The Hook

rules are for people with no character...

really? How to explain the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then? Indeed, we consider some 'rules' so esential we go further than legislation and ensure that they cannot be changed at a government's whim.
Iggy is seriously off base here, I think, and aparently he has no clue about the effective use of facebook either. But then, the conservative trolls are all over the CAPP facebook page...what a reek of old style politics ...what a serious affront to the intelligent voter...what a disgusting display by these political parties.
Ah well, I wanted to report that there is an anti-prorogation rally planned for Courtenay as well: 1:00 p.m. Saturday, January 23rd at the fountain plaza beside the Sid Williams Theatre.

I have a LPC card

but I am sickened by the bullshit - all talk no action. From earlier today:

[Comment From Alan Goodhall ]
Thank you for this forum Mr. Ignatieff. Yesterday Mr. Layton stated to the media that the NDP would propose legislation to limit the power of a prime minister to prorogue the house. Do you feel legislation is required or is this more a question of ethics of the party in power and best left to the public to decide through the ballot box?
3:40
Michael Ignatieff:
Provided a Prime Minister respects Parliament and its authority, legislation isnt needed. Mr. Harper used prorogation to duck a confidence vote and to evade tough questions in the House. That;s wrong. Ive already pledged not to use prorogation that way. The problem is not the power itself, so much as its abuse.
Mr. Harper has abused his power.

[Comment From Glynn Pearson ]
I am very concerned about your response about prorogation. Harper was elected on promises of accountability and transparency after a debacle with the Liberals of the day (including a long prorogation). I don't know you and I don't want you to feel disparaged but it has been demonstrated that we cannot trust the person in power to act with the public's best interests in mind. Would a new Liberal government consider committing to legislation to ensure the responsible use of prorogation?
3:57
Michael Ignatieff:
As a great writer once said, rules are for people with no character. Meaning, that you need to legislate when you cant trust the people who hold power. My view is that we dont need to legislate limits on prorogation. We just need to return to the basic understanding that used to limit prerogative power, namely that you dont use it to duck tough questions in parliament and you dont use it to duck a confidence vote. harper used it this way and it was wrong, and Canadians are telling him dont ever do that again.
--

Obama and Ignatieff are cut from the same clothe - talk up Main Street, deliver to Bay/Wall Street and fuck everyone else.

Icky Prorogued

Of course Icky has already pledged not to use prorogation the same way as Harper (and Martin and Chretien and Trudeau, etc.), we can believe him, can't we?

Icky thinks that he may become PM so he wants the same tools as Harper has now in case he needs to use it during a judicial inquiry. Jack doesn't care, he will never be PM so less power to the PM the better in his view.

Icky is good at getting around even soft-ball questions, but the media is on his side anyway.

I won't waste my time going to an anti-proroguing rally. I think that Harper did the wrong thing but I don't want another eastern Canada PM. The Liberals refuse to have leaders from any place but southern Ontario and/or southern Quebec while other parties have had leaders from across Canada.

MYTH WATCH: Chretien Did the Same Thing

I always thought Chretien was a thug, I'm no admirer. But Harper and his PR experts are positively frightening. Inform yourself, see below.

MYTH WATCH: Chretien Did the Same Thing and Other Myths of Proroguing
by Ruth Haworth http://yappadingding.blogspot.com/2010/01/chretie...
The PMO sent out some talking points about Chretien's history of prorogation. Conservative operatives have been posting them in comments all over the place and they have totally muddied the debate. There is nothing normal about this prorogation.

Harper has NOT run standard or even acceptable sessions of parliament. He has made three controversial and questionable dissolutions of parliament since he took power less than four years ago, in February 2006:
(1) September 2008 - Harper dissolved parliament and called an election (or rather, forced the Governor General to) despite his own law, passed in 2007, that created fixed election dates every four years. He did this because two months later Canadians would have known that he had created a structural budget deficit.
(2) December 2008 - Harper prorogued parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote.
(3) December 2009 - This prorogation.

This prorogation was NOT done so that MPs can watch the Olympics or create a budget or have time to think. Parliament was prorogued because the special House of Commons committee focusing on the 2006-07 treatment of Afghan detainees had attained such overwhelming evidence that they held an emergency meeting on December 14 and then announced that they would widen the inquiry. On December 15, rumours started swirling that Harper would prorogue parliament.

It is NOT the case that Harper's use of prorogation is the same as the 104 other prorogations in Canada's history. Other than incidents in 1873 and 1926, prorogation has not been used to avoid being accountable to parliament.

It is NOT true that Chretien's 2003 prorogation was the same as this one. (1) In the 2003 incident, Chretien prorogued when Martin was voted in to replace him as PM, so the parliamentary agenda needed to be reset, which is the purpose of proroguing. (2) Chretien had a majority, so there was no contempt of parliament. Yes, it was probably a side benefit for Chretien that he got to let Martin take all the heat on the A-G's report, but that wasn't the main purpose or justification of the prorogation.