Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
jacee

Harper sells Canada to China: Democracy?

Recommended Posts

But he did.

"A prime minister's removal or suspension of a Member of Parliament from caucus is at the core of parliamentary privilege," the decision says.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...thrown-out.html

You originally claimed Harper could "fire MPs". Removing someone from the caucus doesn't remove them from the House of Commons. Guergis continued to sit as an independent, conservative MP after she was ousted from both the Cabinet and the Conservative caucus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You originally claimed Harper could "fire MPs". Removing someone from the caucus doesn't remove them from the House of Commons. Guergis continued to sit as an independent, conservative MP after she was ousted from both the Cabinet and the Conservative caucus.

You can split that hair if you want to.

She was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can split that hair if you want to.

You brought that hair out to be split; it was your example of Harper supposedly firing an MP, a threat you said he holds over all MPs who vote contrary to his wishes. Except, he didn't. He had her out of Cabinet and out of the caucus, but he didn't fire her from her position as an MP; he can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I was in grade 3 when I learned majority meant 50% + 1....that's right... a majority wasn't 39% back then and still isn't laugh.png

He has a majority of seats which is the way our system works, always has. This gov't is no different than any other gov't with a similar majority.

As far as the statements go about this deal, so far we have only seen opinions, no fact. In order to get the facts we need to read it ourselves, or somehow find an unbiased source to lay it all out for us. An opinion piece from rabble or similar places isn`t fact.

I doubt anyone here has read the agreement, I haven't, not sure I will either.

Peeves said Obviously any agreement was studied and is a positive for Canada."... ` Why would a gov`t sign onto something that appears to be so bad for Canada, what would the PM gain from such a thing. Harper isn`t working for anyone other than Canada, he wants what we all do, something that will benefit Canada, so why would he sign onto something that is supposedly so bad.

Maybe someone who has read the agreement can point out the pertinent parts.

P.S. The first link is to an opinion piece by Ellen Rainwater who mentions the Tyee... who is Ellen Rainwater, is it just a letter to the editor ?

Edited by scribblet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can split that hair if you want to.

She was done.

It's not splitting hairs. You said Harper could fire an MP. He can't. As leader of the Conservative Party he has the authority to kick someone out of caucus, but they still sit as an MP. He can kick them out of his cabinet, but that's the executive branch of the government; they still sit as an MP. The Prime Minister cannot overturn the democratic decisions of the electorate. In this case, Guergis ran as an independent; if she would have won the election, she would still be an MP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deal looked ok, I'm not sure what is in there people don't like, can you clarify what is bad about the agreement?

I do think "agreements" should be parliamentary approved unless it is a state of emergency though. All deals should have parliamentary oversight unless the emergency act is invoked. When you have a non functioning democracy from majority rule due to partisanship though where representives represent their party's intersts, it is pretty much just a waste of time though.

If people care I think MPs should be given a parliamentary journal that the Library of Parliament will keep for an MPs so they can file their positions if they don't get the chance in Parliament.

I think that MPs have the ability to bind the crown on foreign arrangements they just need to put it to law. That isn't likely due to majority rule.

This particular agreeement though, I don't see the issue now that China is WTO.

If this agreement is issued, Canada should just leave the WTO but that isn't likely either.

Canadians get screwed because they won't enterprise. if you want to stop the loss enterprise, that is the bottom line.

If your answer is, but they have the business. Well if you don't have business then what the hell do you want to do make rock art? Plenty of rocks.

The planet is going to hell and whining about this is one small papercut on a bloodbank.

I felt the agreement protected Canadians doing business in China from nationalization without renumeration. Canadian governments are too capitalist to nationalize industry so it is a moot point over here. If China opens up more then it leaves more room for Canadians to do business. But if we are seeking chinese markets, chinese operated companies in Canada are a sure way for that. Loss for Canada but its not like the US and Mexico couldn't do the same thing already.

Lots of Chinese people... lots of land in Canada.

Canada could use directed chinese settlement into Canadian hinter lands to develope the country and improve general world quality of life.

it is the same sort of context that could develope in Siberia.

What the hell do people want?

Use it or loose it.

join the ride. cause you ain't stoping the picnik.

Beat em or leave em.

Has me question why freaks can't mount a successful insurrection against brutality and crackdowns.

That is the bottom line.

-- There is something called ratification though.. that is making it "domestic law", agreements with no domestic force don't propose a domestic jurisdiction to enact it in proceedings except as a mitigating factor thus non binding in Canada. But this is a WTO agreement more or less, meaning it is WTO arbitration or bilateral relations that will be "issued"

Edited by login

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harper sells Canada to China: Democracy?

Why am I not surprised that Wild Bill is nowhere to be seen in this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

166 > (308/2)

One can't argue with that either.

Of course you can. How can you get 54% of the seats in the HoC with only 39.6% of the national vote? There's obviously something wrong with the distribution of seats and/or constituency boundaries with such a gap. With our current electoral system you're never going to get a perfectly balanced distribution of seats vs votes because populations of constituencies will always change. But something, whatever it is, should be done to correct this rather significant democratic deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can. How can you get 54% of the seats in the HoC with only 39.6% of the national vote? There's obviously something wrong with the distribution of seats and/or constituency boundaries with such a gap.

I don't agree. The system we have is designed to make politicians accountable at the local level. The population doesn't do that generally, but, they can. In order to win, one must get a plurality of the votes in a riding. They don't always get a majority of votes in the riding, but they always get more than the other candidates. Canadians don't seem to want to change this either, as they've had the chance in BC and Ontario provincially. PR systems create far more instability than FPTP systems.

On a side note, I kind of agree with you when it comes to the riding distribution. Small provinces are definitely over represented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Instability" is what dictators call democracy.

"Instability" is representation of diverse viewpoints for the purpose of discussion, debate, and ultimately collaboration in decision-making, to represent and serve the interests of all Canadians.

It's not as 'tidy' as 39% of the population steamrolling over the rest of us with a majority of government seats.

But that's a lot closer to the ultimate in tidiness - dictatorship - than it is to real democracy.

It is possible to be too obsessed with tidiness at the expense of democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Instability" is what dictators call democracy.

"Instability" is representation of diverse viewpoints for the purpose of discussion, debate, and ultimately collaboration in decision-making, to represent and serve the interests of all Canadians.

It's not as 'tidy' as 39% of the population steamrolling over the rest of us with a majority of government seats.

But that's a lot closer to the ultimate in tidiness - dictatorship - than it is to real democracy.

It is possible to be too obsessed with tidiness at the expense of democracy.

It's 39% of the people who cast ballots. It's actually about 25% of all registered voters and less than that of the total population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly how many secret trade deals are Harper and his fellow plutocrat-enablers working on right now?

It wasn't that long ago that I first learned that secret talks were going on with the TransPacific Partnership(where only approved political apparatchiks and corporate spokesmen are allowed), and now we have the same thing going on in a bilateral deal with China!

Since the public has been ignored and disregarded once again by the Harper Regime, the only avenue left to voice opposition to the sellout of Canadian resources is to add your name to the petition here: http://leadnow.ca/ca...t-for-sale?t=hp

Edited by WIP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly how many secret trade deals are Harper and his fellow plutocrat-enablers working on right now?

It wasn't that long ago that I first learned that secret talks were going on with the TransPacific Partnership(where only approved political apparatchiks and corporate spokesmen are allowed), and now we have the same thing going on in a bilateral deal with China!

Since the public has been ignored and disregarded once again by the Harper Regime, the only avenue left to voice opposition to the sellout of Canadian resources is to add your name to the petition here: http://leadnow.ca/ca...t-for-sale?t=hp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that this is about businesses looking to set up in China and not allowing China to treat a Canadian company less favourably than they would any other foreign company looking to do the same. Basically, it's supposed to protect the interests of Canadians, at the same time Chinese investors in Canada must obey the laws and regulations of Canada just as any Canadian investor must.

Chinese investment in Canada will still be subject to the Investment Canada Act and meet the required threshold tests.

According to my MP this Canada-China FIPA is very similar to the other FIPAs that Canada is a party to. It contains all of the core substantive obligations that are standard in our other FIPAs. It is about ensuring greater protection against discriminatory and arbitrary practices allowing Canadians to invest in China with greater confidence.

Well, I haven't read the agreement, but I've been pretty sure that there is the usual hysteria and fear mongering.

There is a very reasoned opinion here that gives speaks to the hysteria, much ado about nothing it seems.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Opinion+FIPA+deal+with+China+Canada+interest/7477393/story.html

Let’s replace the rhetoric with some facts.

Canada has FIPAs with more than 30 countries, from Barbados to Croatia to Senegal. What these agreements provide are some basic assurances that if a Canadian investor establishes or acquires a company in another country, then the investor has a right to legal recourse if that company is expropriated without compensation (or if the country changes its rules, making it impossible for the Canadian investor to continue doing business). In exchange, we offer these same rights to foreign investors in Canada.

That’s all. A FIPA does not provide permission to invest, nor does it exempt an investor from the laws of the land; it just provides legal options for companies who believe they have been treated unfairly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way the Chinese government is going to treat Canadian businesses there as fairly as the Canadian government is going to treat Chinese businesses here. Signed piece of paper or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Scribblet. Too much BS in the news and political rhetoric and not enough analysis on the trade deal. PM Harper needs to be more open about what he is doing though. When you work behind closed doors and appear with something and say "Ta-Da" and throw it down on the table, people will think you are hiding something.

The best way to do any of this is to be open up front and confront your opponents in the open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PM Harper is a talented statesman who is adored the word over for his diplomacy. He recently won the award for statesman of the year!

We have a man who will be missed once he is gone from power. He will go down in history as one of our greatest PM's ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PM Harper is a talented statesman who is adored the word over for his diplomacy. He recently won the award for statesman of the year!

All part of the Bilderberg plan....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way the Chinese government is going to treat Canadian businesses there as fairly as the Canadian government is going to treat Chinese businesses here. Signed piece of paper or not.

I'd be even more concerned about how Ottawa leaves it's own citizens in the lurch when it's treating foreign businesses here. Check out how Ottawa washed it's hands of BC's fishing communities when treating Norwegian fish farms to our waterways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be even more concerned about how Ottawa leaves it's own citizens in the lurch when it's treating foreign businesses here. Check out how Ottawa washed it's hands of BC's fishing communities when treating Norwegian fish farms to our waterways.

There you go. Lots of concerns about the deal. But that makes you an "extremist" according to Harper. Shame on you, Commie scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerns, sure from the usual quarters... here's another opinion which reinforces the Gazette piece I posted, suicidal wailing over no big deal.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/02/andrew-coyne-despite-near-suicidal-wailing-over-china-trade-pact-its-no-big-deal/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerns, sure from the usual quarters...

Concern's stemming, in this quarter's case, from the evidence of fish in one of Ottawa's hands mysteriously going missing, and of special interest to me, as I'm pointing out in another thread, the opportunities clenched in their other hand when fish are abundant that just as mysteriously go missing.

The only thing that always seems to be in the middle of these phenomenon are the usual suspects which no surprise are usually the recipients of a disproportionate amount of allocated opportunity. Opportunity in the case of activities of foreign investors that impact fish habitat in creeks and rivers exist in the form of lowered environmental standards and protection like much of what has been happening in advance of this particular deal at this particular time with a nation that in particular affords even less protection to the environment than we've watered our's down to.

No matter what year it is both fish and fishermen die when politicians lie. I trust the Conservatives who concluded this deal no more than I do the Liberals who initiated it.

In the meantime and from the same source you cite;

There is nothing in this deal with China that will protect Canadians

The agreement appears to be unconstitutional because its Article 4 allows China to bypass and contest provincial, territorial, First Nations, municipal or successive federal government decisions on resource and commercial management.

No need to bypass the management of fish stocks and the ecosystems they depend on when there are no fish. Come to think of it, who needs fish when fishermen mysteriously start to go missing. That was a process also initiated under the Liberals and the Conservatives just pressed that pedal to the metal when they came to power too.

Funny dat.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go. Lots of concerns about the deal. But that makes you an "extremist" according to Harper. Shame on you, Commie scum.

Remember how the Conservative base howled with glee back in the day when Harper used to tar the Liberals for wheeling and dealing with commies?

Now that the scums on the other shoe...

Funny dat too.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember how the Conservative base howled with glee back in the day when Harper used to tar the Liberals for wheeling and dealing with commies?

Now that the scums on the other shoe...

Funny dat too.

If you'd rather live in China's system may I suggest you vacation there and see how you like it? They have fishing there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...