Pulse Niagara Online Edition
...
Harper deliberately chose to pick a political fight with the opposition just six weeks after promising to work with them. Faced with certain defeat, he demands Jean prorogue Parliament. Did she consult with the leader of the opposition to see if he could lead a government? There’s no sign she did. Instead, she simply gave in.
Fast forward one year and Harper is again in trouble—this time over his government’s handling of the Afghan detainee torture issue. On the last day before the Christmas holidays, MPs passed a motion calling on the government to release thousands of uncensored documents on Afghan prisoners. Harper promised the committee looking at the issue they would receive “all legally available documents.” Instead, he prorogues Parliament, thus disbanding all committees in both the House and the Senate and killing government bills, no matter how close they were to approval.
And as many others have argued, Harper’s timing said everything. He chose to announce on December 30 – the same day five Canadians were killed in Afghanistan and at a time when the public and media were focusing on the announcement of Canada’s Olympic ice–hockey team that Parliament wouldn’t resume until March 3. Even more troubling is that Harper didn’t even bother to follow tradition and make his “request” of the Governor–General in person, instead telling her over the phone. Yet, the Governor General’s official residence is right across the street from the Prime Minister’s Sussex Drive home. Constitutional expert C.E.S. Franks, a Queen’s University professor, called Harper’s actions “an affront to the dignity of the office of Governor General.”
The British magazine, The Economist, an influential and largely right–wing publication, stated in an editorial, “Mr. Harper’s move looks like naked self–interest.” The magazine, which once dubbed former Prime Minister Paul Martin “Mr. Dithers”, said Harper’s a competent tactician with a ruthless streak. “The danger in allowing the Prime Minister to end discussion any time he chooses is that it makes Parliament accountable to him rather than the other way around.”
...
Harper deliberately chose to pick a political fight with the opposition just six weeks after promising to work with them. Faced with certain defeat, he demands Jean prorogue Parliament. Did she consult with the leader of the opposition to see if he could lead a government? There’s no sign she did. Instead, she simply gave in.
Fast forward one year and Harper is again in trouble—this time over his government’s handling of the Afghan detainee torture issue. On the last day before the Christmas holidays, MPs passed a motion calling on the government to release thousands of uncensored documents on Afghan prisoners. Harper promised the committee looking at the issue they would receive “all legally available documents.” Instead, he prorogues Parliament, thus disbanding all committees in both the House and the Senate and killing government bills, no matter how close they were to approval.
And as many others have argued, Harper’s timing said everything. He chose to announce on December 30 – the same day five Canadians were killed in Afghanistan and at a time when the public and media were focusing on the announcement of Canada’s Olympic ice–hockey team that Parliament wouldn’t resume until March 3. Even more troubling is that Harper didn’t even bother to follow tradition and make his “request” of the Governor–General in person, instead telling her over the phone. Yet, the Governor General’s official residence is right across the street from the Prime Minister’s Sussex Drive home. Constitutional expert C.E.S. Franks, a Queen’s University professor, called Harper’s actions “an affront to the dignity of the office of Governor General.”
The British magazine, The Economist, an influential and largely right–wing publication, stated in an editorial, “Mr. Harper’s move looks like naked self–interest.” The magazine, which once dubbed former Prime Minister Paul Martin “Mr. Dithers”, said Harper’s a competent tactician with a ruthless streak. “The danger in allowing the Prime Minister to end discussion any time he chooses is that it makes Parliament accountable to him rather than the other way around.”
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment