Canadian Politics - Proroguing? Again?

[Josephus]

Why do you hate our troops GF?

Where do you see hate for our troops?

Well he isn't supporting the mission, so clearly he hates our troops and Canada itself.

No wonder so many criminals in the Yukon are not being found guilty.

[Neil]

Why do you hate our troops GF?

Where do you see hate for our troops?

Indeed.  It isn't so much hate for our troops as it is hate for our civilization.

[Grey Fox]

Why do you hate our troops GF?

Where do you see hate for our troops?

Well he isn't supporting the mission, so clearly he hates our troops and Canada itself.

Fucking Anti-war lefties have fucked it up for all of us.

I love our troops but it's a waste of resources, human lifes too, to have them running around in Afghanistan.

Sure, you can pull the NATO argument but they are other Countries in that Alliance, countries with a bigger military that could do their part too.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

fuck corporate handouts.

Try that line with the workers in Ontario who still have a job because Canada participated in the GM bail out.  Also, try that line with the forrestry workers here (currently unemployed) who wish they got the same kind of aid for their industry.

And they should have? What's more important to Canadian industry? I'm much more down with bailing out a sustainable industry like Forestry, than I am a world destroying industry like the auto industry. It's a fake industry keeping people employed sure, while making thousands of steel monstrosities that mostly will just sit in car lots until they are junked. Don't we have enough cars in the world already?
Fuck cars also. Those people should be re-trained to make the Bullet trains that should be being built to crisscross Canada reducing the need for air travel and reducing the time spent travelling between the various distant hubs of this nation. IMO

What is sad is that these industries (auto, forestry etc) are the only ways in some places for people to earn a living. There should be more kinds of industry in every locality, and they all should get some small assistance from Gov. Tax breaks etc, but bailouts? How is that a "Free Market" move? It isn't. It's the 21st century. There should be a more diverse economy than there is, but Big organizations like multi-nationals and Governments are still thinking in barely post Industrial idioms. get with the times I say.

[Barrister]

What is sad is that these industries (auto, forestry etc) are the only ways in some places for people to earn a living. There should be more kinds of industry in every locality, and they all should get some small assistance from Gov. Tax breaks etc, but bailouts? How is that a "Free Market" move? It isn't. It's the 21st century. There should be a more diverse economy than there is, but Big organizations like multi-nationals and Governments are still thinking in barely post Industrial idioms. get with the times I say.

[Grallon]

What is sad is that these industries (auto, forestry etc) are the only ways in some places for people to earn a living. There should be more kinds of industry in every locality, and they all should get some small assistance from Gov. Tax breaks etc, but bailouts? How is that a "Free Market" move? It isn't. It's the 21st century. There should be a more diverse economy than there is, but Big organizations like multi-nationals and Governments are still thinking in barely post Industrial idioms. get with the times I say.

Bhudda is an idealist BB - we need some of those too. 



G.

[PRC]

Here is an article from the Economist on this subject. 

Canada without Parliament
Halted in mid-debate

Jan 7th 2010 | OTTAWA
From The Economist print edition
Stephen Harper is counting on Canadians' complacency as he rewrites the rules of his country's politics to weaken legislative scrutiny

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15211862&source=hptextfeature

THE timing said everything. Stephen Harper, the prime minister, chose December 30th, the day five Canadians were killed in Afghanistan and when the public and the media were further distracted by the announcement of the country's all-important Olympic ice-hockey team, to let his spokesman reveal that Parliament would remain closed until March 3rd, instead of returning as usual, after its Christmas break, in the last week of January.

Mr Harper turned a customary recess into prorogation. This means that all committees in both houses are disbanded and government bills die, no matter how close they are to approval. The prime minister, who heads a Conservative minority government, clearly reckoned that giving legislators an extra winter break, during which they might visit the Winter Olympics (in Vancouver between February 12th and 28th), would not bother Canadians much.

He may have miscalculated. A gathering storm of media criticism has extended even to the Calgary Herald, the main newspaper in his political home city, which denounced him for "a cynical political play". There are plans for demonstrations on January 23rd, just before Parliament would have reconvened. "Parliamentary democracy is in danger," declared Peter Russell of the University of Toronto, who was one of 132 political scientists who signed a letter condemning the prorogation and calling for electoral reform.

Past Canadian prime ministers have normally asked the governor-general (who acts as Canada's head of state) to prorogue Parliament only after the government has completed most of its legislative business in order to start afresh with a new speech from the throne outlining new priorities. But nothing has been normal in Canadian politics since 2004, when more than two decades of majority government ended with voters electing a Liberal minority government. They then returned Conservative minority governments in 2006 and 2008.

Far from completing its work, Parliament was still considering important measures, including bills that are part of Mr Harper's crackdown on crime, as well as ratification of free-trade agreements with Colombia and Jordan. All must now be reintroduced. So why shut down Parliament? Breaking six days of silence, Mr Harper said this week that it was a "routine" move to allow the government to adjust its budget due on March 4th. His spokesman claimed that the 63-day gap between sessions was less than the average prorogation of 151 days since 1867. However, the average in the past three decades has been just 22 days.

Opposition leaders claimed Mr Harper's real reason was to end an embarrassing debate on the government's apparent complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees, and in particular to avoid complying with a parliamentary motion to hand over all documents relevant to those charges. They also claim that the prime minister wanted to name new senators and then reconstitute the Senate's committees to reflect the Conservatives' additional representation, something that could not be done if Parliament was merely adjourned.

Having prorogued Parliament last winter to dodge a confidence vote he seemed set to lose, Mr Harper has now established a precedent that many constitutionalists consider dangerous. No previous prime minister has prorogued the legislature "in order to avoid the kind of things that Harper apparently wants to avoid," says Ned Franks, a veteran political scientist and historian of Parliament. Although other prime ministers may have had ulterior motives, they were less blatant, he says.

The danger in allowing the prime minister to end discussion any time he chooses is that it makes Parliament accountable to him rather than the other way around. Some of Mr Harper's critics are also affronted by his high-handedness in not bothering to call on the governor-general personally to ask for prorogation, as tradition demands, but instead making his request by telephone. "That was gravely insulting to the governor-general and the country," says Mr Russell.

Whether Mr Harper gets away with his innovative use of prime ministerial powers depends largely on whether the protest spreads and can be sustained until Parliament reconvenes in March. Mr Harper is doubtless counting on the Winter Olympics to reinforce Canadians' familiar political complacency. But he has given the opposition, which is divided and fumbling, an opportunity. It is now up to it to show that Canada cannot afford a part-time Parliament that sits only at the prime minister's pleasure.

[Josephus]

That was a good article. Love The Economist. Thanks for posting that, PRC.

[citizen k]

"Parliamentary democracy is in danger," declared Peter Russell of the University of Toronto

[Jacob]

Okay, so that matches some of what I've heard elsewhere.

It's not just a routine action, it's fairly unprecedented and it seems cynical.  Why prorogate parliament when a recess would do and is customary?  Doesn't look too flattering.

[Admiral Yi]

And they should have? What's more important to Canadian industry? I'm much more down with bailing out a sustainable industry like Forestry, than I am a world destroying industry like the auto industry. It's a fake industry keeping people employed sure, while making thousands of steel monstrosities that mostly will just sit in car lots until they are junked. Don't we have enough cars in the world already?
Fuck cars also. Those people should be re-trained to make the Bullet trains that should be being built to crisscross Canada reducing the need for air travel and reducing the time spent travelling between the various distant hubs of this nation. IMO

What is sad is that these industries (auto, forestry etc) are the only ways in some places for people to earn a living. There should be more kinds of industry in every locality, and they all should get some small assistance from Gov. Tax breaks etc, but bailouts? How is that a "Free Market" move? It isn't. It's the 21st century. There should be a more diverse economy than there is, but Big organizations like multi-nationals and Governments are still thinking in barely post Industrial idioms. get with the times I say.

Rant on you crazy diamond.

[The Brain]

Forget it, Jake. It's Canada.

[Admiral Yi]

After reading the Economist article I've got a question: if he prorogued parliament last time to avoid a no confidence vote, what stopped the members from voting no confidence after parliament sat?  I can see the torture thing maybe (short attention span and all that) but not the no confidence.

[Grey Fox]

After reading the Economist article I've got a question: if he prorogued parliament last time to avoid a no confidence vote, what stopped the members from voting no confidence after parliament sat?  I can see the torture thing maybe (short attention span and all that) but not the no confidence.

The Opposition's Coaliation fell apart. The Conservative played the "Libs want to govern with Separatists & Communists" hand very well.

[Josephus]

After reading the Economist article I've got a question: if he prorogued parliament last time to avoid a no confidence vote, what stopped the members from voting no confidence after parliament sat?  I can see the torture thing maybe (short attention span and all that) but not the no confidence.

That was Harper's plan. Harper's a good politician, I'll give him that. He gambled on the fact that during the time off, the Opposition will fracture due to internal issues and it did. Also the opposiiton didn't have as much popular support as it hoped for and even if they forced an election they realized they might very well lose and give Harper a majority.