Friday, January 29, 2010
The appointments will now give the Conservatives a plurality of votes in the Senate and allow them to gain greater control over Senate committees. ( See, there was a legitimate reason to prorogue and it was to make the Senate, to borrow a term from the anti-prorogue crowd, more democratic.)
The appointments of former Ontario provincial cabinet minister Bob Runciman, Quebec victims rights advocate Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, Ontario businessman Vim Kochhar and former Newfoundland and Labrador member of the House Assembly Elizabeth Marshall are effective immediately.
They will be joined on Feb. 28 by Rose-May Poirier, a member of New Brunswick’s Legislative Assembly.
Update: From a tip in the comments from Sammy : One of Canada’s newest senators — Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu will be donating his $132,300 a year salary to the charity he founded, The Murdered or Missing persons Families Association.
Though I suspect the Harper haters will ignore this bit of information and continue their fake outrage on the Senate appointments, IMHO it looks like the PM was on the ball with his choice of Boisvenu.
Last night during the local Global Edmonton 6 PM news broadcast was just such an occasion.
Normally I would have just made my comments towards the TV (and any family member who dares to sit and watch the news while I am there) and left it a that, as it usually is just a one off, but last night it happened twice and a third story dumped a whole pile of irony into the mix.
First up a story on the the deal the province struck with the pharmacists to decrease the costs of generic drugs.
The story covered all the relevant information, they spoke with all the parties involved including the opposition Liberals; all was good until I saw the following up on my screen.
A pharmacist, or possibly a pharmacy tech, counting out pills to fill a prescription while in plain view in the background sits another prescription, complete with the medication, Azelaic acid in Glaxal Base, and the FULL NAME and address info of the person it was written out for! (Even though I am not a professional journalist or a news editor, I have edited out the name for OBVIOUS reasons) Global is not the only one at fault here, although they are the ones that filmed it and let it make the segment, the pharmacy that allowed the taping should have made sure that no identifiable information was in sight.
That is where first I found myself yelling at the TV and soon after I felt the urge again while watching a story about a neighborhood meeting against a proposed cell phone tower in their area. The story was well covered but the reporter forgot to ask anyone interviewed who was against the tower the most obvious question of all. Do you yourself own or use a cell phone? I know, I know, it is not something that I should get that upset about but I was already sort of worked up over the pharmacy story and really, would this not be a question that you would have asked someone opposed to a cell phone tower if it were you asking?
So that was 2, and as I noted earlier I might have left it at that, but soon after came a third story that almost dared me to do more than just yell at the TV.
The final story was a Trouble Shooter segment on the subject of privacy. That is right, privacy. It seems that yesterday was International Data Privacy Day and current and former Privacy Commissioners were in town for a little forum on how to protect your, and your customers, privacy in the electronic age.
You know; privacy protection such as on computers with social networking sites, customer billing, and of course privacy from Global TV cameras. Oh the irony of it all.
Thankfully I do have another outlet other than just yelling at the TV, and I thank you for visiting it and reading my little rants.
Update Feb 12th: The Alberta Privacy Commissioner responds. Nothing at all from Global, not even a damn auto reply.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
That should set the Liberal outrage machine to 10 for a few days, even if they themselves have no intentions of doing otherwise if they were ever returned to power, unless this too is above Ignatieff's pay grade.
Any other ideas on what might set them off?
Michael Ignatieff: " I can't give you the answer that you want, which is to do away with prorogation, because it is way above my pay grade and requires constitutional lawyers and other fancy people"
Watch the video.
IMHO nothing has changed other than he smells an opportunity. An opportunity to get rid of the one thing that stood in way of the coalitions grab for power, prorogation, handcuffing every future PM of this great land in the process. Absolutely amazing! Here we have a guy who wants to permanently change the rules on system that has worked for 142 years and yet he does not even have the courage to face the voters in the polls before trying to do so.
How damn desperate, partisan and self-serving must you be to try and limit a power today that may be needed by a PM in a future where prorogation may be the only method that could be used to avert a potential nation destroying crisis. Talk about being short sighted.
Thankfully our constitution and rules of governance will not allow Ignatieff and his coalition buddies to change anything that really matters.
Spector on why Ignatieff's lame and dangerous proposals will not fly:
Benoit Pelletier, a constitutional expert and former Quebec minister of intergovernmental relations, argues that “amending the rules of the House or passing legislation would not be enough to force the Governor-General to ignore the wishes of a prime minister calling for a prorogation.
"It’s legitimate to try [to limit a prime minister’s power], but the possibility of blocking a prorogation is not obvious,” said the law professor at the University of Ottawa.
Mr. Pelletier said that prorogation is an element of the country’s political system and has a tacit constitutional recognition.“I think the Governor-General would obey the prime minister,”
A view echoed, in a report by CP that Bloc whip Michel Guimond says “the Bloc supports in principle efforts to impose constraints on the prime minister’s power to prorogue. But he said the party has been advised by legal experts that a constitutional amendment, approved by the provinces, is the only way to go about it….
He doubted there’s much appetite for reopening the constitutional can of worms.
“In principle, we are not against the solutions proposed by the two other parties but we know that we must be realistic,” Guimond said in an interview.
Even the Bloc know the reality on this, but unlike Ignatieff, most Bloc MP's have been in Canada long enough to know how our system works.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Yes Iggy, Canadians do want you to do something. At least make the attempt to look like you have a clue as to what you are talking about before asking for our votes.
And just in case you may think that this was just a one off from Ignatieff, may I remind you that this is not the first time we have seen such a gaffe from the deep thinker and touted "intellectual".
That's right. Ignatieff stood at another podium in front of the cameras, pointed behind him, and said "Look at the field behind me, it is not getting done," at a field that there was no plans to develop for 7 years! He also again tells us what Canadians expect of him: "This is us doing our job and this is what Canadians expect us to do." and again he fails miserably at that job.
Sorry Liberals, but Ignatieff is not up to the job and to be honest I am not even sure that he is even interested anymore.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Liberal MP Gerry Byrne believes the federal government should investigate whether the pieing of Fisheries Minister Gail Shea by a woman opposed to the seal hunt constitutes an act of terrorism.
A crime yes, but terrorism?
Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj is livid about Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s trip to Poland this week. Referring to the minister’s visit to Auschwitz as a “jaunt,” the Toronto MP says Mr. Kenney should be here, or in Haiti, dealing with the aftermath of the devastating earthquake.
Wrzesnewskyj 'jaunt" comment coming after comments made the previous day by Liberals such as Marlene Jennings defending MP's and Senators trips during the prorogation:"These are not junkets, they really aren't," she said. "When I first came in I did a few of these trips and believe me, we work. There is research that is done, there are documents that are produced, with recommendations and results and legislation. So we're working and believe me, they've got us going from early in the morning until fairly late in the evening." and Liberal MP and deputy whip Marcel Proulx who said: "I think it's the media's role to help us make people understand that because Parliament has been prorogued, it doesn't mean that Parliamentarians, whether they be Members of Parliament or whether they be Senators, we're not going to sit at home and wait until March 3, so we can come to Ottawa and sit in the House. It's a 12-month a year business. People know that we're continuing to work."
(Sorry Marcel, but you can't expect the media to tell the people the truth that work continues even during a prorogation after they have spent weeks telling everyone the opposite. Hey come to think of it Marcel, isn't your leader essentially telling that same lie?)
Welcome back Liberals. Keep up the good "work".
Think about that for a minute. If either of the current NDP or Liberal proposals to limit the PM's right to prorogue Parliament had been in place in 2008; that very coalition would have been unstoppable and would have formed government against the wishes of a large majority of Canadians who had recently re-elected the Conservatives with an even stronger mandate.
Now you can call me cynical but from where I sit the only possible reason that I can see that the opposition would want to make these very short sighted changes, which could severely limit a PM from acting on behalf of the nation on some yet unseen crisis in the future, is that they are making plans for a coalition redux, and this time they are making sure in advance that nothing is going to get in their way.
Not convinced? Take a look at the some of the strange things that have taken place over the last couple of weeks.
Jack Layton said that he was not going to take part in the Liberal photo op in Ottawa on the 25th, but when the day did arrive Jack was there smiling as always for the ever present cameras.
Michael Ignatieff stated that he supported the power of prorogation, but come the 25th of January he totally flip flopped and proposed limits. (Ok, Ignatieff flip flopping is not that strange, in fact it is the norm, but the timing of it makes the decision very suspect.)
Jack Layton stands by and watches the Liberals basically steal the NDP idea and says nothing about it, other than that he is going to consult with the other parties on the issue. ( FYI: This is what happened the last time Layton consulted the other parties.)
BTW, we already have mechanism to deal with accountability and government abuse in Canada. It is called an election, and I suggest that if Layton and Ignatieff are really that concerned that they stop pandering to the cameras, stop the rhetoric, and do the only real democratic thing by voting the government down and then go to the people of Canada in an election.
We shall see just how concerned they really are come March, but I would not be holding my breath.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Today as you watch the LPC play more games at their photo-op, covered live by a drooling Ottawa press corps, ask yourself this question:
Are the Liberals there to do the work of the people of Canada or to do the work of the Liberal Party of Canada?
Remember that this is the party that is proud of the fact that they have no policies and that the last budget, the upcoming budget and everything else is not their responsibility so they do not need to have a position. If they are not going to offer up suggestions or alternatives, or even make the attempt to work with the government, which continues to function BTW, what work are they going to be doing for us while in Ottawa on our dime?
In the mean time, while the Liberals are mugging for the cameras, the Conservative government is making things happen.
Update: Sort of related.
It seems that some in the Parliamentary Press gallery believe that they are government employees
From the Globe and Mail.
"PARLIAMENT ON PAUSE
A prorogued Parliament is a massive campus of historic buildings running at half speed.
Last year, the cost of running the House of Commons was $417-million. Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to delay today's scheduled resumption of Parliament until March 3 saves some of that money, but most of the employees are on the job whether the House is sitting or not.
About 220 people, including:
all staff in the parliamentary restaurant
some of those in the print shop who oversee the production of Hansard, the official record of Parliament
interpreters and translators
About 1,870 full-time employees, including:
drivers of shuttle buses connecting key government buildings and the fleet of trucks that bring food, paper and furniture in and out of the precinct
the Parliamentary Press Gallery.''
The PPG, government employees? WTF?
And from the comments : “There is no Liberal Party,” says one lifelong card carrier who has sat at cabinet tables.
“It died a long time ago. It's not completely extinct yet, but there's no there there.” In this lifelong Liberal's eyes, the party has been stalled for years. No new energy, no new ideas, no vision of what it might like to do. The singular advantage of proroguing, this Liberal would say, is that it has put an end to the squirming every time the opposition pounces.
“The ‘gotcha' stuff is out of control,” says the Liberal. “They bring in all these nerdy keener kids from campus and it's some kind of game to them. They're turning politics into pro wrestling.”
Sunday, January 24, 2010
From the Toronto Sun:
As premier, he prorogued this Legislature not once, not twice — but three times. And for much longer than Harper has prorogued the federal Parliament.
Rae’s NDP won power Sept. 6, 1990. On Dec. 19, 1991, Rae prorogued the House. They didn’t come back until April 6, 1992. He then prorogued again, Dec. 10, 1992 — and didn’t come back until April 13, 1993.
By 1994, his government had run out of steam. They were running double-digit deficits and he’d doubled the debt. Some of his experimental policies proved laughable at best and disastrous at worst.
Limping badly, he prorogued for the third time on Dec. 9, 1994. The House did not sit again until the legislature was dissolved April 28, 1995.
Rae didn’t even bring in a budget that year.
For four-and-a-half months, this province had no sitting Legislature.
Was there a grass-roots uprising of self-righteous people decrying Rae for ending democracy?
Like you didn't expect that a
For the record the 2008 prorogue was only for 5 sitting days, and the one that starts tomorrow will be for 22 (Hunter has it at 17). If you want to compare the actual number of calendar days, each of Rae's lasted about 4 months while with the PM the first was a little over 1 month and the current one also lasting a little over 1 month in total. Oh and both times at the end of the prorogation there was a budget produced.
Sandy has a post up on the same subject.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Norman Spectator has some thoughts about why the Globe is wrong today but was right back in 2008.
Without the legal power of the PM to prorogue, we would have had a coalition government. Not for long mind you, as it would have torn this country apart and we would now have a HUGE conservative majority as a result, but it would have happened had the PM not done what was best for the country at that time.
That my friends is just one reason why we should not go around messing with these powers just because some are not that fond of the guy who currently holds that power.
It saved us once and it may save us again. Think about that for awhile before you go out and try to screw it up forever.
Friday, January 22, 2010
I don't even want to hazard a guess as to what type of numbers we will see tomorrow but regardless of how many do show up, I think it is a pretty safe bet they can be broken down into the following groups:
The largest contingent of the 'protesters' will be your hard core Harper haters made up of mostly lefties who despise the PM and would complain that he is taking away jobs from doctors if he discovered the cure for cancer. This group is always a guarantee to show up at anything anti-conservative.
The next largest group would be the partisans aligned with specific political parties.
Many Greens can be expected to show up and in some cases they have even gone so far as to take part in the organization of this so called "NON PARTISAN" event.
The NDP will be out in force, which is to be expected, but at least Jack Layton has a plan; as unconstitutional as it may be. (Note to Iggy: Your coalition buddy is setting you up with his motion.) This group may be large as unions have money to organize and bus in the "grassroots".
The Liberals: Yes it is expected that many Liberals will be out for partisan gain trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians by looking like they are against prorogation even though LPC policy says otherwise and their leader, Micheal Ignatieff, has stated he is in favour of keeping it.
Ignatieff it turns out was very much in favour of the PM proroguing the first time he did it back in 2008. For the MSM who just read that and have their doubts, please feel free to stick a microphone Ignatieff's way and ask him yourself. It would be hard for him to say that he was not in favour of it in 2008 when he has described the coalition as something so divisive that it would have caused a "permanent division" to Canadian society. You want something to cover MSM; just ask Iggy that question and watch him squirm.
All of the above combined will make up the bulk of the numbers that we see tomorrow; my guess is that they will make up about 90% of those in attendance, but one must also remember that most of these people would never vote conservative in the first place.
Of the remaining numbers, the one group that we should be concerned about is the small number that will attend, who are not there with a particular partisan axe to grind, that are honestly upset over the PM proroguing. This group can be divided into 2 sub groups with the first being the ones that are just sick of seeing politicians not working for any reason, and the other being the ones who have been convinced by the media that this prorogation is not a routine event and that it is an affront to democracy. There is no convincing the first bunch, they think all politicians are lazy, but I do believe that if the others learn the facts about prorogation being a much used, legal, and indeed a constitutional power I think the damage will be minimal. Do they really want to open up the constitution to take away this power? I doubt it very much that many do.
As for the small amount of those in attendance tomorrow who did not make it into the above groupings; their numbers will be made up mostly of media people and a handful of guys there just because they want to score with some dipper chick that was already planing to attend. The first group is potentially dangerous, while the second may very well turn out to be Conservative voters sometime in the future.
There you have it. Some honest analysis of the numbers that I doubt you will see anywhere in the MSM. Not because they are unable to do so, but rather because it is dangerous for the media to analyze the news that they themselves have shaped and intensely promoted for weeks now. The old adage applies: Don't become the story.
Oh and I have to add a quick thought on the detainee red herring we keep hearing about. In the end, the already 3 years old detainee story is going to turn out the same way the other so called "game changers" such as Chuck Cadman, in and out financing, H1N1, wafergate, and a host of others have turned out to be. Nothing more than Liberal games and smear.
For fun: A couple of bonus questions to ask the anti-prorogation types.
Asking any Liberal why they are there if their party and Iggy supports prorogation is an obvious one but if you want some real fun try asking the following.
Last year during the coalition crisis did you claim legitimacy for the coalition because of the constitution? If so, why are you now against that same constitution and the legitimacy of prorogation? Is there anything else you want to change in our constitution while we are opening it up?
And lastly please have a safe Prorogation Day in Canada and enjoy the wall to wall MSM coverage.
From The Ottawa Citizen and Susan Riley of all people :
He (Ignatieff) encouraged anti-prorogation organizers in a Facebook posting this week, and confirmed he will be attending Saturday's protest in Ottawa, but refuses to back Jack Layton's call for legislation limiting future use of prorogation. When asked to define his political values, he paused then replied: "I'm passionate about freedom." So was George W. Bush.
On the pressing issue of looming deficits, he told reporters it isn't his problem, it's Harper's problem -- and he, Ignatieff, isn't about to help his rival out of the swamp. (Never mind what happens to the rest of us, I guess.)
He continues to answer questions with questions, urge patience and promise a bold new vision any time now. He sounds like Karlheinz Schreiber: wait until next week, then the true story will emerge.
Iggy being compared to KHS. Classic!
ht BLY .
Thursday, January 21, 2010
You can vote on the side bar and feel free to leave your comments below.
This may very well be the real ballot question the next time we go to the polls so choose wisely.
I will not vote in my own poll but if I was going to I think the choice would be an easy one to make. When you compare and the performance of the Harper Government over that of the Ignatieff led official opposition it is a slam dunk. The Government has been much more responsible and wins hands down.
Be it on various policy, the military, trade relations, response to crisis such as the earthquake in Haiti or even our recent financial turmoil, this government has provided to Canadians a responsible government capable of compromise while the official opposition has offered up nothing other than lots of yelling to the cameras and smear.
You may not agree with everything this government has done, but most should agree that they have ran an effective government.
Being the opposition means contributing just as much as it means opposing and so far the official opposition Liberals have been a complete failure on half of that equation and their leader somehow is proud enough about this to even brag about how his Liberals have offered up nothing constructive.
Ignatieff's quote at the end of this video says it all on his leadership.
"I am the leader of the opposition. I have no position to clarify."
Here is a little something the grits should really think about. Mr. Ignatieff first has to prove that he is even capable of running the opposition in a responsible manner before he will ever be chosen by the people of Canada to be our PM, and unless that happens the Liberals are only buying time until the next leadership convention.
h/t Canadian Sense , Nobody likes Ignatieff.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
From the CBC:
UPDATED: CPC vs. Elections Canada: Okay, this time, it actually is a sweeping victory ...
A decision was issued this morning by the Honourable Luc Martineau of the Federal Court in file T-838-07:
IN THE MATTER OF L.G. Callaghan and the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada
Summary:Following the hearing held in November 2009, the Court has set aside the Chief Electoral Officer's decision to refuse to certify the advertising expenses claimed by the two applicants in relation to their campaigns' share of a Regional Media Buy (RMB) program organized by the Conservative Party of Canada during the 39th general election, which took place on January 23, 2006. The Court has determined that the claimed advertising expenses were incurred by the applicants and has ordered the Chief Electoral Officer to provide the Receiver General of Canada with a new certificate.
A copy of the decision can be obtained via the Web site of the Federal Court:http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-
Update: What it all means from Stephen Taylor.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
(UPDATE RALPH GOODALE playing political games with the Haiti earthquake @ bottom of post)
John McCallum, the star Liberal MP, who yesterday caused quite a stir with his war crimes allegations was busy today trying to suppress the self immolation.
Here is McCallum on Charles Adler. (starts approx the 7 min mark with Adler, and McCallum comes on @ 24min @
This is priceless spin.
McCallum: When I was Minister of Defense the buck stopped with me, not the soldiers that took orders from the government. (*)
Adler: .....(Asks why his government handed them over to the Afghans when the possibility of abuse was suspected)
McCallum: When I was Defence Minister we did hand them over to the Americans. I was Defense Minister under Chretien It was the Martin Government that made that decision; I was not in Defense at the time.
Wow, the guy tosses Martin under a bus for this decision and never mentions that he was a member of that very same Martin Government. In fact he was a Cabinet Minister in Martin's Government, but I guess that if you can forget the type of car you drive why not that you were a member of a government and a minister.
Attention Liberal war room. More face time for McCallum please.
Peter Donolo is a communications genius I tell you. Genius!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
"McCallum: "I think the bigger weight is bread-and-butter issues, jobs and getting your children to school and all of those things. But I also think Canadians do care about democracy and about the high-handed, undemocratic attitude and actions of this government, and I think proroguing adds to the total character picture of Mr. Harper, and the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime. And the fact that they're covering it up, I think many Canadians do care about those things as well as caring about economic issues."
Meharchand: "You know, we could digress here and talk about who's handing over, is it the Canadian soldiers who you're accusing of war crimes, is it the government, I don't want to go there in this interview."
McCallum: "It's the government."
Do you idiots ever think about the real consequences of your actions? You cannot have this both ways Liberals. You cannot say that this has nothing to do with our troops and at the same time claim that the government committed war crimes. No MPs were in the field handing anyone over, it was OUR TROOPS and as the title of this post suggests; the defense of only following orders does not cut it.
FYI John McCallum was the Minister of Defense from June 26, 2002 – December 11, 2003. What did he know? He should brush up because if an inquiry does come HE is going to be called to explain the lack of policy and thought on this from the Liberals who committed us to this war.
More on the Liberal star John McCallum here, here, and here he is helping out his boss Ignatieff.
More on McCallum: He became widely known and criticized in 2002 when he admitted, while serving as the Minister of National Defence, that he had never heard of the 1942 Dieppe raid, a fateful and nationally significant operation for Canadian Forces during the Second World War. Ironically, he wrote a letter to the editor of the National Post in response, but committed a further gaffe, confusing Canadian participation in the 1917 Battle of Vimy Ridge in France with the Nazi-puppet state of Vichy France from 1940 to 1944.
This WHILE he was the Minister of Defense!!
Stephen Harper on prorogation: “the government is going to take advantage of this time – we need the time – to look carefully at our agenda, to continue to deliver the economic measures that are being delivered here and elsewhere across there country as part of the economic action plan. We also need time to re-examine our agenda, to prepare for the next year in Parliament, and to prepare for a very different economy going forward.”
Michael Ignatieff on prorogation: "Prorogation is part of our constitutional system...." “Mr. Ignatieff said there is a legitimate time to shut down Parliament when a government has gone through its legislative program, and it’s time to 'reset.'"
PM Harper and Michael Ignatieff. I can't see a difference. Can you see a difference?
Your welcome NDP.
Update: Alberta Ardvark gets results!
Monday, January 11, 2010
#1 Are you against prorogation or just against PM Harper proroguing?
#2 (if no) What is your opinion of the power, would you use it if you became PM, and under what circumstances? What do you think about PM Chretien using it 4 times and PM Trudeau using it 11?
#2 (if yes) Isn't being against a long standing, legal power more of an actual threat to the constitution and our system/traditions of government than using that power? Are there any other powers granted to the PM in our constitution that you are also against, and are you willing to open up the constitution to change them? (BTW if we are opening up the constitution why not do some long overdue senate reform at the same time =).
#3 With your statements on how divisive the coalition would have been to the country does that mean that you AGREE with the PM's decision to prorogue in December 2008, which killed that very same coalition that you claim would have ripped apart Canada?
There are plenty more obvious ones to ask (sorry, I guess they are not so obvious to our paid "impartial" media) but these few should do for starters.
Bonus question: Did you not say MANY times that the Liberal Party under your leadership would not resort to cheap personal attacks against PM Harper? So what is up with the latest Liberal ads?
Anyone from the MSM listening?
How about you Kady? After-all you have nothing else to do since committees are currently on the Christmas break.
(Yes, the Christmas break. The prorogation does not start for another 2 weeks you disingenuous MSM wienies.)
UPDATE: The media asked the question and guess what; Ignatieff would prorogue too. ( they did let him off the hook by not asking about the times Trudeau and Chretien prorogued, but you can't have everything I guess.)
The NDP has seen enough and knows when to cut their losses. They will not be joining the Liberals PR stunt on the 25th. "NDP insiders said that while they agree with the Liberals that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue was a major mistake, they are leery about the Liberal strategy. They said they're not sure the hearings will accomplish much, and believe the protest could easily appear hyper-partisan and poorly organized."
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Has anyone attempted to figure out the cost to the taxpayer for this little game the Liberals are going to play?
It is going to be fun playing spot the Liberal during the prorogation. If they are not in Ottawa working as they claim that they will be, they will be fair game and heaven help any that show up at the Olympics.
We will be watching.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Chretien 4, Harper 2.
35th Parliament Chretien 1996/2/2
36th Parliament 1999/9/18
37th Parliament 2002/9/16,2003/11/12 ( the last one was done to avoid the auditor generals release of the report on Adscam)
And if you really want a lopsided score how about this one:
Trudeau and Lester B. Pearson 11, Harper 2.
26th Parliament Pearson 1963/12/21, 1965/4/3
27th Parliament Pearson 1967/5/8
28th Parliament Trudeau 1969/10/22,1970/10/7,1972/2/16
29th Parliament Trudeau 1974/2/26
30th Parliament Trudeau 1976/10/12,1977/10/17,1978/10/10,1983/11/30
Now, where was all of the outrage on these 15 prorogation's, and more importantly why are these numbers not front and center in the multitude of MSM stories on the topic?
Faux media led outrage at its best..
BTW Parliament is not prorogued until January 25th and will only last for 22 sitting days so when ever you hear such things as it lasting "3months" or statements implying that it is already prorogued, or that is unconstitutional etc, feel free to call BS on whomever said it and let them know we are on to their lies.
In our 143 years of existence as Canada, Parliament has been prorogued at least 105 times. ( 120 from this info)
That is an average of about once every 1.4 years that this, very legal and constitutionally granted power, has been used.
If Ignatieff and the Liberals are so against this power ( as you can see from above they are not), wouldn’t all of this energy that they are using to protest and play games be better spent trying to change the constitution?
From the comments of another post on the number of times Bob Rae prorogued in Ontario. PM Harper has prorogued 3 times and not 2. The first was in 2007 for 1 day with little fanfare or criticism from the opposition because the reality is that prorogation is a routine and procedural measure used both federally and provincially. Why the media is all upset this time is anyone's guess but they are being very disingenuous about their outrage and the facts.
Google tags: How many times did Trudeau prorogue? How many times did Jean Chretien prorogue?
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Yes, these 2 MP's, one a Liberal and the other an NDP, want the Prime Minister of Canada to abuse his power, over step his bounds, and bully the International Olympic Committee on how to run their OWN event, on something that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled in favour of the IOC on.
These are the same people who have already looked foolish with the FALSE claims that the logo chosen by the Canadian Olympic Committee was influenced by the CPC, and also claimed, and again were proven wrong, that the route for the torch relay was also politically motivated.
Some days you just have to wonder just what is going on in the minds of the opposition in this country. Actually it is not 'some days' but everyday that these fools are in front of the press with their latest that make you wonder.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
From the Globe: "I am personally ashamed of my country as I travel internationally. In a world calling out for new models of justice, conflict resolution and environmental stewardship, Canada could be playing such a powerful role as it has done in the past. Stephen Harper with a majority frightens me."
You know Maude there is a solution to all of this. If you don't like the government chosen by the people of Canada, you could just go away to somewhere where you might be more happy. Cuba and Venezuela quickly come to mind.
If these types of reactions from Barlow and Mallick are not enough proof that the Conservatives are doing a good job, I don't know what is.
For added fun and glimpse into Ms.Barlow's thinking I present you with what she said last summer about the bombings of pipelines in BC when she suggested, without ANY evidence at all, that it was not the act of an eco-terrorist but that it might have been the gas companies themselves who planted the explosives to gain sympathy from the public. (link to related story)
Monday, January 04, 2010
Anderson said, “Unfortunately, the current PC Party Leadership has failed to address my constituent’s concerns and will not permit me to speak publicly about these issues,” he said.
“Instead of remaining silent I have decided to stand up with even greater force for the people who elected me.
“I have no interest in investing any more of my life and taxpayers’ money defending poor public policy that has been developed by a small band of out-of-touch government appointees and insiders.”
A few more and David Swann will be looking for a new office.