Stephen Harper to Prorouge YET AGAIN

[Keepitsimple]

I think all of us, as Brian Mulroney says, have seen this movie before. The fretters and hand-wringers are again out in full force.....and then the lights go on, and they scurry under the baseboards:

Mr. Mulroney said he expects concerns over sovereignty to accelerate if a deal is consummated, but added he is not worried that Canada would be any less independent.

I've seen this movie before, he said.

You are talking to a guy who was told in the House of Commons ... that all I wanted was to make Canada the 51st state. I was surrendering sovereignty, that we were going to lose our language, we were going to lose our regional development, we were going to lose our medicare, we were going to lose everything.

More than 20 years after the Canada-U.S. deal and 17 years after Mexico was brought into the arrangement with NAFTA, Mr. Mulroney says the worth of the agreements can no longer be seriously questioned.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/perimeter-deal-with-us-good-for-canada-no-threat-to-sovereignty-mulroney-says/article1846656/?cmpid=rss1

Edited December 22, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[William Ashley]

You should have a browse of the one he's started elsewhere about Newfoundland still being property of Britain.

Royal property... but it is problematic depending on the surrender of crown lands to britain. More recently

re: royal proclamation, and the original claimation and eventual extinguishment of native right (I'm not sure if micmacs would have any sort of claim but beothuk are apparently extinct)

The Crown was restrained by the Crown Lands Act of 1702 from alienating any part of its landed property.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=114321&ActiveTextDocId=114321&filesize=19944

Edited December 22, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Royal property... but it is problematic depending on the surrender of crown lands to britain. More recently

re: royal proclamation, and the original claimation and eventual extinguishment of native right (I'm not sure if micmacs would have any sort of claim but beothuk are apparently extinct)

The Crown was restrained by the Crown Lands Act of 1702 from alienating any part of its landed property.

Royal property of the Canadian monarch, not the British monarch. You've got a real problem with the idea of jurisdiction.

[Saipan]

Stephen Harper to Prorouge YET AGAIN

When?

He's still behind Chretien on prorouging.

[guyser]

He's still behind Chretien on prorouging.

Please show how this is true. A link, a cite, anything published will do.

[GostHacked]

Royal property of the Canadian monarch, not the British monarch. You've got a real problem with the idea of jurisdiction.

Unfortunately it seems that the Canadian Monarch and the British Monarch (in terms of who really has ultimate power over the government) are the same. That person would be the Governor-General representing Queen Elizabeth II. When the queen says JUMP, .....

It was done last year to avoid a no-confidence vote which would have triggered another election.

[g_bambino]

He's still behind Chretien on prorouging.

All prime ministers have advised prorogation. It's a regular part of the parliamentary cycle.

[g_bambino]

Unfortunately it seems that the Canadian Monarch and the British Monarch (in terms of who really has ultimate power over the government) are the same.

The person is the same, the thrones/crowns/offices are not. Canada and Britain are two quite separate constitutional monarchies linked only through the sharing of the person of the sovereign. the British monarch (the Queen in her UK council) has no more influence over Canada than the Canadian monarch (the Queen in her Canadian council) has over the UK. William is having a hard making the distinction.

[William Ashley]

Royal property of the Canadian monarch, not the British monarch. You've got a real problem with the idea of jurisdiction.

Its complex and has to do with the sequence of laws, Newfoundland doesn't follow the same timeline. It didn't even grow to the same level of recognition as Canada and didn't change status much after 1907 when it became a british dominion.

I got sidetracked but I was going to post up

Bear in mind the King/queen in right of Canada came about from 1934 or so with the the period of the sundering of the crown and eventual abdication of edward

However there was no seperate

1825 province of the Crown

1907 Dominion of the British Empire

1948 Province of Canada

. However, the jurisdiction never formally ratified the 1931 Statute of Westminster, thus never becoming a Commonwealth realm, as the other Dominions did at that time

The status of commonwealth realm denoted a seperate status over and above dominion.

BUT.. the title in Canada is only some right vested in the monarch of Canada, based on letters patents., charters, treaties and the like (but the same upper laws are actually british laws and relate specifically to specific individuals.. all of which may not be in queen elizibeth II's line)... Canada is a massive amalgam. And the rights confered on absolute title - those assigned rights of title... a deed usually only confered some aspects of title not all, much like the difference in colony, province, dominion or a commonwealth or seperate state.

You have to look on the confirment of patents for "specific" rights confered. The bounds of the law might be held still vested in the monarch (queen in right of canada) - but the joining of newfoundland specific reserves in newfoundland any capacities that can be exercised in newfoundland therefor the queen in right of canada does not have property rights in newfoundland (except by nature of being decendant to the claimation on the origin of vestment of the titled property.. newfoundland never became a commonwealth it was part of the british Empire(A dominion there of), ultimate appear rested with the british not with the newfoundlanders. They only had a model of responsible government, not full right, it was still resting in the royal administration - the Lt. governor exercising on behalf of the monarch in britain.

It is "complex law" the the treaty of union actually protected newfoundlands land rights - those land rights were stemming from the british isles, and still are technically - but the lt. governor exercises those..

the basis of appointment of the lt. governor I beleive do now come from the queen of canada but the laws pass through british law as existed - in absence of those laws being changed in canada - and this may involve constitutional issues in britain.

BTW it is a little "limboish" as I'm not sure british parliament - the royal trust - adminsitered by the british government - would recognize their own claim to right of claim --- through the estates act and other acts transfering after the abdication -- it however contradicts those earlier charters laws and letter patents, so it may be exempt from transfer... but this is problematic in application.

If in doubt, I geuss I claim it. However.. while G bambino's statements aren't true, they likely satisfy the layman's application of the situation on a basis of impression of status quo of the commons. I find discussing these issues on purely political grounds to be problematic as it amounts to essentially just lying about the previously agreed situation and I'm not a con.

A dominion simply ment that the british had dominion over an area - and there was an organized government there to.

Government equates rule - but at the time the imperial privy council / british privy council . and british parliament - and in that same aspect the king/queen/emperor(es) had the "upper rule authority" including final say on all matters of property.. although a supreme court was created for the island eventually - but this court still was subserviant to appeals in Britain. In this respect actual sovreignty rested in britain and the "british empire" not in a dominion of the british empire - it was a unit of the empire.

The act of union between canada and newfoundland specifically retain all land and property rights to be exercised as before union through the lt. governor of newfoundland. There were some specific exclusions.. but these were essentially for "specific works" not title. Title was with the british empire. while administration of that was through the courts. But the court still had british law to follow in administration of those land rights. And they were specifically claimed to be exercised by the "heirs". However a number acts of british parliament makes this a little more complex. (because they contradict)

Edited December 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[scribblet]

All prime ministers have advised prorogation. It's a regular part of the parliamentary cycle.

Yeah, but it's only bad when PM Harper does it LOL

[William Ashley]

Yeah, but it's only bad when PM Harper does it LOL

Is anyone else able to view this video-- the page won't load in explore and the video except for the cocacola commercial won't play in firefox.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101209/us-canada-perimeter-security-negotiations-101209/

it appears to just be a ;regular" CTV news story

I've found a lot of links on recent events to be dead. Are they being censored, or removed by the media organizations or hacked?

ok it just played... weird.

---------

I still can't get over the Michael Ignatieff thing.

Edited December 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

Is anyone else able to view this video--

Yes, it's CTV "Canada-U.S. in 'perimeter security' talks"

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101209/us-canada-perimeter-security-negotiations-101209/

[Saipan]

I don't use firefox as a rule.

(except all volumes of Firefox books - different animal)

[g_bambino]

Yeah, but it's only bad when PM Harper does it LOL

Well, what needs looked at is the reason behind the prorogation. Typically, it's called when the parliament has completed its legislative agenda. Occasionally, however, the prime minister advises prorogation for other purposes. Only for one prime minister has prorogation brought people out into the streets in protest. Analyse that however you will...

[William Ashley]

Well, what needs looked at is the reason behind the prorogation. Typically, it's called when the parliament has completed its legislative agenda. Occasionally, however, the prime minister advises prorogation for other purposes. Only for one prime minister has prorogation brought people out into the streets in protest. Analyse that however you will...

He used it politically against the majority of the house, and the majority of the population of Canada.

What is there to wonder about?

[g_bambino]

He used it politically against the majority of the house...

That majority didn't seem to care one bit when parliament was summoned again.

[William Ashley]

That majority didn't seem to care one bit when parliament was summoned again.

Liar.

http://wn.com/2010_Canada_anti-prorogation_protests

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/jack-layton-moves-to-put-pms-feet-to-prorogation-fire/article1489398/

Edited December 24, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Liar.

Oh, yea. All that talk and bluster. But where was the vote of non-confidence when it mattered?

[jbg]

Oh, yea. All that talk and bluster. But where was the vote of non-confidence when it mattered?

When HM's Loyal Opposition couldn't risk going to the polls I guess?

[g_bambino]

When HM's Loyal Opposition couldn't risk going to the polls I guess?

Something like that, yes. Which goes to show just how "outraged" the opposition was by the prorogation.

[Argus]

I can't beleive you guys are joking about such a tremendously serious issues as investigations, and policing of Canadians is intended to be legalized for a foreign country to do on Canada.

I'm more worried about the Toronto police, frankly, than the FBI.

[William Ashley]

I'm more worried about the Toronto police, frankly, than the FBI.

Shouldn't you be more worried about the FBI giving their assistance to the Toronto police, than just the Toronto Police?

Or are you in no way concerned about foreigners having all your personal info, an ability to track your movement, all your financial information, all your government information, all your credit card information, purchases, and more so... all available.. with no need for court oversight.. able to enter your home and search for things.. Just being able to track you and facially identify you is the start with biometrics.. when it is your own government it is a little concerning, but when it is another country... that is even more concerning. Especially when that country has incidences that are identical to what was just described.

or if corrupt use this information in anyway it would like? To frame, harass or blackmail you?

Edited December 24, 2010 by William Ashley

[Shady]

Or are you in no way concerned about foreigners

Yep. It's always those damn foreigners.

[William Ashley]

Yep. It's always those damn foreigners.

We should be careful with who we give our private information to. It opens up a lot of potential wrongs.

Americans not only have a lot of ethnic immigrants too, but are foreigners in Canada. (Who knows where they come from)

Canada practically has to turn itself into a police state just to deal with our own immigrants, then Canada is suppose to let foreigners spy on us legally? Seems a little backward to me.

It is important to note, police forces - or community level enforcement may have a lot less "controls" on it than say the US military, and even that has had "problems" like that Texan guy who went on a rampage, or the recent situation of "leaks". I find it difficult to think it isn't opening up a Smörgåsbord of problems.

Canadians arn't just dealing with "the US DOD on this arrangement but --- the whole gamut of the US.

This is the same country that was the cause of 1 in 10 Canadian combat deaths from friendly fire in Afghanistan, from "errors"

And every now and then accidentally bombs civillians and crosses borders they arn't suppose to- and accidentally bombs other allied forces... we don't need that happening in Canada - in peacetime.

These are the same people breaking Canadians Military airspace policy in Canadian cities already. Have they no respect?

This is a deal with the devil. Until they can be respectful, Canadians need to realize that this deal is premature... very premature.. it needs massive amounts of time so that it serves the public interest.

Can you believe that Stephen Harper would even consider putting this one through before parliament even resumes to discus it? It is a massive insult, massive security liability, massive insult to democracy and freedom in Canada!

Check this figure out "38.5 million foreign born in the United States in 2009" That is more than the population of Canada!!!

Edited December 25, 2010 by William Ashley

[jbg]

Shouldn't you be more worried about the FBI giving their assistance to the Toronto police, than just the Toronto Police?

I'd be worried if the police had a reason to be interested in me. I think I'd be rather boring to the police. You should be as well.