Discussion of Canadian democracy

[Riverwind]

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

That means you are ok with prorogation when Chretien did it because he had a majority?

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.

Hindsight tells us that a prorogation saved us from a either disasterous Dion led coalition or a election in the middle of a financial crisis. That is one example where the system worked to ensure Canadians have good government.

[Alta4ever]

That means you are ok with prorogation when Chretien did it because he had a majority?

Hindsight tells us that a prorogation saved us from a either disasterous Dion led coalition or a election in the middle of a financial crisis. That is one example where the system worked to ensure Canadians have good government.

I wonder how many minded when Chretien did it to stall the Somalia inquiry, and disbanded the Airborne Corps.

[ToadBrother]

Hindsight tells us that a prorogation saved us from a either disasterous Dion led coalition or a election in the middle of a financial crisis. That is one example where the system worked to ensure Canadians have good government.

I don't think hindsight tells us any such thing. Parliament has the right to test a government's confidence. It was a bad precedent. Government's shouldn't use a procedural power to run from Parliament.

[ToadBrother]

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.

Oh come on. Give me a break. There isn't a democratic political system on the planet that doesn't suffer partisanship. Some systems, like Germany's or Italy's, usually deprive any party of a majority of seats, so coalitions are built in, but if you think those coalitions are built on altruism and goodwill, then you're more naive than I thought.

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.

Since the morons in the Coalition opened their fat yaps and didn't wait until after the Confidence Vote, they tipped their hand. Harper would still be the Prime Minister until his government failed a test of confidence. As such, the GG is bound to take his advice.

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.

The Opposition could still have voted no confidence in January 2009. They should have, but they didn't. Save as much of your venom for them as for Harper.

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.

And I keep telling you she didn't make the decision. She was bound by our constitution to listen to the government. To do anything else would have been precisely the kind of act that lead to the Glorious Revolution. The Sovereign or whoever is invested with Her power is bound to act only on the advice of government. Dion and Co. were not the government, and because they were so damned stupid that they couldn't resist dangling the ice cream cone in front of Harper, they ended hanging themselves. But considering how clearly so many Liberal MPs loathed the idea of Dion continuing in a leadership role and of doing business with Separatists and the NDP, I'll tell you right now that government would have been even more unstable than the one we had.

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.

Yes, that is technically possible. Sessions used to be a lot shorter, even in the life times of some people. Generally speaking, government was a lot smaller too. But if you can point out a legislature anywhere in the Western world where the number of days it sits is defined by constitution, I'll tip my hat to you.

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?

What system would you replace it with?

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 keep telling you, the head of state in our system can't. He or she is bound by the will of Parliament, and more specifically by government. I realize you have this rather intense need to lay the blame at the GG's feet, but the GG was the most constrained of all the players. To defy a request of the Prime Minister would have created a constitutional crisis far greater than shutting down Parliament for a month or so.

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

I looked above. I saw no answer, other than just a bunch of bitching.

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?

Yes, it's a real democracy. And the Opposition could still have voted no confidence the following month. They didn't. Blame them. I do.

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".

The Sovereign is constrained. I keep saying this, but you're not interested. Worse, you have no actual alternative.

[quote[

The system allowed, and allows the government in power to 1) avoid the motion of non confidence;

Temporarily.

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.

An election is punishment? To me, an election is the preferable route. If a Parliament is truly malfunctioning, take it back to the people.

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.

At any moment Parliament can kill a government. That Parliament didn't in 2009 is unfortunate. I blame the Opposition for blinking. Clearly, that being the case, Parliament is indeed Supreme, but like Congress down in the States, the legislative branch is only as powerful as it wants to be. Clearly, with the Coalition in tatters, because most Liberal MPs wanted nothing to do with it, the Opposition no longer had the will to punish the government. But they could have, and still could. That they do not do something is not a sign of a flawed system, it's a sign of a flawed opposition.

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.

What did you do, skip out of social studies. First of all, failing no confidence motions is relatively rare in our system, because normally we have majority governments. Very few GG's ever have to face a loss of confidence in a government.

But let's stretch our minds. Let's say that the Coalition hadn't been falling apart even before Harper visited Rideau Hall and requested the prorogation. Let's say, even with the prorogation granted, that the Opposition had toppled the Harper government upon its return at the end of January 2009. The Prime Minister goes to the GG and submits his resignation. The GG has two choices; drop the writ or ask someone else. The latter choice, historically, is taken only when another group within Parliament can demonstrate that it can govern. If the Coalition hadn't blown apart in the space of a month and a half, then it's very very likely that, with the defeat of the Government, she would have asked the Coalition to form a government. Yes, the GG has a small amount of leeway, but it all depends on whether someone else can form a government. As it is, it's very clear that the Coalition couldn't even survive the turfing of Dion, so I have great doubts that it would have been a stable government.

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?

First of all, no government failed in December 2008. There was no test of confidence, therefore the Tories were still the Government. If you're asking "What would happen if the GG refused to recognize the loss of confidence and refused to dismiss the government", then that's clearly a violation of our constitution. At that point, yes, I suppose the courts could be called into play, since it is a constitutional question, and a well defined one. A more expedient route would be for the Queen herself, who is still our Sovereign, to intervene, dismiss the GG, and appoint someone else.

But I can't honestly imagine it ever happening. Nothing like that has happened in the modern system, and I can't think off the top of my head of it ever happening in the last few centuries, since the basic framework of our system largely came to the state that it is now. A government cannot stand without confidence, pure and simple. The GG has no say at all on a question of confidence. That's one of the key points of responsible Parliamentary government.

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.

There actually has to be a vote in the House for that. Having the Three Amigos showing off a piece of paper, without, apparently, having discussed it with their caucuses, does not constitute the will of the majority. I keep saying this, and you keep avoiding it.

What you seem to be advocating is just random tests of confidence. To a point that can be done through motions. The government, because it controls the procedural structure of Parliament, has some ability to delay these things, but certainly a Parliament, in our system, that is in fact determined to topple a government, will get its way. What's clear from 2008-2009 was that the will to topple the government wasn't there.

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.

You're misreading waht I'm saying. She is obliged to act on the advice of her ministers. Let's remember, the powers of the Sovereign and the powers of Parliament were settled a century before the modern party system emerged. It's quite conceivable that Her ministers might not even be in Parliament, though tradition now generally frowns on it. Where the GG does have some power would be after a government fell. Adrienne Clarkson, for instance, revealed that if Paul Martin's government had fallen just a few months after the election, she would likely have asked the Opposition (let's remember here, the original inspiration for the Coalition was Harper's bid to make buddy buddy with the Bloc and the NDP) 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?

It's hard to tell when your being serious, or just stupid and petulant. Since there really hasn't been an abuse by a GG or Sovereign in our system in a few lifetimes, it suggests pretty heavily that the system works.

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

This last prorogation is really nothing compared to the 2008 one. While it's still not good, Parliament, if it has the will, could still topple the Government at the beginning of March. I've said this several times to Tory supporters. The 2008 and 2009 prorogations are two quite different events, and while neither gives me much confidence in Harper, the 2009 isn't entirely without precedent.

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?

See above, my complements!

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.

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).

Already in the books. A minister who refuses to deliver documents can be held in contempt of Parliament.

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

So you're advocating constitutional change. I'll enjoy seeing how far anyone gets with that these days.

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.

I don't even know what this means. Consulted by whom? And what if the will is utterly confused (ie. MPs in at least one partnering party's caucus are making clear noises they aren't happy). That's rather the point of the Reserve Powers, for those moments when Parliament finds itself deadlocked (read up on the Australian Constitutional Crisis, which shows a moment when that happened).

[Riverwind]

Parliament has the right to test a government's confidence.

The opposition does not have the right to call for a confidence vote on demand. The have to wait for 'opposition days' and procedural moves can be used to delay those as we saw in 2005 as Martin sought to avoid defeat. In this case, prorogation delayed the vote by a few weeks - BFD. If the opposition wanted to topple the government they could have but they changed their mind which tells me the delay was the right thing to do (i.e. if they could not stay united for 4 weeks they had no business asking to run the country). Edited January 22, 2010 by Riverwind

[g_bambino]

Removal or maximum restriction of undemocratic powers and prerogatives.

Only adhering to your personal (and one-dimensional) definition of "democracy", of course!

It's rather amusing that you criticise our system to its very core for its absence of democracy all while demonstrating that 1) you've no idea how the former operates, and 2) you don't fully understand what the latter is.

Parliament is, of course, supreme. It makes the laws by which the machinery operates; it is by its vote that governments are formed and disbanded; by its vote that constitutional amendments are made, all the way up to replacing the monarch; or the monarchy, all-together. Within that constitution are rules that parliament has implemented, or maintained, in order to restrain each organ of governance; TB has pointed out some that have for centuries existed to limit the power of the Crown. But the legislature has also created and preserved constraints on itself; hence, the monarch retains a place in, and some control over, the legislature, which comes in handy when parliament is at a stalemate, or parliamentarians are acting like kindergarteners well after nap time. We've already covered the benefits of such a figure being non-partisan rather than elected and politically biased, and how an unelected figure can be a suitable part of a functioning democracy.

Otherwise, parliament is the master of its own affairs and the sovereign listens to it. That doesn't mean, though, that a few grumbling MPs are the voice of the legislature, or that as soon as some wobbly coalition agreement is signed the Governor General automatically taps its members as the new government. To avoid ministries coming in and out as though through a revolving door, their invitation and dismissal based only on rumour and speculation, parliament's own rules are that only when an official motion of non confidence has been passed has parliament spoken, and only then must the viceroy go through the prewritten procedure of finding another individual in the House who can command its confidence, and, failing that (as is usually the case), drop the writs to have the electorate remake the House.

All this stuff of withdrawals of confidence ignored by viceroys despotic because of their non-election is pure fantasy, created out of a combination of ignorance and, I suspect, entrenched partisanship on your part, leading you to lay the blame for your woes in the completely wrong place. The system itself - with its needed repairs - functions better than most. The present opposition, however, does not.

[widen breaks]

Edited January 22, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

The opposition does not have the right to call for a confidence vote on demand.

True, but in a minority government, there's not exactly a lack of opportunities.

The have to wait for 'opposition days' and procedural moves can be used to delay those as we saw in 2005 as Martin sought to avoid defeat. In this case, prorogation delayed the vote by a few weeks - BFD. If the opposition wanted to topple the government they could have but they changed their mind which tells me the delay was the right thing to do (i.e. if they could not stay united for 4 weeks they had no business asking to run the country).

Let me put it this way. The Conservative government deserved to fall, but the Coalition didn't deserve to take over. I'm not just basing that on my personal opinion. It was very obvious within hours of the Three Amigos little press conference that at least some members of the Liberal caucus were unhappy, and initially, at least, the chief reason was that it was going to be lead by Dion, someone that caucus very much wanted out of the leader's seat.

I suspect, in part, that this was the GG's rational. Grant Harper is somewhat extraordinary request to run for cover, see if the Coalition could hold it together and justify itself to Canadians, and if did, well, there would be an opportunity to defeat the Government almost immediately.

All of this will be moot once this particular election cycle is over. We've had these cycles of minorities before, and one of them even had a real life constitutional crisis attached to it (one of only a small handful in modern Westminster history). Eventually folks get tired of the ugly mess that minorities are, and someone comes out on top. A few weeks ago I would have said Harper, but this last prorogation may have some legs, and the last EKOS poll does suggest that the Liberals may be accruing some support. Of course, it's just as likely that no one will gain the upper hand, and we'll likely not see an election any time soon.

For people like myata, it just seems like sour grapes. I'll condemn Harper to the ends of the Earth, but I have no complaints against the GG. She did her job, she did it well, she did credit to her lofty position, and, ultimately, the sky didn't fall. That the Opposition blew itself to pieces in recriminations last year isn't her fault, nor really even Harper's. The Opposition will have a chance again in March, though I sincerely doubt they'll bring down the Government. Our system is messy, gruesome and sometimes just plain awful, but it works, we have stable governments, and even in the midst of a major economic meltdown, the parties did find a way to come to agreements on stimulus (though I don't particularly agree with what was done).

[Riverwind]

Eventually folks get tired of the ugly mess that minorities are, and someone comes out on top.

I am not that dissatified with this minority largely because I see no pressing issue that requires the federal government to pass contentious legislation. A minority government that stumbles a long doing nothing significant is fine with me be it liberal or conservative. I would not be surprised to find that many other Canadians feel the same way.

[myata]

That means you are ok with prorogation when Chretien did it because he had a majority?

Well, majority of elected MPs should be able to determine the course of the Parliament by expressing their will in openly and without restriction or interference. Isn't that what "democracy" means?

P.S> there're of course other forms of government.

[myata]

Oh come on. Give me a break. There isn't a democratic political system on the planet that doesn't suffer partisanship. Some systems, like Germany's or Italy's, usually deprive any party of a majority of seats, so coalitions are built in, but if you think those coalitions are built on altruism and goodwill, then you're more naive than I thought.

Let's not distract ourselves with irrelevant tangents though. Regardless of motifs coalitions of parties, factions and members of Parliament are a regular order of Parliamentary business pretty much everywhere (outside British colonies). Disproving your point that the only way to have a majority is to guarantee dominance of any one party.

Since the morons in the Coalition opened their fat yaps and didn't wait until after the Confidence Vote, they tipped their hand. Harper would still be the Prime Minister until his government failed a test of confidence. As such, the GG is bound to take his advice.

No, we have already addressed this, and I would repeat it ad infinitum. Given the "yaps" about "conspriracy", "coup d'etat" that were on the air instantly even as coalition was announced openly and publicly, it was a sound decision in the best practice of open and transparent democracy. It's interesting though that Opposition is being blamed for following open and public politics, while the government was allowed to get away on an obscure undemocratic technical ploy, though undesirable but still "constitutional". So if in some time in maybe not so distant future our Parliament gathers for an annual ceremonial session, we should know where it all originated.

The Opposition could still have voted no confidence in January 2009. They should have, but they didn't. Save as much of your venom for them as for Harper.

Oh don't worry, I'm not exactly a fan of Iggy, that should be pretty obvious. I'm only saying that this outdated system combined with dysfunctional opposition and bored apathetic population may spell even more serious trouble for our democracy coming forward. Hope I'm wrong.

And I keep telling you she didn't make the decision. She was bound by our constitution to listen to the government. To do anything else would have been precisely the kind of act that lead to the Glorious Revolution. The Sovereign or whoever is invested with Her power is bound to act only on the advice of government.

I already said that I don't really care about the wording. The essense being that the decision about avoiding the will of Parliament was made either by a puppet of the government, or the government itself, if you wish. And in a truly democratic system, no government should have that sort of powers.

Dion and Co. were not the government, and because they were so damned stupid that they couldn't resist dangling the ice cream cone in front of Harper, they ended hanging themselves. But considering how clearly so many Liberal MPs loathed the idea of Dion continuing in a leadership role and of doing business with Separatists and the NDP, I'll tell you right now that government would have been even more unstable than the one we had.

OK, let me translate it into common speak, again. If the Parliament of Her Majesty is about to make a wrong decision (in the view of the government of Her Majesty), the government of Her Majesty interferes via viceroy of Her Majesty to prevent the Parliament from expressing it's will. Call it what you want, but doesn't sound like a real empowered and independent Parliamentary democracy in this 21 century. Yes, and who exactly is being "Supreme" in this picture, I mean in reality of act rather than text on paper?

Yes, that is technically possible. Sessions used to be a lot shorter, even in the life times of some people. Generally speaking, government was a lot smaller too. But if you can point out a legislature anywhere in the Western world where the number of days it sits is defined by constitution, I'll tip my hat to you.

Length of session has nothing to do with it. I'm saying that facade "democracy" a la China and any number of other places would also be perfectly "constitutional" in this system and it appears to me that by diminishing and obstructing the elected Parliament, as well as independent checks on the government we are moving in that direction, though maybe slowly and gradually. Modernising the system may at least slow down the process if not revert it.

What system would you replace it with?

Modernising would be a better word and I outlined which changes I find essential for the future health of our democracy.

I keep telling you, the head of state in our system can't. He or she is bound by the will of Parliament, and more specifically by government.

OK, in here seems to the the crux of confusion. Let me point out that unlike in the times of King Charles, the Parliament is not always synonimous with the government. No, in a real and functioning democracy it is also there to check and monitor the government.

I realize you have this rather intense need to lay the blame at the GG's feet, but the GG was the most constrained of all the players. To defy a request of the Prime Minister would have created a constitutional crisis far greater than shutting down Parliament for a month or so.

No, you misread my meaning. I only want to say that neither GG nor any other unelected official should be making these decisions in a real, functioning Parliamentary democracy. The independent and empowered Parliament should be fully capable to decide which faction, coalition, etc has its support at any given time. And replace government by faction, etc that has lost its support.

I looked above. I saw no answer, other than just a bunch of bitching.

It's there but I'll make it even easier. The Parliament votes and that vote alone decides who forms the government. Is it entirely clear, now?

Yes, it's a real democracy. And the Opposition could still have voted no confidence the following month. They didn't. Blame them. I do.

...

So you're advocating constitutional change. I'll enjoy seeing how far anyone gets with that these days.

I'm not looking for an easy outlet to lay blame and forget and get back into blissful nirvana. The opposition is dysfunctional and certainly not up to par for its role in a vibvrant democracy. That is not to say that there isn't serious problems with the political system, problems that these developments clearly exposed, and which we'll attempt to fix now, or demonstrate even more obviously our complacence and apathy.

I don't even know what this means. Consulted by whom? And what if the will is utterly confused (ie. MPs in at least one partnering party's caucus are making clear noises they aren't happy).

If we're confused to the point where we aren't able to count simple votes, the democracy has already escaped way beyond our reach and we better leave everything as is and go back to blissful political sleep hoping that the things will work themselves out, somehow.

That's rather the point of the Reserve Powers, for those moments when Parliament finds itself deadlocked (read up on the Australian Constitutional Crisis, which shows a moment when that happened).

No, I'd say it's got everything to do with the relics of colonial mentality and distrust in our own institutions. If Parliament is supreme, in reality as well as intent, it will have reason and confidence to find a solution to any matter in the country. That is what real independence and souveraignty means. We still have some way to go to come to that understanding.

[g_bambino]

We still have some way to go to come to that understanding.

No, we don't.

[ToadBrother]

Let's not distract ourselves with irrelevant tangents though.

Yes, let's not get distracted by facts.

Regardless of motifs coalitions of parties, factions and members of Parliament are a regular order of Parliamentary business pretty much everywhere (outside British colonies). Disproving your point that the only way to have a majority is to guarantee dominance of any one party.

And again, you're being naive. The kind of brinkmanship and dirty dealings that it takes to form a coalition in a place like Israel or Germany would make your hair stand on end (how do you think relatively small conservative orthodox Jewish parties wield so much influence). I see nothing in these governments that is more democratic than ours. In fact, it's worse, because the role of political parties is even more entrenched in such systems.

No, we have already addressed this, and I would repeat it ad infinitum. Given the "yaps" about "conspriracy", "coup d'etat" that were on the air instantly even as coalition was announced openly and publicly, it was a sound decision in the best practice of open and transparent democracy.

It was a tactical blunder. Pure and simple.

It's interesting though that Opposition is being blamed for following open and public politics,

Just how many members of the Liberal caucus do you suppose were consulted when Dion entered negotiations with the NDP and the Bloc?

while the government was allowed to get away on an obscure undemocratic technical ploy, though undesirable but still "constitutional". So if in some time in maybe not so distant future our Parliament gathers for an annual ceremonial session, we should know where it all originated.

While theoretically possible, it's highly unlikely, particularly in a minority situation. A government's ability to do business is limited when not in session. That's precisely what Charles I ran up against. He tried for a decade to run the show, but his ability to tax was so limited that in the end he had to recall Parliament. That's one of those checks in our system. A government has to have some ability to act while not in session, either via legislation that gives various ministries some independence, or via orders in council, but neither mechanism would be sufficient for critical actions like money bills.

Oh don't worry, I'm not exactly a fan of Iggy, that should be pretty obvious. I'm only saying that this outdated system combined with dysfunctional opposition and bored apathetic population may spell even more serious trouble for our democracy coming forward. Hope I'm wrong.

The trouble is simply that MPs fall into lock step with the leadership. Ironically, the one time when a bunch of MPs refused to was the Coalition.

I already said that I don't really care about the wording. The essense being that the decision about avoiding the will of Parliament was made either by a puppet of the government, or the government itself, if you wish. And in a truly democratic system, no government should have that sort of powers.

You keep bringing up "true democracy". It looks like a No True Scotsman Fallacy to me. In the 2008 prorogation, there was nothing stopping Iggy and Co. from toppling Harper come January. They didn't. If they had, even if it meant a new election, it would likely have minimized the precedent involved.

OK, let me translate it into common speak, again. If the Parliament of Her Majesty is about to make a wrong decision (in the view of the government of Her Majesty), the government of Her Majesty interferes via viceroy of Her Majesty to prevent the Parliament from expressing it's will.

The Government has some procedural capacity to do such things, yes. After all, it is the Government.

Call it what you want, but doesn't sound like a real empowered and independent Parliamentary democracy in this 21 century. Yes, and who exactly is being "Supreme" in this picture, I mean in reality of act rather than text on paper?

Parliament can still give the government the boot. In a minority situation, votes involving confidence are not exactly hard to find.

Length of session has nothing to do with it.

But that's what you were saying.

I'm saying that facade "democracy" a la China and any number of other places would also be perfectly "constitutional" in this system and it appears to me that by diminishing and obstructing the elected Parliament,

It's possible to have a very short session, to be sure. But unlike China, where pretty much all executive power is invested in the leadership, in our system, a government has limitations on what they can do. That, as I said, is a key check on the executive powers of a government in our system.

as well as independent checks on the government we are moving in that direction, though maybe slowly and gradually. Modernising the system may at least slow down the process if not revert it.

The problem is that I don't see what you're advocating as modernization. It's just simply change, and the benefits aren't all that clear, particularly since minority governments would be rather rare, and thus the changes would be pretty much meaningless.

Modernising would be a better word and I outlined which changes I find essential for the future health of our democracy.

Yes, you keep tossing the word around. I fail to see how it's going to do much of anything.

OK, in here seems to the the crux of confusion. Let me point out that unlike in the times of King Charles, the Parliament is not always synonimous with the government. No, in a real and functioning democracy it is also there to check and monitor the government.

Parliament wasn't synonymous with government even then. In those days, the King chose the ministers, who might or might not be Members of Parliament. The evolution of the modern cabinet system took some time, and, in fact, a cabinet minister doesn't necessarily even have to be an MP (the last NDP government in BC had a minister who didn't have a seat in the legislature). Parliament is government in a nebulous sense, in that it is the legislative body. But government activity extends beyond passing laws, and I'd say the bulk of any modern government's work is outside of the legislature.

No, you misread my meaning. I only want to say that neither GG nor any other unelected official should be making these decisions in a real, functioning Parliamentary democracy.

But we have a real, functioning Parliamentary democracy.

The independent and empowered Parliament should be fully capable to decide which faction, coalition, etc has its support at any given time. And replace government by faction, etc that has lost its support.

Alright, let's look at the current Parliament. Let's say no one can form a coalition. How do you solve the problem, since you seem so allergic to elections. If there isn't some higher power that can appoint ministries in the case of a deadlock, then what? Parliament does nothing?

It's there but I'll make it even easier. The Parliament votes and that vote alone decides who forms the government. Is it entirely clear, now?

In a way, that does happen. The party with the most seats normally forms a government. In a minority situation, it's rather the point that no one was a majority of seats, and therefore it's conceivable that no government could be arrived at. What then? Throw of the dice? New election?

I'm not looking for an easy outlet to lay blame and forget and get back into blissful nirvana. The opposition is dysfunctional and certainly not up to par for its role in a vibvrant democracy. That is not to say that there isn't serious problems with the political system, problems that these developments clearly exposed, and which we'll attempt to fix now, or demonstrate even more obviously our complacence and apathy.

The current problems are sufficiently rare that I don't see them as problems. Certainly the erosion of Parliament has largely happened while majority governments were in power. Compared to the power the party system has gained in the last couple of generations, the odd minority playing hop skotch with the constitution seems a rather minor issue.

If we're confused to the point where we aren't able to count simple votes, the democracy has already escaped way beyond our reach and we better leave everything as is and go back to blissful political sleep hoping that the things will work themselves out, somehow.

And I'll reiterate, how does that help in a minority situation? And in a majority situation, well, that process is rather pointless. There is a reason our system works the way it does.

No, I'd say it's got everything to do with the relics of colonial mentality and distrust in our own institutions

Well, of course you would, but you don't seem to have much of a grasp of the system, and why things are done the way they're done. As usual, your solutions are so simplistic as to be worthless. "Oh look, we have no party with a majority seats, let's have a vote!"

. If Parliament is supreme, in reality as well as intent, it will have reason and confidence to find a solution to any matter in the country. That is what real independence and souveraignty means. We still have some way to go to come to that understanding.

If the Opposition wanted Harper gone, they have had numerous opportunities. The system works, it can even survive a man who is terrified of the Opposition and an Opposition that's terrified of elections.

Edited January 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

TB, you make finely crafted and sound responses to myata, but I fear your efforts are being wasted on someone who genuinely has no interest in listening to any point of view that doesn't parrot his own odd one.

[ToadBrother]

TB, you make finely crafted and sound responses to myata, but I fear your efforts are being wasted on someone who genuinely has no interest in listening to any point of view that doesn't parrot his own odd one.

Maybe so, but I think it's important anyways. Our system isn't perfect, but it sure isn't the horrid relic of colonial times. It's not as if other systems have produced better democracies, in my opinion. If there are flaws to be fixed, it's in the party system in our country, which has far too great a hold over individual MPs.

[fellowtraveller]

In time we will learn exactly what happened when Harper went-a-courting to the GG when the Coalition threatened his govt, which hasd just been formed via election with close to a majority.

Interesting factoid - Harper was inside chatting for a few hours instead of the normal few minutes required for the GG to receive advice(direction really) from her First Minister and chief advisor- the PM.

I think what was said was that she told him what was going to happen- she would go along with prorogation to allow a cooling off period, but that the chips would fall where they would when the House reconvened in January 2009. If the Coalition forced a confidence vote, they would form the govt.

She is bound to do what she thinks right for Canada, and likely did not see the benefit of an election a few weeks after the one just held. That means she would feel the same a few weeks later too - and told Harper that- and of course the Coalition would have no interest in an election which would risk their control- they would simply form the govt.

In the meantime, it became crystal clear to everybody over Xmas and early January that the Coalition had miscalculated badly, they would be absolutely flayed alive if they carried through with the coup. Cadians overall had a very visceral reaction aginst the coalition. Polls showed huge support for Harper and the Tories, in the 60% range.

So: no coup happening, no election possible meant- status quo.

The smartest thing Ignatieff ever did was to back away completely from that Coalition, he and the Liberals would pay a very longlasting price if they had proceeded.

[Riverwind]

If there are flaws to be fixed, it's in the party system in our country, which has far too great a hold over individual MPs.

It is worth noting that system where MPs can act as free agents leads to its own set of problems - just look at the US and all of the absurd provisions that get tacked onto billing in order to appease various local interests. Perhaps the most odious example was the health-care bill were the Senator from Oklahoma negotiated a clause that exempted Oklahoman seniors from the Medicare cuts which are inevitably coming.

[ToadBrother]

It is worth noting that system where MPs can act as free agents leads to its own set of problems - just look at the US and all of the absurd provisions that get tacked onto billing in order to appease various local interests. Perhaps the most odious example was the health-care bill were the Senator from Oklahoma negotiated a clause that exempted Oklahoman seniors from the Medicare cuts which are inevitably coming.

True enough, but even in the UK, MPs have a great deal more individual power than they do here. There is party discipline, but when a party leader does something stupid, some of the first people you'll hear from are the MPs from that party. Can you imagine something like what happened to Thatcher happening here? Heck, a couple of ex-cabinet ministers just tried to topple Brown, and other than a bit of tut-tutting, there's none of the "John Nunziata" treatment going on. Both Blair and Brown faced serious revolts from their own caucus. Prime Ministers should never feel that they have absolute impunity.

Guys like Harper and Chretien, in particular, have run their parties on a very narrow line. MPs, particularly newer MPs, are given very little rope. Caucus solidarity has turned into some sort of political La Cosa Nostra, and that's not how the system is supposed to work. The minority situation over the last six years has exacerbated this, but the problem goes back some distance.

Edited January 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[myata]

TB, you make finely crafted and sound responses to myata, but I fear your efforts are being wasted on someone who genuinely has no interest in listening to any point of view that doesn't parrot his own odd one.

I agree. General commenting on somebody else's arguments is much more rewarding than coming up with one's own. Even parroting requires more mental effort, i.e. at least you would be trying to say something, even if not exactly of your own...

Edited January 22, 2010 by myata

[William Ashley]

In time we will learn exactly what happened when Harper went-a-courting to the GG when the Coalition threatened his govt, which hasd just been formed via election with close to a majority.

They had a minority of the popular vote, and lacked a majority.

I think what was said

Where are you drawing this thinking from?

In the meantime, it became crystal clear to everybody over Xmas and early January that the Coalition had miscalculated badly,

Lots of media buys by the conservatives, and blatant misrepresentation and lies. To a public that still a year later isn't fully aware what prorogue is.

they would be absolutely flayed alive if they carried through with the coup. Cadians overall had a very visceral reaction aginst the coalition.

It would of went along as long as they could work together, with the cons delegated to opposition. It would of been a good thing for Canadians to have popular representation and the force of three political powers in government rather than only one, and the chance to have veteran NDP members serve the government ministry for once, something that is unlikely to happen any other way, except perhaps for Bob Rae.

Polls showed huge support for Harper and the Tories, in the 60% range.

This has me beleive even more that some type of media manipulation occured.

So: no coup happening

Coalition government is constitutional so stop your BS talk.

I don't understand why you can't see how popular representation in goverment - and more representation in government, and the force of multiple parties would be a bad thing for government. Partisan politics is perpetually ruining canada and slanting the playing feild ruining public interest and non partisan represenation. I find people who support partisanship and party agenda before public well being and support to be lacking simple merits of human reasoning.

[g_bambino]

General commenting on somebody else's arguments is much more rewarding than coming up with one's own.

And there we have just about the type of nonsense one would expect from someone who doesn't know what an argument other than his own even is.

TB and I could go blue in the face trying to tell you the actualities and you'd still go on as though we'd said nothing. You simply won't let facts get in the way of your opinion.

[+]

Edited January 22, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

It would of went along as long as they could work together, with the cons delegated to opposition. It would of been a good thing for Canadians to have popular representation and the force of three political powers in government rather than only one, and the chance to have veteran NDP members serve the government ministry for once, something that is unlikely to happen any other way, except perhaps for Bob Rae.

I realize this is Layton's wet dream. But no poll done in the last two years suggests that a large group of Canadians want "veteran NDP members" sitting in Cabinet.

[William Ashley]

I realize this is Layton's wet dream. But no poll done in the last two years suggests that a large group of Canadians want "veteran NDP members" sitting in Cabinet.

From my experiences being polled, I find that questions are loaded, and the polsters can be biased, in a corporate Canada, it can be seen why you may think this. However how many polls have asked if you would like to see NDP take profolios in a cabinet. Personally I think they represent a populus in some industries labor, even health, and perhaps even education (although not wholey perhaps in part) or industry for instance (perhaps not corporate industry but they are well versed in industry and natural resources). They always have workers as a priority, issues like pensions are important to seniors and aged boomers, so would boomers not want an NDP minister for seniors?

Although I can understand why you might not like the NDP as a minister of finance, you have to understand that minestarial responsibility is a lot about following the agenda of parliament based on its laws and legislation, or it is suppose to be. The minister is suppose to be oversight and report on the ministrys function. The deputy minister (a hired civil servant) often who work their way up the civil service ladder are the ones who do most of the day to day operations of ministries (or they are suppose to). Some ministries do have special provisions for a minister to exercise executive like powers but others really are limited, eg. parliamentary secrataries in their role as a minister.

Frankly I as a non partisan person if forming a cabinet, would be picking ministers from all parties and houses - and outside the house. A multi party pick is like an all star game. I can't stand how partisan poitics has limited the function of government.

Edited January 22, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

From my experiences being polled, I find that questions are loaded, and the polsters can be biased...

Translation: No one agrees with me.

[eyeball]

...this outdated system combined with dysfunctional opposition and bored apathetic population may spell even more serious trouble for our democracy coming forward. Hope I'm wrong.

I expect you'll be right though, and if I sound open-minded to the idea its probably because I've helped launch new democratic models of resource management and conflict resolution, government in other words, like this one where I live.

I draw a lot of inspiration from the strengthening of First Nation governance and empowerment. It comes as no surprise to me that other movements towards greater regional autonomy have grown and evolved around and along with the aspirations and values of indigenous people in other regions around the world. I believe my region is better positioned now than most to carry on, on its own, should Ottawa's systems of governance fail. I think my region would be more than happy to share its experience and knowledge to help get Ottawa back on its feet should it ask us.

Here's a chronology of events leading up to the formation of our board. As you'll see it's been a long time coming. My involvement started around 1994 (see section 8).

Regionalism is not simply an option to me its no less than an adaptation that is necessary for our survival as a country. If we can't build national unity around this then so be it. I see little to be gained by knocking ourselves out trying to build unity if the basis for it isn't there anymore.

For Michael Hardner; here is the FINAL EVALUATION REPORT West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board (AMB)March 22, 2005

Our key conclusion is that the AMB is a unique and significant pilot effort in multi-party regional integrated aquatic management and definitely warrants continued support beyond its pilot period in order to continue the positive work it has already achieved, and to further contribute in areas of high promise. These include policy development and modelling how to link local or watershed processes with larger-scale coastal and ocean processes. The AMB’s importance stems especially from its work in building a collaborative planning process with a wide spectrum of stakeholders and sectors at the Coastal Management Area (CMA) scale (approximately 360 kilometres of coastline and 29,750 square kilometres). Thus it uniquely explores the role of cross-sectoral consultation (as a partial alternative to current multiple single sector consultations) at an ecosystem-relevant planning scale.

Snipped from summary.

I fail to see why this model of local/regional co-management and planning couldn't be modified and made to work on just about any domestic issue currently in need of a "way forward".

Edited January 22, 2010 by eyeball

[William Ashley]

Translation: No one agrees with me.

Translation: The questions are loaded and responses are limited. I did get an EQ of 0 on EQ testing, however, polls don't allow objective informed response, they are narrow minded and create situations rather than gauge them.

If you could die how would it be:

a. Heart Attack,

b. Your head blown off

c. crushed under a giant bon homme at a festival in quebec.