LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
- September 25, 2007
Dear Editor,
As a result of prorogation of Parliament, Parliament did not sit on September 17 as planned, and it will only reconvene on October 16. Some concern has been expressed by my constituents as to what this is all about.
Prorogation is a proclamation that officially ends a Session of Parliament, and can happen at any time. While the decision to prorogue is exclusively that of the Prime Minister's, it must receive official approval by the Governor General at which time a date for the Throne Speech is specified signalling the beginning of a new session. The last prorogation took place in 2003, and has been a common occurrence in most parliaments.
The main effect of prorogation is that all outstanding government legislation ceases to exist, and all committees are automatically dissolved. All Government Bills before both Houses die, including eight Bills currently before the Senate such as C-10 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing), C-62 (Wage Earner Protection), and C-35 (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearms related offences). In addition, Bill C-30, the Clean Air and Climate Change Act, is also dead.
To me it seems that a lot of time and money has been wasted as a result of the Prime Minister's decision. For example, if we look at C-30, the special all party committee formed to work on this Bill spent countless hours discussing and amending this piece of legislation. This Bill could have been a shining example of how all parties were able to cooperate to come up with some very significant progress on the environment.
The same is true for all of the other Government Bills, including those dealing with crime that have been discussed and reworked at the committee stage. Now, we have to start the whole process over again.
The obvious question is why the Prime Minister chose to prorogue Parliament when it appeared to be working, Bills were being passed, and committees were producing some excellent results.
I suppose that time will tell, but from the perspective of a newly-elected MP, I find this to be very discouraging and a complete waste of time and energy. What do you think?
Alex Atamanenko,
MP BC Southern Interior
To The Editor;
It goes without saying, Canadians always have supported their troops and have an immense pride in their military.
We've seen them as little people in the former Tulameen school from Coalmont and Tulameen and then as Princeton Senior Secondary Grads serve in the Iraq - Gulf , the Balkan and the present Afghan War. It is rightfully the veracity of the mission the troops are sent on that Canadians scrutinize.
The U.S.A.-led Nato force (of which Canada is a member) in Afghanistan was in response to Bin Laden's 9/11 attack and his location. The original mission.
President Bush very effectively played his '9/11 fear card' shifting the focus, resources and more importantly the mission from Afghanistan to his pre-emptive 'War for Oil' program in 'Operation Desert Sinkhole-Iraq' and it's subsequent colossal historical humanitarian disaster.
A desperate 'Surge' policy of increasing thousands of U.S.troops in Iraq in an attempt to extricate themselves from Iraq is presently hotly debated.
It's evident the U.S. President Bush - General Petraeus for Iraq - Ambassador for Iraq Crocker - instigated 'Iraq Surge,' to save face and get out is modeled after those who have lost their savings in the desert in Las Vegas, gambling on the slot machines and in the last desperate attempt have sold the family farm to win the 'jackpot.'
This, now will be followed by another Bush pre-emptive war, this time with Iran, and engulfing the entire middle east combined with a likely upheaval in Pakistan, leaving Canadian troops in Afghanistan trapped in the middle (another WW2 Hong Kong?).
In the background ready to fill the vacuum an pick up the spoils are Russia and China -- well armed and unbloodied. A great win for Bin Laden and the radicals? Is this the intended mission for Canadian (Princeton) 'Peace Keepers?'
Regards, Joe Schwarz, Princeton
