Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Smallc]

To make you ask a bunch of silly questions while you try your best to seem clever?

[bush_cheney2004]

To make you ask a bunch of silly questions while you try your best to seem clever?

That's OK...you still be "harmonized"...except for all those official exceptions. PM Harper has "cleverly" used the entire play book.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Then why did Trudeau want a new jab?

You have no idea what you are talking about BC. Trudeau retired and handed the keys to Turner.

[bush_cheney2004]

You have no idea what you are talking about BC. Trudeau retired and handed the keys to Turner.

??? ....do you mean kilos...or keys?

[DrGreenthumb]

So , just out curiousity who actually voted that Harper is our king? I'd say Argus, August, and Alta4ever 4 sure, but who else wants to fess up?

[capricorn]

I did. When I first saw your poll, it looked like a joke and I checked the "King" option as a joke. Then, you said it was kind of a joke, so I was right from the beginning. You Joker, you.

[jbg]

The following article, says what could happen with Harper in the PMO and his yearly proroguing of Parliament can only lead to bad things for Canada. Do the Tories want to "harmonize" our government with the US next?

Why the need to raise the U.S. bogeyman?

It seems Harper wants ALL the power, this year , he will gain the power in the senate and if an elections comes and he is given a majority, then I don't think we recognize this country by the time he get done with it! No party should have so much power, power corrupts and he well on his way there now! http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100103/national/parliament_suspend

By your book the country survived the Trudeau and Chretien eras in good style. Are you saying that all the damage they did is irreversible?

[Sir Bandelot]

Forget the bollocks, on the whole I say it will hurt the CPC. The average joe will hear about parliament being prorogued, and assume its because more bad stuff is happening. That will reflect poorly on Harper next time around on the election.

Another nail, pass the hammer please

[jbg]

I did. When I first saw your poll, it looked like a joke and I checked the "King" option as a joke. Then, you said it was kind of a joke, so I was right from the beginning. You Joker, you.

I deleted my "yes" vote from the "king" question given its obviously pejorative tone. Also, I an not a Canadian and thus do not have a monarch.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why the need to raise the U.S. bogeyman?

It's standard procedure, eh?

[g_bambino]

I think I've made a pretty darned good case for believing our constitution is deficient in many areas. Its a good start, lets put it that way.

Obviously, I disagree; so far, your main complaint has been that the constitution is old. Far from being a problem, I'd say that's a sign of its strength; Canada is one of the oldest continuous democracies on earth. It's certainly not perfect, but one need not replace the entire machine in order to fix a glitch or two; we shouldn't treat our constitution like an iPod or a digital camera.

[Bryan]

Obviously, I disagree; so far, your main complaint has been that the constitution is old. Far from being a problem, I'd say that's a sign of its strength; Canada is one of the oldest continuous democracies on earth. It's certainly not perfect, but one need not replace the entire machine in order to fix a glitch or two; we shouldn't treat our constitution like an iPod or a digital camera.

At the same time, revering it like holy scripture is equally irrational. Too many things just don't get done because the excuse is made that we'd have to change the constitution. So what, we have to change it. It's a piece of paper.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Bryan

[Smallc]

It's much more than a piece of paper (not to mention that it's not all written down). It's a document that lays out how we are governed and it gives us some very important rights as well. Changes to such a document should never be taken lightly.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

At the same time, revering it like holy scripture is equally irrational.

It is. So what?

[madmax]

Has anyone actually blamed our soldiers for anything at all?

NO!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

GREAT ! Now for the big question does anybody believe that the truth had been heard on this matter?

[madmax]

Canada was so "harmonized" many years ago....see PM Trudeau and Constitution of Canada.

Nothing compared to the Civil War. Thanks for your comments

[madmax]

I deleted my "yes" vote from the "king" question given its obviously pejorative tone. Also, I an not a Canadian and thus do not have a monarch.

It appears we are going to have TWO if Harper keeps this up. Would you like one? Male or Female?

Oh wait, you already had one once. Great idea.

We wouldn't need a GG then either.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It appears we are going to have TWO if Harper keeps this up. Would you like one? Male or Female?

Oh wait, you already had one once. Great idea.

We wouldn't need a GG then either.

We don't need a GG. We could use an independently elected PM though.

[DrGreenthumb]

GREAT ! Now for the big question does anybody believe that the truth had been heard on this matter?

No the truth has not been heard, and Harper prorogued parliament to make sure it wouldn't be heard. The elected representatives in Parliament SHOULD choose who leads them, no independantly elected PM's thanks. I like our sytem the way it was designed. America can keep its system.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No the truth has not been heard, and Harper prorogued parliament to make sure it wouldn't be heard. The elected representatives in Parliament SHOULD choose who leads them, no independantly elected PM's thanks. I like our sytem the way it was designed. America can keep its system.

I would be all for that! Let the elected representatives to the House of Commons themselves elect a leader! That would be brilliant, and I would support that 100 percent. Unfortunately that is not what we have.

[g_bambino]

We don't need a GG. We could use an independently elected PM though.

I do commend you for your consistency, Jerry, if nothing else.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I do commend you for your consistency, Jerry, if nothing else.

I really do favour a republic.

[DrGreenthumb]

I would be all for that! Let the elected representatives to the House of Commons themselves elect a leader! That would be brilliant, and I would support that 100 percent. Unfortunately that is not what we have.

Actually that IS what we have, unfortuneately our lying coward of a Prime Minister fooled people into believeing that would be a coup d'etat.

[nicky10013]

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?

[+]

No, he's a machiavellian and I don't ever recall calling him an idiot. In his mind he's doing what he should be doing. His ideology simply isn't compatible with open and fair democracy. Furthermore, we've been over this. It isn't "the regular mechanism of parliament" with the way he's used it. It's openly shutting down parliament to skirt bad press and ridicule in the house. Politics is Politics and issue control will always be a part of the system but when you misuse the rules of the system to that end it's a blatant attack on free speech. He kills parliament, the press eventually get tired of covering this and it goes away. It goes away as a potential ballot issue. If he can do it on his own without suspending our democracy then good for him, but no we'll never know how far this issue could've gone had he not snuffed out our free institutions for 2 months.

The real question is how much the Conservatives would like it when (and it will happen) a Liberal Prime Minister prorogues parliament for partisan gains. Oh yes, we actually have a quote from Stephen Harper from before he was PM. He essentially said it's undemocratic. How ironic.

Then again that's the entire point. At this stage in the game it isn't even about Stephen Harper and what a collosal douche he is anymore. It's about what happens in the future. Just so he could stay in power longer he's permanently degraded the openness of Canadian institutions. Liberal, Conservative, NDP, it shouldn't happen but it will simply because we have this paranoid zealot in office.