Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Alta4ever]

Meh, not 100% of Canadians. There will always be the deluded few.

If you go by the Ekos poll 41% of 59% who have been following the. prorogue of parliament.

[nicky10013]

If you go by the Ekos poll 41% of 59% who have been following the. prorogue of parliament.

It doesn't have to be this way. A simple explanation is why is what most people is asking for.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It doesn't have to be this way. A simple explanation is why is what most people is asking for.

There is no simple explanation. In all likelihood the real reason would be found to be less than acceptable to the public.

[DrGreenthumb]

So which bills have been meddled with? I know for sure they were holding up the crime bill, but then again it was nothing more than a political wedge meant to make the opposition look soft on crime at the expense of efficiency in corrections.

I'm not trying to be a dick like you were last night, I'm just curious.

LOL!, that's so funny because its so true!

The main complaint I keep hearing is that they changed bill c-6 even though it was passed unanimously in the house. The only thing they changed though, was the wording that would have allowed the government the right to search Canadian homes without ever getting a search warrant. The changes protect the sanctity of Canadian homes, even if they do not fit in with the Conservative Police State wet-dream.

[Wild Bill]

There is no simple explanation. In all likelihood the real reason would be found to be less than acceptable to the public.

Maybe yes, maybe no! Still, given the reasoning expressed by so many in this thread that Harper has committed a treasonous crime against not just Canada but the Universe, we can be sure that as soon as Parliament starts up again the Opposition parties will immediately force an election, to save us from such evil!

Since Parliament resumes in March, that would have us going to the polls about the middle of April!

[cybercoma]

The saddest part is that the Tory MPs seem so willing to let themselves be rendered obsolete.

That's true of all MPs in a governing party. They have to vote along party lines, so they're obsolete anyway. That's why there's no point voting for the person in your riding, but vote for the party.

[Argus]

The Senate represents a continuity that the Commons doesn't. The Commons can completely change with one election. The Senate doesn't. It changes slowly maintaining the continuity.

Yeah, thats the problem. The Senate is full of Chretien appointees who have no particular loyalty to Ignatieff and who hate conservatives, so are eager to cause trouble.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yeah, thats the problem. The Senate is full of Chretien appointees who have no particular loyalty to Ignatieff and who hate conservatives, so are eager to cause trouble.

Anybody figure out yet that that PM manipulates these numbers at the earliest possible opportunity which causes grief for everyone but him. Lets not just elect the Senate and stop this from happening.

[Argus]

Of course they care about small c conservatives. Liberals don't steal votes from the NDP but from the Conservatives. If all parties just didn't care you wouldn't see them bending over every time a new poll comes out.

Not everyone who votes tory can be described as a small c conservative. I, myself, am on the leftward end of Tory supporters, and if the Liberals ever got together a proper platform - and if I could be convinced they weren't lying about it, I could go over to them. I vote tory not out of any love of Harper but mostly out of my disdain for the alternatives. But the solid core of true blue right wing conservatives will never vote Liberal, so the Liberals ignore their opinions and objections.

[nicky10013]

Not everyone who votes tory can be described as a small c conservative. I, myself, am on the leftward end of Tory supporters, and if the Liberals ever got together a proper platform - and if I could be convinced they weren't lying about it, I could go over to them. I vote tory not out of any love of Harper but mostly out of my disdain for the alternatives. But the solid core of true blue right wing conservatives will never vote Liberal, so the Liberals ignore their opinions and objections.

I see what you're saying. I was referring to conservatives that view themselves as fiscally conservative but could also be viewed as socially liberal. The conservatives who aren't necessarily partisans. I should've just said red tories.

[nicky10013]

Maybe yes, maybe no! Still, given the reasoning expressed by so many in this thread that Harper has committed a treasonous crime against not just Canada but the Universe, we can be sure that as soon as Parliament starts up again the Opposition parties will immediately force an election, to save us from such evil!

Since Parliament resumes in March, that would have us going to the polls about the middle of April!

Depending on the polls there might just be an election. At this point in the game with the polls so clearly against Harper in terms of prorogation, Conservative partisans should be careful what they wish for.

[nicky10013]

Yeah, thats the problem. The Senate is full of Chretien appointees who have no particular loyalty to Ignatieff and who hate conservatives, so are eager to cause trouble.

Senators may not have been appointed by Ignatieff but they still have roles and loyalties in the party.

[capricorn]

Here's another way to look at it.

Through this prorogation, Harper is granted an extra 3 weeks by the GG to chart his governmental agenda to present to the House. He has said this new direction is essential to charting a course for reducing the massive deficit which resulted from the extraordinary fiscal measures taken to counter the global recession. This new agenda will be presented via a Speech from the Throne, which can only be delivered following a prorogation.

(By contrast, Iggy has been leader of the opposition for one year and has failed to craft a viable alternate agenda for the country. In fact, he and his Liberals have consistently supported the government.)

So once the Speech from the Throne has been delivered, it will be up to the opposition to accept it, improve on it through the parliamentary process, or reject it and we go to election. The ball will be in their court.

Is this not democracy?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Here's another way to look at it.

Through this prorogation, Harper is granted an extra 3 weeks by the GG to chart his governmental agenda to present to the House. He has said this new direction is essential to charting a course for reducing the massive deficit which resulted from the extraordinary fiscal measures taken to counter the global recession. This new agenda will be presented via a Speech from the Throne, which can only be delivered following a prorogation.

(By contrast, Iggy has been leader of the opposition for one year and has failed to craft a viable alternate agenda for the country. In fact, he and his Liberals have consistently supported the government.)

So once the Speech from the Throne has been delivered, it will be up to the opposition to accept it, improve on it through the parliamentary process, or reject it and we go to election. The ball will be in their court.

Is this not democracy?

No, not even close.

[nicky10013]

Here's another way to look at it.

Through this prorogation, Harper is granted an extra 3 weeks by the GG to chart his governmental agenda to present to the House. He has said this new direction is essential to charting a course for reducing the massive deficit which resulted from the extraordinary fiscal measures taken to counter the global recession. This new agenda will be presented via a Speech from the Throne, which can only be delivered following a prorogation.

(By contrast, Iggy has been leader of the opposition for one year and has failed to craft a viable alternate agenda for the country. In fact, he and his Liberals have consistently supported the government.)

So once the Speech from the Throne has been delivered, it will be up to the opposition to accept it, improve on it through the parliamentary process, or reject it and we go to election. The ball will be in their court.

Is this not democracy?

No, democracy is having the government sit and answer the questions asked of them in committee. It's actually attending committees to begin with. Democracy is being accountable in parliament which he isn't doing right now. You can use previous parliamentary votes to determine that the government should at least be in power which is true. However, the problem is that come January 25th, parliament should be sitting. No matter how many times Ignatieff and the Liberals and other opposition parties voted for the government, no person in parliament voted for this.

I still haven't seen a reason WHY this has happened. Please, answer that for me.

[madmax]

Here's another way to look at it.

....except few are buying into it.

Is this not democracy?

No.

[madmax]

I still haven't seen a reason WHY this has happened. Please, answer that for me.

A very candid answer from a CPC MP.

to paraphrase: We CPC MPs are going to the Olympics and if the house was sitting we might be outvoted on a bill or in committee.

Not even going to bother to post the link, he doesn't add much more then that.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

A very candid answer from a CPC MP.

to paraphrase: We CPC MPs are going to the Olympics and if the house was sitting we might be outvoted on a bill or in committee.

Not even going to bother to post the link, he doesn't add much more then that.

Candide response.

[capricorn]

I still haven't seen a reason WHY this has happened. Please, answer that for me.

The plain fact is that Harper can and he did. Everything else from all political quarters is spin, including here.

In the end, it will be the electorate who will say if prorogation was the right thing to do. To a large extent, the contents of the Throne Speech will be the determining factor in the voters' decision.

[Alta4ever]

No, democracy is having the government sit and answer the questions asked of them in committee. It's actually attending committees to begin with. Democracy is being accountable in parliament which he isn't doing right now. You can use previous parliamentary votes to determine that the government should at least be in power which is true. However, the problem is that come January 25th, parliament should be sitting. No matter how many times Ignatieff and the Liberals and other opposition parties voted for the government, no person in parliament voted for this.

I still haven't seen a reason WHY this has happened. Please, answer that for me.

In order for the government to meet that right it has to sit in session once in a 12 month period that will happen on march 4 when the new session starts. Why can you not grasp this the democracy of this country is being upheld as it is set out in the constitution. nothing you have posted contravenes this fact.

[nicky10013]

A very candid answer from a CPC MP.

to paraphrase: We CPC MPs are going to the Olympics and if the house was sitting we might be outvoted on a bill or in committee.

Not even going to bother to post the link, he doesn't add much more then that.

I thought the quote was, "we're not sidestepping democracy, just suspending it."

[capricorn]

....except few are buying into it.

I didn't expect so.

Edited January 8, 2010 by capricorn

[nicky10013]

In order for the government to meet that right it has to sit in session once in a 12 month period that will happen on march 4 when the new session starts. Why can you not grasp this the democracy of this country is being upheld as it is set out in the constitution. nothing you have posted contravenes this fact.

Sure it is. They're taking away the right of my representative to ask the government questions on the issues that are important for me from January 25th-March 4th. So please, tell me why it's happening.

[ToadBrother]

In order for the government to meet that right it has to sit in session once in a 12 month period that will happen on march 4 when the new session starts. Why can you not grasp this the democracy of this country is being upheld as it is set out in the constitution. nothing you have posted contravenes this fact.

But it appears that Parliament, or more rightly, the majority of MPs, want to be back on the Hill earlier than that. Harper is the head of government, what he's not is the head of Parliament. It's a meaningless difference, most of the time, but now, perhaps, the difference is a bit more clear. I wonder what would happen if the Opposition parties said to the GG "We're ready to sit on January 25th, we request that Parliament be reconvened."

Be a neat of bit of a constitutional crisis, but I think our system needs one right now, so that whatever the precedent may be, it is finally set.

[capricorn]

I wonder what would happen if the Opposition parties said to the GG "We're ready to sit on January 25th, we request that Parliament be reconvened."

It would certainly be a roll of the dice on their part. I think what's holding them back is that support for the Conservatives shot up to 45% when they last floated that trial balloon.

Be a neat of bit of a constitutional crisis, but I think our system needs one right now, so that whatever the precedent may be, it is finally set.

A quick check on the internet shows there are varying opinions on whether there is already a precedent for coalition governments in Canada. Maybe you are right this should now be tested.