- Harper: Parliament Has Confidence in Me . . . Honest
Posted: 3/11/2010 11:17:25 AM The Globe and Mail
Get down to basics, Liberals, Gordon Gibson, 11 Mar.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/get-down-to-basics-liberals/article1496668/ Tab 3
Whether a vote is a "confidence" vote should be determined by Parliament. Logically this makes sense. It is Parliament that is deciding whether they have Confidence, certainly it is up to Parliament to say when. With a majority government there is no difference. However, as we have seen, with Harper and the Con's using it to hamstring Parliament it is possible to be abused when there is a minority government. It is not simply that there is a minority government but one lead by someone, Harper, who has spent their public life dedicated to tearing federation asunder and Canada, as a nation, be damned. This is compounded by Harper and the Con's in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway, everyone else is an enemy, no tolerance to compromise, extremist approach.
If the government brings a vote that is defeated. What the result be. Deadlock and everything grind to a halt? Perhaps, but then Parliament may put forward ways to resolve this impasse or recommend an election.
More likely, the government would approach the Opposition Parties for compromise. They may even decide to get consensus before bring the vote. With a minority this is exactly what should be happening, but with Harper and the Con's it is not. Parliament deciding which of their votes is a Confidence vote would certainly be a vast improvement on what we have now.
Similarly for Prorogation and dissolving Parliament. It is Parliament that is being suspended or dissolved. Why is it that it is the Prime Minister, who holds office at the Will of Parliament that decides this. With a majority government or with a minority that has the best interest of Canada as a nation at heart, this issue doesn't surface. But with the likes of Harper and the Con's it does.
Perhaps someone could explain how it is that these power lie in the hands of the Prime Minster anyway.
For my suggestions on Senate refer see my Blog, 22 Feb.'10,
cicblog.com/comments.html
Lloyd MacILquham
***
18 February, 2010, - Harper & the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship
. . .
Polices and decisions ought to be based on what is best for Canadians as a nation, based not on whether it is in line with some ideology, but on a rational basis, given the current context, both domestically and internationally. What is rationally based can debated in Parliament, discussed in they media, including recently developed, technology based media. But, it is logical that Canadians would request input from those who are outstanding in the particular matter at issue.
. . .
This could be done very easily and without much fuss by appointing people outstanding in various areas important to Canadian society to the Senate, as opposed to making political appointments. The Senate could then set up standing committees to review and investigate on an ongoing basis, taking into account the circumstances at the time and the best interests of all Canadians as a whole.
This, is completely in line with the intention of the purpose of the Senate of "Sober Second Thought". There is a very good reason that when the Senate was established appointments for life were included - to distance them from political interference of the day. Harper's intentions are to destroy this. One can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.
A very good analogy of this proposed reform and one that is extremely successful and well respected is The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the exemplification of rationally based decisions. We would be in good stead if we modeled Senate reform in accordance with this institution. One of the biggest advantages of the Supreme Court is that once appointed they can not be dismissed by the Prime Minister or even Parliament. In other words, it is outside the political interference of the Prime Minister.
***
Get down to basics, Liberals, Gordon Gibson, 11 Mar.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/get-down-to-basics-liberals/article1496668/ Tab 3
Whether a vote is a "confidence" vote should be determined by Parliament. Logically this makes sense. It is Parliament that is deciding whether they have Confidence, certainly it is up to Parliament to say when. With a majority government there is no difference. However, as we have seen, with Harper and the Con's using it to hamstring Parliament it is possible to be abused when there is a minority government. It is not simply that there is a minority government but one lead by someone, Harper, who has spent their public life dedicated to tearing federation asunder and Canada, as a nation, be damned. This is compounded by Harper and the Con's in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway, everyone else is an enemy, no tolerance to compromise, extremist approach.
If the government brings a vote that is defeated. What the result be. Deadlock and everything grind to a halt? Perhaps, but then Parliament may put forward ways to resolve this impasse or recommend an election.
More likely, the government would approach the Opposition Parties for compromise. They may even decide to get consensus before bring the vote. With a minority this is exactly what should be happening, but with Harper and the Con's it is not. Parliament deciding which of their votes is a Confidence vote would certainly be a vast improvement on what we have now.
Similarly for Prorogation and dissolving Parliament. It is Parliament that is being suspended or dissolved. Why is it that it is the Prime Minister, who holds office at the Will of Parliament that decides this. With a majority government or with a minority that has the best interest of Canada as a nation at heart, this issue doesn't surface. But with the likes of Harper and the Con's it does.
Perhaps someone could explain how it is that these power lie in the hands of the Prime Minster anyway.
For my suggestions on Senate refer see my Blog, 22 Feb.'10,
cicblog.com/comments.html
Lloyd MacILquham
***
18 February, 2010, - Harper & the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship
. . .
Polices and decisions ought to be based on what is best for Canadians as a nation, based not on whether it is in line with some ideology, but on a rational basis, given the current context, both domestically and internationally. What is rationally based can debated in Parliament, discussed in they media, including recently developed, technology based media. But, it is logical that Canadians would request input from those who are outstanding in the particular matter at issue.
. . .
This could be done very easily and without much fuss by appointing people outstanding in various areas important to Canadian society to the Senate, as opposed to making political appointments. The Senate could then set up standing committees to review and investigate on an ongoing basis, taking into account the circumstances at the time and the best interests of all Canadians as a whole.
This, is completely in line with the intention of the purpose of the Senate of "Sober Second Thought". There is a very good reason that when the Senate was established appointments for life were included - to distance them from political interference of the day. Harper's intentions are to destroy this. One can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.
A very good analogy of this proposed reform and one that is extremely successful and well respected is The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the exemplification of rationally based decisions. We would be in good stead if we modeled Senate reform in accordance with this institution. One of the biggest advantages of the Supreme Court is that once appointed they can not be dismissed by the Prime Minister or even Parliament. In other words, it is outside the political interference of the Prime Minister.
***
posted by wlloydm at
8:24 AM
<< Home