Harper didn't break his own law

[Moonbox]

We can all see that in almost every thread on this board right now, there are people whining and carrying on about how Harper apparently broke his own law.

In this thread I'm just going to very simply break down how his law wasn't broken and how it was perfectly reasonable for an election to be called.

I'll go ahead and make the assumption first that everyone knows what the escape clause is for the legislation he passed, namely if parliament isn't 'functioning' it can dissolved without infringing on this law.

Now that we know that parliament not functioning is a pre-requisite to dissolving parliament, let's take that one step further:

Dion and the rest of the opposition have been threatening to vote non-confidence in the Harper government for many months now. Duceppe and Layton have at least been voting against Haper, while Dion has been abstaining with most of the liberal MP's from voting at all.

The abstension can really only be taken one way. The liberals are making a show of things with a sort of silent protest. It's their way of saying, "We don't like what you're doing and disagree with it but we are afraid of losing another election right now."

So now here we are, with over half the House of Commons either voting against or abstaining from every piece of legislature passed. How is this a functioning parliament?? It's simply not. Over half the elected representatives are openly opposed to the current Prime Minister and the only reason an election HASN'T been called yet is because the Liberal opposition is guilty of the exact same thing they're accusing the Harper government of: Opportunism.

The only reason the Liberals HAVEN'T voted against Harper yet is because they see where they are in the polls and they're waiting for a good time for THEM to pick and choose the time of the election. If that time didn't come (probably because of Dion bumbling) before the fixed election date, that's only because they didn't improve in the polls and NOT because they had confidence in the government or were happy letting it carry out its mandate.

For the simpleton, what Liberal cry babies are really saying is:

"Although the majority of parliament is openly opposed to the CPC (which really means it's not functioning), Stephen Harper should make sure that the House of Commons remains muddied under the shadow of a possible election until the fixed election date. Stephen Harper should, because it would be PERFECTLY reasonable, make sure that the next election is held at a time specific to Dion's choosing and at Dion's advantage. Stephen Harper should ignore the fact that Dion has made it crystal clear he does not intend to cooperate or compromise (the very definition of 'functioning' in a minority government), and he should ignore the advantage he has over the Liberals right now. Obviously that would be 'fair' and that's what the Liberals would do right???"

[guyser]

I thought maybe we could look at what Harper said when he wanted this on the books.

I read the polls saying if I called an election now we would win a majority. The same polls also say no one wants an election now, and no one does want an unnecessary election. So unless we're defeated or prevented from governing we want to keep moving forward to make this minority parliament work over the next 3½ years

Dont think he has been defeated nor prevented from governing.

"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," Harper said. "They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."

He did not describe the circumstances in which he would consider the government to be prevented from governing.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/05/26/...ote-060526.html

For the simpleton, what Liberal cry babies are really saying is:

and that can be countered numerous ways.

[Moonbox]

Yeah he said, "Unless we're defeated or prevented from governing."

The opposition has already declared they intend to bring the government down. What's the difference between an opposition that DOES prevent him from governing and one that WILL prevent him from governing when the polls suit them best?

It doesn't matter what he didn't describe. Since he didn't describe anything, it really has no place in this discussion does it?

As for your last comment, please, counter away. The whole theme of my posts lately have been that Liberal cry babies do NOT usually try to counter arguments presented to them. Instead, they gloss over what was said and respond with quotes like yours that really just repeat the same theme over and over. Harper is evil. Harper is a liar. Harper is a baby snatcher and a blood sucking oil baron blah blah blah.

If you're going to complain about something, you should at least be able to look at it rationally and you should be able to present me with a counter argument. Otherwise, yes, you are a cry baby and you are a simpleton.

You and people like you are all bleating, "Harper lied! Harper cheated!" My post explained point by point how he came to that decision and how any REASONABLE person would have done the same. Your response was basically, "HARPER LIED HARPER CHEATED."

Repetition should not be confused with reasoning.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Moonbox

[guyser]

Uh oh, someones pablum was heated. Its either that or you have sand in your mangina.

Yeah he said, "Unless we're defeated or prevented from governing."

And....he hasnt been.

The opposition has already declared they intend to bring the government down. What's the difference between an opposition that DOES prevent him from governing and one that WILL prevent him from governing when the polls suit them best?

And you told mom you were running away, yet, here you are on the computer , at home.

Since when does "DOES=HAS" ?

Instead, they gloss over what was said and respond with quotes like yours that really just repeat the same theme over and over. Harper is evil. Harper is a liar. Harper is a baby snatcher and a blood sucking oil baron blah blah blah.

Too funny, methinks you doth protest too much. Since of course I never said nor inferred any of that. But I understand.

If you're going to complain about something, you should at least be able to look at it rationally and you should be able to present me with a counter argument. Otherwise, yes, you are a cry baby and you are a simpleton.

My my....get that sand out.

You and people like you are all bleating, "Harper lied! Harper cheated!" My post explained point by point how he came to that decision and how any REASONABLE person would have done the same. Your response was basically, "HARPER LIED HARPER CHEATED."

Got any other bon mots as to what I supposedly have said? This is fun.

Repetition should not be confused with reasoning.

What...like "But the Liberals....." ?

Edited September 9, 2008 by guyser

[DrGreenthumb]

Harper is evil. Harper is a liar. Harper is a baby snatcher and a blood sucking oil baron blah blah blah.

"Harper lied! Harper cheated!" , "HARPER LIED HARPER CHEATED."

I agree Harper HAS LIED and CHEATED quite a lot. Excuses should not be confused with reasoning either.

If Harper didn't want to have to break his fixed election date law he shouldn't have proposed and passed it. Now its just another of the many Conservative LIES, and SCANDALS, and BROKEN PROMISES.

[Topaz]

Maybe in this election if Harper comes back with another minority that won't work, then the Cons should pay for the election and then Harper should resign as PM because the government won't work! IF the government won't work its because Harper is PM for Harper and NOT for Canadians and does things for what is GOOD for Harper and he can't stand to be wrong!

[Moonbox]

and my point is proven.

Again, when asked to provide a rationale for your opinions, you couldn't or refused to. The best you guys could come up with was misquoting me and lobbing teenage insults at me that you learned from TV/Internet.

You couldn't even manage insulting me properly. You quoted me as calling you a cry baby and simpleton for being unwilling/unable to provide a counter argument and then you responded I had sand in my mangina. That qualifies, I believe, for the "NO U!" department.

I asked you a number of questions. You refused to answer them. I asked you to provide counter-arguments. You replied like a child with direct personal insults.

Again, all you did was repeat yourself and fling nonsense at me. That's you look stupid in every discussion and that's why the Liberals will fail miserably in this election. When a party campaigns towards the lowest common denominator, the smart people end up voting against it.

[marksman]

We can all see that in almost every thread on this board right now, there are people whining and carrying on about how Harper apparently broke his own law.

In this thread I'm just going to very simply break down how his law wasn't broken and how it was perfectly reasonable for an election to be called.

I'll go ahead and make the assumption first that everyone knows what the escape clause is for the legislation he passed, namely if parliament isn't 'functioning' it can dissolved without infringing on this law.

Now that we know that parliament not functioning is a pre-requisite to dissolving parliament, let's take that one step further:

Dion and the rest of the opposition have been threatening to vote non-confidence in the Harper government for many months now. Duceppe and Layton have at least been voting against Haper, while Dion has been abstaining with most of the liberal MP's from voting at all.

The abstension can really only be taken one way. The liberals are making a show of things with a sort of silent protest. It's their way of saying, "We don't like what you're doing and disagree with it but we are afraid of losing another election right now."

So now here we are, with over half the House of Commons either voting against or abstaining from every piece of legislature passed. How is this a functioning parliament?? It's simply not. Over half the elected representatives are openly opposed to the current Prime Minister and the only reason an election HASN'T been called yet is because the Liberal opposition is guilty of the exact same thing they're accusing the Harper government of: Opportunism.

The only reason the Liberals HAVEN'T voted against Harper yet is because they see where they are in the polls and they're waiting for a good time for THEM to pick and choose the time of the election. If that time didn't come (probably because of Dion bumbling) before the fixed election date, that's only because they didn't improve in the polls and NOT because they had confidence in the government or were happy letting it carry out its mandate.

For the simpleton, what Liberal cry babies are really saying is:

"Although the majority of parliament is openly opposed to the CPC (which really means it's not functioning), Stephen Harper should make sure that the House of Commons remains muddied under the shadow of a possible election until the fixed election date. Stephen Harper should, because it would be PERFECTLY reasonable, make sure that the next election is held at a time specific to Dion's choosing and at Dion's advantage. Stephen Harper should ignore the fact that Dion has made it crystal clear he does not intend to cooperate or compromise (the very definition of 'functioning' in a minority government), and he should ignore the advantage he has over the Liberals right now. Obviously that would be 'fair' and that's what the Liberals would do right???"

Where's the escape clause that says "if parliament isn't functioning"? Please point it out.

Harper didn't break the law but it wasn't "perfectly reasonable" for him to call a snap election when you look at his previous position. He said he was giving up the advantage that previous PMs had to call an early election. Then he called an early election.

Harper claimed Parliament wasn't functioning. He made this claim over the summer break. Nothing was happening that showed Parliament wasn't functioning.

The problem with the fixed date law is that it's meaningless. Any PM can find an excuse to get around the law even in a majority. Harper is just proving how pointless his law is and that he's no different from any other politician who'll change their position whenever there's an advantage to doing so.

[marksman]

and my point is proven.

Again, when asked to provide a rationale for your opinions, you couldn't or refused to. The best you guys could come up with was misquoting me and lobbing teenage insults at me that you learned from TV/Internet.

You couldn't even manage insulting me properly. You quoted me as calling you a cry baby and simpleton for being unwilling/unable to provide a counter argument and then you responded I had sand in my mangina. That qualifies, I believe, for the "NO U!" department.

I asked you a number of questions. You refused to answer them. I asked you to provide counter-arguments. You replied like a child with direct personal insults.

Again, all you did was repeat yourself and fling nonsense at me. That's you look stupid in every discussion and that's why the Liberals will fail miserably in this election. When a party campaigns towards the lowest common denominator, the smart people end up voting against it.

When you open the door by flinging nonsense - calling people whiners cry babies and simpletons and generalizing about an entire party - don't be surprised when you get the same type of response back.

[Moonbox]

Maybe in this election if Harper comes back with another minority that won't work, then the Cons should pay for the election and then Harper should resign as PM because the government won't work! IF the government won't work its because Harper is PM for Harper and NOT for Canadians and does things for what is GOOD for Harper and he can't stand to be wrong!

If Harper comes back with a minority his government should function fine and no party would dare defeat him within the next few years. A renewed minority provides him with the renewed confidence of Canadians and any party that tried to defeat him over anything but the most controversial issues would be to blame for any other money wasted. A renewed minority is fine for Harper because basically it says to the opposition, "See! Canadians want me here. Quit yer bitchin!"

[AngusThermopyle]

If Harper didn't want to have to break his fixed election date law

Once again, Harper didn't break the law.

How many times does it have to be repeated before you realize that he didn't break the law?

Or is it just that you don't wish to acknowledge this fact and prefer to use any ammunition you can, even if it is in fact false?

[Argus]

I agree Harper HAS LIED and CHEATED quite a lot. Excuses should not be confused with reasoning either.

If Harper didn't want to have to break his fixed election date law he shouldn't have proposed and passed it. Now its just another of the many Conservative LIES, and SCANDALS, and BROKEN PROMISES.

Tory lies and scandals

---

Liberal lies and scandals

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now guess how concerned greenie really is about "lies and scandals".

[guyser]

When you open the door by flinging nonsense - calling people whiners cry babies and simpletons and generalizing about an entire party - don't be surprised when you get the same type of response back.

Apparently that wasnt "simpleton" enough for the poster to discern. Nor tha fact that his Q was answered very early.

[guyser]

. A renewed minority provides him with the renewed confidence of Canadians and any party that tried to defeat him over anything but the most controversial issues would be to blame for any other money wasted.

So getting what he has already will boost his confidence. ?

Not to mention the fact that if Parl were to be brought down a la confidence vote, that would be enough excuse to blame others for a nother vote, but it is not enough to blame Harper now for just , I dont know, just deciding he wants one now.

Whoops

[guyser]

Once again, Harper didn't break the law.

And that is why I havent said he did.

According to his reasons for the law, it seems he wrote it sufficiently vague as to call one whenever he wants to.

Parliament is functioning like it always has, thus his reason is suspect. But I will agree no law was broken.

[Moonbox]

When you open the door by flinging nonsense - calling people whiners cry babies and simpletons and generalizing about an entire party - don't be surprised when you get the same type of response back.

Alright answer me this. If you're arguing with someone, and they're carrying on and complaining and complaining but they refuse to look at the issue reasonably and respond to any argument presented to them, what would you call them? Cry baby was the term that came to mind for me.

When they are UNABLE to argue rationally, I call them simpleton. Pick your poison.

Mangina, on the other hand, is teenage potty language and lost any funny factor it might have had about 10 years ago.

As to your other response, at least you argued the fact. Is the fixed election date law meaningless? Maybe it is at is stands. Do you have a copy of the bill in front of you? No? Me neither. I can't imagine Harper would have passed the bill if it was 100% pointless. Maybe it needs to be revised? If Harper had a majority and he called a snap election, I'd be on your side right now and calling him liar myself. In a minority, I see no wrong done, especially considering how much Dion has been going on about how he disagrees with everything Harper says and does in Parliament.

Please any of you, go back to my original post, read it, and refute my claim that parliament isn't functioning when over half the House of Commons is voting or abstaining. I'd like to see you try, but I doubt any of you will.

I expect more of the same.

[Moonbox]

Apparently that wasnt "simpleton" enough for the poster to discern. Nor tha fact that his Q was answered very early.

Guyser you didn't answer any of my questions. My opening post was a response to everything you said. You ignored the fact that Dion has been threatening to bring down the government, but hasn't yet. Why? Because he's just waiting for a time that suits HIM. Harper met with him, they discussed the CPC agenda, Dion was quoted by the media as saying there is no common ground whatsoever and never has been.

Let me put it clearly. The Bloc and NDP consistently vote against him. The Liberals abstain. When Harper passes legislation, less than half the House is voting for it. That clearly shows he doesn't have the confidence of the House. That is not a functioning parliament. Parliament is a sham right now and the reason for that is that the Liberals are afraid to admit they don't have the support of Canada right now.

[thermo]

Please any of you, go back to my original post, read it, and refute my claim that parliament isn't functioning when over half the House of Commons is voting or abstaining. I'd like to see you try, but I doubt any of you will.

Despite the "dysfunction" they were the longest serving minority gov't in Canadian history?

They've passed three budgets successfully?

They've also managed to pass a boatload of other bills - including an agreement on the Afghan mission?

those all seem like good indicators of a functioning house to me.

[thermo]

Let me put it clearly. The Bloc and NDP consistently vote against him. The Liberals abstain. When Harper passes legislation, less than half the House is voting for it. That clearly shows he doesn't have the confidence of the House. That is not a functioning parliament. Parliament is a sham right now and the reason for that is that the Liberals are afraid to admit they don't have the support of Canada right now.

This is not the argument Harper is putting forward in regards to "disfunction" tho!

if that were true he should have dissolved Parliament a long, LONG time ago!

[Moonbox]

Despite the "dysfunction" they were the longest serving minority gov't in Canadian history?

They've passed three budgets successfully?

They've also managed to pass a boatload of other bills - including an agreement on the Afghan mission?

those all seem like good indicators of a functioning house to me.

They've passed bills, sure, but lately they've been doing so without the support of parliament. Nobody is talking about what Harper did last year. They're talking about now and lately. Half the House is openly opposed to him. They've made it CLEAR they're not willing to support him moving on, so to continue as we are is to govern with Dion watching the polls with his finger on the election button waiting for an opportune time to strike. Why would ANYBODY do that????

[Moonbox]

This is not the argument Harper is putting forward in regards to "disfunction" tho!

if that were true he should have dissolved Parliament a long, LONG time ago!

No. He's saying that they've declared they're unwilling to cooperate moving on. Dion has admitted as such. A minority government, without the cooperation of the opposition, the government can't function. Am I wrong?

[marksman]

Alright answer me this. If you're arguing with someone, and they're carrying on and complaining and complaining but they refuse to look at the issue reasonably and respond to any argument presented to them, what would you call them? Cry baby was the term that came to mind for me.

When they are UNABLE to argue rationally, I call them simpleton. Pick your poison.

Mangina, on the other hand, is teenage potty language and lost any funny factor it might have had about 10 years ago.

As to your other response, at least you argued the fact. Is the fixed election date law meaningless? Maybe it is at is stands. Do you have a copy of the bill in front of you? No? Me neither. I can't imagine Harper would have passed the bill if it was 100% pointless. Maybe it needs to be revised? If Harper had a majority and he called a snap election, I'd be on your side right now and calling him liar myself. In a minority, I see no wrong done, especially considering how much Dion has been going on about how he disagrees with everything Harper says and does in Parliament.

Please any of you, go back to my original post, read it, and refute my claim that parliament isn't functioning when over half the House of Commons is voting or abstaining. I'd like to see you try, but I doubt any of you will.

I expect more of the same.

Yours was the 1st post in the topic. There was no need to result to name calling in the 1st post. Your arguments also lose weight when you criticise others for name calling and name call others at the same time. But enough of that and on to an actual discussion.

As for your question the answer is yes I do have the bill in front of me. I think you were a bit premature in declaring your position without actually reading the law. Especially the part about the escape clause.

Here's the bill at royal assent - read this one since you don't need the rest of the Elections Act

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...4668&file=4

But here's the Canada Elections Act for completeness - you'll want section 56.1 and 56.2

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/c...0&length=50

You'll notice absolutely nothing about how parliament "is functioning". You'll also notice that nothing that was passed affects the power of the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. Which means that a PM can call an election whenever they want.

In order to change the powers of the Governor General you'd have to change the constitution. All Harper's law did was to say that instead of having to have an election 5 years after the last election as it was written in the constitution we now have to have an election in October of the 4th year.

The passing of this law was a feel good political tactic but now it isn't working out. So Harper changed his mind and called an election when it was favourable for him.

If Parliament wasn't working during the summer then why was it working in the spring? Nothing changed. No legislation was stopped - because Parliament wasn't sitting. What changed was that polls were looking good and enough time had passed since 2006 that it wouldn't look ridiculous to call another election.

As for your other points Dion has been "going on about how he disagrees with everything Harper says and does in Parliament" since he became Liberal leader. So nothing there has changed.

You say that "parliament isn't functioning when over half the House of Commons is voting or abstaining". That makes no sense. Don't we want over half the House to be voting? Even more to the point you're basically saying that parliament isn't functioning because Harper has been able to get his legislation passed. Once again that makes no sense. How is Parliament not functioning if Harper has been able to pass his bills?

And no one has explained how Harper "gave up this advantage" in 2006 but seems to be using it in 2008.

[marksman]

They've passed bills, sure, but lately they've been doing so without the support of parliament. Nobody is talking about what Harper did last year. They're talking about now and lately. Half the House is openly opposed to him. They've made it CLEAR they're not willing to support him moving on, so to continue as we are is to govern with Dion watching the polls with his finger on the election button waiting for an opportune time to strike. Why would ANYBODY do that????

You can't pass a bill without the support of Parliament.

It's Harper who wanted fixed election dates. Ask him why he wanted to do that because when he passed the law he knew that a no confidence vote could bring him down at any time. That wasn't a problem for him when he passed the law but it appears to be a problem now when the polls show that he's got a chance at a majority.

No. He's saying that they've declared they're unwilling to cooperate moving on. Dion has admitted as such. A minority government, without the cooperation of the opposition, the government can't function. Am I wrong?

A nonfunctioning Parliament is 1 that can't pass legislation. That hasn't happened yet. Therefore Parliament was still functioning when Harper called his election.

[Ontario Loyalist]

They've passed bills, sure, but lately they've been doing so without the support of parliament. Nobody is talking about what Harper did last year. They're talking about now and lately. Half the House is openly opposed to him. They've made it CLEAR they're not willing to support him moving on, so to continue as we are is to govern with Dion watching the polls with his finger on the election button waiting for an opportune time to strike. Why would ANYBODY do that????

That's why they're called the Opposition. The Opposition is there because people voted for parties that had policies different than that of the party that formed the government. That happens in a democracy. In this case, Harper got a minority government with less than 40% of the popular vote; the mandate that he has therefore received is to cooperate and find consensus, which was happening in the parlaiment; but Harper obviously wants to dictate Canada, and for that reason has been cooking up nonsense in order to justify another election and hopefully a majority government.

[Moonbox]

Yours was the 1st post in the topic. There was no need to result to name calling in the 1st post. Your arguments also lose weight when you criticise others for name calling and name call others at the same time. But enough of that and on to an actual discussion.

Fair enough I can keep that in mind. With that being said, my name calling was a direct reference to the people who are carrying on about the fixed election date 'law' being broken as per the title of my post.

As for your question the answer is yes I do have the bill in front of me. I think you were a bit premature in declaring your position without actually reading the law. Especially the part about the escape clause.

You'll notice absolutely nothing about how parliament "is functioning". You'll also notice that nothing that was passed affects the power of the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. Which means that a PM can call an election whenever they want.

As for the bill, you're right, . There's no specific escape clause there and you're also right in that this seems like a pretty vague and leaky piece of legislation to me.

In order to change the powers of the Governor General you'd have to change the constitution. All Harper's law did was to say that instead of having to have an election 5 years after the last election as it was written in the constitution we now have to have an election in October of the 4th year.

The passing of this law was a feel good political tactic but now it isn't working out. So Harper changed his mind and called an election when it was favourable for him.

So Harper is guilty of passing a law that holds no water. Okay. So maybe that's what people should complaining about instead of calling him a crook.

The passing of this law was a feel good political tactic but now it isn't working out. So Harper changed his mind and called an election when it was favourable for him.

and what you're suggesting is that Harper, instead of calling an election when it's favourable for him, should wait instead for Dion to do otherwise. The fixed election date is a moot point when your opposition has declared they're not willing to cooperate and are threatening to topple the government.

You say that "parliament isn't functioning when over half the House of Commons is voting or abstaining". That makes no sense. Don't we want over half the House to be voting?

Either that's a misquote or I typoed. Over half of parliament is voting against him or abstaining, meaning he is passing legislation without the support of over half the House. The NDP and Bloc vote against him. The Liberals silently protest by abstaining. What this basically means is that while they are unwilling to support Tory legislation, they are just waiting for the appropriate time when the polls favor them instead of Harper to dissolve parliament.

Even more to the point you're basically saying that parliament isn't functioning because Harper has been able to get his legislation passed. Once again that makes no sense. How is Parliament not functioning if Harper has been able to pass his bills?

Parliament is functioning until the polls favor the Liberals. I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect Harper to handicap himself by allowing the opposition, who declared they will not cooperate with Harper, to wait until the polls look better for them to initiate what they themselves have been implying is a foregone conclusion.