Why the hate for harper?

[ToadBrother]

Right....how about more Canadian history? How about Parliament's non-role in NATO's Operation Allied Force (Kosovo)? Did PM Chretien overstep his authority in that bombing campaign?

The Governor General wields the Royal Prerogatives, in this case acting as Commander-in-chief in the name of the Queen. However, as with all the Royal Prerogatives, they are used solely on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In the case of Chretien, well, he was head of a majority government and thus any issue of Parliamentary privilege really wouldn't come up (it could, conceivably, I suppose, but that would mean a revolt of a substantial part of the majority government's MPs).

[bush_cheney2004]

Yea, actually it is. National security is a concern, but it doesn't diminish, trump, or eradicate parliament's supremacy over cabinet. Our constitution is a continuation of one that evolved over more than a thousand years and it does presently contain legislation that is three centuries old.

OK...fine...then how does PM Chretien bomb Serbia for 78 days without Parliament's "supremacy" blessing (vote)? The answer is that Parliament has no such supremacy.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0006-e.htm

[ToadBrother]

Well, you're right about one thing. This is definitely a highschool level perspective you're bringing to the discussion. Anyone with half a brain knows that each country puts together its own form of democracy/representative government. Our system of governance may have been adopted from the Westminster model, but we've made our own modifications to the process along the way.

The people with half a brain already said Parliament is supreme over the Government.

You seem to think there's a cookie-cutter approace fuh that fits to every country. That's not the case. If you get a chance to take courses in political science beyond the highschool level, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

I never said that. In fact it's quite conceivable that Parliament could vote to create some form of executive privilege. But Parliament never did, and like any constitution, until you amend a clause, it remains. In this case the Bill of Rights 1689 and Section 38 of the BNA Act are still part of the fundamental law of the land.

If you can show where Parliament amended those parts of our constitution, you are more than welcome to. In fact, I think, considering how gleefully you mock me, that you probably are going to need to. Get to it, when and where did the Canadian Parliament abrogate or surrender its rights and privileges, and in particular, it's supremacy over the executive branch of government?

[Shady]

OK...fine...then how does PM Chretien bomb Serbia for 78 days without Parliament's "supremacy" blessing (vote)? The answer is that Parliament has no such supremacy.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0006-e.htm

Well done sir. I believe the term is checkmate!

[Shady]

As a matter of Canadian constitutional law, the situation is clear. The federal Cabinet can, without parliamentary approval or consultation, commit Canadian Forces to action abroad, whether in the form of a specific current operation or future contingencies resulting from international treaty obligations.

Under the Canadian Constitution (Constitution Act, 1867, sections 15 and 19), command of the armed forces – like other traditional executive powers – is vested in the Queen and exercised in her name by the federal Cabinet acting under the leadership of the Prime Minister. As far as the Constitution is concerned, Parliament has little direct role in such matters

[ToadBrother]

OK...fine...then how does PM Chretien bomb Serbia for 78 days without Parliament's "supremacy" blessing (vote)? The answer is that Parliament has no such supremacy.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0006-e.htm

I already said the Executive commands the Royal Prerogatives. It's been that way since, well, at least since William the Conqueror's time (of course, back then, the King was the Executive, the roles had not been split between the Government and the Crown). Parliament, however, could conceivably pass a law making the bombing campaign illegal, which is within its power to do as the supreme legislative body. Try to remember here that the Parliament selects the Government, the Government advises the Sovereign on the application of Royal Prerogatives like, for instance, making war, but the Government serves only at the pleasure of Parliament, so if Parliament decided that the Government shouldn't be making war, it has constitutional means at it disposal to force the government. Just as it has constitutional means to force the government to deliver unredacted documents. Parliament is supreme.

For instance, in Britain, the Queen alone has the power to declare war, but because she can only exercise that prerogative on the advise of the Government, it is the Government which is ultimately responsible for declaring and conducting war. However, that says nothing to Parliament's power to compel the Government to explain its actions, and to use its legislative powers to override the Government. It is inconceivable since the Bill of Rights 1689 that the Executive could continue to conduct a war if Parliament were to command it to stop, if by no other means than Parliament declaring it no longer had confidence in the Government.

Edited May 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

I already said the Executive commands h Conque armed forces. It's been that way since, well, at least since William the Conqueror's time. Parliament, however, could conceivably pass a law making the bombing campaign illegal, which is within its power to do as the supreme legislative body. Try to remember here that the Parliament selects the Government, the Government advises the Sovereign on the application of Royal Prerogatives like, for instance, making war, but the Government serves only at the pleasure of Parliament, so if Parliament decided that the Government shouldn't be making war, it has constitutional means at it disposal to force the government. Just as it has constitutional means to force the government to deliver unredacted documents. Parliament is supreme.

Nonsense...your proposal is purely hypothetical. I have provided you with a concrete Canadian reference with actual constitutional law and historical Canadian examples. They are real...not make believe. It is absurd to me that an American has to point these things out.

[ToadBrother]

Nonsense...your proposal is purely hypothetical. I have provided you with a concrete Canadian reference with actual constitutional law and historical Canadian examples. They are real...not make believe. It is absurd to me that an American has to point these things out.

It isn't hypothetical. The English Civil War started because Charles I insisted he didn't have to explain or submit his executive powers (his uses of his prerogatives) in his (somewhat disastrous) foreign adventures. Parliament won. That is, after all, the foundation of the constitution found in Britain and the Commonwealth Realms.

Part of the reason Churchill formed a national government was in response to Parliament's criticisms of the conduct of the war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_Debate

Clearly, in the Westminster system Parliament holds a great deal of sway in the application of military force, and always has. In fact, it was Parliament that pretty much forced Gladstone to move against the Mahdi's army after the Fall of Khartoum.

For an even more graphic example, visit the defeat of Asquith's government in 1916.

Edited May 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

It isn't hypothetical. The English Civil War started because Charles I insisted he didn't have to explain or submit his executive powers (his uses of his prerogatives) in his (somewhat disastrous) foreign adventures. Parliament won. That is, after all, the foundation of the constitution found in Britain and the Commonwealth Realms.

..and you still ramble on about another place.....Canada is not England.

Part of the reason Churchill formed a national government was in response to Parliament's criticisms of the conduct of the war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_Debate

Clearly, in the Westminster system Parliament holds a great deal of sway in the application of military force, and always has. In fact, it was Parliament that pretty much forced Gladstone to move against the Mahdi's army after the Fall of Khartoum.

For an even more graphic example, visit the defeat of Asquith's government in 1916.

So it will be your continuing purpose to represent Canada's goverment in such a broad context to either avoid specific introspection or trumpet the virtues of a Westminster system regardless of domestic relevance. Got it.....

[Shady]

..and you still ramble on about another place.....Canada is not England.

So it will be your continuing purpose to represent Canada's goverment in such a broad context to either avoid specific introspection or trumpet the virtues of a Westminster system regardless of domestic relevance. Got it.....

Exactly. And don't forget the Magna Carta. He likes to reference that as well.

[g_bambino]

And don't forget the Magna Carta.

You apparently have. I guess it has too many words and not enough emoticons for you.

[jbg]

He can sing and play the piano, looks good in a blue sweater, but really, sure he is not warm and fuzzy , but not as cold as the media lets on.

He's probably Canada's best PM ever. Culturally he's a real conservative, and that's something Canadians are just not used to. Reagn did not become extraordinarily popular except in hindsight.

Hopefully in hindsight his greatness will also be recognized.

[g_bambino]

In the case of Chretien... he was head of a majority government and thus any issue of Parliamentary privilege really wouldn't come up.

A fact so obvious it should have stopped the question it answered before the question was even asked.

[c/e]

Edited May 19, 2010 by g_bambino

[bush_cheney2004]

You apparently have. I guess it has too many words and not enough emoticons for you.

The Magna Carta Kanata:

http://www.detaxcanada.org/carta.htm

Edited May 19, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

A fact so obvious it should have stopped the question it answered before the question was even asked.

[c/e]

But it didn't, especially in the case of deploying "ground troops".

[wyly]

He's probably Canada's best PM ever. Culturally he's a real conservative, and that's something Canadians are just not used to. Reagn did not become extraordinarily popular except in hindsight.

Hopefully in hindsight his greatness will also be recognized.

he's a christian fundamentalist fanatic something not part of our culture it's not even part of our Conservative governments of our past, he is not popular now nor will he ever be in the future...in hindsight Canadians will wonder how we could ever elect him as PM...well I guess the majority of us haven't elected him or his party of fanatics, he govern's only because of a f****d up electoral system...

[Alta4ever]

he's a christian fundamentalist fanatic something not part of our culture it's not even part of our Conservative governments of our past, he is not popular now nor will he ever be in the future...in hindsight Canadians will wonder how we could ever elect him as PM...well I guess the majority of us haven't elected him or his party of fanatics, he govern's only because of a f****d up electoral system...

And you would know something of fanatics being one yourself.

Do you have anything besides the frothing mouth platitudes that the masters have passed along?

[Rue]

One word I would not use with Harper and that is "fanatic".

I do not doubt the man is a classic conservative, fundamentalist

Christian, anti-abortionist, etc., but fanatic?

Please. He is first and foremost a pragmatic politician. You do

not survive in power as long as he has with such a fragile minority

being a fanatic. A fanatic would not do what he has done and that is

to be opportunistic and bend his principles to accommodate other agendas

so he can remain in power.

He has deliberately placed many of his beliefs on the back burner to

stay in power. Fanatics do not compromise like that.

I think he is pragmatic. I don't like his right wing fundamentalist views

on certain social and religious issues. I criticize some of his economic

policies for abandoning conservative economic principles and engaging in the

exact same government spending he claimed he is against.

I am like most Canadians-in the middle- to the left on social issues, to the right on the

economy but no extremes either way.

Where I criticize him is his abandoning of all the economic principles he claimed he would

follow and creating huge debts from gov. spending. I appreciate world markets and economic

conditions he had no control over may have forced his hand on much of that.

As for his being anti-abortion he has been careful to keep it on the back burner.

I find his disrespect for the independence of the judicial decison making process questionable.

I find his deliberate patronage and partisan spending highly questionable considering he came to

office claiming to be righteous and above such behaviour and now engages in the exact same

behaviour as Chretien did with gov. spending and doling out of patronage appointments.

I also find him to be petty, snarky, smarmy, petulant and thin skinned.

However every criticism I have for him I have identically for Michael Ignatieff.

As for Jack Layton he to me is not worthy of even considering. He is a little toad.

Unfortunately Harper is typically Canadian small town.

He should be running a Ford dealership in Red Deer and serving as head of the local Kiwanis club.

[justme]

he's a christian fundamentalist fanatic something not part of our culture it's not even part of our Conservative governments of our past, he is not popular now nor will he ever be in the future...in hindsight Canadians will wonder how we could ever elect him as PM...well I guess the majority of us haven't elected him or his party of fanatics, he govern's only because of a f****d up electoral system...

Actually, Christianity is an important part of Canadian culture and history.

You're also wrong about the electoral system because he has a minority government with a higher percentage of the vote than Chretien got a majority with. If anything, if it was acceptable that Chretien got a majority with less, it's f**ked up that Harper doesn't have a majority.

I like Harper because he upsets the right people and takes care of things that matter. You can complain about him all you like, but there's not a person in the Liberal party that has a hope in hell of replacing him.

[margrace]

Hate is a pretty strong word isn't it. Dislike, distrust, fear would be better ones in my estimation. Right now the common belief in Canada is that our federal leaders of all parties aren't worth following. So that creates Harpers control because what is any better.

Yes I agree with the post that said he would make a good owner of a car dealership in Red Deere. Until Canadians step up to the post and forget their silly partiniship we will have these unhealthy people in power.

McGinty is a good example of a two faced politician and that is what we seem to have in all our gov'ts, local, provincial and federal.

Much as Canadians disliked former gov'ts, their bank rules saved us from a lot of problems. Remember that Harper promoted a bill to dismantle them some years ago. That should give you some idea of this mans beliefs.

[Topaz]

Hate or disrespect? How can one respect a PM when we can't TRUST him. Broken promises, bribery, very arrogrant, stubborn, always tries to get his way, even breaks or tries to change the rules. He show his disrespect in the House for the opposition parties with personal attacks. I don't think he has the maturity level to be PM and his actions in the Commons show it. It appears he has a problem with women, muslims, gays. As I said before , he may be a nice guy but not a leader of Canada, power has gone to his head.

[Topaz]

Another item that Harper has done for himself that no other PM has done was to hire a primper, the woman that picks out his clothes, colours and styles his hair etc and we as tax payers have paid for this since Harper enter the PMO. Today, with all the cries for the MP's and others to open their books, the PMO has come out and said the Tory party will now being paying for this. I'm sure it will be a tax write some how. I would think Harper should be able to do this himself, and save the party some money, he's had some experience now. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100518/national/harper_personal_stylist

[DrGreenthumb]

At least Myata and Eyeball stand on the side of more democracy, even if their ideas can be quite out there. Shady, on the other hand, stands on the side of autocracy, of an executive that can hide its deeds and misdeeds behind a veil of invented executive privilege. I mean, the notion exists in the United States, and has been a thorn in the side of Congress and the judiciary for much of the United States' history. Why on Earth would we want to hamstring our own legislative branch in such a way? And why would we want to do it over a conflict as small as Afghanistan, when it hasn't been necessary during such truly critical wars like the Seven Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, the wars of British Imperial expansion, WWI and WWII? I mean, the whole justification itself is absurd. Afghanistan is a cake walk, a veritable ant before the elephant of such mighty conflicts as the two World Wars, and in none of those did the Governments of His Majesty's Realms produce any notion of executive privilege.

This is why not teaching history is such a catastrophe. Look at the resentment that Tory supports like PIK and Shady show towards history. They fear it and despise it, because they don't know it, and don't want to know it. For them there is only today, and the errors and successes of the past are meaningless. They are shameless and probably incurable demagogues, fixated so solely on their tribal identity as Conservatives that all else can dispensed with.

This is one of the best posts I've ever read here, especially the insight in the last sentence. Well done Toad.

[Keepitsimple]

I actually like the guy. It's a credit to him that he has kept his family shielded from a lot of the crap that he endures.....but often, you can judge a man - or a woman - by their family. Laureen seems to be an independent woman - rides a motorcycle and runs/has run her own business. His children seem to be well-behaved and just "nice kids". Harper obviously loves his kids. The guy is passionate about hockey and loves music. His father was an accountant. He grew up in Toronto - well OK, that might be a strike against him. His background is one of decency. He's what I call a reluctant leader.....he never had a life-long dream of being leader of a party or PM. He was a behind-the-scenes policy wonk. It was more by chance and opportunity that he became a unifying force behind the Reform/Alliance/Conservative factions. The guy is only 50 years old - young by political standards. He has proven to be a natural leader but was not prepared for the rough-and-tumble job of leading a minority parliament. As such, he shows the natural frustration and combativeness that almost any of us would show when they are constantly attacked by opposition parties that include the Liberals - who are furious and confused about being out of government....and the NDP, who are ideologically opposed to the Conservatives. I'd like to see Harper take the "high road" a little more - but I can relate to his frustration, if not anger - when opposition parties go overboard trying to make mountains out of molehills.....I mean, it really does frustrate me to see all the silliness and posturing - on both sides. Being a leader is always a role of comprimises - it can't always be "my way or the highway" - or you'll find yourself in disfavour really quick. Again - at 50 years old, I think Harper is developing a thicker skin, a bit more patience, and more accepting of the realities and limitations of a minority Parliament. The thing I like most about him is that whenever he does a formal interview - domestically or internationally - he goes to great lengths to actually answer each question - with substance and clarity. Maybe some people don't like the answers but c'mon - listening to Martin, Chretien, Ignatieff.....you can't help but see the difference. So what....so he's pragmatic. Even if people think he's doing things to "stay in power", those same "things" can be viewed as having taken more and more Canadians under the Conservative umbrella. They are both part of the puzzle - to get power or stay in power, you have to broaden your appeal and you can never satisfy all of the people all of the time. You have to satisfy your base constituents most of the time and most everyone else some of the time. We could do a lot worse.

[Born Free]

Another item that Harper has done for himself that no other PM has done was to hire a primper, the woman that picks out his clothes, colours and styles his hair etc and we as tax payers have paid for this since Harper enter the PMO. Today, with all the cries for the MP's and others to open their books, the PMO has come out and said the Tory party will now being paying for this. I'm sure it will be a tax write some how. I would think Harper should be able to do this himself, and save the party some money, he's had some experience now. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100518/national/harper_personal_stylist

He should have hired a fluffer....