[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Interesting argument in Le Devoir this weekend that the recent judgment of the UK Supreme Court May very well have repercussions in Canada, should a PM attempt to prorogue the Parliament as Harper did in 2008.

I doubt it.  The situations were very different.  Johnson was trying to break the country while Harper was trying to save it (*cue melodramatic music* ).  At first glace, the cases appear very different, but I'm not an expert.
Anyway, could you post the link, please?

It was the first thing I thought about when Johnson requested the prorogation, and was surprised it didn't bring back memories of Harper in the Canadian media. Or perhaps not just haven't seen them?

No, I haven't see anything about it either in La Presse, Le Soleil or Le Journal de Québec.  I haven't watched much of RDI, so it's possible they talked about it.

[Oexmelin]

https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/563677/une-gifle-a-boris-johnson-dont-l-echo-pourrait-se-faire-entendre-au-canada

[crazy canuck]

Interesting argument in Le Devoir this weekend that the recent judgment of the UK Supreme Court May very well have repercussions in Canada, should a PM attempt to prorogue the Parliament as Harper did in 2008.

I doubt it.  The situations were very different.  Johnson was trying to break the country while Harper was trying to save it (*cue melodramatic music* ).  At first glace, the cases appear very different, but I'm not an expert.
Anyway, could you post the link, please?

It was the first thing I thought about when Johnson requested the prorogation, and was surprised it didn't bring back memories of Harper in the Canadian media. Or perhaps not just haven't seen them?

No, I haven't see anything about it either in La Presse, Le Soleil or Le Journal de Québec.  I haven't watched much of RDI, so it's possible they talked about it.

Harper was trying to stop the NDP and Liberals from forming a coalition to become government.  The situations are similar.

[Sheilbh]

I think this was sort of a point made by John Major's lawyer:

In the context of constitutional settlement in which Parliament is acknowledged to be sovereign, that would be a remarkable position for the courts to endorse. It would follow that the courts would not intervene even if, for example:
Parliament wished to abolish the power of prorogation, and a Bill to hat effect passed both Houses, but before it could receive Royal Assent the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament so as to prevent it from becoming law;
a Prime Minister philosophically opposed to the idea of a standing army prorogued Parliament during the period leading up to the statutory expiry of the relevant Armed Forces Act, with the result that the Act expired and the armed forces were required to disband; or
a Prime Minister prorogued Parliament before the outcome of a confidence vote which his whips had calculated he would lose, for no reason other than to prevent it from being recorded that he had lost the confidence of the House such that he would need to resign.

[Josquius]

Well damn. Not confirmed, but if this story develops...

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/queen-sought-advice-sacking-prime-minister-638320

[viper37]

Interesting argument in Le Devoir this weekend that the recent judgment of the UK Supreme Court May very well have repercussions in Canada, should a PM attempt to prorogue the Parliament as Harper did in 2008.

I doubt it.  The situations were very different.  Johnson was trying to break the country while Harper was trying to save it (*cue melodramatic music* ).  At first glace, the cases appear very different, but I'm not an expert.
Anyway, could you post the link, please?

It was the first thing I thought about when Johnson requested the prorogation, and was surprised it didn't bring back memories of Harper in the Canadian media. Or perhaps not just haven't seen them?

No, I haven't see anything about it either in La Presse, Le Soleil or Le Journal de Québec.  I haven't watched much of RDI, so it's possible they talked about it.

Harper was trying to stop the NDP and Liberals from forming a coalition to become government.  The situations are similar.

Johnson was trying to avoid a parliament vote and push for his no-deal Brexit.  That is a major difference.

[viper37]

Green party platform filles with holes:
Green party platfor costs: fact check

Outside assessment gives failing grade

Other outside assessments of the Green platform pricing are even harsher.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (IFSD) at the University of Ottawa has issued a "Fiscal Credibility Assessment" and gives the Green Party a failing grade when it comes to realistic economic assumption, responsible fiscal management, and transparency.

Kevin Page, the former parliamentary budget officer who heads the institute, says the Green Party costing is riddled with errors — for example the numbers in the detailed tables don't match the overview totals. And it all appears to be based on outdated, 2018 fiscal projections.

"To us, it looked like it was put together in a very hurried fashion," says Page. "Somebody made a mistake."

Page gives the party credit for asking the PBO to cost out many of its "toughest measures." But he says that Elizabeth May's proposals on the move to a zero-carbon economy and rebalancing the tax system are so transformative that much more detail is required before they can be fairly assessed.

[viper37]

In other news, Scheer is doing his damnbest to convince me voting for someone else 

For once, Trudeau has had a good move, insufficient, but good, and he wants to go back to the old ways:
https://globalnews.ca/news/5966549/scheer-senate-trudeau-partisan-appointments/

[crazy canuck]

Interesting argument in Le Devoir this weekend that the recent judgment of the UK Supreme Court May very well have repercussions in Canada, should a PM attempt to prorogue the Parliament as Harper did in 2008.

I doubt it.  The situations were very different.  Johnson was trying to break the country while Harper was trying to save it (*cue melodramatic music* ).  At first glace, the cases appear very different, but I'm not an expert.
Anyway, could you post the link, please?

It was the first thing I thought about when Johnson requested the prorogation, and was surprised it didn't bring back memories of Harper in the Canadian media. Or perhaps not just haven't seen them?

No, I haven't see anything about it either in La Presse, Le Soleil or Le Journal de Québec.  I haven't watched much of RDI, so it's possible they talked about it.

Harper was trying to stop the NDP and Liberals from forming a coalition to become government.  The situations are similar.

Johnson was trying to avoid a parliament vote and push for his no-deal Brexit.  That is a major difference.

The common theme is preventing Parliament from sitting to achieve a political purpose.  Given the unanimous court ruling in the UK it is highly unlikely a Canadian PM could do the same thing Harper did.

[Barrister]

The common theme is preventing Parliament from sitting to achieve a political purpose.  Given the unanimous court ruling in the UK it is highly unlikely a Canadian PM could do the same thing Harper did.

The very striking difference is that in the UK prorogation was right in the face of a very hard and meaningful deadline for Brexit, and Johnson's prorogation had the effect of frustrating Parliament's attempts to deal wit that hard deadline in time.

There was no hard deadline in 2008-2009.  In that case prorogation allowed time for the very unstable triple alliance of the Libs, NDP and Bloc to fall apart, and Stephan Dion resigned as leader 4 days after Parliament was prorogued.

I know certain people have a full-on hate for Stephen Harper, but imagine the "what if" scenario is prorogation didn't happen, that the GG refused Harper's request (potentially sparking a constitutional crisis), and the three-headed coalition monster takes power  under the very decent, but in way over his head, Stephan Dion.

[Josephus]

I know certain people have a full-on hate for Stephen Harper, but imagine the "what if" scenario is prorogation didn't happen, that the GG refused Harper's request (potentially sparking a constitutional crisis), and the three-headed coalition monster takes power  under the very decent, but in way over his head, Stephan Dion.

We'll never know.

Point is Harper's reasons for prorogation were to allow time for hot heads to cool, and to save his government. I was against it then, and still am. It was an abuse of power.
IIRC you kept saying prorougation happens all the time, referring to summer break, which is not the same thing.

[Barrister]

I know certain people have a full-on hate for Stephen Harper, but imagine the "what if" scenario is prorogation didn't happen, that the GG refused Harper's request (potentially sparking a constitutional crisis), and the three-headed coalition monster takes power  under the very decent, but in way over his head, Stephan Dion.

We'll never know.

Point is Harper's reasons for prorogation were to allow time for hot heads to cool, and to save his government. I was against it then, and still am. It was an abuse of power.
IIRC you kept saying prorougation happens all the time, referring to summer break, which is not the same thing.

I was in favour then.  I was of a mixed opinion in the recent British case: it is something that is within the PM's prerogative, but it did have an aroma of trying to freeze out Parliament from having any say.  I think on balance I thought I supported it, although not without reservations.

You know, it's usually a good idea to "allow time for hot heads to cool", and 2008 showed us exactly why. 

[crazy canuck]

BB, never took you for an ends justifies the means person.

[Grey Fox]

Not proroguing might have save us from the China-Canada deal that handcuffed us until 2045.

[Barrister]

BB, never took you for an ends justifies the means person.

I, on the other hand, always took you for someone who would mischaracterize some else's argument.