For those fed up with Harper's undemocratic behavior, tell your MP

[msdogfood]

ya, it will be approaching the subscription numbers for the National Post

bad!!!!

[msdogfood]

He wasn't talking about during prorogation either.

ok sorry!!

[Moonlight Graham]

So in the opinion of the government or PMSH I bet to them it was good reason as I've said before its perspective, to you or nick, waldo,topaz, eyeball, that don't like the reasons put forth, but then again all of you spit venom at harper all the time, so in your perspective no reason given will be a good reason.

I spit venom at Harper all the time? When?

I can say that to me it seems Harper can do no wrong for you in this case. Question your government, friend.

[ironstone]

the liberals only did it for times in 12 years!!!!.

Corrrect me if I'm wrong,but I have read that the Liberals did it four times within a four year period in the Chretien/Martin era.

Heck,this guy that wrote into the Ottawa Citizen claims that Pierre Elloit Trudeau did it no less than ELEVEN TIMES!http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Trudeau+more/2414687/story.html

I think it's fair to say that all Prime Ministers,past and present,prorogued Parliament for tactical reasons to benefit either themselves(Chretien)and/or their government.

Why is it unacceptable for a Conservative to do it when there is little or no outcry when the Liberals have done it(and they have apparently done it a lot more than the Conservatives?

Please plainly spell it out why proroguing Parliament was never undemocratic when the Liberals did it?

[Topaz]

It seems that the Harper supporters, at least, on this forum, don't really care what Harper does just as long as YOUR guy stays in!You may not care about the actual torturing of the Taliban BUT do you care if a government ministers lie and cover up the truth? Before you say, they are NOT lying, then why doesn't the government have hearings on it like we did on the Libs? Why? Harper knows what they did was against international law and Canadian law, and they could go to jail for it and the cover up! As far as me telling my MP, it would do any good because he's a Tory and they do what they are told to do by Harper but just wait until the next election, people around here are very angry, even people who voted for the Tories and the unemployment does help either. When the Tories keep saying in Parliament that "Its all about Iggy" the truth is its all about the Tories and how they scam the public. So Tory supporters, is Harper really the leader you want for PM and that if you want any PM to act and do as Harper has done?? I surly don't and I don't think most Canadian do, he's taking Canadians for granted.

[Rue]

I would love to have told by MP but he is on vacation.

Also he seems a bit more concerned about what is wrong with Michael

Ignatieff.

Also my Member of Parliament is about as accessible as a deep rectal

tumour. For me to find it requires quite a lot of assistance from others

trying to do it myself is a real pain in the buttox.

[waldo]

gold Jerry!... real gold!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eNESzuM78k

[msdogfood]

I would love to have told by MP but he is on vacation.

Also he seems a bit more concerned about what is wrong with Michael

Ignatieff.

Also my Member of Parliament is about as accessible as a deep rectal

tumour. For me to find it requires quite a lot of assistance from others

trying to do it myself is a real pain in the buttox.

email your MP!!!

[msdogfood]

gold Jerry!... real gold!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eNESzuM78k

over played but good!!

Edited January 12, 2010 by msdogfood

[Wild Bill]

over played but good!!

I cite Godwin's Law.

[waldo]

I cite Godwin's Law.

parody exception requested

[ToadBrother]

I would love to have told by MP but he is on vacation.

Also he seems a bit more concerned about what is wrong with Michael

Ignatieff.

Also my Member of Parliament is about as accessible as a deep rectal

tumour. For me to find it requires quite a lot of assistance from others

trying to do it myself is a real pain in the buttox.

Write him a letter or email him. He should get it eventually. And if he doesn't before the beginning of March, that would heavily suggest that he wasn't back in his riding meeting with constituents helping form this wondrous economic plan that can only be fashioned by Parliament's recess.

[Shakeyhands]

Corrrect me if I'm wrong,but I have read that the Liberals did it four times within a four year period in the Chretien/Martin era.

Heck,this guy that wrote into the Ottawa Citizen claims that Pierre Elloit Trudeau did it no less than ELEVEN TIMES!http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Trudeau+more/2414687/story.html

I think it's fair to say that all Prime Ministers,past and present,prorogued Parliament for tactical reasons to benefit either themselves(Chretien)and/or their government.

Why is it unacceptable for a Conservative to do it when there is little or no outcry when the Liberals have done it(and they have apparently done it a lot more than the Conservatives?

Please plainly spell it out why proroguing Parliament was never undemocratic when the Liberals did it?

You clearly don't grasp the difference, especially for the prorogation in 2008.

[ToadBrother]

You clearly don't grasp the difference, especially for the prorogation in 2008.

That's because the Conservative supporters have been told there is no difference, and have such a religious conviction that St. Harper of Calgary Southwest only does the most sacrosanct of things, that they do not feel the need to consider the nature and history of Parliament, or how our system is supposed to run. They treat politics like hockey and football fans treat their teams.

It's not just a Tory disease, of course. Partisanship is a generic mental illness.

[Alta4ever]

You clearly don't grasp the difference, especially for the prorogation in 2008.

I think most will give you that in 2008 it was an extraordinary event, I personally wanted to go back to the polls, bu this one (2010) is as routine as any other prorogation.

[ToadBrother]

I think most will give you that in 2008 it was an extraordinary event, I personally wanted to go back to the polls, bu this one (2010) is as routine as any other prorogation.

No, in fact it is not. The closest that I can is Chretien's prorogation to allow Martin to take over with a clean slate. That too, was politically motivated, but hardly for the same reason. Prorogation is, constitutionally, how you recess Parliament at the end of a session, which is normally defined as when the government has completed its legislative agenda. You can make believe all you want that the 2009 prorogation was just a walk in the park, but it wasn't. In a way, it harkens back to an older event, the personal rule of Charles I, who also didn't like Parliament asking tough questions, and decided he didn't need them.

Maybe sometime when you're not cheerleading for your favorite team, you might want to read up on a little history of Parliament. There was nothing typical about this last prorogation. The legislative agenda was most certainly not done, committees (at least one that was apparently looking into things Harper would rather not have looked into) were still meeting. Not typical at all.

Edited January 12, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Alta4ever]

No, in fact it is not. The closest that I can is Chretien's prorogation to allow Martin to take over with a clean slate. That too, was politically motivated, but hardly for the same reason. Prorogation is, constitutionally, how you recess Parliament at the end of a session, which is normally defined as when the government has completed its legislative agenda. You can make believe all you want that the 2009 prorogation was just a walk in the park, but it wasn't. In a way, it harkens back to an older event, the personal rule of Charles I, who also didn't like Parliament asking tough questions, and decided he didn't need them.

Maybe sometime when you're not cheerleading for your favorite team, you might want to read up on a little history of Parliament. There was nothing typical about this last prorogation.

Chreiten's last delayed the Auditors report.

Trudeau it in 1972 50 seconds into the oppositions day in the house just as the opposition was rising to give its report.

That said, Harper could be changing his legislative agenda now that the conservatives have the majority in the senate. but this is pure speculation, like anything else we post on this board, and this session did last almost twice as long as any other session at over 300 days.

If I recall Charles suspended the parliament indefinitely only to bring them back when he needed to push something through then sent them packing. The Constitution does have a limitation in it that prevents this from occurring.

[nicky10013]

Chreiten's last delayed the Auditors report.

Trudeau it in 1972 50 seconds into the oppositions day in the house just as the opposition was rising to give its report.

That said, Harper could be changing his legislative agenda now that the conservatives have the majority in the senate. but this is pure speculation, like anything else we post on this board, and this session did last almost twice as long as any other session at over 300 days.

If I recall Charles suspended the parliament indefinitely only to bring them back when he needed to push something through then sent them packing. The Constitution does have a limitation in it that prevents this from occurring.

We've been through this so many times. Chretien didn't delay the report. Nothing delays the auditor from giving a report just like nothing delays the PBO from releasing reports about the budget.

Trudeau 50 seconds in? Like I said, you'd think that the first motion of the day would be the suspension of parliament? No? Trudeau didn't kill half his agenda, did he?

Furthremore, why would Harper need to change his agenda when all his bills have gone through unscathed but one? That doesn't make sense either.

You're just like the Conservative Party itself. It keeps on changing it's story. Even Tom Flanagan, essentially the kingmaker that brought Harper to power agrees that the government's actions have been stupid and childis according to today's globe and mail.

Now apparently Harper's excuse is that "Parliament sitting causes market instability."

Tell me, does parliament sitting cause market instability?

Edited January 12, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/stephen-harper-disinclined-to-let-games-begin-in-the-house/article1428075/?cid=art-rail-bureaublog

[ToadBrother]

We've been through this so many times. Chretien didn't delay the report. Nothing delays the auditor from giving a report just like nothing delays the PBO from releasing reports about the budget.

Trudeau 50 seconds in? Like I said, you'd think that the first motion of the day would be the suspension of parliament? No? Trudeau didn't kill half his agenda, did he?

Yes, these are red-herring examples.

Furthremore, why would Harper need to change his agenda when all his bills have gone through unscathed but one? That doesn't make sense either.

I think shaking up the Senate was a side-benefit. Like Charles I before him, Harper's foreign policy agenda has proven problematic, and the best way in both their minds to deal with it is to shut down any independent ability to critique them.

If I recall Charles suspended the parliament indefinitely only to bring them back when he needed to push something through then sent them packing. The Constitution does have a limitation in it that prevents this from occurring.

Well yes, our constitution does require that Parliament meet once every twelve months, so the modern Personal Rule is a lot shorter, to be sure But my point isn't so much that Harper is equally unrestrained as Charles I as it is the notion that government is somehow separate from Parliament, that government, in the grand sweep of things, holds a larger role. What the Long Parliament did after the end of the Personal Rule and the abortive Short Parliament, stated very clearly is that Parliament is supreme; not the Crown, not the ministers of the Crown, not any particular bloc within Parliament, but Parliament itself.

What makes the correlation amusing, as I pointed out, is that in both cases, it was foreign matters that brought on the problems. I by no means think that the Afghan abuse investigations are going to turn up any but a minor, ancillary role in the abuse of prisoners. In fact, I think the thing is something of a fishing expedition, pointless and possibly even demoralizing to the troops. But no matter how dishonest, misdirected and self-serving that committee work may be, Parliament has the right to carry it on, and just as importantly, has the sole power to compel Government to produce any and all documents, unaltered and unredacted. Parliament is supreme, not the Government, the GG in council, not the Prime Minister, not any other Minister, but Parliament, and trying to evade the will of Parliament is very much undemocratic, and spit in the eye of how our system functions, or at least, how it's supposed to function. Using the unique power of Her Majesty's Ministers to advise and guide the hand of Royal Prerogative to such a clearly self-serving end is the very definition of an abuse of power. And even if other Prime Ministers have equally abused their position, that doesn't make it right, it suggests that the office of Prime Minister needs some serious curbs, but barring that, it at least needs men (and women) of honor and faith in democracy, rather than people who simply view such an extraordinary privilege as a springboard to their own ambitions.

Edited January 12, 2010 by ToadBrother

[nicky10013]

The Rogue Pro corrected

The Rogue Pro PM, Stephen Harper, should not be surprised if people are wondering why he's not at work. From the Liberal Party today...some facts to correct Rogue Pro apples and oranges spin...

From the moment Stephen Harper decided to shut down Parliament, he has used Parliamentary history to justify his decision. A closer look at the facts, however, shows just how unusual Mr. Harper’s prorogation gambit really is when compared to recent Parliamentary practice.

Stephen Harper said shutting down Parliament is “routine,” citing the historical average of 3.6 times per Parliament – even though prorogation has become half as frequent since the 1960s.

Mr. Harper compared the length of the most recent session of Parliament, at 128 days, to the historical average – when Parliamentary sessions have become considerably longer since the 1960s.

Finally, Mr. Harper compared the length of the current Parliamentary shut down, at 63 days, to the historical average of 151 days – when the time between sessions has shrunk dramatically since the 1960s.

Mr. Harper’s claims are put into proper context when compared to four distinct periods in Canada’s Parliamentary history:

Confederation to 1940: Sessions of Parliament were short as government business was limited and MPs had to travel long distances by horseback, boat or train to serve in Ottawa. The House of Commons had no set calendar, and special adjournment motions had to be passed for the House to take a day off for a statutory holiday. Prorogation was the only tool available to adjourn the House for the long periods of time when Parliament wasn’t sitting.

Number of Parliaments: 18 (1st to 18th Parliament)

Number of sessions: 79

Average number of sessions per Parliament: 4.4

Total sitting days: 6,055

Average number of sitting days per session: 77

Total prorogued days between sessions (not counting elections): 14,639

Average length of prorogation per session: 185 days

1940 to 1964: During the Second World War and Canada’s post-war years, more government business was required, resulting in sessions of longer sitting duration. The length of time between sessions shrank considerably, even though prorogation remained the only tool for adjourning the House and was still quite common.

Number of Parliaments: 8 (19th to 26th Parliament)

Number of sessions: 33

Average number of sessions per Parliament: 4.1

Total sitting days: 3,259

Average number of sitting days per session: 99

Total prorogued days between sessions (not counting elections): 1,908

Average length of prorogation per session: 58 days

1964 to 1982: In 1964, the Standing Orders of the House were amended to specify specific days, usually statutory holidays, during each session when Parliament didn’t sit. Prorogation grew far less common, and it became regular practice to start the next session of Parliament the day after the House was prorogued. With increasingly large amounts of government business, Parliament sat even longer to complete a session.

Number of Parliaments: 6 (27th to 32nd Parliament)

Number of sessions: 15

Average number of sessions per Parliament: 2.5

Total sitting days: 2,872

Average number of sitting days per session: 191

Total prorogued days between sessions (not counting elections): 13

Average length of prorogation per session: 1 day

1982 to present: In 1982, the House adopted the parliamentary calendar, which provided a fixed schedule of both sittings and adjournments and allowed for more effective use Parliament’s time and even less frequent prorogations.

Number of Parliaments: 8 (33rd to 40th Parliament)

Number of sessions: 17

Average number of sessions per Parliament: 2.1

Total sitting days: 3,111

Average number of sitting days per session: 183

Total prorogued days between sessions (not counting elections): 361

Average length of prorogation per session: 21 days

I think it is also useful to break down the last category in order to look specifically at the Rogue Pro's time in office. We find...

2006 to present

Number of Parliaments: 2

Number of sessions: 4

Average number of sessions per Parliament: 2.0 (this will rise to 2.5 when House resumes)

Total sitting days: 453

Average number of sitting days per session: 113.25

This compares to other recent vintage governments of two different stripes, I hasten to add...

1982-2005

Number of Parliaments: 6 (33rd to 38th Parliament)

Number of sessions: 13

Average number of sessions per Parliament: 2.2

Total sitting days: 2,658

Average number of sitting days per session: 204

As noted at the outset, it is no wonder that Canadians are wondering why the Rogue Pro is not at work. In fact, he has been working a whole lot less per session than his recent predecessors. Parliament is just an inconvenience to Stephen Harper.

http://harperbizarro.blogspot.com/2010/01/rogue-pro-corrected.html

[msdogfood]

http://harperbizarro.blogspot.com/2010/01/rogue-pro-corrected.html

nice info!!

[msdogfood]

http://harperbizarro.blogspot.com/2010/01/rogue-pro-corrected.html

nice info!!!!.

[msdogfood]

nice info!!!!.

he has no resin this time!!.

[waldo]

oh ya! King Stephen the First of Canada...

Take a look around the world.

Go searching for the last time a Westminster-style parliament was shut down to free its leaders from unwanted censure or scrutiny — and you'll end right back in Canada, where you started.

It turns out, no other English-speaking nation with a system of government like ours — not Britain, Australia or New Zealand — has ever had its parliament prorogued in modern times, so that its ruling party could avoid an investigation, or a vote of confidence, by other elected legislators.

Only three times has this happened, all in Canada — first in 1873, when Sir John A. Macdonald asked the governor general to prorogue Parliament, in order to halt a House of Commons probe into the Pacific Scandal. Lord Dufferin gave in to the demand, but when Parliament reconvened Macdonald was forced to resign.

No prime minister dared use prorogation to such effect again, until Stephen Harper convinced Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to suspend Parliament in 2008, so the Conservatives could evade a confidence vote.

About 12 months later, he did it again. Harper claims he shut down Parliament to "recalibrate" his government, but his critics say he did so to escape the rising pressure of the Afghan-detainee affair and its investigation by a House of Commons committee.

"The Canadian Parliament is more dysfunctional than any of the other Westminster parliaments . . . in Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. and Scotland," says Robert Hazell, the director of the prestigious Constitution Unit at the University College of London. "No other parliament has been prorogued in recent times to rescue the government from a political difficulty."

.

.

If Parliament is weak, and if the prime minister ignores its members and tries to rule without their consent, then his legal right to govern evaporates.

In a Westminster system, this is Parliament's core democratic function — to legitimize executive power.

King Charles I learned this lesson the hard way more than 300 years ago, by trying to govern without the English Parliament's consent. When he finally dismissed it, political opponents responded by cutting off his head.

"By shutting down Parliament all by himself, Harper is acting in much the same fashion," says Franks. "We should call him King Stephen the First of Canada, for that, in effect, is the way he is behaving."