another unelected official (King) deciding on which government would govern his people, and what exactly is ridiculous in that parallel?

And,

Where did you go to school? Or did you go to school? Because you clearly know absolutely nothing about our governing system.

3) Which country's political system allows unelected official, appointed by the government in power, to decide on allowing the majority in the elected Parliament to exercise their will (not in the times historical, but now, in this tenth year of the 21 century)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was responding to a certain comment and it's in the context of that exchange that my message should be read. So, one more time,

1) Why would the ability of unelected "viceroy" to decide on whether to allow the majority of the elected House to form a government be "perfectly democratic"? Detailed explanatioin, please.

Well, in the normal state of affairs, it's the party with the largest block of seats. While, in theory, it's the party that can best form a government, I can't think of a situation at any time in modern political history where it has been any other way. So, again, the GG or Monarch is restricted by what Parliament provides. The Reserve Powers certainly give the Sovereign some leeway, but there have only been a couple of times in the last century that those Powers have actually been used, so whatever point you're trying to make is, to be blunt, moot.

2) How exactly is it different from another unelected official (King) deciding on which government would govern his people, and what exactly is ridiculous in that parallel?

Because Parliament is supreme. The Sovereign's role is very limited. His or Her Ministers, in a responsible government, make the decisions.

And,

3) Which country's political system allows unelected official, appointed by the government in power, to decide on allowing the majority in the elected Parliament to exercise their will (not in the times historical, but now, in this tenth year of the 21 century)?

That's a leading question, and not even an accurate portrayal. The current GG was not even put in that position by the current government. And again, the GG is there because the Queen, with the advise of the government of the day, put her there.

I know the point you're trying to score, but either you don't know our system, or your intentionally playing the part of the fool to try to cast some doubt on it.

Our system works. The GG and/or the Sovereign have so rarely ever intruded on the affairs of Parliament that your point is, well, pointless. The monarchy has had to bend to the will of Parliament since 1688 (though the argument for the supremacy of Parliament most certainly predates it, and the notion of the monarch having limits on his power go back to the Magna Carta). If Parliament feels the Government is doing a bad job, they need to vote no confidence. Hypothetically they could offer themselves up instead, but the normal way events have unfolded in modern times is that an election would be called. What made 2008 very unique was that it was within weeks of an election, which would have put the GG in the hard position of either opting for yet another election which seemed highly unlikely to deliver a Parliament that was fundamentally different in its constitution, or listening to Her Prime Minister and shutting things down. The GG made the best decision based on a question she should not have been asked. Still, if the Coalition had managed to hang together until the end of January 2009, it would have been perfectly constitutional for them to turf the Tories and form their own government. That they didn't had nothing to do with the nature of the Crown, and everything to do with a cool response from the electorate and substantial divisions in the Liberal ranks over getting into bed with the NDP and separatists.

We do not live under an absolutist monarchy. The last time anyone tried that was Charles II, and he was exiled. Parliament is supreme, end of story.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brrr.... Robert A. Heinlein called and wants his future state back!

You don't have to do much to make this happen.

One thing is to resist all attempts to spoon feed the citizens (online voting for example) and to NOT promote efforts to dumb down elections - such as making TV commercials.

Here's a great parody of what TV commercials have become, by the way:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's it, the only improvement you have to the basic governance is to move some civil servants from one office to another?

Yep, that's it.

You have it backwards too on removingt the PM by vote of the MPs in that party: the Brits have that and it is superior to us.

I know that they have it. My point is that it isn't done often enough to declare that a differentiator of our two systems. And Bowell was forced to resign by pretty much the same action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the ability of unelected "viceroy" to decide on whether to allow the majority of the elected House to form a government be "perfectly democratic"?

Because the Crown is empowered only by the consent of the people through the support of the constitution by their elected representatives; we choose, by our own free will, to maintain a system wherein a balance is maintained by unelected and elected bodies keeping each other in check.

Which country's political system allows unelected official, appointed by the government in power, to decide on allowing the majority in the elected Parliament to exercise their will (not in the times historical, but now, in this tenth year of the 21 century)?

Countries: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

Semi-sovereign territories: Alberta, Aruba, British Columbia, the Cook Islands, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, New South Wales, the Netherlands Antilles, Niue, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Queensland, Saskatchewan, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western Australia.

As TB has already noted, however, the "decision" on government formation is essentially pre-set for the viceroys in all the above jurisdictions due to entrenched constitutional conventions. Only in the most extreme circumstances is the Royal Prerogative exercise without ministerial or parliamentary guidance.

[+]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in the normal state of affairs, it's the party with the largest block of seats.

That can still be a minority faction in the Parliament.

While, in theory, it's the party that can best form a government, I can't think of a situation at any time in modern political history where it has been any other way. So, again, the GG or Monarch is restricted by what Parliament provides. The Reserve Powers certainly give the Sovereign some leeway, but there have only been a couple of times in the last century that those Powers have actually been used, so whatever point you're trying to make is, to be blunt, moot.

Here's the situation: the majority in the Parliament decided that they have no confidence in the government in power and create a coalition. The government in power shuts down the Parliament and later threatens an election over non confidence. Unelected "viceroy" decides whether to uphold the will of the majority, or the minority faction that is in power.

How is my point "moot"? If Ottawa only had one homicide per year, would it make prosecution of criminals "moot"? If another politicians takes the cues given by this government, will it be less moot, then?

Because Parliament is supreme. The Sovereign's role is very limited. His or Her Ministers, in a responsible government, make the decisions.

What if Ministers decide to obstruct the will of Parliament (never happens? moot?). What instruments does it have to assert its written "supremacy"? What you read is not (necessarily) what you get?

That's a leading question, and not even an accurate portrayal. The current GG was not even put in that position by the current government. And again, the GG is there because the Queen, with the advise of the government of the day, put her there.

Still unelected though, so on to the core issue.

I know the point you're trying to score, but either you don't know our system, or your intentionally playing the part of the fool to try to cast some doubt on it.

Of course, because you're right because you're right and by definition.

Our system works. The GG and/or the Sovereign have so rarely ever intruded on the affairs of Parliament that your point is, well, pointless.

It works because it works, right? She "intruded" twice already within a scope of one calendar year, and it's still "pointless"? Of course its a matter of personal preference, what we want to see. E.g. King Charles may have "intruded" more frequently, and perhaps in more forcible way. But here's the question though: what real instruments the elected Parliament has to assert its will over the government, souvereign etc, that would not respect it?

The monarchy has had to bend to the will of Parliament since 1688 (though the argument for the supremacy of Parliament most certainly predates it, and the notion of the monarch having limits on his power go back to the Magna Carta).

I'm thinking of its modern reincarnation though, the one that flies right into our eyes and we still fail to see it, when a minority faction and unelected officials wrestles its will on the elected majority.

If Parliament feels the Government is doing a bad job, they need to vote no confidence. Hypothetically they could offer themselves up instead, but the normal way events have unfolded in modern times is that an election would be called.

I'd qualify that with "in Canada" and maybe, UK. Elsewhere a fall of a government is a regular event that need not cause an election by a long shot. The practice to call an election every time government loses confidence means only one thing, that the elected Parliament cannot be trusted with determining the government of the country. This is coming from long time back when it was assumed that a government represents the will of the Souvereign and wouldn't ever need to fall.

The GG made the best decision based on a question she should not have been asked.

And you know that, "best decision", exactly how? What if she decided to do nothing, based on what "she should not have been asked" in the first place?

Still, if the Coalition had managed to hang together until the end of January 2009, it would have been perfectly constitutional for them to turf the Tories and form their own government.

Aren't you are missing an important piece here, "and subject to viceroy approval"? Wouldn't it make a lot of difference, maybe all the difference in how the situation is seen by majority opposition? E.g. opposion votes no confidence and the government asks GG to close the Paliament and call an election. Who should she listen to?

And, the real $$$ question: should an unelected official, quite possibly appointed by the government in power, make these sort of decisions? I mean, in a real transparent and working democracy?

That they didn't had nothing to do with the nature of the Crown, and everything to do with a cool response from the electorate and substantial divisions in the Liberal ranks over getting into bed with the NDP and separatists.

You can make all the assumptions you like, but one thing we won't know is what could have happened if our system was more democratic and transparent. As it stands, an unelected official played important role in the development of political crisis, and to me such situation is anything but "democratic".

We do not live under an absolutist monarchy. The last time anyone tried that was Charles II, and he was exiled.

Agreed, not yet. All things tend to change in this world, though.

Parliament is supreme, end of story.

Please keep repeating the mantra. Just remember that what you read may not be what you get (in reality).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the situation: the majority in the Parliament decided that they have no confidence in the government in power and create a coalition. The government in power shuts down the Parliament and later threatens an election over non confidence. Unelected "viceroy" decides whether to uphold the will of the majority, or the minority faction that is in power.
You are still whinging about that? The coalition could have easily taken power after parliament resumed but the coalition fell apart. The fact that it fell apart demonstrates that the GG's decision was the best one for Canada and whingeing about 'democracy being denied' is ridiculous.
It works because it works, right? She "intruded" twice already within a scope of one calendar year, and it's still "pointless"?
She did not "intrude" - she took the advice of the prime minister. In these situations, rejecting his advice would have been an "intrusion". Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That can still be a minority faction in the Parliament.

Well yes, duh. The only way that you could assure you had a majority of seats is to have a two-party state. Since we don't, well, sometimes you have to take the apples and make applesauce.

Here's the situation: the majority in the Parliament decided that they have no confidence in the government in power and create a coalition. The government in power shuts down the Parliament and later threatens an election over non confidence. Unelected "viceroy" decides whether to uphold the will of the majority, or the minority faction that is in power.

The GG has little room save to listen to the PM. That's the nature of responsible government. Tactically, the coalition screwed up, more interested in the pissing contests that went along with "we gotta deal!" than with an actual vote of no confidence. Beyond that, it became pretty clear that a large chunk of the Liberal caucus didn't like this deal; in part because they wanted Dion gone, in part because cutting deals like this with the Separatists and the NDP wasn't to their liking.

How is my point "moot"? If Ottawa only had one homicide per year, would it make prosecution of criminals "moot"? If another politicians takes the cues given by this government, will it be less moot, then?

Wake me up when you have an analogy that makes any sense whatsoever. In both cases where the GG intervened against the wishes of a PM (the King-Byng Affair and the Australian Constitutional crisis) there was no other constitutional way out of the mess. Believe me, I find the 2008 prorogation ridiculous and demonstrates Harper's absolute terror at the opposition and his own particular hatred of Parliament, but it was, after all, constitutional.

What if Ministers decide to obstruct the will of Parliament (never happens? moot?). What instruments does it have to assert its written "supremacy"? What you read is not (necessarily) what you get?

It's called a vote of no confidence. It is THE check on government. The opposition was perfectly free to turf the government in January 2009, but didn't. Ask them why they flinched. It wasn't a flaw in the system, it was a lack of nerve on their part.

Still unelected though, so on to the core issue.

I fail to see how an elected head of state, if having powers similar to the GG's, would be any better. In fact, it might be even worse. Imagine if it was Liberal president instead of the GG. Then, if Harper's request was refused, the Tories could claim undue interference in Parliament. If it was a Tory president, well then, the result could have been called into question as a Tory helping Tories. Whether you agree with what the GG did, no one, not even in the Opposition, claimed her decision was partisan.

Of course, because you're right because you're right and by definition.

I'm right because unless we utterly changed the nature of our government (say, to go towards a strong presidency like the US or France), we're going to end up with a head of state with similar powers, but with the added bonus that they will be every bit as partisan as any bloc with Parliament. And the change, to weak or strong President, would require such massive changes to the Constitution, and put the country's unity at such great risk, that the meager gains (if any) that could be made would pale in comparison.

It works because it works, right? She "intruded" twice already within a scope of one calendar year, and it's still "pointless"? Of course its a matter of personal preference, what we want to see. E.g. King Charles may have "intruded" more frequently, and perhaps in more forcible way. But here's the question though: what real instruments the elected Parliament has to assert its will over the government, souvereign etc, that would not respect it?

She didn't intrude. She did what was required in a Constitutional Monarchy, and that is to act upon the advice of the Government. The Stewart intrusions were in defying the will of Parliament. Charles I simply prorogued Parliament for eleven years (the Personal Rule), raising revenue through the few means available to him, and otherwise running the whole show himself. Charles II showed the same general notion of autocratic rule, and was given the boot.

Parliament, itself, has any instrument it likes. There's no reason to even have political parties, beyond the fact that there have always been blocs of like-minded politicians. It's perfectly conceivable that MPs could decide to form a government that straddled party lines, or ignored them (ie. the National Governments in the UK in the 1930s and 1940s).

I'm thinking of its modern reincarnation though, the one that flies right into our eyes and we still fail to see it, when a minority faction and unelected officials wrestles its will on the elected majority.

You forget to mention that that faction still holds more seats than anybody else. There's nothing stop the Opposition from reuniting, except that it appears that such a coalition might very well be electoral poison. It's also pretty clear that at least Iggy has little interest in it. Again, the problem you have is not with the system, but with the politicians.

I'd qualify that with "in Canada" and maybe, UK. Elsewhere a fall of a government is a regular event that need not cause an election by a long shot. The practice to call an election every time government loses confidence means only one thing, that the elected Parliament cannot be trusted with determining the government of the country. This is coming from long time back when it was assumed that a government represents the will of the Souvereign and wouldn't ever need to fall.

The general theory in our system has been that where confidence is lost, generally a new Parliament should be convened. Minority governments are sufficiently uncommon in our system that this is rarely in issue. But again, if the Opposition feels they can govern as a coalition, there's nothing stopping them from voting down the Throne Speech, the Prime Minister submitting his government's resignation and if the Opposition can demonstrate that they can form a viable government, the GG would be obliged to give them the chance. But it's not the GG or Harper or anyone blocking this but the Opposition, and specifically, the Liberals.

And you know that, "best decision", exactly how? What if she decided to do nothing, based on what "she should not have been asked" in the first place?

She couldn't do nothing. Clearly she had a choice, either to ignore the advice of Her Ministers, thus creating a constitutional crisis, or giving the government at that point a chance to fix things. As I said, the 2008 prorogation was a terrible thing, but no one has explained to me how an elected head of state would have done any different, considering our system. Now, if you're talking about turfing our system, well obviously that problem disappears, but as I said, the cost of achieving such a system, the negligible advantages that one might find elsewhere, render the whole idea rather hazardous.

Aren't you are missing an important piece here, "and subject to viceroy approval"? Wouldn't it make a lot of difference, maybe all the difference in how the situation is seen by majority opposition? E.g. opposion votes no confidence and the government asks GG to close the Paliament and call an election. Who should she listen to?

And again, the GG's approval is pretty much a given. She is bound to listen to her ministers. Full stop. The Reserve Powers are there only for the extreme circumstances (ie. a government refusing to step down after a loss of confidence).

Look, if the Opposition had not lost its nerve in January 2009, I'd say the odds would have been extremely high that the GG would have offered the Coalition the opportunity to form a government. It would have only been about three or four months since the last election. The GG is clearly going to listen to the will of Parliament. I suspect her reasoning was quite simple in December 2008; she only acts on the advice of Government. That is what pretty much disproves your whole claim that somehow she's the boss, save in a very distant sense of the word.

And, the real $$$ question: should an unelected official, quite possibly appointed by the government in power, make these sort of decisions? I mean, in a real transparent and working democracy?

There are several centuries of precedent on the matter. It's not simply a decision flung out there. We have had minority governments fall before without the sort of interference you seem to fear. Is there some reason to suspect that a future GG would act in that way? And how exactly would an elected head of state solve that particular problem?

You can make all the assumptions you like, but one thing we won't know is what could have happened if our system was more democratic and transparent. As it stands, an unelected official played important role in the development of political crisis, and to me such situation is anything but "democratic".

That unelected official followed over three centuries of precedent and constitutional law and acted on the advice of the Government.

Agreed, not yet. All things tend to change in this world, though.

Please keep repeating the mantra. Just remember that what you read may not be what you get (in reality).

I'm still waiting for you to explain what improvements you would make, what actual improvements they would provide, with the consideration of the constitutional wrangling and what it means for this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She did not "intrude" - she took the advice of the prime minister. In these situations, rejecting his advice would have been an "intrusion".

Frankly, I think Michaëlle Jean was the only one in 2008 who was doing her job, and doing it well. Parliament should never have put her in the position in having to choose between the constitutional restraints of acting on the advice of the Prime Minister and acting on the will of the majority of Parliament. I blame Harper and Flaherty mainly for the provocation of the Opposition, but the Opposition has to share some of the blame in going around with their coalition when several members of the Liberal caucus were already making rude noises about it before Harper had even went to Rideau Hall. I mean, if I was GG, I had the choice of either supporting a PM who clearly had no desire to make Parliament work, and a Coalition claiming that it could form a government, even as members of the senior party in the coalition were clearly showing no small amount of dissatisfaction, I don't think the decision would be hard.

No, our GG did her job very well, and with much more grace and good sense than anyone in Parliament.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when did the PMO have the ability to control the House? Since 1867.

Read about parliamentary procedure, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Parliament is convened by the Monarch or their representative.

The PMO doesn't exist constitutionally, and the PM is technically selected by the governor general - on suggestion of the majority of the house of commons. This has not always been the leader of the party sitting with the most seats, nor has it always been a member of parliament.

The PM can request a number of things; however, Mr Harper limited his own powers by creating legislation, election law, to do so, then violated those laws by calling an election on matters that didn't relate to non confidence. The PM has very little powers within the house of commons, he is inferior to the speaker of the house -who is appointed the same way - by a majority of the house delegating the role to them.

where does the party Whip take their orders from?

Hopefully themselves if they are an adult capable of independant thought.

"The party whip is a member of a party caucus who ensures that the number of MPs in the legislature, or at committee meetings, is adequate to win a vote if one is called. The division bells in the HOUSE OF COMMONS ring until whips are satisfied that sufficient members of their own party are present. They can offer a few minor rewards, eg, trips and committee membership, but have few effective punishments and rely more on persuasion than coercion. They also arrange the order of speakers in the legislature, facilitating the Speaker's job. "

What is your point?

In norma;l times,

What are normal times? Canada's history hasn't been normalized since its origin.

it runs the country without input or interference from anybody or anything.

I think you are mistaken on the intent of members of parliament, as to represent their constituents in parliament.

The very existence of an Opposition is largely irrelevant, as witness watch their antics in the House any day. Theater, and bad theater at that.

I think that you lack the mindset for public benefit through responsible government. The whole point of parliamentary procedure is informed consent and review. So government can gauge the support for their actions and form a more responsible and functioning government for the nation. The purpose of parliament is essentially to raise taxes, government cannot spend money without parliaments support. It is unfortunate you support the notion that only the party matters. There has been more than one MP that has sat as an independent or voted against a majority of their party's vote.

Coups need not involve violence at all, where did you get that odd idea?

You are being inane.

"A coup d'état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/, (plural: coups d'état) or coup for short, is the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military"

Regardless of violence or not, they were fully within the bounds of the constitution in proposing an alternative government to the one they lacked confidence in. They were responsible in doing this rather than forcing another election, which still may occur due to the irresponsibility of the conservatives.

The Coalition lost the election again to the Tories, who very nearly had a majority, and were facing more years of eating the steady diet of turd sandwiches they had enjoyed so much.

What election?

They took their (legal) chance at doing what the elctorate did not want, and lost.

I supported it, hell I proposed it to them. Frankly I think it was the unfathomable amount of lies and misinformation the cons spread. They outright lied about facts surrounding the situation.

Harper took the (legal) option of dissolving Parliament and revealing what Candians really thought about the Coalition. In the meantime, Rome burned.

He abused a process that was convetionally suppose to be used for something entirely different. It is akin to a police officer shooting someone cause they don't like them, rather than them being a criminal.

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes, duh. The only way that you could assure you had a majority of seats is to have a two-party state. Since we don't, well, sometimes you have to take the apples and make applesauce.

Not "only", though. There's also a notion of cooperation. Aka leaving behind blatant partisanship and working together for the good of the country. Very common elsewhere but never occured to us, here.

The GG has little room save to listen to the PM. That's the nature of responsible government.

Really? I thought a minute ago you were talking about "supremacy of Parliament"? Pick one. Because if the government shuts the Parliament down, openly obstructs it and blatantly ignores it's explicit orders, it doesnt' sound like "supremacy" to me, not even one bit, but of course it's all in the meaning we want to hear in the word. E.g. for some and not so long ago, every word from the mouth of dictator would be the very incarnation of wisdom, truth, democracy and god knows what good, true and beautiful.

Tactically, the coalition screwed up, more interested in the pissing contests that went along with "we gotta deal!" than with an actual vote of no confidence.

And that, "truth is lie" is exactly where it should start. No, the problem is not with the government that squeezes out of the vote of non confidence by using a gimmick inherited from times of King Charles. The culprit is the Opposition to even come up with the idea, not to say make it public, so as not not to be accused in the GROSS AND SUBVERSIVE CONSPIRACY TO OVERTHROW OUR BELOVED DEMOCRACY. Good stuff, even Harper's spinwriters would be proud of.

Beyond that, it became pretty clear that a large chunk of the Liberal caucus didn't like this deal; in part because they wanted Dion gone, in part because cutting deals like this with the Separatists and the NDP wasn't to their liking.

Which may have very well be so, but we'll never know for sure because the peculiarities of our democratic system simply allow an unelected official to make these decisions for us. To hard thinking, no hard feelings.

Wake me up when you have an analogy that makes any sense whatsoever. In both cases where the GG intervened against the wishes of a PM (the King-Byng Affair and the Australian Constitutional crisis) there was no other constitutional way out of the mess. Believe me, I find the 2008 prorogation ridiculous and demonstrates Harper's absolute terror at the opposition and his own particular hatred of Parliament, but it was, after all, constitutional.

And as we're beginning to understand it, many things in our dinosaur old constitution would be constitutional. Like e.g. a single ceremonial annual session to unanimously approve the decisions of our beloved Leader and his trusted Ministers working day and night for the good of us people.

It's called a vote of no confidence. It is THE check on government. The opposition was perfectly free to turf the government in January 2009, but didn't. Ask them why they flinched. It wasn't a flaw in the system, it was a lack of nerve on their part.

Yes and I said it awhile back. It is the one and only real check on the government. It allows us to remove a government that has screwed up completely and irrevocably, with very little to do in between. Doesn't really sound as a smart modern system, but then it worked for a dosen generations so why bother changing anything?

I fail to see how an elected head of state, if having powers similar to the GG's, would be any better. In fact, it might be even worse. Imagine if it was Liberal president instead of the GG. Then, if Harper's request was refused, the Tories could claim undue interference in Parliament. If it was a Tory president, well then, the result could have been called into question as a Tory helping Tories. Whether you agree with what the GG did, no one, not even in the Opposition, claimed her decision was partisan.

What if no "head of state", elected or otherwise, could decide on affairs that (in a real and transparent democracy) should be solely in the domain of the elected Parliament?

I'm right because unless we utterly changed the nature of our government (say, to go towards a strong presidency like the US or France), we're going to end up with a head of state with similar powers, but with the added bonus that they will be every bit as partisan as any bloc with Parliament. And the change, to weak or strong President, would require such massive changes to the Constitution, and put the country's unity at such great risk, that the meager gains (if any) that could be made would pale in comparison.

No, such dramatic change won't be necessary, see above.

She didn't intrude. She did what was required in a Constitutional Monarchy, and that is to act upon the advice of the Government. The Stewart intrusions were in defying the will of Parliament. Charles I simply prorogued Parliament for eleven years (the Personal Rule), raising revenue through the few means available to him, and otherwise running the whole show himself. Charles II showed the same general notion of autocratic rule, and was given the boot.

Or, translating the constitutional monarchy gibberish talk, "a puppet of the government executed the will of the government in power". Which still leaves us with the same question, if the government in power openly and blatantly obstructs the will of majority of the elected House, should it have any recourse to assert itself, short of calling an election? In a real democracy that is?

Parliament, itself, has any instrument it likes. There's no reason to even have political parties, beyond the fact that there have always been blocs of like-minded politicians. It's perfectly conceivable that MPs could decide to form a government that straddled party lines, or ignored them (ie. the National Governments in the UK in the 1930s and 1940s).

Uhm, but haven't we agreed only a minute ago that GG always acts on the advise of Sovereign (etc)? So let's see: the majority of MPs decide to form a bloc of like-minded. But, the Sovereign (of the biggest minority faction) thinks otherwise. Quelle constitutional disaster! Crisis! No, we can't figure it out by our ourselves (hint: by a simple vote in the Parliament). No, we have to call for that viceroy guy (if appointed by that same Sovereign so what? we had ethics commissioners for PM appointed by the same PM, it seems to be a healthy tradition of our democracy) to make it for us. Now, it's perfectly "democratic".

It's also pretty clear that at least Iggy has little interest in it. Again, the problem you have is not with the system, but with the politicians.

The system allowed, and allows the government in power to 1) avoid the motion of non confidence; and 2) threaten the election as a punishment for bringing the government down.

You're free to not notice that and keep repeating your mantra, but it won't change the facts.

The general theory in our system has been that where confidence is lost, generally a new Parliament should be convened.

Good what we understand it. So, in the general theory of our system, the Parliament is there for the government and not the other way around. And therefore, "supremacy of Parliament" isn't really much more than an empty coin phrase.

But again, if the Opposition feels they can govern as a coalition, there's nothing stopping them from voting down the Throne Speech, the Prime Minister submitting his government's resignation and if the Opposition can demonstrate that they can form a viable government, the GG would be obliged to give them the chance.

Now you've got me interested, so in what way exactly is she "obliged"? Let's be absolutely precise and imagine that 1) Government's motion of confidence is voted down; 2) Government advises to call an election; 3) Opposition proposes a governing coalition supported by majority of the Parliament.

Question: what real instrument is there to ensure that unelected GG follows the advice of the majority of the Parliament, and not the government that has failed? Is it something written in our legal books (constitution, etc)? Or left entirely to (unelected) GG's judgement, call of duty, inner voice, feelings, etc, yada?

She couldn't do nothing. Clearly she had a choice, either to ignore the advice of Her Ministers, thus creating a constitutional crisis, or giving the government at that point a chance to fix things. As I said, the 2008 prorogation was a terrible thing, but no one has explained to me how an elected head of state would have done any different, considering our system.

I just did a few paragraphs up, no thanks needed. A simple vote expressing the will of majority of the elected representative would have solved the terrible conundrum and existential crisis.

And again, the GG's approval is pretty much a given. She is bound to listen to her ministers. Full stop. The Reserve Powers are there only for the extreme circumstances (ie. a government refusing to step down after a loss of confidence).

And now you've got me puzzled again. One minute, she's obliged to hear the Opposition, now, no, "her ministers" and full stop. Looks like not unlike yours, GG's position is a really tough spot.

Look, if the Opposition had not lost its nerve in January 2009, I'd say the odds would have been extremely high that the GG would have offered the Coalition the opportunity to form a government.

Odds, right! The really sound basis for a truly democratic system! Now, what would be the odds of a good hearted, benevolent King doing anything to a damage of his beloved subjects? Sounds like a strong argument to go all the way back to absolute monarchy, imagine how much it'd save us on all the mess in that unruly institution called the Parliament?

There are several centuries of precedent on the matter. It's not simply a decision flung out there. We have had minority governments fall before without the sort of interference you seem to fear.

Er.. we had two of these interferences in the span of one calendar year. Sounds like a regular things now?

Is there some reason to suspect that a future GG would act in that way?

I don't know. Should we just sit back and find out (now that a precedent has been set)? Maybe we'll step on the same rake again; and then maybe we won't. Sounds like a smart strategy, ne c'est pas?

And how exactly would an elected head of state solve that particular problem?

See above, my complements!

That unelected official followed over three centuries of precedent and constitutional law and acted on the advice of the Government.

But of course it did, as his historical mission has been to support the government of his Sovereign and not encourage frivolous acts by miserable scum called opposition. Has anything really changed in these centuries? I wonder.

I'm still waiting for you to explain what improvements you would make, what actual improvements they would provide, with the consideration of the constitutional wrangling and what it means for this country.

No, you don't have to, I already stated it at least twice, but I can't possibly do it in every single thread. The changes I like to see as a result of the recent developments are:

1) Improved access to information, requiring government to release any documents requested by Parliament maybe under penalty of criminal prosecution for offending minister(s).

2) Removal or maximum restriction of undemocratic powers and prerogatives. E.g prorogation only be effectuated by consent of the Parliament.

3) Formal procedure ensuring that the Parliament is consulted on each and every occasion of non confidence motion, and the will of majority of the House is observed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...