Parliament to perogie again?
December 14, 2009 - 11:38pm
Gloria Galloway
Ottawa — From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Dec. 14, 2009 9:16PM EST Last updated on Monday, Dec. 14, 2009 10:15PM EST
Rumours swirling around Ottawa suggest the Conservative government is thinking of shutting down Parliament until after the Olympics, killing some of its own bills but also ending the discussion of Afghan detainees that is nibbling away at Tory popularity.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-buzzing-with-talk-of...
Don't be knocking perogies. They're Saskatchewan's national food.
The strategic considerations have been discussed a bit in:
Will Harper Cut Potato Head Loose & Incur the Wrath of Nova Scotians?
But methinks its just as well its a new thread.
Don't be knocking perogies. They're Saskatchewan's national food.
yep. Saskatchewan grocery stores stock lots of frozen perogies! But I always think of perogy-ing parliament, too
Prorogue is followed by Throne Speech and then a confidence vote.
When I thought it was a quick turnaround being talked about my comment was:
Everything he has done in the last year has been consistent with that limit, and if it is operative, then he is even less likely to use proroguing to escape the current PR problem, when a likely result is an election that he is substantially less likely to get a majority out of than he was for the previous year when he has already consistently skated away from actions that had a reasonable chance of precipitating an election.
A new session after the Olympics and a Throne Speech full of budget goodies... I can more see Harper taking the risk. But only "more see"... still skeptical. Because it would be a gamble right now that come March he will be in a commanding enough position in the polls that the opposition parties see a Conservative majority as imminent if there is an election.
If he gambles for that, but ends up only with the status quo of the range of support we've had over the last year... its likely enough all 3 opposition parties would go for blood.
What Harper has now works- even with the continuing hits from Torturegate.
My guess is that this will turn out to be something that was presumably very seriously considered, but was only let out of the bag for its value in keeping the opposition off balance.
Killing their own bills has certain political advantages for the Reformatories, but only with their own base.
They can continue to rail against the gun registry and they can continue to insist that the Liberal-dominated Senate is preventing them from passing their crime legislation. Of course, the Senate won't be Liberal-dominated after January's retirements and subsequent appointments, so they need to flog this dead horse while they are still able to.
Yes, and as the article pointed out, the membership of Senate committees is fixed ... until they prorogue and start a new session.
I'm convinced he's going to go for it. And I don't think he's scared of a confidence vote on the Throne Speech. The Liberals will bail.
Methinks it is Liberals probably will bail. And if thats what the Harper strategists think too, will they bet the farm on it?
My election night prediction was the fall of 2010 for an election. I still think we are on track. If I was Harper I would go for this. Gives the Conservatives tons of breathing room, and with a mostly compliant press a chance at several months of good news coming out of the Olympics. If however Canada does not do well and God forbid fail to win the gold medals in hockey the Conservatives would have some time to change the channel too.
And they would get the chance to blame all the bad things on the Senate for blocking their bills. Watch for that to be excuse number 1.
I think it would be a risk they can't afford. Tories are already viewed by their phony-minority support base as having done and achieved nothing. Shutting down parliament a second time will be viewed by the public as wasteful and a lack of will to govern the nation.
Where the Liberals see their best chances, or best among not very good options, strikes me as inherently unstable and with an unusually high probability of suprising outcome. Looks to me to be not something you want to bet the farm around.
Admittedly, its hard to imagine them reacting to a prororogue by sitting down and saying "OK. Now we will knuckle down and get all the ducks lined up for March." But visions of last good chances can concentrate anyone.
Won the thread.
Why do the Conservatives think that the Olympics are going to improve their popularity?
The question of the day on CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon is about the possible prorogation. You can vote here:
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2009/12/question-of-the-day-11...
I tried to start a thread on this under "Its real and its big.." but perhaps it belongs here with the perogies and the political/legal/constitutional battles we are facing? Keep in mind there are a wide range of bodies, including Parliament, international and Canadian Courts, and the media and the militarym investigating allegations of violations of the Geneva Convention by Canada, to the direct knowledge of the military leadership and Ministers of the Crown. While Parliament may be ordered to stand down. we can see a ranges of clashes up to Harper and his cabinet and the military leadership on trial
---------------------.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/741209--tory-mi...
OTTAWA–Three federal cabinet ministers and a senior government official met the head of the International Red Cross in the fall of 2006 as the humantarian organization tried to focus Canada's attention on alleged abuses in Afghan prisons, The Canadian Press has learned.
Precisely what Jakob Kellenberger told Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Stockwell Day and Robert Greenhill, then the president of the Canadian International Development Agency, in the Sept. 26, 2006 meetings is blanketed by diplomatic secrecy.
McKay was then Foreign Affairs minister, O'Connor was at Defence and Day was Public Safety minister overseeing Corrections Canada officers in Kandahar.
While the details of the meeting are secret, enough was said about Afghanistan to generate a report from MacKay's office a month later which flagged the Red Cross president's concerns.
The contents of the report, one of thousands of documents filed in the Military Police Complaints Commission investigation of torture allegations, are censored.
Most of those CCRAPpers look like perogies, anyway, Harper not excluded
He liked that so much, he's back for another round.
Harper seeks to suspend ParliamentThe Conservatives will ask the governor general to delay the return of MPs until March after the Olympics
Proved me wrong. Ottawa Observer won that prediction.
Its SO grating they get away with such blatant abuse of democratic norms. They will ultimately pay the price on other fronts, but they know they can slide by with this kind of stuff because it just strikes most Canadians as another pariamentary procedure that does not grab their attention.
My prediction he wouldn't prorogue was based on Harper not taking the risk of triggering an election. That the Liberals probably would not vote no confidence to the new Throne Speech was not good enough when the risk for Harper of being wrong was losing government.
People may be right that he wasn't going to blink at that risk anyway. But Iggnatieff just gave him the great big green light.
So, Prime Minister Prorogie Head intends to shut down parliament, does he?
And its worth noting that Harper did not need to do this.
As Nik Nanos just took as a key point from their just released poll "Key takeaways include that the Conservative ballot support has not diminished in the face of controversial issues in December such as the Afghan detainee issue or the focus on the environment."
[Linked and discussed in the polling thread.]
Now obviously, there was a prospect of things sticking on the government if the testimonies had resumed in a month. But the bottom line is that Harper would do this simply becaue it gave them more control, and he can consistently get away with it... as long as he doesn't at the same time do any public display of fangs.
Hmmm, I was correct that Harper would prorogue when I predicted he would a month ago now, when this all started coming out.
Interesting. Last time, last year, proroguing came after a 2 1/2h face to face meeting. This round of proroguing comes after just a phone call. Maybe next year, a simple text msg will do?
From what I can tell, this is unprecedented in Canadian history. A 2nd proroguing in 12 months?
The opposition parties really need to go after Harper aggressively on this one.
This sets a terrible precedent. From this point forward it seems that any time a government is "in trouble" on any issue, the Governor General will grant a prorogation of 6-12 weeks. Since this has already happened twice, it will be increasingly difficult for the GG to refuse the next time, and the next time after that, and the next time after that ... no matter how flimsy the reason.
This is a sad day for Canadian democracy. The role of GG has been perverted, and it wouldn't surprise me if this were the beginning of the end of our constitutional monarchy here in Canada.
True - it is not just Stephen Harper that deserves criticism, but Michaelle Jean as well. The pair of them have behaved disgracefully over the past year.
In some countries the lawns in front of parliament would be awash with angry citizens demanding that their elected representatives be allowed to do their jobs and not be shut down by the administration in control of the levers of power. Harper does what he does because he knows Canadians are compliant and docile for the most part. So why is it we vote for an MP again? In this minority parliament there has been no honest discussion and debate of the problems and the potential solutions. Instead we have bully boys saying if you don't like it then pull the plug and opposition leaders have all taken their turns at taking the candy from the bully even though it is only worth a fraction of the lunch money stolen from them on the way to school.
I predict that in the next federal election the voter turnout will drop again and in future elections more eligible voters will stay at home rather than bother to try to elect a "seat" in the House. There is no democracy left in Canada if my MP has no voice and a minority of the MP's are driving an agenda that the majority of voters did not support. Harper's bold and arrogant misuse of our parliamentary system is aided and abetted by a media that does not print screaming headlines that call this move unconstitutional but instead report it as a clever procedural tactic. Democracy requires an engaged citizenry and an independent media. Most Canadians have not been engaged for decades and the MSM are all biased towards global imperialism. Our supposed democracy has been a facade for awhile but now that fake front is being removed.
There is a writing campaign to the GG going on. You can write to the Governor General's office at: email: info@gg.ca
In the meantime, this seems appropriate to post at this time:
mashup by twitter.com/wmacphail
True - it is not just Stephen Harper that deserves criticism, but Michaelle Jean as well. The pair of them have behaved disgracefully over the past year.
According to Soudas (spokesperson for Harper), Jean agreed to this over the phone. "All you got to do is call" I guess. Friking ridiculous. Everything about this is messed up.
info from today's star.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/744175--pm-suspends-parliamen...
I'd love to see both Harper and Jean removed from their positions. I don't expect that to happen any time soon, though.
From what I can tell, this is unprecedented in Canadian history. A 2nd proroguing in 12 months?
actually it seems the libs did something similar. it seems that the illustrius Jean Chretien the bastion of all things good in Canada made
perogies 4 times February 5, 1996; September 18, 1999; September 16, 2002; and November 12, 2003.
Granted that the last two were more than 12 months apart but not that much more.
Did Chretien even once do it to avoid some unfolding course of events in the House?
Its not how often Harper uses it. Its the fact he uses it to bypass one of the few, and very central, inherent controls on a minority government.
Kens as long as the option to prorogue is there then the PM can use it at his or her discretion. the issue in my opinion should not be about Harper using it rather it should be do we even want this option avilable.
History has shown that both Chretien and Harper used it for their own political reasons. therefore the solution is to get rid of the option. cause Jack, Iggy or any other leader would use it when they feel they want.
The simple fact is that Harper doesn't need parliament to run the government of Canada. Since the Commander in Chief seems to like him there should be no problem with Canada having a neutered parliament. All Hail the Commander and Chief and his call for allies in the perpetual war against the enemies of the civilized world.
But what about that swine flu? Do you think we will have a new outbreak during the Olympics and if we do will the media cover the flu instead of protests and the issues citizens want to talk about? Democracy is a strange and wondrous system, I wonder what it would be like to live in a democratic country?
Well, coming at this expensive time of year, I hope this presents no undue hardship on our Members of Parliament and our steamed senators.
Because, of course with Parliament suspended, they won't be drawing a paycheck for work not done.
........Right........?
The title of this thread is insulting.
I understand that Alberta was early settled by a substantial American-rancher demographic, which has influenced politics in the province, with cultural and religious ties to the US west.
Rogue is definitely the more useful turn of phrase.
Well, coming at this expensive time of year, I hope this presents no undue hardship on our Members of Parliament and our steamed senators.
Because, of course with Parliament suspended, they won't be drawing a paycheck for work not done.
........Right........?
Mike Duffy will ask for a raise since he will have to travel more on "Senate" business with parliament not sitting.
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
Siddiqui - Harper Acting Like an Elected Dictator
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/740829
"When you add up all that this government has done, it's truly scary..."
And Andrew Coyne agrees with Siddiqui, in his blog on Macleans:
"Question: In what other democracy is it permissible for the government of the day to hide from the legislature for months at a time? To ignore explicit parliamentary votes demanding the production of documents? To stonewall independent inquiries? Perhaps the rules allow it elsewhere, but is it the practice? Does convention not still forbid it? Is it not viewed in other countries as dictatorial behaviour, and therefore, you know … not done?"
Coyne suggests that Parliament should continue meeting anyway.
I don't always agree with Coyne, but on this issue he makes some good points.
Interesting interview with L. Ian MacDonald on the cycle now at CTV Newsnet. Here's a precis of what's he's saying (although, note that he is wrong when he says that private member's business dies on the Order Paper along with Government Business; that's no longer true, but used to be when he worked in the PMO).
"Harper and the fellows around him do have a propensity to get a little too fascinated with their ?brilliant? tactics ... In the short term he gets control of Senate committees. They do get to avoid committes of the House sitting. ... The budget will be the 'moment of truth' for the opposition, particularly Mr. Ignatieff. Problem: they had a successful message track in 2009 of "staying in Ottawa to make parliament work", which will now make it hard to accuse opposition of obstructionism. ... It's tactics at a cost of strategy."
One thing I'm noting ... only the Toronto Star is reporting Dimitri Soudas as saying the GG agreed to the PM's request. Other news sources are all being very careful to say that the PM has requested a prorogation. I wonder what the significance of that is. Probably the write-in campaign that Kim Elliott is suggesting is well worth pursuing in that case.
As to the why's and wherefores, and further to my original prediction, the Liberals basically signalled that they would support the Conservatives' budget, no matter what was in it, when they scheduled their big "thinkers" conference for mid-March. Thus Harper is now taking a few months (according to John Ivison's column, and his sources would know) to figure out what to put in it, and how to handle the process strategically in terms of which opposition party he chooses to deal with and over what issue.
He's also forcing the Liberals to give their thumbs-up, thumbs-down on the budget before they've had a chance to think their thoughts (to use an Iggy-ism), but after they've invested a fair bit of cash into organizing the thing. Also, by putting the budget the day after the Throne Speech, he's trying to put ensure that the first confidence vote to occur is on budgetary policy, rather than the issue of the prorogation and new session.
I wonder if he's getting a bit too clever for his own good, but if they use the time profitably perhaps it won't be costly in the long run. However, I think L. Ian points to the obvious opening for the NDP, which has also had the same successful message track about making Parliament work, and should try and highlight that point in the coming months when Jack and others tour our priority seats.
John Ivison provides some criticism of Stephen Harper:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/30/...
OK, I guess CTV is saying that they've confirmed that the request is being granted. I still think it's not a bad idea to express displeasure to the GG, but I gather that horse has left the barn already.
Well, some people are writing to her to complain, but no, there's not really anything that can be done.
I think Coyne's suggestion that the Commons keep on meeting the best one I have heard. The optics of opposition MPs trying to earn their pay while government MPs take a three month holiday is perfect.
I would strongly advise candidates running against government members to ask for the MP to either pass back their pays to the people of their riding, or step aside so that someone that actually wants to work for the people of 'Punky Doodles- Maple Sugar' or whatever riding they are in. Make it a letter to the editor and my guess is they will get postive coverage.
I can also forsee a series of ads showing people in sunny vacation spots - while NDP MPs work in freezing Canada doing things like helping to shovel out walkways in their ridings, or helping out at community functions -anything, or just show a bunch of freezing Canadians trying to struggle to work through inclement weather. Time to hit the buggers right between the eyes- or a lot lower would be even better.
Interesting interview with L. Ian MacDonald on the cycle now at CTV Newsnet. Here's a precis of what's he's saying (although, note that he is wrong when he says that private member's business dies on the Order Paper along with Government Business; that's no longer true, but used to be when he worked in the PMO).
"Harper and the fellows around him do have a propensity to get a little too fascinated with their ?brilliant? tactics ... In the short term he gets control of Senate committees. They do get to avoid committes of the House sitting. ... The budget will be the 'moment of truth' for the opposition, particularly Mr. Ignatieff. Problem: they had a successful message track in 2009 of "staying in Ottawa to make parliament work", which will now make it hard to accuse opposition of obstructionism. ... It's tactics at a cost of strategy."
One thing I'm noting ... only the Toronto Star is reporting Dimitri Soudas as saying the GG agreed to the PM's request. Other news sources are all being very careful to say that the PM has requested a prorogation. I wonder what the significance of that is. Probably the write-in campaign that Kim Elliott is suggesting is well worth pursuing in that case.
As to the why's and wherefores, and further to my original prediction, the Liberals basically signalled that they would support the Conservatives' budget, no matter what was in it, when they scheduled their big "thinkers" conference for mid-March. Thus Harper is now taking a few months (according to John Ivison's column, and his sources would know) to figure out what to put in it, and how to handle the process strategically in terms of which opposition party he chooses to deal with and over what issue.
He's also forcing the Liberals to give their thumbs-up, thumbs-down on the budget before they've had a chance to think their thoughts (to use an Iggy-ism), but after they've invested a fair bit of cash into organizing the thing. Also, by putting the budget the day after the Throne Speech, he's trying to put ensure that the first confidence vote to occur is on budgetary policy, rather than the issue of the prorogation and new session.
I wonder if he's getting a bit too clever for his own good, but if they use the time profitably perhaps it won't be costly in the long run. However, I think L. Ian points to the obvious opening for the NDP, which has also had the same successful message track about making Parliament work, and should try and highlight that point in the coming months when Jack and others tour our priority seats.
L. Ian MacDonald has basically become a shill for the Conservatives again in recent months. His analysis is pretty shoddy and incomplete.
As for Ignatieff, he is not the brightest bulb, but perhaps he has learned something from his beatings by Stephen Harper in 2009 and will become more effective in 2010.
I'm not sure if the NDP is benefitting that much though as they are 12 points behind the Liberals in the latest poll you posted.
So all the EI improvements that the NDP negotiated to keep the Cons in power are now effectively dead. Is that correct?
If Ignatieff had learned anything he would have been in front of the mics the moment the rumour of peroguing was running around calling Harper a coward and daring him to throw away democracy and his own bills. Instead Iggy brings a butter knife to a gun fight.
Progressive Canadians are being blocked by his presence as leader of the opposition the sooner we are shut of him the better.
Agrarian, I had the same thought; if I were a Liberal or NDP MP - or heck even a potential candidate, I'd be spending the next 2 months banging on doors, handing out flyers, and attending every community event I could find. I'd work every bit as hard between now and March 3 as I would during an election campaign, and I'd take every single opportunity to point out how the Conservative MP's are spending their winter in hiding or on vacation.
Andrew Potter criticizes Harper's disrespect of Parliament and democracy in The Ottawa Citizen:
'Power and Privilege'
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Power+privilege/2384887/story.html
'This madness strikes at the very heart': MP Bruce Hyer
http://netnewsledger.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12...
MPs do constituency work when they're not in Ottawa. Demanding that they return their pay is a red herring.
As with everything Harper does (and any leader I guess), he must be factoring how this will help him get a majority in the next election, like with the feel-good after-glow of a "successful" Olympics. With Parliament not sitting, the media will be loathe to pay much attention to the opposition unless they can come up with a show stopper of some kind.
It's shameful that the G-G is nothing more than a rubber stamp although I don't expect her to do anything that would rock the boat of Canadian parliamentary "democracy". As noted in my now resurrected blog Prorogue, the opposition blew it last year with the coalition and that has repercussions now and in the future.
But much of the work citizens expect of their MPs like pension reform, working on health care, crime reduction you name the expectation takes place in the Commons. That has, or will be shut down. Perfectly acceptable to demand they return their pay. Progressives have to stop bringing a limp wet noodle to this gun fight.
Well, since government has abandoned it's role, maybe we should form our own in the meantime.
Oh, I call "minister of getting even".
stamped it.
As with everything Harper does (and any leader I guess), he must be factoring how this will help him get a majority in the next election, like with the feel-good after-glow of a "successful" Olympics. With Parliament not sitting, the media will be loathe to pay much attention to the opposition unless they can come up with a show stopper of some kind.
The left is consistently stuck on this being what drives Harper. Viability of the general point aside:
I don't see any evidence that this is true. While there is plenty of evidence its just another crass racheting up of governing as if you had a majority. Subtext: "lets see you try to make me eat it."
Or sitting Opposition members could give the money they would have earned back to charities in the riding. They could even invite participation and say something like, "Over the perogie period, I will be paid this amount while I haven't done any actual work, so I'm planning to give it back to the community. Why don't you, my constituents, tell me which local organisations you think I should support?" Even better if the MP supports organisations affected by government cuts (i.e. womens shelters, cultural venues, literacy programs). Also gets the people involved. I think the NDP did something similar in Ontario with their pay raises.
Agrarian, I had the same thought; if I were a Liberal or NDP MP - or heck even a potential candidate, I'd be spending the next 2 months banging on doors, handing out flyers, and attending every community event I could find. I'd work every bit as hard between now and March 3 as I would during an election campaign, and I'd take every single opportunity to point out how the Conservative MP's are spending their winter in hiding or on vacation.
That is if they are not on vacations but in their own ridings doing election style things on a budget that is not controlled by the elections act and which no other party can match. They are flush and I think that is the strategy. Send their MP's home to campaign while doing Olympic boosting and infrastructure project boasting. I don't know any NDP ridings that can sustain a constant campaign for three months especially if they then have to fight a real election. They don't have the money and volunteers inevitably burn out.
And the candidates I know are already personally committed to grueling schedules to try to get elected.
Or sitting Opposition members could give the money they would have earned back to charities in the riding. They could even invite participation and say something like, "Over the perogie period, I will be paid this amount while I haven't done any actual work, so I'm planning to give it back to the community. Why don't you, my constituents, tell me which local organisations you think I should support?" Even better if the MP supports organisations affected by government cuts (i.e. womens shelters, cultural venues, literacy programs). Also gets the people involved. I think the NDP did something similar in Ontario with their pay raises.
My MP will be working in his office and in the community and he and his staff do a damn good job of representing people in their dealings with the government. The suggestion that MP's do nothing if the House is not sitting is as ridiculous as a suggestion that NDP MP's would be taking unscheduled holidays. It is also absurd to suggest any Conservative ones would either. [but if you hear about any lets have at em]
I think Bill and Libby and other MP's deserve their salaries.
As with everything Harper does (and any leader I guess), he must be factoring how this will help him get a majority in the next election, like with the feel-good after-glow of a "successful" Olympics. With Parliament not sitting, the media will be loathe to pay much attention to the opposition unless they can come up with a show stopper of some kind.
The left is consistently stuck on this being what drives Harper. Viability of the general point aside:
I don't see any evidence that this is true. While there is plenty of evidence its just another crass racheting up of governing as if you had a majority. Subtext: "lets see you try to make me eat it."
I don't know why Harper and the Conservatives think that the Olympics being in Canada will help them in the next election. They shouldn't assume that Canadians are going to automatically start voting Conservative in large numbers based on what may or may not happen at the Olympics.
And if they do try to use the Olympics for political reasons, the opposition parties need to put a stop to it.
I don't know why Harper and the Conservatives think that the Olympics being in Canada will help them in the next election. They shouldn't assume that Canadians are going to automatically start voting Conservative in large numbers based on what may or may not happen at the Olympics.
And if they do try to use the Olympics for political reasons, the opposition parties need to put a stop to it.
Especially in BC I think that the Cons will be out attaching themselves to every Olympic related photo op they can find. Never underestimate the power of old style Chamber of Commerce boosterism to help right wing candidates.
Somebody else said whats in that quote, not me. [Presumably Debater- I didn't see the originla post.]
Another Tory super-minority guvmint gone AWOL, and it's because they're afraid to show up for work! Again! We need a revolution!
It's a done deal - Parliament prorogued today, recalled for March 3, 2010:
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2009/12/proroguewatch-its-a-do...
What cowards these phony minority Tories are hiding behind Michaelle Jean again. The Harpers should be handed pink slips and made to line up for piddling uI-eI-O benefits like the 320,000 Canadians who've lost their jobs since just 2008. These ReformaTories were fresh out of new ideas before they ever got started.
My MP will be working in his office and in the community and he and his staff do a damn good job of representing people in their dealings with the government. The suggestion that MP's do nothing if the House is not sitting is as ridiculous as a suggestion that NDP MP's would be taking unscheduled holidays. It is also absurd to suggest any Conservative ones would either. [but if you hear about any lets have at em]
I think Bill and Libby and other MP's deserve their salaries.
Wet noodle
Gun fight
Jeez- you know you can reach a lot of people by a simple letter, or by calling in to call in shows. You do not need to spend a lot of money to get a lot of attention in many of the ridings we don't hold and need to.
The simple reality is the Conservatives are running away from the people of Canada by ducking the scrutiny of the representatives to Parliament of the majority of Canadians. Being pedantic and playing all nicey-nicey gets us nowhere. Time to send out the enforcers so that the stars can get some skating room.
Harper and his thugs don't care what anyone thinks about them, because they know the Liberals don't have the guts to oppose them. So long as that is the case, the Cons get a free ticket to do as they please.
And if they do try to use the Olympics for political reasons, the opposition parties need to put a stop to it.
However, I'm not convinced that a spring election is actually on the horizon with the G8 and G20 (and a royal visit) dominating the PMO. Maybe we should be protesting against the Queen?
Interesting interview with L. Ian MacDonald on the cycle now at CTV Newsnet. Here's a precis of what's he's saying (although, note that he is wrong when he says that private member's business dies on the Order Paper along with Government Business; that's no longer true, but used to be when he worked in the PMO).
"Harper and the fellows around him do have a propensity to get a little too fascinated with their ?brilliant? tactics ... In the short term he gets control of Senate committees. They do get to avoid committes of the House sitting. ... The budget will be the 'moment of truth' for the opposition, particularly Mr. Ignatieff. Problem: they had a successful message track in 2009 of "staying in Ottawa to make parliament work", which will now make it hard to accuse opposition of obstructionism. ... It's tactics at a cost of strategy."
L. Ian MacDonald has basically become a shill for the Conservatives again in recent months. His analysis is pretty shoddy and incomplete.
As for Ignatieff, he is not the brightest bulb, but perhaps he has learned something from his beatings by Stephen Harper in 2009 and will become more effective in 2010.
I'm not sure if the NDP is benefitting that much though as they are 12 points behind the Liberals in the latest poll you posted.
Actually, I think L. Ian's assessment of this situation was pretty balanced. He is a Conservative, of course, but one with a lot of experience inside government. I usually find him worth listening to.
On the other hand, I've seen no evidence that Ignatieff has learned anything, although hope springs eternal for you Debater, I see.
So all the EI improvements that the NDP negotiated to keep the Cons in power are now effectively dead. Is that correct?
No, I thought the Senate adopted that Bill before they adjourned for the Christmas break. I think it's through all stages now and got Royal Assent. In fact, I'm pretty sure I heard Jack Layton being asked in a year-end interview something about now that that's passed, what's your next bottom-line. So, I'm pretty sure I'm right about that.
You are right, OO. It received royal assent on November 5, 2009.
Thanks, Unionist. And I agree with Boom Boom that the gutless Liberals are what let Harper think he can get away with this kind of thing. And Bookish Agrarian is right that we should not be bringing a butter knife to a gun fight. I do think the story this evening about the fatalities in Afghanistan reminds us that we can't be frivolous in the way we do it, though. Bruce Hyer sounds to have sounded just the right note in the Net News Now clipping linked to above.
The prorogation now probably has as much to do with the constitutional issues involved in the production of papers issue Andrew Potter was writing about above, as with the detainees question at Committee. The question of Senate Committees could have been resolved by a prorogation just before the new session, so it had to be something else that made Harper want to do it now.
Actually, I think L. Ian's assessment of this situation was pretty balanced. He is a Conservative, of course, but one with a lot of experience inside government. I usually find him worth listening to.
On the other hand, I've seen no evidence that Ignatieff has learned anything, although hope springs eternal for you Debater, I see.
I find MacDonald to be one of the most pretentious political commentators in Canada. And don't you find it annoying that we have to call him L. Ian? My father used to know him years ago and has always found him insufferable.
Anyway, I'm not particularly fond of Ignatieff actually - what I hope for is not necessarily success for him personally, but success in removing Stephen Harper.
I'm with Bookish Agrarian on this one, a healthy dose of populism is in order, and pointing out the hypocrisy of government members accepting salary and benefits while they are the ones choosing to suspend parliament would resonate. Opposition members should continue to meet, create committees and exam the real issues while the Cons are being invisible.
If the public demonstrations and anti-olympics events get too large, the Conservative regime can always order the police to open fire on unarmed civilians. And there won't be any Parliamentary questioning about such possible atrocities.
Gilles Duceppe on Twitter:
"It's becoming a tradition for Harper. Instead of facing the music, he prorogues". (translation)
http://twitter.com/gillesduceppe
My MP will be working in his office and in the community and he and his staff do a damn good job of representing people in their dealings with the government. The suggestion that MP's do nothing if the House is not sitting is as ridiculous as a suggestion that NDP MP's would be taking unscheduled holidays. It is also absurd to suggest any Conservative ones would either. [but if you hear about any lets have at em]
I think Bill and Libby and other MP's deserve their salaries.
It appears I am in the minority camp here along with kropotkin1951 - the theme that "MPs are not working unless the House is sitting" is totally inaccurate and does a huge disservice to consituency-oriented MPs like Bill, Libby, my MP Denise Savoie and the entire NDP caucus for that matter, along with many other MPs from the other parties.
The criticism of the GG is also completely misplaced - she is a non-elected ceremonial official and in 99.99% of cases, she is morally obligated to obey the request from the elected government of the nation. Those of you who are calling for her to refuse Harper's request in this instance should think about the horrible precedent this would set - imagine a GG appointed by a Conservative trying to interfere in the operations of a Lib/NDP coalition government, for example. You think prorogation is outrageous, by all means go after Harper, but leave Michaelle Jean out of it on this one. Yes, Jean's decision to allow Harper to prorogue in Dec 2008 will always be bitterly contested but she had absolutely no alternative but to agree to the current request for the Dec 2009 prorogation.
Honestly, I find it hard to get too worked about about the "perogie" - the House was supposed to come back Jan 25th and now it will come back March 3 - that is about 5 weeks by my count, certainly not the end of the world. Any opposition party and activist campaign worth their salt can keep the Afghan detainee issue alive for that length of time or quickly bring it back to prominence once the House returns. Meanwhile, some horribly regressive "tough on crime" bills have died (yay!) and there is time for pressure on the opposition parties to reverse their support for those bills - regrettably, the PMB on the gun registry survives despite prorogration.
Here in BC, the provincial government proclaims a new Throne Speech every February under the fixed legislative calendar, and nobody seems to view this as an affront to democracy. Maybe I'm totally out of touch but I think our focus should remain on the issues themselves (detainees, climate change, unemployment/poverty/homelessness) rather than the arcane issue of prorogation.
Globe Editorial
Democracy diminished, accountability avoided
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/democracy-diminished-accoun...
I find MacDonald to be one of the most pretentious political commentators in Canada. And don't you find it annoying that we have to call him L. Ian? My father used to know him years ago and has always found him insufferable.
We'll have to agree to disagree then because I think there are a lot of way worse sinners on that score. Also, I believe there's a reason he started using L. Ian, because there were several other Ian MacDonalds who were contemporaries of his in the media and politics at the time.
Globe Editorial
Democracy diminished, accountability avoided
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/democracy-diminished-accountability-avoided/article1415461/
What's particularly significant about this, is that it's a front-page editorial. I think Beltway just went, if not Tims, then at least Second Cup on this one.
This is a sad day for Canadian democracy. The role of GG has been perverted, and it wouldn't surprise me if this were the beginning of the end of our constitutional monarchy here in Canada.
I hope so.
However, I'm not convinced that a spring election is actually on the horizon with the G8 and G20 (and a royal visit) dominating the PMO. Maybe we should be protesting against the Queen?
Yeah, that sounds good!
No she had a choice twice, she choose poorly both times. You can't just discount our constitution. If the NDP were doing something unconstitutional and the cons had put in the GG I would hope she or he did the right thing and wouldn't allow it. Shutting down a democracy(committe work plus any critique of the governmnet) is pretty unconstitutional. I hope they go back to work at the usual precribed time after the normal date and start putting forward bills. If the government isn't there I guess they must be abstaining.
We could start with housing and work on pharmacare and homecare to name just 3. Maybe re-institute childcare the way itt was suppose to be before the cons gutted it.
Maybe fix taxes too like raising them on the upper 5% to make up for the shortfalls in revenue.
How is it unconstitutional? The Prime Minister advises the Governor-General on when to end each session of Parliament, end of story. It was definitely done for no good reason, but you've got to take that up with Stephen Harper.
I'm fed up with Parliament's monopoly on perogies. Perogies for the people!
How is it unconstitutional? The Prime Minister advises the Governor-General on when to end each session of Parliament, end of story. It was definitely done for no good reason, but you've got to take that up with Stephen Harper.
Fully agree. Except that one must not forget the role of the Governor-General. She was the bootlicking sycophant who prorogued Parliament in December 2008, fully aware that Harper was about to be defeated in a confidence vote and that there was a government-in-waiting which enjoyed the confidence of a majority of elected MPs.
She did the same this year.
In both cases, this shameless servant of Harper, obviously enjoying her newfound riches and lifestyle - or perhaps too busy shopping for military togs to pay much attention to current affairs - acted against Canadian democracy.
It has been suggested above that the majority of MPs should continue to sit in defiance of the Harper - Jean dictatorship. I deeply desired (for a moment) that the Coalition had done so last year - and trigger a constitutional crisis, based on "who wants to uphold the will of Parliament?" But that won't happen when you have determination and shameless on one side of the House faced with cowardice on the other.
This may be one of the few times Libby Davies has even been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, but the prorogation story made page A6.
How can you fully agree that it is within the boundaries of the constitution, and at the same time consider it an action against Canadian democracy? If anything, it speaks quite loudly to the shameless reality that this is a normal procedural affair in accordance with what is generally accepted as our 'democracy.'
The Globe and Mail has a front-page editorial today. (I can't remember the last time they did that. It's like a journalistic declaration of war.)
. . . Government members have already acted as truants when Afghanistan committee hearings are called. The government failed to provide documents to committee members, and implied it will disregard a parliamentary order to produce those documents. Prorogation is the logical extension of such thinking: shut down parliamentary debate entirely.
. . . Canada's democracy should not be conducted solely on the basis of convenience for the governing party. If the debate over detainees cannot be carried out in Parliament, then it should continue among Canadians at large. On this and other important issues, the government cannot delay accountability forever.
But Kady O'Malley has the best point, which she made on CBC last night:
Normally, she explained, the government would leave the current session simply adjourned until shortly before the date it is to resume, and then prorogue. This would allow for the possibility of a speedy recall in the event of a national emergency or a back-to-work bill for a federally regulated industry, something the Harper government would normally keep in mind.
So why yesterday? Was it just to time any criticism (like that front-page editorial) on New Year's Eve when people would rather talk of other things? More likely, it was to shut down the Afghan committee hearings a.s.a.p.
Isn't it "normal" to prorogue when a government has accomplished what it set out to do for that particular session? Wouldn't it be "atypical" to prorogue for the purposes of political expediency and partisan gain?
This is a clever manoevre by Harper to remove the ability of Liberal senators to stonewall legislation and tinker with its contents. In the new Parliament, the Conservatives will finally control both the number and the committees in the Senate.
From the WSJ article.
Mr. Soudas said the Afghan-detainee issue had no bearing on Mr. Harper's decision to suspend Parliament. "The committee is examining old news and has found absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing by Canadian soldiers, diplomats and the Armed Forces," he said.
Just in case anyone thinks there might be a shred of a possibility that there is nothing unusual in this action I believe we call this the smoking gun. The committee is not examing whether soldiers, diplomats, or the Armed Forces (as opposed to soldiers?) had done anything wrong, but whether their government and political overseers had in fact lied to the Canadian people, Parliament and violated the spirit of the norms Canadians expect their government to support. The committee is also investigating the possibility of a cover up on the political side and the demonization of a civil servant who had the courage to blow the whistle. There simply must be evidence to support these concerns or the government would not be going to the extrodinary lengths it is going to try and deflect examination.My understanding is that the cons will have "plurality" and not absolute control over the Senate committees. They will take over chairing the committees but without the libs they won't be able to get a majority.
How can you fully agree that it is within the boundaries of the constitution, and at the same time consider it an action against Canadian democracy?
When Michaëlle Jean prorogued Parliament in December 2008, it was within the boundaries of the constitution, but it was an action against Canadian democracy. What's so extraordinary about that statement?
If I say "Harper acted against democracy by subverting the will of Parliament", I'm not saying he acted "unlawfully". Can't I call an action anti-democratic even if it's legal?
This is a clever manoevre by Harper to remove the ability of Liberal senators to stonewall legislation and tinker with its contents. In the new Parliament, the Conservatives will finally control both the number and the committees in the Senate.
Oh those nasty Liberal Senators who have held up almost nothing. And the ones they did do some examination on are now dead and gone. Tells you what the Conservatives real goal is, but nice try.
details and context.
The forest is Harper's pattern of ignoring the will of Parliament.
The forest is the failure of Copenhagen to set limits and the success of fossil fuel bankers to infiltrate that process with their language so that the timing and profits of any 'green' shift will be under their control, now they've ensured they've got control over rights to lands and waters.
Control over lands and waters as evidenced in the fake appointed panel report approving the Mackenzie gas pipeline- gas to feed the tar sands, rights over the basin waters to be similarly owned by operating corporations Exxon, Chevron, BP etc. as per trade deal clauses once they start operating.
The forest is all of the accumulated cuts to public programs, asset-sell-offs, privatizations, changes to regulations that give more power to a few private interests, increased assaults on vulnerable residents and the environment...
The forest is a constitution and a Charter of Rights that contain clauses protecting people- rights and processes that are being abrogated repeatedly, continually, cumulatively, by Harper.
The situation is so completely outrageous at this time ...
Democracy deferred is democracy denied.
Yes we do have a Constitution. And yes we do have elections and a parliament. However, our elections are not democratic because they don't adhere to the "one person, one vote" standards which are the bottom line for any democracy. Therefore, most governments are not democratically elected. The last time a party won the majority of the popular vote was in 1984.
The system is highly manipulated. This is clear during elections when wedge issues, divisiveness and negative ads are used to move a small percent of voters. It is less clear, but no less undemocratic when unpopular legislation is passed or when the government of the day uses tactics like the prorogue to avoid scrutiny and accountability for its actions.
Okay - so here's the next question: what would fix this? This episode is done and there's no bringing parliament back until March 3. So how do we prevent the PMO (whether it's a Conservative, Liberal, NDP, or other government currently sitting) abusing Canada's democratic processes in the future?
Will some form of proportional representation fix this? If there were several minor parties each holding a dozen seats, would that keep the 3 big parties in line for fear of losing support in parliament? At least that way if the official opposition develops a case of spinelessness, the political weight and repercussions are spread around a bit.
Ideas?
He's a Conservative political commentator. Why would any Liberals like him?
I find MacDonald to be one of the most pretentious political commentators in Canada. And don't you find it annoying that we have to call him L. Ian? My father used to know him years ago and has always found him insufferable.
Will some form of proportional representation fix this?
Of course not. Harper rules unopposed with a minority of the seats, even under FPTP. If the other parties haven't got the endurance or will or nerve to put together a coalition and tell both Harper and his beholden G-G to f*** off, then why would that be any different under PR?
Changing voting methods can't change a sow's ear into a silk purse. If Canadians elect cowards and followers to "represent" them, why would they not continue to do so under PR?
What will "fix this" is women and men of principle and courage who are not afraid to take some small action. I have made some very concrete suggestions above, as have other babblers. You can call it "civil disobedience", if you like, to continue sitting in House and committee while Harper and his gang leave Ottawa. It must be well-organized and well-publicized. It will require compromises among warring sectarian politicians for the greater good. And Canadians will see and hear, and they will say, "Right on!" - but only if the acts are courageous and principled. If they are apologetic, craven, or self-interested, Canadians will see through that in two seconds.
That's what we used to do in student days when we didn't like what the educational institution was doing. That's what we do in the union movement when employers and/or governments violate our rights. But MPs would be taking much less of a risk, because they represent a voting majority in the supreme institution in our country. They would have to fire their spin doctors and hire some ordinary folk, but that would be a good thing anyway.
My two cents.
Spoiler alert:
Spoiler alert:
You focused on the wrong part. The NDP should issue this call for continuing to sit. They should lobby for it, publicize it, fight for it. Take the focus off Harper, and put the challenge publicly to Ignatieff and Duceppe. Let the NDP say, "we are prepared to make the necessary compromises - are you?"
Not only can't it hurt, but if well done, it could situate the NDP on the side of a working Parliament and working democracy, far better than just issuing slogans to that effect and whining about what Harper has done, which is what all three opposition parties are doing currently.
It's also better than just waiting for PR, which of course will do nothing to solve this particular type of problem (it may in fact aggravate it).
So what do you say, Pol? Should the NDP issue this call and challenge?
As for PR, I do agree that the pressing issues of the day can't wait for unlikely changes and need to be dealt with case by case. However, I do see these opportunities as "learning moments" for raising public awareness about the dysfunctionality of our voting system and need for change. While PR is not a panacea, I don't see how "giving" voters equal votes and pr can be any worse than what we've got. How people choose to use those votes will be up to them.
Changing voting methods can't change a sow's ear into a silk purse. If Canadians elect cowards and followers to "represent" them, why would they not continue to do so under PR?
The problem as I see it is that our current system encourages people to sit on their hands and stay home on voting day rather than voting for the "principled, courageous" party that doesn't have any realistic chance at winning even a single seat. Case in point: I have a lot of reservations about Michael Ignatieff, but the riding where I live is a two-horse race between the Liberals and Conservatives (currently held by a conservative). If we find ourselves in an election in May, as much as I'd prefer to vote for a principled, courageous candidate I will most likely hold my nose and vote Liberal, because voting any other way is essentially the same as handing Stehpen Harper another seat in parliament.
Lesser of two evils ... and that's why I believe PR will (eventually) bring voters back out to the polls and make them - even if it's just a small percentage of them - give a shit about politics again. In my most wildly-optimistic dreams, PR could even make attack ads and negative campaigning useless, since there will be so many viable options available to voters that no party - not even our illustrious Conservatives - would be able spend the money to attack them all.
Continued over here
.
Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=225434253378&ref=ts
Join this Facebook group and send your MP a message asking him/her to go back to Parliament, despite Harper's absence. There is, apparently, a precedent.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=260348091419&ref=nf&v=info
Closing for length. Feel free to continue in a new thread.