Anyone remember how many times Chretien prorogued Parliament?

[Moonbox]

It was four times. He also had a majority at the time.

This might have already been discussed but it seems that the precedent was established long ago and it's kind of funny seeing the Liberals frothing at the mouths over this...

[Shakeyhands]

Thanks again for reiterating how you just don't get it. AND... for starting a useless thread when there is already one that you can discuss this in.

Good Work.

[ToadBrother]

It was four times. He also had a majority at the time.

This might have already been discussed but it seems that the precedent was established long ago and it's kind of funny seeing the Liberals frothing at the mouths over this...

The precedent that prorogation was used to evade a confidence motion? Really? Please provide some citations to other events of that nature.

[Shady]

It was four times. He also had a majority at the time.

This might have already been discussed but it seems that the precedent was established long ago and it's kind of funny seeing the Liberals frothing at the mouths over this...

Exactly. It exposes the anti-prorogue teabaggers for what they really are. Political opportunists and hypocrites.

[Alta4ever]

The precedent that prorogation was used to evade a confidence motion? Really? Please provide some citations to other events of that nature.

King Byng affair, although it was not successful.

[g_bambino]

King Byng affair, although it was not successful.

That was a dissolution request, with the hope of an election to follow, not a prorogation, during which no election takes place.

[ToadBrother]

King Byng affair, although it was not successful.

Not the same. King attempted to dissolve Parliament and go to an election. Of course, the King-Byng Affair rather more favors the Coalition (as does the Australian Constitutional Crisis) in giving another party the chance to govern, if the current government no longer has the confidence of Parliament.

The closest I have been able to find since the late 18th century (when the party system as we know it evolved during the reign of King George III and the Regency while he was hopping mad), was Sir John A. Macdonald attempting to avoid Parliamentary sanction over the Pacific Scandal by proroguing Parliament (the GG at the time, Lord Dufferin, acquiesced as he should have). Mind you, when Parliament returned, they promptly forced Macdonald's resignation. Again, this still is not a prorogation to escape a vote of no confidence.

It has never happened in the modern Westminster system. Harper has truly done a unique thing.

[Wilber]

For me the issue is Harper has flushed the better part of a session down the toilet. For what? If he wants to reinstate all the bills that were before Parliament at their former stage in the process, he will need the approval of the rest of Parliament. Fat chance after pulling this stunt which means it will all have to be done over again with uncertain results. Is this his idea of efficiency, doing everything twice?

For the most part, Harper is a very competent guy but if he is PM for another six years he will never have a majority. Every time his numbers get close, he comes down with an attack of hubris and screws it up. Very frustrating for one who is not a lefty.

[blueblood]

Not the same. King attempted to dissolve Parliament and go to an election. Of course, the King-Byng Affair rather more favors the Coalition (as does the Australian Constitutional Crisis) in giving another party the chance to govern, if the current government no longer has the confidence of Parliament.

The closest I have been able to find since the late 18th century (when the party system as we know it evolved during the reign of King George III and the Regency while he was hopping mad), was Sir John A. Macdonald attempting to avoid Parliamentary sanction over the Pacific Scandal by proroguing Parliament (the GG at the time, Lord Dufferin, acquiesced as he should have). Mind you, when Parliament returned, they promptly forced Macdonald's resignation. Again, this still is not a prorogation to escape a vote of no confidence.

It has never happened in the modern Westminster system. Harper has truly done a unique thing.

It only worked the last time because it was the perfect storm of events he could use to justify it to the voters. Recent election being overturned, A coalition that nobody voted for. Sure, what the coalition did was completely legal and went through the proper channels, at the end of the day everyone is accountable to the voters. Harper did what he did the last time and it worked like a charm. In essence, the last time Harper trumped the coalitions attempt at power through the back door with one of his own.

This time however is different. No recent election, and no coalition that nobody voted for. The voters are feeling cheated, and Harper could quite well be hurt by it. Harper would have been better off dealing with Parliament even if it was for only sitting for two or three weeks. I think this prorogation actually makes sense as it would be a waste to sit for two -three weeks and then have the olympics going on. However, I am one voter, and many more voters than me.

[Shady]

Harper has truly done a unique thing.

Unique isn't akin to unconstitutional, which is what the anti-prorogue teabagging crowd as been insisting. You may disagree with the use, but as I've already stated, a coalition takeover of government involving seperatists was also unique.

[ToadBrother]

Unique isn't akin to unconstitutional, which is what the anti-prorogue teabagging crowd as been insisting. You may disagree with the use, but as I've already stated, a coalition takeover of government involving seperatists was also unique.

You'll note I never said it was unconstitutional. It certainly is against the spirit of how Parliament is supposed to keep a government in check and sets up a terrible precedent. As to the involvement of separatists, Harper himself was hardly immune to it in his turn. I guess what's good for the goose ain't so good for the gander, eh?

At any rate, do you accept the principle that Government is ultimately subservient to Parliament?

[Argus]

The precedent that prorogation was used to evade a confidence motion? Really? Please provide some citations to other events of that nature.

As I understand it, the prorogue was to allow him to reset the Senate committees so he could more easily get legislation through.

Ohhh, you're STILL talking about last year.

Just a little bit behind the times, ain't ya.

[Argus]

This time however is different. No recent election, and no coalition that nobody voted for. The voters are feeling cheated, and Harper could quite well be hurt by it.

The voters weren't feeling cheated until they were told, repeatedly, that they needed to feel cheated. The campaign by the left wing media and the opposition has been quite effective in convincing the unwashed that there was something unusual and shocking going on in a procedure carried out scores of times by federal and provincial governments over the past ten years.

[EyesWideOpen]

As I understand it, the prorogue was to allow him to reset the Senate committees so he could more easily get legislation through.

Ohhh, you're STILL talking about last year.

Just a little bit behind the times, ain't ya.

oh, is that THIS week's raison d'etre?!??!

[EyesWideOpen]

The voters weren't feeling cheated until they were told, repeatedly, that they needed to feel cheated. The campaign by the left wing media and the opposition has been quite effective in convincing the unwashed that there was something unusual and shocking going on in a procedure carried out scores of times by federal and provincial governments over the past ten years.

I beg to differ folks were irked when it was only a rumour that another 'run down your hidey hole and lick your wounds' move was coming.

Just as an example, there was already a movement to tell the GG not to grant another prorogation BEFORE he even asked....see FaceBook.

[Argus]

I beg to differ folks were irked when it was only a rumour that another 'run down your hidey hole and lick your wounds' move was coming.

Just as an example, there was already a movement to tell the GG not to grant another prorogation BEFORE he even asked....see FaceBook.

By "folks" you mean "people who would rather slit their wrists than vote for Harper". yes, I'm sure they were aghast at almost anything Harper might do, from shaving to tying his shoes.

[EyesWideOpen]

By "folks" you mean "people who would rather slit their wrists than vote for Harper". yes, I'm sure they were aghast at almost anything Harper might do, from shaving to tying his shoes.

Who they were wasn't your issue at first....you insinuated nobody cared til they were told they should care....prolly by that damned left-biased media machine, eh??

And my reply to that was you were mistaken.

Who they were and how they vote? Haven't anymore of an idea than you do since I don't know them...I suppose I could make assumptions like you, but so far it's been my experience that that are quite a few 'Cons' who are none too happy with this move too.

Edited January 28, 2010 by EyesWideOpen

[Topaz]

It was four times. He also had a majority at the time.

This might have already been discussed but it seems that the precedent was established long ago and it's kind of funny seeing the Liberals frothing at the mouths over this...

IF it was wrong when Chretien did it, then why didn't the opposition parties do something about it???? I wasn't aware that the Libs did it but that's the past and I am more concerned with the REASONS for Harper to do it and it still comes back to the main reason. He was suppose turn over documents to the committee on the detainees, so the committee could get a clearer understanding and by going to GG again, and I don't think no one knows why she agreed to it, Harper escapes a probably confidence vote and an election and I think more Canadians would go to the polls to vote out the Tories. If Harper has nothing to hide then were are the documents? IF Harper thinks helping other women and children in the world and helping Haiti, will change views on him and the Tories, he sadly mistaken.

[Argus]

Who they were wasn't your issue at first....

I don't HAVE an issue with him proroguing parliament.

you insinuated nobody cared til they were told they should care....prolly by that damned left-biased media machine, eh??

I have yet to run across anyone who cares in real life, other than one guy who is a pretty dedicated anarchist who flirts occasionally with the NDP and who has always hated Harper and his party - whatever that party happens to be.

Who they were and how they vote? Haven't anymore of an idea than you do since I don't know them...I suppose I could make assumptions like you, but so far it's been my experience that that are quite a few 'Cons' who are none too happy with this move too.

Like whom?

[EyesWideOpen]

I don't HAVE an issue with him proroguing parliament.

I have yet to run across anyone who cares in real life, other than one guy who is a pretty dedicated anarchist who flirts occasionally with the NDP and who has always hated Harper and his party - whatever that party happens to be.

Like whom?

You want me to name names?!??! LOL

I live in Ottawa and it's a pretty hot topic here, I can tell you

[ToadBrother]

The voters weren't feeling cheated until they were told, repeatedly, that they needed to feel cheated. The campaign by the left wing media and the opposition has been quite effective in convincing the unwashed that there was something unusual and shocking going on in a procedure carried out scores of times by federal and provincial governments over the past ten years.

So when the Tories go around declaring the Opposition is essentially a coup, and all other sorts of inaccurate B.S. clearly designed to manipulate voters, that's bad, but the Opposition saying "Hey, you know what, he's shutting down Parliament to shut up committees", that's evil.

This is why I hate partisans. Their not interested in good government, good conduct or anything else, they're just cheerleaders with a rather unhealthy fixation on their favorite team.

I certainly didn't arrive at the idea that abusing a Reserve Power meant go close down a session of Parliament was bad because Iggy said it was. I don't frankly care what Iggy thinks. I'd wager in Harper's shoes, he'd probably be tempted to do the same thing, and maybe even would. The problem isn't Harper's, so far as the general trend of Prime Ministers in equal measure loathing Parliament and fearing it, but he's the one that crossed the Rubicon in using prorogation not just as a convenient way to screw with his opponents, but as a way to block the will of Parliament.

Worst of all, it inflames people against the institution as much as the actors on stage at the moment. You get people like myata who want to throw out most of what makes our system of government practical, effective and stable, because of perceived flaws with it which are in flaws with the people currently sitting there.

Hopefully Harper and the Tories do suffer some damage, enough to convince them that Parliament does not exist to serve their will. Long term, that's what scares me, because now that Harper has pushed that line, it's quite possible that the line will remain pushed, and perhaps a truly noxious government will be able to escape the will of Parliament by shutting down. Each step in the erosion, dating back to the extremely presidential nature of Trudeau's years in office, further minimizes Parliament's role in favor of a small cabal of Cabinet Ministers, the Prime Minister and the PM's advisors. That is not how our democracy is supposed to work, and simply defending actions that further damage it with excuses like "Look how many times Chretien prorogued..." enables this sort of long-term behavior.

The sad thing is that if Tory supporters like yourself were to send the message, it would far more likely be heard than if non-aligned folks like myself or partisans on the other side say it. But you're too busy playing some sort of game of oneupsmanship, when you should be just as worried as anyone.

[Argus]

You want me to name names?!??! LOL

I live in Ottawa and it's a pretty hot topic here, I can tell you

Maybe among the agit crowd. haven't heard a word from people I know, who tend to be older and middle class, with a lot more of concern to them than whether the MPs take three months off instead of two.

[Topaz]

Who they were wasn't your issue at first....you insinuated nobody cared til they were told they should care....prolly by that damned left-biased media machine, eh??

And my reply to that was you were mistaken.

Who they were and how they vote? Haven't anymore of an idea than you do since I don't know them...I suppose I could make assumptions like you, but so far it's been my experience that that are quite a few 'Cons' who are none too happy with this move too.

I agree with you, my MP is a Con and is against too, but the power is in Harper. I wonder when a leadership campaign comes if they will vote him back or toss him? Harper will probably leave like the others.

[EyesWideOpen]

Maybe among the agit crowd. haven't heard a word from people I know, who tend to be older and middle class, with a lot more of concern to them than whether the MPs take three months off instead of two.

See this is where I think 'you Tories' are making a mistake - the folks who have a problem with the prorogation (and this is backed up by a recent poll)

happen to be in their mid-40's to mid 50's and middle class and over 95% of them voted in the last election...ignore that at your peril, I say.

[ToadBrother]

See this is where I think 'you Tories' are making a mistake - the folks who have a problem with the prorogation (and this is backed up by a recent poll)

happen to be in their mid-40's to mid 50's and middle class and over 95% of them voted in the last election...ignore that at your peril, I say.

They're not making a mistake. They're coming up with the excuses they'll start trundling out when Harper loses.