Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[g_bambino]

If it isn't there would be specific examples of a Prime Minister proroguing to avoid questions in the house.

Doesn't every prorogation result in the avoidance of questions in the House? And, as I keep saying, what avoidance can there really be when parliament will sit again?

[DrGreenthumb]

Doesn't every prorogation result in the avoidance of questions in the House? And, as I keep saying, what avoidance can there really be when parliament will sit again?

Don't play dumb. You know they are avoiding the Afghanistan committee because shutting down parliament kills the committee. No other Prime Minister has used prorogation in such an unethical manner as Harper.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Don't play dumb. You know they are avoiding the Afghanistan committee because shutting down parliament kills the committee. No other Prime Minister has used prorogation in such an unethical manner as Harper.

While I don't like it, and suggest that it is wrong, that is a long way from saying it is unethical. It is within the rules, and as such I think "ethical".

[DrGreenthumb]

While I don't like it, and suggest that it is wrong, that is a long way from saying it is unethical. It is within the rules, and as such I think "ethical".

Just because something is "technically within the rules" certainly does not make it ethical.

[eyeball]

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.

Who's this us you're talking about? The people you mention - g bambino's Canadians?

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).

Landowners, exclusively men and most likely only the wealthy one's. Only a small number of Canadians, especially compared to the 36 million that live here now in other words, charted "our" course. The floundering that seems to characterise much of our country's progress suggests it's time we altered course for awhile. I'd suggest a turn to port myself.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Just because something is "technically within the rules" certainly does not make it ethical.

AQs long as it is within the rules, then what can we really say about it? It is not a grey area at all.

[Argus]

The propaganda coming from the right that the east is plundering the west.

I've heard nothing like that. What I have heard is some resentment from the West that central Canada takes huge amounts of money from them but gives them scant respect. Quebec doesn't even acknowledge the money while snivelling about how it's produced, and the media and political elites of Ontario look down their noses at the West, considering them somehow uncivilized beause they don't devote themselves entirely to the sae leftist causes as Ontario does.

Ontario has paid far more money into it than any other province yet there's nary a peep. Why?

Ontario pays far less on a per capita basis than the West does, and as I said, it's not paying the money that seems to irritate them, it's paying the money to people who sneer at them and think they're oh-so superior.

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.

At Alberta's expense. Liberals are never more kind and generous than when they're using other people's money. Which, let's face it, is almost all the time.

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.

I understand. The money from Alberta's resources belong to all Canadians. The money from Quebec's resources belong to Quebec.

[Smallc]

I understand. The money from Alberta's resources belong to all Canadians. The money from Quebec's resources belong to Quebec.

You don't seem to understand much. All provinces who have more are compelled to share resources through equalization.

[g_bambino]

Don't play dumb. You know they are avoiding the Afghanistan committee because shutting down parliament kills the committee.

So, you concede that there is no avoiding of anything as parliament will reconvene and the opposition can resume its questioning on these matters. Thank you.

[g_bambino]

Landowners, exclusively men and most likely only the wealthy one's. Only a small number of Canadians, especially compared to the 36 million that live here now in other words, charted "our" course.

Yet, the structures created by the same types in other countries a century or more ago continue to function just fine, regardless of the similar population growth there. In case you haven't noticed, the grand failures that have occurred in recent history have all been "new" and "visionary" systems that were more "modern" and "with the times." That's the stuff of laine pure souveraigntistes and similar ideologues; no thanks.

[eyeball]

Yet, the structures created by the same types in other countries a century or more ago continue to function just fine, regardless of the similar population growth there. In case you haven't noticed, the grand failures that have occurred in recent history have all been "new" and "visionary" systems that were more "modern" and "with the times." That's the stuff of laine pure souveraigntistes and similar ideologues; no thanks.

What countries, what failures? What sort of meaning am I supposed to read into all the """"'s you used?

I provided a specific failure, of a salmon fishery, that occurred under a governing structure you seem to think is functioning just fine. People on this coast harvested salmon for thousands of years before the malfunctioning structure you're lauding came along. This is happening everywhere on the planet under similar government structures.

This is the stuff of failure on a grand scale.

Edited January 2, 2010 by eyeball

[nicky10013]

So, you concede that there is no avoiding of anything as parliament will reconvene and the opposition can resume its questioning on these matters. Thank you.

Please, of course they're avoiding it. They figure that if they can make a coalition go away they can make this go away.

There has also been rampant speculation for what must be a couple of weeks by now that when the house resumes and Canada is on a high after the Olympics that he'll pack his budget full of so many poison pills that there will undoubtedly have to be an election call. Unless it becomes the ballot question, that will effectively destroy any parliamentary inquiry into Afghan torture.

It worked for the Chuck Cadman bribery inquiry.

It worked for the Conservative in and out election scheme.

Again, it will probably work for torture.

It's sad that every time we've had an election call under the conservatives it's inevitably to bury one scandal or another not to just celebrate democracy. Yet his poll numbers keep going up. It makes no sense.

Edited January 2, 2010 by nicky10013

[capricorn]

It's sad that every time we've had an election call under the conservatives it's inevitably to bury one scandal or another not to just celebrate democracy. Yet his poll numbers keep going up. It makes no sense.

Every time? Harper was first elected when MARTIN called the election in 2006. Harper called an election ONCE since he's been PM, and that's 2008.

[Smallc]

The government fell in 2005, that's why there was the 2006 election.

[Argus]

Don't play dumb. You know they are avoiding the Afghanistan committee because shutting down parliament kills the committee. No other Prime Minister has used prorogation in such an unethical manner as Harper.

But no one sane has suggested that was the reason. There appears to be general agreemet among analysts that it was due mostly to the Senate, and almost nothing to do with Afghanistan, an issue the public is ignoring.

[Argus]

Every time? Harper was first elected when MARTIN called the election in 2006. Harper called an election ONCE since he's been PM, and that's 2008.

And if there was a scandal on at the time I don't recall it and the opposition ignored it. The only real issue raised by the opposition in that election was the environment.

[capricorn]

The government fell in 2005, that's why there was the 2006 election.

You're right Smallc. The election was called because Martin's government fell.

[Smallc]

Yes, but it wasn't because Martin decided to have an election as Harper did in 2008. That was my only point.

[capricorn]

I did get your point. I made the observation to clarify my previous post.

[Keepitsimple]

Yet his poll numbers keep going up. It makes no sense.

In general:

1) People don't want an election

2) The Afghan Detainee issue is not a big deal to Canadians. As a Nanos poll previously posted showed - half don't know anything about it and of the other half that do, only about a third think that the Conservatives are pulling a fast one.

3) Most people think the opposition parties are whiners....and that's an understatement.

4) Like him or not, Harper has the highest "trust numbers" and Canadians think he and the government are doing a competent job.

That's why his numbers are going up.

[Topaz]

In general:

1) People don't want an election

2) The Afghan Detainee issue is not a big deal to Canadians. As a Nanos poll previously posted showed - half don't know anything about it and of the other half that do, only about a third think that the Conservatives are pulling a fast one.

3) Most people think the opposition parties are whiners....and that's an understatement.

4) Like him or not, Harper has the highest "trust numbers" and Canadians think he and the government are doing a competent job.

That's why his numbers are going up.

Question for you. What do you think would bothers Canadians more, the torturing or the cover up/dishonesty of a government? The oppositions parties are there to question the PM, it not whining. His numbers will probably go up when the computer age of voting is here, instead will question the results.

[Bryan]

Question for you. What do you think would bothers Canadians more, the torturing or the cover up/dishonesty of a government?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[g_bambino]

Please, of course they're avoiding it. They figure that if they can make a coalition go away they can make this go away.

Well, that is obviously your opinion. Others here have since handled it fittingly. I would only add that I find your contradiction bemusing: proroguing parliament is evil because it "subverts democracy", but will inevitably trigger an election, which is evil because it... Well, you get the point, I'm sure. Why ever would Harper so brilliantly make issues vanish without trace using nothing more than a regular mechanism of parliament, only to give the opposition opportunity to revive them directly before the people in a national election? Really, you simultaneously call Harper a Machiavellian genius and a bumbling idiot who's shot himself in the foot. Which is it?

[+]

Edited January 3, 2010 by g_bambino

[myata]

It is revolutionary given the public reaction to the coalition.

A coalition of willing democratic partners "revolutionary" by the sheer volume of rightwing howl and wail who are simply perplexed by such an outrage? (that's become a common matter elsewhere in the modern democracies) OMG! What's next? A word of acting PM or government official questioned? Government actions investigated? Where is this democracy rolling these days?

[madmax]

And its too bad you can't grasp the fact Canadian soldiers didn't do anything wrong! the Afghan Army may have but so what? The Americans used to hand over VC prisoners to the South Vietnamese Army all the time and they tortured and executed many of those prisoners.

That turned out good.

Now that you completely blew your position lets hope the government answer isn't as ridiculous as the above comment.