Canada`s Tories: Proroguing parliament once again

[blake 3:17]

EDITORIALS http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/images/icon-feed.gif (http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/rss/TheGuardian/editorials.xml)http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/images/spacer.gifLast updated at 11:27 AM on 02/01/10
Once again, Parliament is prorogued http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/images/print.jpg (javascript:window.print())

It seems like a waste of time, effort and money to see committees folded, bills die and debate muted.
Only in Canada could the direction of the federal government be so closely linked to the success or failure of our sports teams, or specifically in this case, hockey.

It had been speculated for months in some circles that Prime Minister Stephen Harper would prorogue Parliament during the Christmas recess, wait until the Vancouver Olympics end, and ride the successes of our top athletes into an aggressive throne speech and tough budget in March. Then he would hope for defeat in the Commons on a key budget measure, and go to the polls to achieve his cherished dream of a majority government.

What the prime minister did Wednesday, then, was not likely a surprise to those who subscribed to this speculation.

But was there a specific reason behind the timing of the prorogation decision? The roster of Canada's men's Olympic hockey team was being released at noon local time Wednesday in Ottawa. The prime minister did not make the prorogation announcement in person, nor did he meet face-to-face with the Governor General to ask for a formal prorogation. Rather, he made that request over the telephone and released it through a press release.

While the hockey-mad nation's attention was fixed on who would make the select 23-man roster, Mr. Harper's prorogation decree flew under the radar screen.

There is a lot of pressure on our Olympic athletes to bring home a record medal haul. Anything less than gold in some key sports like hockey, curling and skiing would be unacceptable. The miserable seventh place finish for the men's hockey team in Turin four years ago left the nation reeling. Probably no one will be more interested than Stephen Harper in the successes or failures of our athletes in Vancouver. Is he banking on a national euphoria following the Olympics as a key plank in his re-election campaign?

Is Mr. Harper counting on general public apathy in Canada towards terrorism suspects being mistreated in Afghanistan, the lack of success at the Copenhagen climate summit, or the record federal deficit?

Did the prime minister really have to prorogue Parliament? It does seem like a waste of time, effort and money to see committees folded, bills die and debate muted.

Why should Islanders care? Prorogation means that all the work of the parliamentary committees is lost and in the case of the Agriculture committee, motions to push the government to assist the hog and beef industry have been destroyed.

A year ago, a chastened prime minister prorogued Parliament to avoid meeting an Opposition coalition which was about to seize power. This year's prorogation, however, is puzzling because his government doesn't appear as vulnerable to defeat.

[blake 3:17]

Source for above here: http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=315014&sc=103

It`s common wisdom here BUT what the Tories have for them this time is even greater apathy. Last round was to defeat the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition to dethrowning Harper. This time it seems like a simple lifting of procedure. Which is perhaps more destructive of democratic process -- this is part of Harpers basic plan and will hinder attempts to get us out of Afghanistan.

Will any of the parties raise enough fuss to make a parliament resume? Challenge the constitution? I hope they will, I doubt they will.

[blake 3:17]

Vent outrage at your local MP

January 06, 2010
Thomas Walkom



People are asking what they can do to counter Stephen Harper's decision to suspend Parliament. As the Star reported Tuesday, demonstrations are planned across the country. My own unscientific soundings have found voters more angered by the Prime Minister's move than I would have imagined.

In fact, Canadians can do something if they are truly outraged by Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament – which he did in order to derail politically embarrassing hearings into alleged Afghan prisoner abuse. I will get to the remedy later. But first, there should be some clarity as to what the Prime Minister did and did not do.

First, Harper's action was neither illegal nor unconstitutional. Prorogation – the decision to suspend Parliament for an unspecified period of time – is commonplace and usually unremarkable.

When politics was a part-time job, such suspensions could be lengthy. In 1954, then Liberal prime minister Louis St. Laurent prorogued Parliament for five months. His successor, Conservative John Diefenbaker prorogued Parliament four times in four years – the shortest lasting 98 days and the longest six months.

What matters in prorogation is not the suspension itself but the motive. No one complained when Diefenbaker suspended Parliament for months on end because he wasn't trying to hide anything.

But there were complaints in late 2003 when former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien prorogued Parliament for 82 days. The reason? Chrétien – like Harper today – was thought to be trying to avoid political flak, in his case the public release of Auditor General Sheila Fraser's damning report on the Quebec sponsorship scandal.
Curiously, even though his motive was seen to be as self-serving as Harper's, Chrétien's action caused much less uproar.

Even more curiously, Harper seems to be getting more heat for this decision than he did for proroguing Parliament last year when the stakes were far more serious. In that case, he shut down the Commons to avoid having his government toppled.
In all three cases, however, any crimes were political rather than legal. If critics disapprove of Harper's action, they can't take him to court. They can, however, punish him politically.

Which brings me to the remedy. One of the beauties of first-past-the-post Westminster democracy is that all voters have someone to punish. That person is the local MP. If you are truly angered by the Prime Minister's decision, if you truly think he is a dictator, don't bother complaining to him. Instead, threaten to withdraw your vote from your local MP. The point at which a sitting MP fears for his job is the point at which caucus solidarity breaks down.

If your MP is a Conservative, demand that he persuade Harper to backtrack – or else. If your MP is Liberal, New Democrat or Bloc Québécois, don't be satisfied with boilerplate outrage. Words are cheap. Demand instead that he or she vote against the government when Parliament resumes in March and bring Harper down.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says Canadians don't want an election. If he's right, then the outrage the Star writes about and that I hear about is not serious. If Canadians really think the Prime Minister has become a dictator, complaining on Facebook won't do the trick. There is only one solution: throw the government out and elect another.

In a minority Parliament, that's easy enough to do. If you don't know who your local MP is, you can find out through the Elections Canada website.
Thomas Walkom's column appears Wednesday and Saturday

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/746441--vent-outrage-at-your-local-mp