The traditional and constitutional method of frustrating the opposition’s wish to form a government is to demonstrate the confidence of the house, not to cow a Governor General who took office with a soft-on-separatism image problem by demanding she close the doors on parliament because, heaven forefend, a separatist party was prepared to support a national government with a clearly avowed federalist constitutional position.

The Prime Minister frustrates the main principles by which westminster-style representative democracy works when he decides that the parliament does not have the right to express its will until the situation becomes more advantageous to him.

We elect our members of parliament, not our Prime Minister.

I hope you will not find it redundant, but in light of my rather long exchange on this subject, have committed to writing a through review of proroguing, its historical use, its constitutional justification, and to what extent it can be modified and amended, and in contrast, to what extend parties are blowing smoke out of the party ass to promise the public amendments that can not be delivered or that are ultimately procedural and not really effective (and actually inflate parliamentary operating costs). The most annoying thing in all of this is that the anti-proroguing types are quick to label anyone who didn’t care or was indifferent, or who speaks out against Ignatieff’s absurd remedy as “Conservatives”. This is really funny as it, by corollary, makes them Constitutionally and politically ill-informed.

Also, on the use of the word ignorant – I see no reason to find calling one’s opponents this rude or harsh. That one is ignorant only means that one is ill-informed. If one is indeed ill-informed and offended by being called ignorant that person is narcissistic and foolish. If one is informed and called ignorant, the correct response to to reply with the reading and sources one has. That said, by default then, the person who is truly offended by being called ignorant, undoubtably is ignorant, and their offense at this correct label justifies treating them with public contempt.

Note to Jordan: Constitutional convention is actually equally binding and historically has been more difficult to reform than actual constitutional text. for more on this subject read either any work on the subject by Hogg, or any introductory Constitutional Law Textbook. The one by Rotman, Elman, & Gall is informative and widely used across Canadian Law schools. The unspoken rules of the Constitution (the conventions) are generally outside the domain of parliament to even comment on and are largely at the discretion of the courts. Any amendment to these would be challenged all the way up and the SCC justices would rule inevitably in light of the implied text of the constitution irrespective of political will.

Thanks for the comment.

Some points of rebuttal:

1) Not everyone does understand that prorogation is a valid tool. Otherwise, they would find words other than “dictatorial” and “undemocratic” do describe it. I doubt most people can explain it (or the current context, beyond what is reported in the news), so if you know so much about it you could have skipped the painfully repetitive bits. This blog is meant as a forum for people of different views and backgrounds to contribute “free to speak without fear”. Not everyone here will support the same view points.

2) I don’t really care about the context and this is why: The context in which the Conservatives use it is either no less or marginally less flimsy than the pretext used by the Liberals – that is a huge part of my point. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Do you remember the Somalia scandal and AdScam? Both were rather dubious instances of using prorogation to save one’s own skin, and NOT done by the Conservatives. So I agree totally with your point that “shutting down parliament every time your government takes a bit of heat…” is problematic. The problem is that a lot of the people who are going all all-caps and exclamation points about it now don’t seem to have any issues when the Liberals do the same thing.

3) The phrase “redundantly repeating over and over” is (really) redundant. I find exclamation points and all caps annoying too, so I guess we’re even.

4) The “majority” Members of Parliament have had multiple opportunities to topple the Conservatives and have not had the guts to do so. If they believe so strongly in democracy, why did they not eject Mr. Harper in the fall? Why did their coalition fall apart as soon as Mr. Ignatieff ascended to power? Seems like it was because they value their own political careers more than they value “democracy”.

5) Get pissy all you want. While your at it, get pissy about what you should really be pissy about – that Canada has had a series of pathetically weak opposition parties who were unable to tackle the arrogance and ego of an out of control Prime Minister (from any party).

It is great that Canadians are protesting and I would never discourage them from doing so. My point is that a lot of them have missed the protest boat. They protest without really knowing why or what they are shouting about. I don’t care if they all hate Stephen Harper, but I’ll repeat what I said in another response. It is far more useful to say “Harper’s policies suck and here is why” than to just say “Harper sucks”, and it is better if they share their opinions on a regular basis rather than storing up and boiling over (consistent political participation rather than apathy broken by fury).

Last I checked everyone in Canada was still represented by an MP. They are bright and creative people who should be busy figuring out how they are going to respond to all this in March. They will have the perfect opportunity to put their money where their mouths are and call an election if they truly believe that Harper needs to go.

Now who’s criticizing? Scholars in constitutional law worldwide, particularly experts in westminster-style democracy; Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper’s very own academic thinktank from U of Calgary; conservative international journalism, like The Economist. There goes the “we are unfamiliar with it and because of that, it makes us a bit edgy.” Yes, the scholarly class opposes it along with the unwashed plebs. Go run your pristine facts by Flanagan and see what he tells you.

(also posted on reddit)

The crux of your argument is here:

“So you see, dear readers, prorogation is not the rare beast that some people believe it to be. It is constitutionally valid and is not morally dubious in and of itself. In fact, Parliament has been prorogued over 100 times.” (forgive my colon w/ quotation marks. it’s to avoid confusion for the “dear readers”)

Your whole article redundantly repeats over and over and over the fact that it’s legal. No shit. It’s the context, which you COMPLETELY ignore. And yes, the Liberals have used it for dubious purposes, but none as flagrant as trying to prorogue because you’re gonna lose a confidence vote on a budget (last year) and to avoid complicity in torture-as-policy (now)!!!!!!

So yeah, a Civics 101 textbook outlines what prorogation is and that it’s legal. Sure, no argument there.

Shutting down parliament every time your government takes a bit of heat or is about to lose a confidence vote – CONSTITUTIONALLY PROBLEMATIC. Indulge yourself in some shades of gray.

EDIT: I might add, the reason it would be problematic is that in Canada we go by supremacy of Parliament (majority of Members of Parliament in the house of COMMONS – representing common people, the essence of democracy; the senate is parliament as well but their mandate is much weaker), NOT supremacy of the Prime Minister’s Office. The role of prime minister isn’t even in the constitution; it’s a position defined by convention. If you’re going to get all literalist on the constitution then explain why we should roll over for a PM and shouldn’t get pissy because our Parliament is being shut down without its (our/citizens of canada as represented by MPs/aka democracy as we have it) consent.

Thanks for the apology.

I wasn’t trying to give people reasons to be apathetic – I think they’ve already thought them up on their own. I was just speculating as to what those reasons might be (I know what mine are, but can’t speak for everyone else). As soon as I discover the cure for political apathy I’ll post it here. It is partly a chicken and egg thing. When people feel politics is relevant to them and matters in their lives they will care about politics more, but until they care about it more and involve themselves, politicians will continue to ignore them.

It does my cynical little heart good to see anyone protesting anything political, whether or not I agree with them. Too often people are just told to sit down, shut up, and take what’s coming to them. If people disagree with Harper or prorogation or anything else they should get up and protest it. Their protests have more force, however, if they understand and can articulate what they are protesting. I’ve been reading the comments of people in the Facebook anti-prorogation group, and a lot of the opinions aren’t much deeper than “Harper sucks”. That is the wrong (or at least unproductive) kind of negativity. I would rather that people say “Harper’s policy sucks, and this is why”.

If you and I just wrote back and forth saying “yeah, well, you suck”, then that would be kind of dull and not very illuminating. I don’t care if someone things a politician or his/her policy is awful, but I’d like to hear intelligent reasons for why they think that. There is negativity just for negativity’s sake, and then there is useful negativity (what I’d call informed debate).

I understand that the role of the opposition is to criticize the government, which makes them “negative”. That is how it should be. What the parties (all of them) do is conflate dislike of a particular person (usually the leader) with dislike or disagreement with policies (ad hominem BS all around). Of course it is sometimes difficult to explain to people why a policy is bad – it is much easier to attack the person representing it.

Kim Campbell said that an election was no place to discuss serious issues and she lost her head over it (even though she might be right). It is a tricky position. The Liberals took it straight in the face for Mr. Dion’s carbon tax policy, that’s for sure. Certainly it takes a lot of work to put a policy together and then it’s frustrating to not be able to enact it. The counter argument is that if a party has a firm policy all along, once they are elected everyone should understand it and it should be quick to roll out. I distrust policies that are formed only in time for elections. Typically they are vapid promises that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

I haven’t had enough coffee yet and I’m running off-track, but here’s one of my main points (for today, it was maybe not as clearly articulated in the original post). Canada is best served when we have a strong opposition to balance the party in power. I only really remember back to the Mulroney years, but this is what I see. A party gets in power, overstays its welcome, gets arrogant, does something horribly unpopular (things that we still argue about years later – NAFTA, GST, income trusts, prorogation), and then gets decimated in the next election, leaving a weak opposition. Wash, rinse, repeat. There doesn’t seem to be any balance and neither party is immune to the problem.

Like him or loathe him, Stephen Harper has been running circles around the opposing parties, and they really can’t blame him for pushing his limits. In spite of the prorogation protests, the polls show that the Liberals have made gains, but they have a long way to go. I don’t want to vote “ABC” as some on Facebook suggest. We all deserve better than that. If only for themselves, Liberals should want to elected because people think they’re the better party, not just as a protest vote.

You don’t have to thank me for reading your work, I like reading, I do it alot, if I do not find something to appreciate in someone’s work I don’t comment upon it or read it any further.

Democracy cannot take a backseat to discipline, democracy delivers (or is supposed to) the power to discipline into the hands of the people for a moment in return for the people delivering to the people’s selected rulers the power to discipline for as long as they legally can. The laws themselves of course are always a contentious issue.

Why does everyone dislike negative politics? Freedom from or to if you will or campaigning upon either seems like exactly what I want politicians to be campaigning upon.

Anyhow my point was: what was your point? You and I both call people apathetic, I give reasons not to be apathetic you give reasons to be apathetic. What is your intention?

To boil it down:
there is little to be positive about
there is much to be negative about
at least if people are negative they have something to be about.

Negativity is the role of the opposition. I really abhor calls for the opposition to have solid policy when in fact they have been put in the position of not enacting it. When an election is called fine (anyone remember who came out last with policy in the last election?).

Thank you for taking the time to read my post and comment.

I am the first to admit that I do not completely understand the Conservatives (or any party, for that matter), nor why Mr. Harper has prorogued Parliament. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between what he says and what the Liberals say.

Here is my point, in a nutshell. People are very upset about prorogation, and that is justifiable, but they are missing the much larger point. Why does the Harper government feel free to use tools such as prorogation? Why did the Chretien Liberals use it? They both used it because the opposition is (was) weak and they know they can get away with it. What people need to be upset about is not prorogation per se, but the fact that the force that is supposed to balance the governing party is so weak. The Conservatives have a minority and they are still walking all over the opposition. No one is keeping them in check, and THAT is why Canadians should care. I get very upset with the Liberal Party because they are, at the moment, the only realistic challengers to the Conservatives, but they cannot put their internal issues aside for the good of the country. My previous post talks a lot about my feelings on the current parties. There should be more to being the Official Opposition than just plotting a return to power. Present me with a viable alternative to the Conservatives and I’ll vote for it, but so far there isn’t one in sight.

Liberals are full of talk about holding the Conservatives to account, but have been low on action. Harper thumbs his nose at them (rightly or wrongly) because he can. When the balance of power is reversed, the Liberals have shown themselves to be absolutely the same. I wish I had a nickel for every time I wanted to smack a smug grin off the face of Jean Chretien. You cannot tell me that by the end of 12 years in power the Liberals did not ooze arrogance from every pore – they seemed to assume they were the default ruling party. And, as you said, this is why they got voted out.

In regards to leashes vs. choke chains, no need for name calling there. Your post would have more force if you refrained from speculating on my level of ignorance. Democracy took a back seat to party discipline a LONG time ago and the Conservatives are not the only guilty party. Saying “yeah, well, we’re bad, but you’re worse” is a flimsy argument. It is inappropriate (and a disservice to the electorate) for any party to completely muzzle its MP’s. I did NOT say that I agree with what Harper does, which is perhaps where your mistake is and why you felt the need to a bit of nastiness. What I said was that the Liberals do the same thing, so they cannot object to it on principle. What level of muzzling would you say is acceptable – 10%, 50%, 100%? How will you measure it?

Jean Chretien did not earn the nickname “The Friendly Dictator” by encouraging free speech among his MP’s. By contrast, Paul Martin, who arguably could have been a very good Prime Minister, did not have enough control over his MP’s and it hurt him/them in the end. There is a reason that Mr. Donolo has made significant changes in Mr. Ignatieff’s office culture. There is a need for someone to be the boss, but there doesn’t need to be a dictator. Politicians are pack animals, and both Chretien and Harper are clearly Alphas. If Mr. Ignatieff wants to unseat the Conservatives, he must also prove himself an Alpha who is equal to Harper (or better, whatever). I feel for Mr. Dion. He is a very intelligent and sincere man but his own party could not even manage to put on a show of support for the leader THEY chose. It made the Liberals look a bit silly. If a party can’t even settle on a leader it likes for itself, how can it expect to be trusted to lead the country? They don’t even know their own minds, let alone those of the electorate.

In closing, what does any party stand for anymore? I have voted NDP, Conservative, and Liberal in the past; I’m not tethered to any one party. If we had an election tomorrow I wouldn’t be able to vote (comfortably) for any of them (again, see my last post). I am a fiscal conservative, in favour of gay marriage, am pro-choice, and think the environment is important but not to the point that we should sacrifice the entire economy. I am also sorry to see that Canada has been reduced to a bit player on the world scene. So, who am I supposed to vote for?

I disagree with a great many things the Conservatives have done, but the majority of the political class is cut from the same cloth! People get apathetic because they see the hypocrisy of these people every day. People see that a party maintains one position while in opposition and then completely flip-flops once they are put in power (Liberal example: “we’ll kill the GST!”. Conservative example: Income trusts). They decry the tactics of the opposing party and then happily use them themselves at the first opportunity.

Phew.

Comparing Chretien’s leash on his ministers to Harper’s choke chain is your ignorance. I pardon you.

Never has Canada had a less transparent Government, and this whilst they have the minority in parliament. The sound bytes and talking points are admittedly not a substitution for real conversation, oh hey wait a second … you’re criticizing the opposition for the Conservative forte.

Look I am appalled at the populist lines politicians take as a result of the populace’s ignorance, or the ignorance that politicians perceive. The reason apathy (not ignorance) is fading on the left is that we’re actually scared, we don’t have to like the opposition parties to vote for them, we just have to recognize the terrifying fact that, as Ms. May has repeatedly pointed out (normally not a fan but this is just good trendspotting), one party experiences huge gains when the Canadian population doesn’t pay attention, I’ll give you a hint it isn’t the Greens.

Conservatives champion ignorance. This is well documented, even by Conservatives. I bring together some of the documents here: http://informedvote.ca/2010/01/18/populist-party-stephen-harpers-conservatives-criminal-justice-policy/ .

Small sidebar here, what do tories stand for anymore? All of those I talk to feel betrayed by the economic policies enacted. Small c is dead and big C is hidden, so what’s the appeal?

To finish where I began the Economist’s last incursion into Canadian politics was lauded by the Conservatives and touched on one of the issues that brought the Liberals down. Like the Canadian populace they don’t care until it gets really, really bad.

Then governments get changed.