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

cybercoma · January 7, 2010

I don't understand how it can be justified this time around. Parliament is clearly being prorogued to avoid the awkward questions about the detainees. Ridiculous. Anyone that reads this forum knows that I didn't have a problem with the detainee issue. I believe the government needs to stand up to the questioning and put an end to this entire debacle. Proroguing parliament at worst is an admittance of guilt through silence, just like refusing the breathalyser test. At best proroguing parliament to avoid questioning and debate with the opposition is like giving the middle finger to Canadian voters that elected those opposition members and supported that party in the ridings where they lost. Either way it is truly an affront to democracy, transparency, and responsibility in government.

myata · January 7, 2010

I see so it was undemocratic when Chretien did it as well then?

I think you have a problem with our whole deomcratic system.

Chretien had the majority, that Harper has not (he may not know it though). His minority faction is wrestling its will on the majority via outdated and undemocratic instruments. That is a serious problem with our political system, if we want it to be democratic in fact, not only the name.

Mr.Canada · January 7, 2010

Chretien had the majority, that Harper has not (he may not know it though). His minority faction is wrestling its will on the majority via outdated and undemocratic instruments. That is a serious problem with our political system, if we want it to be democratic in fact, not only the name.

Ignatieff kept saying he was going to bring down the House and force an election. What happened? What's he waiting for?

Shady · January 7, 2010

His minority faction is wrestling its will on the majority via outdated and undemocratic instruments.

If the instruments he's using are provided under the Constitution, by definition it isn't undemocratic. If you don't like his behavior, vote him out. Unfortunately for you, Canadian voters don't feel the same way. :lol:

nicky10013 · January 7, 2010

If the instruments he's using are provided under the Constitution, by definition it isn't undemocratic. If you don't like his behavior, vote him out. Unfortunately for you, Canadian voters don't feel the same way.

Actually more and more they do feel the same way. Harper's numbers have come down from 40% 2-3 weeks ago to 33.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/prorogation-has-hit-a-nerve/article1422003/

They even have Macleans saying Harper is going to try and survive this by stealing ideas from the Iggy and the Liberals.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/07/new-ideas-old-tactics/

Michael Hardner · January 7, 2010

Sorry, but again what IS the difference between what Chretien did and Harper ?

I thought it was said that the GG hadn't prorogued since the time of John A. McDonald ?

cybercoma · January 7, 2010

If the instruments he's using are provided under the Constitution, by definition it isn't undemocratic. If you don't like his behavior, vote him out. Unfortunately for you, Canadian voters don't feel the same way.

Who knows how Canadian voters feel about it? They're not calling an election on this issue.

myata · January 7, 2010

If the instruments he's using are provided under the Constitution, by definition it isn't undemocratic. If you don't like his behavior, vote him out.

You only have to examine the meaning of the word, demo-cracy. I'll leave the exercise to you.

Unfortunately for you, Canadian voters don't feel the same way.

Now that we have finally found somebody who can speak for "Canadian voters", we wont' really need that democracy anymore, would we?

nicky10013 · January 7, 2010

Lawrence Martin

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/harpers-given-them-two-months-of-free-target-practice/article1421513/

Even the Economist is weighing in on this calling it undemocratic

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15211862&source=hptextfeature

nicky10013 · January 7, 2010

Sorry, but again what IS the difference between what Chretien did and Harper ?

I thought it was said that the GG hadn't prorogued since the time of John A. McDonald ?

Well since the Liberals did it, it must be kosher! This line of thought would be ok if Harper wasn't originally elected on an accountability platform. Hilarious.

Shady · January 7, 2010

This is a complete non-issue. Canadian voters have no confidence in any of the other party leaders. And what Canadians care most about right now, is jobs and the economy. So if the Liberals and NDP wanna go around complaining about Harper's prorogue of Parlaiment, I say, go for it. Because the average citizen will just stare back at you with a glazed look over their eyes. :lol:

You're arguing over procedure not policy. Canadian's don't care.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Shady

Michael Hardner · January 7, 2010

Well since the Liberals did it, it must be kosher! This line of thought would be ok if Harper wasn't originally elected on an accountability platform. Hilarious.

But DID they do it ? I don't remember them going to the GG, or even hearing the term 'prorogue' before Harper did it in 2008.

No one here seems to have an answer to that.

Shady · January 7, 2010

But DID they do it ? I don't remember them going to the GG, or even hearing the term 'prorogue' before Harper did it in 2008.

No one here seems to have an answer to that.

There's been a lot of firsts. Like the way the Liberals and NDP teamed with the Bloc to try and take down the government. That was also a first. In the past, no one had invited seperatists to be included in a possible government.

nicky10013 · January 7, 2010

This is a complete non-issue. Canadian voters have no confidence in any of the other party leaders. And what Canadians care most about right now, is jobs and the economy. So if the Liberals and NDP wanna go around complaining about Harper's prorogue of Parlaiment, I say, go for it. Because the average citizen will just stare back at you with a glazed look over their eyes.

You're arguing over procedure vs policy. Canadian's don't care.

And Conservatives think the Liberals are arrogant. Your entire policy gamble is based on Canadians being too stupid to understand our institutions. Look at all the formerly pro-harper papers who are now in Ignatieff's corner because of this? The Conservatives can only hope the public does nothing because in saying that, even the party realizes what they're doing is wrong.

Michael Hardner · January 7, 2010

There's been a lot of firsts.

So you're saying this WAS a first ? Some Right-of-Centre posters here are saying not.

Clarity... I needs it.

madmax · January 7, 2010

I find the EKOS poll which shows a decline in Tory numbers more credible as a measure of dissatisfaction among the silent majority on the question of prorogation.

The Ekos Poll is virtually status quo. I don't believe it reflects prorogation as a ballot question. I was looking for more details but the pdf file wouldn't load for me.

noahbody · January 7, 2010

But DID they do it ? I don't remember them going to the GG, or even hearing the term 'prorogue' before Harper did it in 2008.

No one here seems to have an answer to that.

Someone mentioned it earlier. Chretien prorogued parliament four times between 93 and 2003. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091231/parliament_prorogued_091231/20091231?hub=TopStoriesV2

ToadBrother · January 7, 2010

And Conservatives think the Liberals are arrogant. Your entire policy gamble is based on Canadians being too stupid to understand our institutions. Look at all the formerly pro-harper papers who are now in Ignatieff's corner because of this? The Conservatives can only hope the public does nothing because in saying that, even the party realizes what they're doing is wrong.

Perhaps Harper is doing us all a favor in pointing the real politik of our age, that no one gives a damn. Other than journalists, editorialists and political junkies like us, maybe he's right and maybe Canadians don't know and don't care how the government is working, and have no real interest in the slow degradation of our institutions. Four centuries ago, a bloody civil war that ended with a king beheaded was fought over Parliament's supremacy. MPs defied the authority of the day. Our democracy seems to be going out not with a bang, and hardly a whimper. We have a generation coming up who cares more about XBoxes and iPods.

madmax · January 7, 2010

Ignatieff kept saying he was going to bring down the House and force an election. What happened? What's he waiting for?

Same thing as the Prime Minister... Polling Numbers.

The rest of people are waiting for the government to get its ass in gear and get back to work.

msdogfood · January 7, 2010

oh... you do have a reason after all... but I thought it wouldn't be a self-serving one. Can you state which bills were 'killed' in the Senate... in this latest 40th Parliament, 2nd Session? Can you state which bills were even significantly impacted by the Senate... in this latest 40th Parliament, 2nd Session? I posted earlier in that regard - although it won't be the help you're looking for:

I love her work!!!!.

she is a true blogger!!.

madmax · January 7, 2010

Sorry, but again what IS the difference between what Chretien did and Harper ?

I thought it was said that the GG hadn't prorogued since the time of John A. McDonald ?

Apparently the difference is when Paul Martins feet were being held to the fire he got burned. The Prime Minister and his apologists have argued that they are no better then the Chretien Liberals.

Its an amazing stupid defence.

Its like defending Adscam, or Brian Mulroney etc.

The CPC and their spinners are caught in a fools game.

msdogfood · January 7, 2010

For anyone who wants to listen to the Prime Minister about his reasons for proroguing, here is the interview with Peter Mansbridge on the National:

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/ID=1377965699

he basically duet the question!

msdogfood · January 7, 2010

Lawrence Martin

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/harpers-given-them-two-months-of-free-target-practice/article1421513/

Even the Economist is weighing in on this calling it undemocratic

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15211862&source=hptextfeature

The Press is starting to get very very mad at the PMO

ToadBrother · January 7, 2010

Someone mentioned it earlier. Chretien prorogued parliament four times between 93 and 2003. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091231/parliament_prorogued_091231/20091231?hub=TopStoriesV2

I don't recall Chretien proroguing Parliament with so much left on the agenda. And if the only defense the Tories and their supporters can make is "those other guys did it too", then I think any notion that the Tories are a better government can be dispensed with. Besides, the real crime wasn't this prorogation, but the 2008 one. There may be some precedent for this one, but there's no precedent anywhere in the modern Westminster system for a prorogation to avoid a Confidence Motion.

This more resembles Charles I's prorogation of Parliament in 1629 (the beginning of the Personal Rule, or as some called it, Eleven Years' Tyranny). There are a few interesting correlations. In Harper's case, in large part, this seems motivated by investigations into prisoner abuse in part, and in part by the desire to stack the Senate. In Charles I's case, Parliament again was being uppety, criticizing him and in particular condemning his disastrous and expensive foreign policy. Charles, like Harper, finally had had enough of that, and prorogued Parliament, attempting to rule solely on his own, as Harper will essentially do until March.

Will Harper's Personal Rule work out better than Charles I's? We don't behead tyrants any more, which in one respect is a pity, because as nasty as the Regicide was, it in effect put into practice the notion of the Supremacy of Parliament, which was formalized in 1688 when William and Mary took the throne on the understanding that Absolutism was defunct.

Let's remember here that between now and March, any pressing business of government is going to require Orders in Council. Harper, like Charles I, is going to have to avoid doing very much at all. This is why there is some symbolism to Iggy dragging the Liberals back to Ottawa at the end of this month. When Charles finally dismissed the Short Parliament, its leaders refused to allow him to return to the Personal Rule. Let's hope history repeats itself here.

msdogfood · January 7, 2010

Someone mentioned it earlier. Chretien prorogued parliament four times between 93 and 2003. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091231/parliament_prorogued_091231/20091231?hub=TopStoriesV2

that was me.