Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[ToadBrother]

Then why are so many people "pissed" off about prorogueing Parliament? It's your constitution at work.

Because no constitution is absolute proof against this sort of thing. Prorogation has a purpose, after all.

See "US Politics" threads....what goes 'round comes 'round. Your move....

My move what? I don't need to defend the Canadian Constitution to you any more than you need to defend it to me. But you seem woefully unwilling to take it on its own terms, and you know what they say about people in glass houses.

Edited January 11, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

My move what? I don't need to defend the Canadian Constitution to you any more than you need to defend it to me. But you seem woefully unwilling to take it on its own terms, and you know what they say about people in glass houses.

Yea...don't shoot your handguns inside the house.

It doesn't matter how I take it....but a lot of Canadians aren't taking parogey very well...again.

[myata]

Because no constitution is absolute proof against this sort of thing. Prorogation has a purpose, after all.

It may have uses, but has no checks against arbitrary abuse by government, even minority faction. Government can openly defy the order of the House to submit information, and bring to heel, or fire its own appointed "independent" watchdogs.

These are all products of the constitution. Adaptability is the essense of life. No piece of paper bears the final truth as no past gives guarantees for the future. If we fail to adapt and make the system more transparent, more balanced and ultimately, more democratic at this time, it could only mean one thing, that the best days of our democracy are over, and we are on the way down the slope.

Edited January 11, 2010 by myata

[ToadBrother]

Yea...don't shoot your handguns inside the house.

It doesn't matter how I take it....but a lot of Canadians aren't taking parogey very well...again.

The 2009 prorogation, while self-serving and questionable, is not the one I have that much of a problem with (though it's still an abuse of the PM's unique power to advise the GG). The 2008 prorogation is the bad one, because there cannot be a more terrible precedent in our system than giving a government a safety valve to escape confidence motions. It goes against a key cornerstone of our system, that Parliament is supreme. Parliament clearly did not want this prorogation, only a minority bloc did, and it was an abuse of his powers for Harper to ask for it.

It's probable that in the next election, or at most the one after that, we will see a majority government, and on the surface this may seem to disappear, but imagine for a moment a situation where a government has lost even the support of a portion of its own caucus, and for whatever reason, the government decides to avoid a confidence motion by proroguing Parliament. With Orders in Council, it is conceivable that an errant government could go on for some time (the Constitution stipulates an annual meeting of Parliament).

[g_bambino]

It... has no checks against arbitrary abuse by government, even minority faction... Government can openly defy the order of the House to submit information... These are all products of the constitution.

No, it's overblown and dramatised hyperbole that's the product of your imagination. There are numerous checks on the Cabinet, and ministers can only defy the will of parliament for so long. That's not to say there isn't room for improvement (i.e. undoing the careless tinkering of the last few decades), and, given that these things you cry to the heavens and claw at your eyes in woe about aren't written on any legal paper, they can be changed without great hassle. Our unwritten conventions are exactly what gives us the flexibility you say doesn't exist, even as you lament the consequences of poorly thought out flexes.

[bush_cheney2004]

The 2009 prorogation, while self-serving and questionable, is not the one I have that much of a problem with (though it's still an abuse of the PM's unique power to advise the GG). The 2008 prorogation is the bad one....

Fine, but distinctions must be made...either you disagree with the blatant tactics (by any party) but support the present constitutional construct which permits such action(s), or you want a fundamental change to the process. Can't have it both ways.

As for 2008, Jon Stewart also found more humour in the 2008 prorogey..."Provinces In Peril, Eh?"

It's probable that in the next election, or at most the one after that, we will see a majority government, and on the surface this may seem to disappear, but imagine for a moment a situation where a government has lost even the support of a portion of its own caucus, and for whatever reason, the government decides to avoid a confidence motion by proroguing Parliament. With Orders in Council, it is conceivable that an errant government could go on for some time (the Constitution stipulates an annual meeting of Parliament).

Don't know how much that jibes with "peace, order and good government" ("paix, ordre et bon gouvernement"), but if the prorogey process becomes the flashpoint for change, then you may have a second order political detonation (often much larger).

[myata]

No, it's overblown and dramatised hyperbole that's the product of your imagination. There are numerous checks on the Cabinet, and ministers can only defy the will of parliament for so long.

Was it meant to say "quite long"? Squirming around prisoners has been going on for quite awhile now, first in the military complaints commission, then, as it was completely obstructed by this government, via Parliamentary committee. Now the Parliament is out for three months and when it returns the work would have to be started pretty much from scratch (including formation of the committee itself). That sounds like a direct obstruction of work of the Parliament and a challenge to it. Those undemocratic governments of the third world we like so much to teach and lecture, are they really that much different? They simply hang on to the power by all means available. We aren't there yet, but maybe, started on the way? If obstruction of parliamentary democracy goes unnoticed and ignored by the population, somebody may just be tempted to try it in the everyday life. Given the right circumstances.

Our unwritten conventions are exactly what gives us the flexibility you say doesn't exist, even as you lament the consequences of poorly thought out flexes.

As it was once an "unwriten convention" that just and benevolent king would use his duly powers only for the advantage of loving subjects who won't ever need worries and complexities of parliamentary democracy, independent oversight, access to information and such? By now we forgot what other side comes with unchecked, not responsible to anybody but itself power and willing to try it once more, who knows maybe it'll turn out different this time around?

[g_bambino]

Was it meant to say "quite long"? Squirming around prisoners has been going on for quite awhile now...

Assuming the Afghan prisoners thing is really all that much of an issue, a weak opposition is not the fault of the constitution or our parliamentary system.

[+]

Edited January 11, 2010 by g_bambino

[DrGreenthumb]

It's important to reiterate this. The bill sets up an inspection regime, and you can't really have inspection regimes without inspections, and sometimes even spot inspections. The food industry has to put up with it, and I'll wager there isn't a medium sized town in this country that hasn't had at least one restaurant cited by inspectors. That's how inspection regimes work.

We are not talking about restaurant inspections we are talking about searching people's homes with no need to bother getting a search warrant. If they have reason to suspect that people are illegally selling consumer procucts from their homes why can't they get a warrant to search based on evidence BEFORE and not AFTER they search it? They already need a warrant to search a home for drugs so Argus can take his druggie label and shove it in his ass sideways.

Its not like getting a warrant tips off the homeowner that he is about to be searched, so they are not giving up the element of surprise by respecting our rights to be free from unreasonable search.

If C-6 had passed unamended it would have allowed unwarranted fishing expeditions by the police into people's homes, with NO judicial oversight. I don't care if a judge can later throw out eveidence. The homeowner's right to privacy would already have been violated. It is clear that the sanctity of Canadian's homes is unimportant to Argus, Toadbrother and other Conservatives. The rights of the citizen, come a distant second to the needs of the police state for these people.

[ToadBrother]

We are not talking about restaurant inspections we are talking about searching people's homes with no need to bother getting a search warrant. If they have reason to suspect that people are illegally selling consumer procucts from their homes why can't they get a warrant to search based on evidence BEFORE and not AFTER they search it? They already need a warrant to search a home for drugs so Argus can take his druggie label and shove it in his ass sideways.

Its not like getting a warrant tips off the homeowner that he is about to be searched, so they are not giving up the element of surprise by respecting our rights to be free from unreasonable search.

If C-6 had passed unamended it would have allowed unwarranted fishing expeditions by the police into people's homes, with NO judicial oversight. I don't care if a judge can later throw out eveidence. The homeowner's right to privacy would already have been violated. It is clear that the sanctity of Canadian's homes is unimportant to Argus, Toadbrother and other Conservatives. The rights of the citizen, come a distant second to the needs of the police state for these people.

I have, in fact, read the inspection clauses in the bill. Only people that sell this stuff are at risk from spot inspections, and health and food inspectors do not require warrants to inspect facilities either. You're just aping the hysterics of the fraudsters in the homeopathic industry.

In short, the quacksters don't want to be held to the same level of scrutiny as others who are producing foods and drugs for human intake, and for good reason, they're liars and frauds.

[DrGreenthumb]

I have, in fact, read the inspection clauses in the bill. Only people that sell this stuff are at risk from spot inspections, and health and food inspectors do not require warrants to inspect facilities either. You're just aping the hysterics of the fraudsters in the homeopathic industry.

In short, the quacksters don't want to be held to the same level of scrutiny as others who are producing foods and drugs for human intake, and for good reason, they're liars and frauds.

If they want to enter somebodies home they should get a warrant. They need a warrant to search your home even if you are suspected of selling heroin there, so why should suspicion of selling garlic pills be so urgent as to bypass the constitutional requirement that agents of the state get a warrant before entering a person's home?

Oh and sorry for lumping you in as a Conservative, I don't for one minute think you are as partisan as Argus and some of these other hacks.

[ToadBrother]

If they want to enter somebodies home they should get a warrant. They need a warrant to search your home even if you are suspected of selling heroin there, so why should suspicion of selling garlic pills be so urgent as to bypass the constitutional requirement that agents of the state get a warrant before entering a person's home?

Oh and sorry for lumping you in as a Conservative, I don't for one minute think you are as partisan as Argus and some of these other hacks.

First of all, point precisely where in the bill it says they can enter anyone's home? What I read appears to set up an inspection regime for sellers of said products that isn't much different than the regime in place for food inspections.

[DrGreenthumb]

First of all, point precisely where in the bill it says they can enter anyone's home? What I read appears to set up an inspection regime for sellers of said products that isn't much different than the regime in place for food inspections.

The reason the senate gave for amending it was to prevent it from being used as a backdoor way of searching Canadian homes without a warrant. I am not a law expert but many liberal senators are. If the senate says that the bill needed to be amended to prevent this type of abuse, I believe them. That is the ONLY thing they changed. It is not like they gutted the bill as Conservative would have people believe.

[Smallc]

Argus we are on a 5 province average now, you know that.

I thought the Conservatives changed that?

[Smallc]

Per capita? Compared to whom?

The rest of the have not provinces. It gets more than Ontario, but less than Manitoba, PEI, NB, and about NS.

[Oleg Bach]

Well then, as long as you keep posting here, I'll be fine. Adults throwing ignorant temper tantrums like yours is sad, but still amusing.

Sometimes I get sooooooo mad I just want to hold my breath and teach my mum a lesson.

[Oleg Bach]

Well then, as long as you keep posting here, I'll be fine. Adults throwing ignorant temper tantrums like yours is sad, but still amusing.

How many prorouges do you get? Is it two, three - five - is it unlimited?

[jbg]

I'm not sure, but it seems to my like your trying to start a pissing contest. Our constitution works, for the most part, and it's not like your constitution stops errant or miscreant politicians with causing havoc and misery.

What is it with Americans?

I'm an American and I'm not sure what you mean by that question.

I have never pissed on your Constitution or your country. I happen to think that in both of our countries the constitutions are poorly designed and the politicians often bottom of the barrel. It's the people that make the countries' great.

[myata]

Assuming the Afghan prisoners thing is really all that much of an issue, a weak opposition is not the fault of the constitution or our parliamentary system.

Weak opposition? Try again. First, the government obstructed the work of the independent military complaints commission in every way possible; then it tried its best discrediting civil serviceman who delivered first hand information on the issue; then again, it delayed and obstructed the work of the committee in a number of creative ways; and finally, when all else failed, it simply shut down the elected House of Representatives.

Are you still insisting that "Opposition" did all of the above or is somehow responsible for it? Yeah right, keep talking, it's very credible. But why am I not surprised that folks like this fine example of rented brain Conservative would gladly consume any load of steaming and stinking bs coming from their glorious Sun King.

[g_bambino]

Weak opposition? Try again. First, the government obstructed the work of the independent military complaints commission in every way possible; then...

*Yawn*... All the opposition has to do is vote non confidence in Harper and he's gone, for all the crimes you whined about but I didn't pay attention to because they don't really matter in this discussion. But, time and time again, the opposition has strutted and fretted their hour upon the stage, telling tales full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. Hence, because of their weakness, combined with the that of MPs in general, Harper, at this moment in time, may do almost as he pleases with impunity.

[sp]

Edited January 12, 2010 by g_bambino

[nicky10013]

*Yawn*... All the opposition has to do it vote non confidence in Harper and he's gone, for all the crimes you whined about but I didn't pay attention to because they don't really matter in this discussion. But, time and time again, the opposition has strutted and fretted their hour upon the stage, telling tales full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. Hence, because of their weakness, combined with the that of MPs in general, Harper, at this moment in time, may do almost as he pleases without impunity.

He was talking about institutional opposition I think. Any institutional opposition he's come up against he's systematically attempted to destroy.

[g_bambino]

He was talking about institutional opposition I think. Any institutional opposition he's come up against he's systematically attempted to destroy.

It was I who raised the subject of the opposition and I didn't mean the institutional kind. I think I was clear enough as I was speaking of such within the context of parliament and the constitution.

[+]

Edited January 12, 2010 by g_bambino

[myata]

*Yawn*...

Too tired or bothered to see the full picture? Or not telling it, yet again? As said, Harper is using this outdated, created in times of political Noahs system to hold the country hostage. There's absolutely no way to rid ourselves of his kingly boots and atticks without going through a costly and entirely unnecessary at this time election.

It maybe hard to realize (or say it honestly) that the need to call an election every time a government has screwed up, is also the one major obstacle to expression of democratic will (of the population, as represented by the elected House). It does provide the ultimate outlet to remove a government that's become completely intolerable (and in that sense we're still some way ahead of obvious dictatorships), but it also prevents democratic will of the elected House from being expressed efficiently and without government's interference and obstruction (and in this sense, our system is far behind what has become the norm in most democratic countries around the globe, namely, that a government that does not hold the confidence of the elected House should not have mandate to govern).

In a normal, transparent democracy it does not have to be that way, the process would be simple and efficient:

- the government loses confidence of the House;

- non confidence motion is passed and the government is out;

- another candidate is invited to form government;

- only if nobody else (in the House) wants to form government, single faction or coalition, an election is called.

Obviously, inefficient opposition as we have now is a problem for a democracy. It's not the same problem that is being discussed here (try to understand that), namely a government that has lost the confidence of the elected House, and is trying to hang on to the power using direct and indirect advantages given it by an outdated, unfair in true democratic sense, system.

[ZenOps]

The official reason we are prorogueing?

"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."

If you prorogue for 2 months out of every year - you need 17% more government officials to make up the difference, haha.

Edited January 12, 2010 by ZenOps

[Argus]

A thug is a thug, yet I suppose there are degrees within that group like any other. The tough part is that any partisan group from the right or the left respond in like manner. Question period is a great place to view that reality. Their true colours are displayed for all to see there, unscripted peanut bench commentary with warts and all.

Everything about question period is scripted - questions and answers all written and approved beforehand by the parties, rehearsed adn practiced, choreographed and based on spin doctors assessments.