Why the hate for harper?

[Argus]

I'm not appalled that Harper is a control freak, well, no more appalled than I was at Chretien was. What appalls me is his flagrant contempt for our system of government.

You mean like Trudeau derisively dismissing MPs as a bunch of nobodies, or maybe Chretien and Martin substituting committee members in order to get the properly obedient take on social policy issues?

I mean, if his party wants to take it up the rear from him, or any party wants to take it up their rear from their leaders, I'll just vote for someone else.

Yeah? Like who? What party leader doesn't exert rigid control over everything his caucus says, does, thinks or votes? Was Trudeau better? Mulroney? Chretien? Martin? Is Layton less controlling than Harper?

If Harper wants to reduce the ability of Parliament to hold him to account, then he should have the courage to submit an amendment to the constitution in the House where it can be duly debated. I mean, even an autocrat like Trudeau went to the Premiers to repatriate the constitution.

Oh spare me your fulminating. Parliament is a toothless, obedient dog to any PM with a majority. It has done NOTHING to hold any previous governments to account, no matter what they've done, and as soon as we get another majority it will revert to form.

[Argus]

I'm not exactly seeing us doing any better. I won't lay all the blame at Harper's doorstep, because as far as the divides in Parliament go, it really is all the parties, and in particular, their leaders, who have set the tone. I'm hearing people wax poetic for the days of Chretien, when MPs, outside of scrums and QP, still had a sense of camaraderie between the government and opposition benches.

I think the minority government phase we're in is probably mainly responsible. Everyone has become so damned bitchy, and compromise is only achieved after a lot of chest thumping and antics.

The congeniality began to fall apart late in Mulroney's reign as the Rat Pack substituted open insult for intelligent discussion. It grew worse during the Reform era as the Liberals, and to some extent the NDP did their level best to deride the earnest Reformers as ignorant, racist, country bumpkins in the House, going so far as to call them unCanadian at one point. You should rally have a look at some of the Hansards from that era. The Reformers arrived determined to make the house more dignified and to leave out insults and crassness, but caved under the avalanche of contempt and insults heaped upon them in and out of the House.

[Argus]

I predict it will be hard for anyone other than a Francophone Quebecker (thus excluding Paul Martin) from forming a majority government unless the Bloc miraculously implodes.

That's actually been the case since before the Bloq ever showed up. Quebecers don't like to vote for anyone but French Quebecers.

[g_bambino]

Desperately fighting for the rights of parliament is kind of pointless given that parliamentarians have been trained seals since Trudeau's day.

And look at the results: an ever more empowered PMO with its own inner privy council of unaccountable advisors and PR people. Even cabinet is becoming increasingly useless. If anything, I can thank Harper for pushing the boundaries of our constitution so close to the limit -- getting figures that are otherwise uninvolved - the governor general and the speaker of the House of Commons - involved -- that people have begun questioning and thus learning about what our laws and conventions actually are. I hope this will eventually lead to a reversal of the imbalance that Trudeau began.

[Shady]

The Armed Forces do not serve Parliament

Exactly. And that's where your argument completely falls apart.

[Argus]

and it is written that the, "charged 1988 decision by the United Church General Council to approve the ordination of homosexuals", was what instigated Harper's father's defection from the United Church... as the father goes, so goes the son! Apparently, you can thank Preston Manning and Diane Ablonczy, for Harper's "redemption" and call to the evangelical Alliance Church.

Do you know of any Muslim, Sikh or Hindu temples which approve of homosexuality or which would allow any homosexuals to lead their congregations in prayers?

[bush_cheney2004]

I recommend you follow the rest of us who long ago put B-C on ignore. I only wish his inane posts didn't still show up quoted in people's responses.

But that's the best part....you can't escape my "inane posts". LOL!

[ToadBrother]

Oh spare me your fulminating. Parliament is a toothless, obedient dog to any PM with a majority. It has done NOTHING to hold any previous governments to account, no matter what they've done, and as soon as we get another majority it will revert to form.

In other words, Harper wants to run the show like he has a majority, and all you little Tory-ites are pissed off that the rest of Parliament won't play that game.

At any rate, I'm not saying majorities are perfect situations, but simply put, the issue of Parliamentary supremacy doesn't exist where there is a majority government, which has been the norm for much of the 19th and 20th centuries. Like a lot of constitutional oddities, these things don't come up until you have a minority situation, like the King-Byng Affair, or the somewhat more odd (because of the way the Australian Senate is constituted) the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis.

Fortunately, despite all the animosity and grandstanding on both sides, our current Parliament still backs away, though sometimes by narrow dodge, from producing a situation that could produce a crisis of that degree. And believe me, I heap plenty of scorn on the Opposition, which should have afforded the Government the same luxury that other Westminster governments have traditionally been afforded in running military campaigns. I have stated over and over that I think the Opposition is making a mountain out of a mole hill, and these insinuations that our brave men and women in Afghanistan are somehow participants in the torture of Afghani prisoners is outrageous. In fact, I think the whole investigation is a load of crap, and what's more, unlike the Opposition, I want our troops to stay over there, and not just a few soldiers, but in active operations with our NATO partners.

That all being said, I have also explained that I am a strong constitutionalist. That I think the Opposition was wrong to fight this war doesn't mean that I think Parliament can't, at its discretion, decide to hold the Government to account. Surely you can admit that maybe my views are somewhat more nuanced than drooling twits like Shady would have it.

[Argus]

As was pointed out when Harper was trying to justify the bizarre claim that his government somehow had magically spawned executive privilege, even during majority governments, committees made up of government and opposition members had been privy to highly sensitive information in the past.

So what? I'm not saying they should withhold the information, just that your obsession with defending its independance is kinda pointless given how rarely parliament is off its short leash and ever gets to bark at anything.

[ToadBrother]

So what? I'm not saying they should withhold the information, just that your obsession with defending its independance is kinda pointless given how rarely parliament is off its short leash and ever gets to bark at anything.

So, in short, you actually hold the same view as me, it's just that I'm a total bore on the subject.

[g_bambino]

For the Armed Forces, swearing allegiance to the Queen is very much swearing allegiance directly to the Sovereign...

Certainly. My point was, though, that by giving fealty to the monarch, one promises to abide by her authority, which she exercises through the executive (orders-in-council), judiciary (court rulings), and - specifically - the legislature (laws). So, while the oath of allegiance isn't to the House of Commons, as Dancer rightly pointed out, the Commons is tangentially related.

[g_bambino]

Exactly. And that's where your argument completely falls apart.

No, it doesn't, because, again, the armed forces serve the queen, who is advised by the ministers of the Crown, who are accountable to the House of Commons, which is the lower chamber of parliament. Even when advising the governor general on how to deploy troops, cabinet must do so with an eye always on the mood of the House, lest it loose that chamber's required confidence.

[Argus]

In other words, Harper wants to run the show like he has a majority, and all you little Tory-ites are pissed off that the rest of Parliament won't play that game.

There's a certain amount of truth in that. However, it's not like the opposition is using its numbers for enhanced oversight. It's using them to try and impute scandal wherever it can, be it the schrieber and jaffar affairs or the supposed "torture" of taliban prisoners, or in producing legislation such as requiring the government to live up to the Kyoto Accord or enshrine in law that all supreme court justices have to be French. It's nothing but troublemaking for its own sake, for the pettiest of politically partisan purposes.

That all being said, I have also explained that I am a strong constitutionalist. That I think the Opposition was wrong to fight this war doesn't mean that I think Parliament can't, at its discretion, decide to hold the Government to account.

I would be less jaded if I thought holding the government to account was actually their intent. I don't. I think the only intent is to do their best to smear the government any way they can, and if that smears the military too, well, I don't think they much care about that. There's no doubt that he who controls parliament sets the rules. I just don't see that the opposition have used their control to do anything constructive for either parliament or for Canada, nor that they intend to.

[Argus]

So, in short, you actually hold the same view as me, it's just that I'm a total bore on the subject.

It's more like I find it hard to get worked up on the subject given my disdain for parliament as an institution of bland, obedient salarymen. I would love to have them show some independance to their party leaders, to show a little backbone, creativity, intent, interest, but it ain't happening. Even now, with all this supposed independance, you're looking at a hall where only four men have any votes. Everyone else there is just an obedient poodle.

[Keepitsimple]

agreed... as Trudeau demonstrated, I never saw any evidence of his beliefs influencing his political decisions, he kept a strict divide between church and state...the same can be said of Canada's moderate Protestant churches...just as many Canadian Muslims want no part of Sharia Law invading Canada's secular system the vast majority of Canadians want no part of Harper's fundy christian morality...the very nature of his churches beliefs is to change Canada to reflect their morality...

Wyly......I pointed out that the Alliance Church has many, if not all of the same beliefs as the Roman Catholic Church. Yet you choose to discriminate against that Church as fanatical and yet agree that there's nothing wrong with Roman Catholicism. How do you justify such a position? One of the central tenets of Canada's "evangelicals" - a very broad term - is that they help the less fortunate. The Church of the Salvation Army falls under the umbrella of Evangelicism. Do you also consider the Salvation Army as radical? Do you think your Canadians really want no part of the Salvation Army? Or does your shallowness simply reveal that you hate the Alliance Church because Harper attends every now and then?

Edited May 19, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[g_bambino]

I would love to have them show some independance to their party leaders, to show a little backbone, creativity, intent, interest, but it ain't happening. Even now, with all this supposed independance, you're looking at a hall where only four men have any votes. Everyone else there is just an obedient poodle.

That's a very valid criticism. The problem, though, doesn't stem from parliament itself; it comes instead from the way the political parties in it are now structured. All the ancient conventions of parliament are still there to be used whenever necessary; those that limit the executive are merely neglected by MPs who cannot without reprisals challenge their party leader because he was selected not by them, but by party members (99% of whom will never set foot in parliament), and the leaders are frequently more concerned with their personal fortunes than exercising parliamentary democracy.

[+]

Edited May 19, 2010 by g_bambino

[YEGmann]

No, it isn't; which renders the rest of your illiterate post pointless.

Wow! It seems we have a literate specialist in security of information here!

Can you prove your post?

Or your fantasies do not require any proof? As to to the subject, Members of Parliament are not mentioned in the Security of Information Act, contrary to several departments and four persons who has a special access to secret information. According to the Act, an MP will require to pass the general process for the access, similarly to a common Joe.

That's what actually happened in the HoC. The opposition parties agreed that they do not have a free access and the law must be obeyed.

[ToadBrother]

Wow! It seems we have a literate specialist in security of information here!

Can you prove your post?

Or your fantasies do not require any proof? As to to the subject, Members of Parliament are not mentioned in the Security of Information Act, contrary to several departments and four persons who has a special access to secret information. According to the Act, an MP will require to pass the general process for the access, similarly to a common Joe.

That's what actually happened in the HoC. The opposition parties agreed that they do not have a free access and the law must be obeyed.

The Speaker ruled that it was a matter of privilege. Do you know what that means?

Your interpretation of events is nothing more than spin. A matter of privilege means that the constitutional powers of Parliament to compel the government are intact.

[g_bambino]

Can you prove your post?

Yes: The fact that MPs are not by any "legal terms" the public combined with the absence of any proposal to provide the documents to all MPs without conditions provides the proof that supports my post.

[Smallc]

I recommend you follow the rest of us who long ago put B-C on ignore.

It is absolute heaven to do so....I'm so glad that I did.

[justme]

BAHA! Oops, sorry for the outburts.

Best PM ever? Very hard to claim that since he's never even had a majority government, so obviously many if not most Canadians easily disagree with you.

Funny, Pearson never had a majority either.

[justme]

False.

The highest popular vote Harper has managed- 37.65%- is lower than Chretiens worst outing- 38.46%

I knew it was less than 1 percentage point difference, but by memory, I thought it was the other way around so I was off a little. That does nothing to change the fact that Chretien got a majority with a low percentage of the vote, yet it's always Harper's minority government that we hear about. Therefore, the point still stands: the people who complain about the percentage of the vote that the Conservatives got are hypocrites.

[justme]

Young Trudeau: Fascist, anti-Semite, and separatist

A new biography of the former prime minister, whom Canadians have long been taught to regard as a great liberal politician, reveals that as a youth and young man, Mr. Trudeau was an anti-Semite, admired fascist dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini, promoted revolution and longed for an independent and Catholic Quebec that would be home only to francophones.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=0c1b3dca-544a-45d8-8ce3-f577f9cb43a6&k=99910

To many of the people that complain about Harper, this is one of Canada's greatest leaders.

Foot meet mouth.

[DrGreenthumb]

Is Layton less controlling than Harper?

Oh spare me your fulminating. Parliament is a toothless, obedient dog to any PM with a majority. as soon as we get another majority it will revert to form.

Actually yes, Layton is FAR less controlling than Harper. I've also never seen Layton, or Ignatief hold phony press conferences and phony question sessions with the public like Harper has. Nobody but Harper has security keeping anyone away who they don't know is a loyal partisan. Like the fake question and answers with the youth while Mike Duffy "moderated", or the bullshit you tube interview. Harper is a control freak, and that is evident in the way he wants to impose his religious moral judgements on everybody else. He will never understand that what consenting adults do with each other is none of the government's business as long as their activities do not harm any third party.

You can bet when Harper takes questions in public they are scripted and the people asking them are plants.

Harper DOESN't have a majority. A majority would indicate that a majority of the population supported the government, thus giving it the right to govern accordingly. A minority government indicates that the majority of the population does NOT support the governing party and do not trust them to govern without the checks and balances of strong opposition watching their every move. Your complaints are therefore meaningless.

[Jack Weber]

I recommend you follow the rest of us who long ago put B-C on ignore. I only wish his inane posts didn't still show up quoted in people's responses.

HEHEHEHE...

I think I started a trend!!!