Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[capricorn]

Did Goodale think it was a shocking blow to democracy when Chretien prorogued for two months in 2003 to make way for Paul Martin

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/11/12/liberals031112.html

I am quoting my own post to bring a clarification. Today, John Ibbitson quotes Jack Layton who recalled the real reason Chretien prorogued in 2003.

Mr. Layton remembers when Mr. Harper, as leader of the Official Opposition, lambasting the Chrétien government's plans to prorogue Parliament back in 2003, to prevent the Auditor-General from reporting on possible abuse of the sponsorship program in Quebec.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/proroguing-parliament-a-travesty-yet-clever/article1415391/

** It's interesting to note that in 2003, the CBC did not allude to the Sponsorship scandal as the underlying motive for Chretien shutting down Parliament.

[JaysFan]

Proof is usually required when you make an accusation. Oh, and last I checked, we in Canada don't make distinctions between citizens, no matter their place of birth.

Is there anything you Harper apologists won't excuse him for?

Pedophilia?

Harperites: Oh Stephen Harper wasn't diddling the kid, he was showing him what us Conservatives are convinced a Liberal did once.

[Smallc]

Well, at that time, there was no scandal, and it was his 4th prorogation, so I wouldn't say that there was necessarily a story there.

[Radsickle]

What a moronic opinion in the form of a equally moronic question. Surely you don't think her role is to ignore constitutional protocal and instead placate mouth breathing morons?

Now is the time for that Coalition, Iggy! It was `constitutional protocol' to suggest it to the GG before. IT STILL IS!

(Harper's breath smells VERY BAD)

Edited December 31, 2009 by Radsickle

[capricorn]

Pedophilia?

Harperites: Oh Stephen Harper wasn't diddling the kid, he was showing him what us Conservatives are convinced a Liberal did once.

That's gross.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's gross.

Not to mention anything else but, isn't that just a wee bit over the top.

?

[capricorn]

Well, at that time, there was no scandal, and it was his 4th prorogation, so I wouldn't say that there was necessarily a story there.

I'll grant you that Smallc. The scandal really only broke later so I'll cut the CBC some slack on that count, especially that it was a 2003 article. In many instances, it's only in hindsight that we can uncover a politician's real motives, whether they be good or questionable.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

To return to the point....the entire concept of proroguing parliament is simply wrong. I don't care who has done it when or how many times, its still just wrong.

[Bryan]

To return to the point....the entire concept of proroguing parliament is simply wrong. I don't care who has done it when or how many times, its still just wrong.

I disagree. When the opposition is using the Senate to block the will of parliament, and that plurality is about to shift soon, taking a break until that time is a pragmatic move.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I disagree. When the opposition is using the Senate to block the will of parliament, and that plurality is about to shift soon, taking a break until that time is a pragmatic move.

The end justifies the means. Isn't that how we got the GST? Didn't Mulroney appoint 12 Senators to have enough votes to force it thorough...

[M.Dancer]

To return to the point....the entire concept of proroguing parliament is simply wrong. I don't care who has done it when or how many times, its still just wrong.

I agree. I feel the same way about unelected coalitions...never the less, everyone knows the rules.

[Smallc]

Is there anything you Harper apologists won't excuse him for?

Harper apologist? I think someone should set the poster straight.

[Smallc]

I disagree. When the opposition is using the Senate to block the will of parliament,

The Senate is part of parliament, and on many of the bills is simply doing its job.

[M.Dancer]

Harper apologist? I think someone should set the poster straight.

Quite right. Weesee isn't quite old enough or worldly enough to be a Conservative, yet.

Give him 10 years or so and a chance to have kids, mortgages, taxes...

[capricorn]

When the opposition is using the Senate to block the will of parliament, and that plurality is about to shift soon, taking a break until that time is a pragmatic move.

Liberals in the House utilized their majority in the Senate to thwart Conservative government legislative initiatives. With Conservatives gaining the upper hand in the Senate, the opposition is actually forced to work harder in the House of Commons to influence what makes its way to the Senate. This is good since the Liberals will have to concentrate on serious issues rather than look around every corner for a potential scandal. I have a feeling the next Parliament will be very productive.

[Bryan]

I have a feeling the next Parliament will be very productive.

So do I.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So do I.

Why would you say that? The Senate only gets its useless hands on legislation after it goes through the whole gambit of the Commons. Harper is a long ways from being able to get what he wants in that chamber. If anything I think that the House of Commons would respond to the prorogue with both disdain and contempt. Harper , in my view would be making a large gamble, one in which I think he will force an election, and one in which he stands a very real chance of losing seats in. He may be able to retain power at this point, but his precarious hold of that may be in real danger. The opposition already has him presenting report cards as a means of retaining power! How demeaning is that for a PM?

[Smallc]

Quite right.

I was also alluding to the fact that I'm a card carrying Liberal....who doesn't very often support them right now.

[Smallc]

Liberals in the House utilized their majority in the Senate to thwart Conservative government legislative initiatives.

There were some legitimate concerns that they brought up and corrected though, especially dealing with the product recall legislation.

[capricorn]

Harper , in my view would be making a large gamble, one in which I think he will force an election, and one in which he stands a very real chance of losing seats in.

Why would he force an election? He knows he would win another minority. His best bet is to not rock the boat and stay in power to oversee a recovery in the economy. If an election is called it will be the opposition's doing and that might just result in a Conservative majority, depending on the electorate's mood. I ask you, who is faced with the bigger gamble?

The opposition already has him presenting report cards as a means of retaining power! How demeaning is that for a PM?

As far as I know, all report cards have been presented and Professor Ignatieff has given the Conservatives a passing grade.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Why would he force an election? He knows he would win another minority. His best bet is to not rock the boat and stay in power to oversee a recovery in the economy. If an election is called it will be the opposition's doing and that might just result in a Conservative majority, depending on the electorate's mood. I ask you, who is faced with the bigger gamble?

As far as I know, all report cards have been presented and Professor Ignatieff has given the Conservatives a passing grade.

All true! Yet no matter how you look at it, its still a gamble.....now why do that? What is to gain?

[capricorn]

There were some legitimate concerns that they brought up and corrected though, especially dealing with the product recall legislation.

I'm not saying the Senate cannot be effective. It's the fact that the Liberals sitting in the House have been using the Senate for partisan reasons. The Senate has to return to its original intended purpose which is to be the chamber of sober second thought.

[Oleg Bach]

Just goes to show you that the powers that be in Great Britain can still make a mockery out of what we consider a government.

[g_bambino]

Just goes to show you that the powers that be in Great Britain can still make a mockery out of what we consider a government.

And just when I thought you couldn't get any more kooky, Oleg...

[nicky10013]

I'm not saying the Senate cannot be effective. It's the fact that the Liberals sitting in the House have been using the Senate for partisan reasons. The Senate has to return to its original intended purpose which is to be the chamber of sober second thought.

It's the Liberals misusing legislative procedure for partisan gains? Isn't that what this whole proroguing thing is about? Proroguing parliament has only ever occured when the business of the government as determined by the throne speech of the current session has been completed. Harper is killing, what, 30 of his own bills? This is about the Conservatives caught in an ugly scandal and they're simply taking the ball and going home. Chretien was contemplating this to try and put to bed the sponsorship scandal, but the current great patron...nay, protector of our democracy said words that could not be truer.

“The government will prorogue the House so that it will not be held accountable for its shameful record...”

~Stephen Harper

Quote from John Ibbitson's article on the Globe and Mail website.

In the end the government will always try to spin how horrible the Liberals are considering what some party idiots did in Quebec and that's fine, it's politics. However, the Liberals never tried to silence the voices in parliament that represent what I believe in. To me that's infinitely more disturbing than a couple of morons boosting a couple million dollars. The man has no respect for our democracy and he's proven that not only the two times he suspended parliament, but also when he attacked Elections Canada and actually had the gall to sue the opposition for defamation.

It's funny, the government has been using every opportunity to hide behind the troops that they've got. Considering they're supposedly fighting for our freedom, shutting down parliament is about the biggest loogie in the face of our military that a government could spit. Disgraceful.