Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[nicky10013]

Mmm... okay. Technically, you're correct; but, the impression I got from your words was that you were inciting fear of something more sinister. For, if we stick to the literal definitions, as you wish, democracy is "subverted" every time parliament is prorogued, every time parliamentarians are off on holiday, hell, every time they go home for the evening to have some supper and be with their families. So what?

No it's not because parliament has never been prorogued the way Harper has done it. Chretien tried but it never happened. The house isn't usually prorogued until the government has finished its agenda laid out in the throne speech. Once it has, the tradition has been to prorogue at the end of the christmas break or something like that for a day or two and open up parliament on schedule with a new throne speech and agenda for the next session of parliament. Used procedurally, it just opens a new chapter for a fresh agenda for the government. Harper is using it to dodge parliamentary committees and to shut down question period hammering him on torture allegations. He's using it to silence the voices of a majority of Canadians.

To say these two different scenarios are alike is simply irresponsible.

[g_bambino]

No it's not because parliament has never been prorogued the way Harper has done it.

Numerous posters have already shown that to be false; I need not repeat their work. I also shouldn't have to repeat my own point that Harper dodges nothing by this prorogation; parliament will sit again, and if the matters now are as important as you say they are, the opposition should raise them at the first opportunity.

[+]

Edited January 2, 2010 by g_bambino

[madmax]

The best example which comes immediately to mind were when the generous social programs put in place by the NDP and Liberals .........

hmm...Every Province did the same.

Welfare 1995 to 2005

NfLD: 71,300: 48,500

PEI 12400 : 6,900

NS 104000 : 52300

NB 67400 : 45300

Que 802200 : 518200

Ont 1344600 : 676500

Man 85200 : 60900

Sask 82200 : 48700

Alb 113200 : 56400

BC 374300 : 149300

Yukon 2100 : 1100

NWT 12000 : 1900

Nunavut* 7300 (2000) : 13800 (2005)

Now, back to Stephen Harper being a quitter strike #3

Strike One:

Harper quits in Sept. 2008, decides he doesn't like his working conditions and calls and election.

Strike Two:

Harper quits again in late November 2008. Doesn't like his working conditions and calls for parliment to be prorogued. Spends his free time appointing Senate Hacks.

Strike Three:

Harper quits in December 2009. Doesn't like his working conditions. Wants more holiday time and to enjoy the olympics. Doesn't like questions about Afghanistan, Torture, and the Deficit. Uses up his working time, travelling and appointing Senate Hacks. Hard work is done and he wants to have more paid holidays & photo ops for his Mps

No doubt about it. Harper supports the strike.

Strike 3, your out.

Edited January 2, 2010 by madmax

[nicky10013]

Numerous posters have already shown that to be false; I need not repeat their work. I also shouldn't have to repeat my own point that Harper dodges nothing by this prorogation; parliament will sit again, and if the matters now are as important as you say they are, the opposition should raise them at the first opportunity.

[+]

No, frankly, it's quite true. You're spreading disinformation and that's irresponsible. No one said other Prime Minister's haven't prorogued the house. It happens all the time. It's parliamentary procedure and quite appropriate when used appropriately. That's the entire point.

I skimmed through the entire thread. Your "numerous" other posters were 3. One claimed that Ralph Klein prorogued an entire session which coming from a Conservative I suppose isn't that surprising. The rest of the accusations went against Trudeau, Chretien and Martin. However, I ask again since you never answered the first time, did they improperly use it? No one has ever said that they did. I said Chretien contemplated it over adscam, but it never came to fruition. Conservatives are now apparently trying to "coalition" the use of the word prorogue. They know they don't have the support like they did the first time, so the strategy I suppose here is to act as though EVERY proroguation has been bad which is entirely semantics and also entirely false. So please, enlighten me...how did the other PMs abuse it?

Edited January 2, 2010 by nicky10013

[Smallc]

No, frankly, it's quite true. You're spreading disinformation and that's irresponsible.

If Bambino says something about parliament....it probably isn't disinformation. In this case, I know it isn't.

[Smallc]

I heard rumours on CTV National News a couple of days ago (from Craig Oliver) that prorogation and a throne speech may become an annual event under Mr. Harper. The Conservatives plan to use the Speech from the Throne as a sort of 'State of the Union'.

[Argus]

In comparison to the US, Canada was designed to be a far more powerful federal state. There's a good reason for it. The idea that is Canada is far more fragile than the US. Canadian national myths are no where near as strong as they are in the states. In the end, the more local we become, the more divisions there are between us.

You forget there were no national myths in either country on creation. The US was designed to be a weaker federal state because the Americans had just gone through a revolution and did not want to see a strong sovereign state over them again. Canada, by contrast, slowly and gradually separated from the British without violence or anger. We didn't see anything wrong with a stronger central state.

Harper and his Conservatives have used this to their advantage. Preaching more powers for provinces pits province against province and rural agains urban.

All Harper has preached is that the federal government should follow the dictates of the constitution of our creation, and respect the rights of the provinces rather than interposing its own will upon them in matters where the provinces have jurisdiction. Trudeau, btw, was a master of pitting province against province. I've seen nothing like that from Harper.

Quebec has always been a problem but now the west is causing troubles as well.

What problems is the west causing?

Edited January 2, 2010 by Argus

[nicky10013]

If Bambino says something about parliament....it probably isn't disinformation. In this case, I know it isn't.

If it isn't there would be specific examples of a Prime Minister proroguing to avoid questions in the house. I've already said Chretien came close. There have been attempts to claim that it's happened before in the HoC, yet no examples. I'm not a hard person to work over, if it happened it happened and there's no way around it.

However, if it had last year wouldn't have been such a precedent setting event.

[Argus]

No it's not because parliament has never been prorogued the way Harper has done it. Chretien tried but it never happened.

Did too. Chretien prorogued Parliament four times: Feb 5, 1996; Sept 18, 1999; Sept 16, 2002; and Nov 12, 2003.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Argus

[Smallc]

However, if it had last year wouldn't have been such a precedent setting event.

Lat year was a very unique event and it doesn't sent precedent for much I don't think. This year, there was no reason to refuse prorogation, because there's nothing all that revolutionary about it.

[Topaz]

I heard rumours on CTV National News a couple of days ago (from Craig Oliver) that prorogation and a throne speech may become an annual event under Mr. Harper. The Conservatives plan to use the Speech from the Throne as a sort of 'State of the Union'.

Interesting. You know the NAU is gone, now Canada and the US will "HAROMIZE" things together.ie miltary, the environment, just listen for the word used by the Tory ministers.

[nicky10013]

You forget there were no national myths in either country on creation. The US was designed to be a weaker federal state because the Americans had just gone through a revolution and did not want to see a strong sovereign state over them again. Canada, by contrast, slowly and gradually separated from the British without violence or anger. We didn't see anything wrong with a stronger central state.

All Harper has preached is that the federal government should follow the dictates of the constitution of our creation, and respect the rights of the provinces rather than interposing its own will upon them in matters where the provinces have jurisdiction. Trudeau, btw, was a master of pitting province against province. I've seen nothing like that from Harper.

What problems is the west causing?

The propaganda coming from the right that the east is plundering the west. Let me guess, the whole thing about Trudeau is the NEP, right? This is the basis for it all. The chatter about Alberta having to pay for other provinces has never gone away. Ontario has paid far more money into it than any other province yet there's nary a peep. Why? Because the Ontario government has never really complained. Ontario still pays far more than any other province into the scheme and there's only been a little backlash since the province started losing manufacturing jobs. Why? Not because we're still paying into it, but because we're labelled a have not province when we get to keep 100 million of our own money of the 11+ billion we put in every year. My point isn't to try and make Ontario out to be the perfect province (it certainly isn't) but to illustrate the divide.

Trudeau may have envisaged the NEP and yes it may have been outlandish and not well concieved but at least it was meant as a programme to provide ALL provinces with cheap energy. Did it cause division? Absolutely. Did he mean to cause division? Well, that's up for debate. In the end, up until the end of Chretien the Liberal party was the only party to run a national campaign; a national strategy based on grand pan-canadian projects (whether you agreed with them or not is your prerogative). They ran the same ads and commercials across all ridings while specifically the Alliance ran ads deliberately trying to stir up division. Western conservatives have been telling people for 30 years that the east is trying steal their money. It isn't the west's money it's all Canadians money and I think people have a hard time trying to understand that which has caused serious regionalism.

As for provincial rights, that's all fine and good in theory if the provinces could actually handle the load. As of right now we need transfer payments just to keep the things "under provincial jurisdiction" afloat. As I mentioned, Canada NEEDS a strong federal government.

[nicky10013]

Did too. Chretien prorogued Parliament four times: Feb 5, 1996; Sept 18, 1999; Sept 16, 2002; and Nov 12, 2003.

Now here's the question that won't be answered because the people who are supposed to answer them don't like the answer.

Did Chretien do it because he wanted to dodge the house or he finished his agenda? I'm betting its the latter but that's just me.

[nicky10013]

Lat year was a very unique event and it doesn't sent precedent for much I don't think. This year, there was no reason to refuse prorogation, because there's nothing all that revolutionary about it.

Are you implying last year's was revolutionary? A coalition popular or not isn't revolutionary. Furthermore, there is reason to deny a proroguation. First, the government's agenda is still on the table. They're killing over 30 pieces of legislation. Secondly, there are outstanding committee issues that still haven't been debated.

As for precedent setting, of course it is. Coalition or not, it sets the incredibly dangerous precedent that no matter who is in power a Prime Minister when in trouble can just suspend the house.

Article in today's Star is quite interesting and makes that exact same point.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/stephenharper/article/745011--travers-harper-s-dark-democracy-creates-dangerous-legacy?bn=1

[Smallc]

Are you implying last year's was revolutionary? A coalition popular or not isn't revolutionary.

It is revolutionary given the public reaction to the coalition.

[Argus]

Now here's the question that won't be answered because the people who are supposed to answer them don't like the answer.

Did Chretien do it because he wanted to dodge the house or he finished his agenda? I'm betting its the latter but that's just me.

The on in 2003 was because he wanted nothing to do with Sheila Fraser's report on the Sponsorship scandal, so he closed down parliament early and left it to Martin.

[nicky10013]

The on in 2003 was because he wanted nothing to do with Sheila Fraser's report on the Sponsorship scandal, so he closed down parliament early and left it to Martin.

By all accounts I've read that session went until the end. I've seen nothing to the contrary.

Edit, no, two bills were killed. However, Chretien was retiring.

Edited January 2, 2010 by nicky10013

[eyeball]

In comparison to the US, Canada was designed to be a far more powerful federal state. There's a good reason for it. The idea that is Canada is far more fragile than the US. Canadian national myths are no where near as strong as they are in the states. In the end, the more local we become, the more divisions there are between us. Harper and his Conservatives have used this to their advantage. Preaching more powers for provinces pits province against province and rural agains urban. We can't see ourselves as provincial citizens ahead of Canadian citizens which is exactly what is happening now. Quebec has always been a problem but now the west is causing troubles as well. The founding fathers knew this and thats why they gave the federal government any responsibilities not mentioned as opposed to the US where unnamed responsibilites fall to the state level. The federal government needs to be a strong, uniting force.

I've seen as many federal Liberals dividing my community as I have Conservatives in 35 years. The ocean fisheries my community and region rely on are managed by the federal government rather than the provincial, that being the case and because of the sheer distance between the west coast and Ottawa we have had even less chance of being heard by either or any federal government. All have proven to be as venal and ineffective.

As for U.S. state level responsibilities, I notice that coastal communities in the states adjacent to B.C. are still utilizing a trans-boundary resource (salmon) that has now pretty much been negotiated away from BC's coastal communities by Canada's federal government. Ottawa just took $30 million from the U.S. to shut down the very last of our troll fleet on the west coast on Vancouver Island. Imagine the uproar if Ottawa was bribed by the U.S. to shut down the oil-sands.

I have no desire to be an American, that said I have no pressing desire to remain a Canadian either.

Canada was designed you said...that's the problem right there as I see it. Was as in past tense. Our country was designed for us by an old rotten Empire according to its own peculiar needs and interests. Its time for a new confederation and constitution designed by people who have to live and deal with new realities.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I've seen as many federal Liberals dividing my community as I have Conservatives in 35 years. The ocean fisheries my community and region rely on are managed by the federal government rather than the provincial, that being the case and because of the sheer distance between the west coast and Ottawa we have had even less chance of being heard by either or any federal government. All have proven to be as venal and ineffective.

As for U.S. state level responsibilities, I notice that coastal communities in the states adjacent to B.C. are still utilizing a trans-boundary resource (salmon) that has now pretty much been negotiated away from BC's coastal communities by Canada's federal government. Ottawa just took $30 million from the U.S. to shut down the very last of our troll fleet on the west coast on Vancouver Island. Imagine the uproar if Ottawa was bribed by the U.S. to shut down the oil-sands.

I have no desire to be an American, that said I have no pressing desire to remain a Canadian either.

Canada was designed you said...that's the problem right there as I see it. Was as in past tense. Our country was designed for us by an old rotten Empire according to its own peculiar needs and interests. Its time for a new confederation and constitution designed by people who have to live and deal with new realities.

Northwest Canada.....an option that begs to be realized.

[eyeball]

Northwest Canada.....an option that begs to be realized.

So is Cascadia.

I still remember when U.S. and Canadian fishermen fished and competed amongst one another. We'd wave to one another and help each other out when needed. We fished off Washington and Alaska and they fished off B.C. and everyone got along. Then came the 200 mile limit and as far as I'm concerned everything has gone downhill since.

Edited January 2, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Canada was designed you said...that's the problem right there as I see it. Was as in past tense. Our country was designed for us by an old rotten Empire according to its own peculiar needs and interests. Its time for a new confederation and constitution designed by people who have to live and deal with new realities.

Have you ever actually read a history book? The structure of Canada at Confederation was by and large the work of people in British North America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Conference_of_1866

For a rotten old empire, the Brits seemed awfully willing to let us chart our own course.

Edited January 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Have you ever actually read a history book? The structure of Canada at Confederation was by and large the work of people in British North America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Conference_of_1866

For a rotten old empire, the Brits seemed awfully willing to let us chart our own course.

Look when this happened, and what was happening in the "Empire". They were dumping colonies because they simply could not afford to keep them in many cases.

[g_bambino]

Look when this happened, and what was happening in the "Empire". They were dumping colonies because they simply could not afford to keep them in many cases.

Why did you dodge away from the point? Regardless of the imperial situation, the British North America Act was written and voted on by British North Americans (Canadians, to modernise the terminology).

[g_bambino]

The Conservatives plan to use the Speech from the Throne as a sort of 'State of the Union'.

Well, actually, the State of the Union address derives from the tradition of the Throne Speech, anyway. What I have noticed, though, is the adoption of the trite American habit of placing strategic star guests in the Senate gallery during the ceremony; common-folk heroes, First Nations chiefs, heart-breaking soldiers' widows and their innocent little children. Ugh.

[g_bambino]

I ask again since you never answered the first time, did they improperly use it?

No, of course they didn't. I thought that made itself evident when I said Harper's request now for a prorogation was both well within the written and conventional bounds of our constitution and no different to similar calls from PMs past.