# PM seeks Parliament shutdown till March 2010



## CougarKing (30 Dec 2009)

What about all those anticrime bills that would be scuttled by this move?

From CBC news



> *The Conservative government plans to shut down Parliament for two months, until after the Vancouver Winter Olympics, the Prime Minister's Office announced Wednesday.*
> 
> The announcement triggered immediate condemnation from opposition MPs who labelled the Conservative government's move as an "almost despotic" attempt to muzzle parliamentarians amid controversy over the Afghan detainees affair.
> 
> ...


----------



## brihard (30 Dec 2009)

This is an insult. The first time he asked to prorogue for politically expedient reasons was unprecedented, and now this second blatant attempt to do so, in an obvious effort to stack the senate, is too damned much. I vote Conservative in the last two elections. I will NOT do so again while Harper remains at the helm.

If you fear to face Parliament, that's even more indicative that, for the sake of the voters, you should anyway. I no longer feel that Harper is governing for the sake of Canadians, and it hurts to see that the ballot I cast in the last two elections has resulted in this. What he's doing is legal and constitutional, yes, but it flies in the face of the _principles_ our system stands for- a government that is answerable and accountable to the people.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Dec 2009)

Brihard-

If Harper is as despotic as you seem to think that he is- why have the opposition parties not combined to defeat the Government and send the country to the polls on any number of issues this year? They are a minority government after all, aren't they? Surely, the people would see it your way and vote the Conservatives out, right? 

As for "stacking" the Senate- he would be an idiot not to take every chance to stuff the place with Conservatives that will pass his legislative work and prevent it being blocked by the current Liberal crop of senators.  If you are going to argue with me that the Senate needs reforming- argue no further.  I agree.  But it ain't going to get done with a Conservative minority in Parliament, a Liberal Majority Senate and unfilled Senate seats. 

Whether you support prorogation or not- nothing useful would have happened in Parliament over the Olympics anyway.  IMHO, this plays to the Opposition parties just as well- they get time to think and retool for a possible spring/summer election.


----------



## armyvern (30 Dec 2009)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Whether you support prorogation or not- nothing useful would have happened in Parliament over the Olympics anyway.  IMHO, this plays to the Opposition parties just as well- they get time to think and retool for a possible spring/summer election.



And they get to wait & see if the poll numbers turn in to their favour too because right now they aren't. Which also explains the reason why they haven't "come together to bring down the Government" ...

The things all parties of all political stripes do to manipulate their "own" standing; it's certainly not limited to the conservatives. They are all looking out for their own parties 'best interests' lest anyone (you too Brihard) out there have any doubt about that.


----------



## Kat Stevens (31 Dec 2009)

Let's not kid ourselves about Senate reform.  Whichever party sits, majority or not, the Senate will not be changed as long as it's a way to score political influence and reward loyal toads.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Dec 2009)

Brihard said:
			
		

> This is an insult. The first time he asked to prorogue for politically expedient reasons was unprecedented, and now this second blatant attempt to do so, in an obvious effort to stack the senate, is too damned much. I vote Conservative in the last two elections. I will NOT do so again while Harper remains at the helm.



Yes, it was unprecedented. Never before had the opposition attempted to shanghai an election so soon after the polls had closed. If you think it's politically expedient to uphold the results of the election, then you misunderstand the term.




			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> If you fear to face Parliament, that's even more indicative that, for the sake of the voters, you should anyway. I no longer feel that Harper is governing for the sake of Canadians, and it hurts to see that the ballot I cast in the last two elections has resulted in this. What he's doing is legal and constitutional, yes, but it flies in the face of the _principles_ our system stands for- a government that is answerable and accountable to the people.



What he's doing is no more than others have done before. How do you think the Liberal majority in the Senate occurred in the first place? Perhaps a little history.... both Chretien and Martin filled all their available Senate vacancies before they left.


----------



## Larkvall (31 Dec 2009)

Gee these MPs are going to be working less hours than Reservists on standown for a couple months. I can see the whole lot of them boozing it up in Whistler in February on the public's dime. Seems they have forgotten we have a massive deficit!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Dec 2009)

All MPs have offices in their home ridings. This is where they work and spend their time when not in Ottawa. Just because they are not sitting in the legislature doesn't mean they are on vacation. Matter of fact, if something pressing and urgent has been bothering you, now is the perfect time to gain your MPs ear. Call the office and say you want to speak to them. At least you won't get "Sorry he's\she's not available because they are in Ottawa".

I expect to see them out and about, kissing babies and quietly campaigning. When they return and the PM gives his throne speech and budget, the opposition will, once again, have to put up (call an election) or shut up. You can expect that either the Conservatives will be more than ready for the first possibility and have a bevy of bills to table, with their stong(er) Senate position, in case of the second.

It's not like they were going to get much done anyway. The opposition has failed to try and make parliment work because of their personal grudge with Harper, not because the legislation is no good. The liebral dominated senate has stalled and changed any approved legislation that has come their way. The only thing Iggy's yappy little ghetto dog Goodale can try make hay with is the Afghan torture broughhaha. Guess what? No one gives a rat's patootie about it but the liebrals, and for all the wrong reasons. CBC's own poll suggested a majority of Canadians really don't care about tortured Afghans. It is not an issue, but it's all the pitiful liebrals have.


----------



## observor 69 (31 Dec 2009)

On the other hand Iggy, who is basically a good man, will have longer, including after they vote in the new budget, to learn his job.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Dec 2009)

Shared in accordance with copyright laws



> *PM calling Liberals' bluff, pollster suggests*
> Last Updated: Thursday, December 31, 2009
> CBC News
> 
> ...


Link to complete article  here

While I agree that this is an opportunity for the opposition parties, I also suspect that they'll spend it squabling about Parliament being prorogued, rather than anything substantive, which can only help the Conservatives more.

And as mentioned earlier, the "never-ending difficult discussion about the Afghan detainees" is only an issue for the media; since the voters don't seem to care about it, you can count on the Liberals shooting themselves in the foot by going on and on about it.


----------



## Larkvall (31 Dec 2009)

Sure they have riding offices. Thats where their staff spends their time spinning their party line. Here is good question. How many MPs actually know where their riding office is?


----------



## Journeyman (31 Dec 2009)

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Here is good question. How many MPs actually know where their riding office is?


If that's your good question, I really don't want to see a dumb one.   :


----------



## Larkvall (31 Dec 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> If that's your good question, I really don't want to see a dumb one.   :



Well some of you guys obviously have more faith in these guys than I do!


----------



## observor 69 (31 Dec 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Shared in accordance with copyright laws
> Link to complete article  here
> 
> While I agree that this is an opportunity for the opposition parties, I also suspect that they'll spend it squabling about Parliament being prorogued, rather than anything substantive, which can only help the Conservatives more.
> ...




Working LINK


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Dec 2009)

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Sure they have riding offices. Thats where their staff spends their time spinning their party line. Here is good question. How many MPs actually know where their riding office is?



Just so you know where yours is.


Honourable Dan McTeague, P.C., M.P.
Pickering-Scarborough East 

Constituency Office  
6758 Kingston Road 
Unit 3
Toronto, Ontario
M1B 1G8
Tel: (416) 287-0110
Fax: (416) 287-6160 
dan@mcteague.ca

Ottawa Office  
Suite 302, Justice Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario 
K1A 0A6
Tel: (613) 995-8082
Fax: (613) 993-6587 
ottawa@mcteague.ca


----------



## Old Sweat (31 Dec 2009)

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Sure they have riding offices. Thats where their staff spends their time spinning their party line. Here is good question. How many MPs actually know where their riding office is?



Sarcasm does not become you. Every MP knows where his or her riding office is. A well run riding office is essential to representing the constituents, regardless of party affiliation. The office is where people come for advice on their dealings with the Federal government and often to get help/advice on filling out forms. The office is a point of contact between the people and their MP and often is the first stage in problem solving. If any MP was stupid enough to ignore or stay away from the riding office and hence the people of the riding, his career in the House of Commons would be short.

Back in the riding, the MP spends a lot of time dealing with the local concerns and helping people of all political stripes. A lot of this entails making appearances at all sorts of functions all across the riding. My MP claims he would attend an envelope opening if invited.


----------



## brihard (1 Jan 2010)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Brihard-
> 
> If Harper is as despotic as you seem to think that he is- why have the opposition parties not combined to defeat the Government and send the country to the polls on any number of issues this year? They are a minority government after all, aren't they? Surely, the people would see it your way and vote the Conservatives out, right?
> 
> ...



I did not say despotic. I know the difference between our system and truly despotic ones, thank you very much.The term I prefer to sue is dereliction of duty. We elected Harper (Yes, I voted conservative twice, most recently from Kandahar) in order to fulfill a certain mandate and to lead our government in parliament. He is failing to do so. In what other public sector job could a leader simply decide that their ministry or department was going to just shut down for several months and not do anything? Anyone doing so would be out of work very damned quickly. What gives Harper any legitimate excuse to not face Parliament? That is his duty, and it is a gross failure of leadership for him not to do so. HE works for US. He is paid to lead our country. He has now pissed away MONTHS of legislative work, has suspended committees and commissions, and yet people seem willing to excuse this because 'it's just politics'.

I voted Conservative in part because of the crap the Liberals pulled in the last administrations they had, and now PM Harper is failing to live up to his duty to lead the country and parliament. If he remains in power through legitimate means and in the face of a legitimate, empowered opposition long enough to fill the senate, then it is absolute his place to do so. By denying the opposition a chance to challenge his government, he is essentially 'cheating' the parliamentary process. I'm certainly no friend to the politics of the NDP, and as stated I voted Conservative over Liberal for two elections now. My outrage over this issue has to do with Harper's _abuse_ of the prorogue, which was only ever intended to be the means by which a parliament was closed at the end of its legislative session.

One other quick point, and I believe it was ModlrMike, in regards to the opposition trying to shanghai an election; you forget that the conservatives called an election in 2008 in contravention of their own four year election law. Since the 2008 election, where they _failed_ to gain a majority, the Conservatives have nonetheless attempted to govern as if they had a majority mandate, and in fact have stated to directly. They are not a majority, they shouldn't try to act like one. Granted, the Liberals have been a lousy opposition beset by leadership challenges, and the NDP and Bloc are both full of dinks as always, but that does not excuse Harper attempting to govern in a way unjustified by the results of the last two elections.

My objections to Harper's government and the Prorogue in particular are because of the disregard they show for the proper functioning of a parliamentary democracy. Are minority governments difficult to manage? Yes- but the minority nature of the government shows that Harper does not have sufficient confidence from Canadians to govern as if he were a majority leader. He needs to further develop his party's policies and legislation and gain a majority if he wants to act like one. The conservatives will get a majority when they deserve and have earned a majority, and not before. I fear they have lost their chance to do so under Harper.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jan 2010)

It looks sh!tty, and in some respects I agree.  But ask yourself why it came to this.  We don't know Harper's mind, but there are two causes celebres in the media: the question of treatment of detainees, and the Senate.

The opposition parties pay lip service to a "parliament that works for all Canadians", but their collective behaviour is more like a bunch of monkeys flinging scat around in the cage.  The detainee issue is being played for political advantage, not out of any real concern for the treatment of people in Afghanistan by agencies of the Afghanistan government.  I see no point in continuing such a parliament.

Various commenters lament the "anti-democratic" nature of Senate stacking, and sidestep the point that the Senate is an anti-democratic obstruction to the will of the government - particularly a minority government when the party line composition of the House is at odds with that of the Senate - in the first place.

Those who wish should of course dismiss the following as pro-Harper spin, but to me it makes practical sense: faced with obstructionists, political opportunists, and time-wasters, Harper has conceived a line of operations to cut through the bullsh!t to the next agenda item of substance (budget) and, perhaps, to breach Senate.  He doesn't have a majority government, so he systematically works to overcome the obstacles.  Is that wrong?


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jan 2010)

After we've had 10-13 years of minority/majority Conservative government, I may be ready to vote Liberal or NDP again.  Until then, I confess I haven't much respect for all the hand-wringers who find themselves upset after not quite 4 years of minority Conservative government.  All statesmen must be successful politicians; not all politicians (few, in my view) are competent statesmen.  I do not for a minute believe it is possible that any particular government can condense more foolish and selfish behaviour into a year than any other.  4 != 13.  A few more years of Conservative government are in order rather than risk telegraphing the message of entitlement to the Liberals.  What have the Liberals done to show they deserve to govern?  They will just pick up where they left off, thinking that we must love them after all if we could stand only a brief minority interregnum.

All of that is quite apart from the comparison of Harper : Ignatieff : Layton as PM; please remember that the power centralized in the PMO will belong to one of them and be his to wield after the next election.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Jan 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> One other quick point, and I believe it was ModlrMike, in regards to the opposition trying to shanghai an election; you forget that the conservatives called an election in 2008 in contravention of their own four year election law.



No, they did not. If you read the Canada Elections Act you will find...



> Powers of Governor General preserved
> 56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.
> 
> Election dates
> ...


Ref: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/E-2.01/page-4.html#anchorbo-ga:l_5-gb:s_56_1

Subsection 1 clearly shows that the power of the GG to dissolve parliament regardless of requirements of subsection 2.


In addition, in the action of Conacher v. Canada (Prime Minister), the court ruled against the applicants.
Ref: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2009/2009fc920/2009fc920.html




			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> ...the Conservatives have nonetheless attempted to govern as if they had a majority mandate, and in fact have stated to directly.



So what? Would you rather they accomplish nothing? That we have a permanent "lame duck" style of government. If the opposition doesn't like how the Government is behaving, they have had plenty of opportunity to attempt to change that by voting against them. I seem to recall that they opted not to do that in excess of 70 times. The Conservatives have acted like a majority government because the Liberals and the Bloc have allowed them to. Don't for a moment think it would be different if the tables were turned.

You've cast your ballot twice, for which I thank you, however having participated in well more than two elections... take my word, there's nothing new going on here.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (1 Jan 2010)

The Conservatives have earned passing grades in Machiavelli 101.  They have studied under the Liberals and learned what it takes to gain power and keep it.  The Liberals are waiting for the coup de grace so they can resume their rightful place in power.  It ain't coming.  

Should the Liberals wish to govern, they must drop the moral outrage and shrillness and tell the people what they stand for, what they would do differently.  Right now, the fact is that the Liberals have no policy.  They promise better government but seem to fear presenting policies because they would have to defend them.  Dione ran on a tax increase.  The last person to do that was Joe Who and we know what happened to his government.

To find the Liberal agenda, we need only look to the Senate where anti-crime bills are gutted along with consumer protection legislation.  Ignatieff maintains support for the popular items in the House while his minions in the Senate obstruct.  If Ignatieff has no control over the Senate, perhaps the Liberals need a new leader.

Ignatieff will run out of excuses in 2010 and there will be an election and I don't think he will be happy with the results.  He needs issues.  The treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan isn't the key because few care and those are Liberals already.  We will be bounding out of the recession in 2010 and Harper will be well set after the opposition demanded he spend $50 billion to buy Conservative votes.  The Conservatives were reluctant to put on the Santa Claus suit but the opposition forced him to do so at gun point and handed him the gifts to pass out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jan 2010)

Nick Nanos is a pretty astute observer of Canadian politics and I’m guessing he understand what resonates with voters. Thus this blog piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_’s web site, suggests that the Tories will not pay a high price, with voters, for proroguing Parliament:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/pollster-doubts-prorogation-will-raise-public-hackles/article1419188/


> Pollster doubts prorogation will raise public hackles
> 
> Gloria Galloway
> 
> ...



An annoyed opposition and a raucous, highly charged and partisan House may be exactly what Stephen Harper wants. Perhaps he can, either, trick the BQ, Liberals and _Dippers_ into uniting to defeat his government – his preferred choice – or, at least, go back to the GG and say, “Ma’am, it’s happened again: Parliament is dysfunctional and we need an election to clear the air.”

But, more broadly, prorogation is a normal part of the parliamentary cycle. It is used, most often, when a government wants to or needs to change gears: a new Throne Speech and a new budget reflecting the new priorities allows the government of the day to make that directional shift. Two or three or, sometimes, even more Throne Speeches are not uncommon in the life of Westminster style parliaments. Parliamentary _*recesses*_ (which is what this is - Parliament has not been _*dissolved*_) also allow most politicians to recharge their local, constituency batteries. Right now, as Nanos says, lacking a “big issue” there is no particular reason that parliament needs to sit in February. Despite the opposition's childish whines and mindless howls, prorogation is normal, sensible and, arguably, useful in early 2010.


----------



## Larkvall (5 Jan 2010)

Well I certainly am going to remember this 'vacation' especially if the Conservative candidate come around again looking for my support. I am also going to remember the auto bailout!


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Jan 2010)

Lark

Explain to me how this is a vacation, simply because they are not sitting in Parliament does not mean they are not working. There are numerous jobs that the MPs attend to that do not require them sitting in Ottawa 100's if not 1000's of Km away from there constituents.

As for the Auto Bail out..Hmm collapse of a huge chunks of North American economy and thousands of Canadians jobs or Tax Payer money to keep them afloat so as to generate income and keep the economy going...I know what I would do anyway.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Jan 2010)

"What is likely to register, he said, is the notion that the Conservatives have given themselves a two-month vacation".  

What is required is a timed series (every two weeks or so) of announcements showing Canadians that _The Government_ is at work to counter the opposition and their media mouth pieces.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Jan 2010)

With a majority in the Senate, a well received  announcement would be the the phasing out of the Senate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jan 2010)

Just to put prorogation into some sort of perspective:

1. We are in our 40th Parliament since 1867 - that's 40 general elections in 143 years, about 1 every 3.5 years; and

2. There have been 144 _*sessions*_ - about one per year - which means over 100 prorogations (39 of the other sessions following dissolutions and general elections (there was no parliament to dissolve before the first general election)). (Actually there were a few more than just 104 prorogations because, sometimes, parliament was prorogued before an election was called.)

Thus, prorogation is a normal part of the 'life' of parliaments; there is nothing about which to be excited.

See: here

Additionally: it is not a holiday for the government. Prime Minister Harper and his ministers are in Ottawa, working. _Iggy_ is on vacation in France, somewhere. See: here where it says, _"The Liberals have decided to highlight the two-month prorogation of Parliament by asking Canadians to submit a humorous 140-character suggestion for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's out-of-office reply message. Which, as communications strategies go, is rather courageous [because] Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has been on vacation at an undisclosed location and has not therefore been available to pick up his own phone for the past three weeks ..."_


----------



## Larkvall (5 Jan 2010)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Lark
> 
> Explain to me how this is a vacation, simply because they are not sitting in Parliament does not mean they are not working. There are numerous jobs that the MPs attend to that do not require them sitting in Ottawa 100's if not 1000's of Km away from there constituents.
> 
> As for the Auto Bail out..Hmm collapse of a huge chunks of North American economy and thousands of Canadians jobs or Tax Payer money to keep them afloat so as to generate income and keep the economy going...I know what I would do anyway.



How do we know they are working? Sure they do 'other stuff', but they are supposed to be doing that right now during recess. If voters/taxpayers don't hold these guys accountable who will? They have not convinced me this break is necessary or productive.

As for for auto bailout there is a whole thread on it over here...

http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/81350.0


----------



## armyvern (5 Jan 2010)

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Well I certainly am going to remember this 'vacation' especially if the Conservative candidate come around again looking for my support. I am also going to remember the auto bailout!



Ha!!

You mean the auto bailout that the Conservatives tabled because it was the Liebrals and the who NDP threatened to bring down the government IF that bailout did *not* occur ... just mere months after a federal election (that polls clearly showed that Canadians did not want to happen??)?

Remember? That's what had Taliban Jack and his merry band voting "with" the government ... allowing the Liebrals to still vote "against" while getting what they wanted anyway? 

Nice spin though.


----------



## Larkvall (5 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Ha!!
> 
> You mean the auto bailout that the Conservatives tabled because it was the Liebrals and the who NDP threatened to bring down the government IF that bailout did *not* occur ... just mere months after a federal election (that polls clearly showed that Canadians did not want to happen??)?
> 
> ...



I was against bailing out the auto industry PERIOD.  :


----------



## armyvern (5 Jan 2010)

Larkvall said:
			
		

> I was against bailing out the auto industry PERIOD.  :



So, the Conservatives did what they needed to do to save us from going back into another "unwanted" election and to force the Liebrals hand (who kept threatening to topple the government ad nauseum). The other parties "wanted" the bailout in the first place ...

Hmmmmm ... I guess you now have to decide which one (the bailout or the election) you wanted less?


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Jan 2010)

>Well I certainly am going to remember this 'vacation' especially if the Conservative candidate come around again looking for my support. I am also going to remember the auto bailout!

Those inclined to sputter each time the Conservatives disappoint need to think about the real alternatives.   The real alternative is rarely "nothing objectionable or expensive happens".

In this case, think about the Liberals (or Liberals + NDP) thinking about the auto industry, and thinking about votes, and then thinking some more about the auto industry...

Those who supported the Conservatives and are now dissatisfied have two options: vote for another candidate, or don't vote.  If you don't vote, or vote for a long-shot candidate, that effectively puts the dominant non-Conservative candidate (Liberal or NDP) up by 1 vote over the Conservative candidate.  If you vote for the dominant non-Conservative candidate, that is worth +2.  Either way, your choice will have consequences you will bear - voting "no government at all" is not an option; the government elected will certainly have ideas about how much to spend and where to spend it.

I suggest writing nasty letters to your Conservative MP if you have one, or to the PM and prominent ministers if you don't, but don't withdraw your support for the party unless you genuinely prefer the Liberals (or Liberals+NDP) to make the decisions about all the same issues.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (6 Jan 2010)

I always look to Montana when I need an example of sensible government.  The legislature meets once every 2 years and members are paid $76.80 per legislative day, plus $90.31 per day for expenses while in session.  On rare occasions special sessions can be called.  Politics truly is public service.  Montana has no sales tax and a maximum 6.9% income tax compared with Alberta's low 10%.  Every day Parliament meets they are thinking up new ways to spend my money.

http://leg.mt.gov/css/default.asp


> The Montana Legislature is not in session. The next regular biennial session is scheduled to convene January 3, 2011. All legislative meetings held during the interims between sessions are in the State Capitol in Helena unless otherwise noted.



Montana speed limits used to be "reasonable and prudent" but this has changed.  Interstates and 75 mph and back roads are often 70 mph wheras here they are about 50mph.   When the federal government enforced the 55mph speed limit, the fine in Montana was $5.  I love less government.
http://www.us-highways.com/montana/mtspeed.htm


----------



## observor 69 (6 Jan 2010)

January 05, 2010

Michael Ignatieff


Here is the text of an opinion piece released by Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):

The first duty of leaders in a democratic society like ours is to respect the institutions that put constraints on their power. 

Messy. Inconvenient. Frustrating. Democracy is all those things. But as Churchill said, it is better than the alternatives. 

A minority Parliament can be messy but it can work if the Prime Minister wants it too.

Last week the Harper government announced the shutting down of Parliament. The fact that this was done in the media "black hole," just hours before New Year's Eve, says a good deal about Mr. Harper's motivations. It's also a richly ironic statement about a government that was elected on the key plank of increasing transparency and accountability - but that's another, equally sad, story.

Every newspaper in Canada - including this one - reported that the key factor in Mr. Harper's decision was the barrage of criticism and tough questions his government has faced in Parliament over its handling - and apparent cover up - of the Afghan detainee torture issue. Questions about the government's truthfulness and its care of Canada's reputation overseas. Questions that go to the very heart of the government's respect for democratic institutions and the rule of law. 

Even more troubling, this shutting down of Parliament is not a rash or impetuous act. It is part of a consistent pattern of behaviour on the part of Mr. Harper's government. Whenever Stephen Harper gets into political trouble, his first impulse is to steamroll over democratic institutions that get in his way. Look at the record:

Just over a year ago he prorogued Parliament just weeks after an election - in order to rescue himself from an unprecedented political and constitutional crisis of his own making.

He has lashed out at public servants - like Richard Colvin, in the case of the detainees - for daring to speak the truth, and cowed others into silence.

He fired Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, for blowing the whistle on the repairs needed at Chalk River to ensure the reactor's safety.

He starved Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, of the necessary resources to do his job because he was critical of the poor management of our public finances under this Conservative government.

He let go the heads of both the RCMP's Public Complaints Commission and the Military Police Complaints Commission. Both were competent individuals, doing their job with distinction. But both had a serious flaw in Stephen Harper's eye: they were critical of the government.

He cut off public funding for the ecumenical charitable group KAIROS, despite their lauded work and broad public support, because, according to one of his ministers, they held dissenting views from the government on foreign policy.

This approach to government - intimidating all who stand in its way - can have severe and corrosive consequences. Look at our nation's capital today: a cowed and demoralized public service and a constantly bullied national press gallery, both trying to serve a disenchanted public.

More at Link

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/745951


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Jan 2010)

The old saw: would you buy a car from the LPC, let alone the "leader"? Would you buy a car from the NDP, let alone Jack?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jan 2010)

Typical of the 'Red' Star, their great leader's article is not open to comments. Wouldn't want any of the plebes to counter his tired and regurgitated spin with truth. If these are the best examples he can cobble together, it only shows how well Harper has actually done. They were non starters when they happened and are even less so now. Ah well, it's only Prince Igor after all. The princely rant has already been read, glossed over and forgotten. True liebrals are huddling with Bob (Brutus) Rae and sharpening their daggers.

Caesar: 
Who is it in the press that calls on me?
I hear a tongue shriller than all the music
Cry "Caesar!" Speak, Caesar is turn'd to hear.

Soothsayer:
Beware the ides of March.

Caesar:
What man is that?

Brutus:
A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Jan 2010)

Baden Guy, it is very clear, you and I will never vote for the same political party. I am sure you try to keep informed of what is going on. I am sure you know that the Toronto Star _is one of_ the mouth pieces of the LPC. I am sure you are aware of what Rex Murphy and Matthew Fisher have said about the media and the opposition politicans re the Afghan detainee (non) issue. I am sure you have read ERC's earlier post "Just to put prorogation into some sort of perspective". I am sure you know that Mr. Ignatieff has been on vacation in southern Europe for the last three weeks, and doesn't answer his telephone.

I am sure Mr Ignatieff wrote this puff piece same old whine based on the speculation that Parliament would be prorogued, handed it to the friendly editor at The Star, and said "Hey Fred, I will be on vacation and out of contact, if Harper goes the prorogued route, publish this about a week later. That's a good boy. I'm outta here.'


----------



## observor 69 (6 Jan 2010)

This is the part that concerned me:

" He has lashed out at public servants - like Richard Colvin, in the case of the detainees - for daring to speak the truth, and cowed others into silence.

He fired Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, for blowing the whistle on the repairs needed at Chalk River to ensure the reactor's safety.

He starved Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, of the necessary resources to do his job because he was critical of the poor management of our public finances under this Conservative government.

He let go the heads of both the RCMP's Public Complaints Commission and the Military Police Complaints Commission. Both were competent individuals, doing their job with distinction. But both had a serious flaw in Stephen Harper's eye: they were critical of the government."

None of these four items were handled pragmatically, first priority was kill/discredit the messenger. I agree the LPC is playing the Afghan thing for political reasons but the ones listed above involve a response like John Baird standing up in parliament and blasting the opposition vice reasoned debate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> This is the part that concerned me:
> 
> " He has lashed out at public servants - like Richard Colvin, in the case of the detainees - for daring to speak the truth, and cowed others into silence.
> 
> ...




I respectfully disagree:

1. I think there is both more and less to Colvin's _accusations_ than have been explored by the inept questioning of the Parliamentary committee. It was neither wise nor just to _shoot the messenger_ but Colvin's stories need careful, thoughtful scrutiny by somebody a whole helluva lot smarter and more credible than Ujal Dosanjh;

2. Keen's firing was poorly handled, from the political optics perspective, but it was justified. _Caveat lector_, the fellow who replaced her, Michael Binder, is a friend - not a close friend, but something more than an acquaintance;

3. Page's TOR need a major review and overhaul. Harper should be criticized for giving him too much 'room' to operate too soon; and

4. Neither commissioner was bad or even less than competent, but I do not think you can say they were doing their jobs "with distinction."

My take, anyway.


----------



## observor 69 (6 Jan 2010)

Thanks for your usual thoughtful response ER. 
We aren't that very far apart on our take of these stories. 
Honest!


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jan 2010)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ appears, to me, to represent the triumph of hope over experience:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/harpers-given-them-two-months-of-free-target-practice/article1421513/


> Harper's given them two months of free target practice
> *How many times can the Prime Minister tempt fate?*
> 
> Lawrence Martin
> ...




Martin, like a few other _Good Grey Globe_ columnists is a _Harper Hater_ but others – like Ivision in the _National Post_ – are friendlier and they are giving Harper every opportunity to explain that prorogations are normal things in the lives of parliaments.

My guess is that, despite a very recent _Ekos_ poll,  Canadians neither know nor, really, care about either prorogation or the detainee issue and, further, that they are sick and tired of the partisan sniping – from all sides. 

A further  guess is that the Winter Olympics will dominate the news throughout most of February – leaving little media “air” for opposition politicians to exploit.

I expect the media to follow the PM and ministers – covering every announcement – out across the country, and I expect the PM and ministers to keep feeding them stories. That will deprive the opposition of opportunities to make their case.






Gable: the Globe and Mail


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jan 2010)

Heck, if the opposition wants to indulge in two months of "target practice" - which is to say, to babble about whatever they think it is that will resonate with Canadians - by all means let them.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Jan 2010)

> Here's a Prime Minister who has accused Michael Ignatieff of “just visiting.” Pretty rich, they chuckle, coming from a leader who's going AWOL.



Pretty rich, considering Ignatieff HAS LEFT THE COUNTRY!


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Jan 2010)

I think that we are going to get lots of pieces from the likes of Lawrence Martin until March. With the doors of Parliament closed, the media in Canada will have nothing to repeat. The media will now have to work to get printed and earn a wage. No wait, just dream at night. Kill two birds with one stone: a nights rest and a fairy tale to be printed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2010)

That's why they are flogging the anti-prorogation _movement_; a recessed parliament does not, automatically, generate anti-government _clips_ and _bites_.

The Bloc, Liberal and NDP _spin_ machines will be going full blast, but even the most  Harper Hating editors will not publish (much) unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo when Conservative ministers and the PM will be making appearances and announcements that actually qualify as 'news.'


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Jan 2010)

And thats why I earlier posted: What is required is a timed series (every two weeks or so) of announcements showing Canadians that The Government is at work to counter the opposition and their media mouth pieces.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2010)

My guess is that we can expect minsters and the PM to pop up an almost daily basis - somewhere in Canada - making real 'news' of some sort, thus depriving the opposition of the media time and space they need.


----------



## TCBF (8 Jan 2010)

- Out here in Alberta, everyone thinks this "Perogy Parliament" is a darn good idea.  Shucks, with the winter the way it is this year, we could all use some good hot Ukrainian food to get us through each day.

 8)


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jan 2010)

...from CBC (via Twitter):


> Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says party's MPs and Senators will be back at work in Ottawa on Jan. 25, despite Parliament prorogation.


Hello?  Even when Parliament is not in session (as opposed to prorogued), I would expect MP's to be _working_, either in Ottawa or their constituency offices.  

Am I the only one thinking this?


----------



## Rheostatic (8 Jan 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...from CBC (via Twitter):Hello?  Even when Parliament is not in session (as opposed to prorogued), I would expect MP's to be _working_, either in Ottawa or their constituency offices.
> 
> Am I the only one thinking this?


Of course not, but with so many grumbling that prorogation=vacation, it's not surprising to hear these assurances from the opposition parties. 

Of course, I wouldn't expect nuanced journalism from a twitter feed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2010)

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> No, but with so many grumbling that prorogation=vacation, it's not surprising to hear these assurances from the opposition parties.
> 
> Of course, I wouldn't expect nuanced journalism from a twitter feed.




Hell's bell! I don't expect "nuanced journalism" from the _Globe and Mail_, CBC, _Ottawa Citizen_, Global, _Toronto Star_, CTV or anyone else in the so called mainstream media. Most 'journalists' are little more than stenographers who regurgitate and then sign press releases from politicians, corporations, special interest groups, trade associations, federal, provincial and municipal government departments, trade unions and so on and so forth.

There are a few hard working *reporters* out there who go out and look for stories and then do some digging to try to get things right, but for the most part ... not so much.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jan 2010)

I long for the good old days of _Frank_ magazine, where at least some of the dirty laundry and incestuous relationships between the media and politicians would be aired (Peter M's frequent dinners at 24 Sussex et al).  And, of course, has there ever been a more apt title than _The Ottawa PetFinder_?


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jan 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Most 'journalists' are little more than stenographers who regurgitate and then sign press releases from politicians, corporations, special interest groups, trade associations, federal, provincial and municipal government departments, trade unions and so on and so forth.


Not ALL federal departments.....


----------



## Retired AF Guy (8 Jan 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I think that we are going to get lots of pieces from the likes of Lawrence Martin until March. With the doors of Parliament closed, the media in Canada will have nothing to repeat.



Actually, starting in Feb the MSM will be focusing on the Olympics and not politics. Especially, if we have a bunch of Canadians on the winners podium.


----------



## gcclarke (8 Jan 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Actually, starting in Feb the MSM will be focusing on the Olympics and not politics. Especially, if we have a bunch of Canadians on the winners podium.



Unless of course we have a relative lack of Canadians on the winners podium, in which case I'm sure the Liberals will be trying to make it out to be the fault of the Conservatives.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jan 2010)

>..What is required is a timed series (every two weeks or so) of announcements showing Canadians that The Government is at work to counter the opposition and their media mouth pieces.

No timing necessary.  This is why I'm happy for the opposition members to beak off as much as they please: unlike when parliament is in session and a minister under fire (or his appointed fartcatcher) must shortly expect to face a press scrum and stammer excuses in response to whatever noise the opposition makes, the government is free to contemplate/deliberate and issue a sober and considered response - if one is merited.  If the opposition has nothing useful to say, they just look foolish.  If they do have something useful to say, maybe we'll also get a useful response instead of a knee-jerk one.  Win-win.  Meanwhile, the parliament rebooted in late 2008 has been almost as dysfunctional as its predecessor.   Prorogation is not the end of the world.  There was nothing likely to be achieved in that extra 30 days or so that could not be achieved in 30 minutes.


----------



## hold_fast (11 Jan 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Typical of the 'Red' Star, their great leader's article is not open to comments. Wouldn't want any of the plebes to counter his tired and regurgitated spin with truth. If these are the best examples he can cobble together, it only shows how well Harper has actually done. They were non starters when they happened and are even less so now. Ah well, it's only Prince Igor after all. The princely rant has already been read, glossed over and forgotten. True liebrals are huddling with Bob (Brutus) Rae and sharpening their daggers.
> 
> Caesar:
> Who is it in the press that calls on me?
> ...



At first, I was like "Wait, wait, did he just compare Harper to Caesar? Harper's not Roman Emperor material in any way, shape, or form..."

But then I remembered that Caesar was a dictator, and Brutus was motivated to be part of the assassination for honour and patriotism. So, "Thanks, buddy!"

I'm an English Literature major. Please don't quote Shakespeare unless you know what you're talking about.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Jan 2010)

I think he was comparing Iggy to Caesar, which makes much more sense if you think about the Liberal party dynamics.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jan 2010)

If the Liberals want to swan around in Ottawa on 25 Jan, the *we* should show up or call their constituency offices that day and demand to speak to the member.

Since they will not be there, *we* can then loudly complain to the media they are avoiding their constituents, voters and taxpayers and not doing their constituency work.

Just thinking out loud... >


----------



## owa (11 Jan 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If the Liberals want to swan around in Ottawa on 25 Jan, the *we* should show up or call their constituency offices that day and demand to speak to the member.
> 
> Since they will not be there, *we* can then loudly complain to the media they are avoiding their constituents, voters and taxpayers and not doing their constituency work.
> 
> Just thinking out loud... >



So get mad at them for working when they don't have to?


----------



## hold_fast (11 Jan 2010)

Thanks for clarifying that. Makes a lot more sense now.
I knew (read: hoped) someone couldn't just openly shoot themselves in the foot like that.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jan 2010)

owa said:
			
		

> So get mad at them for working when they don't have to?



Please check to see the placement of the arc markers.

Liberal MP's in Ottawa during prorogation = *not working*

MP's in their constituency offices during prorogation = *working*

Ensure you are aiming downrange, and not at your foot....


----------



## owa (11 Jan 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Please check to see the placement of the arc markers.
> 
> Liberal MP's in Ottawa during prorogation = *not working*
> 
> ...



I suppose if they were in Ottawa on vacation it wouldn't be considered work.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/01/08/12393801-qmi.html

but that's not really what they're doing.


----------



## PolSciPof (12 Jan 2010)

I am trying to be respectful as much as I can to everybody. The Prime Minister's decision to prorogue is lawful. Whatever reasons one can decipher out of it (whether it has good intent or not) is out of the question. If one shall stricty apply the law, any attempt to nullify a lawful decision of the majority of Parliament because of one unrelated isolated incident can amount to sedition. 

ps. I read almost all of the posts of this thread and they were all amusing and funny. Keep up the good work guys!


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> The Prime Minister's decision to prorogue is lawful.



It may be lawful, but that does not necessarily make it right.

Both terms are not mutually inclusive.


----------



## PolSciPof (12 Jan 2010)

No offense, CDN AViator, but how right is this: "You give to Ceasar what is suppose to be his, and to God what is suppose to be His". I belong to a Church. Anybody who fails to subscribe to this gets expelled from the Church. No kiddin'. That is why we support the lawful incumbent, right or wrong or until he finishes his term..


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> No offense, CDN AViator, but how right is this: "You give to Ceasar what is suppose to be his, and to God what is suppose to be His". I belong to a Church. Anybody who fails to subscribe to this gets expelled from the Church. No kiddin'. That is why we support the lawful incumbent, right or wrong or until he finishes his term..


  WTF ? ???


----------



## PolSciPof (12 Jan 2010)

He is your Commander in Chief. He is up in the chain of command. You are entitled to your opinion, So am I, sir!


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Jan 2010)

The PM is not Commander in Chief of The Canadian Armed Forces.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> He is your Commander in Chief. He is up in the chain of command. You are entitled to your opinion, So am I, sir!


He's not _my_ Commander in Chief. My Commander is the Governor-General (and she's not a "he" by the way, since we're explaining basics) 

I accept that there are things, about which neither of us has the first clue. Yours is obviously things military, and mine.....well, you're apparently a PolSciPof.....and I have no idea what a "Pof" is.


----------



## PolSciPof (12 Jan 2010)

Assuming he is not Commander-in-Chief, still he belongs to the chain of command. He appointed McKay. McKay was perceived to be the reason behind prorogue. McKay is the master of Canadian Forces. The good Lord said, (emphatically): NO SERVANT IS ABOVE THE MASTER.  (I am joking, sirs)


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Jan 2010)

As a Poli Sci wallah, you may want to put the bible down for a while and pick up a book on the structure of the Chain of Command in regard to Canadian politics.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> ........  (I am joking, sirs)



I think you may have to work some on that sense of humour of yours.  It isn't as polished as it may seem to you.


----------



## Franko (12 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> Assuming he is not Commander-in-Chief, still he belongs to the chain of command. He appointed McKay. McKay was perceived to be the reason behind prorogue. McKay is the master of Canadian Forces.



You are out of your lane. 

Stick to what you know.....I'm going out on a limb and thinking Bible studies.

Regards


----------



## hold_fast (12 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> Assuming he is not Commander-in-Chief, still he belongs to the chain of command. He appointed McKay. McKay was perceived to be the reason behind prorogue. McKay is the master of Canadian Forces. The good Lord said, (emphatically): NO SERVANT IS ABOVE THE MASTER.  (I am joking, sirs)



...Could you please provide some sort of reference that shows that "McKay was perceived to be the reason behind prorogue"...?

IMO, it's "For Queen and Country".  The PM is /part/ of that country, yes - but we do not elect him. My loyalty lies within the rightfully and democratically elected body of Parliament.

Canadians seem to know more about the American political system than their own, and I'd say that is part of your confusion...


----------



## mariomike (12 Jan 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> well, you're apparently a PolSciPof.....and I have no idea what a "Pof" is.



Pillar of Fire ( Church )?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (12 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> No offense, CDN AViator, but how right is this: "You give to Ceasar what is suppose to be his, and to God what is suppose to be His". I belong to a Church. Anybody who fails to subscribe to this gets expelled from the Church. No kiddin'. That is why we support the lawful incumbent, right or wrong or until he finishes his term..



I thought that Jesus' "Render unto Caesar" bit had more to do with a nuanced view of how to reconcile living in the real and spiritual worlds at the same time, even when they might be at odds. 

What does this have to do with the thread?


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> No offense, CDN AViator,



I'm not offended. Youare the one who cant correctly identify the commander-in-cheif of the armed forces. You are the one that doesnt seem to know that there is a process to removed an incumbent before his/her term is over.

Maybe you did PolSci at an online school ?


----------



## armyvern (12 Jan 2010)

OK, someone please tell me who the hell Peter McKay is.

I don't know that guy; I do however know my MND.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jan 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> ...Could you please provide some sort of reference that shows that "McKay was perceived to be the reason behind prorogue"...?




This is a political game.  He is trying to say that because Peter MacKay is the current Minister of National Defence, it is because of him that the Conservatives are proroguing Parliament to cover up the nasty business of handing over prisoners to the lawful authorities in Afghanistan; a policy that was put in place by the Lieberal Government.   Somehow, this Political Scientist hasn't bothered to look at the relevant facts in this situation, and is looking for cause to further smear the Government.   

Perhaps he should join the discussion on the handling of detainees in the other forum.  He may educate himself a little more on the subject as well as the policies of several different domestic and foreign governments.


----------



## armyvern (12 Jan 2010)

Our MND is Peter MacKay. MacKay.

Prof is professor; I have no idea what a "pof" is, but I do know that a PoliSciPof is incorrectly spelling the name of a Minister of Parliament - the MND - whom was appointed by the PM he had earlier incorrectly identified as our CinC.

For some reason, I'm scared about that. 

Please _please_ tell me that Pof is not an incorrect spelling for "Prof" - especially one in the genre of PoliSci. Please. Some things are within my lanes and other things are not but this has got me really wondering exactly what lanes we are responding to?


----------



## PolSciPof (13 Jan 2010)

Gentlemen of this forum, I rest my case. (PolSciPof stands for Political Science Professor who refers to my professor in law who happened to be a PhD in Political Science whom I want to emulate, He is the source of my posts)


----------



## Scott (13 Jan 2010)

I guess in order for someone to be "off their meds" they have to be on them in the first place...

If you have an original thought please feel free to share it. Otherwise tell your Pof to register and post for himself.

This session is now in recess.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> Gentlemen of this forum, I rest my case. (PolSciPof stands for Political Science Professor who refers to my professor in law who happened to be a PhD in Political Science whom I want to emulate, He is the source of my posts)



 ???  Rest what case?  

I hope that this isn't coming out of U of T, as that would mean that the poster and their emulated friend hold artwork that isn't worth the paper it is printed on.  

Plagiarism is in a way a compliment to the original author, but often totally misunderstood by the person doing the plagiarizing.  It shows a total lack of individual thought.  It also indicates that the person doing the plagiarizing is a fraudster.


(PS:  I use Spell Check.)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jan 2010)

Now that the drama is over, let's get back on track. This isn't about PolSciPof.

Move on.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## PolSciPof (13 Jan 2010)

His famous quote that sent shivers in the whole academic communisty (with plausible exolanations, lest I be accused of plagiarism): FREE ENTERPRISE IS NOT AFFECTED BY HURRICANE KATRINA


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Jan 2010)

Wow. Just.....wow.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Jan 2010)

OK.....so...back on topic of parliament not being in session.

I think that today and the next few days will show *exactly* that the government can work, when or if the DART deploys and DFAIT or whoever else gets involved.  No debate needed, just action.


----------



## Steel Badger (13 Jan 2010)

I wondered who had been drinking from my aluminium pot......


----------



## brihard (13 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> OK.....so...back on topic of parliament not being in session.
> 
> I think that today and the next few days will show *exactly* that the government can work, when or if the DART deploys and DFAIT or whoever else gets involved.  No debate needed, just action.



How about the passage of bills authorizing financial aid? I'm unfamiliar with how much financial aid can be pledged without authorization of the parliament or cabinet. I'm thinking back to the 2004 tsunami, when parliament was recessed but not prorogued.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2010)

I do not wish to _play politics_ with the Haitian disaster but, with stories titled Cabinet huddles amid 'grim reports' from Haiti and with pictures like this dominating the news:






The Globe and Mail

it is going to be harder for the Liberals and the Harper hating media to say that we 'need' the HoC and Senate to be sitting. Canada, under the direction of the Government of Canada (Stephen Harper Prop.), is doing what needs to be done. Who needs Ujal Dosanjh and John McCallum and the Afghan detainee tempest in a teapot?

There is more than sufficient money available, even in the last quarter of the fiscal year, to cover anything and everything we might want to do for Haiti - which will be measured in the millions, maybe even tens of  millions of dollars, nowhere near a billion. When parliament resumes in March the government will, likely, ask for, _interim supply_ - a money bill - to cover all the costs, if only to secure the wholehearted approval of the opposition parties (none will dare vote against such a motion) for what the government did while the _nobodies_ were in recess.

Soon enough Canadians will be watching the Winter Olympics and the media will be totally preoccupied with them. Parliamentary squabbles will take a distant second place.

Again, not to make light of a tragic situation, but this is a political godsend for the Conservatives.


----------



## Franko (13 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> His famous quote that sent shivers in the whole academic communisty (with plausible exolanations, lest I be accused of plagiarism): FREE ENTERPRISE IS NOT AFFECTED BY HURRICANE KATRINA




48 hour time out is now in order. Next one like that and you're gone.
*
The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Jan 2010)

ERC, maybe you do not want to play politics with the Haitian disaster, but that does not stop the CBC.

The LPC ally, the CBC includes these links in their timeline of Canada's response :

UPDATE 11:20 a.m. - Colleague Kady O'Malley's researching how prorogation may hinder Canada's efforts to help Haiti.

UPDATE 1:21 p.m. - From colleague Julie Van Dusen on potential problems prorogation could present to Canada's response to the quake: PMO says there's no reason to recall Parliament for anything needed for Haiti.

My complaint is the media in Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2010)

I'm afraid it (prorogation) is all the Harper Haters - and the CBC is full of 'em - have to work with. _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ is about as exciting as a damp squib on his 'University Tour,' no headlines there. The only dead horse they have flog is prorogation  :deadhorse:


----------



## brihard (13 Jan 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm afraid it (prorogation) is all the Harper Haters - and the CBC is full of 'em - have to work with. _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ is about as exciting as a damp squib on his 'University Tour,' no headlines there. The only dead horse they have flog is prorogation  :deadhorse:



It's not merely Harper haters taking issue with prorogation. There are many of us who voted for him who are opposed to the prorogue as well; up to 32% of conservatives, if EKOS is to be believed.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Jan 2010)

> ... if EKOS is to be believed.


Sorry to keep beating on this, but I prefer _informed_ opinions.



If that's too subtle, I don't make up my mind by opinion polls -- dubious or otherwise.


----------



## brihard (13 Jan 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sorry to keep beating on this, but I prefer _informed_ opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's too subtle, I don't make up my mind by opinion polls -- dubious or otherwise.



I'm not suggesting that should sway your personal views about prorogue, just that it is indicative that a great many Canadians are opposed to it, including a substantial number from the right wing. It's merely irritating to be assumed to be a 'Harper hater' just because I'm against prorogue.

'Dubious or otherwise'... Are you suggesting the EKOS poll on the subject used flawed methodology or that it is unreliable for some other reason? The mathematics of opinion polling are long established...


----------



## AmmoTech90 (14 Jan 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sorry to keep beating on this, but I prefer _informed_ opinions.



Nice idea, but those with informed opinions don't necessarily elect the government, so, unfortunately, opinion polls can't be ignored.  Of course memories can be short and something shiney will no doubt come along to distract everyone once parliment is back.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (14 Jan 2010)

If work is getting done, and Parliament is out...?  Has anyone ever _seen_ Question Period?  Gad dammed embarrassing.  Dissolve the whole thing and run a Conservative dictatorship.  I think it's time.   ^-^
(clip is selected to highlight immature fratboy antics, not being partisan)


----------



## armyvern (14 Jan 2010)

ZC,

that's pretty much what I was thinking ...

How much more effectiently things are actually happening right now!!

Hmmm DART off and running within a day; a ship recalled to stock and ship out the same evening (last) of the quake ... and parliament is NOT in session.

But, that's a whole damn lot quicker than the more-than-a-week-later that the Liberals managed to pull off for the tsunami.


Mr Harper - kudos to you - I'm impressed!

If a parliament shut down means that things are actually occuring more effeciently, I'm good with it being closed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jan 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> If work is getting done, and Parliament is out...?  Has anyone ever _seen_ Question Period?  Gad dammed embarrassing.  Dissolve the whole thing and run a Conservative dictatorship.  I think it's time.   ^-^
> (clip is selected to highlight immature fratboy antics, not being partisan)



Yup, just watched the news. For a bunch of people that Igor and the liebrals are claiming are on vacation, the Conservatives sure seem to be on top of the Haitian aid things pretty quick. Perhaps it's because they don't have all the encumbrances of the 'albatross around their necks' opposition parties deflecting issues with their caterwalling. While the liebrals and dippers are totally engrossed in slinging feces, the Conservatives are at work making things happen. The only demand that Taliban Jack can come up with is for the gov't to match private donations, but we'll likely exceed that sum anyway. Moot point for TJ. Prince Igor can only ask that we fast track Haitian visas. Typical liebral. Looking for more immigrant votes, even on the back of a tragedy.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Jan 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> 'Dubious or otherwise'... Are you suggesting the EKOS poll on the subject used flawed methodology or that it is unreliable for some other reason? The mathematics of opinion polling are long established...






			
				Hawk said:
			
		

> I worked for Ipsos-Reid. Their call floor is in downtown Winnipeg. The way the polls work is this. They ask you about your support for the Government's commitment to having the troops in Afghanistan: "a. strongly support, b. support, c. oppose, or d. strongly oppose". If they punch in an "a" or "b" answer, it automatically brings up "Those are all my questions. On behalf of Ipsos Reid and myself, I would like to thank you for participating in our poll today. Have a good evening. Good-bye." If they punch in a "c" or "d", the next question about the troops in Afghanistan, or the Government pops up, and the survey continues damning the Government, the Troops, or both. Been there, done that - night, after night, after night. The kids (mostly age 16 to 20) will keep calling on this till they get a good number of negative responses, usually a pre-determined amount. Thankfully, I wasn't there long, but long enough to realize what a scam public opinion polling is.


----------



## hold_fast (14 Jan 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> If work is getting done, and Parliament is out...?  Has anyone ever _seen_ Question Period?  Gad dammed embarrassing.  Dissolve the whole thing and run a Conservative dictatorship.  I think it's time.   ^-^
> (clip is selected to highlight immature fratboy antics, not being partisan)



I had a big rant on this, but then I accidentally clicked on a different link and lost it.
Which is good, because I responded emotionally at how stupid of a statement that was. Instead, I'll sum it up for you (with proper spelling, to boot!):
- Harper avoided the question that was asked the entire time, including using the 'heartfelt moment' regarding the helicopter incident to avoid the question (which is also arguably him being out of order by not offering a related rebuttal).
- Whenever Ignatieff tried to speak, he was laughed at and mocked to the point where he could hardly be heard. THIS is 'fratboy antics'. 
- Every time Harper opens his mouth, it's clear that the whole governmental procedure is nothing but a game of marbles to him. You can see it in the way he smirks and hear it in his arrogant tone. 

Now, back to something that actually matters... In regards to the response to the disaster in Haiti, I would not give Harper the pat on the back for the fast response nor attribute all of it to the Conservative government. Personally, I would attribute the response to Peter MacKay and the Gov. General, who is of Haitian descent.

I believe a Liberal government would have responded just as quickly, and the fact that there is no parliament in session at present does not equate to a quicker response by the Conservative government. 

Occam's razor. When given two theories, choose the theory with the least amount of assumptions.
In this case, either:
A) The Conservative government responded quicker to the Haitian disaster by not having a nagging Liberal opposition party to prevent their response.
or 
B) The Canadian government responsed quickly to the Haitian disaster because they have outlined the procedures and funds for International disaster relief required by learning from past experiences (I.e., 2004 tsunami) and parliamentary debate and discussion.

Use rational thought and choose.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jan 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> Now, back to something that actually matters... In regards to the response to the disaster in Haiti, I would not give Harper the pat on the back for the fast response nor attribute all of it to the Conservative government. Personally, I would attribute the response to Peter MacKay and the Gov. General, who is of Haitian descent.


Yes, she is of Haitian descent, but she is Canadian.  I would liken her leadership to that of Moral leadership, because the real executive power rests with the PM.  Peter MacKay is but a minister, but again, the executive rests with Mr. Harper.


			
				hold_fast said:
			
		

> I believe a Liberal government would have responded just as quickly, and the fact that there is no parliament in session at present does not equate to a quicker response by the Conservative government.


Here's a short time-line of what happened in the 2004 Tsunami:
An earthquake in the Indian Ocean on *Dec. 26, 2004*, triggered a series of tsunamis in Southeast Asia, killing an estimated 275,000 people. Prime Minster Paul Martin announced *Jan. 2, 2005*, that DART would be sent to Sri Lanka.
(source)




			
				hold_fast said:
			
		

> Occam's razor. When given two theories, choose the theory with the *least amount of assumptions*.
> In this case, either:
> A) The Conservative government responded quicker to the Haitian disaster by not having a nagging Liberal opposition party to prevent their response.
> or
> ...


I'll say "a".  Fewer assumptions.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Jan 2010)

And I was awaiting for someone to associate the quick response by the government to the disaster in Haiti to the fact that the  GG is of Haitian background. The spin of: Did she not do the government's bidding twice?

hold_fast fell into it, and whoever hold_fast is (the non requirement to fill out a profile), they will not be the last to spin the government's quick response in this way.

It's like using the term war criminals based on one man's report.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Jan 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> 'Dubious or otherwise'... Are you suggesting the EKOS poll on the subject used flawed methodology or that it is unreliable for some other reason? The mathematics of opinion polling are long established...


In addition to Bruce Monkhouse's link here, have a look at this archived CBC article, which explains why polls are often wrong, and becoming increasingly inaccurate.


> *The perils of polling  *
> Posted in _Reality Check_ on October 12, 2008
> 
> By Ira Basen
> ...


The article provides detail on why pollsters are OK with being wrong so often.

And if the two links cited don't convince you......then your mind is already made up, and you don't understand why an increasingly discredited source producing nebulous phrases such as, "is indicative that *a great many* Canadians are opposed to it, including *a substantial number* from the right wing" really don't carry much weight.


"Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" 
     _~Benjamin Disraeli, later popularized by Mark Twain_


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> It's not merely Harper haters taking issue with prorogation. There are many of us who voted for him who are opposed to the prorogue as well; up to 32% of conservatives, if EKOS is to be believed.




I appreciate your position; you and I see prorogation differently, that’s all. But the Harper Haters are real – see Lawrence Martin, for example. The Harper haters are ideologues – every bit as much, say, our very own Thucydides.

I have no doubt that the polls are right and his prorogation decision is backfiring in the immediate term. I expect that events – including Haiti – will change that but his overall reputation will take yet another hit. Harper probably isn’t worried because _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ is such a damp squib that he cannot profit from Harper’s errors.

There was an interesting article on a major media outlet’s web site a few days ago – I cannot find it now -  expressing, yet again, the concern that our (Canadian) parliamentary system is dysfunctional. I happen to agree. For fully 40 years now, since 1970, power has been increasingly centralized in the PMO. Trudeau was only expressing the views of all his successors and all their _advisors_ (Mulroney, Chrétien and now Harper) when he said MPs were _nobodies_ as soon as they were off Parliament Hill. In fact they, most MPs, including some ministers, are _nobodies_ even when they are on the Hill. We used to say that Canadian PMs with majorities were ‘elected dictators;’ now Harper is demonstrating that a good parliamentary tactician can be an ‘elected dictator’ without a majority.

I see, and I’m repeating myself, prorogation as a normal part of the ‘life’ of parliaments – we’ve had 40 parliaments (following general elections) in 143 years and we’ve had 144 ‘sessions’ – 100+ of them following prorogations. Prorogations are _healthy_; they allow the government of the day to _suck back and reload_ and, through the mechanism of a new Speech from the Throne, present a _revised_ programme to parliament, for its approval or rejection, and, therefore, to Canadians for their approval or rejection.

In my view this is a good time for a prorogation. The economic disaster is, for the moment, over - but all is not sweetness and light for Canadians: if we are, indeed, in a recovery it appears to be a jobless one; government  stimulus spending is not the answer to all our prayers – in fact it has driven us into deficit and Canadians need to consider the government’s plan to balance the books, again; Afghanistan is winding down – it’s time to (re)consider our place in the world; and so on. A new Throne Speech will give parliamentarians and Canadians much food for thought and action. Perhaps the Liberals, NDP and BQ will disapprove the Throne Speech or the follow-on budget and send us to the polls again; perhaps one (any one is enough) will support the government and Harper will be given time to implement his new revised updated ‘plan.’

In any event, as the Haiti _exercise_ shows, the *government* works quite well without the ‘guiding hand’ of parliament.

As to the rumoured reason for the prorogation, the Afghanistan detainee issue, I repeat: we need a public inquiry that asks how we got into this detainee pickle, starting back in 2002. Blame, such as there is, needs to be laid at the feet of all those who made decisions that may have put Canadian soldiers and leaders in a legally untenable situation. Those key decisions were made in 2002 and 2005 – by Liberals. Bring on the inquiry!


----------



## observor 69 (14 Jan 2010)

This is one of the  problems a parliament still in session should be dealing with.


Chronic deficit looms, watchdog says
Even with the economy at full strength in 2013, tax hikes, spending cuts may be the only remedy

OTTAWA–Canada is teetering on the brink of an economic chasm as debt continues to pile up, budget watchdog Kevin Page said Wednesday.

Page predicted that by late 2013, when the economy will be back at full capacity, the federal government will still have a deficit of nearly $20 billion – more than $8 billion higher than Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's forecast – that could last well into the future.

"What we are saying to parliamentarians is that you've got some tough choices ahead," Page told reporters.

"You've got a weak economy ... you got a (higher) unemployment rate ... and you got to start dealing with a structural fiscal problem that's going to get bigger and bigger and bigger and we are saying right now you have no targets," he said.

"We are nowhere near annual balanced budgets. We are nowhere near debt-to-GDP ratio of 25 per cent. Our forecast ... is a debt-to-GDP ratio of 34 to 35 per cent."

The parliamentary budget officer said a combination of overspending, tax cuts, reduced labour productivity, low commodity prices and an aging workforce means Canada is headed for a real "mess."

"We were in a mess in the early 1990s, high debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ratio. For every revenue dollar, we were spending 35 cents in interest ... so we know what it's like to be in a mess," he said  after handing down a report on potential GDP and the government's structural budget balance.


More at LINK


----------



## hold_fast (14 Jan 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> And I was awaiting for someone to associate the quick response by the government to the disaster in Haiti to the fact that the  GG is of Haitian background. The spin of: Did she not do the government's bidding twice?
> 
> hold_fast fell into it, and whoever hold_fast is (the non requirement to fill out a profile), they will not be the last to spin the government's quick response in this way.
> 
> It's like using the term war criminals based on one man's report.



The GG holds a LOT of sway with the government, regardless of how you picture her. She is the representative of the Queen of Canada, our Queen. It is not just for publicity that she was in the briefing meetings on Canada's response to the Haitian disaster, she WANTED to be there. Whereas if you look at Harper, his usual lifeless stare looks like he's thinking about rainbows and unicorns.

The GG doing the bidding twice for the government - I assume this is in relation to her prorogation of parliament twice. She made the right choice in the first prorogation - Canadians didn't want a second election so quickly, and too many people were against a coalition government. As for the second prorogation, I don't think she put much thought into it - she most likely just saw the Olympics and understood why to prorogue it past January 25th.


Now, in regards to my "non requirement to fill out a profile" - I read the terms and conditions of this site. It was a suggestion, and NOT a requirement in the area I came upon.
If you can provide something substantial to the contrary, feel free to do so, Mr. Milnet Police Officer.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jan 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> It is not just for publicity that she was in the briefing meetings on Canada's response to the Haitian disaster, she WANTED to be there.


As is her right.  And given her heritage, fully expected.  Well done to her, in fact.


			
				hold_fast said:
			
		

> Whereas if you look at Harper, his usual lifeless stare looks like he's thinking about rainbows and unicorns.


No comment to this ad hominem attack.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> This is one of the  problems a parliament still in session should be dealing with.
> 
> 
> Chronic deficit looms, watchdog says
> ...




But *parliament* qua _parliament_ cannot do anything about that except approve or not the *government*'s plans to deal with the deficit. Parliamentary committee hearing, in Canada, are a bad joke because:

1. Committee's are far, far too partisan;

2. Committee members do not take the 'work' seriously - see partisan, above; and

3. Committee's have inadequate research staffs.

Further, the experts (and Kevin page is *not an expert*, he is just a smarter than average guy who consults some) will not speak, clearly and constructively, to committees or even the opposition leader because they want direct, _trusted_ access to the Minister of Finance and they fear they will lose that if they advise committees and the opposition.

Page's report is one, but only one, piece of evidence Finance (minister and bureaucrats) need to consider, during this prorogation, while they revise their fiscal plan for a March/April budget. Then, after the budget is brought down, parliament has a role: approve it or send us too the polls. Until then: they're better off doing nothing because, at least they're doing less harm.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jan 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> Now, in regards to my "non requirement to fill out a profile" - I read the terms and conditions of this site. It was a suggestion, and NOT a requirement in the area I came upon.
> If you can provide something substantial to the contrary, feel free to do so, Mr. Milnet Police Officer.



Nice attitude.  It lends well to your credibility, or lack thereof.  Your credibility is what some are/may be questioning.  It will take much longer to prove it through numerous posts, than it would should someone have an idea "where you are coming from".   Of course it is your choice to attempt some anonymity on the internet and let the membership develop an impression rather quickly of who you are.  Just be warned, it may not be complimentary.

This is a tough crowd.  Judgements are already being made.  

Hope this helps you rethink your reply above.


----------



## observor 69 (14 Jan 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Further, the experts (and Kevin page is *not an expert*, he is just a smarter than average guy who consults some) will not speak, clearly and constructively, to committees or even the opposition leader because they want direct, _trusted_ access to the Minister of Finance and they fear they will lose that if they advise committees and the opposition.



Perhaps somewhat more than " a smarter than an average guy who cnsults."

79.2 The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to
(a) provide independent analysis to the Senate and to the House of Commons about the state of the nation’s finances, the estimates of the government and trends in the national economy;
(b) when requested to do so by any of the following committees, undertake research for that committee into the nation’s finances and economy:
(i) the Standing Committee on National Finance of the Senate or, in the event that there is not a Standing Committee on National Finance, the appropriate committee of the Senate,

(ii) the Standing Committee on Finance of the House of Commons or, in the event that there is not a Standing Committee on Finance, the appropriate committee of the House of Commons, or

(iii) the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of the House of Commons or, in the event that there is not a Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the appropriate committee of the House of Commons;

(c) when requested to do so by a committee of the Senate or of the House of Commons, or a committee of both Houses, that is mandated to consider the estimates of the government, undertake research for that committee into those estimates; and
(d) when requested to do so by a member of either House or by a committee of the Senate or of the House of Commons, or a committee of both Houses, estimate the financial cost of any proposal that relates to a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction.
2006, c. 9, s. 116.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/P-1/20090818/page-3.html#codese:79_2

And :

Kevin Page was born in Thunder Bay, Ontario in 1957 to James and Stella Page. A graduate of Fort William Collegiate Institute, he later studied at Lakehead University, Simon Fraser University and took his M.A. in economics from Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Page


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Jan 2010)

Hold on hold_fast. The "the non requirement to fill out a profile" remark was confirmation that you _*do not * _   have to fill out the profile. It is up to you to decide as you stated.

 I did check all your previous posts prior to my post, just to see if I understood where you are coming from.

All I was saying was that in my opinion, the Harper Haters will soon be on that spin. Heck, I am surprised some in the media, or the comments to the articles, did not say Harper caused the earthquake.

Now that was silly, wasn't it.


----------



## GAP (14 Jan 2010)

He Did!! He Did!!.....Honest.....I heard in the lineup at Starbucks this morning, and boy, you can't get more credible than that!!!


----------



## hold_fast (14 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Yes, she is of Haitian descent, but she is Canadian.  I would liken her leadership to that of Moral leadership, because the real executive power rests with the PM.  Peter MacKay is but a minister, but again, the executive rests with Mr. Harper.Here's a short time-line of what happened in the 2004 Tsunami:
> An earthquake in the Indian Ocean on *Dec. 26, 2004*, triggered a series of tsunamis in Southeast Asia, killing an estimated 275,000 people. Prime Minster Paul Martin announced *Jan. 2, 2005*, that DART would be sent to Sri Lanka.
> (source)
> 
> I'll say "a".  Fewer assumptions.



'Moral' is the wrong word, but I'll go with it since I'm too tired to seek out the right word.
'Moral leadership' is just as powerful and useful as executive power. Certainly it was 'moral leadership' that dictated we should assist Haiti, not just the longstanding governmental commitment to Haiti.
Anyone who believes otherwise is a buffoon. 



> It has taken a week or more to understand the enormous scale of the disaster in Asia − recall in the first hours a loss of 12,000 lives was reported; now we are facing a loss which may exceed 200,000 − twice the population of Thunder Bay. DART requires a large physical area to establish its base, and its specialised engineering capacity ideally needs to be located near to a primary water treatment facility in order to establish a long-term water supply.  It is, therefore, prudent to take time to assess the scope of the disaster and to select carefully the site for the team so that it can have the greatest impact in the longer term towards the recovery of the community.
> 
> It is an unfortunate fact that even in so huge a humanitarian crisis, some news media and politicians seize on the opportunity to politicise the national and international response.  Surely partisan politics can be set aside in these circumstances and the focus turn to investigative journalism identifying the needs and the most efficient and effective response strategies?  Had these politicians taken time to educate the public on the capacity and role of  DART, the apparent delay in its deployment would be better understood by the public.  Canadians should take great pride in the contribution that the DART team will make in the current crisis. -_ Dr. Tony Gillies, Civil Engineer_


http://agora.lakeheadu.ca/agora.php?st=51

Asia is bigger than Haiti.
We already had longstanding contacts in Haiti and could move in quickly, whereas Southeast Asia was a much more volatile climate both politically and geographically.

Anyways... back to the prorogation...


----------



## brihard (14 Jan 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> In addition to Bruce Monkhouse's link here, have a look at this archived CBC article, which explains why polls are often wrong, and becoming increasingly inaccurate.The article provides detail on why pollsters are OK with being wrong so often.
> 
> And if the two links cited don't convince you......then your mind is already made up, and you don't understand why an increasingly discredited source producing nebulous phrases such as, "is indicative that *a great many* Canadians are opposed to it, including *a substantial number* from the right wing" really don't carry much weight.



The 'nebulous phrases' you quoted belonged to me, not the EKOS poll. The actual research findings that informed those phrases were that 41% of Canadians 'Strongly Oppose' prorogue. Another 18% 'Somewhat Oppose". 16% 'Somewhat Support", and only 15% 'Strongly Support'. The remainder were unsure or chose not to respond. That's 59% opposing to any degree, and 31% supporting to any degree. Out of self-reported Conservatives who answered the poll, 14.0% 'Strongly Oppose', and 17.1% 'Somewhat Oppose'.

I didn't initially want to just throw numbers at you, but I'm perfectly wiling to if you object to my phrasing. I can link you to the data tables if you would like to verify what I've said. They also disclose their research methodology and margins of error.

I recognize that polling is not magic, and is prone to error, however this is not the only research finding on this subject, and it's been widely reported from several other research findings in the past week that support for the conservatives has taken a fairly significant hit over this. Even if you want to argue the specific findings of any given poll, it's getting increasingly hard to argue the general trend being indicated as further polls report similar results. The prorogue is having a pretty significant political backlash.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> As to the rumoured reason for the prorogation, the Afghanistan detainee issue, I repeat: we need a public inquiry that asks how we got into this detainee pickle, starting back in 2002. Blame, such as there is, needs to be laid at the feet of all those who made decisions that may have put Canadian soldiers and leaders in a legally untenable situation. Those key decisions were made in 2002 and 2005 – by Liberals. Bring on the inquiry!




Here is the speech I would like Stephen Harper to give later this month or during the first week or so of February:

-------------------------------​
Ladies and Gentlemen;

As we – all Canadians – bask in the glow of the accomplishments of our armed forces personnel in the recent Haitian crisis it is worth remembering that they are not without their critics.

During the last session of parliament and during this recess several prominent Canadians, including elected member of parliament, former cabinet ministers amongst them, have suggested – quite explicitly – that Canadian soldiers and their leaders are war criminals. You may recall retired Lieutenant General Michel Gauthier’s _crie de cour_ to a parliamentary committee about the shock he and his wife felt when they saw, on nation wide television, a member of parliament, not a member of *my* party, I assure you, accuse him of just that: being a war criminal.

First: let me admit, straight off, that my government did not handle this issue as well as we could have and should have. We did, eventually, reform the detainee custody system we inherited from Messers Chrétien and Martin but it took too long. Right off the top: we did not fully understand the issue – we learned, but, throughout 2006, we were preoccupied with other issues, including other issues related to Afghanistan. That’s not an excuse but it is what happened. We misunderstood what the system we inherited from Messers Chrétien and Martin did and did not do for us. Even y experienced and knowledgeable defence minister, who probably understood this issue better than anyone at the cabinet table, was unsure of the details of, for example, Red Cross reporting. That’s not an excuse, either, but, again, it is what happened at the time. We made mistakes; we corrected our mistakes; we took responsibility and blame; we never tried to blame our soldiers and the military leaders; we never called our general – who have devoted their whole adult lives to the service of their country – war criminals.

Second: The charge, which I regard as scurrilous, has been levied, and people of good will and people of ill will, too, can and will exploit it. Some people will want to haul someone like retired Lieutenant General Gauthier in front of an international war crimes tribunal – and they might get away with that if we, Canada, do not take action to investigate the issue thoroughly, properly and openly.

To that end: I intend to convene a Royal Commission on Canadian Responsibilities for the Handling of Detainees in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2008. I will ask an eminent Canadian jurist to lead this commission; one member will be a judge lawyer with significant international military law experience – especially related to e.g. the Geneva Conventions; another will be a Canadian judge or lawyer with considerable experience in human rights law.

Their mandate will be:

1.	Tell us how we got into this mess and, by so doing, tell us how to avoid getting into it again; and

2.	Tell us how our political, bureaucratic, operational and legal procedures might be strengthened so that Canadian soldiers are not faced with bad choices in the future.

I will waive cabinet confidentiality for this Royal Commission but it may, almost certainly will, have to consider some evidence _in camera_ so that classified and privileged information is not made public. But, in the main, I will expect the Commission to work in the open. My ministers and officials will all testify fully and I will expect former ministers officials to do the same. The Commission will have the power to compel testimony.

The Royal Commission will be able to find fault, if there is some, and lay blame, if blame is warranted, and then, if necessary, Crown Prosecutors may take action based on its findings.

At the end of this process, which will be difficult for some, Canadians will be able to be assured that their military will always act within the spirit and letter of international humanitarian law and, if it does not, those individuals who fail in their duty - soldiers, bureaucrats or politicians - will be called to the bar of justice.

We need to do this. As I said, some politicians and other public figutes have said that our military personnel are war criminals. Of course, I do not believe that, but some will and it is, therefore, the duty of the Government of Canada to investigate and to give our military members a full chance to clear their good names and, also, to prove to the world that we can and will investigate and deal with such accusations here in Canada, on our own. 

After consultations with the appropriate officials I look forward to naming the Commission before parliament resumes sitting in March.

Thank you for your attention.

-------------------------------​

We need to allow our military members to clear their names of these odious charges, leveled by shameless politicians and we need to assign the blame where it belongs: with the governments of the day that made the various and sundry poor decisions. _’Allo M. Chrétien!_, Mister Martin: pay attention, Sir!


----------



## hold_fast (14 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Nice attitude.  It lends well to your credibility, or lack thereof.  Your credibility is what some are/may be questioning.  It will take much longer to prove it through numerous posts, than it would should someone have an idea "where you are coming from".   Of course it is your choice to attempt some anonymity on the internet and let the membership develop an impression rather quickly of who you are.  Just be warned, it may not be complimentary.
> 
> This is a tough crowd.  Judgements are already being made.
> 
> Hope this helps you rethink your reply above.



My credibility need only extend to my existence as a Canadian citizen with an opinion. It's obvious I'm not trolling.
I'd argue that any additional information would become the real fodder for others to factor into passing judgements on my opinions, rather than taking the opinions just as they are.
Making judgements on my tone or opinion is more comforting to me than to make judgements on my age or what part of Canada I'm currently living in.

Nonetheless, I've updated it with what I feel is enough information.


----------



## GAP (14 Jan 2010)

ER...while I think the end result will end the same as you pointed out, but why would the government cater to comments from the cheap seats? 

The MSM is milking it and essentially condemming it, most intelligent voters can see the partisanship garbage for what it is........


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jan 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> 'Moral' is the wrong word, but I'll go with it since I'm too tired to seek out the right word.


laziness is no excuse.  "Moral Leadership" is the exact phrase I was seeking.


			
				hold_fast said:
			
		

> 'Moral leadership' is just as powerful and useful as executive power. Certainly it was 'moral leadership' that dictated we should assist Haiti, not just the longstanding governmental commitment to Haiti.
> Anyone who believes otherwise is a buffoon.


From some reports, the ball was rolling to assist Haiti due to the PM's direction prior to even being contacted by the GG.  He is the executive leader of the government.  The GG is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, I get that, but in reality, that is more figure head, and a symbol, than anything.  Now, pay attention, because this buffoon is about to teach you a lesson in moral leadership.

The PM has directed the Armed Forces to provide assistance.  The Armed Forces is doing that.  The face of Canada, however, is the GG, and *she* will symbolise to the world in General, and to Haiti in particular, of the moral effort Canada is putting into this.  You are dead wrong if you suggest that the GG is responsible to deploy the armed forces.  That executive power belongs with the PM, and the PM alone.  
All that aside, when Canada speaks on the world stage, the GG will stand and proudly declare that Canada is helping its neighbour, and she will call upon her fellow Canadians to lend a hand.  She will provide the moral compass for Canada in Haiti's time of need.  The PM had already decided to act by sending elements of the forces.  The rest of the help, through donations primarily, will be sought for by the GG.  That, my dear fellow, is moral leadership.


			
				hold_fast said:
			
		

> Asia is bigger than Haiti.


Thanks for that.


			
				hold_fast said:
			
		

> We already had longstanding contacts in Haiti and could move in quickly, whereas Southeast Asia was a much more volatile climate both politically and geographically.


I highly doubt for one moment that you even suggest that our contacts in Haiti were able to contact us.  The PM threw diplomacy out the window and took the word of a minor Haitian Diplomat as an official call for help.  Why?  There was no contact.  Yes, we have had, and continue to have CF members there in Haiti.  That played no role in why we could move quickly.
As for the tsunami, the announcement that the DART would even deploy took a week.  They could have said, much earlier, that it was leaving, but the CF cannot move without executive leadership, even though the moral leadership was screaming to HELP.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (14 Jan 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> The GG holds a LOT of sway with the government, regardless of how you picture her. She is the representative of the Queen of Canada, our Queen.
> 
> The GG doing the bidding twice for the government - I assume this is in relation to her prorogation of parliament twice. She made the right choice in the first prorogation - Canadians didn't want a second election so quickly, and too many people were against a coalition government. As for the second prorogation, I don't think she put much thought into it - she most likely just saw the Olympics and understood why to prorogue it past January 25th.



Were the GG not to follow the PM's advice we would have a constitutional crisis on our hands.  Note that the Queen follows the advice of the UK's PM just as the GG follows our PM's.  Some people don't think that unelected people should be making government decisions.  Because they both must follow the PM's advice doesn't mean they do it without giving their opinion.

The one significant real power the GG does have is to hire and fire the PM.  It's usually an obvious decision.  I think the only exception was the King-Byng affair where the Liberals lost the election but refused to quit and when they failed to gain confidence in the House demanded new elections which they only got after the new Conservative government failed to get confidence in the House.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jan 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I appreciate your position; you and I see prorogation differently, that’s all. But the Harper Haters are real – see Lawrence Martin, for example. The Harper haters are ideologues – every bit as much, say, our very own Thucydides.



While I am an ideologue of the Libertarian bent, I am also pragmatic enough to realize that the Libertarian Party or related movements like the Freedom Party are not in any position to make electoral gains now or in the forseeable future. Some of it is because of Gramscian damage created by a century of "Progressive" thought which makes it difficult for people to understand all the implications of this political philosophy (the standard objection: "but who will take care of the poor?" for example), while the larger reason is organizing Libertarians is like herding cats. >

Being a pragmatist, I will settle for continuing an insurgency against Stateists, collectivists and Socialists, and using whatever existing strucutures and organizations to add leverage to my actions. Don't think I am happy with the CPC right now, and I have a few things in mind for them as well....


----------



## Journeyman (14 Jan 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I recognize that polling is not magic, and is prone to error...


Yet you obviously continue to place your faith in it. 

Since your response contains no indication that you actually read/understand either link provided, and merely repeats the 2nd-year PolSci mantra of your earlier posts (-ie it's _mathematical_; since it's measurable, it must accurately portray reality*), the obvious way ahead is simply more " :argue: " 

I will therefore bow out of this discussion.



* Yes, there are people unhappy with this latest prorogation. _So what?!_ I wasn't happy with the Liberal's (increasingly failing) gun registration. I didn't quote some CBC poll in a feeble attempt to buttress my opinion.


----------



## brihard (15 Jan 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yet you obviously continue to place your faith in it.
> 
> Since your response contains no indication that you actually read/understand either link provided, and merely repeats the 2nd-year PolSci mantra of your earlier posts (-ie it's _mathematical_; since it's measurable, it must accurately portray reality*), the obvious way ahead is simply more " :argue: "
> 
> ...



I have enough faith in literally decades of mathematical study that has validated the methodology of polling. I'ts almost never perfect, but generally speaking it provides a pretty reliable metric of the public's views on given subjects.

Your objections to the efficacy of polling notwithstanding, you really have not provided a counter to any of the substance of what I've said. You charitably 'recognize that there are people unhappy with the prorogation'. Do you assert that of the Canadians aware of prorogue, the majority are NOT opposed to it? Are you claiming that it is not significant to our national discourse that this many Canadians are actively concerned about what's happening (or more particularly, not happening) right now? Are you trying to say that there is not at least a significant number of us who voted conservative who are opposed to prorogue?

You've come out swinging against polling (yet without any actual critique of its methodology or sampling in this case; merely a couple of anecdotes of instances where polling has not been particularly well used), yet you've declined my offer to provide a link to the source data for your own review, and you haven't actually said anything of real substance or taken a specific view. In light of that, short of defending what you've challenged, there's really not much more I can say.


EDIT TO ADD:

E.R. Campbell; my apologies, I got sidetracked here and forgot about the reply you posted to me earlier. I'm packing it in for the night now, but I'll endeavour to get back to you as soon as I'm able, since your post definitely deserves a response.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Jan 2010)

Brihard, I'm curious. Did you object this strenuously for any of the other 100+ times this has happened?


----------



## Journeyman (15 Jan 2010)

I'd drafted this as a PM to Brihard, since I _had_ walked away from this thread shaking my head at some peoples' naiveté. However, I feel that understanding polls is important.



Brihard, I'll repeat the critical link verbatim. Please take the 30 seconds to read it.


			
				Hawk said:
			
		

> I worked for Ipsos-Reid. Their call floor is in downtown Winnipeg. The way the polls work is this. They ask you about your support for the Government's commitment to having the troops in Afghanistan: "a. strongly support, b. support, c. oppose, or d. strongly oppose". If they punch in an "a" or "b" answer, it automatically brings up "Those are all my questions. On behalf of Ipsos Reid and myself, I would like to thank you for participating in our poll today. Have a good evening. Good-bye." If they punch in a "c" or "d", the next question about the troops in Afghanistan, or the Government pops up, and the survey continues damning the Government, the Troops, or both. Been there, done that - night, after night, after night. The kids (mostly age 16 to 20) will keep calling on this till they get a good number of negative responses, usually a pre-determined amount. Thankfully, I wasn't there long, but long enough to realize what a scam public opinion polling is.


In this case, the poll, contracted by a left-leaning media outlet, will result in:
"Yes, I'm OK with prorogation" = "thank you for participating in our poll today" or
"No, I'm against prorogation" = the survey continues the anti-Government questions

Now I don't know whether you're working on a BA in Economics or Politics or whatever; yes, I grant you the mathematics behind polling is well known. But as noted in the CBC link, in addition to its other weaknesses (eg - people with little interest, [I suggest an overwhelming percentage of the polity] will not respond at all) it's increasingly flawed because a growing demographic use cell phones, which do not get polled. 

Despite it's known and spreading shortfalls, it remains a key tool in the Humanities...because it's all they've got -- that's what the professors had to learn, so that's what they pass along as the Holy Grail (much like some military leadership/staff schools will take a generation to get past the Fulda Gap, but that's a separate rant)

In the example above,* the survey is increasingly skewed by, 
a) the actual question asked (would the poll results and/or your ardent support change had the question asked been "should the government table the prisoner-abuse allegations to committee so it can focus on actually governing"?), and 
b) the conduct of the survey, wherein anti-government results get more in-depth questioning.
I suspect that had the polling results not met with the view favoured by the editor, it either never would have been published, or it would have been played down and buried back in the classifieds

Not only have I spent my life "burning villages, women and children," I've also spent a bit of time dwelling amongst the Marxists of academe -- I know how polls work. As such, I guess we'll have to accept our differing degrees of faith in them.



* You dismiss the source, who had "boots on ground" in polling for Ipsos-Reid, as merely anecdotal. Should one suggest that any posting you make, based on Afghan experience, be equally dismissed as anecdotal? Personally, I would have more faith in someone's opinion, preferably informed by research and experience, than an anonymous poll structurally flawed to reach a pre-ordained conclusion.


----------



## observor 69 (15 Jan 2010)

Nicely done JM, I have no problem with your argument but from what I am reading it's not just about this one poll but a "slide" in ranking over the last while:

Jodi Shanoff, vice-president of public affairs for Angus Reid Strategies, said the backlash over proroguing Parliament speaks to the bigger issue of the Conservative slide in the polls since late fall when the Harper government was enjoying 40 per cent support and flirting with majority territory. 

"Canadians don't altogether trust Stephen Harper and even his own supporters in this case are showing a little bit of skepticism about his motivation," she said.

A new poll released by EKOS too highlighted a Conservative slide since the fall, when the Tories enjoyed a 15-point lead over the Liberals, which now has been reduced to five percentage points. The poll had the Tories with 33.1 per cent support, the Liberals at 27.8 per cent, the NDP at 16 per cent and the Greens at 13.4 per cent.

The EKOS poll looked at the prorogation issue and found it registered strongly with Canadians and was receiving "universal raspberries," said president Frank Graves.

LINK

Hoping a "slide" is more statisically valid than a poll.   :-\


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Jan 2010)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> I had a big rant on this, but then I accidentally clicked on a different link and lost it.
> Which is good, because I responded emotionally at how stupid of a statement that was. Instead, I'll sum it up for you (with proper spelling, to boot!):



So is it politics you take too seriously or yourself?  I have thought Parliament was a goat rodeo for decades, through many governments.  




			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Not only have I spent my life "burning villages, women and children," I've also spent a bit of time dwelling amongst the Marxists of academe -- I know how polls work. As such, I guess we'll have to accept our differing degrees of faith in them.



I would also be curious if Canadians are against the prorouge as to why.  I would _intuitively_ think that it is because of perceived getting paid to slack off and not "work" and not because they are so morally outraged at the lack of debate about how some pack of arseholes who dedicated their lives to killing NATO soldiers (or helping those who do) got treated by their fellow countrymen within the bounds of their own laws.  



			
				hold_fast said:
			
		

> Use rational thought and choose.



It is my rational thought that allows me to see what an inefficient, money wasting government system we have.  To see something dramatically different, led by someone whom I respect and trust doesn't strike me as being all that bad.  
Pride goeth before the fall.


----------



## PolSciPof (15 Jan 2010)

Critics of Harper readily jump into conclusion that proroguation was circumvention of public scrutiny in the torture of detainees. What if that is not what Harper has in mind but only to pose in front of cameras in the Winter Olympics together with other Conservatives? Moreover, proroguation was a  privilige on which the critical Left presumed to have sinister motives. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If Harper allegedly 'has  sinnned' so did the crtics.

Harper is not the leader to pick nor MacKay. Conservative economic policies have worked for us. The less taxes, the more investments. The  more investments, the more revenues. The more revenues , the more welfare. Singapore which started as a country with a landmass as large as Toronto applied this policy. Look! Their per capita income is almost as high as USA. She also has 40 billionn dollars in surplus. What did Trudeau nd McGuinty do to our economy. TAxed companies to death. The result was a ballooning 800 billion dollars in debt. . Nobody wants to believe that cuttting taxes  is the remedy. Look     at USA. 400 billion dollars surplus


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (15 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> Look     at USA. 400 billion dollars surplus



You might want to restate that.  I googled US surplus and all I got were army surplus stores, somehow fitting because fighting wars is where much of their debt came from.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (15 Jan 2010)

The link:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5g5dRvsRL1YwO-b3lYfT2O8GzSYmw



> Last year's deficit surged to US$1.42 trillion, more than three times the record of the previous year, an imbalance of US$454.8 billion set in 2008.


----------



## PolSciPof (15 Jan 2010)

When Clinton came into power the Cold War also ended. USA was able to pay 700 billion dollar debt. From thereon succeeding governments earned surpluses. Whatever is the reason why the US government through their clandestine networks like CIA, DIA , FBI direct journalists to print those 'ballooning debts' is part of a grand strategy to 'feign weakness' (Sun Tzu's Art of War) same way as when the old Soviiet Union sent Nozenko and Yurchenko to make CIA believe that if a world war ensued USSR would not be able to win it because of poor nuclear technology. This is open source. Read Naomi Klein's DISASTER CAPITALISM. From her very own book you will read that even USA and CAnada have spin doctors exagerating our debt to make the public aware and force them to save money. Again these are open sources and NOT CLASSIFIED.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Jan 2010)

So let me get this straight. You're saying that the US and Canadian governments are lying about the size of their debts in order to have the sheeple save money? Wow, who knew? Wait... the CIA, FBI and DIA right?  :


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> When Clinton came into power the Cold War also ended. USA was able to pay 700 billion dollar debt. From thereon succeeding governments earned surpluses. Whatever is the reason why the US government through their clandestine networks like CIA, DIA , FBI direct journalists to print those 'ballooning debts' is part of a grand strategy to 'feign weakness' (Sun Tzu's Art of War) same way as when the old Soviiet Union sent Nozenko and Yurchenko to make CIA believe that if a world war ensued USSR would not be able to win it because of poor nuclear technology. This is open source. Read Naomi Klein's DISASTER CAPITALISM. From her very own book you will read that even USA and CAnada have spin doctors exagerating our debt to make the public aware and force them to save money. Again these are open sources and NOT CLASSIFIED.



I haven't read anything quite so funny since I read "Disaster Capitalism" (which is a hilarious confection of unwarrented assumptions, cherry picking and strawman arguments. ) Will you point out the effects of these large surpluses in the economy to us? Perhaps you can provide the econometric data that shows a large increase in the saveings rate starting with the Clinton Administration (or is this somehow attached to the Bush Administration?)

Since my higher education is in economics, I must be missing something here. We are in a period of unstable equilibrium right now and the signs point to two possible outcomes: a massive surge in inflation or a prolonged period of deflationary stagnation (such as Japan has been undergoing since the 1990's). Since very critical policy choices must be made, and soon, I will be looking with interest at what baloons the government floats in the lead up to their economic readjustments, and the economic update in March.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Jan 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I haven't read anything quite so funny since I read "Disaster Capitalism" (which is a hilarious confection of unwarranted assumptions, cherry picking and strawman arguments. ) Will you point out the effects of these large surpluses in the economy to us? Perhaps you can provide the econometric data that shows a large increase in the saveings rate starting with the Clinton Administration (or is this somehow attached to the Bush Administration?)
> 
> Since my higher education is in economics, I must be missing something here. We are in a period of unstable equilibrium right now and the signs point to two possible outcomes: a massive surge in inflation or a prolonged period of deflationary stagnation (such as Japan has been undergoing since the 1990's). Since very critical policy choices must be made, and soon, I will be looking with interest at what baloons the government floats in the lead up to their economic readjustments, and the economic update in March.



Now lets wait for it.......

As per the Tinfoil Chapeau SOP:
1.  Ignore the reasonable, well put question(s).
2.  Post new series of opinion based wild hare suppositions.
3.  When new, qualified, intelligent info is provide for above, goto step 1.


----------



## PolSciPof (16 Jan 2010)

Thucyd..., we are not in a recession. We have NEVER ! been ever since Obama declared that we and US were. Why do I say that? Look at real estate prices nowdays. Houses in Mississauga on the average cost 300-500 thousand. We are lucky we only have 2-3% inflation rate. Other countries register 20-30 %. Ten years ago, New York was in recession. That caused a relative of mine to be able to buy a house at 40 thousand. It was good. Five bedrooms with basement. Those are the parameters I use to gauge whether your analysis has bearing or none.

Here's my reply to other poster. What for did the government of USA organize the CIA if it would not allow the CIA lawful countermeasures to combat economic SABOTAGE & espionage waged by communist countries if it would not hide its progress report. Just like a rich man who does not want to flaunt its money for fear of being a victim of kidnapping for ransom, US does the same.


sIR ZIPPERHEAD COP,well put. Just like any forum, riddled with irrational leftists and pinko commies. Thank you zipperhead cop


----------



## observor 69 (16 Jan 2010)

Ref the comments on polls; a thought from todays G&M:   ;D

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/


----------



## Rifleman62 (16 Jan 2010)

That's not a thought from the G & M. It's a shot. A big shot.

Think about it. At this time the world is rushing disaster aid to Haiti. The cartoon shows Canada's PM, day dreaming out a window with his hands in his pockets worrying about polls. 

I would think lots and lots of Canadians are satisfied with Canada's quick response. Obviously the G & M is not, otherwise would they depict Mr. Harper fiddling while Haiti burns.

To quote ERC; Yellow journalism (although I do not use that word to describe the shidt that passes for media in Canada).

P.S. Must be in window at his residence, because we all know he and the government are not at work.


----------



## observor 69 (16 Jan 2010)

G&M :

"The outpouring of Canadian support prompted the federal government, in a commendable move, to match Canadians' own donations to earthquake relief, up to $50-million.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/canadians-doing-proud/article1433601/


----------



## Rifleman62 (16 Jan 2010)

"outpouring of Canadian support *prompted   *  the federal government, in a commendable move, to match Canadians' own donations ...."

Implied that Canadian citizens _*forced (prompted)*_ the federal government to match citizens donations. I believe that the government first announced that it would match citizens donation up to five million (subsequently revised to fifty million). That was well before any citizen donated anything.

"Commendable" is faint praise. Hardly appropriate considering the governments response.

It's all these little nuances, cheap digs. Have you ever worked for someone who never had anything nice to say about anyone?


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2010)

OK PolSciPof, house prices are one piece of econometric data, but recession is measured in terms of the GDP of an *entire* economy. Two or more consecutive quarters of declining GDP is considered the definition of a recession, and why, yes, we had that.

Now it is true that all governments have lots of incentive to manipulate statistics, but there is lots of data from multiple sectors that demonstrate the state we are in, ranging from the size of the deficit, debt to GDP ratios, official unemployment numbers, welfare recipients, manufacturing orders, personal savings and net worth figures, tax receipts and so on. Careful investigation of the numbers reveals manipulation, especially when various sectors don't match up. The supposed jump in US GDP figures last quarter is one large example; not did the the +3.8% figure have to be revised downward, but economists have to explain how even the lower figure was possible given the measured decline in consumer spending in that quarter. Answer: massive government stimulus spending such as cash for clunkers rather than savings, investment and consumption as in a normally functioning economy. While the Obama administration can create a trillion dollar deficit to prop up the US economy for one quarter, how long do you think this can go on without inflationary consequences? For that matter, since they are using this vast flow of cash to prop up politically favored rent seekers (Auto companies and unions, the financial sector and housing), what are the consequences for the people who are not so favored?

So the Minister and his staff have to decipher the true state of the US economy while working on the economic update (given we are in the position of a lifeboat attached to the Titanic WRT the North American economy). Prorogation isn't really the answer to do this, although I will grant the PM may Have had many other tactical reasons to do so such as resetting the Senate committees, the Olympics and maybe other reasons.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> Thucyd..., we are not in a recession. We have NEVER ! been ever since Obama declared that we and US were. Why do I say that? Look at real estate prices nowdays. Houses in Mississauga on the average cost 300-500 thousand. We are lucky we only have 2-3% inflation rate. Other countries register 20-30 %. Ten years ago, New York was in recession. That caused a relative of mine to be able to buy a house at 40 thousand. It was good. Five bedrooms with basement. Those are the parameters I use to gauge whether your analysis has bearing or none.



There are lots of places in nowhereville Canada where one can still buy that,...just like in nowhereville New York State.

Now if you are implying that he bought a house anywhere near New York City for that than you are as stupid as that clown "mediocre1" that I banned some months ago......


----------



## PolSciPof (17 Jan 2010)

Thucyd..., what was wrong with our past GDP. It registered 4.1-5 growth during the last 2-3 years. Per capita income increased 15%. Obama has already been caught in bad faith. Remember him telling voters that under the Bush administration, USA was in recession. Two months after his election, he declared that the 'recession is over'. Cuban active measures campaign (implemented by Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of presidential candidate) has been with us for so many decades. They were intended to defraud the public as to the true state of the economy to discourage investors. If US or CAnada will be in recession, it would be either an 'act  of God' under Harper or is a result of Chinese and Cuban active measures campaign. (Research on active measures campaign).

As Jim Flaheryt has said: "We have to overhaul the system to get rid of our deficit. Here is Harper cutting taxes to encourage investments, hence, more revenues, more welfare and here comes McGuinty of Ontario where a bulk of investors are, taxing companies to death.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> If US or *CAnada will be in recession*, it would be either an 'act  of God' under Harper or is *a result of * Chinese and *Cuban active measures campaign*. (Research on active measures campaign).


 :rofl:

You seriously believe......oh sorry, we've established you have no thoughts yourself....._your much-admired professor_ believes that the North American economy is at risk of being brought down by Cuban "Active measures," ie - disinformation, propaganda, counterfeiting official documents, assassinations, and political repression?

 :  <---- go on, click on it; you know you want to


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> Thucyd..., what was wrong with our past GDP. It registered 4.1-5 growth during the last 2-3 years. Per capita income increased 15% ...




Please, *please*, please: go back on your meds or seek professional help or, at least, go to half decent grammar school, followed by a second rate high school to prepare yourself to enter a third rate university where you *might* learn something. Right now my impression, based on your posts here, is that - _sorry Mods, nasty personal attack, contrary to forum guidelines, etc, follows_ - *you are too stupid to breathe unaided!*

You have managed, with your near raving lunacy, to turn a reasonably good thread into junk.

Go away, far away, please.

Mods: I'll happily take a warning, for ungentlemanly conduct, if you will, please, silence this dunderhead - permanently - before he screws up the entire site.


----------



## Franko (17 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> If US or CAnada will be in recession, it would be either an 'act  of God' under Harper or is a result of Chinese and Cuban active measures campaign. (Research on active measures campaign).
> 
> As Jim Flaheryt has said: "We have to overhaul the system to get rid of our deficit. Here is Harper cutting taxes to encourage investments, hence, more revenues, more welfare and here comes McGuinty of Ontario where a bulk of investors are, taxing companies to death.



Quite a mediocre response. If you have nothing to contribute but hot air, please don't waste bandwidth.

Regards


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Jan 2010)

ERC! I am shocked by your statement.

Maybe, English is a second language.

Maybe a Young Liberal, knowing the Army.ca probable slant, out to cause trouble. Sounds like a YL, cause what is said is stupid.


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Jan 2010)

Edward, consider this your "friendly" warning.  Any more posts like that and I will consider putting you on the warning ladder.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## brihard (17 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> Cuban active measures campaign (implemented by Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of presidential candidate) has been with us for so many decades. They were intended to defraud the public as to the true state of the economy to discourage investors. If US or CAnada will be in recession, it would be either an 'act  of God' under Harper or is a result of Chinese and Cuban active measures campaign. (Research on active measures campaign).



Who _are_ you?


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Jan 2010)

Anyway....
To get back on topic.  I have heard no rumours or "whispers in the wind" suggesting that Parliament would "reconvene" prior to March as planned by the PM.  
Given that "the situation has changed" (vis-a-vis Haiti), what would the benefit be for parliament to resume sitting?  (This is a real question, not rhetorical).  For example, would a sitting Parliament allow for longer-term Government of Canada response to Haiti?  EG: Would there be measures that only the support of the house(s) could approve, other than monetary, of course.  I'm not talking about Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition asking rhetorical questions about "what is this government doing?"  I mean, the government has been pretty clear, and I doubt that they have time to sit in Question Period to answer such questions.
HOWEVER
Would a sitting parliament allow for bills to be presented and voted upon in order to really hammer home longer term plans?  Or would the scheduled resumption of parliament give the government time to prepare such measures?  As well, has the PM solicited any advice/thoughts from the opposition?  (I haven't seen any in the news on the interweb)


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2010)

That is a good question.

Running the disaster relief can probably continue as now, since aside from symbolic gestures (voting to support the people of Haiti etc.) any bills that might be tabled will take weeks or months to get through committee, voted into law and actually begin taking effect.

This is a good time for everyone to sit down and think about the issues involved in disaster relief, including preparation, what agencies need to do and so on, which could be raised in the house. March will be fine


----------



## PolSciPof (20 Jan 2010)

Sir Thucy....There is another factor that caused Jim Flaherty to advise "We have to completely overhaul the system". It has something to do with foreign investments. We should allow foreign competition. Look at Singapore. 100% foreign equity. Singapore's per capita income is almost on par with USA. Employers had a hard time recruting qualified employees because of too little supply. (If the demand is high and the supply is low, the wages are high [law of supply and demand]). Canadian activists would not complain of unemployment anymore. Even the Russians and Hongkong or China should be allowed. Never mind the illogical excuse of 'Canada for Canadians only'. Competition would lower prices. A massive pouring in of investments would raise revenues (hence more welfare, more employment). Let the public decide. Even if they buy in the ALLEGED! Chinese front COSCO. COSCO is taxed anyway and provides employment to immigrants. Let the consumers decide. We have to objective and not swayed by leftist authors of books invoking CANADA ONLY FOR CANADIANS.


----------



## c_canuk (20 Jan 2010)

I know it wasn't directed at me, but I'll bite



			
				PolSciPof said:
			
		

> Sir Thucy....There is another factor that caused Jim Flaherty to advise "We have to completely overhaul the system". It has something to do with foreign investments. We should allow foreign competition. Look at Singapore. 100% foreign equity. Singapore's per capita income is almost on par with USA.



assuming you can cite a source for this, how can you link the two seemingly unrelated topics.




> Employers had a hard time recruting qualified employees because of too little supply. (If the demand is high and the supply is low, the wages are high [law of supply and demand]).



do you mean employers in Singapore were having a hard time, or where?

Back in the late 90s there were a shortage of programmers due to the need to fix the Y2K problem among other reasons, Government forces encouraged a flooding of the job market which has highly skilled programmers now making sub average wages post y2k compared to what they were lead to expect while in school. In addition due to the shortage local companies found they could outsource a lot of programming to foreign contract firms and still get acceptable production. 

because of investment into foreign firms, programmers today earn a lot less than they would if 1. the government hadn't spent capital needlessly subsidizing students to become programmers, 2. had put some check in place to limit contracts to firms to do what was avalible here.

I'm not endorsing a tariff on foreign contracting, however I fail to see how firms investing in foreign interests drives local wages up.




> Canadian activists would not complain of unemployment anymore.



there is a segment of the population that does not want to be employed, and feels no need to obtain material possesions, these people will always be seen as disadvantaged, and we will never be free of bleeding hearts that want to take my earnings and use it to help those that don't want help. Granted I don't mind helping those that really want help.



> Even the Russians and Hongkong or China should be allowed.



I'm confused are we talking about local entities investing in foreign entities or vice versa? we already allow this, see the softwood companies that closed shop when the tarriffs went into effect, the ones from New Zealand closed shop as they weren't interested in investing additional capital to find a new customer base and our local workers suffered. Had it been owned locally I'm sure there would have been an attempt to break into the European markets where tree smuggling is a real problem.



> Never mind the illogical excuse of 'Canada for Canadians only'.



in what way is that an excuse... it seems to be a statement of one's opinion to me, why in particular do you think this is false?




> Competition would lower prices



in general yes



> A massive pouring in of investments would raise revenues (hence more welfare, more employment).



why would Russia, Hong Kong, China, and others want to make massive investments in Canada? Other than raw materials, what do we have to offer that can't be obtained elsewhere for cheaper and closer to them?  If we lower our prices to be competitive in some of those markets it would cause the reverse of what you claim.



> Let the public decide. Even if they buy in the ALLEGED! Chinese front COSCO. COSCO is taxed anyway and provides employment to immigrants. Let the consumers decide. We have to objective and not swayed by leftist authors of books invoking CANADA ONLY FOR CANADIANS.



what does all of this have to do with the parliment shutdown until march?


----------



## PolSciPof (20 Jan 2010)

"Ignore the unreasonable"-my good friend zipperhead cop. You are just no contest for me Canuck Centaur or MSAntor or Janos Sison of China-Philippines.  You will really not stop stalking  me in any  forum I am iin ncluding my workplace. Let us just saay that you are not a lawyer, number 1, numberr two, you are not an economist. And no. three, you are no contest for me. Janos Sison, ladies annd gentlemen of this forum is the son of the Chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army who underwent a massive facial surgery in China Why do I know it. I am Director of Operratiions, CSIS. Ask Ward

This man is going to be deported to China. He was issued a security certificate. He is in the no-fly list. Attempted to compromise Katrina Hodge of British Army knowing fully well that his cover is blown; hence,anything that will lead to him shall be compromised. He too shall be extradited for spying on members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. He is spying for his father, a tagged terrorist


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> I am Director of Operratiions, CSIS. Ask Ward!


At the peril of entering the warning system myself:





rly:


----------



## Journeyman (20 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> You are just no contest for me.....


Your village really needs you to come home.





By the way, CSIS doesn't have a Director of Operations, and Ward left almost five years ago. :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Jan 2010)

OK, jokes over.
Guys just another internet wannabe who's been here before [and all over the internet], and I should have punted him long ago, but I wanted a chew toy to play with and I get to have so little fun here....... :crybaby:

Bruce


----------



## armyvern (20 Jan 2010)

PolSciPof said:
			
		

> "Ignore the unreasonable"-my good friend zipperhead cop. You are just no contest for me Canuck Centaur or MSAntor or Janos Sison of China-Philippines.  You will really not stop stalking  me in any  forum I am iin ncluding my workplace. Let us just saay that you are not a lawyer, number 1, numberr two, you are not an economist. And no. three, you are no contest for me. Janos Sison, ladies annd gentlemen of this forum is the son of the Chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army who underwent a massive facial surgery in China Why do I know it. I am Director of Operratiions, CSIS. Ask Ward
> 
> This man is going to be deported to China. He was issued a security certificate. He is in the no-fly list. Attempted to compromise Katrina Hodge of British Army knowing fully well that his cover is blown; hence,anything that will lead to him shall be compromised. He too shall be extradited for spying on members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. He is spying for his father, a tagged terrorist



Crap. Ward is outted. The little black helicopters continue their circling overhead ...



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> OK, jokes over.
> Guys just another internet wannabe who's been here before [and all over the internet], and I should have punted him long ago, but I wanted a chew toy to play with and I get to have so little fun here....... :crybaby:
> 
> Bruce



You sure that you're not Ward?  :camo:


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You sure that you're not Ward?  :camo:



He probably isn't    We'll send a nice white painted box car around for him.  
This derail could probably be a good lead in on a new spilt topic about how badly the mental health system lets down people who are ill.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jan 2010)

Well, despite the best efforts of e.g. the _Globe and Mail_ and the _CBC_ to flog the issue  :deadhorse: this is the _horde_* of demonstrators that showed up yesterday:







Folks: I live in downtown Ottawa. I walk by the Hill several times a week. This is about as many people as show up on any pleasant summer afternoon - long after the Ceremonial Guard has gone - just to wander around aimlessly. More people would show up to watch the annual parliamentary window washing.

Non event.

But that will not stop the media from moaning and groaning: they hate it when parliament is in recess - no ten second sound bites and no chance for Dosanjh and McCallum to call Canadian soldiers war criminals. 


----------
* As described in by one of the _Globe_'s bloggers.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jan 2010)

So... how come no one is asking about Bob Rae's "assault on democracy" for proroguing the Ontario Legislature 3 times while he was premier?

Just sayin...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2010)

A blogger on the Left coast looks for the rally and finds:

http://pragmatictory.blogspot.com/2010/01/vancouver-protest-thousands-of-needles.html

(go to link, lots of pictures)



> *Vancouver Protest; Thousands of Needles Lost in a Haystack*
> 
> With the superlative hyping of these mass protests across Canada, I decided that I would visit the Vancouver chapter of Canadians Against Prorogation, excited to see some of the left coast's loonie fringe at their finest. I grabbed my camera, jumped in my car, and took off for downtown. I was listening to the radio en route where they said "we are receiving reports that thousands of people are protesting up Hornby street." But sadly there was a serious accident in the Stanley Park causeway and the Lion's Gate Bridge was shut down to vehicle traffic, so I had to "park'n walk". Thus I arrived at the Art Gallery just under an hour late. I still figured these thousands of people would be easy to find.
> 
> ...


----------



## Northalbertan (24 Jan 2010)

From the numbers I've been able to put together from the media, and you have to look hard, as for some strange reason there aren't a lot of stories covering the numbers of protesters Canada wide, there were less than 10,000 across the entire country.  

I was at a hockey game in Edmonton the other night watching the (unfortunately) last place team in the NHL lose another one and there were twice as many people out to watch the game as there were protesters in the entire nation.  This is a grassroots rebellion against the conservatives?  In my world it is a nonevent.  I think the real story is a lack of support for the Coalition of the Left.  

Somehow I don't think you will see our MSM making much of a comment on the lack of numbers.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jan 2010)

Further to your last, from today's Globe:



> ...Media estimates of the crowds at demonstrations in 13 of Canada's biggest cities ranged from about 10,000 to 14,500. Former NDP press secretary Ian Capstick, compiling figures from protesters, journalists and bloggers, estimated that protests in 32 communities, including New York, exceeded 27,000....



And yet:



> ....Opposition parties say they don't think Canadians are distracted by Haiti or rebuilding efforts such as today's Montreal conference - which will also feature Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive.
> 
> "We're a big and complex country and are capable of following more than one issue at a time," NDP Leader Jack Layton said.
> 
> He said the Saturday rallies against prorogation that took place across the country are proof Canadians are still angry at Mr. Harper's behaviour....


----------



## Jed (25 Jan 2010)

It seems like the MSM is working hard at propaganda techniques to keep this non event 'proroguation' alive. The stretching of statistics is unbelievable.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2010)

Protests in 32 cities, including _New York_?

Ian Capstick; maybe thet was a T.E.A. party protest in New York. The IA for your head would be "Tap, Rack and Go!" Please carry that out before attempting to continue.  >


----------



## brihard (25 Jan 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A blogger on the Left coast looks for the rally and finds:
> 
> http://pragmatictory.blogspot.com/2010/01/vancouver-protest-thousands-of-needles.html
> 
> (go to link, lots of pictures)



Was it your intent to follow up on this and read the comments to that blog entry which link to accounts and photos of the protest? The author of the blog was caught in traffic and missed the point of departure, then attempted to spin that as if the protest did not occur. Even CTV, who have not been kind to our efforts, estimated the Vancouver turnout at about 2000. The blogger in question is fortunate in that his anonymity shields him from most of the ridicule he deserves for attempting to portray it as not having happened.

There are verified attendance numbers for at least forty different rallies, with the conservative estimates of attendance nationwide being a bit over 27,000- important to note that no-one is contesting the number, but merely the significance of it. For a cold Saturday afternoon in January, that's not bad.

In Ottawa we expected perhaps a thousand. The most conservative media estimates of actual turnout are 3500, and in speaking to the RCMP officers designed to keep an eye on us (who are experienced with this kind of thing) they were privately giving me estimates of five to six thousand. Pundits are attempting to compare our turnout to what the Facebook numbers were as opposed to with our actual publicized expectations and hopes for attendance- which in nearly every case were significantly exceeded. The crowd demographics in Ottawa were interesting too. We weren't even predominately students; most of the folks I saw were young professionals, middle aged, or older. Facebook also cannot account for our attendance, as the numbers greatly exceeded the total number of people who pledged attendance on the Ottawa facebook group.

We pulled off the Ottawa rally with a budget of three thousand bucks that we raised ourselves. We rejected party or union help in organizing, and, hilariously, our two undergrad U of O students who initiated the whole thing read Messrs. Layton and Ignatieff the riot act to keep their speeches on the subject of prorogue and away from too much of a party partisan nature. The claims that this was 'astroturfed' are ludicrous. I was involved with the Ottawa one form the start, as as a conservative voter I would have been out at the first sign of such shenanigans. It was actual honest engagement from a cross section of Canadians, many of us who had never attended any sort of protest before, including amongst organizers.

Mr. Capstick's reference to New York was referring to the approximately 30 Canadians who gathered outside the consulate. There were a handful of expats in San Francisco, a couple in Dallas, and about 30 in London, England.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jan 2010)

Ian's dad must be so proud...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jan 2010)

I wonder who paid for all the signs here and here, for example.

I especially like the War Crimes one.  :rage:

Non partisan, eh? On topic, eh? Yours, in Ottawa, maybe; others, not so much.

-----
P.S. I'm far away from Ottawa for a while so I didn't see any of this first hand or even second hand, on TV. It was (from a news PoV) pretty much a non-event beyond the reach of the Toronto media.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jan 2010)

I think the argument over the numbers is pretty juvenile - obviously, some event did happen.  At least people give a shit these days; I'll give 'em that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jan 2010)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an example of how ludicrous partisan politics in Ottawa, and in the pages of the _Globe and Mail_, has become:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/prorogation-optics-are-open-and-shut/article1444587/


> Prorogation optics are open and shut
> 
> Jane Taber
> 
> ...



My photo-op is bigger than your photo-op … this is the best Taliban Jack and _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ can manage? Let’s keep the damned house in recess until we elect adults.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (26 Jan 2010)

Taliban Jack and Iggy want to have the House of Commons decide when to meet instead of the Governor General.  Is this another coup attempt?  That would require a Constitutional ammendment and I don't see one of those on the horizon.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2010)

While the Vancouver guy was caught in traffic and missed the start, his point is pretty clear; large groups of people *should be easy to find*, and he went from place to advertized place and photographed....no one.

While I obviously was not there (not living on the left coast), perhaps some persuasive *wide angle* photographs showing these crowds would be a convincing rebuttal. I noticed no one in the comment thread (when I read it) had any links to such documentary evidence, which leads me to believe the blogger's contention that only a very small number of people were actually in attendance.


----------



## brihard (26 Jan 2010)

Here's a link to one of many stories about the Vancouver protest. Best photo I found in a couple minutes of looking.

http://www.globaltvbc.com/Prorogue+protesters+take+over+Vancouver+Victory+Square/2478034/story.html

It's one of many stories about the prorogue. It reports at least a thousand.

This article cites the Vancouver Police as estimating approximately 2000: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/rabble-staff/2010/01/voices-from-rally

Here's The Province, the major Canwest paper out of Vancouver: http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Thousands+turn+Vancouver+rally+protest+Harper+decision+prorogue+Parliament/2477710/story.html

They report 'several thousand'.

Those represent the high end and low end estimates I've seen for Vancouver, with the actual attendance probably being something on the lower end of the middle.

I'm not sure what the blogger in question considers 'a very small number of people', but I'm gonna go with several bylined news stories with photos and the personal accounts I've heard over an anonymous blog.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jan 2010)

It's easy enough to miss a large event in Vancouver if you don't happen to run across it.  A crowd which moves from one place to another is actually easier to miss.

Undoubtedly there is a cross-section of Canadians dissatisfied with prorogation; the poll numbers I think are too high for it to just be a matter divided along partisan lines.  However, I doubt many people have a substantial beef.  People who routinely object to the Conservatives find it to be another useful Nerf bat; people who don't routinely object to the Conservatives may be upset by the trivial impression of the House taking an unwarranted vacation.

For my part, if it cuts out four or five weeks of whinging about detainees in Afghanistan between the originally scheduled January stand-to date and whenever a budget is tabled, it's a good thing.  I would be very happy if we had one of those Parliaments that sits for a few months in spring to pass a budget and deal with the year's business with a sense of purpose, then largely shuts down leaving government in maintenance mode until the next year.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jan 2010)

Like Infanteer, I'm unconcerned about the numbers, in fact I wish more people had turned out, and I am also glad that some Canadians are interested in some political issues. 

My big worry is: *why this prorogation*? What makes it so special? What about the last one or the 100+ before it? Why did they not matter? *Why is this prorogation an affront to democracy, itself, when the others passed by with a big yawn from the media*?

My second, lesser worry is: do those objecting so vociferously really understand the situation to which they object? Is it the fact that the _recess_ is extended by a few weeks? Is it because the _business_ of parliament - 30+ bills dying on the order paper, no committees, possibly new senators and new Senate committee chairs - has stopped? Which takes me back to my first worry: *why is this prorogation special*? If it's not so _special_ then are the honest, earnest people who, in their tens of thousands, went out to demonstrate being manipulated by political operators and the media?

Everyone knows where I stand.


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Jan 2010)

Take a couple of minutes to listen to this:

Grassroots Fury:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/blogolitics/audio-charles-adler-on-the-grassroots-fury/article1421564/


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Jan 2010)

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/25/darcy-meyers-ignatieff-proposals-are-pleasant-but-largely-pointless.aspx

Full Comment
Darcy Meyers: Ignatieff proposals are pleasant but largely pointless

Posted: January 25, 2010, 5:00 PM by NP Editor 
Full Comment, Darcy Meyers

"If these rules were in place in 2008 Canada would have had Prime Minister Stephane Dion, with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton around the cabinet table."


 Whenever changes are proposed to address a particular issue, one of the first things that should be asked is what are the unintended consequences of such actions?

It is not suprising, given the recent headlines, that today Michael Ignatieff has produced some suggestions to limit Prime Ministerial prerogative and the power to prorogue.  While his suggestions appear to hit the right populist notes, and attempts to address the major concerns put forward by the anti-proroguers, they may lead to significant governance challenges down the road.

While the actual legislation or procedures will have to be Constitutionally tested, let’s assume for the time being that they respect the Constitution and our conventions and still carry some authoritative weight (this is highly unlikely).

Mr. Ignatieff has asked for 10 days written notice of prorogation, and a full debate in the house and achieve consent of a majority of MP’s.  He has also proposed that committees continue their work until the next session opens, that the delay between sessions be no longer than one month, and that prorogation not be used to dodge a confidence vote.

That all sounds nice and dandy.  Of course, if these rules were in place in 2008 Canada would have had Prime Minister Stephane Dion, with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton around the cabinet table.  Mr Ignatieff has acknowledged that coalition attempt was irresponsible, but with these rules in place, it would be non-preventable by a responsible Prime Minister acting in the best interest of the nation.

Another argument against prorogation has been that the executive draws authority from parliament and parliament being shut down diminishes that authority.  In the case of the Prime Minister, even though the house is not sitting, he still enjoys the confidence of the house allowing him to act and govern responsibly.  Committees continuing after a prorogation would not maintain the same parliamentary authority, essentially rendering them powerless.  There would be no point continuing an investigative committee that can’t compel witnesses to testify.

My largest concern though is that in our current age of minority governments, that the government could become subject to the tyranny of the majority (which progressive coalitionists would love).  It’s not that I believe the majority is tyrannical, but that the majority gaining such power over a minority government could paralyse the agenda, lead to irresponsible government, and likely produce even more elections.  It is the governments job to govern responsibly, the opposition does not have to meet the same standard-and this risks diminishing our responsible government.

If a paralytic legislative situation arises in the future, which an obstructionist majority opposition could easily engineer, the only choice left for an obstructed government would be to request an election to refresh the agenda.  This could go on and on, unless a coalition is formed, or electors select a majority.

Similarly, if a crisis arises and the government needs to adapt the agenda in response, (like a speedy budget in an economic crisis) it would be forced into an election, unless the majority opposition cooperates.  Not the best time to increase the likelihood of parliamentary games.

It is unlikely any proposal here can have much more authority than the fixed election law legislation (Bill C-16).  If legislated, it will need to specifically indicate that the role of the Governor General is not altered to remain constitutional.  It will likely provide no structural change to our governance practices.  While there may remain a political price to pay for prorogation, even breaking these potential laws, it will likely remain Constitutionally legitimate as is, and luckily part of our system of responsible government.

National Post

Darcy Meyers is a freelance writer, commentator and blogger based in Saskatoon.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jan 2010)

I don't think there is *anything* constitutionally coherent in either the Layton or Ignatieff proposals and, despite the fact that I am not a lawyer I am confident that the lowest court in the land would toss either out, if, by some remote mischance one or the other became law, and every higher court, all the way to the _Supremes_ would agree. _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ and Taliban Jack are just grandstanding, preaching to the media choir, there is nothing of political substance in their proposals, despite three internally inconsistent _Globe and Mail_ editorials in support of one and then the other.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Jan 2010)

Orginally posted at Small Dead Animals (a great blog site)  http://smalldeadanimals.com/


http://www.fredoneverything.net/GreySludge.shtml  See link to read all of the article.

An Oozing Of Gray Sludge

Reflections On Our Media of Communication

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

I love the media. They remind me of a man who bangs on his thumb with a hammer and wonders why it hurts. 

Every year a conclave of editors and publishers laments the decline in circulation and blames illiteracy or television or the alignment of the planets. It’s someone else’s fault. Recently I saw a story, perhaps on Wired.com, saying that the media are finally realizing that bloggers and small web-only sites are undercutting them. How very alert of them. This too is someone else’s fault. One reporter thought it was because people want bias.

Permit me to offer another explanation: People weary of the usual media because they aren’t very good. How’s that for a shattering insight? (This column is big on shattering insights.)

Why are the media not very good? 

In thirty years of in the writing trades, I’ve covered a lot of things, but three in particular: The military, the sciences, and the police. For years I had a military column syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate and later carried by the Army Times papers until I was fired for political incorrectness. For half a dozen years I rode with the cops all around the country for my police column in the Washington Times. And I’ve written tech columns and pieces for technical mags like Signal forever.

This isn’t my first rodeo. 

In each case the reporters I met were, with very few exceptions, pig ignorant. The military reporters didn’t know the history, the weaponry, the technology, strategy, tactics, or how soldiers work. Almost none had served. The police reporters chased scanners instead of riding regularly and just didn’t know what was out there or who cops are or why they act as they do. The tech writers were mostly history majors. 

Over the years I’ve noticed several things. First, in print publications, most reporters aren’t very smart. A few are very bright, but probably through a mistake in hiring. (The prestigious papers are exceptions, hiring Ivy League snots of the sort who viscerally dislike soldiers, cops, rural people, guns, etc.) Reporting requires assertiveness and willingness to deal with tedious material under pressure of deadlines. These qualities seldom come bundled with inquiring intelligence. Consequently reporters (again with the occasional exception) lack curiosity, and don’t read in their fields. 

The results are reasonably obvious to all of us, no? Is it not true that when you know a field, those writing about it clearly don’t?


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jan 2010)

I think it’s simpler: the media has its own _special interests_ and it pursues them. I think this situation, prorogation, is a good example.

It was, I think, Rupert Murdoch who gave us the important insight that “the role of journalists is to fill up the white spaces (dead air) between the advertisements.” Now journalists tell us that they “write the first draft of history” or “keep the public informed” or “speak truth to power” or, worst of all, “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” but, in reality, while some journalists they do _odd bits_ of those things none is a “role.” The journalist’s role, his or her _raison d’être_, is as Murdoch (or whoever it was) described and that’s why and how their pay-cheques get issues.

Stephen Harper and the media are on sour terms; have been since 2006, at least. He *is* a ‘control freak.’ He understands that controlling the ‘message’ is a key to political success. He has tried, and mostly failed, to bend the media to his will. They, by and large, do not like him; they, almost all of them, detest his media management aim and methods; quite separately they, again by and large, do not like his policies – as they understand _perceive_ them.

Prorogation has never been a big issue because the ‘agent’ of prorogation has never, before, been the enemy. Interestingly, just over a year ago, many in the media *supported* Harper’s prorogation to avoid a confidence motion – arguably an act that stretched the intent of the unwritten (important) parts of the Constitution – because, probably, they understood that neither of the alternatives – loss of confidence leading to a coalition or loss of confidence leading to another general election - were the ‘right’ answers to a political bumble. But this prorogation is different: it hit the media where it lives and breathes. It denied them their primary product: news *controversy*. The Afghan detainee issue was news *controversy* and the media were milking it for all it was worth; so was Liberal dominated Senate disruptions of Conservative legislation. Controversy fills up the white spaces and sells papers and air time. The late 2009 controversies were all the better because ‘bad’ Harper was getting a thumping. Harper turned off the lights and put the controversy on ice.

The solution: *manufacture controversy*. _Hype_ the facebook thing; make prorogation an _issue_ and keep it on the front pages (and TV equivalents thereof); make *this* prorogation a huge affront to democracy, itself, unlike any of the previous 100+ prorogations – some done much, much more cynically than this one. Why? Because this time it was the media’s ox that was being gored and they decided to use all of their considerable *power of persuasion* to fight back - to take a decidedly self serving and partisan stand on an issue.

Journalists, editors and publishers are not particularly stupid but they are self serving. They fight to protect their interests and that’s what the *most* of the prorogation fiasco is about: the media protecting its interests. That’s the answer to my earlier question: “why this prorogation?”


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Jan 2010)

I bet $ to donuts, that many here join with me in the request that you flesh out your last post, including the prorogation statitics, and send the piece to the G & M and the NP to be published. Please.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jan 2010)

Actually, all the major media have noted, more than once, that prorogations are a normal part of the 'life' of parliaments - 100+ in the 44 parliaments during the past 143 years. That's what makes this current situation so _different_: prorogations are _normal_ but this one is, somehow, unlike all the others, putting Canada on the precipice leading to the imminent fall of democracy, etc.

It's all rubbish, of course, self serving rubbish manufactured and propagated by the media, itself, for its own, self interested purposes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jan 2010)

Remember Edward Herman's and Noam Chomsky's _Manufacturing Consent_?

Well that's sort of what we have here. The _CBC_ and the _Globe and Mail_ and a few others are _Manufacturing Dissent_. 

The majority could care less about prorogation but the media are _hyping_ the legitimate concerns of a few and, in the process, fabricating an issue where none should exist.

It sells papers which, in turn, sell soap. That's why journalism exists: to get the adverts into the eyes, ears and minds of we consumers.


----------



## mariomike (27 Jan 2010)

If voting statistics are any indication, maybe more sheeple people are interested in American Idol than politics?


----------



## leroi (27 Jan 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I bet $ to donuts, that many here join with me in the request that you flesh out your last post, including the prorogation statitics, and send the piece to the G & M and the NP to be published. Please.



 :nod:

Yes, please do, Mr. Campbell!


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Jan 2010)

My oldest daughter is living in the US as her husband is posted to a USAF base. She gets all her Canadian news from internet news sources. I had to correct her re Harper on vacation, etc.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2010)

The model for Lenin, Goebbels and the CBC:

North Briton No. 45, John Wilkes.

Pamphleteer, Rabble Rouser, MP


----------



## Jed (28 Jan 2010)

There is an excellent article in the 28 Jan 10 Saskatoon Star Pheonix by Les MacPherson called "Does anyone really miss question period?" that is quite humous to read wrt to this thread. I will attempt to learn how to find a link online and than insert it in here if possible.


----------



## hold_fast (28 Jan 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think it’s simpler: the media has its own _special interests_ and it pursues them. I think this situation, prorogation, is a good example.
> 
> It was, I think, Rupert Murdoch who gave us the important insight that “the role of journalists is to fill up the white spaces (dead air) between the advertisements.” Now journalists tell us that they “write the first draft of history” or “keep the public informed” or “speak truth to power” or, worst of all, “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” but, in reality, while some journalists they do _odd bits_ of those things none is a “role.” The journalist’s role, his or her _raison d’être_, is as Murdoch (or whoever it was) described and that’s why and how their pay-cheques get issues.
> 
> ...



Yes - because hyping up conspiracy is exactly what we need and is the most concrete answer to the media coverage.

Feel free to expunge your hatred towards me by taking off MilPoints, because I generally won't reply to anything else in this thread - it's far too full of partisan bull**** to warrant any real debate.

Anyone bringing up a viewpoint that opposes Mein Fuhrer (I decided to give him a nickname since you so lovingly refer to Ignatieff as Prince Igor) immediately gets shot down and attacked.

Enjoy continually patting eachother on the back in this thread - because you obviously believe that's the best way to lead a country, too.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Jan 2010)

Bye,
I don't care who our PM is, I won't put up with that comparison.
Bruce


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Jan 2010)

Future posters take heed......


Think you should read the site guidelines before you post anything......
Milnet.ca Conduct Guidelines: MUST READ  

MILNET.CA MENTOR





			
				hold_fast said:
			
		

> Yes - because hyping up conspiracy is exactly what we need and is the most concrete answer to the media coverage.
> 
> Feel free to expunge your hatred towards me by taking off MilPoints, because I generally won't reply to anything else in this thread - it's far too full of partisan bull**** to warrant any real debate.
> 
> ...



EDITED 

Oops..... I see you are already gone.....


----------



## Spr.Earl (29 Jan 2010)

My own thought's are now is that we do not live in a democracy as it supposed to be,we live in a semi democartic/dictatorship.

  It is time that we remove some of the power's from our elected as we the people are begining to lose our voice and control over those we elect and employ to look after our well being.

In other word's we have no control what goes on at Ottawa!!

Nick


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jan 2010)

Prof. Michael Bliss (University of Toronto) is one of Canada’s preeminent academic historians and _public intellectuals_. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is his take on this affair:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/prorogations-wasted-on-those-who-need-it-most/article1448265/


> Prorogation's wasted on those who need it most
> *It's a tempest in a teapot, and the opposition parties are trying to keep it boiling*
> 
> Michael Bliss
> ...




Members and guests will not be surprised to learn that I agree with Bliss, including re: _”the need to create a Canadian head of state with reserve powers to protect the Constitution. He or she has to have the legitimacy of having been chosen by the Canadian people.”_

I *hope* he is right when he says, _”A few days after prorogation ends on March 3, Canadians will mostly have forgotten all the words written and spoken about it. They'll be rehashing the Olympics instead. Possibly the government will have profited from its break and be ready to chart a new legislative course.”_


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jan 2010)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> My own thought's are now is that we do not live in a democracy as it supposed to be,we live in a semi democartic/dictatorship.
> 
> It is time that we remove some of the power's from our elected as we the people are begining to lose our voice and control over those we elect and employ to look after our well being.
> 
> ...




I’m not being facetious, Nick when I repeat my oft expressed contention that the problem is only partially with the _system_ and only partially with the politicians; it lies, mainly, with the voters.

Like Infanteer I was pleased to see a few Canadians _engaged_ in politics – even if I think they are ill-informed and are being manipulated.

I have been reread William Bennet’s America: The Last Best Hope. It is hard to not be impressed by the quality of the _local_ debate in almost all the states of the emerging union. People were knowledgeable about and vitally interested in politics and the political processes. The debates over the nature of democracy and republicanism and federalism were informed and lively.

There are many first rate, interested but, sadly, not very interesting (charismatic) constitutional scholars in Canada, but, by and large, they confine their debates to dry, sterile academic vacuums; they disdain the popular press and TV – the primary sources of most Canadians’ _information_ – because it does not allow them to express themselves fully and accurately, not even in an occasional long, unedited opinion piece in a newspaper or magazine. It is rare to find an editor/publisher who will give a real, honest-to-goodness _expert_ ‘space’ for, say, 10,000 words.

(Michael Bliss’ comment, quoted, in full, above, is less than 800 words. It probably ‘consumed’ about 1/6th of a page in the _Good Grey Globe_’s print edition. Imagine ‘giving’ a constitutional scholar 2½ full pages to _inform_ Canadians. Newspapers would not make any money doing that and since they are in business to make money for their owners they don’t do that.)

Evidence from e.g. the Dominion Institute shows that most Canadians think we are Americans.  Perhaps we would be better off if we were. There is much to admire in the US Constitution and, generally, in how it has evolved and how it has protected Americans’ liberty over the past 235± years. But, the problem is that we are not Americans and we do not have a Constitution anything like theirs. Ours, at least the really important (unwritten) parts, is, arguably, better than theirs – but far, far too few of us know or care anything about it.

Is it surprising, then, that we elect less than sterling politicians and that we allow them to get away with scandal and chicanery?

Consider these words, *about US politics*,  by the _Globe and Mail_’s resident loony-leftie Rick Salutin: _”The problem isn't the intentions, it's the mechanics … When politics can't do real things, it becomes by default a realm of entertainment and titillation, requiring ever new thrills and Susan Boyle-like surprises. If last year's American political idol was the neat black guy, what's better this season than repudiating him in favour of a right-wing former centrefold from Massachusetts who drives a truck?”_ (I’m not sure why driving a truck is a mortal sin - nor having been a centerfold or coming from Massachusetts for that matter, but that’s nitpicking.) Salutin is right and it applies to Canada equally: we don’t consider policies or leadership any more. Politics is entertainment. Harper and Ignatieff are being _graded_ on their ability to _entertain_ and, yes, even to _titillate_.

The solution to our _democratic deficit_ – which does exist, I agree – does not lie in referenda or direct democracy; it lies in education. Better informed, _smarter_ voters will give us better politicians and better politics and a better democracy. And, sadly, that’s the only thing that will work.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jan 2010)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is the real reason why a prorogation was Constitutionally necessary:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/stephen-harper-takes-control-of-senate/article1448898/


> Stephen Harper takes control of Senate
> 
> Jane Taber
> 
> ...



When parliament reconvenes all committees must be reconstituted according to the party standings in each chamber. That could not happen while parliament was in session. All of the _CBC_ and _Globe and Mail_ ‘spin’ was just rubbish, designed to stir up the indignation of the uninformed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jan 2010)

Shoot, I was hoping Runciman was going to be my next Premier.......


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jan 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... It is rare to find an editor/publisher who will give a real, honest-to-goodness _expert_ ‘space’ for, say, 10,000 words.....



10,000 words???? Dear God in Heaven, Sir.  Consider the foresworn revenue.  In that space you could accomodate ten pictures.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2010)

Well, the ground has shifted a great deal under the feet of the Coalition partners (AKA opposition parties), and obdurate opposition in the Senate is no longer an option.

The only real way for them to change the things they don't like is to man up and force an election, but somehow that never comes out of the bluster. I suspect the new economic update and throne speech will come and go, the crime agenda will be passed and real movement towards Senate reform will begin in the 2010 session of Parliament.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Jan 2010)

> Elizabeth Marshall, a Newfoundland MHA



Heh, that made me chuckle.  Down here, people who have mental disorders are referred to as MHA's.  That is the acronym for the Mental Health Act.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Feb 2010)

As if we need proof:

http://chasingapplepie.blogspot.com/2010/02/perogy-media-bias.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChasingApplePie+%28Chasing+Apple+Pie%29



> *Perogy Media Bias*
> 
> It's now obvious the media has been biased as far as the perogy issue goes.
> Marilyn Baker,Winnipeg Free Press did a comparison of Harper's prorogation and the one in 2003 by Jean Chretien. The perogies in the past were yawners, this one suddenly a crisis.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Feb 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Calgary Herald_’s web site is an opinion piece that highlights the essential hypocrisy of those who protested so loud and long about Harper’s routine prorogation:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/columnists/Double+standard+prorogation+telling/2563069/story.html


> Double standard on prorogation is telling
> 
> BY LICIA CORBELLA
> CALGARY HERALD
> ...




Nothing much to add, except that Harper could not have foreseen the Haiti earthquake unless, as (left > right) Maude Barlow, Lind McQuaig and Judy Rebick (didn’t Shakespeare right something about three women and a cauldron?) doubtless believe, he caused it. 











 ]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





or, maybe


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Feb 2010)

While we're posting pictures of Harper's critics, I offer my submission.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Mar 2010)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is, [for me, the last word of the prorogation non-issue – it ended too soon:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/our-mps-work-hard-just-not-at-their-real-job/article1483423/


> Our MPs work hard – just not at their real job
> *Parliament has failed to fulfill its most fundamental responsibility: controlling government spending*
> 
> Neil Reynolds
> ...




Most of elected MPs do more harm – spending – than good –cutting – when they are sitting. Keeping them away from Ottawa, and the public purse, is the best away top control rampant overspending. But, they’re back and we can expect them to put us deeper and deeper into debt as they, pretty much all of them including most in the part I support, put their partisan advantage ahead of the national good.


----------



## observor 69 (1 Mar 2010)

The  2010 Olympic Winter Games, a true success for Canadians. It showed us we have the talent, the skill and more importantly the people to unite around a common cause and create something inspirational.

How far below that mark our parliament has fallen!


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Mar 2010)

... and now the prorogation is over, we've learned the following:

1. The world did not come to an end;

2. The Government of Canada was still able to function. In deed, the Government functioned in champion fashion during the Haiti crisis;

3. There were no constitutional catastrophes that Parliament had to remedy; and

4. Contrary to the dire warnings of the Opposition, the Canadian democracy did not mutate into dictatorship through the sole mechanism of emptying the House.


----------

