bleeding heart Posted October 17, 2012 Report Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) Obviously any agreement was studied and is a positive for Canada. Yeah, "obviously." Your faith in Father is touching. At least now you're spared the irritant of democratic principles; we have finally elected a leader who is "obviously" going to do what's best...so the democratic duty is--finally!--finished for good. Edited October 17, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
WIP Posted October 17, 2012 Report Posted October 17, 2012 Not Democracy When our Prime Minister can sign a massive give-away of Canadian resources and rights and rush it through Parliament without discussion, debate or a vote, do we still live in a democracy, or do we now live in a dictatorship? I am referring to the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. It was signed by Prime Minister Harper in Russia on September 9, made public on September 26, and is set for automatic approval on October 31. No discussion. No debate. No vote. This is an unprecedented way to deal with the most significant trade agreement to be signed by Canada since NAFTA. Perhaps the speed and secrecy is to make sure Canadians don't have time to find out what it is really all about. … WHO THE HELL IS HARPER WORKING FOR?????? I'm guessing that he's working for the same people that Obama is working for....and the Euro leaders are working for...and just about every minor regime around the world playing the free trade game. The multinational conglomerates that keep swallowing up smaller companies and growing larger by the day, seem to have a loose agreement among club members....that's what GATT, the World Bank and the IMF are all about. The only international cooperation that exists to any degree in the world is corporate cooperation. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
jacee Posted October 17, 2012 Author Report Posted October 17, 2012 I certainly do. But, even with the changes that've taken place over the past 40 years in the relationship between the Cabinet and parliament, there's still a huge gap between what this country is and a dictatorship. Those who think the country is a dictatorship are in desperate need of some perspective. [ed.: c/e] Really? So who can overrule Harper? Quote
Bonam Posted October 17, 2012 Report Posted October 17, 2012 Harper could be busted for raping a 4 year old on Capital Hill and still count on being re-elected. Yes. We must all make such sacrifices so that Master Harper can relieve his worldly stresses and tensions and govern us with his unwavering wisdom and benevolence. Quote
Bonam Posted October 17, 2012 Report Posted October 17, 2012 Really? So who can overrule Harper? Parliament can vote down legislation, the supreme court can declare something unconstitutional, the voters have a chance to remove Harper every 4 years, and the Monarch can intercede in the event of a constitutional crisis. Quote
jacee Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Posted October 18, 2012 Parliament can vote down legislation, In theory ... In reality, Harper would fire any Con MP who voted against his wishes. the supreme court can declare something unconstitutional, the voters have a chance to remove Harper every 4 years, and the Monarch can intercede in the event of a constitutional crisis. In theory ... Quote
GostHacked Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 I think I was in grade 3 when I learned majority meant 50% + 1....that's right... a majority wasn't 39% back then and still isn't One simply cannot argue with this. 39<50+1 has been true before I was born and shall be long after I am gone. I'd prefer to redefine 'majority' though. Make it so that at least 60% of the vote needs to go to the one party in order to hold the majority title. Quote
Bonam Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 In theory ... In reality, Harper would fire any Con MP who voted against his wishes. Shrug, if he was doing something truly evil and tyrannical, I'm sure there'd be a few MPs willing to lose their jobs in order to stop him or be seen trying to stop him. In theory ... In practice, too. Quote
Bonam Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 One simply cannot argue with this. 39<50+1 has been true before I was born and shall be long after I am gone. 166 > (308/2) One can't argue with that either. Quote
g_bambino Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 In reality, Harper would fire any Con MP who voted against his wishes. Not without the support of as many other Conservative MPs as would be required for the majority of the Commons to vote in favour of that MP's expulsion. Quote
g_bambino Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 Really? So who can overrule Harper? Depending on the situation, any of the following, either alone or in combination: - The House of Commons - The Senate - The Supreme Court - Provincial governments - The governor general - The Queen - The electorate Quote
cybercoma Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Really? So who can overrule Harper? When the governor general drops the writs, you can. Before then, Parliament can. Outside of Parliament, the courts can. In the most extreme circumstances, the governor general can. Edited October 18, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
cybercoma Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 Parliament can vote down legislation, the supreme court can declare something unconstitutional, the voters have a chance to remove Harper every 4 years, and the Monarch can intercede in the event of a constitutional crisis. I guess I was being redundant. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 In theory ... In reality, Harper would fire any Con MP who voted against his wishes. Harper can't fire a democratically elected official. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 One simply cannot argue with this. 39<50+1 has been true before I was born and shall be long after I am gone. I'd prefer to redefine 'majority' though. Make it so that at least 60% of the vote needs to go to the one party in order to hold the majority title. Generations of gridlock would ensue. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Generations of gridlock would ensue. If we had two parties a clear majority would be possible but since we have 3 in Canada we're doomed to minority majorities. if harper can kill of the Liberals for good maybe we have a chance at it. I'd like PM Harper to find a way to make the NDP illegal or something so they won't exist anymore. That would be ideal. I don't understand why Harper cannot just name himself Pm for life and cancel all elections forever like Castro did. Edited October 18, 2012 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
jacee Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Posted October 18, 2012 Not without the support of as many other Conservative MPs as would be required for the majority of the Commons to vote in favour of that MP's expulsion. Are you sure? I don't recall any vote when Harper fired Helena Guergis. Harper gets rid of whoever he wants. Quote
eyeball Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 I certainly do. But, even with the changes that've taken place over the past 40 years in the relationship between the Cabinet and parliament, there's still a huge gap between what this country is and a dictatorship. Those who think the country is a dictatorship are in desperate need of some perspective. [ed.: c/e] No, you need to raise your standards. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bleeding heart Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 I'd like PM Harper to find a way to make the NDP illegal or something so they won't exist anymore. That would be ideal. I don't understand why Harper cannot just name himself Pm for life and cancel all elections forever like Castro did. Why are you reverting to the old style you had (I thought) abandoned? Well, if you wish to argue for fascist tyranny, that's your right. But I suspect that smallc's retort is probably the correct one. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
cybercoma Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Are you sure? I don't recall any vote when Harper fired Helena Guergis. Harper gets rid of whoever he wants. Harper didn't fire her as an MP. He can't. In fact, she ran in the following election again. Edited October 18, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
g_bambino Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 If we had two parties a clear majority would be possible but since we have 3 in Canada we're doomed to minority majorities. There are more than three political parties in Canada. I thought you don't want any. Or, at least, only one. I don't understand why Harper cannot just name himself Pm for life and cancel all elections forever like Castro did. Ah, see, there you're back on track. A colossally stupid comment, but, still, a return to consistency. Quote
g_bambino Posted October 18, 2012 Report Posted October 18, 2012 Harper didn't fire her as an MP. He can't. Exactly. Once a person is elected to the House of Commons, there are no constitutional provisions and few statutory provisions for removal of that Member from office. The statutory provisions rendering a Member ineligible to sit or vote do not automatically cause the seat of that Member to become vacant... By virtue of parliamentary privilege, the House has the inherent right to decide matters affecting its own membership: the House decides for itself if a Member should be permitted to sit on committees, receive a salary or even be allowed to keep his or her seat. House of Commons Procedure and Practice Quote
jacee Posted October 19, 2012 Author Report Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) Harper didn't fire her as an MP. He can't. In fact, she ran in the following election again. As an Independent. Guergis was forced to resign from the Cabinet of Canada and leave the Conservative Party caucus on April 9, 2010, pending a Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigation into "serious" but unspecified allegations regarding her conduct. [2] While the RCMP investigated, and eventually concluded there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, Guergis continued to sit as an Independent Conservative in the House of Commons. She applied unsuccessfully for reinstatement to the Tory caucus. [3] Guergis was defeated while running as an independent in the 2011 election by Kellie Leitch, her replacement as the riding's Conservative candidate. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Guergis#section_6 Harper can fire whoever he wants, and can keep people in line by threatening not to sign their nomination papers next election. There might be some resistance from constituents, but 'the party' generally gets its way. Note: I'm not defending Guergis, just pointi g out the near absolute power Harper has over MP's. Edited October 19, 2012 by jacee Quote
jacee Posted October 19, 2012 Author Report Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) Exactly. [/size][/size][/right] But he did. "A prime minister's removal or suspension of a Member of Parliament from caucus is at the core of parliamentary privilege," the decision says. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/08/24/pol-helena-guergis-lawsuit-thrown-out.html Edited October 19, 2012 by jacee Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.