Now here's a trick that not even Obama can pull.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Link.

When it comes to high-handedness, there is nothing like a Parliamentary government for pulling the rug out.  In the new session, the Senate will have a government majority that does not exist now.  Mr. Harper has used this trick two years in a row.

[Duke87 1,070]

So... wait. He has the authority to tell parliament they can't reconvene?

And, what exactly does doing so accomplish besides stalling?

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: Duke87

So... wait. He has the authority to tell parliament they can't reconvene?

And, what exactly does doing so accomplish besides stalling?

quote>

Yep -- The governor general is actually the one with the authority - the PM just advises him/her. And it accomplishes absolutely nothing - besides stalling.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

In this case, during the recess, Mr. Harper will appoint some more Conservative Senators to fill vacancies.  The result will be a Conservative majority in the Senate.  The Conservatives have a minority in the House of Commons, but have control because no one wants to fight an election just yet.

Parliamentary governments are trickier than one that runs by a clock, like the US set up.   If things get really sticky the government can resign.  At this point, if the Governor General can't find parties willing and able to form a new government, she calls an election.  The Liberals, New Democrats, the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party are currently unable to form a government nor withstand an election.  The current SNAFU will continue until sometime after the Olympics. 

When Parliament next meets, a new budget will be presented.  If this is defeated, the government must call on the Governor General and resign.  By the way, there is a customary five-year limit on a government, but most of them don't last that long.  If there was an election right now, the result would be another Conservative minority because the Liberal leader, Mr. Ignatieff, is unpopular.  Because of the disarray in the opposition parties, the Conservatives might even get a majority, and that would put them in the driver's seat for five years without question.

I hope this gives everyone not in a Parliamentary system a brief glimpse of what this is about.

EDIT LATER:  Whooee!  And now the punditry begins.  Link.

The Canadian press is all over this.  The Ottawa Citizen is about equal to the Washington Post in this arena.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

So, the Prime Minister is trying to stall the Parliament. He ought to know by now that all these tricks will accomplish is stalling the business of Parliament, when it is inevitable anyway, and at the same time making himself look like a petty tyrant. I wouldn't think someone would be fit to be the Prime Minister of Canada if they cannot stand opposition and use every legal trick possible to prevent them from conducting their due business in Parliament.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

So, the Prime Minister is trying to stall the Parliament. He ought to know by now that all these tricks will accomplish is stalling the business of Parliament, when it is inevitable anyway, and at the same time making himself look like a petty tyrant. I wouldn't think someone would be fit to be the Prime Minister of Canada if they cannot stand opposition and use every legal trick possible to prevent them from conducting their due business in Parliament.

quote>

You ought to know that once in power, the incumbent will cling to it like an abalone.  Clinging to power is an old, well established Parialmentary trick.  Why do you think they have limits on office in the U.S. Constitution?

[Explodingsims 3]

So wait, what is he trying to do? Build an all conservative government?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Explodingsims

So wait, what is he trying to do? Build an all conservative government?quote>

Got it in one! 

Parliamentary governments are run by the party with the most seats (usually), and the divisions between parties are slight, but important.  You can think of the Conservatives as socialistic Republicans and the Liberals as Democrats if it helps your thinking.  The New Democratic Party grew out of the old Canadian Commonwealth Federation (CCF a.k.a. Canadian Constipated Farmers), the Bloc Quebecois is a splinter of the old Progressive Conservatives who felt that Quebec was being ignored, and, of course, the Green Party of Canada are the environmentalists.

Currently the Conservatives have a minority government which means they don't have an absolute majority (half the seats plus one) in the house of commons.  They need some opposition votes to get things passed and have to romance the other parties to get on.  Currently, nobody wants an election, so they are forced to blunder on as best they can.  The prime ministry has the ear of the Governor General who has the power to prorogue (end) the current session of the house.  This forces a new session with a Speech from the Throne containing the government's agenda for the session. 

The GG can also "drop the writ" which dissolves Parliament forcing an election.  If you wonder what the GG does other than this, she is the Head of State, Commander of the Canadian Forces, and Sovereign of the Order of Canada.  She is also the representative of Elizabeth, Queen of Canada, in her absence.  Since the Queen is also queen of a great many of the Commonwealth of Nations countries, she is mostly absent.  The institution of governors general make the whole thing tick.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

The GG can also "drop the writ" which dissolves Parliament forcing an election.  If you wonder what the GG does other than this, she is the Head of State, Commander of the Canadian Forces, and Sovereign of the Order of Canada.  She is also the representative of Elizabeth, Queen of Canada, in her absence.  Since the Queen is also queen of a great many of the Commonwealth of Nations countries, she is mostly absent.  The institution of governors general make the whole thing tick.

quote>

I'd just like to mention that the GG is the representative of the Head of State -- the Queen. Legally, the GG is not the head of state.

[DITRO 15]

So, does that mean, if she wants to, the Queen can override decisions of the Governor General? How much power does she technically hold over the Commonwealth of Nations?

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: DITRO

So, does that mean, if she wants to, the Queen can override decisions of the Governor General? How much power does she technically hold over the Commonwealth of Nations?quote>

Legally, she has the power that you would expect a Queen to have. Realistically, if she tried to exert her control, I'm not sure how much anyone would really listen.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Beebs is right about the Head of State residing in the Queen.  The GG is her "employee".  She could "drop the writ" or do anything else that is within the authority of the crown under the Constitution of Canada.

Constitutional monarchies are very interesting things, especially when the sovereign is normally absent.

[Z77 3]

Hmmmm...quite interesting how it works...never realized how in depth (and different) Constitutional Monarchies are. It actually makes me laugh knowing that most americans (even i, if i would admit so) know so little about Canada and how it works, yet, it has been a common destination people call upon when they talk about leaving the US. It just makes me wish more that our schools would focus a little more on history and governments other than the United States at least once in high school.

I always thought that a Constitutional Monarchy was exactly like the US Republic except instead of a president, a prime minister and an added Queen. Seems that im very wrong

I do have a question though. Since your parlament is suspended until march, is it possible for there to become no government and then a sole monarchy or what not if they do not vote on a budget, or by any other means?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Z77

I do have a question though. Since your parlament is suspended until march, is it possible for there to become no government and then a sole monarchy or what not if they do not vote on a budget, or by any other means?quote>

No.  Suspension of Parliament does not stop the government from operating, just as your executive branch can carry on when congress is not sitting.  But if the new budget is defeated, the government must resign and a new government appointed by the crown.  This usually needs an election to select a new Parliament.  The government carries on in a lame-duck fashion for the 44 days before the election, and for a short transition afterwards.  Before you ask, the Governor General is appointed by the crown for a term of five years on the advice of the Prime Minister.  The GG is usually apolitical.  The last two have been broadcasters.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Well, I see how this can be both good and bad. Good for supporters (them), bad for opponents (me). I think that my only consolation is that a Conservative Canadian government is still far more liberal than its American counterpart.

Barbarossaquote>

I suspect that this is due to the fact that, notwithstanding the ages of our respective nations, we have kept all the old traditions and precedents.  You seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

[Z77 3]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Originally posted by: Z77

I do have a question though. Since your parlament is suspended until march, is it possible for there to become no government and then a sole monarchy or what not if they do not vote on a budget, or by any other means?quote>

No.  Suspension of Parliament does not stop the government from operating, just as your executive branch can carry on when congress is not sitting.  But if the new budget is defeated, the government must resign and a new government appointed by the crown.  This usually needs an election to select a new Parliament.  The government carries on in a lame-duck fashion for the 44 days before the election, and for a short transition afterwards.  Before you ask, the Governor General is appointed by the crown for a term of five years on the advice of the Prime Minister.  The GG is usually apolitical.  The last two have been broadcasters.

quote>

ok well thanks for enlightening me

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: beebs

Originally posted by: DITRO

So, does that mean, if she wants to, the Queen can override decisions of the Governor General? How much power does she technically hold over the Commonwealth of Nations?quote>

Legally, she has the power that you would expect a Queen to have. Realistically, if she tried to exert her control, I'm not sure how much anyone would really listen.

quote>

That only answers the de jure question.  The much more important prohibition on the queen exercizing her power is the de facto one.  For it's historical use, see: Charles I

[DITRO 15]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Well, I see how this can be both good and bad. Good for supporters (them), bad for opponents (me). I think that my only consolation is that a Conservative Canadian government is still far more liberal than its American counterpart.

Barbarossaquote>

I suspect that this is due to the fact that, notwithstanding the ages of our respective nations, we have kept all the old traditions and precedents.  You seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

quote>

Yep (we did kind of have a little Revolution ).  Our founder's did not want anything close to the British royal system for fear of tyranny.  In fact our first Articles of Confederation only created a loose alliance of states with a weak central government with no executive branch.  Fear of Britain is what kept them together until the Constitution was adopted, creating the system the U.S. has today.

[your_adress_here 11]

Originally posted by: DITRO

 creating the system the U.S. has today.

quote>

A system where the people still fear their government.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: your_adress_here

Originally posted by: DITRO

 creating the system the U.S. has today.

quote>

A system where the people still fear their government.

quote>

The proper word is "distrust."

[DITRO 15]

true...true

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: david1314

That only answers the de jure question.  The much more important prohibition on the queen exercizing her power is the de facto one.  For it's historical use, see: Charles I

quote>

The royals of Europe don't have a lot of de facto power. Sure, they can stall laws (usually vetoing them for so and so long), and, in theory, they could of course pick the advisors they like, but they're not going to. References to the King or Queen in contemporary laws don't mean that they're actually deciding; that's up to the cabinet.

I doubt you find any who fear a monarch in Europe. When Norway became an independent nation in 1905, the people elected to have a king, not a president, who even appointed a (minority) Labour government with a revolutionary commitment in 1928, as they were the single largest group in Parliament. In fact, it's the presidents of Europe that exercise their power, such as the Czech president's initial opposition to the Lisbon Treaty last autumn. Charles I is hardly a fitting example of how times could have been. Elizabeth the Terrible? Even the socialists are content with them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: krbe

Elizabeth the Terrible? Even the socialists are content with them.

quote>

Both Elizabeths have had glorious reigns.  The last really terrible monarch of Gt. Britain was probably Henry VIII or his daughter, Mary.  By the time of the first Elizabeth, even though she appears to have had absolute power, the Parliament was there to limit her.

It really took about 300 years before Magna Carta really sank in on the monarchy.  Charles I (Stuart) was a damned, narcissistic fool.  Cromwell was even worse.  Parliament had the bit in its teeth and now you know why English royals are avid horsemen.

[Wrightguy0 40]

I dissagree wholeheartedly with the Proroguing of Parliment, It makes it totally obvious as to what the PM is trying to do, I've never been a fan of him, last time he pulled this he killed to coalition which under canadian law is perfectly legal and democratic (dispite the cries from the tories) and I find it especially dubious the circumstances in which parlament was suspended, wasn't there an investigation about the treatment of detainees that was just shifting it's focus towards the harper government. It really shows what he does to avoid blame, i fear this will become his most common trick that he will pull every time his government is threatened, which is undemocratic in itself.

I wish the GG would say no, she can do that if she deems it to detremental to canadian citizens (which it is) unfortunately no party is really popular ATM and this whole minority quagmire will drag on another couple of years before we voters get tired of it

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Wrightguy0

I wish the GG would say no, she can do that if she deems it to detremental to canadian citizens (which it is) unfortunately no party is really popular ATM and this whole minority quagmire will drag on another couple of years before we voters get tired of itquote>

Well, there would have been some kind of recess for the Olympic Games so the MP's could use their complementary tickets.

As for killing the governments involvement or not in the Afghan prisoner scandal, I consider that a mere bag of shells. We all know what kind of shell game the opposition is playing.

If you think a coalition government would have been good for Canada, take a look at Israel, which pretty much always has one between crises.

I just can't stomach an American academic as Prime Minister no matter whose passport he carries. And can you imagine Jack Layton with any kind of real power? You have got to be kidding!

[Wrightguy0 40]

Who's to say the opposition will still have the same leaders next year? and i would still rather see an NDP government than this crap, even a conservative government without harper would be better than this. it's just stupid to pull the same rabbit out of your hat twice, i doubt he'll be around much longer if he goes for a third time

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Wrightguy0

Who's to say the opposition will still have the same leaders next year? and i would still rather see an NDP government than this crap, even a conservative government without harper would be better than this. it's just stupid to pull the same rabbit out of your hat twice, i doubt he'll be around much longer if he goes for a third timequote>

"You can fool all of the people some of the time ...." P.T. Barnum

I don't see any leadership reviews in the offing, so I am afraid that we are stuck with the current set of hoods and boodlers. If Ignatieff wasn't there, would you settle for Bob (Raeday) Rae? As for Mr. Layton, I lived in Toronto when he was almost mayor. Blecch!

Maybe a strong Green vote is the wake-up call that everyone needs, but we have to remember what happened in Ontario when we tried that with the NDP.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Link

The PM pulls another one.

I don't think Obama can do this without lengthy confirmation hearings.

[Korot 6]

Hmm, I can certainly understand why Canadian don't like this. Is there absolutely nothing the parliament can do against this? Like voting to put Harper from his seat when parliament returns? Our parliament can. Well, not in theory, but in practice, they can.

Regards,

Korot