Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

nicky10013 · February 5, 2010

Even the Pirate Bay torrent site is getting on board

"Prorogue Bay"

I don't know how long it'll last. Check it out while you can.

ToadBrother · February 5, 2010

I don't care if you defend the PM, just don't use his talking points (like Alta4evr). You demean us all (and the troops) by thinking we'll buy those idiotic lies or question our patriotism.

I don't want him to use Tory talking points because, well, we've already heard them from a dozen posters, sometimes repeatedly, most of the posters making it clear they have almost no notion of Parliamentary history or procedure. To be a fool is one thing. To ape a fool, well, that's that much worse.

PIK · February 5, 2010

I don't want him to use Tory talking points because, well, we've already heard them from a dozen posters, sometimes repeatedly, most of the posters making it clear they have almost no notion of Parliamentary history or procedure. To be a fool is one thing. To ape a fool, well, that's that much worse.

And how long is this really ,a few weeks and with everything going on with the olympics, so what if the insulting and name calling in parliment is shut down for a few weeks. I am sorry but this fake anger is a joke. We have a opposition that can't find any real scandals and are looking for anything to try and make them look bad,throw enough mud and hope some sticks. . But I am quite happy not to have neverending thievery and boondoggles, like we have had for years under chretien.

DrGreenthumb · February 5, 2010

And how long is this really ,a few weeks and with everything going on with the olympics, so what if the insulting and name calling in parliment is shut down for a few weeks. I am sorry but this fake anger is a joke. We have a opposition that can't find any real scandals and are looking for anything to try and make them look bad,throw enough mud and hope some sticks. . But I am quite happy not to have neverending thievery and boondoggles, like we have had for years under chretien.

Violations of the Geneva convention sounds like a real scandal to me. Must have sounded that way to Harper too, or he wouldn't have run away from Parliament like a cowardly bitch with his tail between his legs.

capricorn · February 5, 2010

Dr.G, the Afghan detainees committee will resume as soon as the House reconvenes. The first order of business will be to resolve the question of the government's resistance to provide certain documents requested by the committee. Rest assured there won't be any lack of opportunity for the opposition to continue hammering the Conservatives.

nicky10013 · February 5, 2010

And how long is this really ,a few weeks and with everything going on with the olympics, so what if the insulting and name calling in parliment is shut down for a few weeks. I am sorry but this fake anger is a joke. We have a opposition that can't find any real scandals and are looking for anything to try and make them look bad,throw enough mud and hope some sticks. . But I am quite happy not to have neverending thievery and boondoggles, like we have had for years under chretien.

You must have forgotten about the attempted bribing of Chuck Cadman or the in and out scheme which, as most conservatives here refuse to admit, is still under investigation by Elections Canada. Furthermore, the Conservatives despite the pledge of accountability have been by far the most secretive government in Canadian history. The press doesn't know how much money the PMO has spent on things like flights, hotels, bar tabs because the government has ignored FIA requests. One number that DID come out was that in 12 years of Liberal rule, about 12 million of government money moved out the door for internal, partisan political polling. In 4 years of Tory rule, that number, as released by the privy council, as gone up to 40.

Say what you want about the Liberals, they did things wrong but at least most of them were decent enough to say yes, there's something wrong here, let's investigate. Could Stephen Harper ever do what Paul Martin did and open up investigations on his own party like Sponsorship? Everything we've seen says absolutely not.

Furthermore, where do you get off calling it fake anger? Classic example of, "well if I don't find it important, nobody else can." This isn't partisan. This is about the fact that power in this country is being abused. If the guy I voted for did what Harper is doing, there's NO WAY they'd get my vote. 35% of Conservative voters apparently feel the same way, so don't come off acting like this is just the opposition trying to bring down the noble government. It's not true and the assumption that it is is frankly offensive. Just because you can't think for yourself doesn't mean that we can't.

PIK · February 5, 2010

You must have forgotten about the attempted bribing of Chuck Cadman or the in and out scheme which, as most conservatives here refuse to admit, is still under investigation by Elections Canada. Furthermore, the Conservatives despite the pledge of accountability have been by far the most secretive government in Canadian history. The press doesn't know how much money the PMO has spent on things like flights, hotels, bar tabs because the government has ignored FIA requests. One number that DID come out was that in 12 years of Liberal rule, about 12 million of government money moved out the door for internal, partisan political polling. In 4 years of Tory rule, that number, as released by the privy council, as gone up to 40.

Say what you want about the Liberals, they did things wrong but at least most of them were decent enough to say yes, there's something wrong here, let's investigate. Could Stephen Harper ever do what Paul Martin did and open up investigations on his own party like Sponsorship? Everything we've seen says absolutely not.

Furthermore, where do you get off calling it fake anger? Classic example of, "well if I don't find it important, nobody else can." This isn't partisan. This is about the fact that power in this country is being abused. If the guy I voted for did what Harper is doing, there's NO WAY they'd get my vote. 35% of Conservative voters apparently feel the same way, so don't come off acting like this is just the opposition trying to bring down the noble government. It's not true and the assumption that it is is frankly offensive. Just because you can't think for yourself doesn't mean that we can't.

Ever been withsome one that is dying and pumped up full of drugs, they could say anything,which he did, that is a moot point. Harper does not have to open things up like martin,the cons are not thieves. And elections canada is nothing mopre that a liberal den of idiots ,1 set of rules for the libs and a different set for the cons. Did harper ever use the RCMP to destroy a mans life because that man a certain banker would not give one of chretiens cronies a loan ,that we all know was for the guy to pay off chretien. You what to talk elections canada , see my next thread.

g_bambino · February 5, 2010

It might go a little too far, but it does underline, in general terms, my larger point, that unless you do these sorts of things in a considered and reasoned way, the unintended consequences can come and bite you in the ass. I'd prefer a slightly less "modern" democracy with an intact Canada, then a "modern" Democracy where, for some sort of perceived short-term game, Iggy and Layton lit another Constitutional bomb.

Yes, it is a bit alarmist. However, I hoped it would at least serve as some evidence to myata that you and I aren't talking out of our asses; the circumstances and concepts aren't nearly as simple or archaic as he likes to believe. Trying to paint them as such is merely a tactic, I think, used to make a self-serving change more palatable to an ignorant populace. "There's a Royal Prerogative? Oh, well, I was told monarchies are old, stupid, and useless. So, yes, abolish the Royal Prerogative!"

g_bambino · February 5, 2010

Rest assured there won't be any lack of opportunity for the opposition to continue hammering the Conservatives.

There probably won't be, no. But, the question is: will HM's Loyal Opposition merely continue to let those opportunities pass them by for the sake of their political benefit, thereby only further loosening their leash on Harper? The Liberal and NDP hacks rail at the Prime Minister and his actions but always fail to acknowledge that their preferred leaders simply aren't doing their job without putting self-interest first.

nicky10013 · February 5, 2010

Ever been withsome one that is dying and pumped up full of drugs, they could say anything,which he did, that is a moot point. Harper does not have to open things up like martin,the cons are not thieves. And elections canada is nothing mopre that a liberal den of idiots ,1 set of rules for the libs and a different set for the cons. Did harper ever use the RCMP to destroy a mans life because that man a certain banker would not give one of chretiens cronies a loan ,that we all know was for the guy to pay off chretien. You what to talk elections canada , see my next thread.

Well, the Chuck Cadman thing WAS criminal. Bribing someone to influence their vote in Parliament is against the law. So, where was the investigation? Oh, that's right, there was a parliamentary one started by the opposition which Conservative MPs didn't show up for rendering it ineffective. Sounds familiar, no? Like I said, the man is so partisan, any gain justifies any mean. Without doubt the least open Prime Minister in history.

ToadBrother · February 5, 2010

And how long is this really ,a few weeks and with everything going on with the olympics, so what if the insulting and name calling in parliment is shut down for a few weeks.

That's not really the point, now is it?

I am sorry but this fake anger is a joke.

There's nothing fake about my anger. The joke is some guy appearing out of nowhere, mouthing idiotic Tory talking points. Now that's stupid.

We have a opposition that can't find any real scandals and are looking for anything to try and make them look bad,throw enough mud and hope some sticks. . But I am quite happy not to have neverending thievery and boondoggles, like we have had for years under chretien.

The last sentence is a non sequitur. The first may be true.

But I will ask you, and if you don't answer it plainly, I'll know for truth that either your too ignorant or too dishonest to face the fine point of this.

Is Parliament supreme, or is it not? Does it have the right to demand any and all documents from the government of the day or not?

Skip all the Tory talking points about the Olympics, about the Opposition trying to dig up dirt. Let's see if you are either intellectually capable or intellectually honest enough to answer the question.

ToadBrother · February 5, 2010

Ever been withsome one that is dying and pumped up full of drugs, they could say anything,which he did, that is a moot point. Harper does not have to open things up like martin,the cons are not thieves. And elections canada is nothing mopre that a liberal den of idiots ,1 set of rules for the libs and a different set for the cons. Did harper ever use the RCMP to destroy a mans life because that man a certain banker would not give one of chretiens cronies a loan ,that we all know was for the guy to pay off chretien. You what to talk elections canada , see my next thread.

You really have no bloody idea what you're talking about. Go back to those incestuous little Tory forums where everyone intellectually masturbates each other to pictures of Stephen Harper.

nicky10013 · February 5, 2010

That's not really the point, now is it?

There's nothing fake about my anger. The joke is some guy appearing out of nowhere, mouthing idiotic Tory talking points. Now that's stupid.

The last sentence is a non sequitur. The first may be true.

But I will ask you, and if you don't answer it plainly, I'll know for truth that either your too ignorant or too dishonest to face the fine point of this.

Is Parliament supreme, or is it not? Does it have the right to demand any and all documents from the government of the day or not?

Skip all the Tory talking points about the Olympics, about the Opposition trying to dig up dirt. Let's see if you are either intellectually capable or intellectually honest enough to answer the question.

If you're taking action on this I'll put 50 down on him not being intellectually capable or honest.

jbg · February 6, 2010

Only the most important elements require the most stringent parameters: the offices of the Queen and her provincial and federal viceroys, a province's right to a certain number of seats in the House of Commons vis-a-vis its number of Senators, the use of English and French, the make-up of the Supreme Court, and amendments to the amending formula itself. Given the centrality of these matters, I don't see what's at all wrong with requiring the approval of all members of Confederation before alterations are made.

Query, since the Queen was coronated separately as the Queen of Canada in, I believe, 1954, does her successor automatically become King or Queen without Parliament's cooperation?

Smallc · February 6, 2010

The Crown is an unbroken line. The second that Elizabeth II dies or leaves the throne is the second that Charles becomes King (unless of course he abdicates).

jbg · February 6, 2010

The Crown is an unbroken line. The second that Elizabeth II dies or leaves the throne is the second that Charles becomes King (unless of course he abdicates).

King of Canada as well as England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom by the Grace of G-d?

Smallc · February 6, 2010

King of every realm and territory. They want to change the line off succession to allow women to rise to the throne easier....and all of the countries have pretty much agreed to keep their succession rules the same. That poses a problem. In Canada, a change to those rules may in fact be the most difficult type of constitutional change, the kind that requires the consent of all the provinces and the House of Commons, and preferably the Senate. It will be interesting if any when it's attempted.

ToadBrother · February 6, 2010

Query, since the Queen was coronated separately as the Queen of Canada in, I believe, 1954, does her successor automatically become King or Queen without Parliament's cooperation?

Yes and no, see the Statute of Westminster. Essentially it amounts to an agreement among the states where the British Monarch is sovereign to abide by the succession laws.

Edited February 6, 2010 by ToadBrother

g_bambino · February 7, 2010

Query, since the Queen was coronated separately as the Queen of Canada in, I believe, 1954, does her successor automatically become King or Queen without Parliament's cooperation?

You're close: her accession took place in '52, the coronation in '53. But, to answer your question: yes and no. The succession is automatic; hence the prhase "the King is dead, long live the King". However, it takes place according to Canadian constitutional law, which could be altered by parliament, according to the amending formula. TB mentions, rightly, that the Statute of Westminster (also a part of the constitution) stipulates that the monarch of the UK is to be the same person as the monarch of Canada; but, as that provision is actually laid out in the preamble, I believe its only a convention - albeit a strong one - and Canada could indeed give itself a different sovereign to that of Britain.

Monarchy of Canada > Succession

wyly · February 7, 2010

King of every realm and territory. They want to change the line off succession to allow women to rise to the throne easier....and all of the countries have pretty much agreed to keep their succession rules the same. That poses a problem. In Canada, a change to those rules may in fact be the most difficult type of constitutional change, the kind that requires the consent of all the provinces and the House of Commons, and preferably the Senate. It will be interesting if any when it's attempted.

next to impossible...

scribblet · February 7, 2010

You really have no bloody idea what you're talking about. Go back to those incestuous little Tory forums where everyone intellectually masturbates each other to pictures of Stephen Harper.

What kind of childish idiotic reply is that. I thought these forums were better than this.

jbg · February 7, 2010

You really have no bloody idea what you're talking about. Go back to those incestuous little Tory forums where everyone intellectually masturbates each other to pictures of Stephen Harper.

Personally I hang on Rabble, though I've been banned for being too far left.

William Ashley · February 7, 2010

Query, since the Queen was coronated separately as the Queen of Canada in, I believe, 1954, does her successor automatically become King or Queen without Parliament's cooperation?

ON the death of a reigning monarch parliament confirms their choice for succession. Bear in mind they have all sworn allegiance to the queen and her heirs, as well, there is an order of precedence to lawful succession, and they would most likely come from counselors of state - that being charles, william, harry, and prince phillip, and andrew.

====

Fact being the length of the prorogue after a Christmas break AND the reason ARE WRONG.. that is the point you can BS talk all you want and it doesn't make it any less wrong. IT WAS WRONG, IT IS WRONG, it is undemocratic, wasteful, and bad practice to conduct government and state the way it is being conducted by the half wit.

Edited February 7, 2010 by William Ashley

myata · February 7, 2010

Good grief. Parliament is supreme. The GG can only refuse assent to an extremely rare class of a bill.

....

any bill that violates the constitution (in the case of a bill attempting to alter the ability of the Government to advise the Sovereign), could a PM essentially say "Don't do it".

(in whose conclusion, btw? Is Sovereign in his diversed powers and responsibilities also entitled to make judgments on constitutionality of any bills? - in a responsible, modern democracy that would be of course an exclusive "prerogative" of the judiciary - for very obvious reasons of impartiality. -M.)

...

Please note here, as well, that the constitution does afford the Crown the right to refuse assent to any legislation.

Now look who's being confused here. Three different versions of reality is as many paragraphs. And all just to confirm that was said already (the Sovereign has the right to refuse any legislation). Thank-you.

We also have a precedent of a government taking a massive hit in the polls, and very seriously for them in key areas of Ontario which threaten their ability to even form another minority government. You seem to be forgetting the popular will in all of this.

And what's that, another "non-sequitur" or in plain words, a lame change of subject, distraction? We were talking about our system affording the executive Sovereign far too many powers inconsistent with notions of balance and division of powers, remember? If Jo on the street doesn't like an undemocratic jerk of a government it does not eliminate the problem with the political system that afforded that government the privilege to do it, does it?

No, it cannot. Parliament must meet once a year, and in the case of a prorogation to avoid a confidence motion (which would only apply to a minority government anyways), the constitution states that a new session be started, and all sessions of Parliament start with the Speech from the Throne, which is a confidence motion.

That's if you follow the letter of the law ("Parliament is supreme!") rather than creative spirit of it ("See you in the court"). But anyways I don't want to go into hypothetical matters, enough is to say that a year without legislature, without any oversight of government whatsoever is an outrage for any system that calls itself a democracy, not to say modern and responsible one, and by your own admission it would be perfectly legal and can happen right here anytime.

But let's take this further. Let's say this evil minority government attempts to ignore the constitution, and refuses to recall Parliament. Well, that's a clear violation of the constitution (and has been in practice since the Long Parliament ended Charles I ability to prorogue Parliament for indeterminate amounts of time, and was entrenched by the Glorious Revolution some fifty years later),

Clear violation in whose view? Do you recall that by your own admission, the Sovereign (the executive) is also entitled to judge on matters of constitutionality? So situation wouldn't be as clearcut, bringing us all so very close to the exciting possibilities of events like e.g. recently in Honduras.

That's right. The balance of power and strict constitutional process common and synonimous with modern democracies is there not as a fancy decoration but for a reason. Some people have learned of the risks of putting all eggs in one (executive) basket. Looks like we still have it in our thrilling political future.

and at that point the Governor General, as Her Majesty's representative, would most certainly recall Parliament.

Reading from that glancy hystory book of yours, with beautiful stories and pictures of kind and benevolent Kings? Listen, if we can have that GG as Her M rep that is bound to serve always and forever as a perfect guardian angel of honesty and constitutionality, why even bother with all that messy business of democracy in the first place?

But right, some people create independent instituions, checks and balances and constitutional processes. We have have an appointee of the Sovereign and hope that in the times of crisis they'd show perfect impartiality and alone defend our democracy.

You seem to hate history, but I keep throwing it in your face because that is our constitution, the documents and precedents that define how our system works, and why it works the way it does.

And your hystory is just another non sequitur here, because as everybody knows there're also notions as reason and learning. People don't usually crawl on their fours past early ages of toddlerhood and no more should independent and mature people hang on to the dear relics of their political babyhood.

I don't know what you would have the Opposition do? Break down the doors to the Prime Minister, beat him up? In law there are sadly many ways in which a party can delay.

Update our centuries old political system with detailed definitions of powers of each democratic institution, political and constitutional processes guiding checks and balances on powers and precluding abuse thereof?

Didn't I say it like many many times already, but you just prefer to not notice thinking that the system is as perfect as can be, and all problems will just solve themselves after a good night's sleep?

It's time for you to come back down to Earth. The kinds of things your suggesting are ludicrous beyond any reasonably measure. No government in Canadian history has ever defied the will of the Sovereign in such matters (though Charles Tupper did try to hang on even after the GG had clearly decided Laurier's Liberals would form government, but though he wailed against the GG's actions, he surrendered government nonetheless).

Yeah, right come back to this Earth. Walking with your back firmly against the future looking into glorious times of Tupper and Laurier and thing that your ways are and always be no less than perfect is one certain recepy to get yourself in the ditch. As said there's first time for everything, and those who won't learn from mistakes of others will do it on their own.

I like elections. Why don't you?

You're clearly saying it with an air of "I like all my eggs in one basket". And I think that in matters as complex as running a country that's a wrong answer. Elections aren't a replacement of working political process with balances and division of powers.

Governments do lots of questionable things that end up going to the Supreme Court. Parliament could still vote to hold MacKay in contempt. Will they? I dunno? I don't have a lot of faith in the Oppositions desire to in fact hold this government to task in a meaningful way.

Yes I thing they should, and if they don't they'll just show more of how inefficient and toothless they are. See, there aren't many steps separating a working democracy from no democracy, they would be 1) political processes, checks and balances between powers; 2) effective Opposition and 3) democratic will of population itself.

We don't have #1 here in any meaningful sense, we're down to situation where we do not have #2 either, and so it brings us all the way down to the last step. It may hold for now, but who knows about the next time?

And now we're back to amending the constitution, and I will reiterate, it isn't the politicians who are necessarily against it (I'm sure a large number of Tories still want to see a Triple-E senate), it's the fact that the regional makeup of Canada currently makes it impossible. I keep telling you that it's the populace and the Provinces that are blocking constitutional changes, and you keep trying to find the Government responsible. I can forgive any Prime Minister since Mulroney for not want to play that game, it is at least partially responsible for Mulroney's devastatingly awful polling numbers towards the end (by 1990-91, he was the most unpopular leader in the Western World), and ultimately the defeat and near-destruction of the Conservative Party.

I'm not saying here and now, but if the next confident majority government doesn't bring these issues to the table we'll come really close to have our fate settled as that of people who are averted to change and will never effect any. Unless of course it'd be Harpers's majority government, that would also settle our fate.

William Ashley · February 7, 2010

The real issue is what faith is Camilla - as per catholic church rules both people in a catholic marriage (her first marriage) have to be baptized christian - when was she baptized.. her family such as father and children are catholic - and marriage to a catholic excludes one from succession to the throne in Britain.

So unless she was baptized Anglican in her youth or some other Christian facet - which is unlikely considering her father is Catholic - then it seems when Charles married her, he very well may have given up his right to succession - bear in mind I'm guessing that it will just be swept under the carpet. But it in fact could cause the succession to be unlawful and make the continuance of the office without lawful authority.

Edited February 7, 2010 by William Ashley