Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You know, the difference is few people defend Mulroney. Yeah, I think he was a crook. And by the way there have already been several inquiries.

But you Liberals would rather slit your wrists and sacrifice your children on a fiery alter than consider the possibility that Jean Chretien, your hero, was a lying crook.

Hey a crook is a crook. They let both of those buggers stroll didn't they! What does that tell the citizens? Two letters come to mind....one is an "O" and the other is a "J".

[myata]

Other countries use proportional representation, which necessitates coalition governments because of fringe parties taking up portions of the house. The first-past-the-post system is the problem. Furthermore, an ineffectual and appointed senate that does not properly represent the regions (Senators ought to be appointed by the provinces after debate in their legislatures, imho) makes matters worse. Voting in Canada is nearly pointless.

The problem is that the two behemoth parties in Canada have the most to gain from keeping the system the way it is, i.e in pathetically outdated and near dysfunctional condition (in the sense of what a modern, responsible democracy should be like in the 21st century. Now PMO is running the "democratic" show, government can kick out independent watchdogs, refuse to release information and shut down the Parliament at will).

Is there any chance or hope of real, meaningful reforms happening in this situation? I'm not very hopeful(in my lifetime at least). This is the second time a clear, real need to reform the system is demonstrated in as many years, and very obviously the leaders of the opposition only want to think of it as a chance to score a few points against the opponent, forget doing something real that would benefit all Canadians.

Am I too pessimistic? Did I miss some light (in the end of endless duopoly tunnel)?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The problem is that the two behemoth parties in Canada have the most to gain from keeping the system the way it is, i.e in pathetically outdated and near dysfunctional condition (in the sense of what a modern, responsible democracy should be like in the 21st century. Now PMO is running the "democratic" show, government can kick out independent watchdogs, refuse to release information and shut down the Parliament at will).

Is there any chance or hope of real, meaningful reforms happening in this situation? I'm not very hopeful(in my lifetime at least). This is the second time a clear, real need to reform the system is demonstrated in as many years, and very obviously the leaders of the opposition only want to think of it as a chance to score a few points against the opponent, forget doing something real that would benefit all Canadians.

Am I too pessimistic? Did I miss some light (in the end of endless duopoly tunnel)?

No, you are spot on. Most people just view this as a bump in the road. I see it as a pothole and it tells the future. You know damned well the foundation is bad when that pot hole appeared in the first place but it is cheaper and less problematic to just toss some dirt in the hole and say done.

[Oleg Bach]

Americans still attempt to put for the illusion of a two party system. This giving the public the feeling of democracy and civil power. At least in Canada we are honest about having a one party system - and if the ones at the other end of the house who are hopless partizans get in the way of the real party - they just get rid of them nicely by sending them home..who needs the irritation of Ignatieff or Layton when you are trying to get things done. Prorouguation..is for the nation...and it's a sensation that sends a delegation to hold court with the back room boys excluding all others...I like Prince Harper.

[myata]

Oleg is true to his visionary self. Ultimately, we're going to get (and already getting) the very kind of government that we deserve.

No, I don't see other alternatives to boycotting, consciously and persistently both of the behemoth parties until real democratic reforms are put on the immediate agenda (that will decide where will my vote go at that time).

[Oleg Bach]

We must not panic. Other party leaders had better start to conduct themselves with class. Harper knows one thing - and that is how to keep up appearances by saying nothing - He reminds me of an old drinking buddy from my youth - He always got the girls because he was the silent type...he just rolled his Jim Morrison eyes about and created a mystique...There is not a lot to Harper..once the woman got in bed with my buddy they found him to be a barbaric and stupid man..with nothing to say - by then it was to late for other suiters...the bride had been spoiled - Ignatieff - had better grow up and fast - and start behaving like a man and not an overly privledged school boy...Iggy is a conservative - but not a neo-con. This will work out - and Layton should be still and not meddle - He has nothing to offer at this point - unionism is dead.

[ToadBrother]

More or less...Canada has bastardized the design with one foot in the past and one in the present. Either there is a constitution that rises above all parties and monarchs or there isn't. Don't complain when it falls short of this, particularly for such short term political wrangling.

Huh? I think we've been through this. Our constitution is partially written, partially made up of precedents and laws predating 1982. In large part the Constitution Act, 1982 formalizes what was already there.

[ToadBrother]

The bill won't apply to me or to most Canadians. It's a consumer safety bill and its applicability is to places which sell products. It is an acknowledgement that today, via the internet, many people are now selling products out of their homes, and those products might be unsafe or even dangerous. In fact, warrantless searches are already allowable under a number of circumstances, esp involving gaming houses and counterfeiting, where obtaining a warrant would be impractical. That doesn't mean a judge would not scrutinize the reasons for entry afterwards because the Constitution does not allow for "unreasonable" search and seizures.

It's important to reiterate this. The bill sets up an inspection regime, and you can't really have inspection regimes without inspections, and sometimes even spot inspections. The food industry has to put up with it, and I'll wager there isn't a medium sized town in this country that hasn't had at least one restaurant cited by inspectors. That's how inspection regimes work.

[nicky10013]

Apparently Harper and Flaherty forgot to get their story straight before letting the media know why there was a prorogual.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/flaherty-and-harper-sing-from-separate-prorogation-songbooks/article1426985/

[jbg]

Actually his endoresement of Paul Martin was not such a bad thing back in the good old days. Remember when Harper's thugs asserted that Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography? It really did tell us a lot about Harper....and not very good stuff .... at least from a character standpoint...

I think Gagliano and Sgro fit the bill as thugs far more than Harper's group.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think Gagliano and Sgro fit the bill as thugs far more than Harper's group.

A thug is a thug, yet I suppose there are degrees within that group like any other. The tough part is that any partisan group from the right or the left respond in like manner. Question period is a great place to view that reality. Their true colours are displayed for all to see there, unscripted peanut bench commentary with warts and all.

[g_bambino]

As a matter of fact you are right. Now how do you get the PMO to relinquish power for starters?

It's clearly a matter for parties, rather than the government, unless the government can stipulate how parties are to govern themselves. It would obviously have to be a grassroots type movement, with party membership putting pressure on the leadership to alter the rules of leader selection; if it was possible to change it once, I don't see how it couldn't be changed again.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It's clearly a matter for parties, rather than the government, unless the government can stipulate how parties are to govern themselves. It would obviously have to be a grassroots type movement, with party membership putting pressure on the leadership to alter the rules of leader selection; if it was possible to change it once, I don't see how it couldn't be changed again.

It changed to put more power in the hands of party leaders. Taking away power is not a common desire for partisan groups. Tell me what group you could see doing it without being forced into it?

[ToadBrother]

It changed to put more power in the hands of party leaders. Taking away power is not a common desire for partisan groups. Tell me what group you could see doing it without being forced into it?

Certainly no group as currently constituted. The only reason the Liberals are pissed is because they're in the passenger seat right now. Make no mistake, now that Harper has made prorogation a new strategy for evading Parliament, if the Liberals get a minority, they'll like do the same thing, and we'll have all the Liberal supporters here making the same kinds of noises; apologetics, lowered expectations, the works.

[g_bambino]

[W]hat a modern, responsible democracy should be like in the 21st century.

It's laughable when people present this irrelevancy as though it was proof of something; 1 January 2001 was the expiry date for our constitution, or the number 21 is supposed to trigger some kind of change. Strangely, it's only something I hear from people in the Commonwealth realms. Do people in the Switzerland complain that their system is a 19th century one still operating in the 21st?

[c/e]

Edited January 11, 2010 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Taking away power is not a common desire for partisan groups. Tell me what group you could see doing it without being forced into it?

One that starts losing membership over the matter, I imagine.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It's laughable when people present this irrelevancy as though it was proof of something; 1 January 2001 was the expiry date for our constitution, or the number 21 is supposed to trigger some kind of change. Strangely, it's only something I hear from people in the Commonwealth realms. Do people in the Switzerland complain that their system is an 19th century one still operating in the 21st?

Of course the Swiss don't complain they have a direct democracy. Now there is a system I would wish on this nation. The people are supreme and the elected representatives need a referendum to pass wind.

[g_bambino]

Of course the Swiss don't complain they have a direct democracy. Now there is a system I would wish on this nation. The people are supreme and the elected representatives need a referendum to pass wind.

Not relevant to my question. However, that system, which grew out of a civil war, couldn't function for this country; Switzerland is a geographically tiny state with a population on quarter the size of ours and extremely restricted immigration. Having every piece of legislation passed by the houses of parliament put to Canadians in a referendum would mean vast and ceaseless polling efforts; and why would a person in BC care at all about legislation affecting the Maritimes? Further, the Swiss system results in the tyranny of the majority I keep speaking about but you ignore; the stupid minaret issue, for example (something the haughty, self-anointed modernistas should decry as a draconian trampling of human rights that has no place in the TWEN-TY FIIIRST CENTUUURY...). There may be some details of the Swiss constitution worth considering, but the overall concept of it isn't practical for Canada.

[+]

Edited January 11, 2010 by g_bambino

[myata]

It's laughable when people present this irrelevancy as though it was proof of something; 1 January 2001 was the expiry date for our constitution, or the number 21 is supposed to trigger some kind of change.

Granted, you missed the point entirely, but do keep laughing. E.g. about (as is the laughing stock for democratic nations of the planet) unelected appointee of government shutting down the parliament at its (government's) nod. As government could ignore and undermine independent watchdogs it itself appointed. As government can simply say NO to the elected House request for information.

After all, laughing is good for you, and a good reason to have a hearty laugh can be found virtually anywhere and in anything.

Edited January 11, 2010 by myata

[g_bambino]

After all, laughing is good for you.

Well then, as long as you keep posting here, I'll be fine. Adults throwing ignorant temper tantrums like yours is sad, but still amusing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Huh? I think we've been through this. Our constitution is partially written, partially made up of precedents and laws predating 1982.

So is sausage.

In large part the Constitution Act, 1982 formalizes what was already there.

Correct...it formalizes uncertainty.

[ToadBrother]

So is sausage.

Correct...it formalizes uncertainty.

I'm not sure, but it seems to my like your trying to start a pissing contest. Our constitution works, for the most part, and it's not like your constitution stops errant or miscreant politicians with causing havoc and misery.

What is it with Americans?

Edited January 11, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

I'm not sure, but it seems to my like your trying to start a pissing contest.

Oh, be sure. It is his most favourite of passtimes, sometimes bordering on the compulsive.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not sure, but it seems to my like your trying to start a pissing contest. Our constitution works, for the most part, and it's not like your constitution stops errant or miscreant politicians with causing havoc and misery.

Then why are so many people "pissed" off about prorogueing Parliament? It's your constitution at work.

What is it with Americans?

See "US Politics" threads....what goes 'round comes 'round. Your move....

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh, be sure. It is his most favourite of passtimes, sometimes bordering on the compulsive.

...just like a Royal Shill.