The case for prorogation
Buzz about Ottawa these past two weeks (there’s really nothing else going on here) is talk about the Prime Minister asking the Governor General for a prorogation of this session of Parliament to recall MPs to the legislature in March of next year.
Opponents on the opposition benches and in the media have been cynical of such a move citing that Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament just last year and that like last year a prorogation would be a dodge rather than for anything substantive.
Indeed, the Prime Minister asked the Governor general for a suspension of Parliament last year after the coalition government attempt to replace a freshly elected Prime Minister and his cabinet just six weeks after an election, ahem, for no substantive reason beyond cynical bickering that the governing Conservatives were moving to remove public financing (read: party welfare) from all parties. The loudest opponents to this move were the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois, two parties that find that collecting tax monies is an easier option that appealing directly to their respective bases for funding.
And this year, what substantive reason exists for a reset of Parliament? The opposition will argue that because an Afghan detainee transfer was hit with a shoe by a Afghan prison guard and that problems may have existed with our trust of transfer of Afghan nationals to the sovereign national Afghan authorities was at times tested, the Prime Minister is again running away from his problems. They will say that prorogation is political despite the Conservative lead in the polls and despite the fact that this detainee issue isn’t doing too much of anything to affect the Prime Minister’s standing in the polls.
However, let’s step back and go outside of the Ottawa bubble wherein the last two weeks of reporting of any period contains the most important news stories ever told. In 50 years, when they look back at the prorogation of 2010, how will they recount this event (if at all)?
For the first time in twenty years, Conservatives will have a plurality in the Senate of Canada. Our parliament is a bicameral body consisting of a lower and upper house. While its activities may not be conducive to the lust of the cut and thrust of politics for the average Ottawa watcher — and who called whom “fat” on Twitter in committee this week — the Senate is constitutionally important to the parliament of Canada. When a new plurality exists in the lower House, the Governor General asks the party leader that can lead a stable government to form a cabinet. When a new plurality exists within the Senate, the government’s opponents accuse the Prime Minister of politics when the Prime Minister asks the Governor General for a chance to reset parliament so that its committees and functions may represent the new reality.
The case for prorogation is constitutional.The case against it is political.
Stephen Taylor is a scientist, political analyst and a blogger. Taylor writes here regularly and is the founder of bloggingtories.ca. Taylor has contributed to Macleans, CTV, talk radio and has been a featured speaker on new media at numerous events including the Western Standard Cruise and the Forum for Public Policy. In December 2008, Taylor organized Rally for Canada, a series of rallies held coast-to-coast to protest the proposed coalition government.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:35 am
But you could also say that the case for last year's coalition was constitutional, and the case against it was political.
People do pay more attention to optics than to legal niceties. This is going to play as a negative for the Harper government.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:43 am
But he hasn't appointed the new Senators yet.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:43 am
And we'll have to see what matters more: accomplishing an agenda or public perception.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:43 am
January 3rd
December 30th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Two quick observations, Stephen.
First is the fact there's no compelling reason for prorogation – there simply isn't. It will be packaged, of course under the guise of unveiling a new budget and lots of pundits will say that nobody would be paying much attention what with the Olympics and all. But Canada has hosted the winter Olympics before (I know, I was there) and there was no compelling reason to shut down Parliament, so why do it now?
The second and perhaps more important observation is that what's really happening is a cover-up on the Afghan detainee question. This is the true reason behind prorogation and while not as blatant as shutting down the Somalia inquiry when it started to look like the Liberal government might wind up wearing some of that scandal, Canadians aren't stupid: anyone with half a brain will know this is an attempt to let the detainee matter blow over. Quite frankly, the government has already weathered the worst of it already with respect to prisoner abuse and they're still nine points up on the Liberals in the polls. Ignatieff is a dead fish and won't become Prime Minister in my lifetime (and I'm 42) so really, if there hasn't been any substantial political damage on detainee abuse already, then we don't need to shut down Parliament.
Now I'm a realist: the vast majority of voters really hate everyone in Ottawa and generally invoke the which of the “two steaming piles of dung should I vote for”rule on election day, but as a guy who voted Tory in the last election, this doesn't sit well with me. It's one thing to take political advantage of a weakened Parliament to bolster your political position, it's another thing entirely to @#$% with the machinations of Canadian democracy just because you can.
I won't be voting Tory next time around. There's something downright contemptable about what's happening under Harper's tenure, lately. Canadian soldiers fought and died for this thing we call democracy and prorogation for a second time in twelve months shows contempt for the electorate.
There will be a reckoning, Stephen. Trust me on this.
December 30th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Any scuttlebut on who the new Senators will be. My prediction is Lizzie May will not be on the list.
December 30th, 2009 at 9:04 am
That's quite a crystal ball you have there!
December 30th, 2009 at 9:22 am
What agenda? The crime agenda? All that is off now because he is cancelling Parliament. What about the rest of the Throne Speech? Other than the stimulus, what has been passed? All gone.
Harper is cutting and running. This is an astonishingly unprecedented and anti-democratic move. Getting the committees you want does not trump democracy, my friend.
Canadians tend not to get too riled up about the ins and outs of politics. But we are a sleeping giant that, once roused, can take very exacting measures, as we showed when we booted the Liberals for accountability. But then we went back to sleep. Even an election that broke his own election law did not rouse us… as shown by the record low turnout and the Conservatives winning in 2008 with the lowest level of voter support in our entire history with just 22% of eligible voters going with Harper.
With his anti-democratic move after anti-democratic move, I think he may re-awaken the sleeping giant. As we saw last year after Harper's fiscal FU, Canadians like their democracy, thank you very much.
December 30th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Why not move a vote of non-confidence?
If Canadians will be upset by this, are you confident enough about this to test their mood with an election or will we see your democratic principles reflected in a non-elected coalition government?
December 30th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Of course the opposition parties hate the idea of prorogation because they know Harper and company continue to have complete control of the political agenda. They are only along for the ride. Taylor clearly outlines the reasons to prorogue and I suspect that Canadians could care less. Of course people like Craig Oliver put sinsiter connotations to it because he believes Harper is running from the opposition over the Afghan detainee issue. If Canadians have not bought into the detainee issue by now with the media saturation they never will. Harper will now be able to start making changes to the Senate; modest but necessary.
December 30th, 2009 at 9:34 am
I think the case for could be political as well. The Olympics will be in Canada for the first time since '88 and Harper probably doesn't want to be answering questions about detainee transfer or carbon emissions integration with the US during the men's gold medal hockey game.
It seems pretty savvy as the de facto head of state, to try to wrangle time with the people during such a large celebration. Frankly I'm surprised there wasn't a planned recess during the Olympics.
December 30th, 2009 at 9:42 am
How? Harper is shutting down Parliament.
In 2008, the will of the people was pretty clear: keep Harper as PM but on a leash with a minority.
So why is he ignoring the will of the people?
December 30th, 2009 at 9:47 am
If they're not trying to do political damage control, then why prorogue?
December 30th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Why are you ignoring their will?
Ignatieff said lesson learned from 09 was that Canadians don't want an election. It follows that they must be happy enough with this government.
December 30th, 2009 at 9:55 am
That's not immediately obvious to me.
December 30th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Of course it's not obvious to you, you're a partisan Tory supporter. Here's something cool – I dare you to debate the merits of your so called “case for prorogation” with Andrew Coyne. I suspect he'll mop the floor with you.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Perhaps what was not obvious to you was that I was conceding (even as a blind Tory partisan) that I am not sure about a damage control strategy here – I don't see how this move helps if that is indeed the motivation here.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I'm just a lowly citizen Stephen. I neither ignore nor have responsibility to listen to the will of the people.
Canadians are happy enough with this Parliament, Stephen. Elected barely a year ago. The Prime Minister continuously ignores the will of Parliament.
We live in a Parliamentary democracy. 100% of the time. The Conservatives don't get to pick and choose when they will be accountable and democratic and when they won't be.
I'd love a 3 month vacation too. But I and most Canadians have to work whether we like it or not. In 2008, Canadians said to Parliament to get back to work.
Now three times in 15 months, Harper has thrown out all of the work of Parliament and ignoring the will of the people.
A year ago, I thought and said, on balance, it probably was the best thing to prorogue Parliament but that we should all recognize that it was a huge affront to democracy nonetheless. Like a triage unit in the middle of a battlefield, more harm is done by trying to conduct a perfect surgery. But we are not in that place now and this affront to democracy has no justification.
I make no secret of not liking Harper or his record breaking string of broken promises or his tactics or his strenuous efforts to avoid accountability. But this is beyond all that. I was content enough to just be a critic on the sidelines. This will get Canadians off their seats, as it has mine already.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:18 am
To get control of the Senate. Pls. read my comments again.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Well then, maybe the GG will say 'no' this time,
and then you can vote for the coalition .
December 30th, 2009 at 10:19 am
She just said yes
December 30th, 2009 at 10:24 am
So you would vote for a political neophyte who has not demonstrated one iota of leadership ability and more importantly showed no interest in the country for 34 years. Yeah thats a way to get even. How has Harper hurt you personally? Has your rights been undermined as an individual?
You are right about the detainee issue and it is largely passed but the fact remains Harper wants to change the makeup of the Senate not only for getting legislation passed but as well to make some rudimentary changes i.e. term limits.
He has a right to prorogue and therefore he is using the tools of his office to his advantage. I predict at the end of 2010 the pundits and media will hail this prorogation as a great political move.
In fact Nik Nanos was on CFRA this morning saying it was a great political move.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:36 am
why prorogue?
active Senate majority
celebration of the Canadian Olympics
new Speech from the Throne
new Budget
Confidence votes ahead of Iffy's Deep Thinking Conference
December 30th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Elected government proroges parliament in order to prevent unelected opposition senators from blocking legislation: Undemocratic!
Unelected senators continue to block legislation from elected government: A-OK!
December 30th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I would vote in a heartbeat for a political neophyte over a guy with a masters degree in economics who just kicked Canadian democracy in the @$$*@ balls because he can. In truth, though, the enemy isn't Harper. It's Canadians who allow this to continue.
December 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am
The strategy is to put it all off until Canadians feel so groovy about themselves after the Olympics that they'll have somehow forgotten about the detainee issue. Actually, the media might well have forgotten about it then, too.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
The comment smacks of what I would call penis envy.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
First of all, Happy Holidays, and best wishes to all for health and happiness in the New Year. Also, apologies for being away so long.
Is fall 2008 that long ago? You recall “… [Harper prorogued parliament after a ] coalition government attempt to replace a freshly elected Prime Minister and his cabinet just six weeks after an election, ahem, for no substantive reason beyond cynical bickering that the governing Conservatives were moving to remove public financing (read: party welfare) from all parties.”
Sorry, we haven't forgotten Harper's Marie Antoinette moment at the height of the economic crisis, when his initial response to a monumental crisis was that utterly inappropriate piece of partisan hackery that triggered the coalition attack. We also recall how after all that, including the prorogue, Harper's government quickly issued a stimulus spending package that would make even the NDP blush.
Since then, yeah they certainly woke up, and I can agree that Harper has been competent and hasn't yet broken anything (other than principles, like when he discovered how much fun appointing senators can actually be. No elected senate this term, sorry…)
But to prorogue Parliament again, abandon all the parliamentary work that's in the queue, simply to dodge the Afghanistan torture criticism? What a coward. It's not that big a crisis – get it front of it, get the facts out NOW, punish or reassign the guilty, fix the problems, move on. But no… He wants a do-over. Like we're gonna forget.
I'm frankly a bit ashamed of our country right now. Harper is so preoccupied with kissing American ass that Canadian issues and values are in the back seat… or maybe the trunk. The hands-off stance on the Omar Khadr issue is sickening. We're the only Western democracy who hasn't lifted a finger for their nationals being held in that moral black hole of Guantanimo Bay.
When Harper was on his recent “Buy Canadian” junket in the far east, I believe one of his selling lines was something about how we are still flush with resources, and we have a nice staid banking sector. Well and good, I guess, if you work in the resource sector, or are a banker. Sucks for the rest of us, though. But the federal government is doing almost nothing to improve Canada's capabilities in other important sectors, like alternative energy, mass transportation, … and high-tech in general. Where are the next RIM, the next Bombardier going to come from? Not Canada, apparently. All we're good for now is resources and banks, apparently. We're Switzerland with big forests and oil sands. At least the Swiss make clocks and watches and cool knives, and their trains actually run on time.
And of course, Copenhagen. There's massive economic opportunities around the very real issues of climate change and the desperate need for sustainable energy. Canada could OWN this area, or at least be a serious player in the field… but no. Not a shred of leadership from Canada. Not even a token gesture on our own. Nothing that would even hint that we have any other agenda than simply being a resource locker for the US.
Unfortunately I don't see alot of genuine leadership from the Liberals either, lately. So 2010 looks kind of gloomy for me. Can anyone cheer me up a bit?
December 30th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I guess you have your answer now. He simply phoned the GG and told her his intentions. He is not even in town.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Wishful thinking buddy.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Democratic? Lets get real here. He has the right to prorogue whether you and the rest of the lefties of this country think so or not.
You can apply all kinds of motives to it but nobody is listening.
Harper will make changes in the Senate, the Libs will be neutered finally and we will finally see the buffoon George Baker shut his cakehole.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Absolutley right on the money.
The opposition has the ability to force an election if they believe Harper is being undemocratic or avoiding the detainee issue.
Bring it on and see what happens. No guts, no glory as they say.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Oh no Stephen. Canadians don't want an election they want an alternative to the Harper government. So says Iffy. Its not logical but it makes sense to him in his never, never land.
You are right but there is no point in trying to convince the kool-aid drinkers that they have a leader who Canadians dislike intensely and who they will never elect or even appoint as PM.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
You must be a very unhappy man because those “stupid” Canadians continue to elect a Conservative government. Why can't they see what you see. Because you are blinded by partisan hatred.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
How can they force an election when Harper won't let them vote?
Didn't even hint he'd pull this anti-democratic move when they were sitting the coward.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Stephen, the issue isn't the legality or constitutionality of the move (and as others have said, the coalition proposal was equaly legitmate and constitutional, despite Tory rhetoric); the issue is that its occuring now and suspending parliament until March.
By all means, if, as reports have it, the Tories will have a majority in the Senate in a week, prorogue parliament and call it back in January when it was supposed to come back anyway. Throne speech, repropose all the bills lost on the order paper, and take it easy during the Olympics.
Instead, this has the appearance that Harper is running from the Detainee Inquiry (and for the life of me I can't see why); that he is avoiding the accountability demanded by parliament, and that he has got something to hide. I've been a Liberal a long time and honestly, I really didn't think that the detainee issue was that important until now. If Martin had prorogued Parliament to avoid that confidence motion I think that myself and a lot of other Liberals would have been equally upset, I can't imagine the level of rhetoric that would flow from your side; but this is now the second time in the space of a year that the man who claimed would bring transparency to Ottawa has used parliamentary convention to avoid facing the House. In general it speaks to a disrepect of the institution and functions of parliament that date back to the Reform Party era; and its just going to make it easier for future governments (Liberal and Tory) easier to flaunt the conventions of democracy.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Here is some of what Harper decided was not so important or as urgent as he was previously claiming:
If it is shut down, below is a list of some of the bills that die on the order paper. Here is a list of 32 bills that Harper killed today.
- 15 “crime bills” die, including 11 amendments to the Criminal Code , including the various minimum sentence amendments, etc. Harper has introduced and killed some of these at least 3 times now.
- Bill C-58 dies (mandatory reporting of internet child porn over which the Cons accused the Bloc of supporting child porn because they wouldn't speed the bill along)
- 2 free trade agreement bills (Jordon and Columbia) and one significant US trade law (C-60)
- Bill C-6, re consumer safety products
Note this is the third and in some cases the fourth time Harper has blocked and thrown out much of his own crime legislation.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
The more the Opposition wails the more we'll know that for them it's all about the shutting down of their latest gotcha game committee being played on the backs of our Forces who are putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan. I have a feeling this really was the last straw for the PM and probably played a part in his decision to prorogue.
The MSM will have a slight change of agenda as well. Perhaps they can focus on what really matters to the people far beyond the Taliban detainee issue they hoped to continue flogging and obliquely accusing our Forces and Country of war crimes.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Has anyone seen a clip of the PM saying this is a done deal, or seen any conservative interviewed about it.
Goodale sounded off from his vacation in Arizona.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Harper has two choices:
1) status quo where the Libs will block and ammend the senate bills as long as they can
2) prorogue with a senate majority and delay the bills for a few months but pass the bills as passed by the house
Remember, just because those bills were in the senate that doesn't mean that they were going to be passed.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
In case Liberals need some reminding, prorogation happened four times during Chretien's tenure, last time was 2003.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Well, admittedly Ted is making the huge assumption that tax payers, who, you know, pay Harper's salary, actually think our MP's should be working rather than taking another 3 months off.
He could be wrong. Maybe taxpayers really do not care if their money is going to pay people who really do not feel like working.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
What bills have been blocked?
You guys keep saying this as if it were true, when the facts demonstrate that Harper's bills get passed.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
You realize he only has to prorogue for a day in order to change the senate, right?
Try again.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I have no doubt Harper is going to get out of this with little to no political damage, but I must admit I am amused at the way his little minions are spinning this as if it is anything but what it is:
He is clearly running away from the detainee issue, and his obligation to release the reports as requested by Parliament.
There is no other explanation that makes any sense, though god knows those of you with blinders on will never allow yourselves to see the truth.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
How do you get three months off, count the days.
Jan 25 to March 3 is not three months. It is only 36 days, and take away weekends, when they don't sit, it is only 26 days. Could be less if they don't sit on family day or Ash Wednesday.
Again, where do you get 3 months.
December 30th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
The Liberals won't admit it, but they have been wanting prorogation for their own reasons. It's funny to read the Liberal propaganda, when every one knows their desperation.
December 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
The bills are changed even when passed by all parties in the House. Think crime bills, product safety, to name a couple. How many of those in the senate would be passed before March 3, I say not one of them so when they are brought back with a conservative majority they will pass.
When did all those bills not passed or acted upon first get sent to the senate and when would they get acted on.
And what plans did the coalition have to make fools of themselves during the Olympics, when many MPs would be absent.
Iffy did say Canadians did not want an election, just an alternative to the Harper govt. How is that done other than by a coup.
December 30th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Sorry Gayle, the majority of Canadians don't worry about some poor demented terrorist getting hit by a shoe, over 3 yrs ago. I think liberals will be happy this of killed for a while as it is not affecting the govt one bit. And, after another 4 soldiers were killed today by one of the bombs those pre-detainees have planted we will care less. And, also the second female was killed today, a journalist with the Calgary Herald.
Who sent us to afghan, with the wrong uniforms and equipment, who wrote the rules that were followed when this poor guy was hit with a shoe (by his own people).
Documents would probably lead right back to Chretain and Graham.
Colvin says take fewer prisoners, does that mean he supports killing them instead.
December 30th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
We didn't like it then, either. What's your point?
December 30th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
hmmm, how can they get rid of Harper as PM without an election?
Now that's Layton logic!
December 30th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Common misconception. When MPs are not in Ottawa, they're not on vacation. The most common thing an MP should be doing is connecting with constituents. They're going home to the riding.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Goodale was the first to suggest prorogation this time. Plenty of opportunities to bring down the government in 2009. And were you really going to do it before a budget if government had sat in February?
This isn't 3 months off, this is one month with a two week Olympic break in the middle.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Almost Cherniakian in his logic…
December 30th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
And now Ignatieff has time for his cross-country tour without avoiding Parliament and all that inconvenient talk of “torture” that he hasn't been too vocal (lately) on.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
and committees are reset after the throne speech in March.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
BTW, this IS Canadian democracy. If you don't like our Parliamentary system just say so.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Although she was quite convinced about this time last year that she'd be in the Senate.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
John Ivison today:
“Mr. Harper was particularly upset when the Senate amended the government’s consumer protection legislation, which had received unanimous consent in the House of Commons.”
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullco...
December 30th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Donolo now has chance to regroup after a terrible year for Ignatieff.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Not sure I understand your math here, Stephen.
They broke for winter break on December 10 (or was it the next week, December 17) and now Harper had added an extra two months plus holiday to March 3.
That's an 83 day vacation he gave himself. Basically 3 months. Really “making Parliament work” there isn't he.
I'd probably have more respect for him if he was honest about it – we don't want to share power with the majority and we don't like how we've dipped in the polls, so we're not going to let Parliament work. Tough beans.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Parliament was set to resume on January 25th and will now resume on March 3rd if I remember correctly.
That's less than 5 weeks with about 2 weeks of Olympics in the middle.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
seancummings, 'you want to talk about kicking “Canadian democracy in the @$$*@ balls”?
Take a look, then, at the Liberal$' record, and you'll see a succession of Prime Ministers who did just that, with the help of their puppet masters in Quebec, stealing over $40,000,000 of Canadian taxpayers' money to get themselves re-elected, money that's never been returned and for which the Liberal$ are still not accountable .
That's what I'm contemptuous of — and the fact that, as per usual, Michael Ignatieff was parachuted into his riding, a tactic the LPC have often used to get their favoured candidate onto the ballot. 'You want to talk undemocratic?
Try the Liberal Party of Canada.
In answer to those who say Canadians will have a problem with MPs not sitting from January 25 to March 3 because they're getting paid to do a job they're not doing, I WISH that the sitting Liberal$, NDPers, and the members of the Bloc were actually doing their jobs by being an effective Opposition rather than operating like a shooting gallery whose job it seems to be to bring down the duly-elected CPC government — not a noble pursuit if you're looking at what's best for Canadians and their families at a very volatile time not only in Canada but internationally .
This is a tactical move by PMSH to attempt to return democracy to a Parliament that has been on the verge of Liberal thuggery and hegemony for too long. Given that the Bloc's avowed purpose is to break up Canada and the fact that only Quebecers can vote for them, the deck is stacked against the democratic process in the House of Commons. Our Prime Minister has to use every democratic tool at his disposal to break the stultifying stalemate of Canadian politics — for the sake of more democracy not less.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Thank you for presenting this story in a truthful way.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
“The government will prorogue the House so that it will not be held accountable for its shameful record,”
Stephen Harper 2003
December 30th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I actually have more than just a basic knowledge of how our parliamentary system works. The system requires days in parliament and days in the MP's constituency. Both are important aspects of their work, but only in one place can MP's do the job they were elected to do – and it is not at home sipping tea with their constituents. It is only in the House where MP's are held accountable. Avoiding the House is avoiding their responsibility. That said, I wonder if the CPC MP's are going to give us all an accounting for what they do during the prorogation. We do, after all, pay them.
Not to mention the fact that we have already paid these people to look at any number of bills – all of which is now wasted time and money. Though why should Harper care – it is not his money.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Wow The senate actually amended legislation?
Surely you know enough about our parliamentary system to know that it is common for senators to amend legislation. That is what they are supposed to do.
Stop acting like this is something that has Never Ever Happened Before. That darn liberal dominated senate amended liberal bills all the time.
Now, I am still waiting for someone to give me an example of how Harper's bills were blocked.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
So, no actual facts to support your argument then?
Quelle suprise.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Like I said, those of you with blinders on will never allow yourselves to see the truth.
December 30th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Liberals do not care about it, but that will not stop them from pointing out the obvious which is that Harper is scared of the Afghanistan detainee issue so needs to prorogue in order to run away.
The up side for Harper is that he gets to avoid his problems for a while and if his wildest dreams come true the opposition and the media will allow the story to die.
The up side for the opposition is that they get to point out how very unaccountable this government truly is.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:48 am
It's a perfect time to prorogue parliament. Committies are toast and when they reconvene the majority will not be Liberal, the Senate balance will have changed and the Liberals won't be able to change legislation that was passed by the whole of Parliament…and if you think that was done on anything other than the orders of Iffy, you've got rocks in your head.
Certain parts of politics are strategy and certain parts are tactics. Afghan prisoner abuse by Afghans, done three years ago, and questionable even then, is not good strategy or tactics. Prorogation is good strategy and good tactics.
December 31st, 2009 at 6:23 am
Gayle,
The people with blinders on are those who don't recognize how stupid and lax the first detainee transfer agreement was; which was initiated by the Liberal Government, I might add. Did someone turn a blind eye to the Geneva Convention when this agreement was drafted or was it just plain incompetence? Was the original agreement drafted with interrogation in mind? Liberal heads will be rolling.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:27 am
“Almost Cherniakian in his logic…”
Keep it classy, Stephen Taylor!
As for you AlbertaGirl, as usual, just making things up. I'm not sure I've ever once said that there was any scandal that was going to bring Harper down.
As much an affront as this Harper Holiday is to Canadian democracy, it isn't going to bring the government down. For one, Harper isn't permitting a vote so there is no way to.
But there is nothing left of the principled democratic Stephen Harper who came to power in 2006. There is nothing Say Anything Steve will not do or say to keep his grip on power. He has the lowest support of any PM in our entire history with only 22% of eligible voters supporting him in the last election. The actual vote for the Conservatives went down in 2008.
So definitely the ball is in the court of the opposition parties. If the Liberals can get their act together, and I have always maintained that that was a barrier to “bringing down Harper” despite your alternative factual reality world you live in AlbertaGirl, then the thin support for Harper will evaporate.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:33 am
You're right, that Cherniak line was a bit rude.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:43 am
Uh huh. Stephen Harper was talking about the disgraceful/shameful Librano Government, which always runs away from — and still does — any accountability. The CPC doesn't have a “shameful record.”
The CPC record on the accountability front is much better, in only four years, than the Liberal$' ever was.
Take a look over at SDA, at this interview, about the Liberal$' disgraceful attempts to smear the CPC over “the detainee incident.” It might open your eyes:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013020...
December 31st, 2009 at 7:48 am
Nope, Stephen. The case for prorogation is pure unadulterated power politics. Period.
The case against it is moral, ethical, traditional, historical, and Canadian. Period.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:51 am
Please elaborate…
December 31st, 2009 at 7:52 am
So basically you're saying that the Tories aren't as bad as the Liberals were in terms of accountability so that somehow makes prorogation okay? Anyone with half a brain knows the Liberals were using the committee to score points over the Tories on the detainee issue, but that's the nature of parliamentary committees. For me, at least, it doesn't escape the fact that documents have been requested and the government is refusing to deliver them, not to mention their smearing of Richard Colvin's testimony. The issue all you loyalists seem to be forgetting is that while I agree the detainee issue is NOT a ballot question, anything that looks like a cover-up is – there is absolutely a cover up going on and prorogation is one method in keeping the truth from ever reaching the light of day.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:56 am
Then why do we have Parliament and Question Period?
Nice try though.
December 31st, 2009 at 8:00 am
That is really interesting ND, but if you had been paying attention you would realize that the liberals already acknowledge the initial agreement was inadequate. That, in fact, is the whole point. That the agreement was inadequate became blatently obvious within a few weeks of its signing – and by then Harper and his gang were in government, and they did nothing to fix it.
So, in essence, you agree with the opposition.
Cheers
December 31st, 2009 at 8:02 am
Well if it is not an issue why is Harper running away from it?
If it is an issue of importance to Canadians, Harper has no right to say it *should not* be important and shut the inquiry down. He is supposed to be responsive to the people, right?
I don't care about apostrophes – I should think that is obvious by now.
December 31st, 2009 at 8:03 am
It is obvious because he has no good reason to prorogue. The only possible reason is to avoid producing the documents and avoid the scrutiny of the committee investigating the allegations.
December 31st, 2009 at 8:07 am
Except that, a) the committees in parliament will still be dominated by the opposition, b) the Senate has always changed legislation since that is their role, and c) Harper only has to prorogue for one day to change the make up of the committess in the Senate.
Prorogation is because Harper is scared of how the detainee issue is going to affect him and his government – so yes, good strategy – for a coward.
Face it people – he is doing exactly what he promised he would not do – running away from accountability.
Sooner or later you are going to have to accept that. Though I doubt most of you care anyway. Accountability was never something you care about unless the LPC are in government.
December 31st, 2009 at 8:41 am
Great political move by Harper, I applaud him. Stack the Senate to make the changes, brilliant.
The detainee issue is a non-starter with the average Canadian. Most can care less about some terrorist getting knocked around and if a few innocents get caught in the shuffle no one here cares really. We are dealing with a mentality where the Taliban would rather cut your head off than talk to a khafir, where they value death over life. So why should we care if they get their soles of their feet beaten with a stick. I know I lose no sleep over it. I lose sleep over the little girls who have acid thrown on them for attending school or the little boy beaten and hung by the neck at the entrance of his village because he had American currency on him to name a few.
December 31st, 2009 at 8:47 am
By the way Stephen, I almost missed this little nugget:
“for no substantive reason beyond cynical bickering that the governing Conservatives were moving to remove public financing”
Rewriting history again? Allow me to refresh your memory – there was that little thing about a stimulus budget, remember? Remember how when Harper said he would withdraw the subsidy thing the coalition still went forward? Remember how it took a stimulus budget from the CPC to cause Ignatieff to disavow the coalition?
December 31st, 2009 at 10:27 am
This is you opinion, right? Not fact. Unless you have it straight from the PM and you have something to back it up, I will take your comment as your own opinion to which you are entitled. Now, as to your second sentence, I take it you condemn the Liberals' prorogations (more than one) as well? If so, please state that, as well. Thanks.
December 31st, 2009 at 10:29 am
Sooooo, if PM Harper is a coward for his prorogation, then Chretien was also a coward. And, furthermore, Ignatieff is a coward for NOT bringing down the government the many, many, many times he said he would but backed off. Same for Dion, I would also assume. Hmmm, looks like the LPC has PM Harper beat by a few kilometers when it comes to cowardice…if you care to count.
December 31st, 2009 at 10:32 am
So, this is your opinion and not fact, then. Okay, I can respect that. Opinions are good – I express them all the time but usually I indicate that it's my opinion just to remind folks that I am so doing. I have noted your opinion, although I disagree with it. Differing opinions are good – they stimulate adult discussion from which some good can frequently come. Thanks for your opinion.
December 31st, 2009 at 10:34 am
We don't know, for fact, that he is running away from the non-issue. It is your opinion and I respect that. I differ in my opinion but that is what adult discussion is all about. I wasn't referring only to you re: the apostrophes. I see them all over and, as somebody who respects his first and second languages and, in general, the beauty of languages, the misuse of the apostrophe is something which I find annoying.
December 31st, 2009 at 10:37 am
You know, I could take Ignatieff's outrage seriously if he lumped PM Harper with Chretien when he condemns prorogation. To the best of my knowledge, he has never dissed his own party for its past misdeeds nor has he, to the best of my knowledge, indicated that he wants the LPC to be different from the Chretien era of corruption and lies to us Canadians.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I suspect that there are many issues, other than the detainee non-issue, that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was taking into consideration when he made the decision to prorogue Parliament.
And, guess what, I'd trust his judgment any day over that of the gotcha-Librano$, who were always good at taking care of themselves and their special-interest buddies and to Hell with the rest of us. Whether you like it or not, PMSH and the CPC are taking care of business on the part of all Canadians, not just their entitled lib-left sycophants.
I've been watching the antics of the Liberal$ for well over 30 years — and how their policies, and non-policies — have affected my family and me and I can tell you that the CPC's priorities and policies meet with my approval because they help the most Canadians and their families on the ground, where they are, not trying to jerk us off with their social-engineering-let's-change-society-by-deep-sixing-families-church-kids. They're conserving what's best in our society, not trying to destroy our societal foundations.
As I pointed out in an earlier reply, Stephen Harper's proroguing Parliament has a longer-term purpose than, in your opinion, staving off the Opposition's constant snarling; his intention is to broaden our democracy, which has been an uphill struggle with the growling hyenas in the Opposition going for his — and Parliament's — jugular for the past four years.
Please forgive my pleasure in seeing the impotent rage of the howling dogs.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has lots of good reasons to prorogue Parliament, some I can think of, other than running away, as you put it, and some that, no doubt, only he is aware of. We're not privy to the information he has available to him and, I suspect, that some of the information he's privy to — vis a vis the rats who'll be at play when the cat's away (at the Olympics) — has given him excellent reasons to prorogue Parliament for the good of us all.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Oh… you use the term “Libranos”…. that says you're incapable of independent thought but hey, if you want to disenfranchise a conservative minded voter by sounding like you're incapable of rehashing years-old turns of phrase, then knock yourself out I guess. I'll end out little exchange by pointing out that I suspect most people are going to look at the cover-up as the ballot issue come next election. As for me, I think I'll put a Harperite in my next novel as the bad guy – possibly a necromancer.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“Prime Minister Stephen Harper has lots of good reasons to prorogue Parliament, some I can think of…and some that, no doubt, only he is aware of. .. . [which] has given him excellent reasons to prorogue Parliament for the good of us all.”
I see. Dear Leader Harper knows what's best for us and it is unworthy for us to question His reasons for for suspending the operation of our only elected national assembly for a couple of months.
That's priceless. Thanks for that.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I think the PM is privy to info on the plans of the coalition. Iffy let the cat out of the bag with his stmt that Canadians want an alternative to PMSH, but not an election. Were there opposition days scheduled during the 21 days the House will not sit. Could they introduce a non confidence vote when many MPs were away.
I find it strange so many lib/ndper/media are against this action. Isn't that what they want, the defeat of PMSH. With the budget vote probably being defeated, they will get their wish for an election. What are they afraid of, breaking Kim's record of fewest members elected.
And to think all this will happen before Iffy's thinking conference. Maybe he will vote for the budget, to give his thinkers something to think about.
We all know that Layton had his plans for a coalition in place before the last election. He was not prepared for an increase in conservative seats, and then had to call on the Bloc. That document expires in 2012 so what are they planning for Feb.
Regardless, we will have a majority in the Senate for many years, to defeat or block any lib bills, should they get a minority govt. Turn about is fair play.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:38 pm
A couple of months would be at least 60 days, when the truth is only 21 sitting days are involved.
The House is on recess till Jan 25, so you can't count those days. Only count the sitting days from Jan 25-Mar 3.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
“As for me, I think I'll put a Harperite in my next novel as the bad guy …”
By all means. Be my guest!
December 31st, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I think everyone agrees it's a shrewd political move. The problem is that it does zero for Canada or Canadians.
I sure wish you'd spared us your cartoon image of Afghanistan, though.
“The detainee issue is a non-starter with the average Canadian. Most can care less about some terrorist getting knocked around and if a few innocents get caught in the shuffle no one here cares really.”
Did you actually just say that? Are you at all aware of what's going on over there? Are you aware that coalition forces (that's us, btw… y'know… the good guys) have killed about twice as many civilians as the insurgents (the bad guys) have? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualtie...). Somewhere between 12,000 and 30,000 civilians. Killed. By “our side”.
I next wanted to make the point here that our principles, our observance of human rights are what separates us from the terrorists, but with a performance record like the above, it's not hard to see why some Afghans might wanna take their chances with the Taliban.
So maybe you're right, no-one over here cares, really. Which is why the west will continue to be the target of terrorist attacks. It's sure a good thing that they'll never be able to kill as many western innocents as we have of theirs. Yay us.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I think your figures are out to lunch. Yes, perhaps that many civilians have been killed, but most were killed by their own people via bombs in Mosques, markets, buses, and wherever they can set off a bomb. You must be a pupil of that new math.
December 31st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Read the link. Do some research. Or have you prorogued thinking, too?
December 31st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
My thinking is right on. Pay attention to the news, some of it is actually true, especially the videos of those civilians being blown to bits by their own people.
December 31st, 2009 at 6:32 pm
That would be hilarious. You phone your MP for help on something, and are told that you cannot be helped because there is no question period.
December 31st, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Maybe you should read this then Gayle.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/...
December 31st, 2009 at 8:26 pm
m123T says it well: “I think the PM is privy to info on the plans of the coalition. Iffy let the cat out of the bag with his stmt that Canadians want an alternative to PMSH, but not an election.”
Exactly.
December 31st, 2009 at 9:05 pm
It's going to be fun watching Iggy in the next election as he loses the Liberal Party leadership, his seat in the House of Commons and his coveted MP's gold plated pension in one fell swoop.
December 31st, 2009 at 10:22 pm
More Afghans have been killed by “us” than by “them”.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:19 pm
It's remarkable that such tender and sensitive people venture into the world of how to deal with a barbaric death cult that routinely tortures (and I don't mean slaps someone with a shoe) and murders women and children, routinely plants bombs in market places that are the gathering place for women with their children in tow, plant bombs and conducts grenade and rifle attacks on people at their place of worship and would line up over the horizon to get the chance to blow themselves up if they could be sure of killing any person that posts on this blog. They really don't care whether your a Conservative, Liberal or Dipper. They are equal opportunity haters.
That having been said, we have an opposition that seeks to get Canadian Soldiers charged with human rights violations for acting under control of NATO. These people in most civilized societies would be branded as traitors and dealt with accordingly.
Most of us here understand that the people that post on this blog that foam at the mouth and hate Canada with a passion are just nutters that hardly deserve the time of day. But a soldier in Afstan that hears of this bullshit does not know that it's the nutters and thinks that it's a Canadian viewpoint and the last thing in the world soldiers need going into battle is blows to esprit de corps. Attacks on the morale of our troops is disgusting and the nasty little shits that advocate it should have their asses kicked. Not that I really have an opinion.
January 1st, 2010 at 5:45 am
kenn2: “More Afghans have been killed by 'us' than by 'them'.”
Since when? The Taliban and their ilk have been terrorizing and murdering the Afghan people for a very long time.
Your stats are way off; 'typical lefty junk “news.” In fact, you talk a lot like Tokyo Rose.
Whose side are you on, anyway? If you say “the People's,” I'll know for sure. We've heard that before in most of the Hell Holes of the world.
January 1st, 2010 at 8:57 am
C'mon, do the research. I gave you a link upthread, and that article itself has many cites you can follow up. If you have stats to back your assertion, let's see'em.
Why does all this matter? Trying to get back on track … **because** Canada is a country that allegedly is governed by principles, including the observance of human rights, the Afghan detainee issue DOES matter and must not be swept under the carpet. If we don't police ourselves for adherence to our principles, however slight, then it becomes that much easier for larger breaches to occur in future.
I agree with most that Afghan detainee issue isn't a huge burning problem. That's why I don't understand why Harper is running from this, instead of just taking it on and fixing it. Like most political crises, the problem isn't the original issue, it the response of the government to the issue. I realize that this point is too subtle for most of you.
There's no excuse for the willful ignorance you're displaying. If you're truly loyal to Canada, and truly support our troops, then you have to be aware of where they are being sent and what is actually happening over there. Supporting our troops requires more than a magnetic car sticker and sending 'em TimBits. It's not a left/right thing.
January 1st, 2010 at 9:04 am
When did phoning yo0ur MP for help on a personal issue become holding them accountable?
You know, I am pretty sure most Canadians understand an MP's job is to help run the country, not problem solve each issue for their constituents. I am pretty sure most of us would rather have them working in Parliament to deal with our economy than in their constituency office helping us get a letter from the PM congratulating our parents for 50 years of marriage.
Nice try though.
January 1st, 2010 at 9:07 am
Well I find non-sensical argument annoying. We all have our crosses to bear.
January 1st, 2010 at 9:09 am
Sigh…
Let me help you. There is no argument the government knew torture was happening. That is why they took care to put safeguards into that agreement in order to protect the detainees from torture. The fact those safeguards were not adequate only came to light once Harper was Prime Minister.
And then he did nothing.
See how this works?
January 1st, 2010 at 9:12 am
So you agree it is totally for partisan reasons then? That it is not about what is good for the country but rather what is good for the CPC?
Thanks for that. I am amazed you would concede that point.
January 1st, 2010 at 9:16 am
You mean Chretien prorogued because the opposition was doing a great job proving he was lying about something like torture?
I did not know that.
As for your analogy to Dion and Ignatieff – they do not make sense.
January 1st, 2010 at 9:21 am
He is running away because he does not want to have to release the documents. Could that mean the documents prove he has been lying? I think it would hurt him more to have those lies exposed than any issue regarding the actual torture. Sad, but true.
January 1st, 2010 at 9:46 am
You are so wrong re working in their constituency office. Have you ever been to one, or asked or phoned for help of any kind. That is where one goes when they are having problems with red tape of any kind. And that is where one goes to get those letters from the PM and GG and others.
And it is nice to get those letters. MPs are supposed to work for their constituents, even those that didn't vote for them.
And where does everyone get the idea that the PM prorogued for 3 months. The House was already on a scheduled recess, and like last time he extended it for 2 wks, if reports it would recess for 10 days during the olympics. And please inform us all of how being in Ottawa would have them working on the economy. The everyday work is still going on. All we are missing is the rantings of idiots in the opposition trying to play gotcha politics in QP.
The budget was scheduled for Mar 4, before he closed shop, so what is the big deal. Do you think the senate would have passed those bills before March 4.
And as someone mentioned, if the opposition is so upset at the wasted work, they will vote in favor of bringing everything back to the floor after Mar 3.
That will be their test, lost of noise about nothing.
January 1st, 2010 at 9:53 am
The PM reworked the agreement. And if all the opposition can do is bring up things that happened three years ago, under liberal rules, shows they have no interest in making Parliament work. What do they want, to see Chretain go to jail for supposed war crimes. He maybe should be in jail, but not for that, stealing from the taxpayer could be a reason.
How long ago did the Brian thing take place, with no taxpayer money involved, and how did that work out for the libs. KHS was finally deported and sent to jail. Maybe if libs had shut up he would still be in Canada appealing this or that. He sure did tell a tale didn't he, lies and more lies.
Wonder how Colvin likes being referred to as a very low diplomat and the Red Cross doesn't deal with people at that level. And no, I will not supply a link to that stmt, find it yourself.
And for all those complaining about the MPs getting paid for doing nothing, perhaps they should look at a lot of union shops and govt unions.
January 1st, 2010 at 9:55 am
No, he was lying about adscam, but he finally got caught and liberals will pay for that for a very long time.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:00 am
It could mean that those documents lead right back to Chretain and Graham.
After those murderers just killed 5 of our troops in a week and a journalist, how can you still defend those murderers. That is what you are doing. And 2 of those killed come from Edmonton.
And just maybe the person who planted that bomb was a prisoner that was turned over to the Afgans and released because of bleeding hearts like you.
Those murderers will not change, their religion says to kill all infidels, and includes you Gayle.
Those 2 guys released from Gitmo, because of bleeding hearts, went back to Yemin and are responsible for several more killings.
Take off your rose colored glasses, those terrorists are planning and will kill. Will you feel safe flying any intercontinental flight in the near or distant future.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:20 am
“… we have an opposition that seeks to get Canadian Soldiers charged with human rights violations for acting under control of NATO. “
Absolutely not true. I'm sorry if you don't understand what's going on.
From the little that I personally know about being in the Canadian Armed Forces (from a family member), they want to know that their government has put them in harm's way for the right reasons, gives them the right support (logistic and moral) and that their mission reflects well on Canada.
They have a rather low opinion of you armchair warriors draping yourselves in the flag and professing unqualified support for the troops without having a clue about what actually happens over there. I share that opinion.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:28 am
Opinions are like noses and I'm glad that you have one. I'm also glad that
your self admitted “little that I personally know about being in the
Canadian Armed Forces” allows you to speak for the Canadian Military
regarding what I know and which flag I drape myself in.
Perhaps you should read Hansard regarding the discussions of War Crimes
charges for Canadian soldiers that have been discussed by the Opposition in
the House of Commons.
They are nasty beasts and being an apologist for them does not place you in
good company.
2010/1/1 Disqus <>
January 1st, 2010 at 10:51 am
Why do we have Question Period? A lot of us have been asking that question every time we tune in to the spectacle. It's a showcase for jackasses in the opposition benches on most days, an addendum to their latest gotcha game.
January 1st, 2010 at 11:11 am
Ok fine. I just searched Hansard for the 40th parliament, second session, for “war crimes” and not once did I hit any reference to “discussions of War Crimes charges for Canadian soldiers” or any similar reference. Not one.
Liars are pretty nasty beasts, don't you think? of course, if you misspoke, please take this opportunity to clarify or amend your remarks. A supporting link would help your cause immeasurably.
January 1st, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Ah yes. The time-honoured method of slagging the source.
That Wikipedia article has over 240 links to external sources. Including the National Post, which should make you feel all warm and fuzzy. Are all the sources wrong? Please flag the wrong ones so that Wikipedia can amend or delete the article. That's how it works…
I do appreciate that facts are a bit thin on the ground here. So, don't let any research get in the way of expressing an opinion. It's your right!
January 1st, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Gayle – it is your opinion that he is running away because…
You should not be stating your opinions as though they were fact. Unless, of course, you can prove that your opinion is fact.
January 1st, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Did any of this alleged torture occur during the LPC reign? I know we became involved during the Chretien era but I'm wondering when this alleged torture took place and I'm also wondering why it took until now for this tattle-tale to speak up. Hmmm. Funny that Ignatieff also now comes out with this business of an “alternative”. Hmmmm. Methinks…well, you catch my drift.
January 1st, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Gayle – my analogy does not make sense…to you. You cannot make a blanket statement like you did. Remember – you speak for yourself so if it doesn't make sense, it's because you failed to be able to comprehend the sense.
January 1st, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Nice stretch, there. But, if you want to believe it, hey, go right ahead. Canada is a free country and you are entitled to think what you wish. Perhaps if you repeat your comment many times…nah, it still won't make it true. Sorry. Try again.
January 1st, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Yes, Gayle. And you bear your cross with dignity and class. I admire somebody who can carry a cross even though it is a self-imposed cross. There are religious orders which flail themselves so, in a way, loading a cross or two on your shoulders is somewhat analagous and requires sacrifice and dedication – which, of course, I admire. Personally, through my faith, I bear no crosses. God liberates me – all I have to do is follow what He lays out before me and my life becomes burdenless in order to liberate me to act as His servant. Besides, Christ bore his cross in order to pay for our sins – all I had to do was accept Him into my heart and life as my Saviour and to follow the path which His Father laid before me. I love Christmas – it is when those of us of our faith celebrate His coming and our liberation.
I hope and pray that your cross is not an overly heavy burden.
January 1st, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Question – because I'm curious: if we had a LPC PM right now, would you be condemnatory? Oh, and what do you think of Ignatieff's support of torture if required? Just curious.
January 1st, 2010 at 1:42 pm
You're right, Switchyard. When you think about it, considering how low our emissions are, that whole silliness of that fossil thing plus good old Lizzie and Ignatieff screeching about the environment (as the jet to and fro) is, frankly, an embarrassment. I do not doubt that during the olympics, they (and others) would continue to screech – as they jet to and fro – and take away from the games and the athletes from all over the world. Did I mention the bit about these alarmists jetting to and fro? Using lots of fossil fuel and polluting the skies, killing birds, disturbing the peace, traveling in aircraft which took lots of resources and energy to build – thus creating tonnes of pollution? Oh, I did? Good. I just wanted to point out the unabashed hypocrisy of these idiots.
January 1st, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Unfortunately, Ted, the still-principled PM Harper tried the high road and the Libs attacked him personally and politically. We had to tolerate the former MP from that Ontario riding who spent two years of his life slamming our PM, we had the LPC making up things like Scary Harper…he tried to be a principled gentleman until he finally had to fight fire with fire. He still does it with class but he has shown his fangs – and good on him for doing so. If the LPC had fought fair and square, none of this would be happening. The coalition was an affront to democracy – we voted and these losers could not accept the fact that they lost. We had Lizzie force her way into the last debate by lying about our PM and blaming her own personal failure as leader of the Greens on a lie – that PM Harper excluded her because of her gender. Sure, as if Laureen Teskey would tolerate an anti-female husband. As if the female Ministers and MPs would tolerate an anti-female leader. Sure. Ted – the Libs have lied and lied and lied about our PM and have yet to permit him to govern. Ignatieff and his empty threats, his stupid “probation” crapola, his useless demand for updates which the government produces anyway – regardless of an American's so-called demand. Oops, did I call Ignatieff and American? Well, perhaps it's because he referred to himself as 'we Americans'. Sorry, Ted. PM Harper is very principled. Unfortunately, your party is not and refuses to become principled or to behave in a principled manners.
January 1st, 2010 at 1:48 pm
A-Girl. How are you doing? I hope all is well with you.
January 1st, 2010 at 2:05 pm
I and probably many more have forgotten about the report cards. That request/order will also die. Will iffy try it again when he votes for the Throne Speech and the budget.
Will he again put the PM on probation.
QP should be interesting tomorrow, will there be any lib mps in town to appear. Poor Craig and Giggle, having to wait almost a week to rant on the PM's actions.
January 1st, 2010 at 2:06 pm
And right you are. I too searched Hansard, and I did misspeak (sp?). Part of the direction that I spoke of is to be found at: http://tinyurl.com/yeuc8eb and at: http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/04/27/WarCrime/. The current pursuit of the opposition provide fuel for the laying of charges by those that would take great delight in doing so.
My apologies for including you with this group of nasty beasts.
January 1st, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Quoting from the first link:
“The mere fact there is a possibility for Canadian troops to be charged demonstrates how fundamentally flawed this detainee transfer arrangement is,” added Byers, author of the book War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict.
Conservative government and Liberal party officials, however, have dismissed any concerns about the agreement.”
The charging of individual Canadians with is a hypothetical. May never happen. What's immediately important is the revealed possibility that the current prisoner transfer agreement is flawed. It's the CURRENT AGREEMENT that leaves Cdn troops open to charge, not the actions
January 1st, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Notice the date on that article, April 2006. The agreement was signed Dec 2005. Who was the PM then and who was the defense minister. When was PMSH sworn in as PM.
So, it stands to reason that the so called innocent detainee was turned over under liberal rules.
Call Chretain and Graham in to testify, and release all documents involved.
Oh, that would incriminate those liberals, maybe the PM is trying to protect Chretain. But of course if it turns out it is the liberals mishandling of prisoners, case dismissed, it will be a non issue.
Even suggestion our troops could be charged with war crimes is a crime in itself, IMHO.
Has anyone suggested that the taliban or OBL be taken to the Hauge for charges of war crimes.
Anyone condeming the suicide murders of the last couple of days.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Glad to see that no facts have permeated your reality-distortion filter. After you have a nice nap, we'll try to tell you how that free-speech thing works.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:05 pm
But, Ted, if broken promises annoy you, then you must also be very annoyed by the LPC. The LPC broke a number of promises, as well, prior to Canada making the smart choice to elect PM Harper's party to power. As for an affront to democracy, I believe that Ignatieff does that every time he spouts off. I believe the coalition was a huge affront to democracy – we had a vote and a few overblown egos just could not accept that and formed their little coalition which was a total affront to the voters who chose our current government. Oh, and the lie they told about 60+% of Canadians did not vote CPC was heinous at best. 60+% of eligible voters who bothered to vote (what was it, 49% or so) did not vote CPC. That was hardly 60+% of Canadians. Sorry, Ted, the LPC is nothing but one lie after lie; one false outrage after another. And, as an insult to Canadians, the LPC brought in as UNELECTED leader a man who, for all intents and purposes, is American and he has the gall to tell us that “Canadians want”. Sorry – the LPC is dirty, corrupt beyond repair, and a menace to Canadian democracy and the Canadian way. If I had a choice between LPC and NDP, I'd go NDP. At least Jack Layton has lived in this country for a few decades and at least we know exactly what kind of a politician he is.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:08 pm
The committee is invetigating a detainee that was turned over in spring of 2006. And as hard as they have tried, no problems since the PM changed the rules.
The media has been complicent in this coverup of the Chretain liberals. IMHO most of the liberals or ndpers or even Iffy knew the truth of who wrote the agreement. Same thing when they went off their rocker re only one vaccine supplier in Canada. Who signed that, and got mega bucks for the party, Chretain. Maybe instead of a thinkers conference Iffy should have a conference on the past behavior of his party under Chretain and PET. He might learn a few things.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Well, the will of this particular person is for our taxes to decrease, useless programs tossed, our people out of Afghanistan and the opposition to be at least led by an ELECTED and CANADIAN leader. While in power, Chretien ignored the will of this person who wanted our health care system maintained, transfer payments maintained so that the costs would not be downloaded to the provincial and municipal levels, the EI fund untouched, EI benefits made more accessible and not less accessible, the GST scrapped (a blatant lie on the part of Chretien), corruption reduced or eliminated (AdScam), abuses reduced or eliminated (Radwanski, Dingwall) but the LPC did not listen to the will of this person. The LPC did, however, create a false surplus on the backs of us Canadians. So much for listening to the will of the people.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:11 pm
I believe that PM Harper pays taxes like the rest of us so it is, in essence, his money as well. Not that I'm getting anal or anything like that.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:16 pm
I have to admit that watching Ignatieff's face go into contortions is kind of amusing. And I love how his facial grimaces and voice/tone/content don't ever line up. It's kind of like watching one of those old movies where the soundtrack and lips are not in sync. Or watching a dubbed movie. I love watching Mulcair explode and taking bets on what his blood pressure is at any given moment. I love what's her name in the LPC make a blithering fool of herself and I absolutely go nuts when Hedy Fry gets up to speak – that woman is hilarious. She makes no sense but she's a hoot. I'll take QP over any old sitcom any day – good Lord, the opposition is hilarious. Oh, let's not forget Goodale when he goes apoplectic. And, lest I be accused of being partisan (which I am, BTW), Baird is good for a laugh once in a while, as well. And, through it all, our PM remains calm and logical – a study in class, dignity, intelligence, and wit. I love how he always buttons his jacket and shoots his cuffs before nailing his counterpart to the wall.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Yes, but this point is about 0.00001% valid.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Sorry, Bocanut, I don't catch your drift at all.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Anti-democratic? I believe it's within his rights to request prorogation. So, was the failed coalition anti-democratic? Hmmm.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:21 pm
When Ignatieff first uttered those ridiculous words, my colleagues all said the same thing: the government does that, anyway, so what's he talking about. Demanding the government to produce report cards was like demanding that duck quack. The man may be educated but he sure is stupid sometimes.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:22 pm
When Ignatieff was an American, did he not come out in support of torture if necessary? Of was that not necessarily torture?
January 1st, 2010 at 3:23 pm
That sounds ambiguously plausible
January 1st, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Bravo, BatB. Well said. And very true.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:25 pm
No, that is not what he is 'basically saying'. Nice try, though. But, sadly, your attempt failed about as dismally as…well…Dion's green tax on everything.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:26 pm
It's already been done – have you heard of the book Sheeple? You'll have to be more original, Sean. BTW – whatever happened to the guy who wrote that book? Oh yeah…
January 1st, 2010 at 3:28 pm
And if she is not on the list it will be due to PM Harper's sexist tendencies. After all, that's why he didn't want her in the debate. I mean, it had nothing to do with the fact that her party has no member of Parliament or the fact that she is unpolished, unprofessional and downright rude.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Damage control? What damage control? There's no damage to control. This damage control thing is beginning to sound like a speaking point.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:30 pm
That detainee issue – didn't it begin during the LPC reign? Funny how it only now comes to light. Smells very fishy to me.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:31 pm
LOL. I won't input what came to mind because this is not my blog and I would not want to offend our host. But I think my drift can be easily caught.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Gayle, I do admire your ability to dodge. I wish I could be so adroit at dodging as are you. I admire the skill.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:35 pm
I keep hearing about this stimulus package as being so huge and yet I hear the LPC dissing the Harper government for not flowing any of the money. So, which is it? Do we have a huge stimulus package or do we have money not flowing? I'd really love to know the answer to that one.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:36 pm
The point is that Ignatieff's outrage is false, in light of his party's record.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:40 pm
why parnel are you afraid of being kicked off this blog again.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:47 pm
When you go and read exactly what he said, in context, you will not have to ask that question.
I am willing to bet you have never read what he said about torture.
And if we had an LPC PM who willfully ignored reports that prisoners captured by our troops were being tortured, and then lied to Canadians about what he knew and when, and then abused his position as PM to run away and hide when the going got tough – yes, I would condemn those actions.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:49 pm
The PM reworked the agreement a year and a half after he learned the prisoners were being tortured.
The lying did not just happen 3 years ago – it is happening now. Maybe you don't care when your government lies to you, but I do.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Lots of interesting reading on the Colvin allegations on the Esprit de Corps website ( http://www.espritdecorps.ca )
In particular: http://www.espritdecorps.ca/index.php?option=co...
The money quote:
“There is an old air force phrase to the effect that ‘when you start taking flak, you know you’re over the target’. Applying that same formula, one has to presume that whistle-blowing diplomat Richard Colvin is hitting close to the mark with his allegations pertaining to the Canadian Forces’ handling of Afghan detainees.”
Lest anyone is still confused, the current political issue isn't about our troops commiting war crimes: ALL sources and evidence agree that our troops have been handling detainees honourably and according to agreements. So can we please stop with the they hates our troops crap?
January 1st, 2010 at 3:51 pm
It is the only possible conclusion to reach based on all the facts.
Of course, if you want to ignore the facts, you can reach all kinds of conclusions.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:52 pm
And did he prorogue to avoid Adscam?
January 1st, 2010 at 3:53 pm
This is a profoundly stupid comment. Are you in grade 2?
January 1st, 2010 at 3:54 pm
An opinion based on the facts. It is the only logical conclusion based on the facts.
I know you know I am right. You haven't even tried to justify the prorogation on any other grounds.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:57 pm
I guess you didn't watch the videos of the interview where he said that re torture, or what he wrote. Remember, he was in the USA at the time so perhaps you missed it.
January 1st, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Not as stupid as the many you have made here and on other topics.
January 1st, 2010 at 4:11 pm
We have… both. Confusing isn't it?
The stimulus plan in the Feb 2009 budget was $40 B. I call that huge. As of Dec 2009, one news report says that the money has started flowing on about 2/3 of the committed projects. Meaning that on 1/3 of the projects money hasn't started flowing, and that many projects have only just started. So not exactly a blisteringly fast rollout for what was supposed to be an urgent program…
I have heard it said that the money started rolling faster and more generously in Conservative ridings, but I don't have any confirmation of that yet, so I won't bring it up.
oops…
January 1st, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Isn't it strange that so many people think a project can be started in minutes. Think of all the hoops one must go thru, including all the envir checks. Unless a project has been sitting in some mayors office or where ever, with zoning, and plans and blueprints etc just waiting for the money, it can take months to get thru the hoops. Then weather has to be factored in, contracts let, workers hired.
And most time consuming of all is getting all the councillors etc on board, or the residents of an area to agree, . So, give it time, our PM is not the messiah, he is in the USA, and he is not a genie that can wiggle a finger or nose and yeh, it appears.
And, as there are more conservative ridings than any other, of course they would get more of the pie.
If the money flowed faster it could be those ridings have more officials on the ball. I read where Quebec is asking for more time to make plans. Too bad, you should have thought of that before you did other things.
January 1st, 2010 at 6:06 pm
There were many shovel-ready projects that could have been started quickly, in most ridings. But we Canadians are cautious and methodical as a rule, so I cannot fault the current government for reflecting that.
What I will fault the government for is an almost complete absence of vision for Canada's future. We are in a transitional period in the world, with unprecedented connectedness and faced with the end of easily-obtained energy from fossil fuels, and an economic crisis to boot, yet I cannot find one project or initiative that positions Canada to be a leader in alternative energy technology, or makes us more of a player in medicine, or hi-tech, or education, etc. As I mentioned in another post, all Harper seems to care about is that we have safe banks and oil sands. We apparently have no other role in the world; we don't even dare express opinions contrary to the US positions.
I expect more from my country, and I'm prepared to work for it, but if our leader doesn't have the spine for it, there's not much cause for optimism.
January 1st, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Then join a political party ( if you haven't) and work in a constituency office and learn the ropes, then run for office.
January 1st, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Thanks. I'll consider it.
In the meantime, I'm content to scope out the websites of ascendant political mechanics like our good host Stephen, and address misconceptions or deceptions as I find them.
How about you?
January 1st, 2010 at 8:03 pm
So, deal with the fact that it's the Liberal$ that signed the detainee agreement that's in question.
Answer why there was no fuss in the media then but there is now, even though the CPC changed the rules and there have been no problems since. Answer why neither Chretien nor Graham were brought up on the carpet about this issue: pure Teflon.
This is the unending pattern: If the Liberal$ are/were remiss or worse, they're given a pass. If the CPC are/were remiss — or not even, though spin can be put on an issue to turn it into a faux-scandal — they are relentlessly hounded by the Opposition and the media in the hope, of course, that enough “dirt” will stick to them for the public to turn away in disgust.
It's dirty politics, kenn2, and you know it. I'd love to know who you are … and where you've shown up from. You seem pretty intent on keeping this dog hunting.
January 1st, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Hollinm, you seem to forget this is a MINORITY parliament and that 65% of voters did not and do not approve of Harper. He therefore should have asked parliament for permission to prorogue.
That would make him look less like the antithesis of a democratic elected government.
January 1st, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Bruce, give your head a shake…..IGGY will be PM after the next election. Harper is done like burnt toast.
January 1st, 2010 at 8:28 pm
I don't like dirty politics, either, frankly. Obviously I can't answer for why/if the Liberals got a free pass in 2007, and at this moment neither of us can state with certainty who actually amended the detainee agreement.
We can only address the “now” and right now the sitting government, which promised increased government transparency and accountability to the electorate, is currently stonewalling on the issue. I would jump up and praise Harper if he had the cojones to live up to his advertised principles, however much I might disagree with them.
Prediction: MacKay gone by late spring.
January 1st, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Is it stonewalling when it's independent lawyers, not PMSH and his government, who review the documents that Parliament is demanding and who make the decisions regarding which documents will be released in accordance with the privacy act and national security, a point that Prime Minister Harper made abundantly clear in his year-end interview with Lloyd Robertson and Craig Oliver on CTV?
This isn't the only issue demanding the Prime Minister's valuable time.
His principles are still intact, whatever your opinion or that of the disloyal Opposition. It's too bad they're a bunch of howling hyenas intent on going for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's jugular rather than assisting in the governing of this country. It's the Liberal$, the NDPers, and the Bloc that lack balls; if they're convinced that Stephen Harper's government isn't governing judiciously, they need to make a non-confidence motion and take them to an election. They've had ample opportunity — and Mr. Ignatieff has threatened countless times to do just that — but they always back away.
January 1st, 2010 at 8:57 pm
1. Chretain made the decision, all on his own, to send out troops to Afghan. And we have since learned of the oil deals family members had with Saddam, so he wouldn't help out in Iraq.
2. He and Graham come up with some plan for prisoners, again not turning them over to the US (hate can be a horrible thing)
3.document signed, in 2006 some detainee got hit with a shoe, under liberal rules.
4. Media hid fact the plan was a liberal plan, O'Connor get drummed out of office.
5. New procedures put in place, in 2007, by the government of the day, PMSH.
6. No problems since.
7. Out of nowhere some guy named Colvin, for whatever reason decides his time has come for his 15 minutes of fame.
8. Probably reason for said committee, libs had tried numerous faux scandals and they didn't pan out.
9. Liberals panicked when they finally realized they were losing the senate and would probably lose seats in next election.
10. Send hints of another coalition coup via Iffy's interview.
11. Oops, didn't work, all plans to disrupt the House until the budget put on hold.
Best laid plans of mice and men and all that.
The above is an example to be submitted to the cbc for a position as a writer. But it wont be accepted as it has a few grains of truth in it.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Votes are not fungible my friend. So when you look at it that way 74% of those that voted did not support the Liberal party. Our system is a first past the post whether you like it or not. Did you complain when Chretien won a majority with 38% of the vote? Was he less entitled to put forward his agenda because he did not have the majority of voters vote for him. Parties rarely get 50% of the vote and you are being completely disingenous.
Harper had no obligation to consult with anyone. Just like Chretien when he prorogued 4 times.
Problem is he is beating the sh!t out of the Libs and you don't like it one little bit. Get used to it.
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:46 am
Gayle, I have not tried to justify the prorogation because, if you read one of my earlier comments, you'll see that I am not in favour of it at this time. I may be partisan but I am not a blind follower.
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:30 am
Bravo, m123T: 'in a nutshell. Kenn2 has a lot more 'splaining to do.
As for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's principles: I marvel at how principled he is given the minefields he's always negotiating, laid by the power-hungry Liberal$, the reality-challenged NDP, the deeply divisive Bloc, and the delusional Green Party.
I am deeply contemptuous of the attempts by the disloyal Opposition to derail Canada's duly elected CPC government. The “coalition parties” play at governing seeing as their sole agenda seems to be to oust the Conservatives and to Hell with the real concerns of Canadians. It's a nasty business they're about and, fortunately, increasing numbers of Canadians are onto their perfidy.
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:23 am
Prediction that McKay will be gone by late Spring is nothing but Liberal wishful thinking. Given they're in such a mess they have nothing better to do than make mischief and spread inaccuracies and downright lies. McKay is doing a good job, the Taliban hold no place in the hearts of Canadians and at no time has Canada under this government ever condoned torture. Have a visit to a local legion, see how some real people who've fought for us as loyal Canadians feel about the subject of even obliquely accusing our forces of war crimes.
For any Liberal apologist to talk about honesty, transparency, accountability is pure rhetorical crap. The very mention of Adscam and the Liberal shackles go up, don't want to talk about the millions tossed to the wind by JC and the gang and never recovered. But hey, “what's a few million”? It was slated to buy votes in the guise of “unity” but had the exact opposite effect.
Liberal apologists can go to Hell, no one is listening but more and more Canadians are watching in disgust the spectacle going on in the LPC. It's time they concentrated on getting their own house in order, get a leader they can stand behind without a knife in their hands. Bob Rae has negated his
chances with his recent performance. McGuinty in Ontario is not helping Rae's chances either by reminding Ontario voters of the similar mess Rae left that province.
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:47 am
Hollinm, It may appear that he kicking the sh!t out of the Libs but a three or four point move down for harper will be big trouble and the scandals out there could all hit at once in a perfect storm if the opposition and MSM gets their minds around all of his garbage.
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:01 am
Liz J…..no one in the Lib party wants Mckay gone. He is the perfect attack material in an election campaign,almost as good as Harper since both are incredibly incompetent. Remember, the Tories are only carried in the polls right now by their nastiness and that can be a two way street played at the proper time. Their personal vilification of Liberal leaders will soon be seen in the light of harper's dictator tendencies.
Keep those delirious and nasty thoughts going though..they are funny if nothing else.
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:04 am
m123T………tories and truth ain't that just peachy…..I guess all the tory lies are not there and everything they say is gospel truth.
delirious stuff makes me laugh.
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:04 am
What “scandals out there”?
There aren't any scandals, much to the utter chagrin of the Librano$ — who know better than any party what a genuine scandal is.
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:20 am
Whatever you say parnel.
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:54 am
Thanks for being yourselves. There was the nucleus of a real dialogue emerging from Pat, but you 3 have never wavered. You're consistent. Deluded, close-minded, and fact-free, but consistent.
Only thing I'll touch:
“1. Chretain made the decision, all on his own, to send out troops to Afghan. And we have since learned of the oil deals family members had with Saddam, so he wouldn't help out in Iraq.”
OH. MY. GOD. Drop down on your pasty white knees and thank God, thank Jesus, thank Buddha, thank someone (I think it was Paul Martin) that Canada was kept out of that tragic mistake, that waste of life, that lie, that ongoing war crime of the Iraq invasion and occupation. It's estimated that between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the 2003 invasion. Pretty impressive since Saddam himself only managed to kill 5000 in a good year.
It's your right to have a twisted and misinformed view of the world; it's another thing entirely for you to send our young people to fight and die somewhere because of that delusion.
Also, it's Chrétien. You'll sound a bit less rabid if you could at least spell correctly.
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:10 am
It was JC that sent the troops, without ever bringing it up in the HofC. If you don't believe or know that, it shows how ignorant you are on all the true facts.
And the fact muslims are killing muslims is not my problem. Did you pay attention to the bombing yesterday and the number of muslims killed by bombs.
Would you please provide evidence that those numbers are anywhere near the truth, and when did those massacres happen, and where. They didn't.
That is a huge difference, between 100,000 to 1,000,000 people.
The truth is out there, go find it.
The media has done a great job keeping the truth from Canadians. Your stmt it was Martin, not JC is proof of that. You probably believe polar bears are disappearing too.
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:58 am
Read all the words, dear. I said it was Martin who kept us OUT of Iraq.
There is indeed a huge difference between 100,000 and 1,000,000. But nearly everyone, including the US gov't, agrees that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since 2003. That's a few too many for me, sorry. Saddam in his top form wasn't killing 15,000 civilians a year.
It was kind of obvious that we would help our American friends after 9/11, and at the time there seemed to be a possibility that Al Qaeda could be found and eliminated from Afghanistan. Also, in at least 2 elections since Canadians have essentially OK'd our involvement in Afghanistan, even though it's become a royal cock-up and it seems more likely that the west will withdraw in the next couple of years without substantially fixing anything.
You've now no doubt already checked out the link I posted upthread about Afghanistan casualties, and also most of the 240 links included there, since you don't trust wikipedia. Here are a couple more.
http://www.infoshout.com/
http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/08/28/lies-d...
http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?...
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/st...
I look forward with anticipation to the links you're about to provide. OK that's a joke, because you have only ever regurgitated half-truths spoon-fed to you by your favourite web hangouts. God forbid that you ever attempt any independent research.
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:05 am
Maybe all those civilians have been killed, but many probably died of sickness or something. But, those killed have been killed by muslims killing muslims.
JC was the PM when help was asked for in Iraq and he said loud and clear NO, he didn't want to disrupt the oil deals his family had with Saddam.
And he never went to the HofC when sending troops to Afghan. Sort of acting like a dictator.
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:28 am
mi123T, Kenn2 and others like him are people the National MSM like to manipulate, since the media knows that none of them kenn2 etc, will ever review the information.
Yep, Chretien without having a single debate in the HOC, decided on his own to send our troops into Afghanistan and it was he who took $5HUNDRED MILLION of taxpayers money as cancellation fee to cancel the helicopters which Mulroney had already placed an order on.
Also the troops went into Afghanistan under the American flag “Enduring Freedom”
Why the so call useless NATIONAL MEDIA not say a word for the past 6years is and are questions Kenn2 should be asking them.
Another thing, Chretien did send some troops into Iraq, but as always Chretien stood in the HOC and blatantly lied to the mps and to the media.
Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang: Our man in Iraq
Posted: October 12, 2007, 2:00 PM by Marni Soupcoff
Eugene Lang, Janice Gross Stein
Did Canada really stay out of the Iraq War? The answer is more complicated than Jean Chretien would have had Canadians believe ……
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullco...
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:30 am
“Maybe all those civilians have been killed, but many probably died of sickness or something. But, those killed have been killed by muslims killing muslims.”
Nice stick-handling. Why won't you read up on this? I don't yet have the hard stats on coalition “collateral” casualties, but I'd bet it's on the order of 25,000 of that 100,000 directly killed by US forces. Feel free to prove me wrong, and I will admit it and thank you as well.
Re Afghanistan, the link I posted upthread is pretty clear that even the most favourable comparison indicates that coalition actions have killed TWICE as many Afghan innocents as the insurgents have. The insurgents are no catching up, but for the moment, WE (the coalition) have been deadlier to the average Afghani than the Taliban.
If you actually think that Canada should have got involved in invading Iraq, even after witnessing what a human disaster it has become, then you need professional help. I'll pray for your soul, too.
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:33 am
It's come down to picking on the spelling of a name, guess that's the end game. Johnny Crouton works for me since it doesn't require a French keyboard with all the right accents.
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:49 am
Oh, now you are changing your facts, it is the coalition forces, or the US forces, when you first tried to say it was Canadian troops that had killed all those cowards.
And now you say you do not have final facts on coalition casualties. At least we have you thinking a little bit.
Personally, I don't think we should have got involved with either country, but once we did, we had to support them with everything we had.
Afghan has been at war forever, I think it is in their DNA. I think they probably have a great underground system thru those mountains.
My son's solution is, go to the top of the mountains and work your way down and use bunker busters every time you see an opening.
They supposedly farm by day, but they plant bombs at night. Guess that is a new crop.
And what if everyone that uses the drugs they produce was called a collaborator.
That could be one of their aims, keep americans and candians stoned, so they can keep killing us and no one will pay attention.
But if you asked any user if they were in anyway responsible for the drug trade and crime they would defend themselves. I am not talking about the skid row addicts on our streets, I am talking about the ones with good jobs that say, I only use on weekends for recreational use. They are just as guilty.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:09 am
“Oh, now you are changing your facts, it is the coalition forces, or the US forces, when you first tried to say it was Canadian troops that had killed all those cowards.”
Absolutely untrue. You are lying, or you have made an error. I will gave you the same chance to correct your error as I gave Pat, and I expect an apology for such an outright falsehood.
I've always referred to the coalition of forces in Afghanistan when discussing those casualties. You also know the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope.
BTW, we generally don't refer to civilians of another country as “cowards” at least till we've actually met them.
It's pretty clear that by producing links I brought a gun to a knife fight. I can't crack the facade of the incessant blathering of your right-wing dogma, your ability to reason and even to read is apparently grade-school, and now you can't even bother to check back in this very thread before leveling a provably false accusation. I realize this forum is usually just an echo-chamber, but I still hoped for a genuine exchange of viewpoints. Oh well.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:17 am
The civilians that have been killed were killed by cowards. Anyone wearing a bomb to a mosque, market, plane, sports arena is a coward.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:21 am
Thanks for that link to the NP article. Having some [quote] hundred or so low-level exchange officers who were employed largely in technical support roles with the American and British militaries[/quote] is not quite the same as sending troops into Iraq, but I agree that it means that our hands weren't squeaky-clean on Iraq.
Surely you're not suggesting that Chretien sucked up harder to the US than Harper has, though…?
Also, I actually get most of my info from international publications, and I try to cross-check anything contentious. And I'm usually grateful when someone can prove that something I believe is actually wrong. (m123T – that means prove with facts, not chant inanities)
Thanks for the suggestion to ask questions to the Canadian MSM. But why would you expect me to succeed in getting answers where you, with your greater numbers, have apparently failed?
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:26 am
still waiting for that apology…
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:36 am
To the majority here when you say 'us' we assume you mean Canadians. So, you have said us Canadians have killed more of them, than the cowardly terrorists have killed. I will always disagree with that stmt. Oh, and how did you get from 12,000, in a previous post to almost a million killed.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:45 am
I am extremely sorry you are an idiot. Good enough.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:56 am
Game set and match. You have slayed me, I am vanquished.
Since you're now an unapologetic liar, I no longer have to pay attention to you. Thanks for that.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:57 am
I guess I should be grateful that you even bothered to finally check. You will therefore have seen the first mention:
“Are you aware that coalition forces (that's us, btw… y'know… the good guys) have killed about twice as many civilians as the insurgents (the bad guys) have?”
I think that's pretty clear. I can't be responsible for someone's inability to comprehend english.
You can of course believe what you like, even if it flies in the face of fact. It's generally more convincing, though if you can back up your position with references.
Oh and thanks for the apology. It explains alot.
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:32 am
Hey, you haven't responded to my concerns: What about the fact that independent lawyers make the decisions about which documents are released to the public and which ones aren't, thus making mincemeat of Opposition and media attempts to accuse — and convict as guilty — PMSH and his CPC government of stonewalling.
It's not going to work, kenn2, your lumping my comments with two others. Even though I agree with their points, I've made a few of my own, which I kind of expect you'll respond to.
Otherwise, silence is agreement. Hmmm …
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:55 am
Hey, since you asked nicely…
“Is it stonewalling when it's independent lawyers, not PMSH and his government, who review the documents that Parliament is demanding and who make the decisions regarding which documents will be released in accordance with the privacy act and national security, a point that Prime Minister Harper made abundantly clear in his year-end interview with Lloyd Robertson and Craig Oliver on CTV?”
I haven't yet seen the interview (I'll go looking for it, I promise), but for now please consider the following conjecture.
People, companies and governments (hereinafter referred to as the “client”) retain lawyers when they want a legal opinion. In many cases the client already has a position in mind and the client asks the lawyers to create a legal argument to support the client's position.
One of the most public and despicable examples of this in action is when the Bush administration asked the Attorney-General to create legal arguments to justify torture at Gitmo and elsewhere.
I believe this is what's happened here – the PM has asked the lawyers to cherry-pick laws that would support his desire to delay releasing that information for as long as possible. I've seen some of the legal issues raised, and most of them have simple counter-arguments or work-arounds.
You of course know that the governments make laws and courts + lawyers interpret, apply and test them.
So, yeah, it's my belief that the legal arguments given by Harper are weak, and they will ultimately be struck down, but all this buys him time. aka stonewalling. I don't hate the PM for doing it, it's part of the game, if he wants to play it that way. But it doesn't work to his credit, and I think he will have a bigger mess on his hands later by not tackling the detainee transfer thing head-on and now. I say this not as a partisan of any stripe, but as someone wanting him to follow through on all this transparency stuff he promised. Can't happen soon enough.
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:57 am
Strange what one finds when googling afghan casualties. One report lumps Afghan and Iraqi casualities together. Civilian causalties include afghan troops killed, in another. and then there is this, in another
report
Apparent Disregard”
Despite the high number of civilian casualties inflicted by international forces, more than half of the casualties recorded were inflicted by the militants fighting the foreign troops.
The UN said insurgents had inflicted the overwhelming majority of deaths in bombings, 65% more than the year before, and they were often carried out “with apparent disregard for the extensive damage they cause to civilians”.
In one of the worst cases, a suicide car bomb killed 14 primary schoolchildren in Khost province at the end of December in what officials said was a failed attempt to blow up a meeting of tribal elders.
One can get a weird set of facts when one takes a sentence from one place, includes info from another.
What does one believe, supposedly 30,000 afghan troops were killed, if so by whom.
Another report says it is 40,000.
Most of the pages have not been updated for a couple of years. And a lot of the info is from professors from some University, using computer projections. We know how that works out via climategate.
Oh, and one report says only 2800 civilians were killed in that year.
Wonder what the truth is.
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Does anyone really believe if these documents were released to the committee members with security clearance, that they wouldn't get out to the media within hours.
Can't you just see the smirking faces of all the news anchors licking their lips.
Why are these people so anxious to give the enemy what we know.
I have to believe they are on the side of the terrorists and want them to win. Just hope none of them are on the plane blown up, or in the mall when the suicide bomber decides to attack.
I will refer to all media as brainwashers, that is what they are doing to their viewers (few as they are)
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm
kenn2, these are not PMSH's lawyers, the CPC's lawyers, or government lawyers. They are independent lawyers. There's a difference.
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm
I would rather see the sealed documents regarding the petrafina files, that PET and liberals made millions on and ordered the files re the sale sealed for 50 yrs. What is in them that is so damaging.
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Yeah, as I've said elsewhere, m123T, the disloyal Opposition and their minions in the media seem more intent on going for PMSH and the CPC's jugular rather than co-operating in governing our country.
By making life as difficult as they can for our government, they are severely compromising our military and their effectiveness. We're at war, for crying out loud. Our media hyenas behave more like Tokyo Roses than partriots.
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:18 pm
You follow the money. If the “independent” lawyers were paid, then they're no longer independent.
Actually, “independent lawyer” is an oxymoron; there's no such thing. A lawyer is paid to serve their employer or their client. They actually take an oath to do just that. When there's a disagreement, you get a lawyer, I get a lawyer, then our lawyers argue things out in front of a judge, each trying their best to represent their client's interest. And the judge… judges.
So Harper's lawyer's (and they are “his” if he hired them) have provided a series of plausible legalities regarding the releasing of documents. It will now be up to someone else (the opposition, or some other group) to challenge these assertions, and ultimately, a judge will listen and decide, if it isn't worked out beforehand (eg by a much watered-down commission in the spring).
Clearly it's a stalling tactic. If the PM wanted to go ahead with the commission or an investigation, it would be happening, regardless of what the “independent” lawyers say.
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:49 pm
I replied to this but it did not get throught the first time. I think you did the right things here, after all it is a conservative site. I have to admit though that it did make me laught thinking a few years back when Chernial imploded along with his chosen bed wetters.
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Sorry about that. Comments are moderated here and this has been a popular post so your comment was far down in the queue. I found it and approved it. Thanks for coming by, I hope that you'll continue to comment. As you do, your comments will be approved faster.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:01 pm
It was Chrétien that kept us out of Iraq even though it was later revealed that we weren't even wanted there by Bush.
Also, Harper and Ignatieff would have had us there if either were PM at the time.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:01 pm
all you need to do is press ALT (hold it down) and then type “130″ on your numberpad.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:04 pm
That communion wafer scandal was the high point of Liberal scandal making. That one about body bags was really classy too!
I wonder what scandals the Liberals will think of in 2010!
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Thanks for that. It wasn't so much the missing accent that bugged me, it was the whole “Chretain” thing.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Thanks for the correction. Though, I don't believe for two seconds that Bush would have turned down an offer from Canada to supply troops for Iraq, had they been offered.
“Also, Harper and Ignatieff would have had us there if either were PM at the time.”
Agreed. And that saddens me.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Do you remember that leader called Jim Jones, who had lots of followers some place in S/america.
When it was discovered not all was right with the compound, he prepared poisoned kook-aid, which his followers dutifully drank and died. Drinking the kool-aid refers to those who believe without question what the media or others say, without question or checking. Global warmist are the latest koolaid drinkers.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Oh East. How is the person asking the question dodging anything?
The question remains unanswered. Maybe you could help your friend out and list the bills that were blocked by the Senate.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:24 pm
What did he say, in context.
I ask because everyone I know who has actually read his comments in context say those of you who rely on other bloggers to tell you he wrote something that supports torture do not know what you are talking about.
Let me know when you have read the whole book.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:25 pm
While the LPC were in government prisoners were transferred to US forces.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:26 pm
So you ARE in grade 2.
Thanks for clearing that up.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Oh my goodness. make stuff up much?
The liberal government drafted an agreement that had safeguards in place which were intended to protect prisoners when they were turned over. That agreement was signed in the final weeks of the election in 2005. Harper won that election, and thus it was his responsibility to ensure the agreement worked the way it was supposed to.
He got information very early on in his tenure that the agreement was NOT working – and then he did nothing – and now he is lying to Canadians about that.
The media did not have to give the liberals a pass – no one was tortured under their tenure and the agreement was not known to have been inadequate until Harper was in power. He is the guy who has been hiding stuff.
And Colvin did not come out of “nowhere”. He was summonsed to the committee and he gave honest testimony. You are aware that he is compelled to tell the truth to the committee? He is not like MacKay – he does not have to lie to save Harper's bacon.
Look, I get you nconservative types do not think Harper has to be accountable for his own conduct, but those paranoid conspiracy theories just make you look pathetic.
The facts, those pesky facts…
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Harper has already proven himself to be a liar. Pardon me if I do not accept his categorization of these “independent” lawyers.
Besides, some of those unredacted documents have already been released through other means and it is obvious the comments that were redacted are all those that contain evidence the government was told about torture allegations.
Those pesky facts again.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:42 pm
I am not relying on other bloggers, just his own words in an interview on an American political show, done years ago, during the Bush years. It is still out there somewhere, find it. I believe that clip was also used by the conservatives, at one point in time. I think it was on a PPS show.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Google, independant government lawyers and you will be amazed at what you find. Did you know all this stuff started in Feb 2007, and eventually ended up with a committee in the HofC. Did you know that independant lawyers are working for Colvin, the Committee and the Government. Did you know that the committee has refused to allow certain applications, evidence, documentation to be presented to it.
Could it be that the stuff they refuse to accept, or the witnesses they refuse to hear would lead right back to JC.
The detainee so called torture happened in the spring of 2006.
Do you really think that PMSH knew about everything going on within hours of his election.
Regardless, the liberal plan was full of problems and PMSH had to correct it.
I bet most canadians have never heard of the problem and could care less. Especially after the cowards killed 5 of our people a few days ago.
The opposition and brainwashing media will try to spin this during an election campaign, but it will not defeat PMSH. Might actually get him a few seats, just to stop the gotcha games of the libs/ndp.
Oh, as a aside, has Bennett any ideas on what to do with all that excess vaccine she ranted about there not being enough. And how many children have starved in Quebec due to EI not being paid fast enough.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:55 pm
So now you think you can read thru blacked out documents and know what they say.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:08 pm
ON WHEN TORTURE ISN'T EVIL
“…in a situation of extreme necessity, the possibility, even a slight possibility, that it [torture] may reveal some life saving result would almost certainly overwhelm any consideration that it is evil.” – Michael Ignatieff, The Gifford Lectures, University of Edinburgh, January 2003
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Gayle, google The Humanist.org.uk Sept issue, 2005.
Seems iffy so outraged the editors with his stmts etc he had to RESIGN from the editorial board.
I must thank all you iffy supporters, it has led me to many facts I did not know, and will not help him in an election..l Especially his support of the Iraq war, and terror if necessary.
That humanist article is quit long, hope you can get thru it.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Yawn. Let me know when you read the text, and the comments in context, and get back to me.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Sigh…
Even by your own dates, nothing happened before January 2006, when Harper became the Prime Minister.
What is it about that you have such a hard time understanding?
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:21 pm
We voted for a neophyte in 2006 and look at the mess we are in. At least the liberals are aparty of ideas unlike the tories who simply go from pillar to post trying to hide their real intentions and offering fluff as a front line cover up.
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Another deeply thought out Tory type answer……..seeing ghosts.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Sarah,
Don't worry about the committee work. There will be a vote in the House as soon as Parliament resumes to continue the HOC AND SENATE business prior to prorogation. If a majority of MPs vote to do that (and I can't imagine why they wouldn't), matters just resume. So all this bluster about work and time wasted is NOT true.
What prorogation does, (and ONLY prorogation allows this) is allow the Upper House (SENATE) to be restructured to better reflect and represent who the people of Canada elected by region. This REALLY worries the Liberals. By Harper adding 5 Senators to replace the 5 retiring, (and they may or may not be Conservative), the Liberals will lose much of their current control. The UNELECTED SENATE (except for Sen. Brown from ALTA.) will no longer control committees and have the ability to stall and change legislatiion passed by ELECTED MP's. Harper will then be able to start the process of Senate reform (i.e. max. 8-10 year terms, NOT until age 75 appointments). He would much prefer to appoint Senators ELECTED by each province, but so far only Alberta will agree to elections for Senators, so he is left with no other option currently than to appoint them.
BTW, welcome to this blog–it is refreshing to see a fellow Canadian want to become more involved in the process of sharing their opinion! Good for you!
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:59 pm
But that is what I would like to know Gayle. If the Liberal Gov't knew about the torture, why would they ever sign an agreement that was so inadequate? On one hand you are saying that they put in all the safeguards that were needed. On the other hand you are saying it was just weeks of the signing to show the problems.
January 3rd, 2010 at 12:17 am
I never said they put in all the safeguards that were needed. Clearly they did not.
However they did make the attempt, and in doing so acknowledged safeguards were needed.
Maybe Harper could learn something from that.
January 3rd, 2010 at 12:38 am
I believe there were a few that were transferred to the Afghan forces after the new agreement was signed, and before the CPC actually took control of the gov't. Somewhere around 16 or 17.
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:39 am
Your right Gayle, you said they took “care” to put the safeguards in place. So can you tell me how much “care” they took?
January 3rd, 2010 at 6:18 am
Stephen: have you broken your record for the most comments with this blog?
January 3rd, 2010 at 6:24 am
Well, Parnel/Terry1 returns.
January 3rd, 2010 at 6:26 am
Just for old times sake: LizJ hysterical. Remember the good old days, Liz? LOL. It's funny how Parnel loves to diss us for our alleged lies but he is the one who disguises himself time and again – sounds like a big lie, to me. But then again, hypocrisy runs deeply in the LPC.
January 3rd, 2010 at 9:36 am
From batb's excellent suggestion, I did track down and watch PM Harper's year-end interview with Lloyd Robertson. It's a good watch. the link is http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTV...
Part 3 contains the reference to the “lawyers” and releasing documents. And yeah, as I suspected, he's totally hiding behind the legal technicalities of document release. Of course there are laws around privacy and official secrets. But there are also laws and legal precedents about how/when to redact and about who is, or can be authorized to view secret documents (hint – MPs, committees).
The sad thing is that I think we all agree that the detainee thing has since been fixed, and that our troops have been blameless throughout, and that the detainee problems that happened before the fix are, frankly, minor. So there would have been very little blowback from a quick, factual acknowledgment of the problems Colvin has reported. I certainly wouldn't have counted such against his government. But instead, they started by smearing Colvin, by denying things that later proved to be true, and now proroguing.
I will say that the Prime Minister has grown in the job. In the interview I found him to be intelligent and articulate, and I do have more confidence in him now regarding most financial issues.
He's almost as smooth and persuasive as Mulroney… or a Liberal!
* lights bag, rings doorbell, and runs away, giggling*
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:40 am
kenn2, I'm very glad that you watched that year-end interview and that you can see that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has both grown in the job and is intelligent and articulate.
I suspect that there are a whole lot of reasons why the CPC has been treating Richard Colvin and his allegations the way they have — and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, which you aren't; 'your right (not you're right!!!) — as I can't understand what possible constructive reason Mr. Colvin could have had for bringing up his accusations when he did.
The PM and the CPC are sick and tired — as am I and a whole raft of Canadians who just want the government to help us all through this very tough time — of being hit with faux-scandals, which this one certainly counts as. Even you admit “… that the detainee thing [caused by the Liberals] has since been fixed [by the CPC, BTW], and that our troops have been blameless throughout, and that the detainee problems that happened before the fix are, frankly, minor.”
If this is the case, that the detainee problems are minor, then why did Mr. Colvin bring them up at all? It's been pretty clear since the beginning, that there has been a political motivation behind it; it's been pretty clear that it was thrown into the mix to embarrass and discredit the CPC government and our Prime Minister and, as such, PMSH has been perfectly justified in pushing it aside because it's unworthy of his consideration.
If it weren't for the media's obsessive interest in this issue, it would have lost momentum the day after Mr. Colvin made his accusations.
I'm also getting heartily tired of the disrespect shown our Prime Minister and his government — and, by extension, the Canadian electorate — by the Opposition parties and the media, for the simple reason that they just don't like PMSH and Conservatives. It's one thing to legitimately criticize the sitting government for obvious failings or missteps but it's counterproductive and contemptuous to hound the government with souped-up “scandals.” The Liberal$ and their shills in the media have overplayed their hand in this regard, one too many times — and the Colvin accusations fit right into this obnoxious pattern.
January 3rd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Rule #1 – never give any politicians the benefit of the doubt. Ever. Demand accountability. No-one gets a free ride. The right-wing chipped away incessantly during the Liberal reign (and you guys have never stopped), you must expect the same back.
Not alot of mud will stick to Colvin. He's a well-regarded career diplomat, and he tried to raise his issues from within and met with resistance, so he's going outside. Are the Liberals trying to make political hay of the allegations? Of course they are. It's their job!
Anyway, I learned something in the last few days. I've learned, to my cynical delight, that Harper is being assimilated by the Ottawa borg. He's acquiring ease and skills, he's learning the buttons to push and the levers to pull, and rather than hiding from the press, he's learning to face them confidently, with that same low purr that reassures while telling the public nothing.
In short, he's now a seasoned Canadian PM, and like all other successful PMs he's going to stay somewhere in the middle, no hard right turn, sorry. He can spend into deficit like a Liberal when it's necessary (… stimulus). Along the way he is going to shed election promises like scales, like they all do. An elected Senate this term is now toast, and improved accountability and transparency is all but gone. He'd rather prorogue.
Like most PMs he will probably lose power when he gets overconfident and ignores some small thing (like the Colvin allegations) and the opposition can turn it into a cover-up.
I'm still betting on MacKay taking the fall for this.
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Why should he take the fall. More likely Colvin will finish his term. Any promises made to him for some exotic posting when back in power, or a Senate seat will have vanished. Like iggy he believed a lot of bs from backroom boys.
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Here's why:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/MacKay+tang...
Nice hardworking guy, but with a truth issue.
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:36 pm
What do you know about Orchard and his policies? He has tried numerous partys and ridings to get elected but can't fool the voters.
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I could not agree more.
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:13 pm
“I suspect that there are a whole lot of reasons why the CPC has been treating Richard Colvin and his allegations the way they have — and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, which you aren't; 'your right (not you're right!!!) — as I can't understand what possible constructive reason Mr. Colvin could have had for bringing up his accusations when he did.”
Actually, he brought them up in 2006. The reason they came out to everyone else now is because a) the Harper government ignored his warnings and then lied about them, and b) Colvin was subpoenaed to testify at the committee, where he was under a legal obligation to answer questions truthfully.
I know it is hard for you to get your head around the fact someone can be truthful and criticize the Harper government at the same time, but it is in fact possible.
You are such a victim. You have no sense of perspective. You have to lie and twist things around so they fit into your little cult of victimhood and paranoid conspiracy theories.
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:15 pm
How many times can I agree the first agreement was inadequate before you believe me?
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Ok then. So now all you have to do is find the evidence that the LPC government was told these prisoners were at risk for torture, notwithstanding the provisions of the agreement, and you might have a point.
January 3rd, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Gayle: “You are such a victim. You have no sense of perspective. You have to lie and twist things around so they fit into your little cult of victimhood and paranoid conspiracy theories.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
January 3rd, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Wow. That response was more intelligent than I expected.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:56 am
That was actually me, East of Eden. Parnel would have actually put it in. Oh shoot – there I go with a Freudian slip.
January 4th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Further to our discussion regarding the opposition discussing war crimes charges, these are direct quotes from the Toronto Star: Accusations of war crimes risky for Liberals
Earlier this month, Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic, described a lone diplomat's allegations as “the fact that this government ignored the warnings of torture, sent prisoners to Afghan jails at the risk of torture, which is a war crime, which is an absolute war crime.”
Other Liberals have gone even further. On CTV, Liberal spin doctor Warren Kinsella compared what Canadians are doing in Afghanistan to what Americans did in Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi jail where prisoners were tortured by rogue U.S. troops. Despite the interviewer's statement that there was no comparison with Abu Ghraib, Kinsella repeatedly insisted “we don't know that.” Not even Richard Colvin, the diplomat at the centre of the storm, has alleged that Canadian Forces committed any torture.
Not that this is a new revelation, but they ARE nasty beasts.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
This is a double post but posting it as a reply to me would not arrive at your attention.
Regards,
Pat
Further to our discussion regarding the opposition discussing war crimes charges, these are direct quotes from the Toronto Star: Accusations of war crimes risky for Liberals
Earlier this month, Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic, described a lone diplomat's allegations as “the fact that this government ignored the warnings of torture, sent prisoners to Afghan jails at the risk of torture, which is a war crime, which is an absolute war crime.”
Other Liberals have gone even further. On CTV, Liberal spin doctor Warren Kinsella compared what Canadians are doing in Afghanistan to what Americans did in Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi jail where prisoners were tortured by rogue U.S. troops. Despite the interviewer's statement that there was no comparison with Abu Ghraib, Kinsella repeatedly insisted “we don't know that.” Not even Richard Colvin, the diplomat at the centre of the storm, has alleged that Canadian Forces committed any torture.
Not that this is a new revelation, but they ARE nasty beasts.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
I haven't yet read the quote from Kinsella. If that's what he said, then yes he's wrong (and nasty), even if he was just trying for hyperbole.
From your quote pulled from the Star:
“Earlier this month, Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic, described a lone diplomat's allegations as “the fact that this government ignored the warnings of torture, sent prisoners to Afghan jails at the risk of torture, which is a war crime, which is an absolute war crime.” “
Well… IF a government knows that there was a credible risk that detainees were likely to be tortured by Afghan authorities, but allowed to happen anyway, then yes, it is technically a war crime, under international law. Do you dispute this?
The thing is, Harper and MacKay could have headed this off at the pass a month or more ago by simply stating the facts and showing how they tightened up the procedures. Instead they first tried to smear Colvin, then MacKay was caught in some lies in the house. And now a further evasion via proroguement (is that a word?).
Because Harper and MacKay have created a vacuum around the allegations and have now been caught in a lie or two, it leaves them wide open for speculation about what they may be hiding. The speculation will likely continue even past the Olympics and they're going to have to face up to it in some way after Parliament resumes.
I expect at that time there will be some sort of very-well-prepared statement which finally sheds some light on the substance of the Colvin allegations, but clearly shows how the proces has since been buttoned up. there will also be a cabinet shuffle which sees MacKay reasigned to Minister for Cafeteria Cutlery or similar, cos he needs to do penance for his “truthiness” issues.
January 4th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
For any Canadian politician to suggest that Canadian troops are involved in war crimes when said troops are engaged in combat is bordering on sedition. To pinpoint the “subjected to ridicule” or “harshly spoken to” types of behaviour which might in some circles be classified as torture, as reason to claim War Crimes charges against Canadian Troops and by extension, Canada's Government, is reprehensible, to be polite.
One seconds pause in a combat situation or prisoner handling situation could result in death or multiple deaths. Giving Canadians cause for introspection during a time of war is deserving of Great Harshness, for lack of better words.
To encourage the enemy that their laid out manual for “what to do when captured” is working well, is just that, aid to the enemy in a time of war. Sedition! Should Dosangh be charged with Sedition during a time of war. I think the punishment is death by firing squad. Not that I really have a strong opinion about this matter. For some it is a “Gotcha” game and for me it is not.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Why can't anyone read english around here? No-one has EVER said that Canadian troops have committed war crimes. Not Dosanjh, not Ignatieff (Kinsella has raised a big fat question mark, if the provided quote is true, but didn't actually say the words. He's mainly pointing out that in the absence of facts, anything is possible). This is about the Harper government, and what is alleged to have happened with their knowledge.
Harper and MacKay have ducked behind this cowardly distortion about the troops, by implying that any allegation against them (the government) is in some way an attack on our troops. And I completely agree with you that Harper & MacKay are , well, not seditious, but certainly less than brave by taking this approach.
To repeat, only the CPC has drawn the troops into this, as part of their smokescreen. Big-time cowards.
Did you check out Esprit de Corps? http://www.espritdecorps.ca/ Find out for yourself what the troops think about all this.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
I won't be offensive with the BS that you are running about how this is
targeted at the Government and not the man that hands him over, his
superiors and the Army he belongs to. With all due respect, go run that BS
on someone that believes the Liberal talking points. You were doing fine
until this point.
Have yourself a nice day, said he civilly and thereby ending the
conversation.
2010/1/4 Disqus <>
January 4th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Remember Hansard? It's in there. Go read who first draws the troops into this, by pretending that the allegations were made against the troops (hint MacKay) . Find out for yourself who's lied in the HofC.
The detainee issue is about whether this government ignored the warnings of torture. Sunlight is the best disinfectant; Harper & MacKay cower in the shadows.
I don't read talking points, I try to research and to think for myself. Not something that happens here alot, it seems.
I guess we're done.
January 4th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
A certain S. Harper of 24 Sussex Dr has acknowledged the validity of global warming:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTV...
(second segment, about 7:08 – quote: “Global warming is real” )
Do you think he likes cherry, or is he a grape man?
January 4th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
He does not believe it to the extent he is willing to ruin the economy or the country over it.
I will wait till he gets his majority to see what he really thinks. He will never give the koolaid to Canadians. Iffy-questionable.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:17 am
I don't know why you get so riled up about this. In truth this is merely an extension of the Christmas Season for Parliament by what, week, then days? The truth is that the public is getting fed up with the Theater of the Liberals particular Bob Ray and Usual Dosanght( forgive my mispselling) about our forces in Afghanistan. Really who cares what the Afghans do with their prisoners, I for one don't. And please spare me this nonsense of the Geneva convention. When Eisenhower starved thousand of POW's in the Rhineland to death with the excuse of DEF, Nobody said boo.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Hollin, you are so dead on. The Buffon from the Eastcoast was enough to make me ill. I can't wait to see the Senate reformed. I am sure I am not the only one who thinks so. The Senate in its present form, unelected etc. is a dictatorship, who only thinks about party politics, not the will of the People.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Well said Batb. I would even suggest that the Block should be declared unconstitutional because it is not a Federal Party since it is only in Quebec.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Roughandtumble. What country are you living in? Not in Canada. Oh,well maybe you would like to Liberanos to run the country, in particular since they have been highjacked by the failed NDPers.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Hollin, You are right. I have been in Ontario recently and watched the Repatriation of our Dead Soldier, you know that the Public at large could not give a hoot, about the detainee issue. Just talk to ordinary people like I have.
January 7th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
In case anyone's still interested, EKOS and other polling released Jan 7 indicates a general disapproval ( by about 2 to 1) towards the snap prorogue.
Summary: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blo...
According to the above article, citing Angus-Reid data: “Thirty-five per cent of respondents who voted Conservative in the last election said they disagree with the decision to suspend Parliament.”
The will of the people…
January 11th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Do conservatives really hold more ridings ?
January 11th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Your joking right. But, fyi, yes they do or Stephen Harper would not be Prime Minister.
January 11th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Somehow I thought that CPC had more seats thann any single other party but that they did not have a majority.
January 11th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
That is correct, they have the most elected MP, than any other party and thus form the government.
However, there are more mps in the house spread between three parties.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Thereffore the comment about naturally they would have more stimulus
spending is incorrect.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
There would be more conservative ridings getting stimulus money than liberal or bloc or ndp, if one just counted the ridings. But, there was probably more money spent in total in the other ridings.
If you want to add lib+ndp+bloc for a total, and then compare it to the conservative ridings.
Regardless, needed projects were agreed to and many jobs were created across Canada.
And the coalition complained there was no stimulus money, then complained it was not enough.
January 15th, 2010 at 4:02 am
It will be great to watch Big East Tournament Mens All Sessions, i have bought tickets from
http://ticketfront.com/event/Big_East_Tournamen... looking forward to it.
April 5th, 2010 at 7:00 am
I found this article so interesting and quietly informative, it gives me an idea of Parliament type of government which our government before had trying to imposed.
I also found that these sounds something
April 16th, 2010 at 8:39 am
I think prorogation is political despite the Conservative lead in the polls and despite the fact that this detainee issue isn’t doing too much of anything to affect the Prime Minister’s standing in the polls.
April 16th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
I think prorogation is political despite the Conservative lead in the polls and despite the fact that this detainee issue isn’t doing too much of anything to affect the Prime Minister’s standing in the polls.
May 18th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
So sick of proroging!!!
May 18th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Lucky for you prorogation is over!
May 31st, 2010 at 6:13 pm
They will say that prorogation is political despite the Conservative lead in the polls and despite the fact that this detainee issue isn’t doing too much of anything to affect the Prime Minister’s standing in the polls.
June 21st, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Yes, very much so. I share your view.