Conservatives For PR?

[Smallc]

I wonder if our democratic institutions, at least as they exist are beyond repair. Or maybe not worth repairing, in many cases.

I wonder how many people throughout history have repeated this naive statement?

Harper's habit of pro-roguing to avoid accountability has made the GG a tool of the government. Maybe it's high time to dump the monarchy in favor of an elected head of stated.

Of course, this is a huge misunderstanding of our system - Constitutional Monarchy. The Crown holds the executive power, but leaves the wielding of said power to their ministers, accountable to the people's elected House. For the Crown to not do as asked by the ministers would constitute a constitutional crisis, and would be questionable outside of the most severe of circumstances. Now, if you dropped the Crown, the most logical progression would be to a parliamentary republic, where the president is the exact same type of figurehead as her Majesty and her Canadian representative. Every other system, presidential, semi presidential, and parliamentary presidential, all have multiple problems as can be witnessed in places like the United States, Russia, and Zimbabwe.

The mess that is the senate is something that Harper promised to clean up. After a token effort, he went ahead and make it a bigger mess. It's time to make it work properly by having an independent elected senate.

I agree with you, and so does Harper. No all you have to do is get either Ontario or Quebec along with 6 other provinces to agree, and try not to tear the country apart in the process.

Bodies that are supposed to be accountable to parliament (Elections Canada, Auditor General, Parliamentary Budget Office, etc) become politicized when the government picks fights with them. They need to be repositioned so they are really arms length.

Parliament, in areas not covered by the Constitutional amendment formulae, is supreme, and has been since long before the creation of Canada. It will remain that way weather or not institutions are at arms length.

Harper picking a public fight with Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin left Canada looking that much more like a banana republic and Harper that much more like the leader of a Junta.

I was under the impression that this was a democratic country in which the leaders or anyone else can question the positions of the court.

Harper's habit of running government Ministries like they are an arm of the Conservative Party (muzzling scientists, micromanaging information releases, branding government announcements with the party logo, interfering with environmental assessments) has politicized the public service.

This a problem that exists with any government, but can be fixed through changes to the party system.

Harper's focus on wedge politics, dog whistle politics and the tiny group of swing voters has permanently undermined FPTP. FPTP has been past its due date for a long time but now it is a serious liability.

That is your opinion, backed up by very little evidence.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Smallc

[On Guard for Thee]

Really? You have a study on hand? How many times have they used 'heavy handed tactic's as opposed to say, Chretien, Mulroney or Trudeau?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/10/time-allocation-tories-brent-rathgeber_n_7556762.html

I don't regard time allocation as particularly heavy handed. How many days do you want to give the opposition to make speeches no one is listening to and which the media isn't covering anyway, on why they don't like a particular bill?

Maybe you don't, but people who believe in democracy do.

I'm admittedly not much of a fan of omnibus bills, but there's a certain logic and efficiency to them. I mean, the opposition is going to vote against everything anyway. What real difference does it make it they vote against five separate bills as opposed to one bill which contains all the separate measures?

Who has rammed through more or bigger omnibus bills than Harper?

Parliament is prorogued every year. Biggish deal.

Not for the reasons Harper has used it.

That parliament was worthy of contempt.

Harper was breaking accepted parliamentary rules.

That would be the opposite of not squishy.

OK, if that's the best you can do.

[Argus]

NRC

STATSCAN

Fisheries & Oceans

Environment Canada

National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy

Hazardous Materials Information Review Committee

CFIA

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

So in other words, you don't know what the term 'infrastructure' is.

[eyeball]

I don't feel like my private life has been intruded on.

The problem is that you don't feel my private life has been intruded on enough.

You bend over if you so choose but keep your freakin' state off my back thanks.

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't feel like my private life has been intruded on.

Once you feel like it has been, it will be too late. It's kind of like why locking the barn door after the cows are out is useless.

[Icebound]

So in other words, you don't know what the term 'infrastructure' is.

You can argue semantics if you want, but most dictionaries define infrastructure as being organizational as well as physical.

If you don't like to call those organizations infrastructure, then just choose a word you like.

...

[ReeferMadness]

Every other system, presidential, semi presidential, and parliamentary presidential, all have multiple problems as can be witnessed in places like the United States, Russia, and Zimbabwe.

Two out of the three are corrupt basket cases which I won't bother addressing. And then there's Zimbabwe. (Just kidding).

Seriously, the main problem with American politics is not that it's republican, it's that it's American. And Americans seem to be all in favor of the notion that everything is for sale. Including free speech and democracy.

Most Canadians don't really appreciate the fact that we don't vote for a Prime Minister and that the PM is supposedly accountable to Parliament. So it would be an improvement to have a directly elected head of state with appropriately limited powers. We can't seem to educate the people to understand the system. So why not have a system that meets the peoples' understanding.

I agree with you, and so does Harper. No all you have to do is get either Ontario or Quebec along with 6 other provinces to agree, and try not to tear the country apart in the process.

I wasn't aware that Harper needed 7 provinces to agree before he stopped meddling in the affairs of the senate. And stopped appointing ridiculous hacks like Duffy.

I was under the impression that this was a democratic country in which the leaders or anyone else can question the positions of the court.

That's a very naive statement. As a private citizen, Harper can say whatever he pleases and nobody will care. And most Canadians hope that he will be a private citizen only very soon.

As leader of parliament, it's irresponsible and disrespectful of Harper to get into a spat with the Chief Justice. It politicizes a body that is supposed to be non-political.

And I know that lots and lots of right wingers have these conspiracy theories that the Supreme Court is out to thwart Parliament. Which is bizarre, since they are mostly Harper appointees. In fact, we have this thing called the Charter of Rights that was written long before Chairman Harper arrived on the scene to change Canada. So if Harper wants to change Canada, he can open up the Charter. See how well that works for him.

That is your opinion, backed up by very little evidence.

As are all of your comments.

[Argus]

The problem is that you don't feel my private life has been intruded on enough.

In what way have the conservatives intruded on your private life?

[Argus]

You can argue semantics if you want, but most dictionaries define infrastructure as being organizational as well as physical.

If you don't like to call those organizations infrastructure, then just choose a word you like.

...

How about bureaucracies?

[Argus]

As leader of parliament, it's irresponsible and disrespectful of Harper to get into a spat with the Chief Justice. It politicizes a body that is supposed to be non-political.

The operative phrase being "supposed to be", and Harper's anger at the chief justice was based on his belief SHE has politicized the court and is making findings based on her own political ideological views than on actual constitutional law.

[Argus]

Once you feel like it has been, it will be too late. It's kind of like why locking the barn door after the cows are out is useless.

Laws can't be changed if people find them to be wrong headed? We don't have elections?

[On Guard for Thee]

Laws can't be changed if people find them to be wrong headed? We don't have elections?

And luckily we have supreme court which so far has done a good job of protecting the constitution. Hopefully they will keep up the good work.

[SpankyMcFarland]

This should not be a partisan issue. FPTP rewards parties in an unfair fashion. We saw that with the BQ and Greens in Canada and the UK has just had an equally ridiculous result with the SNP getting far more MPs than UKIP because all their voters are in one part of the country. Given that MPs are of very little importance any more, the percentage of votes cast should matter a lot more than it does. FPTP unfairly favours the right now and it will unfairly favour the left again in the future, but it is wrong either way and should be changed.

Edited August 24, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

I wonder how many people throughout history have repeated this naive statement? Of course, this is a huge misunderstanding of our system - Constitutional Monarchy. The Crown holds the executive power, but leaves the wielding of said power to their ministers, accountable to the people's elected House. For the Crown to not do as asked by the ministers would constitute a constitutional crisis, and would be questionable outside of the most severe of circumstances. Now, if you dropped the Crown, the most logical progression would be to a parliamentary republic, where the president is the exact same type of figurehead as her Majesty and her Canadian representative. Every other system, presidential, semi presidential, and parliamentary presidential, all have multiple problems as can be witnessed in places like the United States, Russia, and Zimbabwe. I agree with you, and so does Harper.

European presidents tend to be ceremonial, France excepted. Every system has its problems but I think the elected ceremonial president model is the best and has worked well for such countries as Germany and Ireland. For one thing, it's easier to get rid of an elected president than a monarch. Elizabeth worked out well but we will have no say in Canada if we dislike her replacement. Given the ardour of Canadian monarchists, I would suggest a compromise that would be a de facto combination of the two - an elected GG. The current system where the GG is appointed by the person he may have to rule against is less than ideal for obvious reasons.

Edited August 24, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[Smallc]

I agree with you, and would probably select the same system.

[Argus]

And luckily we have supreme court which so far has done a good job of protecting the constitution. Hopefully they will keep up the good work.

So then you agree there's no problem.

[Argus]

This should not be a partisan issue. FPTP rewards parties in an unfair fashion.

And proportional rep rewards parties in an unfair fashion. What's your point?

[On Guard for Thee]

So then you agree there's no problem.

Perhaps you do. I don't like attacks on the constitution, and nor do I like pissing away money on SCC efforts to protect it from a dictator type PM who thinks he can overcome it simply because he's the PM.

[ReeferMadness]

The operative phrase being "supposed to be", and Harper's anger at the chief justice was based on his belief SHE has politicized the court and is making findings based on her own political ideological views than on actual constitutional law.

Oh. Please elaborate. Cite the cases where she has failed to follow the law appropriately and don't forget to reference your legal qualifications.

We're all waiting.

[eyeball]

European presidents tend to be ceremonial, France excepted. Every system has its problems but I think the elected ceremonial president model is the best and has worked well for such countries as Germany and Ireland. For one thing, it's easier to get rid of an elected president than a monarch. Elizabeth worked out well but we will have no say in Canada if we dislike her replacement. Given the ardour of Canadian monarchists, I would suggest a compromise that would be a de facto combination of the two - an elected GG. The current system where the GG is appointed by the person he may have to rule against is less than ideal for obvious reasons.

I'm assuming the candidate GG's would spring from the same partisan places presidents do leading me to think this would still result in much the same thing where political parties tend towards becoming more powerful and where elected Hoses merely represent what the party in power wants to the people instead of them. I fail to see why an elected GG wouldn't be just as influenced and probably more to not rule against the party that supported them and their campaign.

We need a system of governance that's deliberately instituted to keep it as many steps as possible ahead of the money and influence that makes party politics so frigging powerful and apparently unavoidably corrupt. I think citizen's assemblies of qualified people selected in the same manner juries would be a better way to go.

Let parties be more like social clubs that attract citizens and live in the hope that some of them are randomly selected to govern on occasion.

Edited August 24, 2015 by eyeball

[On Guard for Thee]

The operative phrase being "supposed to be", and Harper's anger at the chief justice was based on his belief SHE has politicized the court and is making findings based on her own political ideological views than on actual constitutional law.

Even as chief she still has only one vote. Striking down Harper's bills with regard for the constitution comes from a majority of the chief justices, the majority of which Harper himself appointed. So there!

[Argus]

Oh. Please elaborate. Cite the cases where she has failed to follow the law appropriately and don't forget to reference your legal qualifications.

We're all waiting.

Evidently you don't know anything about how the Supreme Court functions. That's sad, but I don't judge you badly for your ignorance.

The fact is that the Supreme Court can't 'fail to follow the law' because 'the law' is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.

If the Supreme Court ruled today that it is unconstitutional for the government to arrest anyone for any reason whatsoever, well then, that would be 'the law' and there would be no appeal. If they ruled it was unconstitutional for anyone but a native to be in parliament that would be the law. Whatever they rule IS, by definition, the law. And whatever basis they use to justify it, well, is largely irrelevant. You don't get to tell them their justification is idiotic.

[Argus]

Even as chief she still has only one vote. Striking down Harper's bills with regard for the constitution comes from a majority of the chief justices, the majority of which Harper himself appointed. So there!

True. Unfortunately, she is, and has been fairly open and honest about articulating what has been a prevailing belief among judges in Canada, which is that judges have a right to change laws based on their own beliefs in societal needs. The Canadian judiciary is filled with such people, and so Harper has had a hard time finding judges who simply believe in enforcing law as it is written to appoint to the SC.

[Argus]

Perhaps you do. I don't like attacks on the constitution, and nor do I like pissing away money on SCC efforts to protect it from a dictator type PM who thinks he can overcome it simply because he's the PM.

Sigh. The overblown fearmongering and anger towards Harper is just a sad spectacle of the outraged intolerance of the Left towards anyone who isn't one of them. A more narrow minded and vindictive group its hard to find outside the Kremlin. Harper hasn't made any attacks on the constitution, and isn't a dictator. There was a great column in the Globe today which quite accurately describes the ridiculous nature of your sort towards Harper and his government.

Autocratic, Stephen Harper? Well, yes, like just about every other successful prime minister from John A. Macdonald to Mackenzie King to Jean Chrétien. The centralization of decision making in the Prime Minister’s Office is a phenomenon much bigger than Mr. Harper and it would take wholesale parliamentary, if not constitutional, reform to reverse the trend.

As for your desperate hopes of relief...

What’s fairly clear is that a Mulcair PMO would not be expected to operate in a meaningfully different manner. The NDP Leader is as much a control freak and ruthless enforcer of caucus discipline. How else do you think he has kept his neophyte MPs in Quebec from embarrassing him too much?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/harper-hysteria-a-sign-of-closed-liberal-minds/article26055892/

Edited August 24, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

True. Unfortunately, she is, and has been fairly open and honest about articulating what has been a prevailing belief among judges in Canada, which is that judges have a right to change laws based on their own beliefs in societal needs. The Canadian judiciary is filled with such people, and so Harper has had a hard time finding judges who simply believe in enforcing law as it is written to appoint to the SC.

The reason experienced legal scholars are appointed to the SC,and one of the reasons we have it, is to ensure that laws that are written don't offend the constitution and charter. When Harper (and others) learn and or accept that, the less frustration he (and they) will have.