Does Canada Need a Head of State

        From Twitter
        Adrian Harewood
        @CBCAdrianH
        23 Jan
        Why in 2021 is a Canadian Prime Minister, the leader of a #G7 nation, still reporting to a #Queen who                doesn't live in his country and has never lived in his country? #JuliePayette #JustinTrudeau #Canada

This is just one response to the latest “scandal” involving the monarchy. In this case it was the Governor General. In others it has been members of the Royal Family. In each instance we seem to see a flurry of criticism of the monarchy. Although the misbehaviour of individuals is not necessarily a good reason to question an institution such behaviour always acts as a catalyst for questioning the role of the monarchy in Canada.

The usual response is a “debate” over whether we should get rid of the monarchy and replace it with something else, presumably a republic with a president rather than a monarch. That of course is not the only option.

One option I have never seen discussed is whether or not we actually need a Head of State.

Could we essentially retain our system of government without a Head of State, in effect a constitutional monarchy without a monarch.

Is this not the ultimate evolution of democracy. While governments need leaders should a nation state not be led by the people, not by a designated privileged individual. Would this not be the ultimate expression of the rule of law rather than the rule of man.

How would this work in practice.

The constitutional parliamentary duties now performed by the Governor General, granting royal assent, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament, etc. would be performed by a body that actually has constitutional expertise, a panel of Supreme Court justices. When it is necessary to canvas the House of Commons to determine who has the confidence of the House that function could be carried out by the Speaker and confirmed by a confidence vote.

The Prime Minister would continue to speak for the government and the Speaker of the House of Commons could speak for Parliament and when appropriate on behalf of the country as a whole.

Our system of a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary government reflects our history and it works. If we are tempted to change it we should be bold.

The Coalition is Dead - Someone Tell Stephen Harper

The idea of a coalition government is dead for the simple reason that it is not in Michael Ignatieff's political interest to enter into a coalition that would require him to share power. Although it is in his political interest not to contradict Stephen Harper's coalition fear mongering but to leave the impression he is opposed to a coalition because of it's supposed illegitimacy.

Of course, if coalitions were illegitimate the governments of most western democracies, including that of the United Kingdom that our government is modelled on, would be illegitimate.

It is clearly to the political advantage of the Liberals to reject a coalition and try to leave the impression that the only way to defeat the Harper Reformatories is to vote for the Liberals. That is not true of course. Strategically speaking the best way to defeat the Harper Reformatories is to vote for the candidate in your constituency that has the best chance of defeating the Conservative candidate.

If the Conservatives do not receive a majority, but receive another minority and face the House of Commons and attempt to govern as if they had a majority (as they have in the previous Parliament) they will face certain defeat, either on their Throne Speech or Budget, leaving the Governor General bound by precedent to ask the Leader of the Official Opposition if he believes he can form a government. Michael Ignatieff would most certainly reply yes, and as long as his government acted responsibly, presenting measures that a majority of the House of Commons could support, he would be able to govern.

The situation was different when the last coalition proposal was put together because the constitutional precedents become less clear and certain the longer a government is in power and it was deemed advisable to present the Governor General with a very clear indication that a stable government was possible because, despite Stephen Harper's irrational ravings, coalition governments are much more stable than minority governments.

So despite Stephen Harper's desperate fear mongering (over something there is no reason to fear) the Liberals will not enter into a coalition simply because it is not in their political interest to do so.

Prorogation - The Best Thing Stephen Harper Ever Did for Canadian Democracy

If you believe that Stephen Harper's prorogations are part of the normal Parliamentary process then read this.

If you believe nobody cares then go here (over 200,000 members and counting).

So why is prorogation the best thing Stephen Harper ever did for Canadian democracy.

Because he may have finally awakened the Canadian public to the role of Parliament and the fact that our Parliamentary democracy is based on the concept of Parliamentary supremacy and the requirement for the government to have the support and confidence of the House of Commons to govern legitimately.

Pierre Trudeau is reported (July 25, 1969) to have said that Members of Parliament are nobodies when they are off Parliament Hill. Stephen Harper seems to believe that they are nobodies when they are sitting in the House of Commons.

In December 2008 Stephen Harper suspended Canadian democracy and through a clever PR campaign managed to convince the Canadian people that a government led by the leader of the party with the most seats (but a minority of seats) in the House was more democratic than a party led by a leader who had the support and confidence of a majority of Members of the House of Commons. It was a situation that left those of us that understood how Parliamentary democracy works shaking our heads.

Since then Stephen Harper has continued to treat Parliament as if it does not matter and with his latest attack on Parliamentary democracy the people have finally seen the light.

Let us step back a bit and talk about the concept of prorogation. There is nothing wrong with prorogation in itself, the problem is how Stephen Harper (with the collusion of the Governor General) is using it. Saying the Liberals prorogued in the past is meaningless. Prorogation is a normal part of the Parliamentary process.

The normal scenario is that a government is elected. They set forward their program in a Throne Speech. the House of Commons passes most of their legislative program over a period of 12-24 months. Historically the length of time required has increased from sessions around a year in length to sessions normally about eighteen months to two years in some cases. It really depends on how well a government can manage it's legislative program. The House of Commons is then prorogued and a new session starts with a new Throne Speech within days.

Prorogation has nothing to do with the House not sitting. The House routinely recesses for over two months during the summer but they remain in session so they can easily be recalled to deal with emergencies and matters of public interest. Indeed often a government finishes its legislative program at the summer break, but they do not prorogue, they return for a day in September or October and prorogue and the new session starts within days.

That is because, up until Stephen Harper (with one exception and he was forced to resign when Parliament resumed), all governments understood that prorogation was not intended to be used to shut down Parliament. That is because, up until Stephen Harper, Canadian governments understood and respected the concept of Parliamentary supremacy. They actually understood and respected the system of Parliamentary government.

Unfortunately, under the current government, we have a Prime Minister, and may I add a Queen's Representative, who do not respect the principle that when there is a conflict between the House of Commons and the Prime Minister, the House of Commons must prevail. Stephen Harper thinks that when that happens Parliament should be shut down.

Fortunately, the people have finally seen the light and my hope is that Stephen Harper's attempt to take their democracy away from them will get them thinking more about the Canadian democratic process.

For Parliamentary democracy to be truly democratic the House of Commons should reflect how Canadians voted. While there are many factors that go into how people vote, including the individual candidates qualifications, abilities and values, the biggest factors are the policies, programs and philosophies of the parties running in the election. The representation in the House of Commons should reflect these factors. For Parliament to be truly democratic the percentage of seats each party receives should reflect the number of votes each party receives, normally referred to as the popular vote.

Our current single member constituency "first past the post" system does not do this.

However there is a system called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) that allows voters to not only vote for the local Member of Parliament of their choice but also elect a House of Commons whose membership reflects the percentage of votes each party receives in the election.

Indeed, the main criticism of MMP is that we will not get majority governments unless the voters give one party a majority of the votes. That is right, under MMP if voters vote for a minority or coalition government they will get a minority or coalition government. That is the main criticism of MMP - that voters will get what they vote for. That seems to be a rather strange criticism of a democratic process.

It is time to shut down Stephen Harper and it is time to reform our electoral process. It is time for the people to speak.

Statement of Democratic Principles

With an election looming the Fifth Column calls on all federal political parties and party leaders to adopt the following:

Statement of Democratic Principles

The Canadian people have the right to elect Members of Parliament of their choosing and the House of Commons of their choice.

The House of Commons elected by the Canadian people has the right to govern.

A government that has the support and confidence of a majority of the Members of the House of Commons is legitimate, and indeed a government requires the confidence of a majority of the Members of the House of Commons to be legitimate.

The letter and spirit of fixed election date legislation must be respected and that an early election should only be held when it is not possible to form a government that has the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons.

And further, that party representation in the House of Commons should reflect the popular vote and that a process should begin immediately following the election to amend the electoral process to ensure that.

Finally, we all pledge to inform the Governor General that we have adopted and support this Declaration of Democratic Principles.

As The Fifth Column is a small player in the blogosphere, if any of the larger players want to promote this please feel free to take the ball and run with it.

Rex on Michaelle on the Inuit and Seals

I am not usually a big fan of Rex Murphy but his rant above is right on.

And those looking for a more substantive argument can read An Enviro's Case for Seal Hunt at thetyee.ca.

Harper In His Own Words: On Agreements with the BQ, Plus …

Thanks to some other bloggers' posts, Harper's past positions have come back to haunt him. I have pulled the relevant information together here:

September 9, 2004

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the
Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons
fail to support some part of the government’s program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together
constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We
believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give
you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the
opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising
your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party

Sources: Excited Delirium
Macleans.ca



Source: Impolitical

And in breaking news, we have another reason Harper shut down Parliament to avoid being defeated.

Final Words - Frustrated and Disheartened

Stephen Harper is the schoolyard bully who picks on the smaller kids and when they join together to fight back he cries – that's not fair you're only allowed to fight me one at a time. And the Canadian schoolyard is cheering him on.


Is My Country Gone

In all the years I have watched Canadian politics I have never seen anything like this and I have been watching Canadian politics for fifty years. When I was in high school I had the daily Hansard delivered to my home and read them everyday. After that I earned my degree in Political Science and spent over thirty years working for the House of Commons, reading, analyzing and indexing the House of Commons Debates.

The first election I took an interest in was when I was eight years old cheering for John Diefenbaker. I think I can be forgiven for cheering for a Tory due to my young age, but Diefenbaker captured the imagination of all Canadians. John Diefenbaker was a Parliamentarian and truly a House of Commons man. He must be rolling over in his grave as his successor as Tory leader colludes with the Governor General to overrule the will of the House of Commons.

The last ime I had to write about something like this was almost 40 years ago when Pierre Trudeau suspended the civil liberties of all Canadians. But at least Trudeau had the support of a majority of the House of Commons, with the notable exception of .Tommy Douglas and the New Democratic Party. Today it is Stephen Harper suspending the democratic rights of all Canadians. How ironic that Harper is following in the footsteps of his arch rival.

This is not to say that there are not precedents for what Harper is doing, just not in Canada.

1629 King Charles I in England
1799 Napoleon in France
1913: Victoriano Huerta in Mexico
1933: Adolf Hitler in Germany
1936 Fransisco Franco in Spain
1939: Benito Mussolini in Italy
1973: Augusto Pinochet in Chile
1975 Indira Gandhi in India
1999 Perez Musharaff in Pakistan
2008: Stephen Harper in Canada

Is the Governor General to Blame

I am reluctant to blame Governor General Michaëlle Jean for acceding to Stephen Harper's request for fear of stirring up Republican sentiments and because we do not know what lies Stephen Harper told her or what threats he may have made.

But we do know she has acted in a manner that no representative of the Queen should, by explicitly going against the clearly expressed wishes of a majority of the democratically elected House of Commons. And she did that to allow the government to avoid it's constitutional accountability to the House of Commons, by avoiding a vote of confidence. And she did that on the advice of an illegitimate Prime Minister whom she knew had lost the confidence of the House of Commons.

This must not be allowed to happen again. To deal with the specific prorogation decision the House of Commons Act should be amended to prevent the Prime Minister from requesting a prorogation longer than a week so that prorogation is only used to end a session to allow a government to introduce a new Throne Speech, and not used to shut down Parliament. To deal with the larger issue of the Governor General's constitutional decision making powers, I agree with other bloggers' advice, that this power be delegated to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who is truly independent and knowledgeable and experienced with ruling on matters of constitutional law.

Stephen Harper is to Blame For This Political Crisis

Stephen Harper ignored the fact that he had a majority in his first term and, with the collusion of the Liberals, governed as if he had a majority. Then he broke his own fixed election dates law, with the collusion of the Governor General, to attempt to win a majority. He then failed, attempted to ignore his minority status again, and when the democratically elected majority in the House of Commons calls him on it and is about to defeat him and present a democratically elected alternative coalition government, he shuts down Parliament, again with the collusion of the Governor General.

He engages in a campaign of lies, that even CBC commentators have to inform their viewers of the truth every time he speaks. He goes as far as to question the legitimacy of democratically elected Members of Parliament from Quebec and uses rhetoric best designed to create a national unity crisis. Indeed he uses rhetoric that experts and commentators believe will increase support for the Part Québecois in the Quebec election.

And for this his public support increases. And I cry for my Canada.

Stephen Harper's Lies and the Truth About Parliamentary Democracy and the Coalition

Stephen Harper would like to believe that he was elected all powerful President of Canada and he would like us to believe that somehow the people of Canada voted for him to be Prime Minister. The only people who voted for Stephen Harper where the residents of Calgary Southwest. The rest of us voted for individual Members of Parliament just as the residents of Calgary Southwest did.

Yes, we voted knowing that if the Conservative Party won a majority of seats Stephen Harper would become Prime Minister and if the Conservatives won the most seats but not a majority, he would be given the first opportunity to form a government and seek the confidence of the House of Commons.

But the most basic principle of Parliamentary Democracy is that the government is responsible to the legislature and can only govern while it retains the confidence of the legislature. The normal constitutional practice when a government loses the confidence of the legislature depends on how long the government has been in power. If it is late in the term of the government an election is usually called. If it is early in the term of the government the opposition is usually given an opportunity to form a government and seek the confidence of the legislature.

Stephen Harper and his Tory talking points repeat over and over again the lie that the Bloc Québecois is part of the Progressive Coalition. That is a blatant lie. The coalition is made up of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. As to the claim that the Bloc Québecois has a veto over coalition policies. That is also an outright lie. The Bloc is committed to voting with the coalition on all matters of confidence. While it does reserve the right to vote against the coalition on other issues it would require the support of the Tories for them to block any coalition legislation. The only way the Bloc could block any coalition legislation is with the “collusion” of the Tories. And Tories never vote with separatists. Well unless it is to get their budget passed.

The Conservatives argue that we should not change Prime Ministers without an election. That might be true if we elected Prime Ministers, but we do not. Take the case of Kim Campbell who became Prime Minister between elections. On June 13, 1993, Kim Campbell was elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. As the leader of the party in power in the House of Commons, Kim Campbell automatically became Prime Minister. That is how Parliamentary Democracy works.

The Conservatives argue that only the party with the most seats should be allowed to form a government. What would they say if the seats won by the four federalist parties were more evenly divided leading to the Bloc Québecois having the most seats. Would Stephen Harper and the Tories argue that the federalist parties should not be allowed to form a coalition. I think not.

Where Do We Go From Here

The Tories talking points are reminiscent of their policy approach of simple solutions to complicated questions – inflamed rhetoric and outright lies instead of fact and logic. Add a massive establishment media propaganda campaign to the mix and a large number of people are falling for it.

But Harper may have outsmarted himself. His campaign may be at its peak the day before the scheduled non-confidence vote would have taken place. Though Harper is hoping the “time-out” will give the Progressive Coalition time to fall apart, I believe he misjudges the coalition. It looks like prorogation will actually give the coalition time to replace Stéphane Dion, who, while he may be a competent leader, is clearly a poor communicator. And more importantly it will give the coalition time to educate the public about the real threat to democracy posed by Stephen Harper and his actions.

As to the replacement of Dion as Progressive Coalition leader, there is a way to avoid circumventing the democratic Liberal Party leadership process. Let the coalition caucus select a leader for the coalition. It need not be either coalition party leader, or it may turn out to be one of them. The chosen coalition leader could serve till the coalition government ends, or be revisited after the Liberals select a new leader.

What we have learned most from this crisis is that Stephen Harper will do anything to cling to power and anything to stop the democratically elected Progressive Coalition from taking power.

The bully must not be rewarded. The coalition must not allow the Conservative government to continue with Harper as Prime Minister. The only way the Conservative government should be allowed to continue is if they replace Harper as Prime Minister and present a budget that meets the real needs of the Canadian people.

If that does not happen and the government is defeated Harper will then undoubtedly request a new election, and if the Governor General accedes to the request of her illegitimate Prime Minister, who lacks the confidence of the House of Commons, we will be into an election campaign.

If that happens I would propose an electoral accord between the Progressive Coalition partners, The Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, as well as the Green Party. The Bloc Québecois would not be part of this electoral accord because it is important that Quebeckers have a federalist alternative to the Tories. The Electoral Accord partners would run the candidate best able to defeat the Conservative candidate in each constituency based on historical and other factors agreeable to all parties.

Proportional Representation is the Real Solution

But the real long term solution to to Canada's electoral problems is to adopt an electoral process that allows every vote to count and elects a House of Commons that truly represents the will of the Canadian people. If such a system had been in place during the last election we would now have a ”coalition we deserved”, where the seats held by each party would have reflected their portion of the popular vote. Such a system would give us a government that most of the public are demanding now, one where the House of Commons must work together for the good of all Canadians.

Postscript

The irony of all ironies would be if the Conservative budget was opposed by the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party but passed with the support of the Bloc Québecois. Would Stephen Harper resign because a government requiring the support of the evil separatists is illegitimate. I think not.

RANTS

Well I have just learned that I am going to have to spend 10 minutes of my life this evening listening to Stephen harper spout lies and garbage. But it is my duty as a blogger to keep informed and this will provide a chance for the Progressive Coalition to respond to the government's disinformation and propaganda campaign.

My rant follows, but first of all, Thank You Rick Mercer:



Perhaps this will go a long way in counteracting the Tory propaganda campaign of lies.

This is a time for Parliament to work together for the good of the country, not a time for the Prime Minister to use lies and deception to try and divide the country to rescue himself from his own political failure.

And thank you Ed Broadbent for calling the Prime Minister on his disgraceful attempt to create a climate of fear and disunity through lies and deception. It is refreshing to hear the truth from one of our country's real Elder Statesmen (not that I'm trying to call Ed old).

If only Canada's premier constitutional expert, Eugene Forsey was alive to explain the truth about the constitutional validity of the coalition. However when you look beyond the hand-picked so-called experts the media have chosen and ask real constitutional experts you will see that there is a consensus that the coalition building process that we are going through is Parliamentary democracy working exactly the way it is supposed to.

But I must say that I am extremely frustrated by the success of the Tories talking points and campaign of lies and deception. Clearly the Canadian people do not understand how a Parliamentary democracy works. I am even more frustrated by the ignorance shown by people who call themselves “Progressive Bloggers”.

But it is not surprising that the Tory campaign is working – it is based on emotion and the people are likely to be much more responsive to that than to our attempts to lecture them on Political Science. Perhaps this is where Rick's Rant will be successful where we are not. But we should not be deterred from dealing with the facts. Democracy is about freedom and the truth shall make us free.

Our European friends must be watching in amusement as we turn a normal part of Parliamentary democracy into a political crisis.

But indeed, it is not as if the constitutiona precedents, such as
this one are not there.

Read more from York University professor James Laxer, here and here.

As to the claim the opposition parties are doing this for political reasons – what political benefit do they have to gain. All the Liberals had to do to ensure they would again replace the Tories as the natural governing party is to let the Conservatives ignore the economic situation and continue to lead the country into hell in a hand basket. Just ask Bob Rae about the political benefits of taking over government just as the county is going into recession. The only reason for the coalition partners to take this political risk is to save the country from the mismanagement and ineptitude of the current government. Actually if only it was just that - what is much worse at this time of economic crisis is the government putting their own political benefit and survival above the concerns and needs of the Canadian people.

As to the claim that the Bloc Québecois has a veto over coalition policies. That is an outright lie. The Bloc is committed to voting with the coalition on all matters of confidence. While it does reserve the right to vote against the coalition on other issues it would require the support of the Tories for them to block any coalition legislation. The only way the Bloc could block any coalition legislation is with the “collusion” of the Tories. And Tories never vote with separatists. Well unless it is to get their budget passed.

And as to the most blatant lie of them all.

Democracy Links
Perhaps they could have avoided this it they had acted co-operatively from the start, but as I said before, it is too late for a Do Over.

While this whole situation is very frustrating, because so many Canadians have been taken in by the deceitful Tory propaganda campaign, when all is done I have no doubt that the Governor General will examine the facts and constitutional precedents and power will pass peacefully to the Progressive Coalition in accordance with the principles of Parliamentary democracy.

What Should Michaëlle Jean Do

The Governor General's duties are mostly ceremonial but she also has constitutional responsibilities, including ensuring there is always a Prime Minister.

I believe that the Governor General should not override the wishes of an elected government unless it is attempting to subvert the Constitution or the will of the House of Commons.

In the current political situation it is very clear that the government of the day is attempting to subvert the will of the majority of the House of Commons and the response of the Governor General should be to protect democracy.