Tyranny

[Shwa]

Why do you keep repeating this canard? No one has proposed releasing the unredacted documents into an open session of Parliament. The Foreign Affairs Committee surely sees all matter of sensitive material during in-camera sessions.

Beyond that, even if it what you say were true, the Government is not constitutionally allowed to deprive the Committee of those documents. It's that simple. Even if you're right, you're still wrong that the Government has any right in this matter to do what it's trying to do.

Surely they see all matter of senstive material during in-camera sessions, but do they surely see all or any type of sensitive material relating to national security questions or material that is privledged as evidence in a domestic terror case?

The government is not depriving, they are merely delaying the release. As it stands right now, there is no breach of constitutional law. There could be, but someone in Oppostition has to have the nads to pull the trigger and there doesn't seem to be anyone at this point.

[ToadBrother]

We've been here before. There's no constitutional mechanism for the Parliament to assure its rights in our system. It cannot even control its own schedule.

Of course there is a constitutional mechanism. It's being done right now. The Speaker, who is ultimately the sole arbiter of rights and privileges of the House, will decide. There's some small chance that he might side with the government, but pretty much all constitutional experts can't see how he can get past Section 18 of the BNA Act. The Ministers in question can be expelled, possibly even jailed (though I doubt the latter is very likely). Harper can certainly keep going like this, with either new ministers in those portfolios or with other MPs as designate or proxy (remember, a Minister does not technically have to be a sitting MP or a Senator, though obviously someone would have to speak for them in the House).

If the Speaker does rule for the Opposition (which I think he will), then we'll discuss whether an act of tyranny will take place, because if the Government does indeed defy the Speaker's order, then we will have entered the world of a constitutional crisis, the first such actual crisis in our system of government since the Australian Constitutional Crisis of 1975.

The remedies to that are not clear to me. In theory, if my understanding of the constitution is correct, the Speaker himself can appeal directly to the Governor General, as the conduit between the Parliament and the Crown, and the GG can invoke her Reserve Powers, which could mean, theoretically, that the Tory government could be dismissed and either an election called or even possibly the Liberals be asked to form a government. Such a use of those powers in the absense of a loss of confidence has not happened before anywhere in the Commonwealth so far as I'm aware.

Alternatively, the Opposition could seek remedy from the Supreme Court, which would rule on the constitutionality of the government's argument. This, of course, would take some time.

Or, as a final alternative, the Opposition could simply wait for the next confidence motion and vote no confidence and then submit itself to the GG as being able to form a government.

[ToadBrother]

Yes of course security is a legitimate concern and there's no reason it shouldn't (and couldn't) be addressed in an appropriate manner in the Committee that will be reviewing these documents (if they ever make it there - in full and unedited form).

What's more, if the Government has concerns with any members of the Committee releasing such information, surely they could make those concerns aware, and the Opposition leaders could ask those members to recuse themselves. The Opposition has signaled repeatedly that it is willing to negotiate the terms under which the unredacted documents are released.

[nicky10013]

We've been here before. There's no constitutional mechanism for the Parliament to assure its rights in our system. It cannot even control its own schedule.

Yes there is, it's called a vote. The problem with "mechanisms" and "seperation of powers" and all these other things that you take to be concrete and in stone, there has to be a mutual respect in any constitutional system for these things to work. Government is nothing more than a social contract. We all agree to be bound by a rule of law which is enforced by a government of our choosing. When the structures are being disrespected, and when the people we chose on the whole don't like the system, the system is going to break down whether there are checks and balances or not. Canadians elected Harper, who, before his tenure wrote about his disdain for our parliamentary insitutions. He's in power, he can act in ways to discredit it. If a plurality of congressmen and senators were elected who fully didn't believe in American Republicanism, they could do the same. The only thing is there really isn't a powerful party in the states that fawns over their neighbours system of governance; lamenting that they don't have it.

[myata]

Yes there is, it's called a vote. The problem with "mechanisms" and "seperation of powers" and all these other things that you take to be concrete and in stone, there has to be a mutual respect in any constitutional system for these things to work. Government is nothing more than a social contract. We all agree to be bound by a rule of law which is enforced by a government of our choosing. When the structures are being disrespected, and when the people we chose on the whole don't like the system, the system is going to break down whether there are checks and balances or not. Canadians elected Harper, who, before his tenure wrote about his disdain for our parliamentary insitutions. He's in power, he can act in ways to discredit it. If a plurality of congressmen and senators were elected who fully didn't believe in American Republicanism, they could do the same. The only thing is there really isn't a powerful party in the states that fawns over their neighbours system of governance; lamenting that they don't have it.

Very thoughtful. Mercedes is a car and Lada is too. Why bother.

[nicky10013]

Very thoughtful. Mercedes is a car and Lada is too. Why bother.

Didn't think you'd understand. In the future, before waxing philosophical about the problems with our political system, perhaps you should...uhhh...read something before making yourself look like an idiot.

[ToadBrother]

Didn't think you'd understand. In the future, before waxing philosophical about the problems with our political system, perhaps you should...uhhh...read something before making yourself look like an idiot.

Good luck in your debate with Myata. I probably spent a month on the nature of our constitution, and at the end of it, a number of posts revealed I might as well have been talking to a wall.

I'm willing to wait to see how this plays out. If, at the end of it, the Government wins the day, then Myata will find no firmer ally in major reforms than myself. But as long as Parliament still has potential remedies to the situation, I'm willing to give them a chance. Let's remember, no matter who wins, it's not like any of us are going to get to see those unredacted documents.

[myata]

Er... read what, exactly? Forgot to mention, in our all-knowability? And of course, no knowledge would cure deliberate and entirely self imposed ignorance of reality, especially when it's staring, no glaring in one's eyes point blank (prorogation; access to information).

But thankfully, there's always that easy-out (yes that one). Way to go!

[nicky10013]

Er... read what, exactly? Forgot to mention, in our all-knowability? And of course, no knowledge would cure deliberate and entirely self imposed ignorance of reality, especially when it's staring, no glaring in one's eyes point blank (prorogation; access to information).

But thankfully, there's always that easy-out (yes that one). Way to go!

Read anything. Clearly, you need to start out at the beginners level. There are thousands of books on Canadian constitutionalism, federalism, canadian politics. You could even go back to the basics of political philosophy. If you want specific suggestions, I'll be happy to indulge.

[myata]

Read anything. Clearly, you need to start out at the beginners level. There are thousands of books on Canadian constitutionalism, federalism, canadian politics.

OK, OK, I believe (that you can name one).

You could even go back to the basics of political philosophy. If you want specific suggestions, I'll be happy to indulge.

And how did they (political phylosophies) help us with the fact that the government can suspend this (ostensibly) all powerful and quasi supreme Parliament in a flick of a finger (and for any reason; or lack thereof)? Please indulge yourself (with some original thought).

Edited April 13, 2010 by myata

[nicky10013]

OK, OK, I believe (that you can name one).

What?

And how did they help us with the fact that the government can suspend this (ostensibly) all powerful and quasi supreme Parliament in a flick of a finger (and for any reason; or lack thereof)? Please indulge yourself (with some original thought).

I answered that in the first post which you dismissed or didn't read.

[g_bambino]

Read anything.

Don't bother instructing him to read. He won't. After contradicting himself into circles, he'll just denigrate anything you say and call your sources "glinty" picture books, or something bizarre like that. Don't waste your effort.

[nicky10013]

Don't bother instructing him to read. He won't. After contradicting himself into circles, he'll just denigrate anything you say and call your sources "glinty" picture books, or something bizarre like that. Don't waste your effort.

Heh. Thanks for the warning!

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Canadians elected Harper, who, before his tenure wrote about his disdain for our parliamentary insitutions. He's in power, he can act in ways to discredit it. If a plurality of congressmen and senators were elected who fully didn't believe in American Republicanism, they could do the same. The only thing is there really isn't a powerful party in the states that fawns over their neighbours system of governance; lamenting that they don't have it.

Nice! You're singing my song....but have fallen into the same trap, as PM Harper was not technically elected by Canadians, unless you mean his riding?

Edited April 14, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[goneymouse]

govrenment of canada has been equal to all religion for equal right.this is for progress of country.it is beleive in america republic because it is not equal for right.

Acai Flex Factor

Acai Flex Factor Review

[Dave_ON]

govrenment of canada has been equal to all religion for equal right.this is for progress of country.it is beleive in america republic because it is not equal for right.

Acai Flex Factor

Acai Flex Factor Review

Let me be the first to say, wtf?

[myata]

Heh. Thanks for the warning!

Wow; all else failing, self cheering with a buddy could never go wrong; I mean the next best for a meaningful argument. Which still doesn't answer the question though, so one more time:

Which politically phylosophical mechanisms do we have to prevent somebody (e.g. some PM?) who doesn't feel like observing "the contract" (that btw he has no obligation to observe really), from sending our supremacy holding legislation to rest whenever he feels like? E.g. to stall or delay or even to kill (surprise!) investigations he doesn't happen to like? Or for any other worthy reason.

I'm sure you'll do better this time, having mastered all those countless volumes of philosophy.

P.S. For the rest of us, not so deeply immersed into political philosophies as to prevent us from seeing what's actually going on around, it should be getting quite clear that the system has been created with the intent to give the government in power every mean, tool and instrument to dominate political process in the country; that the only check on this dominance is the risky and uncertain (and self destucting for the Parliament; and for that reason, counter to self interest for many of its members) ability to cause a new election.

Would such an arrangement stimulate active, vibrant and transparent funtctioning of government and political system? Or its decomposition into groups of entrenched politicos intrested in little else but getting to the power and sticking to it as long as humanly and technically possible? Your (hopefully, educated in depths of philosophy) guess.

Edited April 14, 2010 by myata

[Shwa]

P.S. For the rest of us, not so deeply immersed into political philosophies as to prevent us from seeing what's actually going on around, it should be getting quite clear that the system has been created with the intent to give the government in power every mean, tool and instrument to dominate political process in the country; that the only check on this dominance is the risky and uncertain (and self destucting for the Parliament; and for that reason, counter to self interest for many of its members) ability to cause a new election.

And let's not forget this tyrannical government is operating as a minority at present.

Seems to me that IF the opposition were so high and mighty on principle as they struggle to be in the media, they would have actually done something about this by now. But they haven't done a thing in the foreground other than a lot of hot air and politicking. Free press takes on a whole new meaning.

[g_bambino]

Seems to me that IF the opposition were so high and mighty on principle as they struggle to be in the media, they would have actually done something about this by now. But they haven't done a thing in the foreground other than a lot of hot air and politicking. Free press takes on a whole new meaning.

Correct. Any impressions of tyranny therefore stem not from a flaw in the system, as myata asserts from ignorance, but from participants being more concerned with their political fortunes than using the inherent devices of our parliamentary institution to uphold democratic doctrines. Of course, ultimately it's the populace that keeps electing these useless boobs as representatives of the public.

The way political parties are set up doesn't help, either.

[myata]

Correct. Any impressions of tyranny therefore stem not from a flaw in the system, as myata asserts from ignorance,

Ignorance is of course that astonishing inability to put two and two (actually, one and one) together.

Opposition in the Parliament has exactly two possible courses of action: 1) Heroic (call the government on principle and call an election; with a risk, for every single oppositon MP to lose their seat; and with, nice pay; work schedule so full of breaks and holidays; pension; etc); or 2) Normal, i.e let government do what it does, and hope that it'll eventually screw itself up and the power could be picked up as that proverbial apple from a tree; and certainly enjoying all aspects of Parliamentary life in the meanwhile.

These are exactly all possible avenues of political process in our country. Guess which one your average, less than exactly heroic MP (leader of party, leader of Opposition) is steered (i.e gently guided toward)?

but from participants being more concerned with their political fortunes than using the inherent devices of our parliamentary institution to uphold democratic doctrines.

Inherent device being dissolving the Parliament and triggering election every time government has screwed up and needs to be held to account?

Of course, ultimately it's the populace that keeps electing these useless boobs as representatives of the public.

Of course populace could hardly be expected to be more politically alive than its supposedly representative, representatives.

The way political parties are set up doesn't help, either.

Why did it come to this, I wonder? I mean there must be a reason?

[ToadBrother]

And let's not forget this tyrannical government is operating as a minority at present.

Seems to me that IF the opposition were so high and mighty on principle as they struggle to be in the media, they would have actually done something about this by now. But they haven't done a thing in the foreground other than a lot of hot air and politicking. Free press takes on a whole new meaning.

They are doing something about this. At the moment, we're awaiting a ruling on privilege. There's not much anyone can do until the Speaker makes his ruling. Of course, the Tories could end it all by releasing the unredacted documents to the Foreign Affairs Committee, as our constitution has required governments to do for more than 300 years.

[ToadBrother]

Why did it come to this, I wonder? I mean there must be a reason?

The reasons are multiple. In part, it's because of the dominance of political parties over individual Members. This isn't just a Government problem, this is a problem for all the parties. In part it's because the PMO has steadily since the Trudeau years been gatherering to itself vast amounts of power at the expense of Parliament. Even the Cabinet, which was originally far more powerful than it is today, seems to have shrunken in the face of the PM's ability to dominate and overawe government.

The chief problem I have right now is that while political and historical junkies like me see the significance in this latest battle between Parliament and the executive, a lot of voters simply don't get it. Whether it's because of a bad education system that never really explained the nature and history of our system (I'd say that's your case, you're not the least bit interested in how it's supposed to work or why it's supposed to work that way) just sort of shrug. We've become far too used to the Government being the means and the end that we've lost that thread of our constitution, that it is Parliament that is supreme in these matters. Because we've lost the thread, so have our MPs, who are just as much victims of out-of-control gathering of power to the PMO.

This is a problem that most democracies ultimately have to face, and it's hard to see a way out of it. Political parties have served the purpose of focusing both government and opposition. In the 17th and 18th century Parliament functioned much differently, in some ways much worse, and in some ways much better. The office of PM, as such, didn't even really exist, though there was the notion of a first minister, that is a first among equals in the Cabinet, the Monarch, through His or Her Ministers, still very much influenced policy, and it was up to the Crown and its ministers to make the case to Parliament. It meant it was harder to get legislation passed, and often significant amounts of horse trading ("Sure I'll vote for your bill, Honorable Member, and in return..."). The evolution of the political parties (in the beginning the Tories and the Whigs) in many ways subverted the Crown's role, and along with the growing tradition that Cabinet be made up only of members of Parliament (Commons and Lords), supplanted the Sovereign's role. It's this model which has been copied in so many countries. The downside, particularly in Canada, has been that when you mix the party leader and the office of Prime Minister, you have a recipe for centralized autocracy.

This is why I keep telling you that some of the key reforms would have nothing to do with the Constitution or electoral reform, but rather with finding ways to weaken the political parties themselves. Some suggestions, like the PM being decided by the MPs of the winning party alone, or possibly of splitting the job of party leader and PM, or even of restricting the party leadership's ability to influence or override local riding associations come to mind. These likely wouldn't require constitutional changes, but are hard to imagine happening simply because there's nothing in it for the parties. They've spent the last two hundred years in the Westminster system accruing this kind of power, and they aren't going to sacrifice one ounce of it.

[g_bambino]

Ignorance is of course that astonishing inability to put two and two (actually, one and one) together.

Incredible. You're actually ignorant of the definition of ignorance.

Of course populace could hardly be expected to be more politically alive than its supposedly representative, representatives.

It's so odd that you complain about the lack of democracy in our system of governance, yet simultaneously you abhor elections and expect the populace to take a back seat.

Democracy rests on the participation of the people, and, ultimately, it's up to them, collectively, to ensure democracy continues. As TB rightly points out, the Canadian people are right now generally uninformed on how their parliament and government function. If, instead of changing the constitution to lessen their role, you educated them so they were better qualified to fulfill the duty expected of them, I'd wager you'd see quite a difference.

[Dave_ON]

Democracy rests on the participation of the people, and, ultimately, it's up to them, collectively, to ensure democracy continues. As TB rightly points out, the Canadian people are right now generally uninformed on how their parliament and government function. If, instead of changing the constitution to lessen their role, you educated them so they were better qualified to fulfill the duty expected of them, I'd wager you'd see quite a difference.

Indeed but how do we really achieve this? Truth is democracy is effort and our society is so convenience driven I sincerely doubt those who are ignorant of our system of government would seek to educate themselves. This combined with the government obfuscating various facets of our system only exacerbates the situation. We need look no further than the buzz surrounding the coalition and what a hornet's nest that was. I can't count how many people used the term "coup" to refer to it, and how the conservatives actually encouraged this type of thinking. So you combine a generally ignorant populace with a self serving government that obfuscates and twists the truth and you've got a recipe for our current state of affairs.

I for one certainly hope the speaker sides with opposition on this one. We need this issue resolved, and we need some semblance of parliamentary democracy restored. What's truly frustrating for me about the situation is there is a silent revolution going on. We are slowly but surely moving towards an absolute monarchy again, the only difference is we indirectly elect this one. We're in a constitutional crisis and most people are either unaware of the situation or are apathetic towards it. Nothing will change so long as so few realize/care that there is an issue.

[ToadBrother]

I for one certainly hope the speaker sides with opposition on this one. We need this issue resolved, and we need some semblance of parliamentary democracy restored. What's truly frustrating for me about the situation is there is a silent revolution going on. We are slowly but surely moving towards an absolute monarchy again, the only difference is we indirectly elect this one. We're in a constitutional crisis and most people are either unaware of the situation or are apathetic towards it. Nothing will change so long as so few realize/care that there is an issue.

The problem is that Trudeau and Mulroney hopelessly damaged reasonable discussion of the Constitution. Between the two of them and the decade of wrangling, we're left with a political class that, even if it wanted to, is to gunshy to bring it up, and a populace that long ago gave up on any hope of reform.

This particular battle isn't even over constitutional change, it's about restoring Parliament's power in the face of a four decade attack upon its supremacy by an Executive masquerading as a democratically-sanctioned center of power. We're so fixated on party politics, on who we like or don't like, that we don't really see the big picture. We talk about the Chretien Government or the Trudeau Government or the Harper Government, and we've essentially bought into the presidential notion of the Prime Minister's function and powers. Whether we are for or against a winning party, we frequently tend to view our votes as being for or against the leader of any given party. I still place the blame largely at the doors of the electorate, though I do think there was a concerted effort beginning with Trudeau to undermine Parliament's function in favor of a powerful Executive, and Harper is simply the latest in a series of strong Prime Ministers (I'd count them as Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien and then Harper, I don't count Clark, Turner, Campbell or Martin, who were politically weak and didn't last long enough to do much of anything) who view Parliament as an interference in what they believe to be genuinely their role. Harper's chief problem has been that he is an absolutist just like the other three, but one stuck with a minority government.

In a way, this is the best opportunity we have for Parliament to reassert itself as the source of political power in this country. While it's a lot more polite than the last time Parliament and the Executive met head to head (which is too bad, while the Roundheads were by no means nice guys, they had a way with rhetoric that the Opposition could use), it is no less fundamental. At stake is whether we surrender ourselves fully to the presidential Prime Minister, who commands his cabinet and his caucus, who views Parliament as a means to an end at best, and as a distraction at worst. Parliament, not the Opposition, needs to defeat Harper's attempt to undermine the constitutional compromise that has for so long made our system the most copied and most envied in the world.