Proroguing Parliament: What Can We Learn From Facebook and Public Discourse?
The Monkey House
Bored and dipping in the whiskey last night, I decided to engage in a little social investigation. I have long been curious by the human tendency to, once provoked, enter into group-think mentalities and demonize potential outsiders. In civil, civic discourse, this trend is reversed by sophisticated rhetoricians through the disarmament of their opponent, first through finding common ground and then, point for point, countering hostile suggestion with legitimate fact, all the while ignoring the hostile tone of their opponent. Well, sometimes it is nice to return slight for slight, but the skilled debater always returns to the facts that support his or her opinion. Now, in the case of political discussion, there may not be only facts but there are reasons behind the opinion and it is to these which one must turn if one’s position is to be defended.
The whole issue last week over the proroguing of Parliament has been a fascinating one to me, not just because it is irrelevant, but also because a great deal of the media and internet chatter surrounding it is shockingly ignorant. Indeed, I doubt that most Canadians even had this word in their vocabulary before last week. It seemed odd to me that the population could be so polarized around such a tremendous non-issue. This, it seemed to me, to be a great opportunity to ideographically test out the correlation between ignorance and hostility when that ignorance is attacked so I posted a provocative rant on the facebook site called “Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament” and not because I would support them anymore than “Canadians Who Don’t Care that Parliament Has been Prorogued” but simply because, with the greatest number of members, I had hoped that, statistically speaking, there was the higher chance I would encounter a worthy response. What I was hoping for I described above, someone intelligent enough to rise above the rabble to qualify or quantify their opinion. Sadly after nearly 200 posts I got nothing and even after numerous attempts to beg for reasons, all I received was an introduction to an opinion, by a man named Tom, who I think if I had more time, may have offered one. I also received a classic Liberal Party line given to me by a friend who did this courtesy namely because he did not know my intent and because he was my friend. Had I prodded him he easily would have explained in more detail his position but our friendship made him quite immune to my initial taunt so his is data of the null variety and I cannot consider him in my discussion of “findings” even if they are non-empirical and merely observatory.
I started the above thread with this:
Just thought I would join this group to publically declare you all illiterate, devoid of civic understanding, and completely unaware of the history of Canadian politics. A total omnibus of idiots! As such, your membership in this confederacy of dunces is symbolic only of the fact that you know little about your own country and are, at the same time, willing to protest under the banner of your own ignorance. It is a shame to live in a country populated by such donkeys. Please god read a book, go to school, and develop skills such as critical-thinking, the ability to understand Parliamentary Procedure, and the ability to read your own Constitution and governing legislation. Until such a time as that, if such a time is ever possible, collectively shut the hell up and go back to your Pentecostal churches, your hippie compounds, and your pot-reeking congo-drum-circles. Sandals, a shawl, and black horn-rimmed glasses are not symbols of education they are symbols of “wanting to appear educated”. Get real jobs, meet real people, and please, when you talk about democracy, please, god please, understand what it is you are talking about.
Sincerely,
Travis Martin
(Considerably more wise, and at least able to read a long book).
…so yes it was very provocative, and funny. I enjoy, at times the Conservative stereotypes of leftists, because they are so odd and also because Liberals are so predictably reactionary to labels. There is a certain joy in being a-political; one never has to offended by a stereotype, and one is free to attack both sides. One can also be amused by the reactions of both sides to one another. For me I sometimes think this is the only practical use of politics, but moving on…
So I started my “discussion” on the Facebook group like this. Immediately reactions started coming in. I expected this. I expected to be called “angry” and told “I have issues” and all of those sad, typical responses that Canadians have to people who express strong opinions. Now, just to say again, the above provocation was not my opinion, my actual opinion is, for the record, that in a democracy there should be two sides to any proroguing – a yeah and neigh – because that is the logical consequence of having more than one party. One side or party always feels squelched and there is always another doing the squelching. Such is the way of Parliamentary debate and the Constitutional ramifications of allowing Proroguing. Still, in the 200 or more posts on this thread did anyone on that group even point this out? Nope – discourse could not even reach so high. What my provocation did draw out were mindless responses such as “…blah blah blah I have such and such an education” and “blah blah blah, YOU are the one that is ignorant” and such useless back-and-forth monotony. One poor sap even sent an email to my Facebook inbox telling me that he went to school with so and so who was a minor Canadian public intellectual (I won’t name names sorry) as if attending university with someone who is successful somehow, through osmosis, creates an informed commentator. All very odd. Now I expected the thin-skinned and under twenty-five crowd to throw about their new and untested learning and credentials at me, but as time went on, on a page that potentially hosts 150,000 people I did expect a couple intelligent answers. Did I get one? No. Even after asserting that I was not a Conservative, certain members continued in their delusion that I was somehow being paid to post and blog, and others simply wrote me off as a temperamental curiosity. Not one member, however, took upon themselves the burden to enter intelligent discourse. Maybe if I stayed online responding longer, I could have attracted a few more people like Tom who at least were willing to treat me like a 15 year old and introduce the reason why he felt justified in having an opinion.
The Canadian population has high university attendance and the average Facebook user in Canada is also educated well above the national average. It would seem to me (and not just based on my one nightly excursion) that we, as a society, are unprepared to have our beliefs attacked with a degree of hostility, and when they are, that there is the possibility that once attacked, we are still primitive-minded, in that rather than seeking to attain higher discourse, we would rather threaten with censoring (as my post on that site was so threatened) or reduce dialogue to claims of social malice, or merely turn the initial insult around on its author (a very crude rhetorical skill). Ignoring the fact that several young people approached with their comments statements that were of a slanderous/libelous nature (which I would never take action against seeing as they were foreseeable and partially provoked but would have a reasonable chance of success with if I attempted so) what was the most concerning (more so than the ignorance of where the boundary between discourse and Tort lies) was that numerous people were quick to subscribe psychological labels to a person (in this case me and in any such case crossing both legal, medical, and psychological regulatory lines) simply because they held a contrary position to their own and were insisting on justification. I expected a degree of this type of ribbing but as time went on it became more and more evident that some persons were indeed posting, or at least insinuating strongly that this was their opinion. Had I been an honest contrarian on this post, and not so provocative, I would have been well within my rights to challenge professional standings and take legal action against such people. My own rights aside, it is interesting that, in this day and age, we now attack contrarians and pundits with claims of mental disorder, or social inadequacy, as if mainstream-views and status quo really are some sort of “norm”. This is a secondary finding that I am interested in exploring further. I have said for some time now that the way people use the term/label “psychopath” and other psycho-terminology (in addition to becoming a synonym for “person who makes me feel awkward” ) lends such words to becoming as derogatory as the racial slurs ascribed to the African American protesters and Marxists in the Black Emancipation Movement and modern progressives in other parts of the world. This is a lexical and cultural tragedy that distorts the perceptions we have of the mentally ill, but also stigmatizes, even demonizes and dehumanizes our opponents.
Back to my core observation, or rather the effect that I was intending to observe, my opinion, after conducting this little sociological game, is that it seems likely that the Canadian population, in general, informed or otherwise, are ill prepared to meet strong intellectual challenges, and are unable to take initiative to elevate discourse. Of course my sample population was not entirely random and my methodology not entirely sound quantitatively, but qualitatively the experience was very interesting, enlightening, and hopefully, now shared revealing to others. It is my wish that in reporting on my little game, Canadians take to heart how they handle those whose views are hostile to their own and that they use their skills and education to elevate discourse rather waddle around in the muck that such discourse often starts in – muck that the initiators are happy to remain in. Sadly in Canada our media seldom model this, but it is my hope that as more and more Canadians learn to temper their reactionary nature and endeavor to master pedagogy, that we can uplift and elevate our opponents. Proroguing Parliament is ultimately a minor issue and greater threats, which are far more offensive, are on our horizon. What will we do when radicals demand Sharia Law, or Christians demand nonsense being taught in our biology classes. These are all in our near future and each of these groups are inherently opposed to Enlightenment values and discourse. Calling such persons names, or mentally ill, or berating them back by calling them “ignorant” is not going to do a damn thing. Initiative to elevate in the face of opposition is a benchmark and plumbline for a civilization and sadly to say, my own observation is that, even on such a minor issue as how long Parliament should remain in session, we are grossly ill-prepared.
PS. To those who may have been legitimately offended by being called “illiterate” by the Facebook thread – grow a backbone and learn to stand on your own two feet! The unqualified attack on a group is nothing to be personally offended by. Personal offense can only come in the form of personal attack. Know your boundaries and please rediscover your confidence.
Related posts:
- Proroguing Parliament and Conservative Crime Legislation: A Cagey Stephen Harper Takes Two Steps Back The unabashed cowardice of Stephen Harper’s latest move may rekindle...
- A Piece on Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Decision to Prorogue Parliament The PM, proving to be quite uncreative when it comes...
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper Prorogues Parliament: Massive “Turtle” or Clever Election Strategy? On December 30th, two weeks after the House of Commons...
- Stephen Harper Has No Need for Democracy – A Prorogued Parliament is a Silent One As I’ve arrived home from my Christmas holiday, I like...
- Stephen Harper Gambles on Prorogue Shutting Down Parliament Again For the second time in the space of one year,...
Tags: Facebook, house of commons, parliament, prorogue, stephen harper
Loading ...
January 15th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
[...] More: Proroguing Parliament: What Can We Learn From Facebook and Public … [...]
January 18th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
You’re an idiot.
January 18th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
“Proroguing Parliament is ultimately a minor issue and greater threats, which are far more offensive, are on our horizon. What will we do when radicals demand Sharia Law, or Christians demand nonsense being taught in our biology classes.”
Proroguing Parliment was done by Harper for strictly partisan reasons; to avoid the democratic process, in particular to avoid the parliamentary order to hand over all documents related to the Afghan detainees. The first time he prorogued (to avoid the non-confidence vote), it went mostly unnoticed. The old saying, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” seems fitting. Canadians in that group aren’t keen on being fooled a second time.
If you really do care about radicals demanding Sharia Law or Chrisitan dogma infecting biology classes, then you should realize that the only thing standing between the radicals and the rest of us is our democracy. Citizens in a democracy have the right and responsibility to hold their governments accountable – that’s what this group is trying to do. The rallies on the 23rd should be very impressive and perhaps of historical size.
To be frank, your belittling the cause as unworthy of contempt (“a minor issue”) speaks to your gullibility and apathy. What’s more, not just your gullibility towards humanity and it’s nature, but to yourself. You sound as though you consider your views superior to most, but you fail to recognize the gravity of the situation at hand. Democracy slips away one concession at a time and apathy is it’s greatest enemy. If you consider yourself a Freethinker, then you should know more than most that in order to maintain the philosophy you must be willing to question not just the views and motives of others, but yours as well. We are all susceptible to dogma, tradition and irrationality, and they are especially potent when guised in our own face in the mirror.
January 18th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
First things first,
Truth, you make my point clearly and concisely. Your conduct is reflective of your intellect (which is minimalist in the least).
Darren you also make my point but you do so at a level that meets the shocking Canadian average. Can you, for example, even name a single suspended bill and comment on its contents? Are you aware of the numerous times that Parliament has been halted in the past (which is well over 100)?
That said, I wrote, in clear English (and now must dumb-down and paraphrase myself) that I am indifferent to this particular proroguing but that I consider it reasonable in a multi-party democracy that there will always be some opposed. Such people (those opposed) are not wrong in carrying such a view but the burden falls on them to articulate why they feel the way they do. It is categorically stupid to discuss the merits of a legitimate and legal political maneuver WITHOUT discussing the merits of the squashed bills. It is particularly flabbergasting to engage in the low-brow political nonsense that has surrounded this issue without comparing the merits of the currently squashed bills to the previously squashed bills – in particular bills squashed by the now offended Liberal Party.
Now there is the issue of you not being able to read and accusing me of “belittling the cause”. Well I clearly did not. As I said, I was, and still am indifferent. I merely observed a response to a provoking stimulus. My observation is consistent with actual controlled and peer-reviewed studies that indicate that the Canadian population, in general, is increasingly ignorant of civics and the constitution. I could site these numerous studies but leave these to you and the search engine of your choice. Knowing the level of effort people of your caliber possess I anticipate you insisting this of me and I await your trite complaint, “that such studies do not exist”, so I can slap you with a collective omnibus of them which I have pre-waiting for this predictable occasion.
Finally there is the ghastly ignorance of your final significant comment where you ramble incoherently on about democracy being the last stand against an alternative that you don’t and can’t even define. Proroguing is a democratic move, done in all Legislatures in all Commonwealth Nations – done more often in this country, by the way and by far, by the Liberals. Who appointed the rather inept Governor General who approved this procedure? Hmmm I wonder.
On the issue of Afghan Detainees you are simply legally and procedurally ignorant. The Opposition Party can request an additional inquiry, as a multiparty inquiry and all its data HAVE ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED. But there is no constitutional or legal justification for an additional inquiry and this request is no different than any other discrediting tactic used by any other minority party to raise questions regarding the legitimacy of the governing one. These types of bills and requests happen all the time, and are rather drab and dull. The Conservative Party, when it was a minority party did this all the time under both the leadership of Harper and that tongues-speaking fanatic Stockwell Day. Had there actually been reason to suspect new or suppressed data there are a number of legal and procedural remedies that would have been sought and easily granted by any low-level QB judge. The fact that spineless political shadows and rumors have been used is indicative of the fact that there is no data! At this juncture I am begging you, daring you, to say something stupid like “politicians can bind and silence judges in Canada” Go ahead, say it… I await the opportunity to lecture you on basic Canadian divisions of power.
I am not a Harper supporter and not a conservative at all but I consider this proroguing a matter of administrative expediency in the face of a scattered and demoralized (and seemingly entitled) opposition. I would be happy to discuss the merits of the squashed bills with anyone who actually made effort enough to read them but to continue to deal with the muck-scrapping bottom-of-the-barrel intellects who simply want any and all voices, no matter how inane, to be heard (and especially their own) I cannot be bothered. Blah blah blah we want a voice! Fine, but please have something to say in all your white noise otherwise let those who have ears hear your rabble and collectively change the station.
My bottom-line opinion on the subject is this: if you have formed an opinion on the proroguing of Parliament during the last session without reading the squashed bills in their entirety, then the only words that could be appropriately used to describe your opinion on this subject contain four-letters, and, like your opinion, are not dignified enough to be brought to the attention of those who actually bother to understand the mechanics of our quaint little Federation of Provinces. An uninformed opinion is the opinion of the worst kind and I could care less how many people want to stand out in the cold on the 23rd! I care only for those who know what they are talking about. Protest is the right of all, but of those who stand up to be heard, THE ONLY VOICES THAT MATTER will be the ones that actually read those squashed bills and know parliamentary procedure and law. I am willing to bet that the number of those, in your epic little fellowship are well under 10% making the other 90% cannon fodder for well deserved ridicule and contempt. There is nothing worse, at any time, and under any cause, than a person who will stand up for something without even knowing what it is.
So to close, Darren, if you have been holding out on me and are indeed an above par-Canadian who has actually read those bills and wishes to go and protest something that you have the acumen to understand, then you have my praise and my support. Informed Canadian voices need to be heard. If you are some second- year poli-sci hack and aspiring member of the Young Liberals who is still learning what legislation is and where to find it online, then I encourage you to read up and learn – protest, if you like, simply to observe how such a thing is done. If you are, however just talking out your back-end and never will and cannot be bothered to go to the Parliament web page and pull up those bills and spend a couple of long nights with coffee and cigarettes (or nowadays Red Bull and Ritalin tablets) reading the awfully drab scrawling of our ruling elite then to hell with you and whatever you think. Uninformed and effortless opinions are the opinions, sadly, of most Canadians. Those of us who can read and write, and who are paid large sums of money to think and or do business for a living, will continue to be appalled by the growing ignorance, you and others like you, represent in our population.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Hi Travis,
I thought you were educated on the subject. Sorry, my mistake.
Apparently, you are that which you seem to despise – uneducated and manipulated. Sad, but not unexpected. I have read up on several of the bills, but with your pious arrogance, you’ve failed to recognize that this is not even what people are upset about. Had you been more educated in parliamentary procedure, history and the events leading up to the prorogation (check out events of November 23rd and Dec 10th), you would then be able to hold an intelligent discussion on the topic. As it stands, you simply lack the required foundation for this discussion.
Take some time to research parliamentary procedures, prorogation, it’s history of use (not just in Canada, but in the UK, Australia and New Zealand). You will find that Harper’s use of prorogation is unethical, undemocractic and not in the spirit of it’s purpose. I had hoped you were capable of defending your position, but obviously you would rather just deride others whom have more knowledge on the subject then yourself.
When you have done some research and can explain why this prorogation is justified and/or a “minor issue”, then we’ll have something to debate. In the mean time, I leave you to your own overblown ego.
Good day.
January 19th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Darren,
Reading up on the Bills is completely different than actually reading them, which is the minimum requirement for having an informed opinion on the subject. Second, one is not “educated” (as in formally instructed) on current events one is either simply “aware” or not. I explained in shocking detail that I AM INDIFFERENT TO THIS PROROGUING twice now to you, once in the article and once in my response. Indifference, incase English is your second language means that I neither support it nor am I opposed to it. The reason I stated my indifference is that I felt the merits of the prorogued bills were weak (the ones I didn’t read about but actually read) had little or no chance to pass and that the Afghan issue is moot. Proof of it being moot is THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR AN ADDITIONAL INQUIRY.
As for Canadians being upset I know perfectly well why they are – because most of them never even heard the word “prorogue” before and the first time they did they hear it, an opposition party was touting how this “prorogation” is completely different that previous prorogations. Now, ironically, I am close to having the same perspective on this as Rex Murphy, who I have been known to criticize, but still, he has written a good piece on the subject. I have posted it below…
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/09/rex-murphy-crocodile-tears-for-the-quot-dignity-quot-of-parliament.aspx
The history of this democratic process dates as far back as the Roman Constitution and was used at times to suspend the senate. Successive prorougings were often used by Cesears to increase their reign and concentrate power. The default mechanism in our system to prevent this is the Governor General who has the authority to suspend the request in the event that the burden to Canadian people is too great. This was done, by the way in 1926. Now in reviewing a decision to prorogue the GG has to consider the merits of doing so and can place limits on the amount of time parliament can be prorogued. Now perhaps you take the rabid position of Elizabeth May, who being a lawyer should know better, but states that the office of the GG should be terminated, but of course this is a constitutional impossibility (as anyone who understands our system knows). Still Mrs May’s trite little party, and perhaps you, fail to understand that managing the regular proroguing of parliament is a regular, and perhaps the most important duty of a GG. You see, I get irritated when I have to explain the basic job descriptions of those in higher office in this country to people who claim that I do not know what I am talking about.
In 1873, during the 2nd Canadian parliament, Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald (liberal) asked GG Lord Dufferin to prorogue parliament to halt the work of a committee investigating MacDonald’s involvement in the Pacific Scandal. In this case the committee reviewing Afghan allegations of torture has completed its investigation and there are no further grounds (legally) in which to proceed. The demand for an additional committee by the opposition is simply a political muck-raking exercise – made hypocritical by the Liberals seemingly forgetting that they used the same tactic when allegations of abuse of Somali citizens was leveled AND PROVEN by a committee initiated by the Conservatives in the mid 90′s.
The last time Parliament was prorogued it was because the GG considered forcing the coalition upon Canadian voters just after an election was irresponsible. GG Clarkson, in her memoirs stated that if she were in the same position as Mrs Jean, she would have done the same thing.
So no, young man, I am not ignorant of anything that is going on in respects to proroguing parliament. I am simply annoyed with our increasingly mis-informed and sheepish population that – like you – is too lazy to read primary literature (in this case Constitutional Documents and Legislation) and gets all its information from Wikipedia and the bloggosphere.
What is so terribly ironic is that you end your little tirade against me with the incredibly short-sighted comment: “When you have done some research and can explain why this prorogation is justified and/or a “minor issue”, then we’ll have something to debate” seeing as I had already explained, quite clearly why I considered proroguing a minor issue. I am quite prepared to discuss the history or prorogation in any Commonwealth Nation, as well as in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland and even in the Chinese Communist Party. You, however, could not even stand to the very simple challenge of naming a single prorogued bill and neither can you see, for reasons that I can not understand, why there are no legal grounds for a further Afghan investigation.
January 19th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Let me get this straight:
You honestly think that proroguing parliament is reasonable when the MINORITY government doesn’t want to abide by the demands of the opposition? Is that the “democracy” you want? Or would you rather have, as I would, rules in place (beyond the GG – more of a figure head then a watchdog) to ensure that NO minority (Conservative, Liberal or otherwise) can stop our parliamentary process for their own partisan reasons? Do you really think the detainee issue was fully dealt with? You claim to be a-political, yet you sound like a lap dog for Harper. If not, then you are more cynical, apathetic and sheepish then I imagined.
Some light reading for you…to bad the committee didn’t get it:
http://contrarian.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Colvin-further-evidence.pdf
I also don’t always agree with Rex Murphy, but in that article, he displays some of the same apathy you seem to have. He knows its wrong, but just doesn’t seem to care.:
“So if the opposition wants to jam Stephen Harper for terminating this session of Parliament, they should content themselves with simply naming what he has done: He has seen an advantage to ending this session now, and for tactical and partisan reasons he has acted to end it. He has played the mirror to their own practice.
A larger politician would not have done so. A politician with a deeper regard for Parliament than Mr. Harper has, would not have done so. Respect for Parliament, however, is not a standard either party has earned the right to raise. In the current debate, it is merely a tattered flag of convenience for them both.”
If the Liberals or NDP were in power and did the same thing under the same circumstances — I’d be just as upset – and as someone knowledgeable about the history and intent of prorogation for regular parliamentary procedure, you should be too.
PS: I’m not “young man”, but thanks anyway.
January 19th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Darren (the not-so young),
You posted an interesting pdf authored by Richard Colvin. Richard, by my estimation, reflects the dull-witted and morally apathetic stereotype of a government bureaucrat. He best summarizes his failure to report alleged detainee abuse, that incidentally, he only brings up himself AFTER his Parliamentary hearing, in point 15 para.
“It has been suggested that, as I met Minister Peter MacKay at the PRT, it was my responsibility to nform him about the torture of detainees.
However, it was not the job of DFAIT officials in Afghanistan to push our concerns on ministers, unless they explicitly invited them, which none ever did. Doing so would have invited a reprimand from our superiors. The chain of command for DFAIT officers was back to DFAIT officials at HQ. Circumventing that chain of command would have been evidence of ‘going rogue.’ I was always very correct in my relations with the political level. I volunteered views to fellow bureaucrats, such as Clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch and DFAIT Associate Deputy Minister David Mulroney. But to ave done so with ministers would have been inappropriate.”
You see I have already read this drivel by Colvin and if things went down as he says they did, which I doubt, then this is a man who, simply out of fear of a reprimand by the ill-dressed and poorly-spoken Scribner-stooge MacKay, chose to internalize facts in respects to real human beings being tortured. If this man really is so shallow, then how it is that he is being trumpeted as some sort of heroic whistle-blower? He had ample opportunity to blow whistles all along but now chooses to “reveal” the truth after he is made an ass out of by the committee? Where was all this evidence submitted prior to the committee investigation. Colvin cites internal reports which are easily looked up but fails to note in this little testimonial whether Canadians were obligated to act on the actions of foreign soldiers in their own country for their own prisoners. I could spend all day picking apart the general foolishness of Colvin’s testimony but for now will be content to say that his viewpoint is clearly from hindsight and he now has the privilege of looking wise on merit only because he can look at failures within his own department and demand corrections to them. Now, his immediate supervisor, I have no doubt, was a rather shady one as well (at least as shady as Colvin) but that surrounds more the issue of Afghan elections.
This trite posting of Colvin’s personal justification in the face of his parliamentary hearing does nothing to raise the very real fact that I have been going on and on about like a broken record, presumably because you don;t understand – there is no legal basis or new evidence submitted. The review board examined most of the documents that Colvin cited, and those he claims they failed to see can, if proper legal (NOT POLITICAL CHANNELS) are followed, be used to exonerate his general cowardice at his post and bump the guilt (if there is really cause for guilt) up the food-chain away from those who fear reprimands when speaking about things more important that their careers and pensions like torture. You see it is the failure to differentiate between legal and political obligations that betrays your ignorance on this subject. Your citing of Colvin and insisting that his whining have political usage in respects to proroguing has rather cemented it. When parliament is back in session the legal ramification of Colvin’s allegations will remain and IF THERE ARE GROUNDS for another review it will go ahead. Harper and Parliament even if there were a 100% majority in the house, would not have the authority or ability to stop that. I suggest you brush up a little on the powers of the Judicial Branch of Government instead of ranting on the lack of powers by our Executive Branch to meddle in obvious affairs of law which, in this case are largely outside its domain.
Now, I was tempted to not address it, but for comic relief will mention it again. You actually believe that it is possible to have “rules in place (beyond the GG – more of a figure head then a watchdog) to ensure that NO minority (Conservative, Liberal or otherwise) can stop our parliamentary process for their own partisan reasons? Is this really what you want. First of all that would require a massive constitutional amendment. If you don’t know what that would entail I suggest that start with an introductory text such as the type produced by Peter Hogg who is a good introductory scholar on the subject. Yeah so if you can get all that together, then there is the whole issue of squelching the basics of democracy and supplanting it with a watchdog that determines what is and what is not partisan. The potential for corruption in such an office would be massive, it’s powers sweeping, and by the way it would kick the heels out of any minority government trying to establish and agenda. Again, if you were familiar with how proroguing has been done in the past you would know that. Go ahead and make that suggestion to Ignattieff or Layton, or Harper, each one of them would laugh at you. The only one who wouldn’t would be Elizabeth May but she is one of the greatest embarrassments of an environmental lawyer the profession has ever seen and her understanding of civics is about on par with her understanding of Taco Bell – basically she imagines these things as cheesy cheap papery substances that she can eat.
So good luck with that watchdog thing. It appeared for a moment by actually citing Mr. Colvin that you might have enough sense to understand some very elementary principles here but your proposal of a fascist, overseeing, democracy-ensuring watchdog has just made you the brunt of every bad dictator comparison I can imagine aka Khomeini in Iran (who serves such a function) the CCP in China who ensures a similar function, and on and on through a long line of dictators and political disasters. No serious person could take such a suggestion as yours except one who wants easy answers to complex real-life problems and would be willing to trade freedom, liberty, and the voice of its elected representatives to do so. Proroguing is a right granted to a political party that represents the wishes of the electorate who voted for that party. To take away that power or hinder it would be to hinder, potentially, the voices of all Canadians, and you would do this to simply ensure that a few dead bills – ones that can be raised in the next session and ones that you could not even be bothered to read, are endlessly tying up an already dysfunctional Parliament. How utterly petty!
January 19th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
I wasn’t proposing a watchdog. You misread, so I’ll be clear: I’m saying that no minority government should be allowed to prorogue government for partisan reasons.
As to Colvin, he is respected by his peers and until all of the documents he’s citing have been given to parliament, unaltered and unedited, this matter is not closed in my mind.
You seem stuck in a dogmatic and traditionalist view of our parliament. I’m a Freethinker (look that up if you are unfamiliar with the philosophy – it’s Atheistic, so I hope you aren’t offended being such a proponent of tradition). I do not submit to the “status quo” or “tradition” if one or both are dysfunctional. If I was given a subpoena for documents, I’d have to answer with them. I hold our PM to the same standards, even if he has a loop hole to try and delay it or get out of it.
I hope you are right, I hope this is picked up again in March. Thanks to the protests that will be happening across this country, I suspect it will. No thanks to sheep such as yourself that are content with the status quo.
January 19th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
The problem is not the Proroguing per se, but the reason it was done.
On December 10th, 2009, Parliament ordered the Government to produce certain documents right away. Some have compared Parliament’s Order to a subpoena but is actually far stronger, more like a super-subpoena. In our system, the people’s democratic will is expressed through our Members of Parliament and so Parliament is supreme, as we the people, in a democracy, are supreme, instead of kings or dictators. So when Parliament votes an Order, it is law, and must be obeyed. Since Confederation, in 1867, no Canadian Government has ever outright refused to obey a parliamentary order: that would be illegal, and mean the government was placing itself above democracy and above the people’s elected representatives, making the government illegitimate.
On December 11th, 2009, the current Government announced it would not obey the Parliamentary Order. At that moment, 10:19:15 am EST apparently, the Government became illegitimate, having placed itself above and outside the law (press conference was scheduled for 10:15 and relevant statement started after 4min 15sec). Until the Government obeys the Parliamentary Order, it remains illegitimate. Parliament could do what is needed to enforce the Order, but on December 30, 2009, the Government unexpectedly closed or “prorogued” Parliament until March 3, 2010.
So the current Government is refusing to obey the super-subpoena that is a Parliamentary Order. It has closed Parliament and run away. It is breaking the law. The Government is saying it is above democracy and democracy’s rules, and as a result, by democracy’s standards, the Government is not legitimate: the Government is an outlaw. And every day the Government remains outside the laws of Parliament & democracy, it becomes more illegitimate.
January 20th, 2010 at 4:08 am
Darren and Dave: I will address you both. I am an Atheist and a rationalist. I have also studied in law school and have taken constitutional classes with persons close to the authors of our Charter. I can go on at length about the stupidity of our system and its inability to function properly due to the shortsightedness of those who drafted our current system and in so doing also made it next to impossible reform it. One of my favorite subjects, in fact, is Constitutional failings in Canada and the particular shortsightedness of Pierre Trudeau and our founding documents of 1867. That said; I know full well the difference between wishful thinking and a well researched opinion. I do not consider myself a sheep but you must understand the impossibility of the reform that you are suggesting, the lack of support it would get from any of the parties, as well as the fact that unless you have a lot of guns and an interim government waiting in the wings, that what you are proposing would never happen. Allow me to elaborate…
Darren, on the issue of “watchdog” the GG IS A FIGURE HEAD. I can think of no other job in this country that best exemplifies, from an essentialist perspective, the definition of figure-head. You would like to make the difference between what you propose and a “watchdog” but actually that is impossible simply on the lexical issues of it! A group, or individual that monitored Parliament, would not only be illegal, but would have watchdog-like powers. You fail to understand the inherent freakiness of your proposition, and perhaps the meaning of the words you choose, but more significantly you have, at the same time, betrayed the rather small limits of your knowledge of political matters. If you are talking about removing the power to prorogue from a minority government then you potentially castrate the power of a minority in an electable democratic system. There is no reason why certain rules should apply to majority governments and not minority ones. If this were the case then there would be the tendency for only voting for potentially dominant parties. Do you think that the NDP will ever get in as a majority – certainly not on their first go. How can they institute reform and be judged fairly by the populace if they are castrated by your suggestion and have no power to coerce their opposition? No nation in the Commonwealth, that I am aware of at any rate, would uphold your suggestion. We all need to play by the same rules (majorities or minorities). If the threat to prorogue was not in place for minority governments then the opposition parties would be able to form coalitions at will to bully the dominant party – the result would be parliamentary chaos. I may also mention, that in addition the examples I cited above, Hilter used an analogous tactic in securing power as Chancellor of Germany. Under that system any coalition formed, once a certain percentage was reached could prorogue their hall. With this power amended latitude in opposing him was lost. This is not a perfect example, but one to reflect on. I may also mention that the Liberal Party has held power as a majority government for more years than the Conservatives have ever even held office. You suggestion would stifle at least one major political party, kick the crutches out of the NDP, and the Greens if they ever get their act together, and encourage a two party system. I have to say that I oppose you on this prospect alone – but then I have better grounds upon which to dissect your play-dough tough thoughts.
What you ask would require a Constitutional Amendment (even if the major parties could be brought on board). Unilaterally, I can tell you for a fact not one party would even consider getting on board. At this juncture I encourage you to look at Section 38 and onwards of the Constitution Act of 1982. Now there is the troubling bit known as section 42(1)a-f which outlines the only permitted types of amendments that would be allowed to Parliamentary procedure. As you can see, once you have read these, your suggestion does not even meet the basic legal requirements for legal Parliamentary reform. As such your suggestion has about as much legal merit as legislating pedophiles to work in day cares. Further yet , this referendum would require a clear and concise question, and to be upheld by the courts (though it would never for constitutional reasons get this far), would have to posit a clear and concise question and assure that the general knowledge of the public was sufficient to understand the issue. There is also another rule such as this: Parliament does not have the constitutional authority to bind successive parliaments. So, the impossibility, and naivety of your suggestion is viable only under a military inspired regime change or initiated by an illiterate and ignorant government. In short – it is clear that you have no idea what the hell you are even talking about. Any government that proposed and enacted such a change would be illegitimate, as would any organ of power supporting it. Any party suggesting such a reform would be branded as rouge. There is more right for Quebec to separate from our nation than there is for your dumb little idea. Good luck with fairy tales. Fortunately for me virtually every political party, court, and government head would see this issue from my perspective – except perhaps for Ms May, but then she likes the choo choo trains more than she does “the reading”.
Now as to Mr. Colvin I explained to you why it is stupid for him to cite evidence AFTER he is summoned. To simplify even more, it is somewhat akin to a robbery victim suddenly “remembering” what else was stolen after the insurance claims have all been filed. As mentioned, irrespective of the fact that he is a sniveling little coward and said so in his own words in point 15 of his own document, when the house reconvenes the issue and any new evidence may be reviewed if it is found to have merit. By the way though, it is not up to the house to determine whether evidence has legal merit – this is up to our Department of Justice and the Federal Courts, and if there is a matter of significance, it will likely get pitched to the Federal Courts where such a matter belongs (not in Parliament)and where it will one day find its home among the tonnes of other cases involving committees being interrupted by prorogation. Learn to use a legal database and look this up if you like. If anything does appear in the Federal Court system, I may add, it is not the business of Parliament to comment on this, though they will, and their comments, voting or protesting, and all the noise you are making about this issue, will have not one iota of effect on the legal outcome of a clearly legal issue. You may be able to speed it up if the Judge responsible for the agenda of the court sees the subject as having public merit and wants to bump back some white collar tax cases, and if that is the reason for your protest then so be it. Again the issue of Mr. Colvin is not a parliamentary one it is a legal one. There are big fat books with small print and the word “law” written on them likely on your own university campus – I suggest you read a couple.
Finally there is Dave’s incomprehensible rant about Parliament this and government that. The Parliament “Super-subpoena” as he embarrassingly calls it, can only insist that certain types of information to be brought forth. It can summon government workers as well to give testimony of their office and function. It could not, however, summon even a common citizen. This is somewhat like a summons for information as occasionally used by journalists and investigators when they request data under the Freedom of Information Act. There is a time period in which such information must be brought forward. As you are well aware, however, Parliament has the power to prorogue and this suspends the action and carries it forward to the next session, which will, by law, resume in 180 days at the maximum. Fortunately you do not have to wait that long so don’t worry. All in all, however, the Parliament cannot call evidence, witnesses, or rule on the merits of such things. Such powers fall to the courts under what legally educated people call the “section 96 powers”. Any group of people even resembling the possession of 96 powers will be found illegal by our system (section 96 of our Constitution) and their rulings reversed. So it seems to me that you think that Parliament has a great deal more power than it has. Truth be told it really only passes federal legislation within the powers that have been granted it. The absurd and laughable claim that our current government is illegitimate because it ignored a request for information that it is obligated to respond to but also has the authority to suspend and address later, reflects the kind of ignorance I was railing against in my article. It seems to me D and D that you have lived your lives under a system that you were either too lazy or too inept to understand. The consequence now is that you believe myths about the respective powers of holders of office, your own legal system, and the Parliament. Further, you demand respect for your “opinions” from people who know better than you and can diagnose, with some prodding, the depth of their inadequacy.
By the way did any of you even cite or name a single prorogued bill? I have been asking for this throughout the piece and my comments on this post. Did anyone bother to take the three minutes to do the minimum reading required to form an opinion on this subject by at least looking up the titles of the proposed legislation? Shall this challenge go un-met? Or are all the rabble-rousers illiterate? As I have said before, I would expect it reasonable to have some people to be opposed to this proroguing on the BASIS OF THE SQUASHED BILLS but nobody seems to want to talk about what proroguing really did to supposedly silence the voice of Canadians. Instead Canadians seem content to play childish red-herring games with this whole moot-Afghan torture issue – which is a not even a parliamentary issue as parliament has no power over the outcome of the investigation. Maybe the lot of you did not come from Pentecostal Churches, hippie compounds, and pot-reeking congo-drum-circles, but you more than certainly share similar intellectual aptitude and analogous world views. Those of us, perhaps a minority, who can actually wear the title of “informed” will continue to be here to educate you, and occasionally to laugh at your expense. We hope you can join our ranks one day, perhaps after you kick the Wikipedia habit and learn the Dewey Decimal system, but only if you have better pot than we do; and you must leave the stinky-sandals and tongues-speaking behind (we do have our standards).
Cheers
January 20th, 2010 at 8:28 am
Legislation that died when the government suspended Parliament
C-6 Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (allows government recalls of dangerous products).
C-8 Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act (equal property rights to aboriginal women).
C-13 An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act (modernizes how grain delivery is regulated).
C-15 An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts (minimum penalties for serious drug crimes).
C-19 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions). Reinstates anti-terrorism powers for law enforcement.
C-20 An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident
C-23 Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
C-26 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime).
C-27 Electronic Commerce Protection Act (cracks down on spammers).
C-30 Senate Ethics Act (unites House and Senate ethics oversight under one watchdog).
C-31 An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act (gives police more fingerprinting powers).
C-34 Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act (strengthens sex offender registry).
C-35 Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (allows victims to sue terrorists).
C-36 Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act (eliminates “faint-hope” parole).
C-37 An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts (an action plan for the National Capital Commission).
C-40 An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expands advance polling).
C-42 Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act.
C-43 An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code (more rights for crime victims in parole process).
C-44 An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (ends Canada Post monopoly on international letters).
C-45 An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (cracks down on human trafficking).
C-46 Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act (gives police powers to hunt online predators).
C-47 Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act (allows police to wiretap digital communications).
C-52 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud (cracks down on white-collar crime).
C-53 Protecting Canadians by Ending Early Release for Criminals Act (ends accelerated parole review).
C-54 Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act.
C-55 Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Shoker Act (gives court power to require blood and urine samples).
C-57 Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act.
C-58 Child Protection Act (Online Sexual Exploitation). Cracks down on child pornography.
C-59 An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act (makes it harder for offenders to be repatriated).
C-60 Keeping Canadians Safe (Protecting Borders) Act (allows more Canada-U.S. co-operation on marine law enforcement).
C-61 An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of railway operations (back-to-work legislation on CN Rail strike).
C-63 An Act to amend the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and another Act in consequence thereof (enables commercial real estate development on reserves).
S-5 Long-Gun Registry Repeal Act.
S-6 An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to political loans).
S-7 Constitution Act, 2009 (Senate term limits).
S-8 Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2009 (implements tax-evasion treaties with Colombia, Greece and Turkey).
From: The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Jan 9, 2010. pg. B.1
Personally I think most of the bills are trite, however, the Harper government was behind the majority of them. I point to S-7 specifically here as an interesting example of why the Conservatives’ priorities should be questioned. I find the crime bills to be ridiculous, (my recent article has links and reasons as to why) but if they are as important as the Conservatives hold what the hell are they doing? Certainly the business of the house was not completed.
The Economist (hardly a liberal bastion and generally indifferent to Canadian affairs) thought the move inappropriate (that same magazine the Conservatives ate up when it Martin bashed).
A number of Canada’s academics have signed a petition stating amongst other things “Given the short-term, tactical and partisan purposes served by prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose served by it, we conclude that the prime minister has violated the trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people.”
Now I think that the appropriate watchdog here is clearly the Canadian people, the action is legal but I cannot see how any “plausible public purpose” is served by it. Thus when the time comes we should vote against the politicians behind the action. I tend towards the belief that apathy and ignorance are alot more threatening to our democracy than perfectly legal parliamentary procedures.
Mr Martin my question to you is what “plausible public purpose” is served by the action?
I am wondering at the inability of Harper’s spin machine to have come up with a good reason for Parliamentarians not being in Parliament, this is usually the kind of thing that it is very good at. Is it apathetic and ignorant to take our role as watchdog seriously? The currently prorogued parliament was elected by us, the senate as it stands came about through proper process, why can’t the Prime Minister handle his job on the terms Canada has set out?
*I haven’t mentioned the Afghan issue because it has not played out in full yet, whether it ought to have or not.
January 20th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Travis your reading comprehension skills are lacking…again. I specifically said I do NOT want a watchdog, yet you rambled on gleefully again on that subject for almost two full paragraphs. “Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.”
It’s staggering to me that after I tried to be as simple and succinct as possible, you could still only hear those voices in your own head. One more time, this is exactly what I said:
“I wasn’t proposing a watchdog. You misread, so I’ll be clear: I’m saying that no minority government should be allowed to prorogue government for partisan reasons.”
I’ll break it down for you (read slowly, concentrate and remember to breath):
1) I’m not proposing a watchdog
2) No minority government should be allowed to prorogue government for PARTISAN reasons
Well, assuming you’ve been able to keep up, lets think about this.
No watchdog – of course I don’t want a third party monitoring our government, that’s ridiculous and frankly you should be embarrassed at having magically transformed a direct statement saying the opposite into that! Staggering.
To the second point: Again, you’ve flown off into a fantasy land of your own creation. You are a master of battling strawmen it seems. How you construct so many of my points for me, from so few words, is amazing – you have are truly gifted imagination. Good for you, but lets bring the conversation back to reality for a moment and simply take what I said as is.
- I never said I don’t want minority governments to be able to prorogue for NON-partisan reasons. If it’s the right thing to do for the public (should be easily justifiable), or because the opposition is consistently blocking them from progressing on bills (not the case here), or their bills have been complted, then no sweat! (PS: don’t imagine other things into here, I’m sure we could come up with many valid cases for it’s use – it’s a given).
- I specifically said I don’t want a watchdog,
- I did say I don’t want them to be able to do it for PARTISAN reasons. Meaning, I don’t want them to be able to prorogue simply because it’s a tactical advantage for them, it should be for, as it’s intended, the best interests of the country.
Further to what I didn’t say: I never suggested how we might do this in ANY way. I’m open to suggestions as to how to do this. Perhaps something as simple as clearly defined guidelines for when prorogation is acceptable, that attempt to counter partisan only reasons?
Certainly Canadians will be playing a part in this during the next election and for some time to come should any party in the future attempt another such blatant abuse. It seems to me that those 200,000 on that group, from my talks with randomly sampled people who aren’t in the group, are just the tip of the iceberg.
Finally, read what I’ve said and stop irrationally manufacturing strawmen to attack. Sorry, but I loose patience quickly with those who are unable to maintain rationality during discussions. I’ve been a bit harsh, but I’m not here to defend statements I didn’t make.
January 20th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Excellent questions and points Fraser.
Thanks for posting the bills. I have data from the same link (I’m in Ottawa), but haven’t posted it specifically for fear that Mr. Martin will attempt to use those in some way to divert the conversation away from the point – that this prorogation does not serve Canadians, it only serves Mr. Harper and thus is undemocratic and unethical.
Mr. Martin, has yet to come up with any justification for the prorogation and his remarks will probably be that he doesn’t really care about it…which seems to indicate that he’s fine with the status quo and doesn’t mind it being used as has been. …my suspicion is that he’s a Conservative supporter guised in non-partisan clothing…read what he’s said and you be the judge.
January 21st, 2010 at 5:26 pm
I agree with you, however I think all of what you wrote can be summarized quite simply as:
Don’t trust a Facebook group to represent the views and opinions of the Canadian people.
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Darren. If you are indeed able to read sentences you will see that I said, and brought it back down here to keep you from reading long text:
Darren, on the issue of “watchdog” the GG IS A FIGURE HEAD. I can think of no other job in this country that best exemplifies, from an essentialist perspective, the definition of figure-head. You would like to make the difference between what you propose and a “watchdog” but actually that is impossible simply on the lexical issues of it! A group, or individual that monitored Parliament, would not only be illegal, but would have watchdog-like powers.
Again, for your own reading, I am saying that what you are proposing regardless of you NOT WANTING TO CALL IT THAT, must, by logical default be a watchdog and that such a thing, as you wrote it at the time, is is a legal impossibility. I am happy that you have clarified yourself by agreeing with Neuland, but that does not forgive your poor thinking and composition.
Also, you silly silly, man I stated that I was indifferent, MANY MANY times, to the prorogation. That is categorically different than supporting it. I stated my indifference based on the fact that most of the bills that Mr. Neuland has been gracious enough to provide on this post are bunk and really headed for nowhere. I know this because I have read many of them and can gauge their author’s efficacy in the house. It is clear that you have issues with literacy so I am not surprised that you have to end being so publically dissected by calling me a conservative – which at any rate I am not. I should like to warn you also of libel which protects persons like myself from illiterate innuendo.
Mr Neuland, I too am usually rather disturbed by most Conservative reforms to Criminal Law and Justice. H. L. Mencken, if I can paraphrase him, said that whenever there is a Southern Election, there will always be a southern hangin’. This about summarizes most Conservative attempts to reform the legal system – and this is dangerous.
Why then would I support prorogation? Well. I do not. I TOLERATE IT, though in this case because the Liberal Bills proposed were not urgent and can be heard again in Spring without any detriment to the Canadian people. The only bill is resent not being heard concerns the status of Indigenous Women, but that will, for obvious political reasons, be brought back again – I predict, actually that it will pass with little or no revision.
The prorogation is also seen by many a Liberal party policy author as a good time to review the Conservatives own, poorly thought squelched bills. Which always creates some good counter policy. If there is any reason to oppose it, it is because Harper is now free to stack the Senate. Mind you, he was free to stack it anyway, but the effect will be to stack it without the voice of opposition whose inevitable media criticisms will now be not-so-heard.. As such I see the prorogation as a media, not a political tactic. This of course has backfired and made Harper look Machiavellian. Well he is, and those who didn’t know it at the time know it now so by trying to avoid appearing flirtatious with despotism he has demonized himself as worse than he really is – except in the eyes of his supporters who are plenty more than most blogging on this site might like to admit.
Still yet , all this has also shown the media and academics how opportunistic Ignatieff is and how he is just as willing to use this whole prorogation issue to play on general Canadian ignorance (becoming more Harperesque – and yes I invented that word but you can use it if you like). The only one who has benefited from this whole last two years is the NDP. I favor this at present because I see discourse in Canada generally torn between socialism and free market capitalism (well actually this is a simplification of what I believe). In such a model of discourse the Liberals really are just one annoying red blot in the middle of real change or transition to either Swedish or American style politics. Regardless the sooner that Canadians sort out this conflict the sooner we can decide on our rather undecided political flavor as country.
To your suggestion that the Canadian people serve as a “watchdog” over Parliament proceedings, I could not agree more. Which is why I have stated that I support the INFORMED PROTESTERS on Jan 23. While I am indifferent, and will likely sleep in that day, I feel it a good thing as it raises awareness to what prorogation is. Seeing as this word was not in the collective Canadian vocabulary until virtually two weeks ago, I am happy that some measure of civic understanding is being improved upon. The retards out there trying to reform Parliamentary proceedings in the face of our constitution, however, can go and suck one.
I am happy Mr. Neuland, that you are obviously in contrast the 95% of “Darrens” in the world and have, unlike him, formed your opinion on the basis of facts and a reasonable understanding of our system instead of just gravitating towards the arguments whom you thought “sounded best”. The move by Harper was undoubtedly sneaky and meant to send a confidence message to the opposition and other parties. I am not so sure, however, whether it was premature. By that I mean, that I am open to the suggestion that he may have more than enough support to carry on and even take a majority in the next election. One effect that is often ignored in Canadian public discourse, is the effect the Glenn Becks and Bill O-Reily’s have had on Canadian Christians and conservatives. There is a huge longing for American free market capitalism in Canada that is often ignored and Harper is seen as a means to an end in this respects. Liberal policy in this regard has focused on Corporate Tax Breaks and tax Shelters (I could go at length on this) but this has only catered to big business and thus out of the reach of those who want this type of reform. Harper, I think was testing the waters of his support, and now doubt, will be head counting on the 23rd. For someone like me who sees either pure free market or socialism as viable in our resource rich population deprived Federation, this prorogation does not bother be because it will push us in either one or the other direction (either in the way of socialist or free market confidence). For those who are disturbed by a move toward the free-market. The appropriate response is to spend the evening making cardboard plaques and makings sure you have enough red left markers and a warm hat tomorrow.
January 23rd, 2010 at 3:14 am
I must apologize for a couple of the typos in my last post. I neglectfully had that function turned off when I had to restart Windows again on this crappy IBM.
I did miss a point though on the subject of “Darren”. Darren sir, you can not propose, in light of the constitutional provisions that I have cited, to not have Parliament Prorogued if the reason for doing is Partisan. That would be, as I need to remind you Darren (again and again), an illegal proposition. Strangely, though Darren, you do not want to call it that. Such a thing would, in order to be administered, require a regulatory agency or body or person to ensure that, if Partisan reasons abound (whatever that might be twisted to mean) that Parliament stays in session. Someone (Darren) would have to do this job and much of that job would be very subjective interpretation. Since you reject this function being served by the GG in its present form, the next best solution, if we ignore the illegality of your absurd proposition, is that it falls to the Speaker of the House. Darren you also seem to not realize that it is traditional to refer to regulatory bodies, persons, or agencies as “Watchdogs”, but let’s ignore all that. For the last time Darren I don’t care what you call your queer suggestion of “ensuring Parliament does not prorogue for Partisan reasons”, because frankly you lack the legal and political vocabulary to articulate it.
My point is, that whatever you call whatever it is you actually want, the only thing it really would be is illegal and a watchdog (though for some odd reason you feel the need to shy away from that word). It doesn’t matter if you call it a regulatory body, inflamed powers granted to the GG, or to speaker of the House, whatever! if it is any bit, any iota more than Fraser’s and my own opinion that the only regulation the matter needs is the hesitation a party may get in considering public opinion, then what you are suggesting must be some kind of watchdog! Despite your hand waving and claiming I can’t read (straw-men and what not) your suggestion can not be anything else. You, on the other-hand, are playing a sad little game of back-peddling on what you are saying all-the while trying to preserve the impossibility of your initial suggestion without admitting that your were ignorant and wrong. A straw-man is simply a made up enemy; but what I have been battling with you is the rewording of your own ego and your inability to accept the logical and legal implications of your own error. This has not been a straw-man argument at all but rather a slow and methodical evisceration of your cognitive abilities and political understanding.
I know that this is the case when you try to reach out and sound reasonable with absurd statements such as these:
“I never suggested how we might do this in ANY way. I’m open to suggestions as to how to do this. Perhaps something as simple as clearly defined guidelines for when prorogation is acceptable, that attempt to counter partisan only reasons?”
This is a stupid suggestion. It is a stupid suggestion because we have a constitution that does not allow for this kind of suggestion. Now, I am not the type to believe that just because a proposition is in the constitution that it is correct, but the fact is, that if such constitutional provisions exist, and they do, that there IS NOT GOING TO BE THIS KIND OF CHANGE. Defined guidelines and such, as you suggest them, are impossible as they do not meet the criteria set in ss. 38(1)a-f. I have cited this section now several times. Your suggestion, and the persistence it comes with, is both tedious and meaningless. No party and no party leader would ever support you (except Mrs. May perhaps – but she is not really a leader but rather a form of Karmic humor in the form of the Pillsbury Dough Boy with a sex change – sorry I can never get tired of making a farce out of that woman). There is no middle ground on which we can meet on this issue. It is sad that we cannot find this, but I can find no merit in impossible suggestions. I should like to live in a fairy tale one day where I do not have to pay taxes and have the government rewrite the biochemistry guiding my telomeres so that I never get cancer or die, but that is not going to happen either.
Perhaps, because of your persistence, I am going to reach out a bit of a hand. Please propose to me how you would set up a regulatory body, rule, or piece of federal legislation (ignoring the fact that it is illegal to do so) that would stop Parliament from proroguing strictly for Partisan reasons. Understand that in doing so you need a standard as to what is and what is not a partisan reason that can be drafted clearly and concisely and that you need some standard to which “categories of a PM’s motivation” are gauged. Also you need something, someone, some standard that is impartial and external to do this. That is your challenge.
From this little pipe dream (and for your convenience) I have omitted the fact that you need to also regulate how to pass such a thing in such a manner so as not to break another rule (namely that parliament cannot bind itself or future parliaments). If you can do this because maybe (though I doubt it) this is my own cognitive hurdle in understanding this precious suggestion of yours, then perhaps you could show me how such a thing and process would not be watch-dogesque (yes that is a new word and you may use it if you like). Of course your suggestion fails anyway because it is illegal, but at least we could get to the bottom of this whole straw-man business that you accuse me of. In other words Darren: Do you have what it takes to truly test the possibility that I am misreading what you write? Would you say so in light of things that you have written such as these key five supposedly misunderstood passages:
1. “- I specifically said I don’t want a watchdog,
- I did say I don’t want them to be able to do it for PARTISAN reasons. Meaning, I don’t want them to be able to prorogue simply because it’s a tactical advantage for them, it should be for, as it’s intended, the best interests of the country.”
2. “No watchdog – of course I don’t want a third party monitoring our government, that’s ridiculous and frankly you should be embarrassed at having magically transformed a direct statement saying the opposite into that! Staggering.”
(Note that I – Travis – never said such a watchdog or body or whatever would be non-government. Doesn’t matter because this stemmed from a previous comment)
3. “You honestly think that proroguing parliament is reasonable when the MINORITY government doesn’t want to abide by the demands of the opposition? Is that the “democracy” you want? Or would you rather have, as I would, rules in place (beyond the GG – more of a FIGURE HEAD [my emphasis] then a watchdog) to ensure that NO minority (Conservative, Liberal or otherwise) can stop our parliamentary process for their own partisan reasons?”
4. “I’ll break it down for you (read slowly, concentrate and remember to breath):
1) I’m not proposing a watchdog
2) No minority government should be allowed to prorogue government for PARTISAN reasons”
5. “You honestly think that proroguing parliament is reasonable when the MINORITY government doesn’t want to abide by the demands of the opposition? Is that the “democracy” you want? Or would you rather have, as I would, rules in place (beyond the GG – more of a figure head then a watchdog) to ensure that NO minority (Conservative, Liberal or otherwise) can stop our parliamentary process for their own partisan reasons?”
All these passages seem to me is white-noise oddly constructed to advocate a watchdog of some sort with regulatory power, that somehow is not called “a watchdog” but instead “a figure-head”. I have insisted on the watchdog language purposefully, since, in light of the illegality of the suggestion that is what it would have to be. I would hope that you don’t backpedal any further and make some stupid suggestion like “ well I meant a private sector power” which clearly as per section two you do not (that by the way would be also known as “the role of think-tanks and media”). Anyways you have been rather consistent on this incoherent point. How is it that a “figure-head” would be different than a watchdog? Maybe you and I define that word differently (though mine is lexically correct). Still, my definition of “watchdog” has been rather clear, and my expounding on it has shown that it, by definition, subsumes what you call “a figure-head”. How is it that “a figure-head”, as you propose it would be any different than the watchdog I have been describing all along (that is, one that assures through regulatory means and overseeing power that Parliament is not prorogued for Partisan Reasons)? Good luck answering that! You see it, your suggestion, really makes no sense in light of words and their meaning (not to mention our legal system).
Now hopefully Windows is working well. I hate it when I type too fast and get prepositions muddled and type “is” instead of “I” and am left finding other mistakes of that type (could be the Johnny Walker). Again, sorry for that.
Cheers.
January 24th, 2010 at 12:46 am
Travis,
How do you keep thinking that I want a watchdog or ever did?? Now your spending way to many bytes trying to justify how you think you are a mind reader, despite me having said the opposite? Save some this site some hard drive space and just take people at their word…please. I’m doubting that I’m the only person who’s called you on this wonderful ability you have of putting words in people’s mouths — stop — stop now.
If you had taken the time to just read what I said, instead of typing endlessly on what I didn’t say, you’d have seen that I talked about “guidelines”. You assumed this meant watchdog, where most would read RULES or CRITERIA. A simple set of criteria that must be met before prorogation is allowed is ALL I’ve put forth, nothing more!
Here’ it is, for you to read again…(and read it over one more time after that too, just to let it sink in) :
“Perhaps something as simple as clearly defined guidelines for when prorogation is acceptable, that attempt to counter partisan only reasons?”
That’s it, that’s all – that’s all I suggested.
What’s interesting to me, and gives me hope, is that I heard the exact same sentiment expressed today — by someone who probably knows a little more about what is possible then you or I — Michael Ignatieff basically said the SAME THING. Wow – imagine that?!
I was at the rally on Parlaiment Hill with around 4,000 other people (more uneducated, illiterate low brows as you’d like to call us, who know nothing about and don’t care about politics or democracy…like me). I had the opportunity to listen to several speakers, including Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff and Elisabeth May explain what CAN be done.
I already knew Jack’s proposal was to require a vote prior to allowing the PM to request a prorogue…I wasn’t impressed with that solution as it comes with it’s own problems (as debated in the UK in 2007 when they tried to enact a similar change), but it’s better then nothing.
What I was interested in was Mr. Ignatieff’s idea — which guess what, is the SAME as MY idea (the ONLY idea I put forth, read back through my posts if you are thinking otherwise…am I repeating mysef? I better keep that up so you get it). His idea is simply to put limitations in place (RULES) for when a PM can request prorogation – he named the cases that should not be allowed and they are perfectly in line with the point of stopping the abuse of prorogation for partisan reasons.
Here’s exactly what he said to the crowd just feet away from me:
“You do not want Parliament to be shutdown when a Prime Minister is facing questions that he must answer. You do not want Parliament shut down when a Prime Minster is facing a vote of non-confidence. You do not want Parliament shut down when parliament has asked a Prime Minster for documents and he has failed to do so. You have said very clearly, across the country, through demonstrations everywhere that you want limits placed on the prorogation power of the Prime Minster and I am here to tell you…I am here to tell you that my party will work in Parliament to do just that.”
Funny, how although you seem to think nothing can be done with your vast knowledge of parliamentary procedure and constitutional law, you are pretty much alone in that view….want another cup of Status Quo or are you good?
January 24th, 2010 at 1:29 am
Travis,
I thought I’d add a suggestion.
Your not impressing anyone with your wordy responses or your elitist attitude. You might think your responses are cute or witty, but in truth they are simply irrational (killing straw-men is a victimless crime) and ignorable. If you’d take a minute to read up what’s going on in the world and see with fresh eyes, you might learn a thing or two about the here and now. Considering how far of the mark your thoughts are on this subject and in particular my responses, and in comparison to law professors, media inside and outside of this country, and political analysts, I strongly suggest you rethink your entire approach to political analysis and commentary.
Just a suggestion. Hard words to hear I’m sure, but I think many would agree with me.
January 24th, 2010 at 3:16 am
Darren you continue to express shock by the fact that I accuse you of proposing a watchdog. What you are too ignorant to see is that what you call “mind-reading” and “strawmen” are really addresses to the logical and practical implications of your suggestions. The suggestions that you make can not possibly stand alone. I addressed my motivations in addressing the logical outcomes of your political hypothesis above in my last post but will rephrase and dumb-down yet again for your courtesy and inability to read long sentences (let alone books):
Your guidelines, those you now mention to have been supported by Mr. Ignatieff, contain nebulous and vague terminology (partisan, non partisan reasons, best interest e.t.c) that, since such terminology is not legal, can not be given clear operational definitions. Thus, what you fail to understand, is that it is structurally impossible to allow your suggestions (which are in contravention of section 38 and therefore also illegal whether you have the correct terminology or not) without an overseeing body, tribunal, deferment to a court, or Parliamentary appointee. We can bitch back and forth over whether such thing should or should not be called a watchdog or described as powers analogous to a watchdog, or whether they should simply be called increased regulations, but is is clear on the logic alone that there WOULD HAVE TO BE AN INCREASE OF REGULATIONS and a body of some sort granted the power to uphold them (which incidentally – and I will say it one last time just to annoy you – IS LIKE a watchdog). My point, my underlying thesis, is that it is illegal to have anything like this over Parliament – even if the structure is contained within Parliament itself. The comments of Mr. Ignatieff – specifically the ones you placed in quotes – do not contradict this fact.
Now you have said this:
“His [Ignatieff's] idea is simply to put limitations in place (RULES) for when a PM can request prorogation – he named the cases that should not be allowed and they are perfectly in line with the point of stopping the abuse of prorogation for partisan reasons.”
…you also say (and I agree with you) that this is the crux of your own argument. What Mr. Ignatieff does not understand, or is pretending not to know and hoping he can drag along some cheap supporters with (as many students of Isaiah Berlin tend not to understand and also do) is that there are underlying laws that interfere with political wet-dreams like the one you have suggested.
All political parties rally up their supporters under stupid sloganeering and impossible promises. The Tories have been known to pontificate on the “end of Quebec separatism”. This frequent Tory slogan, as most in Ontario seem to be aware, is also impossible legally – it simply can not be done! Our lame and poorly thought constitution prevents such sensible interference in the mandate of openly subversive political parties. We will be stuck with separatists as long as there are people who want to separate. If, one happy day there are no longer any Quebecois cowards, we will still, by merit of our own laws, be susceptible to future separatist agendas. The same is true if one wishes to reform the rules surrounding proroguing parliament. If Ignatieff and others want to talk about reforming Parliamentary rules (and being the political whores politicians all are, I am sure that they will) it will only be to excite the politically ignorant. Political parties do this all the time, but, when it comes down to it, you and I live in a society that is ruled by law, not by Parliament or sloganeering reformers who, like Mrs May, can not tell their sweaters from their trousers. Whether I am in some small Canadian minority or not (and I have no doubt that I am in the minority on this case – and sadly lumped with neo-cons), I am undoubtedly correct on this opinion. The Parliamentary legislative sections of our constitution are clear and easier to read than most other sections. There is no appropriate legal mechanism to overrule them without a fundamental rewriting of the very nation of Canada. For your proposal to occur our nation would have to cease to exist and a new one built in its place.
So, to summarize, as I feel that to do so would be useful to you. Watchdog or not, you require an illegal increase of powers and regulations to someone if yours or Mr. Ignatieff’s suggestion is to be viable. Since this suggestion is illegal anyway, I consider it political puppetry of a very condescending and Machiavellian type. I find it odd to have to argue with someone (often on the plain meaning of words and in the face of your constant neglect of our founding documents) over whether you are being strung along by a very unoriginal Harperesque political technique, plagiarized right out of a muck-raking Tory handbook. Ultimately that is my opinion of your position, that it is an uniformed, ignorant, and weak one to say the best of it. I come to the table with legislation, the law, and our constitution and you come back-peddling on the plain meaning of words, with selective quips from a non-binding political rally, and with some bloated and overconfident assurance that you are part of a majority on the issue. It is clear that we have exhausted our patience with each other on this issue and I fail to see how I can make my position any more clear and how I can outline (what you call mind-reading) the logical and practical implications of your illegal suggestion any more. Reformation on the rules of prorogation will never happen, no matter who you vote for because there is not a single person, institution, or power, created or otherwise, in Canada with the authority to make it happen.
The best case scenario is the one described by myself and Mr Nelund, that there will be increased political awareness as to how prorogation is used and parties will now, and in the future, pause before they use it. For me this is a good thing because I dislike anything that any government does when it can openly rely on the ignorance of its opposition and, worse yet, its supporters. As to this army of law professors, media and policy hacks you refer to, I think they would, as most do, appreciate informed discussion and thus NOT discussion of your variety. If any of the aforementioned were to be as arrogant AND ignorant as your self and come to me making suggestions about my analytical abilities and sensibilities WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO CITE PROROGUED LEGISLATION THAT THEY HAVE READ, WERE LACKING BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE ROLE OF LAW AND PARLIAMENT in our federation, and worse yet could not respond or correct their opinions in the face of scholarly rebuke when citations and logical mechanics are given, my response to them, though Legion be their name, would be: “take a number, get in line, and kiss my ass” . The long length of this majority’s line would not shatter my resolve in the least but would instead warm the very cockles of my heart. Given, however, where the lips of pseudo-intellectual liberals may have been, I may have to burn through a lot of ass-sanitizer and buy new pants at the end of it, but this would be a small burden in the face of such easy an gratification.
THE END
Cheers
January 24th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Holy crap man – get over yourself! Nothing that Ignatieff or Layton for that matter said is “illegal” or impossible. There were political law professors on scene (one of them said basically the same thing!), dozens of lawyers both on and off the CAPP board and of course the media of Canada willing to make a story out of any wrongly said words. Talk to a law professor
Truth had you pegged from the start: “You are an idiot”
January 24th, 2010 at 11:37 am
“WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO CITE PROROGUED LEGISLATION THAT THEY HAVE READ, WERE LACKING BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE ROLE OF LAW AND PARLIAMENT”
I could have easily cited them and given you links to the details on all of them or the general summery posted above from one of my local news papers, but that would be getting off topic as they have nothing to do with why the issue I was discussing. Learn to stay on topic please – it will help you with future communications. I have no idea where you are living, but I’m here in Ottawa and this stuff is pretty common knowledge around here and makes for nice water cooler discussions.
“correct their opinions in the face of scholarly rebuke when citations and logical mechanics are given”
Guy, understand your “scholarly” (in your own mind) rebuke is nonsense thus not worth acknowledging or dealing with. There would be no watchdog required as all of the questions to be asked are matter of fact and thus are “yes/no” answers:
Mr PM, we must ask you the following questions before you can claim your prize of prorogation!!
Question #1: “Is the government facing a non-confidence vote?” yes / no
Question #2: “Is the government under parliamentary order to hand over documents?” – yes / no
If you answered “yes” to either of the above questions then prorogation is not allowed….I’m sorry, try again later
If you want to debate more, then please find a law professor to back up your claims by showing that limiting the prorogation option can not be done by incorporating such requirements as those laid about by Ignatieff.
January 25th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Travis — Sorry, I’m done with this debate, because…you lost! You might want to read up on the analysis of this by several legal commentators who fully agree this is doable…despite your sincere belief that it wasn’t…funny that with all your blathering about how ridiculous, illegal and impossible my idea was, it’s now the official proposal put forward by the Liberals!
http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/17360_liberals-pledge-to-prevent-abuse-of-prorogation
As they say — How do you like them apples? LOL
January 25th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Just in: The NDP are on board with the Liberal proposal as well
http://www.ndp.ca/press/layton-welcomes-liberal-support-for-new-democrat-proposal-to-limit-prorogation-powers
January 25th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Darren there is a categorical difference between your initial suggestion, the suggestion you tried to reform and this proposition (about half of which is doable the other bunk) by Mr. Ignatieff.
Lets have a summary of your unscrupulous postings.
First, you accused me of supporting Harper, when, in my initial post I openly declared myself as not a Harper supporter.
Second, you accuse me of belittling those opposed to this particular prorogation, when, in fact I repeat over and over that I am indifferent to this particular prorogation.
Third, you change your story and your terms again and again. You started by with the absurd and stupid suggestion that:
“…would you rather have, as I would, rules in place (beyond the GG – more of a figure head then a watchdog) to ensure that NO minority (Conservative, Liberal or otherwise) can stop our parliamentary process for their own partisan reasons?”
Now I have suggested to you, on constitutional grounds, that such rules are impossible to be imposed on THE POWER OF PROROUGATION THEMSELVES. To have a rule that ensures that NO minority government can prorogue is not what Mr Ignatieff is suggesting – it is what you are suggesting. To have a rule that says that no government can prorogue for “partisan reasons” is also not in the suggestion made by Mr. Ignatieff it is your own personal wet dream yet again. My harsh response to you was for the stupidity of the above suggestion and the fact that the terms which you chose to describe when parliament can be prorogued (“partisan reasons” in particular being the most annoying term you used) are by nature nebulous. What is and what is not a partisan reason. In a democracy, and on a legal document, this wording would be unacceptable which is why clearly it comes from a cheerleading teamster and not a carefully thought-out systematic political response. I have never stated, at anytime, an unwillingness to review the House Rules of Standing (which are easily amended and ultimately non-binding) that may exert some effect on how future governments prorouge. Nor have I ever suggested, as you imply through your poorly written innuendo, that am opposed to any review of the reasons or issues surrounding the prorogation. Indeed my initial article was a comment on how people are grossly ill informed on issues and a general call for the passionately uninformed to research before they speak.
After my first rebuke, you then back-peddled to this blatant misrepresentation of your initial position…
“What I was interested in was Mr. Ignatieff’s idea — which guess what, is the SAME as MY idea (the ONLY idea I put forth, read back through my posts if you are thinking otherwise…am I repeating myself? I better keep that up so you get it). His [Ignatieff's] idea is simply to put limitations in place (RULES) for when a PM can request prorogation – he named the cases that should not be allowed and they are perfectly in line with the point of stopping the abuse of prorogation for partisan reasons.
This of course is not Mr. Ignatieff’s position. Mr. Ignatieff’s position is to increase accountability and cross-party communication when the PM, who will always have full constitutional authority to do so, wishes to prorogue. But you say: put limitations in place (RULES) for WHEN A PM CAN request prorogation. This is entirely different from Ignatieff’s position and is you putting your own words in the mouth of a political leader that you like. They are stupid words to put in his mouth, and incidentally make you look very absurd. Again it is clear that you are lost on the plain meaning of words.
Fourth, there is the very dumb and lexically ridiculous assertion that you made that:
“…there would be no watchdog required as all of the questions to be asked are matter of fact and thus are “yes/no” answers:”
This is a stupid statement however as the terms you used in your previously posted question are nebulous and exactitutes would have to be determined. Still, you go on…
“Mr PM, we [YOU FAIL TO CLARIFY WHO IS ASKING AND ON WHO"S BEHALF????] must ask you the following questions before you can claim your prize of prorogation!!
Question #1: “Is the government facing a non-confidence vote?” yes / no
Question #2: “Is the government under parliamentary order to hand over documents?” – yes / no
If you answered “yes” to either of the above questions then prorogation is not allowed….I’m sorry, try again later”
First, to be fair these suggestions are different for what you initially said was “non-partisan reasons”. These are more specific and soemwhat better thought out. Still, you have the arrogance to trumpet this bullshit:
“What I was interested in was Mr. Ignatieff’s idea — which guess what, is the SAME as MY idea (the ONLY idea I put forth”
Your capacity for backpedaling and misrepresenting your own ignorance are truly astounding.
Either way, the position that you took is a categorically different position than the initial one[s] you made (I hold it a perhaps pleasant thought that while arrogant you are at least capable of some social evolution). Still, in the above, most recent suggestion that you made, even if it were just the GG asking [you don't say who] this it would be an increase in watchdog-like powers – s/he does not have the constitutional authority for this, nor could such an inflamation of her powers be awarded to her by Parliament. This suggestion is also NOT what Mr. Ignatieff has proposed so I see no reason why you think that by agreeing with him you validate your own stupid ideas.
Mr. Ignatieff, in contrast, is only seeking to inflame the non-binding and ultimately irrelevant House Standing Rules which any leader could, but would be unwise to, walk right over if need be the case. This rather petty and overly trumpeted reform is because House Standing Rules are subservient to our very vague and badly articulated “Emergencies Powers” under which prorogation can also be used. Your suggestion, which initally proposed either an inflation of the GG’s actual powers, or those of Parliament’s, to have an effect on the actual powers of prorougation are categorically different than Mr. Ignatieff’s procedural remedies which do not affect that power in any way save for the time restriction that he wants to propose. The issue of the length of Parliamentary adjournment that a PM could request proroguing seems rather set in the constitution, so I don’t think that this particular suggestion by Mr. Ignatieff has any merit. At the same time, I can see the tactical benefit of mentioning it even if the issue of time periods on prorougation are, in reality, already set in stone.
Now, for the last time, Parliamentary requests to submit information are carried over the next session. This is precisely why Mr. Ignatieff has, in a bid for administrative expediency, suggested that Parliamentary committees continue if Parliament is prorogued so that the committed can continue working. This is Mr. Ignatieff’s most important suggestion and most likely the one that he will be able to push as a House Standing issue. I am not opposed to anything of this sort, nor do I see any effective barrier to its passing. It is likely that we will see this, at least, as an outcome of the last couple of months. Either way, Parliamentary requests for information are commonplace and, under your suggestion, (not the suggestion now made by Mr. Ignatieff, that you undoubtedly now agree with) one would have to determine what constitutes a relevant “document transfer” . Under Mr. Ignatieff’s better thought out suggestion work simply continues.
Finally, and this is most significant. The suggestion, by Mr Ignatieff, not you, that allows:
“Prevent[ion of a] a request for prorogation if a matter of confidence has been scheduled in the House unless the House consents;”
…will not go anywhere on the basis of our constitution again. This is because it potentially removes a power from a minority PM but effectively grants one to a leader who can stack the house. I am not sure how the Liberals managed to be so careless with that one, but it will be the one that turns the whole affair on their heads if they are not very very careful. Either way this particular clause is an empty one with no real future.
As for your lame need for law professors, which you seem to pretend or imply are somehow more informed and able to access information on this (and unanimous in their love for the liberal party) on the subject I refer you to a nice and rather neutral article on the powers of prorougation (which also demonstrates that the reside in the GG) and outlines nicely the nature of the relationship between elections, the PM and the GG. This of course is written by in response to last year’s prorougation and is generally of the position that I hold. A good reading of it will allow anyone to assess both the merits and deficits of Mr. Ignatieff’s suggestions and go a long way to informing people of the respective powers of office. I should also note that Mr. Peter Hogg former Dean of Osgood Law School, who if you have ever spent a day studying law can easily be seen in my camp on this whole issue – namely that this prorogation is not as dangerous as the one last year (you know the one in which he personally advised the GG to go ahead with while acting as the GG’s counsel and advisor while standing in the Room with her and Mr. Harper) and that suggestions to amend the powers of the GG and PM will be met with only limited success. House Rules of Standing are a great way to pretend to have done something significant, but, in the end do not address underlying structures. To their credit, they may allow a mechanism where opposition parties may more rapidly criticism the ruling party, which in my mind, is always a good thing.
There is also this
http://www.thebruns.ca/content/2010-01/prominent-law-scholar-tackles-prorogation
and this onthe subject of the more conservative NDP proposal
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/why-the-globe-prorogation-editorial-fails/article1441818/
Anyone who makes it through this little reading list and traces the credentials of its authors can see very quickly than amending that actual powers surrounding Prorogation are tremendously difficult. That which is not specifically listed in our constitution are still implied in the Constitutional Conventions that our courts also have to uphold. This is why I am so adamant that your (Darren’s) incoherent and ever changing suggestions don’t have a chance, that Mr. Ignatieff’s may, but only on a few points, and that most of this talk about reforming prorogation at the roots of its powers is really just political white noise happily broadcast to people who don’t know any better. Need I remind you Darren stupid and impossible legislation is proposed all the time, and by all parties. God, a lot of it even passes before it is found to be illegal. Again, rule by law, not by Parliament is the system we have here. Ignatieff could go through all the motions of passing his entire proposition (though in reality he never could) and still have it squashed by some low-bench court. I just hope, for administrative, and tax saving purposes, that millions of dollars and time is not wasted on this rather small issue of reform. Use it to point to Harper as despotic – that is fine, that stimulates debate, but don’t go tinkering with an unfixable machine – for the most part our Parliamentary rules and Constitution are really just like the ugly fat girl at the party, if you don’t feed her she will leave you alone and only the drunk and “motivated” types try to pretty her up for their own lowly uses.