Chretien also already had one AG report on this issue and had himself asked the RCMP to investigate. Hardly the acts of someone trying to prorogue just to avoid accountability.
Larry Schneider - the former Conservative MP? Most people who only peruse the headlines and first few paragraphs would not even notice the disclaimer at the bottom of the article. Larry Schneider was destroyed by Ralph Goodale's team in Wascana, and owes the end of his short political career to Jean Chretien's phenomenal rise. No..., he wouldn't say anything negative about Chretien or Liberals... Not a chance... Lol...
Conservatives today forget the kind of leadership they thought they were getting in 2006.
I am not a fan of the NDP phrase, "Liberal/Tory same old story" but in this instance, nothing rings more true.
I suppose when Harper campaigns on accountability, free votes, reform - he really means he wants the Liberals more accountable, the Liberals hold more free votes, the Liberals reform themselves.
The reason for a prorogue is what is at issue here. Chretien prorogued for classic reasons: 3 were for elections, 1 was for switching PMs. Historically, these are well-accepted reasons.
Using a prorogue to avoid the majority will of Parliament is not a moral use of prorogue.
Let's not forget that Chretien had majority governments. Harper has only a minority government, and should not use a prorogue to avoid the majority will of Parliament. That is profoundly anti-democratic.
Prorogation is the only way to reset the senate comities. Now that the Conservatives have a balance in the senate, the comities that run the show need to be reset also. It's just that simple.
ridenrain - "Resetting" the senate committees, that's all you got?
You mean, every time a Senator retires we need to prorogue parliament in order "reset" the Senate and it's committees?
What happens when there's a vacancy in the House of Commons? Why are we always having these by-elections - why don't we just prorogue parliament in order to prepare for a call for a general election? That sounds like a marvelous plan.
The Senate is no excuse to prorogue parliament for two months. Furthermore, if that's the "real" reason then why is Harper on BNN telling everyone it's about "recalibrating" the economy for the next fiscal update? Perhaps because he's never used prorogation in the past to appoint Senators without the scrutiny of parliament. Oh wait...
There is nothing wrong with proroguing and nothing wrong with short sessions. They used to be quite common. Long sessions only came about because governments could not manage their legislative program to get bills passed in an organized way.
What is wrong are long periods without a functioning Parliament. I remember when new sessions would routinely start in September after the summer recess. Parliament would not prorogue until September and a new session would start within days. That way Parliament would be able to be recalled from it's summer recess if the public interest warranted it.
Proroguing to start a new session is perfectly proper. Proroguing to shut down Parliament is not.
If you look at the First and Second World Wars, you'd see that prorogations were quite short (days), and that Parliament sat and debated often, even during pre-budget periods. Must have been lots of "re-calibration" on a regular basis with all that happening, right?. Nope. Seems those older folks were capable of conducting wars, running centralized wartime economies and still were able to sit in the House and "play games."
9 comments:
Chretien also already had one AG report on this issue and had himself asked the RCMP to investigate. Hardly the acts of someone trying to prorogue just to avoid accountability.
Larry Schneider - the former Conservative MP? Most people who only peruse the headlines and first few paragraphs would not even notice the disclaimer at the bottom of the article. Larry Schneider was destroyed by Ralph Goodale's team in Wascana, and owes the end of his short political career to Jean Chretien's phenomenal rise. No..., he wouldn't say anything negative about Chretien or Liberals... Not a chance... Lol...
Game. Set. Match.
Conservatives today forget the kind of leadership they thought they were getting in 2006.
I am not a fan of the NDP phrase, "Liberal/Tory same old story" but in this instance, nothing rings more true.
I suppose when Harper campaigns on accountability, free votes, reform - he really means he wants the Liberals more accountable, the Liberals hold more free votes, the Liberals reform themselves.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Harper.
The reason for a prorogue is what is at issue here. Chretien prorogued for classic reasons: 3 were for elections, 1 was for switching PMs. Historically, these are well-accepted reasons.
Using a prorogue to avoid the majority will of Parliament is not a moral use of prorogue.
Let's not forget that Chretien had majority governments. Harper has only a minority government, and should not use a prorogue to avoid the majority will of Parliament. That is profoundly anti-democratic.
Prorogation is the only way to reset the senate comities. Now that the Conservatives have a balance in the senate, the comities that run the show need to be reset also.
It's just that simple.
ridenrain - "Resetting" the senate committees, that's all you got?
You mean, every time a Senator retires we need to prorogue parliament in order "reset" the Senate and it's committees?
What happens when there's a vacancy in the House of Commons? Why are we always having these by-elections - why don't we just prorogue parliament in order to prepare for a call for a general election? That sounds like a marvelous plan.
The Senate is no excuse to prorogue parliament for two months. Furthermore, if that's the "real" reason then why is Harper on BNN telling everyone it's about "recalibrating" the economy for the next fiscal update? Perhaps because he's never used prorogation in the past to appoint Senators without the scrutiny of parliament. Oh wait...
He would have needed only a day of prorogation to accomplish his senate committee take-over, not 63 days.
There is nothing wrong with proroguing and nothing wrong with short sessions. They used to be quite common. Long sessions only came about because governments could not manage their legislative program to get bills passed in an organized way.
What is wrong are long periods without a functioning Parliament. I remember when new sessions would routinely start in September after the summer recess. Parliament would not prorogue until September and a new session would start within days. That way Parliament would be able to be recalled from it's summer recess if the public interest warranted it.
Proroguing to start a new session is perfectly proper. Proroguing to shut down Parliament is not.
If you look at the First and Second World Wars, you'd see that prorogations were quite short (days), and that Parliament sat and debated often, even during pre-budget periods. Must have been lots of "re-calibration" on a regular basis with all that happening, right?. Nope. Seems those older folks were capable of conducting wars, running centralized wartime economies and still were able to sit in the House and "play games."
Post a Comment