Should we give the Crown more leeway to reject prorogation?

[jacee]

I love how all 3 conservative Harper supporters in this thread, namely Tim, Bryan, and Keepitsimple, all agree with each other and have no problem with the proroguing "time outs". You guys are partisan hacks. It's scary that people can support clearly unjust actions just to "support the team". And McGuinty doing it recently amazingly didn't change anything!

I made this thread thinking the debate would be on whether or not the GG/LG should have more conventional leeway to stop Harper and McGuinty's nonsense, I never imagined people wouldn't have any problems with the actual opportunist proroguing tactics. Never underestimate Team Harper.

Wait til Justin prorogues.

They'll change their tune.

I fear we're becoming too accustomed to democracy being subverted by politics.

[TimG]

You guys are partisan hacks.

Chretien and Trudeau made extensive used of prorogation but no one cared. It is only an issue with Harper because partisan hacks think that if Harper does something it must be bad. So spare us this 'holier than thou' crap. The opposition is not complaining because they have the best interest of the country at heart - they are complaining because prorogation denies them the opportunity to grandstand.

I noticed no one has been able to provide an argument on why an issue that does not survive prorogation is important. For example, there is still plenty of coverage of the gas plant scandal even though McGinty prorogued parliament because that issue is important. OTOH, if the 2004 coalition was actually a viable government they could have tried again in 6 weeks - but they did not proving that a timeout was exactly what the country needed at the time.

Edited October 11, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I love how all 3 conservative Harper supporters in this thread, namely Tim, Bryan, and Keepitsimple, all agree with each other and have no problem with the proroguing "time outs". You guys are partisan hacks. It's scary that people can support clearly unjust actions just to "support the team". And McGuinty doing it recently amazingly didn't change anything!

I made this thread thinking the debate would be on whether or not the GG/LG should have more conventional leeway to stop Harper and McGuinty's nonsense, I never imagined people wouldn't have any problems with the actual opportunist proroguing tactics. Never underestimate Team Harper.

This recent one wasn't particularly about "opportunist proroguing tactics" as you put it. It was convenient timing for them, to be sure. However, the current shut down is perfectly in line with what other Prime Ministers have done before the Throne Speech. It's a standard procedure that they do when they change the agenda. The election is a couple years away, so Harper's Conservatives need to go into campaign mode now with their new "gifts for everyone" agenda and putting out fires that they started during their first two years of this Parliament.

Now shutting down Parliament to avoid a confidence vote that you're going to lose. That is completely unacceptable.

Edited October 11, 2013 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Now shutting down Parliament to avoid a confidence vote that you're going to lose. That is completely unacceptable.

It is perfectly acceptable if that vote of confidence is still held as soon as parliament comes back.

In 2008 the "coalition" was an unstable mess that could not survive 6 weeks. Forcing a timeout in this situation was an extremely rational course of action that served the interests of the Canadian public. If the coalition was actually capable of forming of a government they would have taken over in 2009 and the prorogation would have been a forgotten footnote. The only people who are talking about it now are partisans who pissed that their "team" did not get to drive the bus for a couple months before crashing and burning.

Edited October 11, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

No it wasn't the rational course of action. Harper had lost the confidence of Parliament and prorogued it to avoid going to an election. That's about as undemocratic as you get in a Parliamentary democracy. It was completely underhanded and set a terrible precedent, which was followed by Dalton McGuinty in Ontario.

[TimG]

Harper had lost the confidence of Parliament and prorogued it to avoid going to an election.

He did not avoid a thing. In 6 weeks he held a vote of confidence and it passed. If the coalition was actually stable enough to justify its desire for government it would have held together and taken power in 6 weeks. It did not and Canadians are much better off.

Personally I like the idea of an automatic timeout before confidence votes - if a government is to be turfed it should not be a spur of the moment thing brought on by political opportunism - it should be done after the parties have had a chance to reflect on the consequences.

Edited October 11, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

What makes you think I'm claiming anything about the coalition. I'm claiming Harper prorogued parliament to avoid a confidence vote. You're saying that's perfectly fine, which I think is ridiculously stupid considering how many constitutional scholars and political analysts have criticized him for that.

As mentioned by another poster, your posts show nothing but partisan bias. You would be singing a very different tune if we had an NDP government and they prorogued parliament to avoid a confidence vote that would have saw the Liberals and Conservatives bringing down their government. I don't believe for one second that you would be sitting here saying, "it's ok, guys! Mulcair only shut down parliament for a month and a half to avoid the vote."

And for that matter, you still didn't answer my previous question, probably because you realize how absurd your position is. If 6 weeks is ok, is 8 weeks ok? How about 12? Why not 6 months? Where's that arbitrary limit you've set in your mind as "reasonable"? But more importantly, why the hell should it EVER be reasonable to hide from a confidence vote? It wasn't acceptable when McGuinty did it in Ontario and sure as hell isn't acceptable when the Prime Minister does it.

Edited October 11, 2013 by cybercoma

[TimG]

What makes you think I'm claiming anything about the coalition. I'm claiming Harper prorogued parliament to avoid a confidence vote.

And I am saying you are completely misrepresenting the facts. Harper did not prorogue parliament to *avoid* a confidence vote. He prorogued parliament to *delay* a confidence vote. The point that you seem to be unable to explain is why a 6 week delay in a confidence vote is an affront to democracy?

As for partisanship - I doubt you would care about this issue if Muclair did it. In fact I am sure you woudl defend him if he did. The difference is I would defend Muclair too

Edited October 11, 2013 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

What makes you think I'm claiming anything about the coalition. I'm claiming Harper prorogued parliament to avoid a confidence vote. You're saying that's perfectly fine, which I think is ridiculously stupid considering how many constitutional scholars and political analysts have criticized him for that.

As mentioned by another poster, your posts show nothing but partisan bias. You would be singing a very different tune if we had an NDP government and they prorogued parliament to avoid a confidence vote that would have saw the Liberals and Conservatives bringing down their government. I don't believe for one second that you would be sitting here saying, "it's ok, guys! Mulcair only shut down parliament for a month and a half to avoid the vote."

And for that matter, you still didn't answer my previous question, probably because you realize how absurd your position is. If 6 weeks is ok, is 8 weeks ok? How about 12? Why not 6 months? Where's that arbitrary limit you've set in your mind as "reasonable"? But more importantly, why the hell should it EVER be reasonable to hide from a confidence vote? It wasn't acceptable when McGuinty did it in Ontario and sure as hell isn't acceptable when the Prime Minister does it.

The forefathers of our democracy and our constitution could never have conceived that a party like the Bloq - dedicated to the breakup of Canada - would have a position of tremendous influence in a minority government that had taken power in a vote of confidence. The proroguation allowed Canadians to understand what was happening and to at least voice their opinions. Canadians spoke loud and clear and validated this particular proroguation. In short, there is a time and place for the tactic - each one to be judged on its own merits.

[PIK]

Funny how other PM's did it and nothing said , but since it is harper ,everybody is in a uproar. This double standard thing is getting quite sickening. Harper does not even hold the record for doing it. Alot was at stake when harper did it, dalton on the other hand did it because he ran the most corrupted and arrogant government in the history of canada. And yet this senate scandal is what 2-3 million when all said and done and it gets 10X the press then dalton throwing away about 8 billion, I will repeat that 8 BILLION.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well I have just been watching Question Period and it's almost like the summer recess never happenned: deja vous all over again. The same old unanswered scandals right back front and center. That pathetic throne speech yesterday, which even caused the GG to chuckle and shake his head at least once that I saw, failed to deflect attention away from what is really going on. A couple of bucks off my cell bill? Unbundled cable channels? Passenger bill of rights? Mostly stuff they stole from opposition parties and had previously voted against. The only thing prorougation accomplished now was to allow Harper to get on a plane the day after the throne speech. I don't think anybody could be naive enough not to see the planning there! Actually, maybe they should shut it down untill the 2015 election so they don't do any more damage.

[Topaz]

Harper can get anything he wants from THIS GG. In the last election,when it came time for the pictures of the government and the GG, the GG walked , stood in fron to the Tories, raised his arm and yelled, "WE won!" I thought GG were suppose to be neutral and represent the Queen for ALL Canadians.

[cybercoma]

The GG does represent all Canadians. Like it or not, Stephen Harper has the confidence of the House and as such the majority of the representatives of Canadians in Parliament. For the GG to go against him, it would mean that the GG was going against the wishes of ALL Canadians.

Edited October 18, 2013 by cybercoma

[On Guard for Thee]

The GG does represent all Canadians. Like it or not, Stephen Harper has the confidence of the House and as such the majority of the representatives of Canadians in Parliament. For the GG to go against him, it would mean that the GG was going against the wishes of ALL Canadians.

Let me bring you up to date. The GG represents the Queen. She is the head of state under our current form of government. (Look up Westminster) And Harper won the last with 39% or so of the popular vote, far from the wishes of ALL Canadians. Of course that's what happens when you get vote splitting. I can't wait until 2015! He's gone.

[Wilber]

Just do what the BC government does, keep cancelling sittings. No need to prorogue if they never sit.

[On Guard for Thee]

Harper can get anything he wants from THIS GG. In the last election,when it came time for the pictures of the government and the GG, the GG walked , stood in fron to the Tories, raised his arm and yelled, "WE won!" I thought GG were suppose to be neutral and represent the Queen for ALL Canadians.

I saw the same thing and I was equally as shocked, not to put words into your mouth. But yes this smiling bozo does not give me a lot of confidence he could or would stand up for the Constitution that many of us feel comfort, and yes, pride in having accomplished. Maybe we should shell out for a ticket to Brussells for him as well and the two of them can fade away into a Stella Artois bliss and leave us alone.

[cybercoma]

Let me bring you up to date. The GG represents the Queen. She is the head of state under our current form of government. (Look up Westminster) And Harper won the last with 39% or so of the popular vote, far from the wishes of ALL Canadians. Of course that's what happens when you get vote splitting. I can't wait until 2015! He's gone.

Let me bring you up to date. Popular vote does not determine how Canadians are represented in Parliament. We have a First-Past-the-Post voting system. So tell me what percentage of the seats in the House of Commons belong to the party that Harper leads. Then go back and read where I said the majority of the representatives that Canadians voted for.

Edited October 18, 2013 by cybercoma

[On Guard for Thee]

Let me bring you up to date. Popular vote does not determine how Canadians are represented in Parliament. We have a First-Past-the-Post voting system. So tell me what percentage of the seats in the House of Commons belong to the party that Harper leads. Then go back and read where I said the majority of the representatives that Canadians voted for.

I think there may have been a question there somewhere but I don't quite get it. But to repeat, Harper got 39% of the popular vote and wona majority. Which is why we need, and are in the process of, electoral reform. That's why we fill out census forms.

[cybercoma]

I think there may have been a question there somewhere but I don't quite get it. But to repeat, Harper got 39% of the popular vote and wona majority. Which is why we need, and are in the process of, electoral reform. That's why we fill out census forms.

So what? What you're saying has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which is what you replied to originally. The fact of the matter is Stephen Harper is the democratically elected leader of the government, who advises the Queen and her viceroy the Governor General. Currently, he is supported by the majority of Canadians' representatives in the House of Commons. Therefore, any decision he makes with their support is made on behalf of the majority of Canadians. Even if you don't support the Conservatives, if your MP is a Conservative, then he/she is making decisions on your behalf. He/she represents you in the House of Commons. Why? Because the other candidates did not receive as many votes as your MP. So that's who the people in your constituency got as a representative. Popular vote is completely inconsequential. That's not how our system works and that doesn't mean our system is not democratic.

[On Guard for Thee]

So what? What you're saying has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which is what you replied to originally. The fact of the matter is Stephen Harper is the democratically elected leader of the government, who advises the Queen and her viceroy the Governor General. Currently, he is supported by the majority of Canadians' representatives in the House of Commons. Therefore, any decision he makes with their support is made on behalf of the majority of Canadians. Even if you don't support the Conservatives, if your MP is a Conservative, then he/she is making decisions on your behalf. He/she represents you in the House of Commons. Why? Because the other candidates did not receive as many votes as your MP. So that's who the people in your constituency got as a representative. Popular vote is completely inconsequential. That's not how our system works and that doesn't mean our system is not democratic.

Well, one small problem with your math, Harper was elected with 39% of the popular vote. Now I'm not an expert mathmetician but 39% isn't a majority. I don't blame that on Harper in any way. People move around, census are taken, electoral boundaries get changed to reflect the movement of population. So we can avoid having a majority government elected with a minority of the vote.

[cybercoma]

Are you even reading what I'm writing? I never said Harper got a majority of the popular vote. I said a majority of Canadians are represented by Conservative MPs. That's the truth.

edit: I should also add that it is also a fact that 40% (you don't round 39.62% to 39%) is much greater than 31% (NDP) and 19% (LPC). So I don't know if you're arguing that our electoral system is undemocratic or not. If you are, you're completely wrong.

Edited October 22, 2013 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

In the last election,when it came time for the pictures of the government and the GG, the GG walked , stood in fron to the Tories, raised his arm and yelled, "WE won!"

Cite?

[g_bambino]

Harper had lost the confidence of Parliament....

I'm claiming Harper prorogued parliament to avoid a confidence vote.

....It's impossible that both happened; there was either a vote of non-confidence or there wasn't. Before Harper went to Jean seeking to have parliament prorogued, the last vote on a matter of confidence was for the money bill put to the House at the end of November 2008. And the result was in favour of the government.

BTW, sorry I've been absent so long. Seems you've been holding the fort pretty well, though.

[cybercoma]

....It's impossible that both happened; there was either a vote of non-confidence or there wasn't. Before Harper went to Jean seeking to have parliament prorogued, the last vote on a matter of confidence was for the money bill put to the House at the end of November 2008. And the result was in favour of the government.

BTW, sorry I've been absent so long. Seems you've been holding the fort pretty well, though.

What I meant, which admittedly wasn't clear, was that Parliament was going to vote against him in a confidence motion. According to the other parties, he had lost the confidence of Parliament. If it were put to a vote, it would have been done. Parliament was prorogued before that vote happened. So in the legal sense, he didn't lose the confidence of the House. However, it was obvious to everyone how that vote was going to go.

BTW, welcome back. I was hoping you would show up to set the record straight in this thread. You've taught me a lot of things about the Crown and our federal institutions, so I look forward to your insight on these topics.

[bleeding heart]

Bambino and I disagree sometimes, but he's my Parliamentary go-to guy!