Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[g_bambino]

As said, the system is greatly compromised by undemocratic interference of government with the will of the elected House.

Said, but neither proven nor even rational.

[Oleg Bach]

The majority is always wrong because said majority is much to cowardly to accept the truth. Democracy is not what is cracked up to be..look at the infliction of American democracy on the rest of the world...it's very very messy and doomed to fail always. Pragmatic approaches and a less romantic notion of governance might be more effective in preserving the health and welfare of mankind.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Internationally speaking all power comes from the private sphere. You may as well take a mature approach and embrace the system. Politics is and has always been indulgent theatre. WE all the people are incorporated into this company called Canada INC. So far we are doing well and are in good shape. My purpose is to educate and bring forth some fine young minds that can contribute to the national family and it's vested interests. I guess I finally had to submit to the reality of it all. Maybe it's genetic..all I know of my original family who had it's history washed away by revolution and war is that they "operated in the pirvate sphere" - If we are wise and mature we will continue with our success..in this nation even the poor can live a good life if they show personal control over their own lives.

It's all about routine and order. This what appears to be an anomaly is quite normal. AND our system endures where others have failed because we are truely a united entity.

If we are corporate citizens lets just hope we are shareholders as well. As a matter of fact Oleg you make an excellent point, one I need to think about for a little while. You may have created a light bulb moment for me.

[g_bambino]

The least worst option was to allow the coalition to govern as is defined by the parliamentary system. Most constitutional scholars agree that the Governor General has to listen to the advice of the PM when he has confidence from the house. He simply didn't have it.

Either you have a severe misunderstanding of the parliamentary system, or I missed the motion of non-confidence that took place at the end of 2008. Please point to that vote so we can be done with this inanity.

[Oleg Bach]

If we are corporate citizens lets just hope we are shareholders as well. As a matter of fact Oleg you make an excellent point, one I need to think about for a little while. You may have created a light bulb moment for me.

Funny you said that - I might have created a light bulb moment for myself also. It's very important to clarify our status in order to proceed effectively - the dream is over and welcome to reality. AND look the sun just burst though the clouds..I believe we are going to make it after all. We worry to much because we are afaid of the unknown - what is whispered in the darkness will be proclaimed from the roof tops - and I guess I just ratted out the whole system - It looks as if they wanted ti to happen or I would have been stopped - now where is my pay cheaque - I am finally a company man! AND a bit of a pirate.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Funny you said that - I might have created a light bulb moment for myself also. It's very important to clarify our status in order to proceed effectively - the dream is over and welcome to reality. AND look the sun just burst though the clouds..I believe we are going to make it after all. We worry to much because we are afaid of the unknown - what is whispered in the darkness will be proclaimed from the roof tops - and I guess I just ratted out the whole system - It looks as if they wanted ti to happen or I would have been stopped - now where is my pay cheaque - I am finally a company man! AND a bit of a pirate.

Our status is that of a natural citizen entity, within a legal citizen entity known as Canada............

As such we are responsible for the legal actions of that legal citizen entity, Canada, and accountable for the debts and liabilities of that legal citizen, Canada.

We are Canadians....right?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Our status is that of a natural citizen entity, within a legal citizen entity known as Canada............

As such we are responsible for the legal actions of that legal citizen entity, Canada, and accountable for the debts and liabilities of that legal citizen, Canada.

We are Canadians....right?

So we are shareholders of the legal entity of Canada. The shareholders elect citizens to a board of directors. The board of directors is therefore the government of Canada....right?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So we are shareholders of the legal entity of Canada. The shareholders elect citizens to a board of directors. The board of directors is therefore the government of Canada....right?

When you look at it in this way, then we become the owners of the assets, as well as the debts. We are therefore entitled to a share of the profits of the legal entity known as Canada. The board of directors then is accountable to the shareholders for the lack of profits.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

When you look at it in this way, then we become the owners of the assets, as well as the debts. We are therefore entitled to a share of the profits of the legal entity known as Canada. The board of directors then is accountable to the shareholders for the lack of profits.

Now to go a step further, the nation is not being run in a profitable manner is it? The current board of directors has laid claim to being fiscally responsible, yet has taken us into deficit and greater debt.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Now to go a step further, the nation is not being run in a profitable manner is it? The current board of directors has laid claim to being fiscally responsible, yet has taken us into deficit and greater debt.

Meanwhile the citizens investment in the nation through means of taxation has yet to yield any dividends of notice to most.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Meanwhile the citizens investment in the nation through means of taxation has yet to yield any dividends of notice to most.

The board being accountable to the citizens must be replaced with a profit motivated group designed to put the legal entity into a fiscal position of prosperity.

[William Ashley]

So we are shareholders of the legal entity of Canada. The shareholders elect citizens to a board of directors. The board of directors is therefore the government of Canada....right?

wrong. Actually the board would be the house of commons - a managing director (the PM) is appointed by the house with approval of the CEO (gg) usually due to having the most board support (like the speaker) -

The CEO is rotated once and a while. The managing director can nominate someone, and the owner approves of the selection.

If the owner dies then the board of directors selects someone to become the new owner (the owner has a veto on all operations) the board however, has a legal obligation to act in the best interest of her heirs when divesting the business.

The chairperson is known as the speaker of the house.

The managing director selects department heads - known as cabinet who are privy to confidential mangement meetings.

The managing director can also nominate individuals to the parent company (The senate) when there is a vacancy in their board. The senate has veto on the proposed new operating guidelines of their subsiderary. - the owner of the senate is also the queen and they have the same CEO. They have their own chairperson also.

People can vote to appoint directors if they meet the criteria (not all citizens can vote even though the articles of incorporation / the constitution provides for it) since the board disqualified individuals. Shareholders can also run but they need to meet qualification the board set out which requires them to pay to run (which also isn't required by the constitution - which is known as the articles of incorporation.

The board violates the articles based upon how well it benefits their supporters, which is often known as fundamental justice.

Oh, but there is one catch the owner also has in place an auditing group known as the courts, which oddly the managing director nominates people to when there is a vacancy. The auditors can say that policy doesn't fit with the articles and so they can't do that. But the auditors often also having the same interests as the board seldom disallow operations that violate the articles, which is then called fundamental justice. Or the auditors don't mind the imbezlement of public interest because they benefit or think other auditors who audited before them allowed the fraudulent practice.

So Canadians would be share holders, whos shares may eventually allow them to vote on a board director, from a group of people wishing to be directors but they can only vote on a director who is in their market - but the person can be from any market as long as they opt to run in their market.

Oddly they are the product - and the shareholders.

The Commons is a public corporation and the senate is a private corporation.

This is NOT the same model as in the UK where the house of lords is slightly different, as the commons has part ownership in the house of lords.

Canada itself is more like owned by the owner

who has two boards/companies

the commons and the senate

the commons is a public company (shareholders board)

and the senate

is a management board

the CEO is joint CEO of both companies.

strategic committes draw from both boards for company business

the management team can also draw from each board, but can also draw from anyone - the management team also communicates directly with the CEO (known as governor in council - but the CEO can also sit in on management meetings / participate in management meetings - the chairperson at council meetings but there is also an employee who does the same on behalf of the owner - who is the only department head who often does not change - that being the head of the human resources department whom the CEO often appoints seperately) and acts as a strategic council to the owner - even past managers are still strategic adviers to the owner in regard to company business for life.

the managing director (general manager) commonly comes from the shareholders (but can be any shareholder but this rarely occurs) the GM doesn't even need to be voted on technically but the owner usually lets the public board decide on the matter.

The senate is an advisory committee but can also propose changes to opperations.

Edited January 5, 2010 by William Ashley

[myata]

Said, but neither proven nor even rational.

Said, and proven by this government act, and repeatedly. Yet, one more time and in plain English:

1) PM is the leader of a minority party in the elected House

2) Governor General is unelected, appointed by the PM

3) The majority of the House says: "we have no confidence in you and want to form the government that is supported by majority"

4) The unelected GG and minority leader PM say, no way, it's either me or another multimillion election after we just had one not two months back.

Result: the minority party uses outdated political system, created in the times before electricity, cars, and women vote, to impose its will on the elected House and the country.

If you think this has anything to do with a modern, 21 century democracy you're greatly mistaken. No, it's a ridicule and a travesty of it. If we value our democratic future as much as our past, we should kick the manipulating power lusty bunch out at the first opportunity, and change the system so that these kind of things could never happen again.

[ToadBrother]

It never got there because Harper suspended the house before the vote could occur. At the point he prorogued it was more than clear the government would fall. However, this is where constitutional scholars seemed to disagree. Some thought that the GG should give the PM whatever he wanted. Others said the GG should prove Harper had the confidence of the house before he prorogued. That point of view make sense. Setting that precedent bars from complete and total misuse of prorogation. She approved and now were in a democratic abyss. Finally, lest we forget that every single non-conservative MP signed a letter begging the GG to allow a confidence vote.

If they had not gone around with their little dog-and-pony show announcing how they had a Coalition waiting to take over, the odds of success would have been greater. While not without precedent, offering the Government to some other party instead of going to the polls has only happened a handful of times since the beginning of the 19th century.

The GG had the difficult task, one I don't envy, but at the end of the day she opted to go with the path that represented what would be the norm in our system; acting upon the advice of the current ministry.

Still, it's a horrible precedent, and only further minimizes the power of Parliament. Unfortunately, the other parties are far too timid to blow this government out of the water. If Harper is to get his damned majority, then let him get it, but don't let him run government from his office, treating Parliament like some sort of annoyance. It's a sign of just how depraved and ridiculous the party system has become in our country that Conservative MPs and supporters didn't throw him to the wolves, but I guess winning by whatever means possible means more to these people than the notion of democracy.

Shame on them all.

[Argus]

The board being accountable to the citizens must be replaced with a profit motivated group designed to put the legal entity into a fiscal position of prosperity.

I think Jerry is talking to himself.

[Argus]

I think Jerry is talking to himself.

Really? Maybe he's schizophrenic.

[Argus]

Really? Maybe he's schizophrenic.

Or it could be some sort of device for putting across a point which he thinks might be too long for a single post.

[Argus]

Or it could be some sort of device for putting across a point which he thinks might be too long for a single post.

Well, I think there are better ways of doing that, don't you?

[Topaz]

To add to the prorogue pie, over 300 of these people are entitled to collect their pensions at age 55 this year by being in Parliament for 6 years. As long as there's no election to drop some of them, Candians will be paying over 3 million yearly for the next 30+ years!

[ToadBrother]

To add to the prorogue pie, over 300 of these people are entitled to collect their pensions at age 55 this year by being in Parliament for 6 years. As long as there's no election to drop some of them, Candians will be paying over 3 million yearly for the next 30+ years!

I'd be quite happy to see their pensions and salaries doubled if it meant we got more independent-minded MPs on both sides of the House. Right now what we have is a small cabal of MPs, either in cabinet or shadow posts, who may have some greater influence, and a whole lot of voting machines.

[myata]

Shame on them all.

No, shame - and more and better of this wonderful "democracy" on us all, if we won't kick the bunch out asap, and come up with enough intelligence and will to update the system so that it actually reflects the meaning of "democracy" that is, if I'm not mistaken, "the power of people" (rather power hungry manipulating control freak).

Edited January 5, 2010 by myata

[g_bambino]

Said, and proven by this government act...

Said and proven to nobody but yourself by your own imagined facts and interpretations of this government's act.

[+]

Edited January 5, 2010 by g_bambino

[myata]

Said and proven to nobody but yourself by your own imagined facts and interpretations of this government's act.

Of course, you're entirely free to close your eyes, plug your ears and turn off your brain. The perfect condition to ignore bothersome reality, and fully enjoy the eternal light and greatness of the infallable omniscient and omnipotent souvereign.

Living with another's brain, who needs the democracy?

[g_bambino]

It's a sign of just how depraved and ridiculous the party system has become in our country that Conservative MPs and supporters didn't throw him to the wolves...

And I still find it both amusing and disturbing that certain people here would rather viciously attack our time-tested constitutional framework without reason instead of shine an analytical spotlight on our relatively new and unique party system. If we have a governmental concept that has been used continuously in many regions, across many centuries, and through many crises, and a party structure that was invented in and imported from the United States into Canada only a little more than a hundred years ago, how can people rationally convince themselves, almost to the point of self-induced apoplexy, that the former is the cause of our problems rather than the latter? An affliction with unadulterated ignorance is the only answer I can come up with.

[g_bambino]

Of course, I'm entirely free to close my eyes, plug my ears and turn off my brain. The perfect condition to ignore bothersome reality, and fully enjoy the eternal fear of impending doom brought on by the fallable, decrepit, and suffocating constitution.

I think that's what you meant to say.