Where Was The Media?

[nicky10013]

Archaic? This is a regular feature of every parliament which has ever sat in Ottawa as recently as the last, where Chretien did it four times. And it hardly matters if you're a minority or a majority. The point is it's a tool governments use.

Only your own prejudices say it was used that way now. From all accounts the Tories weren't at all worried about anything going on in parliament, nor did they have cause to be worried.

And you really don't know why it was used before, or when, or for what motivations.

Actually we do know. It's used to turn the page. It's for when governments expend their legislative agenda and want to start a new session, with a new agenda and throne speech. Tell me, was the Conservatives agenda finished? No. It's illegitimate use of a parliamentary tool to shut down debate over an issue which embarasses the government. There is no other definition of what's going on here.

[waldo]

The point is it's a tool governments use.

King Harper speaks about the perogy tool of government - oh my!

When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.

The Liberals, apparently, want to prorogue the House. They want to run out of town, get out of town just one step ahead of the sheriff. Is the Liberal government committed to staying here as planned throughout the month of November so that it can be held accountable in the House for its actions?

Now is it true that the government will prorogue the House so that it will not be held accountable for its shameful record?

[myata]

Archaic? This is a regular feature of every parliament which has ever sat in Ottawa as recently as the last, where Chretien did it four times. And it hardly matters if you're a minority or a majority. The point is it's a tool governments use.

Of course it matters. When minority shuts down the elected House using legalistic formality, it's a major cause for concern and the first step toward erosion of democracy. Because this is exactly what undemocratic dictatorial governments do: escape facing the will of majority by trick, ploy, hook and crook.

Only your own prejudices say it was used that way now. From all accounts the Tories weren't at all worried about anything going on in parliament, nor did they have cause to be worried.

I don't know (and don't really care) what those Tories say, think (or dream) but the facts as recorded are: 1) minority government is facing music in the Parliament; and 2) minority government shuts down the Parliament using undemocratic ploy. A thirdgrader should be able to put these two together.

And you really don't know why it was used before, or when, or for what motivations.

I certainly do not recall Chretien being accused of using prorogation to escape public scrutiny or kill his own legislative agenda (which his party unquestionnably commanded). If you have information to the contrary, I'll gladly examine it. The latest prorogation by Chretien was called to clear the agenda for the new government that came after his retirement, that is as much as I can recall. Again, Liberals held majority at the time and could easily have had the House vote for own prorogation. If Harper put it to vote, or refrained from using it till he had the majority, it would have been entirely different story. As it stands, no matter how you turn it, it always looks like minority faction interfering with the elected House via undemocratic means.

[ToadBrother]

King Harper speaks about the perogy tool of government - oh my!

All very interesting, but haven't you heard, the latest defense is "Our guy is just as scummy as the guys that came before him, and that's A-OKAY!"

Except, of course, that even if you can defend the 2009 prorogation in this manner, you can't defend the 2008 prorogation, because the last time I can find anywhere in the entire Commonwealth or British Empire that a government used prorogation to escape a confidence vote is... well, never.

[William Ashley]

they've already been passed by parliament and the Senate and can presumably now be signed.

Senate is part of parliament, as is the Queen.

Commons is only one house of parliament, the commons itself is not parliament.

[William Ashley]

It's not about the charter of rights and freedoms. The Charter doesn't speak of my right to have a person represent me in parliament. So, why is that particular right being taken away from me?

I don't care if they're going back March 4th, tell me why I'm being deprived of that right come January 25th.

The constitution does, it is a constitutional right.

What about calling the senate back to work?

The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen's Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator

Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, the Presence of at least Fifteen Senators, including the Speaker, shall be necessary to constitute a Meeting of the Senate for the Exercise of its Powers.

Also

The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen's Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon and call together the House of Commons.

The Presence of at least Twenty Members of the House of Commons shall be necessary to constitute a Meeting of the House for the Exercise of its Powers, and for that Purpose the Speaker shall be reckoned as a Member.

Edited January 8, 2010 by William Ashley

[Alta4ever]

All very interesting, but haven't you heard, the latest defense is "Our guy is just as scummy as the guys that came before him, and that's A-OKAY!"

Except, of course, that even if you can defend the 2009 prorogation in this manner, you can't defend the 2008 prorogation, because the last time I can find anywhere in the entire Commonwealth or British Empire that a government used prorogation to escape a confidence vote is... well, never.

No its more like Proroguing was alright when the liberals did but not when a conservative does, perspective man perspective.

[ToadBrother]

No its more like Proroguing was alright when the liberals did but not when a conservative does, perspective man perspective.

Could you please provide some citations for prorogations like that which occurred in 2008? Thanks in advance.

[madmax]

No its more like Proroguing was alright when the liberals did but not when a conservative does, perspective man perspective.

So when Opposition Leader Stephne Harper was complaining about prorogation he was really just "full of it".

Who knew.

[ToadBrother]

So when Opposition Leader Stephne Harper was complaining about prorogation he was really just "full of it".

Who knew.

Yes, it isn't much different a reversal of opinion than on coalitions. I think the one thing we can learn from all of this is that Harper is pretty much the consummate opportunist. It's like having Jean Chretien all over again, except Harper speaks better French

Edited January 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ironstone]

No I don't, but there's a difference between controlling the agenda and shutting it down. As horrible as you think adscam is, suspending democracy is just a tad worse. If parliament didn't prorogue I'd be upset with the agenda but in the end at least voices in the house would be able to speak up for me. However, you and your cronie Conservative buddies apparently don't believe that people should have voices. At least not when it's convenient to them.

Didn't Chretien prorogue Parliament right near the end of his reign?That postponed the release of the embarrassing report on the theft of many millions of taxpayer dollars by those with strong ties to the Liberal Party.It was timed so the report would be released when Martin took over.

Isn't that clearly abuse of the system?

[capricorn]

Ironstone, re Chretien, Spector makes that point.

One argument you sometimes hear from Conservatives, though obviously not from Michael Ignatieff or his supporters, is that Jean Chrétien was not criticized for proroguing to avoid having to receive Sheila Fraser’s report on the sponsorship scandal. Conservatives also say that many of today’s critics actually respected him for his wiliness; some even cheered Mr. Chrétien’s toughness in shutting down the Somalia inquiry, which was investigating a far more serious matter than Afghan detainees. Conservative supporters may also be right in suspecting that—aside from those who dropped the ball back then—some of today’s critics grew comfortable in the one party state that Canada was becoming in the days of the “friendly dictator,” and detest Mr. Harper for restoring political competition to Ottawa.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/prorogation-jean-chrtien-did-it-too/article1425333/

Gratitude for having delivered the country from the Chretien/Martin Liberals can go a long way.

[Topaz]

I haven't seen the conservatives do anything like adscam, has the PM choked a citizen?

Face it you just don't like that it is a conservative government controlling the agenda.

Just because we have seen it or heard about doesn't mean it hasn't been done. Now the reason for proroguing for the Tories is to stop ALL commiittee hearings on the torturing of Taliban, so the opposition parties can't expose that the Tories ARE covering up the truth, which would be against Canadian and international law. You know it and Canadian know it, the only difference is we will admit to it, but you or the Tory party won't, so how are they or you any different? BTW, wouldn't you want to know the real truth?

[waldo]

No I don't, but there's a difference between controlling the agenda and shutting it down. As horrible as you think adscam is, suspending democracy is just a tad worse. If parliament didn't prorogue I'd be upset with the agenda but in the end at least voices in the house would be able to speak up for me. However, you and your cronie Conservative buddies apparently don't believe that people should have voices. At least not when it's convenient to them.

you know when Bob Fife, the biggest Conservative media water-carrier comes down... hard... on the Harper perogy move, you know the good times are rolling! Fife clearly speaks to the repeated pattern of King Harper repeatedly shutting down anything with the potential to negatively cast the Conservatives... shut it down... it's only democracy!

[ironstone]

Could you please provide some citations for prorogations like that which occurred in 2008? Thanks in advance.

It's been mentioned on here before,the example of "Honest Jean"Chretien doing it to delay the Adscam report until Martin took over.

I won't thank you in advance because in all likelyhood,you either will duck the question or ignore it alltogether.

It's preposterous to claim the Liberals never prorogued Parliament for their own benefit.

[Smallc]

The prorogation was also done as a transition. A new Prime Minister was taking over. That warranted a new session of parliament.

[ironstone]

The prorogation was also done as a transition. A new Prime Minister was taking over. That warranted a new session of parliament.

How convenient.What a coincidence.

Face it,most of you guys are pissed at this latest prorogue of Parliament because it's being done by Conservatives.Was there ever this much of an uproar in the past when the Liberals were doing it?In the whole history of Parliament,which party prorogued more often?I don't know the answer,but if I were to take an educated guess....the Liberals.

[ToadBrother]

It's been mentioned on here before,the example of "Honest Jean"Chretien doing it to delay the Adscam report until Martin took over.

I won't thank you in advance because in all likelyhood,you either will duck the question or ignore it alltogether.

It's preposterous to claim the Liberals never prorogued Parliament for their own benefit.

That's the 2009 prorogation, which, while I don't think it's very typical at all (considering there was still legislation before the House and committee work going on, clearly was not a normal use of the power), isn't the event I'm talking about. I'm talking about the 2008 prorogation, where a minority government used it to evade a confidence vote. That's what I want a precedent for.

[Smallc]

How convenient.What a coincidence.

Face it,most of you guys are pissed at this latest prorogue of Parliament because it's being done by Conservatives.Was there ever this much of an uproar in the past when the Liberals were doing it?In the whole history of Parliament,which party prorogued more often?I don't know the answer,but if I were to take an educated guess....the Liberals.

And your educated guess would be right considering that the Liberals have been in power more often than the Conservatives and considering that prorogation is a normal part of parliamentary procedure. I'm not aware of many times that has been used when so much legislation was still on the table. It's usually done when a governments legislation has all gone through Parliament (though that wasn't the case when Chretien prorogued to clear the way for Martin, though that prorogation was probably well placed considering the transition. The current prorogation really isn't that wrong, but it's certainly non typical.

I'm not really opposed to this prorogation, but I'm not sure why they need it to be so long. They could reorganize the Senate Committees and came back on the 26th.

Oh, and btw...the Liberals did it isn't much of an excuse.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

I'm not really opposed to this prorogation, but I'm not sure why they need it to be so long. They could reorganize the Senate Committees and came back on the 26th.

Oh, and btw...the Liberals did it isn't much of an excuse.

It gets it past the Olympics which runs feb 12 to 28th.

[Smallc]

And why do they need to get past the olympics?

[Alta4ever]

And why do they need to get past the olympics?

I imagine much of the government leadership will be at it promoting canada to the world.

[Smallc]

Good for them.

[g_bambino]

It gets it past the Olympics which runs feb 12 to 28th.

Was parliament prorogued for the Olympics in 1988 and 1976?

[Alta4ever]

Was parliament prorogued for the Olympics in 1988 and 1976?

The governing party held majorities then, and didn`t require every member in the house to vote for government legislation did it.