[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

Fuck that Republican noise. We need a Head of State, what are we going to do ? Spend 360 millions$ every 5 years to elect a figure head? That British dude in London will be fine, just like his mom was.

[Josephus]

It could be an appointed figure head...kinda like the GG.

[Barrister]

It could be an appointed figure head...kinda like the GG.

Every once in awhile, maybe only once in a generation or more, the political situation hits an impasse and you need a neutral figure to decide the way forward.  The trouble with an appointed figure like the GG is they are appointed by politicians, and often are former politicians themselves.  Their neutrality is suspect.

Having a neutral arbiter decided by birth is as good a system as any else, and helps to drive a little bit of tourism.  And of course we get off cheap by using the UKs monarch - the UK pays far more for the Royal Family than we do.  All we have to do is pay a couple million for a royal visit every once in a while.

[Oexmelin]

Except that when push came to shove, when Harper decided to prorogue the Parliament for basely partisan reasons (with the official excuse being the fucking Olympic Games...), the GG just went along with it. Even though it went against all precedent that form the spirit of Canadian institutions. That day, the GG showed that its very raison d'être had been emptied of all meaning.

[Barrister]

Except that when push came to shove, when Harper decided to prorogue the Parliament for basely partisan reasons (with the official excuse being the fucking Olympic Games...), the GG just went along with it. Even though it went against all precedent that form the spirit of Canadian institutions. That day, the GG showed that its very raison d'être had been emptied of all meaning.

That was exactly what I was thinking of.

It did not go against "all precedent".  In fact the precedent was 'you should go along with what the PM wants without good reason'.  The decision was made by the GG (who was NOT a Harper appointment), but was made in consultation with the monarchy.

It's funny people get all worked up about prorogation a decade ago.  The opposition had every chance to still defeat the government afterwards.  The fact their coalition government fell apart says more about the weakness of the coalition than it does about Harper.

[Oexmelin]

It's funny people get all worked up about prorogation a decade ago.  The opposition had every chance to still defeat the government afterwards.  The fact their coalition government fell apart says more about the weakness of the coalition than it does about Harper.

Except that I don't give a damn about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the opposition or Harper's political acumen. That is political vicissitude. It comes and goes. Institutions stay. Whether the opposition was weak or strong should have had no bearing on the matter at all. One does not prorogue parliament just as a political strategy. It undermines institutions. The fact that Jean (despite her continental-size ego) did not stand against Harper's wish at that time just dealt a blow to the GG, as an institution - for institutions do not exist simply as provisions on paper. The GG is already suffering from weak popular legitimacy: if it can no longer stand for the immaterial set of practices which constitute the Canadian state, then it is nothing.

What I find infuriating is that what I am defending here (and then) is a profoundly conservative position - but the fact that Conservative deigned voicing opposition at the time (nor now) show that they either shared Harper's cynicism and desire to win at all cost, had a very superficial commitment to the Canadian version of British Parliamentarism or perhaps, much like Harper, were rather taking their references from American political life.

[crazy canuck]

I am often struck by how conservative Oex and BB are at their core despite their political differences on many subjects.

I disagree with them both.  The GG is and should be only a ceremonial office.  But I also see no purpose in doing away with that ceremonial role and I see much harm in moving closer to the American model.

[Josephus]

Except that when push came to shove, when Harper decided to prorogue the Parliament for basely partisan reasons (with the official excuse being the fucking Olympic Games...), the GG just went along with it. Even though it went against all precedent that form the spirit of Canadian institutions. That day, the GG showed that its very raison d'être had been emptied of all meaning.

That was exactly what I was thinking of.

It did not go against "all precedent".  In fact the precedent was 'you should go along with what the PM wants without good reason'.  The decision was made by the GG (who was NOT a Harper appointment), but was made in consultation with the monarchy.

It's funny people get all worked up about prorogation a decade ago.  The opposition had every chance to still defeat the government afterwards.  The fact their coalition government fell apart says more about the weakness of the coalition than it does about Harper.

Yes, but the only reason he did it then was like calling a "timeout" in a hockey game when the other team is putting a lot of pressure on you. It slowed the momentum down, and eventually collapsed, which is what Harper. Look, at the time I was very much against it, but, like with all things, when you look at it in hindsight it was a good political move that avoided a vote of no-confidence.

[Barrister]

It's funny people get all worked up about prorogation a decade ago.  The opposition had every chance to still defeat the government afterwards.  The fact their coalition government fell apart says more about the weakness of the coalition than it does about Harper.

Except that I don't give a damn about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the opposition or Harper's political acumen. That is political vicissitude. It comes and goes. Institutions stay. Whether the opposition was weak or strong should have had no bearing on the matter at all. One does not prorogue parliament just as a political strategy. It undermines institutions. The fact that Jean (despite her continental-size ego) did not stand against Harper's wish at that time just dealt a blow to the GG, as an institution - for institutions do not exist simply as provisions on paper. The GG is already suffering from weak popular legitimacy: if it can no longer stand for the immaterial set of practices which constitute the Canadian state, then it is nothing.

What I find infuriating is that what I am defending here (and then) is a profoundly conservative position - but the fact that Conservative deigned voicing opposition at the time (nor now) show that they either shared Harper's cynicism and desire to win at all cost, had a very superficial commitment to the Canadian version of British Parliamentarism or perhaps, much like Harper, were rather taking their references from American political life.

Prorogation has on many occasions been used as a "political strategy":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_Canada

Look, it's an unusual step.  It's one that Harper can certainly be commented on.  But the bigger point in the Canadian Constitutional scheme is that the Governor General, though has theoretically vast power (they could refuse to sign bills passed in Parliament), by long standing convention the GG is subservient to the will of the elected politicians.  It's not without limit - the GG would not have let Harper prorogue Parliament indefinitely, but for a defined period of time she was quite right to do so.

[Oexmelin]

Either ceremony plays a role, or it's empty gestures. What ceremonial role do you want the GG to play? One cannot simply say it's "only" symbolic, for symbols have power. And in the current setup, the GG remains one of the very few institutional check to the PM power, but it's a check rooted in a tacit understanding of the past, and the spirit of institutions. I would be happy if the institutions were to change, but as they exist now, one has to value, and defend, the power that stems from tradition, and history because they provide counter discourses to the will of the PM, especially now.

[Oexmelin]

But the bigger point in the Canadian Constitutional scheme is that the Governor General, though has theoretically vast power (they could refuse to sign bills passed in Parliament), by long standing convention the GG is subservient to the will of the elected politicians.  It's not without limit - the GG would not have let Harper prorogue Parliament indefinitely, but for a defined period of time she was quite right to do so.

If that is truly the case, we may as well get rid of the costumed clown, for it has become truly useless. For next time, the goal posts will have moved a little further, and that moment will be quoted as precedent. We make tiny abuses normal in the mistaken belief that the truly monstrous will be self-evident (proroguing parliament indefinitely). Institutions are toppled when they become weak and meaningless. If a PM felt he could prorogue Parliament indefinitely, you can be sure we would have reached a point where the GG would have been made so irrelevant as to make his opposition meaningless. That prorogation weakened Parliament as a whole. In his desire to win, Harper thought it was a fair price to pay, and fair game, and I find it sad that his partisans who claim to be dedicated to tradition, are just paying lip service to it.  I despise Harper more for that, and for his other actions contemptible of Parliament's authority, than for any of his other policies, for policies can be reversed, but sapping Parliament is much more difficult to undo.

[Barrister]

But the bigger point in the Canadian Constitutional scheme is that the Governor General, though has theoretically vast power (they could refuse to sign bills passed in Parliament), by long standing convention the GG is subservient to the will of the elected politicians.  It's not without limit - the GG would not have let Harper prorogue Parliament indefinitely, but for a defined period of time she was quite right to do so.

If that is truly the case, we may as well get rid of the costumed clown, for it has become truly useless. For next time, the goal posts will have moved a little further, and that moment will be quoted as precedent. We make tiny abuses normal in the mistaken belief that the truly monstrous will be self-evident (proroguing parliament indefinitely). Institutions are toppled when they become weak and meaningless. If a PM felt he could prorogue Parliament indefinitely, you can be sure we would have reached a point where the GG would have been made so irrelevant as to make his opposition meaningless. That prorogation weakened Parliament as a whole. In his desire to win, Harper thought it was a fair price to pay, and fair game, and I find it sad that his partisans who claim to be dedicated to tradition, are just paying lip service to it.  I despise Harper more for that, and for his other actions contemptible of Parliament's authority, than for any of his other policies, for policies can be reversed, but sapping Parliament is much more difficult to undo.

Talk about Harper-derangement syndrome!

Prorogations have happened for political purposes.  The wiki article lists two specific earlier examples: MacDonald in 1873 when embroiled in the Pacific Scandal, and Chretien in 2002 in the midst of the Sponsorship Scandal.  In both cases the GG assented, however in both cases the investigations resumed once Parliament inevitably returned to work.

So yes, as Josephus puts it, proroging Parliament acts as a bit of a "time out" in hockey - a breather.  But much as in hockey while sometimes it can help to dull the opposition's momentum, often times it just delays the inevitable.

As a historian, I'm sure you recall what happened the last time the GG refused a request of a Prime Minister - the King-Byng affair (though that was a request to dissolve Parliament, not for a prorogation).

Personally, I find it telling that Michaelle Jean, the GG, who was no friend of Harper's, felt she had no other constitutional choice but to prorogue Parliament when requested.

[Grey Fox]

I don't know how having a elected figure head changes any of that.

[Valmy]

Chuck Windsor for Figurehead 20??

[Barrister]

I don't know how having a elected figure head changes any of that.

It changes it in that because an elected GG/President/whatever has some democratic legitimacy of their own, so might have felt more comfortable going against the PMs wishes.

However is that worth spending $100 million or more every few years?