Comments on The Burd Report: More reflections on the protest

I liked the history lesson Mr. Hancock. People nee...

2010-01-28T13:20:07.951-05:00

I liked the history lesson Mr. Hancock. People need to hear, and read more of that.

I'm tired of opinions based more on emotion than verifiable fact. If I hear one more time that a coalition government is illegal and an "overthrow" of the government I will lose patience altogether.

Greg wrote "The problem is that Harper does n...

2010-01-26T14:26:19.634-05:00

Greg wrote "The problem is that Harper does not like being beholden to parliament." Well I'd be hardpressed to name a PM that isn't. After all, Parliament has a way of getting in the way of the government's agenda. As leader of the day, it is every PM's job to forge ahead on the agenda in any way legally possible. This is not unique to any particular colour or stripe of political organization. If that were not the case, little would be accomplished in the way of unpopular moves or changes, many of which are met with annoyance, anger and fear from all directions, yet are supposedly undertaken on the premise that they will benefit the country eventually, commonly known as 'policy'. We elect governments on the basis of their purported policies and hope they are acted upon during the government's term. We may not like what goes on during a term but there are traditional ways of dealing with that. I use the term 'traditional' because your comment also referred to 'tradition of parliament' in supporting the argument against using prorogation to further the government's agenda. On its return, Parliament still has the power to punish, if you will, the government for its alleged abuse of the power to prorogue. If Parliament chooses to not do so, for whatever reason it may have, it is complicit in the action and hypocritical at the least when it puts forward this hyperbolic indignation and silly "we're here to work but where's the government?" side show.

If parliament truly believes that there is a larger issue at stake here, it must hold the government accountable in a meaningful and decisive manner, even if there is something difficult at stake for the political organizations. After all, they say they're only concerned with the welfare of democracy here - well we'll see about that too, won't we.

I don't buy either side's argument, not any of it, because none of them are telling the bare boned truth, and that's what the people should get from them, even if some of them can't handle it.

Manfred: Yes, I agree that Canada isn't going...

2010-01-25T18:07:05.149-05:00

Manfred:

Yes, I agree that Canada isn't going to come to a halt just because MPs are missing from Ottawa for three weeks. In fact there is a school of thought that believes Canada would function much better without Ottawa altogether.

However, there is a long tradition of parliamentary government started by the British ( English?) that Canada has inherited. It started out with rule by a King who had an advisory council. Later on parliament gradually became more powerful and it became accepted that the king could not raise taxes to run the country without agreement by parliament.

Charles 1st found it very irksome to ask parliament for money, so he tried to run the country without parliament. This was on the whole rather unsuccessful and lead to a civil war , and Charles lost his throne and his head. The monarchy was later restored and still retained ultimate authority for running the country, but continued to need parliament to vote money. The ministers were appointed by the Crown, but the parliament was elected by the people ( at first not many of them, but starting in 1832 the vote was gradually extended to all men and women over the next century, Canada giving voting rights to women before the UK did).

The situation in which Canada finds itself is that the country's policies and finances are run by the government ( responsible to the Crown represented by the Governor General) but that parliament retains the right to throw out the government if it feels the government is being particularly offensive. This is the essence of parliamentary democracy. Its messy, but on the whole it works.

The problem is that Harper does not like being beholden to parliament. He instructs his Tory MPs to avoid parliamentary committees if the committees ask too many questions. He prorogues parliament to avoid a vote of confidence that he might not win, and most recently he has prorogued parliament for no apparent reason, except that it is easier for Harper because he doesn't have to bother with parliament. Basically Harper is using his interpretation of the rules to abolish the parliamentary system. No English King or British or Canadian PM has ever done this successfully before.

If you think back to the 20th century Hitler was elected as the German leader in the Reichstag, but gradually kept on taking on more personal power until it was too late and nobody could stop him, at least not by parliamentary means. There are various views about what was the last straw, but nobody is any doubt about the overall effect.

In the Canadian case Harper has set along the same course. We can all say "it really doesn't matter" until we wake up one morning and find out that actually it did matter.... or we can make a fuss now and get back parliamentary institutions and if necessary deny the PM the right to be King and parliament all wrapped together, even without a majority.

At the risk of sounding like a staunch supporter o...

2010-01-25T12:20:09.324-05:00

At the risk of sounding like a staunch supporter of everything that is being done, or not done, on Parliament hill these days, (which I do not) I feel obligated to ask the same questions, in a different form perhaps, about the effect of proroguing.

About this 'get back to work cry' - does anyone actually think that the town has stopped working whenever the doors to townhall are locked or no one is working just because you don't see a warm body in attendance? Does anyone really think that Parliament hill is actually shut down right now? If our MPs are goofing off right now, they're not worthy of being elected to their office, period - and that can be addressed at the next election, as well as right now with a call to their constituency office. Every MP has an office and has the opportunity to make use of this time to work on their own riding's concerns, while not 'sitting' in Committee or the House putting out the visuals. If they are not in their work mode, they don't deserve to be there, regardless of which party they support. Call your MPs, find out what they're doing if it genuinely concerns you. Judge their individual behaviour for what it actually is rather than "assuming" it. If they're lazy, dump them, you still have that power, prorogation or not. Do it - don't just whine about it. I'm convinced that many MPs are working at this time, rather than 'goofing around' just because the 'teacher has extended recess'. The government will still have to account for their decisions when 'class gets back to school', the metaphor that comes to mind when I hear the latest soap-box rants.

I get that folks want to feel that their concerns are heard but, in my opinion, they're being distracted and manipulated by chest-thumping opposition types looking to make some sort of impression for personal benefit more than making something worthwhile happen for their constituents. Now "they" are not working, they are merely politicking.
(I hold these opinions regardless of who's causing this commotion.)

There ... I feel a little bit better... for now!

A good video.

2010-01-24T22:14:57.077-05:00

A good video.