Harper Prorogues Parliament Again

[FurnaceFace]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Out of all the anti-Harper/anti-Conservative bs you just spouted

Actually, make it any party leader and any party and I'd "spout the same BS". You run on a platform of "we're different" and then turn around and act the same as those you claim you're "better than" and I'm going to comment on it.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by SebC

What on Earth is she supposed to do? There's no right decision for her... enable a PM who abuses the system to circumvent our democracy, or step in as an unelected person to stop an elected PM.

Our world reputation will be tarnished if our politicians are working over the Olympics? I think proroguing parliament on a whim tarnishes our reputation much more. Politics isn't going to go away because parliament isn't in session, but most people don't care at the best of times and will care even less over the Olympics, whether or not parliament is in session.

Also, it's not a delay, it's a reset. Basically Harper is hitting the power button on the parliamentary machine, and any unfinished work gets scrapped. It's not just a break, it's a set back. Not that I mind, the less bills the conservatives get passed over their term, the better.

Private bills introduced by members are not scrapped.

[Daradon]

Meh the less they are there, the less they can screw up.

If they'd give back their pay for the time off it'd be perfect, but no reason for us electorate to get greedy. It's still a good deal...

[SebC]

“The Liberals, apparently, want to prorogue the House. They want to run out of town, get out of town just one step ahead of the sheriff. Is the Liberal government committed to staying here as planned throughout the month of November so that it can be held accountable in the House for its actions?”
- Stephen Harper, Hansard, October 20, 2003

“Now is it true that the government will prorogue the House so that it will not be held accountable for its shameful record?”
- Stephen Harper, Hansard, October 20, 2003

“I'm pretty convinced now that they intend to prorogue and run away from accountability.”
- Jay Hill, Alaska Highway News, November 17 2005

“It wouldn't surprise me one bit if they decided to prorogue Parliament... I'm sorry if I sound a little cynical... This is a government (for which) the rules of engagement don't apply. They'll move the goal post, change the boundaries and bribe the referee.”
- Peter MacKay, Nanaimo Daily News, July 18, 2005

“It's like hitting tilt on a pinball machine... I think it's a bald-faced admission that the government doesn't really have an agenda and... that there's a few contentious bills that I think they just want to deep-six.”
- Peter MacKay, Canadian Press, September 16, 2002

[Pastiche]

The Economist, as always, offers a good take:

Mr Harper is a competent tactician with a ruthless streak. He bars most ministers from talking to the media; he has axed some independent watchdogs; he has binned campaign promises to make government more open and accountable. Now he is subjecting Parliament to prime-ministerial whim. He may be right that most Canadians care more about the luge than the legislature, but that is surely true only while their decent system of government is in good hands. They may soon conclude that it isn’t.

http://www.economist.com/displayStor...most_commented

[Devil's Rule]

After the Olympics....I smell election!

Does it get more exciting than this? I might even run out of fingers to count the number of elections we will have by 2020, but no need to worry there are always toes for those odd occasions.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Not really irrelevant because the great Senate reformer Harper has the power. I can only assume that Bert will be up for re-election this year, as per the legislation of the Province of Alberta. I can only assume that an individual like Harper will be adhering to the democractic wishes of the province of Alberta. Afterall, he only prorogued the House and cancelled Parliamentary democracy for 3 months because he wanted greater Senatorial democracy.

Now thats not really true. Historically, Parliament recesses for Christmas from mid December until the end of January..... so if Parliament returns at the beginning of March they are only missing about a month.
.... and also some current bills were really stalled (one could almost say dead in the water) in the Senate because of Liberal Senator delaying tactics (tacitly approved by Ignatieff who operates under the theory that if you can't beat the Conservatives and their legislation on the front lawn, we'll drag them/it down in the Liberal dominated un-elected backyard).

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I dunno. The EKOS poll suggests otherwise. A considerable majority of people know about it and a considerable majority of those people think that it is not right.

Well considering the fact that the average length of time that Parliament sits each year, over the past 10 years, is 111 days.... and Parliament sat 130 days in 2009, I really don't think there will be too much fuss about the fact that Parliament is loosing the month of February (as I said before, Parliament historically is in recess from mid Dec to the end of January).

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

Irrelevant because Senators are appointed by the Governor-General and as thus is constitutional right of the Prime Minister.

Sure its relevant. Duly elected Senatorial appointments from Alberta, since 1998 have agreed to a term no longer than 6 years. After that, they have to resign their seat and either run for election again or retire. That is the pact that they have made with the people of Alberta and the government of Alberta. The PM may refuse to have the GG appoint them to a Senate seat but he can't tell them, if they are appointed, how long they must sit in that seat.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Actually, make it any party leader and any party and I'd "spout the same BS". You run on a platform of "we're different" and then turn around and act the same as those you claim you're "better than" and I'm going to comment on it.

To use a hockey analogy.... when the opposing team is always playing "The Trap" system of defense with a lot of clutching and grabbing, its tough for your team to play a high scoring freestyle run and gun system.... particularly when you are short the few extra players needed to really dominate the opposition (ie. have to always work with and compromise with the demands of the other team (political party) because you do not have a majority of seats in Parliament).

Promises are a lot tougher to keep in the above situation.

[longsuffering]

Mr Harper is a competent tactician with a ruthless streak. He bars most ministers from talking to the media; he has axed some independent watchdogs; he has binned campaign promises to make government more open and accountable. Now he is subjecting Parliament to prime-ministerial whim. He may be right that most Canadians care more about the luge than the legislature, but that is surely true only while their decent system of government is in good hands. They may soon conclude that it isn’t.

Fearmongering!

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Sure its relevant. Duly elected Senatorial appointments from Alberta, since 1998 have agreed to a term no longer than 6 years. After that, they have to resign their seat and either run for election again or retire. That is the pact that they have made with the people of Alberta and the government of Alberta. The PM may refuse to have the GG appoint them to a Senate seat but he can't tell them, if they are appointed, how long they must sit in that seat.

The Senator nominee term is 6 years, once they get appointed they ceased to be nominees and therefore out of the power of the Provincial government. There's no pact between the Senator Nominees and the People Alberta, it's just a promise and there's no recourse if they break it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Rerun

To use a hockey analogy.... when the opposing team is always playing "The Trap" system of defense with a lot of clutching and grabbing, its tough for your team to play a high scoring freestyle run and gun system.... particularly when you are short the few extra players needed to really dominate the opposition (ie. have to always work with and compromise with the demands of the other team (political party) because you do not have a majority of seats in Parliament).

Promises are a lot tougher to keep in the above situation.

Let me make sure I understand.

So when the Liberals break campaign promises, it's because they're cynical, power hungry liars who will do anything to get into power.

When Stephen Harper breaks a campaign promise, it's because the Liberals are cynical, power hungry liars who will do anything to get into power.

That about sum it up?

[Ford Prefect]

I'm a formerly avid and now jaded political observer. I have two random comments about this story. Liberals/Conservatives = tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber ... or vice versa. And a government that isn't in session isn't doing any harm.

Edit: Don't take my shot at the Libs/Cons as meaning I support the NDP or Greens. Actually, I support the BQ. I'd love to see Quebec separate.

[SebC]

nm: I'm going to make a thread.

[twotoner]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

So can I get a refund on the portion of my taxes that pays their salaries while their prorogued?

So true or at least see that percentage of their pay donated to charity.

Despite the lameness of this, I can sympathize with wanting to get the senate sorted out.

[John Doe]

I am a bit late to the conversation, but I have a few points that I would like to add. First, I know it is one of the Conservative talking points that the Senate is obstructionist, is this true? Kady O'Malley had an interesting blog on this matter that shows that at least in the last session it wasn't the case.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepol...pers-past.html

Besides, even if we do operate on the assumption that the Senate was keeping bills from being passed, Harper could prorogue parliament for one day, appoint new senators and re-appoint the committees and bring parliament back the next day. No need to suspend parliament for the rest of the time.

The new reason coming from the Conservatives is that they need time to "re-calibrate". I don't believe this for a second, as last year at approximately this time they were able to go from not believing that we were in a recession to coming up with a new budget with all sorts of stimulus spending. The time they took to accomplish that was approximately the same time that parliament would have been off this year if they came back on January 25th. How can they do a complete 90 degrees last year in one month but need 3 months this year to "re-calibrate". Regardless, I trust that we won't be seeing Conservative ministers hanging around Vancouver during the Olympics as they will be so busy "re-calibrating".

[tkflames]

MP's should not be payed when the parliament is prorogued...its that simple. When my office shuts down, even if I do work on my own time to better my (political) career, I don't get payed either. Get to work you bums!

[EddyBeers]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs...rticle1426985/

Flaherty has to get on the same page as the boss, the drones at message control will not be happy with this comment

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says shutting down Parliament doesn’t affect his budget consultations – they would be happening whether Parliament was in session or not. But that’s not what his boss, the Prime Minister, is saying about the need to lock up the House of Commons until March.

[Slava]

Liberals have put out attack ads now regarding the issue. You can view them here:

http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/liberal-tv

Don't worry...visiting their site won't actually make you a party member...but you do have to vote for them in the next election!