Stephen Harper Democracy Strikes Again

[William Ashley]

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/12/harper-vote-afghanistan.html

Personally although the more than 150 billion being funneled to the banks in 2008/2009 was my breaking point for trusting the government (since this comprised the deficit that year) - I have gone from thinking this person a casual liar - or perhaps just inept to totally lacking of any ethical standards whatsoever.

This is a guy whose government was all a multiparty coalition is undemocratic, now he won't even let parliament decide to continue an overseas mission - one where it isn't even a declared war. Yet he has Canadian soldiers stationed overseas helping to prop up a foreign government. I don't understand how the guy can believe he can wage his own personal undeclared wars without consulting and getting the approval of parliament.

I am going to look into this more but I don't like the idea of the government being able to wage war without parliaments approval.

The thing here is that this guy said --oh no, no military mission. Well what do you call the military in Afghanistan, a tea party?

Training Soliders (Military Instructors) were shot dead by the people they were training recently I believe four of them. Kabul ain't exactly a picnic either, attacks there are very much potential.

This is NOT a peace keeping mission. I don't see the differentiation between a combat mission and a non combat mission if it is in a hostile country where Canadians were actively engaged in acts of war the day before and no peace treaty exists and the enemy are still alive and fighting. Clearly there s no potential for a peace treaty because no war was declared unless the Taliban sign a treaty saying we don't mind if you train our enemy. I don't see that happening. So the threat of life and limb still exists only that they won't be able to fight back under the rules of war only civil law. (although it is mostly all war crimes anyway - since they are engaging in acts of war without lawful authority - and have been since day 1, and they have violated the Geneva convention on war, by changing domestic laws during an occupation - yes it was occupied after a series of undeclared acts of war - since they didn't recognize the state - and acted without lawful authority of any other government, that is based on the laws of afghanistan prior the invasion of the previous non taliban government. see the Peshawar Accords and Najibullah republic of afghanistan http://www.incore.ulst.ac.uk/services/cds/agreements/pdf/afgan2.pdf , for instance http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/SERIAL/6702/69052/F2057053744/AFG6702.pdf --- in that document under general provisions chapter one article (2) part 1 outlines the requirement for Canadian forces to legally be in Afghanistan in a training capacity rather than illegally in an undeclared war -- note that they legally are breaching afghan customs and immigration laws as existed prior the occupation - and a lawful election has not yet occured according to the pre- taliban law as required by the Geneva Convention on War)

The precedent here is that the PM thinks deploying a 1000 troops in a country where a civil war with foreign parties involved in the civil war is not "combat mission" related. It is directly putting Canadian forces into the line of fire - but saying they can't fire back. That is worse than simply sending them to war, but sending them to war and saying you can't fight back. And one where they are viewed as the enemy. That they are purely accountable to civil law in Afghanistan, etc..

I think that this is a convolution. And it is still a military mission.

Is he referring to himself as the executive - who is he referring to exactly here?

IT IS A FOREIGN DEPLOYMENT WHATEVER WAY YOU LOOK AT IT

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0006-e.htm

1. resulting from international treaty obligations -- there is no international treaty that requires Canada to have troops there. NATO for example by consensus, the UN is voluntary support.

2. While the queen is the chief executive who acts on the PRIVY COUNCIL's advice - there are specific allowances for orders in council AND the constitution act 1867 did not permit Canada to engage in foreign affairs -- Canada did not gain that capacity until later down the road. So the command of forces at the time (Militia) would not be permissible to deploy overseas without British Foreign Affairs consent although it tended to work the other way around with the British requesting Canadian forces be deployed over seas. Concept of the High Commission and Imperial Parliament.

It was not until the world wars that Canada was granted the ability to declare war --- HOWEVER Canada has not declared war in this mission. As it is two types of war 1. A civil war 2. a two government conflict - where international parties - are all fighting in undeclared warfare. That is fighting an illegal war, and installing or reinstalling another government. This is not actually a real war. The Canadan Forces Soilder arn't even legally War Veteran's even though they are fighting combat missions - they are actually illegal acts of war - in a non declared non official war.

3. Parliament does have statutory roles in the Emergences Act and the National Defence Act for the permissible uses of the Canadian Forces.

Edited November 12, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

I don't understand how the guy can believe he can wage his own personal undeclared wars without consulting and getting the approval of parliament.

Because the approval of parliament isn't necessary for the deployment of troops. Funding for those troops is solely in the domain of parliament, but their mobilisation is not.

[ToadBrother]

I am going to look into this more but I don't like the idea of the government being able to wage war without parliaments approval.

Our constitution places the power to go to war into the hands of Her Majesty on the advice of Her Ministers. If Parliament doesn't like that, they can remove the Government.

[William Ashley]

Because the approval of parliament isn't necessary for the deployment of troops. Funding for those troops is solely in the domain of parliament, but their mobilisation is not.

FALSE

both the emergencies act and the national defence act both give statutory oversight on some actions to parliament.

Emergencies Act

The Emergencies Act was developed to ensure that the Government of Canada can invoke exceptional -- yet incident-specific -- powers to deal with emergencies. It replaced the War Measures Act. The four types of emergencies covered under the Act are:

* Public welfare emergencies

Severe natural disasters or major accidents affecting public welfare, which are beyond the capacity or authority of a province or territory to handle.

* Public order emergencies

Security threats that are beyond the capacity or authority of a province or territory to handle.

* International emergencies

Intimidation, coercion or the use of serious force or violence that threatens the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada or any of its allies.

* War emergencies

War or other armed conflict, real or imminent, involving Canada or any of its allies.

The Emergencies Act guarantees Parliament's right to review and, if necessary, revoke emergency powers. It ensures that the Government is accountable to Parliament for its use of such powers. It also offers full protection for the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians during national emergencies.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/E-4.5/index.html

SPECIFICALLY:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/E-4.5/page-3.html#anchorbo-ga:l_III

Effective date

29. (1) A declaration of an international emergency is effective on the day on which it is issued, but a motion for confirmation of the declaration shall be laid before each House of Parliament and be considered in accordance with section 58.

Expiration of declaration

(2) A declaration of an international emergency expires at the end of sixty days unless the declaration is previously revoked or continued in accordance with this Act

For legal activities of the forces - and the parliamentary oversight required see:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/E-4.5/page-4.html#anchorbo-ga:l_VI

See also:

The national defence act:

Special force

16. (1) In an emergency, or if considered desirable in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations Charter or the North Atlantic Treaty, the North American Aerospace Defence Command Agreement or any other similar instrument to which Canada is a party, the Governor in Council may establish and authorize the maintenance of a component of the Canadian Forces, called the special force, consisting of

(a) officers and non-commissioned members of the regular force who are placed in the special force under conditions prescribed in regulations;

( officers and non-commissioned members of the reserve force who, being on active service or having applied and been accepted for continuing, full-time military service, are placed in the special force under conditions prescribed in regulations; and

© officers and non-commissioned members not of the regular force or the reserve force who are enrolled in the special force for continuing, full-time military service.

Composition of special force

(2) The maximum numbers of officers and non-commissioned members in the special force shall be as authorized by the Governor in Council, and the special force shall include such units and other elements as are embodied therein.

R.S., 1985, c. N-5, s. 16; R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 60; 2004, c. 15, s. 75.

The proper procedure would be to invoke the emergencies act for the purpose of international issue then compose a special force. I am not in belief that the training mission is a consequence of ISAF, not the second portion - it would be much more correct to invoke the emergencies act then as an application of the national defence act apply it - there are no obligations under the ISAF or NATO that required Canada to train afghanistan.

----

The national defence act, above states that funding for training operations, equipment, supplies, operating bases, transport or otherwise must be approved by parliament.

But hold on here.. but but, how would they have the money if it wasn't budgeted... was there some extra there...? How did that happen. Is somehow in all their removal and no military operations requiring around 1 year of prior planning ... somehow manage to provide for funding for a 3 year mission extension.. how did this come about?

Edited November 12, 2010 by William Ashley

[M.Dancer]

FALSE

Have those acts been invoked?

No...

Was there a vote to send troops to Haiti?...to Kosovo...to Gaza....to Cyprus?

[g_bambino]

FALSE

No, it's true.

both the emergencies act and the national defence act both give statutory oversight on some actions to parliament.

Neither states that the Governor General-in-Council requires the approval of parliament before deploying troops outside of Canada.

[William Ashley]

1. If it isn't an emergency --- why not consult in parliament.

2. If t is an emergency - you invoke the emergencies act in parliament.

3. If it is a treaty obligation - where is the outlined requirement.

4. If it isn't a requirement - why not consult parliament?

5. Where is the order in council for afghanistan I don't see it.

The CATCH.. how is a UN mandated mission fall under the current orders.

for example:

NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT

Order Placing Members of the Canadian Forces on Active Service for the Purpose of Fulfilling Canada’s Obligations Under the North Atlantic Treaty

Whereas it is desirable, in consequence of action undertaken by Canada to provide forces for collective defence under the North Atlantic Treaty, to place officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces on active service;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence, pursuant to paragraph 31(1)(* of the National Defence Act, is pleased hereby, for the purpose of fulfilling Canada's obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, to place

(a) officers and non-commissioned members of the regular force of the Canadian Forces on active service anywhere in or beyond Canada; and

( officers and non-commissioned members of the reserve force of the Canadian Forces on active service anywhere beyond Canada.

* R.S. 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 60 (Sch. I, item 14)

This is for nato operations NOT UN missions. SEE THE DIFFERENCE. NATO IS NOT THE UN

Also

Offences committed outside Canada

273. Where a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline does any act or omits to do anything while outside Canada which, if done or omitted in Canada by that person, would be an offence punishable by a civil court, that offence is within the competence of, and may be tried and punished by, a civil court having jurisdiction in respect of such an offence in the place in Canada where that person is found in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that place, or by any other court to which jurisdiction has been lawfully transferred.

This comprises an illegal occupation if overiding civil law in afghanistan.

Further

Arrest of dependants

272. The dependants, as defined by regulation, of members of the Canadian Forces on service or active service in any place out of Canada who are alleged to have committed an offence under the laws applicable in that place may be arrested by officers and non-commissioned members appointed as described in section 156 and may be handed over to the appropriate authorities of that place.

R.S., 1985, c. N-5, s. 272; R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 60.

(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), all regulations and all orders and instructions referred to in those subsections shall be held to be sufficiently notified to any person whom they may concern by their publication in the Canada Gazette.

R.S., 1985, c. N-5, s. 51; R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 60(E).

Don't see it here...

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p1/2001/2001-09-15/html/index-eng.html

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p1/2001/2001-09-22/html/index-eng.html

isit in there somewhere... I don't see it..

it continues.. when exactly did Canada order its troops overseas?

Where is it

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p1/2001/index-eng.html

SEE ISAF:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

ISAF is mandated by the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1386, 1413, 1444, S/RES/1510, S/RES/1563, S/RES/1623, S/RES/1659, S/RES/1707, S/RES/1776(2007)

POINT UN NOT NATO

WHERE IS THERE A STANDING ORDER ON UNITED NATIONS OPERATIONS.

What UN orders require canada to train Afghan troops?

http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm

If it isn't in there it is a unilateral act. And non emergency, there for an abuse of uses of the forces IF not required.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/550/19/PDF/N0955019.pdf?OpenElement

regardless of what this says or any more recent declarations.. assisting UN missions is completely voluntary and there are no standing orders that place the CF as to continue to the end of all time in afghanistan.

VOLUNTARY - NON EMERGENCY! DEMOCRACY IS NOT DICTATORSHIP!

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/sc10049.doc.htm

VOLUNTARY - NON EMERGENCY! DEMOCRACY IS NOT DICTATORSHIP!

VOLUNTARY - NON EMERGENCY! DEMOCRACY IS NOT DICTATORSHIP!

VOLUNTARY - NON EMERGENCY! DEMOCRACY IS NOT DICTATORSHIP!

VOLUNTARY - NON EMERGENCY! DEMOCRACY IS NOT DICTATORSHIP!

VOLUNTARY - NON EMERGENCY! DEMOCRACY IS NOT DICTATORSHIP!

VOLUNTARY - NON EMERGENCY! DEMOCRACY IS NOT DICTATORSHIP!

VOLUNTARY - NON EMERGENCY! DEMOCRACY IS NOT DICTATORSHIP!

VOLUNTARY - NON EMERGENCY! DEMOCRACY IS NOT DICTATORSHIP!

VOLUNTARY - NON EMERGENCY! DEMOCRACY IS NOT DICTATORSHIP!

Giving democracy to Afghanistan doesn't need to mean giving away Canada's democracy to Afghanistan at the loss of Canada's democracy.

Edited November 12, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

1. If it isn't an emergency --- why not consult in parliament.

I think the question is: why consult parliament? The ministers of the Crown who direct such actions are already accountable to the House of Commons for their decisions.

[Oleg Bach]

Not to sound conspiratorial but was there not a man that once said "I don't care who writes the laws - give me control over the money supply and I will rule" - well there is not such thing as democratic power - just cold hard cash and the cold hard bastards that control it.

[William Ashley]

I think the question is: why consult parliament? The ministers of the Crown who direct such actions are already accountable to the House of Commons for their decisions.

Short of a prorogue. Another wonderful aspect of Stephen Harper Democracy.

Harper's natural response to a vote of non confidence is to dissolve parliament, twice so far, if I recall the past two years annually. Like Harper's twisted gift to himself.

Are you suggesting something more insidious?

accountable to the House of Commons

You mean wait until money is needed, then not provide it? When has this happened?

Hold on but didn't this happen in 1914 or so. Look what it did. it is a natural capacity to question this. but you ask parliament for their opinion so you can gauge the mood on continuance of the mission.

Canada has no obligation. NATO is consensus UN is voluntary. Why support a mission large segments of your population disagree and private security firms can do just as well, and cost less to Canada. it is a stupid mission. And there are no justified standing orders I can see to continue it. Where is the requirement, where is the benefit to NATO for instance in Canada continuing in the ISAF mission?

It is 10 years already 10 years and thousands upon thousands of civilian deaths.

DICTATORSHIP IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

DICTATORSHIP IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

DICTATORSHIP IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

DICTATORSHIP IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

DICTATORSHIP IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

DICTATORSHIP IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

But I agree parliament should hold them accountable and question the mission and propose a spending bill for the mission as a test / confidence vote.

You shouldn't comit to an operation without funding for the operation, that is irresponsible.

The government is already 10's of billions of dollars short on its last budget.

Canadians don't want higher taxes, Canadians don't want more public debt.

THE MONEY DOESN'T EXIST.

Canadians are almost 1 Trillion dollars in debt privately, and 3/4 of a trillion dollars in debt publically - expected to rise by about 50 billion / year until it reaches a trillion dollars with the current irresponsible spending.

They really CANT commit without getting funding approval. It simply is not the right thing to do. Canadians are paying for those soliders, they are paying for their medical care, they are paying for their benefits, --- the commons ought to have say in what they do to get it, and how they can be used to get it.

Edited November 12, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

No, it's true.

Neither states that the Governor General-in-Council requires the approval of parliament before deploying troops outside of Canada.

William's grasp of the constitution is flimsy at best. When last we cross paths, he insisted all pre-1982 constitutional documents had no validity, before I sent him packing over the fact that Mulroney had used the BNA Act to stack the Senate to break the Liberal choke hold during the GST vote.

At any rate, you're quite right. The Queen/GG-in-Council decides on sending out the troops, as has been the case for centuries. If Parliament finds the continued presence of troops in Afghanistan to be wrong, it has a number of ways to amend the situation, but Parliament has not directly commanded troops since the English Civil War.

[g_bambino]

Short of a prorogue. Another wonderful aspect of Stephen Harper Democracy.

Oh no.

I refer you to this thread, starting at this post.

[g_bambino]

Parliament has not directly commanded troops since the English Civil War.

Exactly; though, it does control the purse from which money to pay for the military comes from. That's also been the case for centuries and has been copied in constitutions around the world, including in that of the United States.

[William Ashley]

Short of a prorogue. Another wonderful aspect of Stephen Harper Democracy.

Harper's natural response to a vote of non confidence is to dissolve parliament, twice so far, if I recall the past two years annually. Like Harper's twisted gift to himself.

Are you suggesting something more insidious?

and you, what would you do..

You mean wait until money is needed, then not provide it? When has this happened?

Hold on but didn't this happen in 1914 or so. Look what it did. it is a natural capacity to question this. but you ask parliament for their opinion so you can gauge the mood on continuance of the mission.

Canada has no obligation. NATO is consensus UN is voluntary. Why support a mission large segments of your population disagree and private security firms can do just as well, and cost less to Canada. it is a stupid mission. And there are no justified standing orders I can see to continue it. Where is the requirement, where is the benefit to NATO for instance in Canada continuing in the ISAF mission?

It is 10 years already 10 years and thousands upon thousands of civilian deaths.

DICTATORSHIP IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

DICTATORSHIP IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

DICTATORSHIP IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

DICTATORSHIP IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

DICTATORSHIP IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

DICTATORSHIP IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

But I agree parliament should hold them accountable and question the mission and propose a spending bill for the mission as a test / confidence vote.

You shouldn't comit to an operation without funding for the operation, that is irresponsible.

The government is already 10's of billions of dollars short on its last budget.

Canadians don't want higher taxes, Canadians don't want more public debt.

THE MONEY DOESN'T EXIST.

Canadians are almost 1 Trillion dollars in debt privately, and 3/4 of a trillion dollars in debt publically - expected to rise by about 50 billion / year until it reaches a trillion dollars with the current irresponsible spending.

They really CANT commit without getting funding approval. It simply is not the right thing to do. Canadians are paying for those soliders, they are paying for their medical care, they are paying for their benefits, --- the commons ought to have say in what they do to get it, and how they can be used to get it.

[g_bambino]

Write to your MP.

[William Ashley]

Write to your MP.

which one?

[g_bambino]

which one?

You have more than one?

[Topaz]

This war is a mess and people are dying for what reason now? The West went in there to help the US get OBL. Guess what? HE'S NOT THERE!!!! So why are WE still there? Harper saying the troops are going to train. NATO has been training these people for many years and what do we have to show? NOTHING! Still not enough Afghanis to take the place of NATO and there never will be for many reasons. The men only join to get paid and then they disappear or lately they train and the the Afghanis turned and kill their trainers! Why 1000 Canadians soldiers to train. The Afghanistan government is still corrupt and the longer any country stays to fight the Taliban the more nothing changes. To get out of the WW2, the US had to drop a nuke on Japan and to get out of Nam, they had to run, so how is NATO going to get out of this battle?

[William Ashley]

You have more than one?

Maybe.

I'm a really mobile person I have a house but I also am a student (and teacher), I also travel a lot.

This is my reason for being interested in the federal level of government, because I identify more with the federal administration than with any single riding. I'm only very vaugely a resident because I spend perhaps 2 to 3 months in a given place for part of the year. About 1/3rd of it out of Canada and the other split between a few different ridings. Plus I don't feel my MP's are really very proactive, since they don't often reply to communcations --- they send them though they don't reply to comments sent in reply to their comments though. My old liberal MP though was actually very good, very dedicated - that being Telegdi. lost by 17 votes last election or something like that. None the I feel writing MP's does very little, and there is a "ASSISTANT" wall or politcal aid wall now that is very common when writing MP's. It wasn't that common 5 or 10 years ago - it happened that they wrote back on behalf sometimes but it is happening a lot more frequently -- as I do actively communicate with some issues to government or a specific MP if it pertains to them or a riding.

There is a tremendous amount of handing off and hot potatoing. No one is willing to accept or act. So don't think I don't, I often do to my own detriment.. now its like contact the courts.. and you need money and time for that, due to the corrutption of the system of justice and disenfranchisement of the common man.

Why is it that I need to personally challenge the government when they themselves are the ones who are sending me to the challenge. It is an absurd waste of time and resources. But the catch here is that it is them who have the power to reduce the damage in process, but they just renig on their duties and refuse to act.

That is what writting has got me ---- force us to.

I find that hallmark of corruption when the force isn't in recognizing and respecdting the law, and rather exercised by negligence of the fact, common sense and goodwill.

facis pro socio pro bono

Edited November 12, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

Maybe.

I'm a really mobile person I have a house but I also am a student (and teacher), I also travel a lot.

This is my reason for being interested in the federal level of government, because I identify more with the federal administration than with any single riding. I'm only very vaugely a resident because I spend perhaps 2 to 3 months in a given place for part of the year.

You may be mobile, but you only have one MP.

[William Ashley]

You may be mobile, but you only have one MP.

Which one? Is it where you are located at a given time, where your main residence is, where your current residence is? Your last residence? the riding your abassador or consul has -ottawa.. how does that work?

Is it the last place you were eligible to vote, what if you wern't on the rolls in the last election --- is this where you are on the roles?

Is it then where you file taxes or where you register...

but if you arn't on the rolls does this mean --- you don't have an MP?

Edited November 12, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Which one?

The one who serves the riding where you voted.

[ToadBrother]

Which one? Is it where you are located at a given time, where your main residence is, where your current residence is? Your last residence? the riding your abassador or consul has -ottawa.. how does that work?

Is it the last place you were eligible to vote, what if you wern't on the rolls in the last election --- is this where you are on the roles?

Is it then where you file taxes or where you register...

but if you arn't on the rolls does this mean --- you don't have an MP?

Your primary residence, so far as I'm aware. Phone Elections Canada and find out.

[William Ashley]

Your primary residence, so far as I'm aware. Phone Elections Canada and find out.

Where is this in the elections act?

Also - what act defines primary residence for determining your MP, havn't see this anywhere.

I've also read the elections act and it doesn't relate.

The elections act defines voting and electoral process.. not constituent MP relations

Edited November 12, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/11/greg-weston-troop-extension.html

Also this article adds some more info from the perspective of a retired general. Stating Canada has no choice but to stay as combat soldiers.

Edited November 12, 2010 by William Ashley