Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

Alta4ever · December 31, 2009

Because that's kinda of how the system works, particularly in a Minority Government. Gutting it in Committee means there's no chance of the Government declaring the whole thing a Confidence Motion to bully the Opposition. Since minority governments are pretty damned rare, I'd say sit back and enjoy it, because I suspect that we'll be back to a majority (probably Conservative) within the next year or two, and then you can go back to snoozing through all the Committee work.

I hope so because I am sick and tired of seeing very good legislation utterly destoryed by the opposition.

Smallc · December 31, 2009

I hope so because I am sick and tired of seeing very good legislation utterly destoryed by the opposition.

How many bills has the Senate actually substantially changed? 1 I think.

Alta4ever · December 31, 2009

How many bills has the Senate actually substantially changed? 1 I think.

Not the senate the hoc commitees.

Wild Bill · December 31, 2009

Are you under the impression that when the Liberals get into power and the Senate is dominated by Conservatives that they won't be a pain in the arse either? You really don't know much about anything, do you?

Ok, let's see how your logic has worked.

If we have a Liberal government with a Liberal dominated Senate, that's ok.

If we have a Tory government with a Liberal dominated Senate, that's ok too.

If we have a Liberal government with a Tory dominated Senate, that will be a "pain in the arse". IOW, not ok.

If we have a Tory government with a Tory dominated Senate, it's not hard to see that it won't be high on your hit parade either!

What's worse, while you bruit that our system has worked "for 150 years" you make no mention that Senators are not elected and therefore directly responsible to the people. They are simply party hacks, rewarded for being bagmen. Trudeau had so little respect for the Senate he actually appointed his chauffeur!

Seems to me if you were truly standing on anything but blindly partisan principles you would be decrying the very structure of the system and not ONLY the fact that there are Tories involved!

After all these months of reading your posts, I've come to believe that what you actually favour is a perpetual Liberal government that never has to face an election and has total control of the Senate.

ToadBrother · December 31, 2009

Ok, let's see how your logic has worked.

If we have a Liberal government with a Liberal dominated Senate, that's ok.

If we have a Tory government with a Liberal dominated Senate, that's ok too.

If we have a Liberal government with a Tory dominated Senate, that will be a "pain in the arse". IOW, not ok.

If we have a Tory government with a Tory dominated Senate, it's not hard to see that it won't be high on your hit parade either!

What's worse, while you bruit that our system has worked "for 150 years" you make no mention that Senators are not elected and therefore directly responsible to the people. They are simply party hacks, rewarded for being bagmen. Trudeau had so little respect for the Senate he actually appointed his chauffeur!

Seems to me if you were truly standing on anything but blindly partisan principles you would be decrying the very structure of the system and not ONLY the fact that there are Tories involved!

After all these months of reading your posts, I've come to believe that what you actually favour is a perpetual Liberal government that never has to face an election and has total control of the Senate.

I think you have me confused with a Liberal. I don't particularly like them either, it's just that I dislike Harper intensely, and my local Conservative MP is a religious nutjob. The Senate, when lopsided away from the governing party in the Commons, has always been a pain in the ass, that's why Mulroney used a provision in the BNA Act that only once before been attempted to stack the Senate to push the GST through. In Mulroney's case, it was a timing issue, the Senate could do nothing but delay the bill. In Harper's case, because these are not money bills, the Senate has more leeway and can be a bigger pain the ass (and I wasn't making a judgement call, at the moment the Conservatives clearly consider the Senate an enormous pain). The Senate isn't supposed to roll over and do what the Commons wants, that was never its purpose, and it would cease to have any purpose if it did.

What I'd like to see is a Triple-E Senate, more in line with the American setup, so I guess, on that particular point, I'm very much in the same room as the old Reformers (who I did happen to vote for a couple of times). Don't try to paint me into some box so you don't have to debate me and instead just say "Liberal a$$hole" over and over. I'd love Senate reform, I'd love a real check on the powers of the Commons, and in particular on the Prime Minister.

Edited December 31, 2009 by ToadBrother

Argus · December 31, 2009

So you are suggesting, or the author was, that this entire mess was a result of an ego trip of the Prime Minister caused by the Upper Chamber of the Senate

What mess? I see no mess. The little lefties are squealing and shrieking and howling and wailing like they do every time Harper does anything, but that's as predictable as snow in winter and just as easy to shove out of your way. He figured he could get legislation through faster in a Senate he controlled. Hard to argue with that.

ToadBrother · December 31, 2009

I hope so because I am sick and tired of seeing very good legislation utterly destoryed by the opposition.

"Very good legislation" is purely subjective. And the Opposition has the most seats in Parliament, and therefore has the right to destroy legislation (from your perspective) if it chooses. If you wish to solve this problem, bitching about the way Parliament has worked for a century and a half seems utterly moronic. Better to work towards a Tory majority government.

Argus · December 31, 2009

So not only are these guys pretty blindingly stupid, they're absolute and utter hypocrites on top of it. The Senate's job in our system is not simply to do what the Commons tells it to do. It's job is to be a body of sober second thought, as is the upper chamber in most bicameral legislatures.

Well, that's the academic opinion. Of course, it has no place in reality in Canada, and hasn't had in generations, but I wouldn't expect anyone on the Left side of the political spectrum to even acknowledge the lunatic nonsense they're spouting.

The Senate is a political patronage dumping ground for loyalists of the party in power - mostly party insiders and bagmen. The residents thereof do very little, if any work, because they don't have to. It's more a chamber of sober second napping than second thoughts. Almost no one there does anything of value nor wishes to contribute anything of value to anything. But they are, at base, partisans, and so if they can make trouble for the party in power - as long as that's not THEIR party, then they're perfectly content to do so - as long as it doesn't disturb their napping. Sober second thought indeed. Can you tell us how often the Senate rejected legislation in Jean Chretien's time or held it up in committee? I'm guessing - never - not once. This is simply old party hacks making trouble for the Tories despite the fact their party lost the election. The sooner they're out and the Senate can go back to sleep the better.

If we wanted a chamber of "sober second thought" we'd find some thinking people to put in it. We don't and so we haven't.

ToadBrother · December 31, 2009

Well, that's the academic opinion. Of course, it has no place in reality in Canada, and hasn't had in generations, but I wouldn't expect anyone on the Left side of the political spectrum to even acknowledge the lunatic nonsense they're spouting.

I won't disagree with you. Like I said, I'm a big fan of Senate reform, and truly did grieve when Meech Lake died. Still, the Senate is what is, and whether you, I or Stephen Harper like it or not, it has certain powers, at least to stall. As to the committees, well, if the Conservatives have a better way to refine legislation, then they should talk to the rest of the House, after all, committees exist only because Parliament says they do.

The problem here is, in large part, because Canadians have not seen fit to deliver the Conservatives a majority government. In effect, whether the Conservatives and their supporters like it or not, the nature of this Parliament was decided by the electorate. If any of the parties, but in particular the Tories and Grits, want to see a different Parliament, then they're bloody well going to have to convince more than 40% of Canadians that they deserve it. As neither party is at that number, they're stuck with it.

And as an aside, I might even be willing to vote Conservative in the next election, if the local Tory riding association wasn't occupied by septuagenarians and octogenarians who quite frankly select their candidate based largely on the religious noises he makes. I loathe my local MP, a man whose prejudices and religous zealotry make him utterly unsuited in my humble little opinion. But I'll freely admit I'm in the minority, as he keeps getting elected.

Edited December 31, 2009 by ToadBrother

Jerry J. Fortin · December 31, 2009

I too am a fan of the Senate Reform concept. Even so, I think what has been done before and what is being done now in terms of the prorogue of Parliament is just wrong. I will suggest that to reintroduce this legislation being willingly suspended by Harper is a little more tricky than perhaps some would imagine.

Now correct me if I am wrong here but, when the House next sits isn't the first order of business a budget? If that is true, is that not a matter of confidence? If that is true, is there a chance that Harper would lose the motion? If that is true, then would not all that legislative effort be lost when an election is called?

Lets take this a step further. Would not the proponents of that legislation be a little miffed at its demise? Would the concept of a different sort of coalition not suddenly become a little more feasible under an Iggy design that sought to dislodge Harper?

What if the coalition was in fact formed and designed to prevent coalition members from running against each other in an everybody against the Conservatives campaign......

What if a power sharing agreement could be arranged amongst a coalition of the willing?

What if this all happened because of the Harper greed for power and control? Would the Conservative movement survive the demise of its government?

DrGreenthumb · January 1, 2010

I too am a fan of the Senate Reform concept. Even so, I think what has been done before and what is being done now in terms of the prorogue of Parliament is just wrong. I will suggest that to reintroduce this legislation being willingly suspended by Harper is a little more tricky than perhaps some would imagine.

Now correct me if I am wrong here but, when the House next sits isn't the first order of business a budget? If that is true, is that not a matter of confidence? If that is true, is there a chance that Harper would lose the motion? If that is true, then would not all that legislative effort be lost when an election is called?

Lets take this a step further. Would not the proponents of that legislation be a little miffed at its demise? Would the concept of a different sort of coalition not suddenly become a little more feasible under an Iggy design that sought to dislodge Harper?

What if the coalition was in fact formed and designed to prevent coalition members from running against each other in an everybody against the Conservatives campaign......

What if a power sharing agreement could be arranged amongst a coalition of the willing?

What if this all happened because of the Harper greed for power and control? Would the Conservative movement survive the demise of its government?

A Liberal/NDP coalition that did not require Bloc support would have a lot of support I think, and with an informal agreement that stopped the Conservatives from benefitting from the vote split on the left, the Liberal/NDP coalition could easily defeat Harper.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 1, 2010

A Liberal/NDP coalition that did not require Bloc support would have a lot of support I think, and with an informal agreement that stopped the Conservatives from benefitting from the vote split on the left, the Liberal/NDP coalition could easily defeat Harper.

Why not throw the Quebec folks a bone....don't run against them. Agree to put a few of them in a cabinet, say positions of heritage and language, or even create positions just for them...include them as what they are and what they represent. Don't forget the Green folks either, invite them even if they don't win a seat to a position related to the environment. The NDP, needs a labour portfolio and perhaps something to do with social programs.

Design a huge cabinet, hand out the responsibility to get the jobs done that need to get done.

DFCaper · January 1, 2010

I feel bad for the Conservatives on this website defending Harper on this one. I was never a Harper fan, but believed until today that I was going to vote conservative in any up coming elections. I bet there are a lot of moderates like myself who believe, not only in democracy, but our political system that think this is the lowest point for politics in this country. And I thought he was low before...

WHY ARE WE STUCK WITH THIS F@KING @SSH0LE!!! I now wish Dion won..........hmmmm... almost

Alta4ever · January 1, 2010

I feel bad for the Conservatives on this website defending Harper on this one. I was never a Harper fan, but believed until today that I was going to vote conservative in any up coming elections. I bet there are a lot of moderates like myself who believe, not only in democracy, but our political system that think this is the lowest point for politics in this country. And I thought he was low before...

WHY ARE WE STUCK WITH THIS F@KING @SSH0LE!!! I now wish Dion won..........hmmmm... almost

Just wonder what you think of a liberal prime ministers doing this one a year, their was and can you guess which one?

This is a normality of canadian parliment, we have never screamed and crowed every time parliment was prorogued before, why is now when a Conservative Prime Minister does it is it such a problem?

As for the lowest point in politics in this country, I can think of many more points in our parliments history that far surpass this. how about insatuting the war measures actbecause a Cabinate minister is kidnapped, maybe the cancellation of the arrow program, or what about more recently the sponsorship scandel. I doubt this could rank anywhere near the bottom of policits in Canada, I doubt it would even enter the top 100 lowest points in government.

We aren't suck with harper, if the Liberals had a little brass maybe they could force an election.

William Ashley · January 1, 2010

How about suggesting the prime minister be killed. Is that against the law?

It depends on the purpose of the suggestions.

If it is for purpose of violent insurrention then it may be seen as inciting violent insurrection.

If it is done because you hate the corupt festering traitor he is, it'd likely be utter (death) threats.

If it is done for reasons of fiction such as writting a story, then it would be fully acceptable.

William Ashley · January 1, 2010

Why not throw the Quebec folks a bone....don't run against them. Agree to put a few of them in a cabinet, say positions of heritage and language, or even create positions just for them...include them as what they are and what they represent. Don't forget the Green folks either, invite them even if they don't win a seat to a position related to the environment. The NDP, needs a labour portfolio and perhaps something to do with social programs.

Design a huge cabinet, hand out the responsibility to get the jobs done that need to get done.

What like Minister of Environment? For the Greens

and

Minister of Justice for the bloc (whahaahhaahahah) Bloc attorney general... (whajahaha)

Or how about

Minister for Quebec

Minister without profolio for quebec x 48 (its not that funny, anyway.. man if conservatives start passing bills for social conservatism I'm out of canada again, the country already sickens me enough with its backwardness and total neglect for constitutional rights)

If they get a majority, I'm getting a plane ticket. Having both the house and the commons is a travesty to canada when these nutters hold power. such bastards. Backwards scum. nothing more. underhanded scum.

I feel so sorry for the idiocy that Canadians have become in entrusting these snakes with parliament

Edited January 1, 2010 by William Ashley

DrGreenthumb · January 1, 2010

Just wonder what you think of a liberal prime ministers doing this one a year, their was and can you guess which one?

Prorogation has never been used to evade the will of parliament like Harper uses it. Not to avoid a confidence vote or escape questions about violation of the Geneva Convention, or to stack the senate. IT HASN'T BEEN DONE TO TTRIGGER A 2 MONTH HOLIDAY. Prorogation is normally used right before parliament is returned to start a new session, not to put off parliament for months at a time so people can forget about the government's misdeeds.

Bryan · January 1, 2010

I too am a fan of the Senate Reform concept. Even so, I think what has been done before and what is being done now in terms of the prorogue of Parliament is just wrong. I will suggest that to reintroduce this legislation being willingly suspended by Harper is a little more tricky than perhaps some would imagine.

Now correct me if I am wrong here but, when the House next sits isn't the first order of business a budget? If that is true, is that not a matter of confidence? If that is true, is there a chance that Harper would lose the motion? If that is true, then would not all that legislative effort be lost when an election is called?

Lets take this a step further. Would not the proponents of that legislation be a little miffed at its demise? Would the concept of a different sort of coalition not suddenly become a little more feasible under an Iggy design that sought to dislodge Harper?

What if the coalition was in fact formed and designed to prevent coalition members from running against each other in an everybody against the Conservatives campaign......

What if a power sharing agreement could be arranged amongst a coalition of the willing?

What if this all happened because of the Harper greed for power and control? Would the Conservative movement survive the demise of its government?

Polling had Conservative support surging into the mid 50's when the idea of the coalition was raised last year. Do it again, and not only will the Conservatives be guaranteed get a huge majority, it will probably be the permanent end of the Liberal Party.

Alta4ever · January 1, 2010

Prorogation has never been used to evade the will of parliament like Harper uses it. Not to avoid a confidence vote or escape questions about violation of the Geneva Convention, or to stack the senate. IT HASN'T BEEN DONE TO TTRIGGER A 2 MONTH HOLIDAY. Prorogation is normally used right before parliament is returned to start a new session, not to put off parliament for months at a time so people can forget about the government's misdeeds.

Whatever floats your boat. Klien once suspended an entire sitting of the legislature.

BTW Parliment would not have sat until the last week of January at the earliest anyway so its more like a months break, oops I forgot about the break week in February, so now we are down to about three weeks, and that has been done before, soo now where are you. As for the senate sour grapes, as fpor the genvea bs, those charges would have to be made against the afgan government. If they do find something from 2006 will the liberal ministers that negociated the prisoner transfers be held to account? it was within Harpers right and you would be very much in approval if it was layton or iggy in power instead, this is just more venom from you.

William Ashley · January 1, 2010

Polling had Conservative support surging into the mid 50's when the idea of the coalition was raised last year. Do it again, and not only will the Conservatives be guaranteed get a huge majority, it will probably be the permanent end of the Liberal Party.

and what is the alternative let them get a majority by lies deception and marketing?

its the end of Canada if they have the commons and the senate - by god only the queen/gg could save canada then by resuming absolute dictatorship for the benefit of Canadians!

I'd rather have a 80 year old woman dictate than Hitlarper

Edited January 1, 2010 by William Ashley

myata · January 1, 2010

Harper did not like the media; he despised independent oversight over government's work (AECL, Elections commissioner, Military police complaints commission, RCMPO..). He did not like some laws. And now he's showing that he doesnt really like the Parliament.

It must be pretty clear by now that he the one thing he likes is the sheer unchecked and complete power to do as he likes.

The problem is not with Harper though but the outdated dysfunctional political system that has no meaningful checks over the government in power.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 1, 2010

Harper did not like the media; he despised independent oversight over government's work (AECL, Elections commissioner, Military police complaints commission, RCMPO..). He did not like some laws. And now he's showing that he doesnt really like the Parliament.

It must be pretty clear by now that he the one thing he likes is the sheer unchecked and complete power to do as he likes.

The problem is not with Harper though but the outdated dysfunctional political system that has no meaningful checks over the government in power.

I agree the system can be blamed for a great many things, yet I still hold Harper to account for his own actions.

Argus · January 1, 2010

That is an awful lot to throw out the door just to acquire more power and control of legislative matters in the nation. Citizens will have paid hundreds of millions of dollars for the efforts of the House for an entire year to no avail. This from a government who claims they are fiscally conservative.

Depends on how fast they can be reintroduced and moved through the Senate. If an extra month off will take many months off the time passage of bills through the senate - not to mention allow the passage of bills the Senate turned down - then it would be worth it in the end.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 1, 2010

Depends on how fast they can be reintroduced and moved through the Senate. If an extra month off will take many months off the time passage of bills through the senate - not to mention allow the passage of bills the Senate turned down - then it would be worth it in the end.

Unless of course Harpers actions trigger an election. That is a distinct possibility, and at that point all that legislative effort disappears because it would be a different Parliament that it would be introduced to, or is that incorrect. Such was my understanding, I could be wrong....

Argus · January 1, 2010

A Liberal/NDP coalition that did not require Bloc support would have a lot of support I think, and with an informal agreement that stopped the Conservatives from benefitting from the vote split on the left, the Liberal/NDP coalition could easily defeat Harper.

Bloody nonsense. First, they don't have the seats. Second, what you fail to understand, is that there are three groups in the centre of Canada who basically decide elections. Think of them as three slices of a pie. The left slice are the liberals, and the right slice are the tories. The middle slice are the ones who can go either way. Some lean left - liberalish, some lean right - small c conservativism. But they can all shift to either party depending on policies, programs and beliefs. The problem with a Liberal NDP coallition is it would inevitably alienate that middle slice, and it's bigger than the NDP. If that middle slides over to the Tories from a backlash at the leftist policies the Liberals would have to introduce to please the NDP the Liberals would be wiped in the next election and they'd be looking at a huge Tory majority.