Martin a la Harris savages Harper!

[waldo]

Milliken was a house speaker (a position that might require nutrality in the house), but he was elected as a member of the Liberal party. You don't think a member of the Liberal party might be, ahem, a little biased when discussing the leader of the Conservative party? Yet you seem to have provided the quote as if it were engraved on a stone tablet, and Harris was a political Moses carrying it down from the mountain.

your comments on Peter Milliken show you haven't any sense of who he is and how he was viewed as Speaker of the House by all parties... for a decade recognized as the epitome of neutrality, of fair minded review and standing by all parties... for significant rulings made and, yes, those significant rulings play directly into his quoted comment about Harper. Given your absolute failure in this regard, your other comments carry no weight/significance.

imagine that... you had 2 barking seals step up and offer you "well said" platitude!

Edited October 21, 2014 by waldo

[segnosaur]

But as you point out Harper loves to ram everything including the kitchen sink into an omnibus bill, and then and then invoke closure so there is no real debate and then ram it through.

Yet the Chretien government was ALSO critized for invoking closure unnecessarily. They limited debate dozens of times during their time in power (despite the fact that Chretien had promised not to use that tactic before being elected.) Yet somehow our parlimentary democracy continued on.

http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=77&art=195

I guess those types of things are only bad if its the OTHER party that's doing it. Can you say "hypocrite"? I knew you could.

Then the SCC has to weed out the bits where he has contravened the constitution.

Laws that have been passed by parliment have been struck down by the supreme court before Harper was elected, and there will be laws struck down by the courts long after he's resigned.

[segnosaur]

Milliken was a house speaker (a position that might require nutrality in the house), but he was elected as a member of the Liberal party.

your comments on Peter Milliken show you haven't any sense of who he is and how he was viewed as Speaker of the House by all parties... for a decade recognized as the epitome of neutrality, of fair minded review and standing by all parties... for significant rulings made and, yes, those significant rulings play directly into his quoted comment about Harper. Given your absolute failure in this regard, your other comments carry no weight/significance.

imagine that... you had 2 barking seals step up and offer you "well said" platitude!

Wow, just totally wow....

You really believe that, despite the fact that he ran under the Liberal banner, was a card carrying member of the Liberal party, and has continued to serve the Liberal party after his retirement as an MP, that somehow his analysis is magically unbiased? What color is the sky in your world?

Just in case you still don't understand... neutrality in the position of the speaker does not mean that he will be neutral outside the house.

Otherwise, his debates when he was running for election would have been interesting... "Vote for me. Just because. I don't have a reason. I have no opionion."

[waldo]

Wow, just totally wow....

you cast aspersion towards Milliken while as Speaker simply by speaking to his party affiliation... effectively calling into question his neutrality. You carried that beyond his time in Parliament to suggest he holds a bias toward Harper... a bias not exhibited during his most principled decade long tenure as Speaker of the House. You simply don't care for his comment, and have chose to demean/belittle his contribution. Well done!

[waldo]

Yet the Chretien government was ALSO critized for invoking closure unnecessarily. They limited debate dozens of times during their time in power (despite the fact that Chretien had promised not to use that tactic before being elected.) Yet somehow our parlimentary democracy continued on.

http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=77&art=195

I guess those types of things are only bad if its the OTHER party that's doing it. Can you say "hypocrite"? I knew you could.

Laws that have been passed by parliment have been struck down by the supreme court before Harper was elected, and there will be laws struck down by the courts long after he's resigned.

you don't know the difference between closure and time allocation... they are not the same thing! Since you've chosen to speak directly to time allocation (and somehow managed to avoid any reference to Harper Conservatives usage of it), have a chew on this: Why is the Harper government using time allocation so often? ... this is just with respect to the 41st Parliament from 2011 on to this past summer's break, not including this Fall session:

Before the House adjourned for the summer, the Conservatives managed to pass their 75th motion of time allocation in the current Parliament. As noted previously, that far surpasses any previously known record of the measure being invoked to impose a limit on debate in the House of Commons.

perhaps someone will bother to check on Harper Conservatives use of closure and provide a tally in that regard. Of course, we can't forget Harper's affinity for perogies right... particularly those invoked simply beyond the normal dissolutions. MLW member 'OGFT' also mentions Harper's most deceptive utiliization of omnibus bills to effectively bury/cover policy/law from rightful and meaningful Parliamentary debate... and yet, what did young-pup Harper have to say about omnibus bills in a point of order he raised while in Opposition:

First, there is a lack of relevancy of these issues. The omnibus bills we have before us attempt to amend several different existing laws. Second, in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.

Edited October 21, 2014 by waldo

[WWWTT]

See no evil.

Tons of people abuse EI. A lot do it quite legally, since the government has turned it into a welfare/job subsidy program. Lots of people are on it every year, year after year after year.

Exactly what I'm talking about.

That's a good conservative approach.

Attack those that have less.

What about the real scammers hey?

What about CORPORATE TAX CUTS?

You want to ease the burden on taxes, go after the real dead weight! Your wasting your time with the small nickel and dimers collecting EI. We're not saving piddly squat by going after EI cheats!

WWWTT

[On Guard for Thee]

Yet the Chretien government was ALSO critized for invoking closure unnecessarily. They limited debate dozens of times during their time in power (despite the fact that Chretien had promised not to use that tactic before being elected.) Yet somehow our parlimentary democracy continued on.

http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=77&art=195

I guess those types of things are only bad if its the OTHER party that's doing it. Can you say "hypocrite"? I knew you could.

Laws that have been passed by parliment have been struck down by the supreme court before Harper was elected, and there will be laws struck down by the courts long after he's resigned.

While you are at it check who has the all time record for proroguing parliament and being found in contempt of parliament. And yep, I can certainly say hypocrite.

[Remiel]

I suppose it is possible that Harper is not the worst PM, but I think you would have to go back to before Mackenzie King to look for contenders.