The Proroguing Demonstration a Bust
- Thread starter jjaycee98
- Start date
Okay, if the stance of the Liberals and NDP is that, without Parliament sitting, no work is getting done, then do we understand that the position of the Liberals and NDP is that they will not accept pay when the house is NOT sitting?
Well, Bob Rae (for one) surely wouldn't be in favour of that, would he? After all, he has some experience in this...but of course, we wouldn't want to confuse the issue with facts, would we?
I think a side benefit of this is that our MPs aren't "sitting" around fighting in the House, and instead, are out "in the trenches" making contact with their constituents. At least, our MP is doing just that. What's the problem?
Some say "undemocratic" - I have a different opinion. I think it's more democratic to get out of the office and visit the "real world" more often. I think it's hard to make the case that the House of Commons is the "real world", although right now it's a bit closer to it than when it's full of politicians working themselves into a lather and putting on a show for the CPAC cameras. Question Period? What a joke. More like "Performance Period"...I watch it once in a while, and it just doesn't get any better.
Hell, I'm happier than ever that we've been given a break from the silliness. Good move, Mr. Harper...keep up the good work! Go Steve Go!
And thank you for letting my MP come home to where the needs of the people can be uncovered, listened to, and addressed. It's a very democratic thing you did!
.....and 33,000,000+ Canadians didn't....so 1/11,000th of the population is upset
enough about this 105th Proroguing of Parliament since confederation....and for
perspective, that would be 0.00009% of Canada's population at these protests.
I think a larger percentage of Canadian Voters show up in the stands for the
average High School Football game in Regina Saskatchewan. 3,000 people is
still a significant number though I guess if this was a neighbourhood protest about
zoning changes or something along those lines. Federally.....not so much.
If Mr. Harper did it for those reasons you mentioned I'd support him all the way CB. But please don't try to paint our PM as a democratically moral leader. He's doing it for no other reason than to avoid the heat on the Afghan prisoner debacle and to buy time so he can stack the senate with PC supporters, an about face by the way given that he campaigned on an elected senate. Democracy is the last thing on his mind.
Oh, I don't doubt some of that for a moment. I also don't doubt that any of the other leaders would do the same thing if they were in his shoes. The thing is, I don't care about the Afghan prisoner "debacle"...I think that was a bunch of political noise from the opposition parties, and it is in fact, history. If a few prisoners got roughed up, well, too bad but I simply can't get excited about it.
Therefore, the proroguing of Parliament to avoid the stupidness and blathering surrounding what I consider to be a huge non-issue was a good political decision, in my opinion.
My only regret on the Senate is that he took so long to do it, that is, "stack" it with new ones. What the hell took him so long? Sure, he campaigned on an elected Senate, but he has a minority government. The Liberals (and others) would take him down on that one, no matter if they thought it was a good idea or not.
Jeez, it's all about maintaining power and control, isn't it? That's not so shameful, in my opinion...it's bloody good management. If someone who runs for office isn't interested in getting things done and making a difference, then I wouldn't want him/her in the damn job!
The alternative would be to sit around and let the opposition tear things to pieces because...get ready for it...they're interested in getting the power themselves. That is politics, and anyone who doesn't see that should back up and take a reality check on things that have gone on in the past.
"Oh, but it's never been done this way before!" is what I hear. Good! Really, really good! Why? Because it proves that one least one politician (Mr. Harper) isn't afraid to exercise some judgement - and all perfectly kosher and legal - to keep things from flying all to hell in a handbasket in the midst of a very nasty recession. More good management right there!
You may have guessed that I'm a bit tired of all the "undemocratic" stuff I've been hearing. I don't agree with it. I think it's wrong, incorrect, and downright offensive. And I am voting Conservative in the next election, in case that wasn't perfectly clear!
Really, countryboy? Couldn’t have guessed! 
The fact of the matter is that The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister, recommended prorogation for clearly and unequivocally partisan reasons—whereas, under former governing parties, prorogations were used for routine administration of the legislative program in the Honourable the Senate and the House of Commons. Under this governing party, prorogation is being used (twice now) to escape, and that is unacceptable.
On two seperate occasions now, to ensure that Her Majesty’s Government for Canada cannot be held accountable to our elected representatives during controversial debates and questions of competence, the prime minister has run to Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada, to rescue his Government and party. On the first of those occasions, his request was of such questionable constitutionality that it took nearly two hours for the Governor General to agree—at least on this occasion there wasn’t a question of confidence before the House, but the circumstances nonetheless weren’t much better.
The prime minister did not request prorogation to give members of the Commons a chance to return to their constituencies; he didn’t request prorogation to enhance democracy, or to consult Canadians on the economy, or to help out ‘real Canadian families’ (that phrase makes me sick every time this Government uses it). The prime minister used prorogation to (a) strip House of Commons committees of their power to meet so as to avoid criticism of the Government (and we all know what the prime minister thinks of criticism), and (b) to stall deliberations in the Senate so that the Conservative Party of Canada can gain a majority in the Upper House.
On the first issue: This Government may like to believe that it has no responsibilities as far as our involvement in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan goes, but they would be sorely incorrect. Each successive Government is responsible for the acts of the previous, as Her Majesty’s Government and the Crown are timeless institutions that have no regard for changes in party and leadership. It is up to this prime minister and this Government to investigate these claims of Afghan torture, and the suggestions that our own Canadian Forces may have created opportunities for forture through negligence, and to speak to these issues as and on behalf of the Government of Canada.
On the second issue, every member here likely knows by this point that I am absolutely in favour of an appointed Senate, so I take no issue with the prime minister appointing more honourable senators to this absolutely vital institution. My issue is with the prime minister making new appointments to the Senate swear an oath to support whatever initiatives the Government introduces—it is yet another case of the prime minister attempting to undermine the independence of yet another Canadian institution, and to change the rules of the game for his own political advantage—the constitutional consequences be damned.
So, once more: Did the prime minister have the right to request the prorogation of the Parliament of Canada when he did? Absolutely. Should the Governor General have accepted the prime minister’s advice as our representative of the Crown? Absolutely. Were the prime minister’s reasons for requesting prorogation wrong, and should he be held accountable at the nearest opportunity? Absolutely.
The fact of the matter is that The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister, recommended prorogation for clearly and unequivocally partisan reasons—whereas, under former governing parties, prorogations were used for routine administration of the legislative program in the Honourable the Senate and the House of Commons. Under this governing party, prorogation is being used (twice now) to escape, and that is unacceptable.
On two seperate occasions now, to ensure that Her Majesty’s Government for Canada cannot be held accountable to our elected representatives during controversial debates and questions of competence, the prime minister has run to Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada, to rescue his Government and party. On the first of those occasions, his request was of such questionable constitutionality that it took nearly two hours for the Governor General to agree—at least on this occasion there wasn’t a question of confidence before the House, but the circumstances nonetheless weren’t much better.
The prime minister did not request prorogation to give members of the Commons a chance to return to their constituencies; he didn’t request prorogation to enhance democracy, or to consult Canadians on the economy, or to help out ‘real Canadian families’ (that phrase makes me sick every time this Government uses it). The prime minister used prorogation to (a) strip House of Commons committees of their power to meet so as to avoid criticism of the Government (and we all know what the prime minister thinks of criticism), and (b) to stall deliberations in the Senate so that the Conservative Party of Canada can gain a majority in the Upper House.
On the first issue: This Government may like to believe that it has no responsibilities as far as our involvement in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan goes, but they would be sorely incorrect. Each successive Government is responsible for the acts of the previous, as Her Majesty’s Government and the Crown are timeless institutions that have no regard for changes in party and leadership. It is up to this prime minister and this Government to investigate these claims of Afghan torture, and the suggestions that our own Canadian Forces may have created opportunities for forture through negligence, and to speak to these issues as and on behalf of the Government of Canada.
On the second issue, every member here likely knows by this point that I am absolutely in favour of an appointed Senate, so I take no issue with the prime minister appointing more honourable senators to this absolutely vital institution. My issue is with the prime minister making new appointments to the Senate swear an oath to support whatever initiatives the Government introduces—it is yet another case of the prime minister attempting to undermine the independence of yet another Canadian institution, and to change the rules of the game for his own political advantage—the constitutional consequences be damned.
So, once more: Did the prime minister have the right to request the prorogation of the Parliament of Canada when he did? Absolutely. Should the Governor General have accepted the prime minister’s advice as our representative of the Crown? Absolutely. Were the prime minister’s reasons for requesting prorogation wrong, and should he be held accountable at the nearest opportunity? Absolutely.
Hi Ron, reality is that Harper shut down parliament in order to defuse the Afghan detainee blander, thus deseiving the public and making it look like the opposition has no right after such harsh allegations of detainee torture to debate in the house of commons. This has to do with democratic principals that set the stage to a fair society. Proroguing in the middle of such an important unfinished busines Harper, has urinated on democracy and is having dinner with hypocracy. Bad politics.:-(
Really, countryboy? Couldn’t have guessed!
The fact of the matter is that The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister, recommended prorogation for clearly and unequivocally partisan reasons—whereas, under former governing parties, prorogations were used for routine administration of the legislative program in the Honourable the Senate and the House of Commons. Under this governing party, prorogation is being used (twice now) to escape, and that is unacceptable.
On two seperate occasions now, to ensure that Her Majesty’s Government for Canada cannot be held accountable to our elected representatives during controversial debates and questions of competence, the prime minister has run to Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada, to rescue his Government and party. On the first of those occasions, his request was of such questionable constitutionality that it took nearly two hours for the Governor General to agree—at least on this occasion there wasn’t a question of confidence before the House, but the circumstances nonetheless weren’t much better.
The prime minister did not request prorogation to give members of the Commons a chance to return to their constituencies; he didn’t request prorogation to enhance democracy, or to consult Canadians on the economy, or to help out ‘real Canadian families’ (that phrase makes me sick every time this Government uses it). The prime minister used prorogation to (a) strip House of Commons committees of their power to meet so as to avoid criticism of the Government (and we all know what the prime minister thinks of criticism), and (b) to stall deliberations in the Senate so that the Conservative Party of Canada can gain a majority in the Upper House.
On the first issue: This Government may like to believe that it has no responsibilities as far as our involvement in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan goes, but they would be sorely incorrect. Each successive Government is responsible for the acts of the previous, as Her Majesty’s Government and the Crown are timeless institutions that have no regard for changes in party and leadership. It is up to this prime minister and this Government to investigate these claims of Afghan torture, and the suggestions that our own Canadian Forces may have created opportunities for forture through negligence, and to speak to these issues as and on behalf of the Government of Canada.
On the second issue, every member here likely knows by this point that I am absolutely in favour of an appointed Senate, so I take no issue with the prime minister appointing more honourable senators to this absolutely vital institution. My issue is with the prime minister making new appointments to the Senate swear an oath to support whatever initiatives the Government introduces—it is yet another case of the prime minister attempting to undermine the independence of yet another Canadian institution, and to change the rules of the game for his own political advantage—the constitutional consequences be damned.
So, once more: Did the prime minister have the right to request the prorogation of the Parliament of Canada when he did? Absolutely. Should the Governor General have accepted the prime minister’s advice as our representative of the Crown? Absolutely. Were the prime minister’s reasons for requesting prorogation wrong, and should he be held accountable at the nearest opportunity? Absolutely.
Well FP, we have a different take on WHY he did it, don't we? I'm not sure how you know all his intentions so clearly, but I commend you for finding all those facts.
I can only base my opinions on what I see, as I don't have access to the same facts. And I like what I see. I don't mind sharing my bias with you, just as you don't mind sharing yours with me.
I understand that you don't agree with me on this, but - in spite of all the accusations of Prime Minister Harper damaging our democracy and making our freedoms disappear - we can certainly have and voice different points of view.
FYI, I haven't always voted Conservative, but I am now compelled to do so in the next election as I like firm, decisive, and yes, even creative actions to get things done. It's a nice breath of fresh air. For some of us.
Perhaps you’re hoping that nobody clicks that link you provided (or reads its title), but just for the record, (a) your link gives no evidence (or even a mention) of funding for these protests by either the Liberal Party of Canada or the New Democratic Party of Canada; and (b) even the title of your link shows that this is a blog archive you’ve referred us to. Surely there are more credible sources that the conservative side of this debate can cite?
Sorry, Five, but this is Baloney.
Just for instance, Chretien prorogued Parliament to avoid debate on the release of the A-G report on the Sponsorship scandal.
Re: Chrétien’s Prorogation of Parliament
Colpy, the prime minister at the time would have had little choice but to prorogue Parliament since powered was being transferred to a new prime minister. The Government would have had a new agenda to introduce, and therefore would have required a new throne speech; prorogation while the Canadian ministry undergoes an overhaul due to a change in leadership is entirely appropriate. Also, the Auditor General’s report was not quashed, it was simply delayed until the House of Commons could pass an address in reply to the throne speech (which is always the first priority of Canadian legislatures when they meet after a dissolution or prorogation).
Besides, under the leadership of The Right Honourable Paul Martin P.C., the 21st Prime Minister, the Government did everything it could to get to the bottom of the problems that had plagued sponsorships by Public Works and Government Services Canada, with the then-prime minister even taking the extraordinary step of addressing Canadians to promise an election within thirty days of the release of the report of The Honourable Mr. Justice John Gomery, the Commissioner of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities.
In contrast, in an act of stunningly little integrity, “Canada’s New Government” led by the Conservative Party of Canada then passed the Federal Accountability Act, but then refused to enact all of its provisions, deciding that apparently the Conservatives should not be held accountable to the same degree as other governing parties. The demonstration of non-integrity continued over several years and continues through this day—whether it’s backtracking on appointments to the Honourable the Senate, declaring war on the Supreme Court of Canada, passing and then betraying its own scheduled elections law, writing and publishing a playbook on how to disrupt Parliament and distributing it to Conservative Party members, quashing a motion of non-confidence by convincing the Governor General to prorogue the legislature (which was apparently not an easy task, taking two hours to accomplish), and now proroguing Parliament a second time in thirteen months to stack the Senate and silence the Commons.
Bravo, Mr. Harper—a paragon of integrity!
Colpy, the prime minister at the time would have had little choice but to prorogue Parliament since powered was being transferred to a new prime minister. The Government would have had a new agenda to introduce, and therefore would have required a new throne speech; prorogation while the Canadian ministry undergoes an overhaul due to a change in leadership is entirely appropriate. Also, the Auditor General’s report was not quashed, it was simply delayed until the House of Commons could pass an address in reply to the throne speech (which is always the first priority of Canadian legislatures when they meet after a dissolution or prorogation).
Besides, under the leadership of The Right Honourable Paul Martin P.C., the 21st Prime Minister, the Government did everything it could to get to the bottom of the problems that had plagued sponsorships by Public Works and Government Services Canada, with the then-prime minister even taking the extraordinary step of addressing Canadians to promise an election within thirty days of the release of the report of The Honourable Mr. Justice John Gomery, the Commissioner of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities.
In contrast, in an act of stunningly little integrity, “Canada’s New Government” led by the Conservative Party of Canada then passed the Federal Accountability Act, but then refused to enact all of its provisions, deciding that apparently the Conservatives should not be held accountable to the same degree as other governing parties. The demonstration of non-integrity continued over several years and continues through this day—whether it’s backtracking on appointments to the Honourable the Senate, declaring war on the Supreme Court of Canada, passing and then betraying its own scheduled elections law, writing and publishing a playbook on how to disrupt Parliament and distributing it to Conservative Party members, quashing a motion of non-confidence by convincing the Governor General to prorogue the legislature (which was apparently not an easy task, taking two hours to accomplish), and now proroguing Parliament a second time in thirteen months to stack the Senate and silence the Commons.
Bravo, Mr. Harper—a paragon of integrity!
The poll, conducted exclusively for Canwest News Service and Global National, said the Conservatives would garner 34% of the vote if an election was held today, compared to 31% for the Liberals.
Tory lead over Liberals all but evaporated, poll suggests:smile:
Tory lead over Liberals all but evaporated, poll suggests:smile:
The poll do not lie either,
The poll, conducted exclusively for Canwest News Service and Global National, said the Conservatives would garner 34% of the vote if an election was held today, compared to 31% for the Liberals.
The NDP would capture 17%, the Bloc Quebecois nine% and the Green Party eight%, the poll suggests.
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2479681#ixzz0di6XBmKS
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
Among the thousands of grass-roots rallies held from Halifax to Yellowknife was one in Kingston, where more than 300 people packed into a corner of Market Square on Saturday afternoon to add their voices to the protest of the prime minister's government tactics.
Carrying signs with messages ranging from Save Our Prison Farms to Stand Up To Harper -- the latter in NDP campaign orange, in case there was any doubt where it came from -- people lined the railings and packed the amphitheatre in such numbers that organizers had to remind them to leave a lane open so Market Square skaters could get through.
Internet campaign fuels nationwide protest - The Whig Standard - Ontario, CA
Okay, so which is it: the majority of Canadians are upset with proroguing, or is it that the majority of Canadians are deceived by Harper's political move?
BEst just to let this perogying slide, they are not making any blunders while doing it and while they are away from Parliament Hill they are costing us less money.
A lot of people have it in for Harper (not that I'm particularly overwhelmed with his performance). At the same time we don't want to cut off our nose to spite our face. If people aren't careful they could just force another election, where the outcome wouldn't be much different from the last couple of elections. Sometimes it's better just to let things run their course without interference. On a positive note (not that I think N.D.P. is the answer) I heard Jack Layton make what I thought was a sensible statement yesterday, just can't remember now what it was. One thing I am pretty sure of- Ignatieff won't be replacing Harper.