PM seeks Parliament shutdown till March 2010

[Dennis Ruhl]

The Conservatives have earned passing grades in Machiavelli 101.  They have studied under the Liberals and learned what it takes to gain power and keep it.  The Liberals are waiting for the coup de grace so they can resume their rightful place in power.  It ain't coming. 

Should the Liberals wish to govern, they must drop the moral outrage and shrillness and tell the people what they stand for, what they would do differently.  Right now, the fact is that the Liberals have no policy.  They promise better government but seem to fear presenting policies because they would have to defend them.  Dione ran on a tax increase.  The last person to do that was Joe Who and we know what happened to his government.

To find the Liberal agenda, we need only look to the Senate where anti-crime bills are gutted along with consumer protection legislation.  Ignatieff maintains support for the popular items in the House while his minions in the Senate obstruct.  If Ignatieff has no control over the Senate, perhaps the Liberals need a new leader.

Ignatieff will run out of excuses in 2010 and there will be an election and I don't think he will be happy with the results.  He needs issues.  The treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan isn't the key because few care and those are Liberals already.  We will be bounding out of the recession in 2010 and Harper will be well set after the opposition demanded he spend $50 billion to buy Conservative votes.  The Conservatives were reluctant to put on the Santa Claus suit but the opposition forced him to do so at gun point and handed him the gifts to pass out.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Nick Nanos is a pretty astute observer of Canadian politics and I’m guessing he understand what resonates with voters. Thus this blog piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail’s web site, suggests that the Tories will not pay a high price, with voters, for proroguing Parliament:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/pollster-doubts-prorogation-will-raise-public-hackles/article1419188/

Pollster doubts prorogation will raise public hackles

Gloria Galloway

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

One more discussion of prorogation before we move on to something else – which may be Senate seats given the number of hints and rumours that the newest additions to the Red Chamber will be announced Tuesday.
Although a substantial effort is being made to mount protests in the face of what opponents are calling the suspension of democracy, (the Facebook page Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament had nearly 24,000 members at dawn Tuesday morning) no one really knows how the shut-down is playing with the public at large.

That’s because research companies have yet to release the results of surveys conducted after the Prime Minister Stephen Harper asked the Governor-General to prorogue.

But Nik Nanos of Nanos Research says you don’t need a bunch of surveys to tell you that prorogation is unlikely to have a significant influence upon voting behaviour.

“Will this annoy the opposition parties? Absolutely,” Mr. Nanos said in a telephone interview. “Will the opposition parties believe that this is a broader narrative of the government using Parliament to its own political devices? Absolutely.”

But the average Canadian is unlikely to be riled by a two-month break from partisan politics, he said. “Especially since, from the perspective of voters, there really isn’t a big issue that requires the emergency attention of the House of Commons.”

It’s pretty clear, said Mr. Nanos, that Mr. Harper invoked prorogation for the second time in just over a year “to clear the deck for two months so that the opposition parties don’t have a platform to attack or question the government.”

That’s a very clever communications move, he said. “It’s kind of like poking the opposition parties with another short stick.”

But whining about the House not sitting is unlikely to score points with the voting public, Mr. Nanos said.

What is likely to register, he said, is the notion that the Conservatives have given themselves a two-month vacation. “Talking substantively about what this means for Parliament and Parliament’s work would probably be a better angle” for an opposition that wants to chip away at government support, the pollster suggested.

Meanwhile, if Mr. Harper does not have plans to go into an election immediately shortly after the return of the House in March, he should prepare for a rough ride, Mr. Nanos added.

The Conservatives, he said, “are poisoning the well even before the next session starts because the opposition parties are going to be stewing for eight weeks and when they come back in the House, you can rest assured that it will be a raucous and very highly charged partisan atmosphere.”

(Editorial cartoon by Brian Gable/The Globe and Mail)

An annoyed opposition and a raucous, highly charged and partisan House may be exactly what Stephen Harper wants. Perhaps he can, either, trick the BQ, Liberals and Dippers into uniting to defeat his government – his preferred choice – or, at least, go back to the GG and say, “Ma’am, it’s happened again: Parliament is dysfunctional and we need an election to clear the air.”

But, more broadly, prorogation is a normal part of the parliamentary cycle. It is used, most often, when a government wants to or needs to change gears: a new Throne Speech and a new budget reflecting the new priorities allows the government of the day to make that directional shift. Two or three or, sometimes, even more Throne Speeches are not uncommon in the life of Westminster style parliaments. Parliamentary recesses (which is what this is - Parliament has not been dissolved) also allow most politicians to recharge their local, constituency batteries. Right now, as Nanos says, lacking a “big issue” there is no particular reason that parliament needs to sit in February. Despite the opposition's childish whines and mindless howls, prorogation is normal, sensible and, arguably, useful in early 2010.

 

[Larkvall]

Well I certainly am going to remember this 'vacation' especially if the Conservative candidate come around again looking for my support. I am also going to remember the auto bailout!

 

[HItorMiss]

Lark

Explain to me how this is a vacation, simply because they are not sitting in Parliament does not mean they are not working. There are numerous jobs that the MPs attend to that do not require them sitting in Ottawa 100's if not 1000's of Km away from there constituents.

As for the Auto Bail out..Hmm collapse of a huge chunks of North American economy and thousands of Canadians jobs or Tax Payer money to keep them afloat so as to generate income and keep the economy going...I know what I would do anyway.

 

[Rifleman62]

"What is likely to register, he said, is the notion that the Conservatives have given themselves a two-month vacation". 

What is required is a timed series (every two weeks or so) of announcements showing Canadians that The Government is at work to counter the opposition and their media mouth pieces.

 

[Rifleman62]

With a majority in the Senate, a well received  announcement would be the the phasing out of the Senate.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Just to put prorogation into some sort of perspective:

1. We are in our 40th Parliament since 1867 - that's 40 general elections in 143 years, about 1 every 3.5 years; and

2. There have been 144 sessions - about one per year - which means over 100 prorogations (39 of the other sessions following dissolutions and general elections (there was no parliament to dissolve before the first general election)). (Actually there were a few more than just 104 prorogations because, sometimes, parliament was prorogued before an election was called.)

Thus, prorogation is a normal part of the 'life' of parliaments; there is nothing about which to be excited.

See: here

Additionally: it is not a holiday for the government. Prime Minister Harper and his ministers are in Ottawa, working. Iggy is on vacation in France, somewhere. See: here where it says, "The Liberals have decided to highlight the two-month prorogation of Parliament by asking Canadians to submit a humorous 140-character suggestion for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's out-of-office reply message. Which, as communications strategies go, is rather courageous [because] Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has been on vacation at an undisclosed location and has not therefore been available to pick up his own phone for the past three weeks ..."

 

[Larkvall]

Lark

Explain to me how this is a vacation, simply because they are not sitting in Parliament does not mean they are not working. There are numerous jobs that the MPs attend to that do not require them sitting in Ottawa 100's if not 1000's of Km away from there constituents.

As for the Auto Bail out..Hmm collapse of a huge chunks of North American economy and thousands of Canadians jobs or Tax Payer money to keep them afloat so as to generate income and keep the economy going...I know what I would do anyway.

How do we know they are working? Sure they do 'other stuff', but they are supposed to be doing that right now during recess. If voters/taxpayers don't hold these guys accountable who will? They have not convinced me this break is necessary or productive.

As for for auto bailout there is a whole thread on it over here...

http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/81350.0

 

[armyvern]

Well I certainly am going to remember this 'vacation' especially if the Conservative candidate come around again looking for my support. I am also going to remember the auto bailout!

Ha!!

You mean the auto bailout that the Conservatives tabled because it was the Liebrals and the who NDP threatened to bring down the government IF that bailout did not occur ... just mere months after a federal election (that polls clearly showed that Canadians did not want to happen??)?

Remember? That's what had Taliban Jack and his merry band voting "with" the government ... allowing the Liebrals to still vote "against" while getting what they wanted anyway?

Nice spin though.

 

[Larkvall]

Ha!!

You mean the auto bailout that the Conservatives tabled because it was the Liebrals and the who NDP threatened to bring down the government IF that bailout did not occur ... just mere months after a federal election (that polls clearly showed that Canadians did not want to happen??)?

Remember? That's what had Taliban Jack and his merry band voting "with" the government ... allowing the Liebrals to still vote "against" while getting what they wanted anyway?

Nice spin though.

I was against bailing out the auto industry PERIOD.  :

 

[armyvern]

I was against bailing out the auto industry PERIOD.  :

So, the Conservatives did what they needed to do to save us from going back into another "unwanted" election and to force the Liebrals hand (who kept threatening to topple the government ad nauseum). The other parties "wanted" the bailout in the first place ...

Hmmmmm ... I guess you now have to decide which one (the bailout or the election) you wanted less?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Well I certainly am going to remember this 'vacation' especially if the Conservative candidate come around again looking for my support. I am also going to remember the auto bailout!

Those inclined to sputter each time the Conservatives disappoint need to think about the real alternatives.  The real alternative is rarely "nothing objectionable or expensive happens".

In this case, think about the Liberals (or Liberals + NDP) thinking about the auto industry, and thinking about votes, and then thinking some more about the auto industry...

Those who supported the Conservatives and are now dissatisfied have two options: vote for another candidate, or don't vote.  If you don't vote, or vote for a long-shot candidate, that effectively puts the dominant non-Conservative candidate (Liberal or NDP) up by 1 vote over the Conservative candidate.  If you vote for the dominant non-Conservative candidate, that is worth +2.  Either way, your choice will have consequences you will bear - voting "no government at all" is not an option; the government elected will certainly have ideas about how much to spend and where to spend it.

I suggest writing nasty letters to your Conservative MP if you have one, or to the PM and prominent ministers if you don't, but don't withdraw your support for the party unless you genuinely prefer the Liberals (or Liberals+NDP) to make the decisions about all the same issues.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

I always look to Montana when I need an example of sensible government.  The legislature meets once every 2 years and members are paid $76.80 per legislative day, plus $90.31 per day for expenses while in session.  On rare occasions special sessions can be called.  Politics truly is public service.  Montana has no sales tax and a maximum 6.9% income tax compared with Alberta's low 10%.  Every day Parliament meets they are thinking up new ways to spend my money.

http://leg.mt.gov/css/default.asp

The Montana Legislature is not in session. The next regular biennial session is scheduled to convene January 3, 2011. All legislative meetings held during the interims between sessions are in the State Capitol in Helena unless otherwise noted.

Montana speed limits used to be "reasonable and prudent" but this has changed.  Interstates and 75 mph and back roads are often 70 mph wheras here they are about 50mph.  When the federal government enforced the 55mph speed limit, the fine in Montana was $5.  I love less government.
http://www.us-highways.com/montana/mtspeed.htm

 

[observor 69]

January 05, 2010

Michael Ignatieff


Here is the text of an opinion piece released by Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):

The first duty of leaders in a democratic society like ours is to respect the institutions that put constraints on their power.

Messy. Inconvenient. Frustrating. Democracy is all those things. But as Churchill said, it is better than the alternatives.

A minority Parliament can be messy but it can work if the Prime Minister wants it too.

Last week the Harper government announced the shutting down of Parliament. The fact that this was done in the media "black hole," just hours before New Year's Eve, says a good deal about Mr. Harper's motivations. It's also a richly ironic statement about a government that was elected on the key plank of increasing transparency and accountability - but that's another, equally sad, story.

Every newspaper in Canada - including this one - reported that the key factor in Mr. Harper's decision was the barrage of criticism and tough questions his government has faced in Parliament over its handling - and apparent cover up - of the Afghan detainee torture issue. Questions about the government's truthfulness and its care of Canada's reputation overseas. Questions that go to the very heart of the government's respect for democratic institutions and the rule of law.

Even more troubling, this shutting down of Parliament is not a rash or impetuous act. It is part of a consistent pattern of behaviour on the part of Mr. Harper's government. Whenever Stephen Harper gets into political trouble, his first impulse is to steamroll over democratic institutions that get in his way. Look at the record:

Just over a year ago he prorogued Parliament just weeks after an election - in order to rescue himself from an unprecedented political and constitutional crisis of his own making.

He has lashed out at public servants - like Richard Colvin, in the case of the detainees - for daring to speak the truth, and cowed others into silence.

He fired Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, for blowing the whistle on the repairs needed at Chalk River to ensure the reactor's safety.

He starved Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, of the necessary resources to do his job because he was critical of the poor management of our public finances under this Conservative government.

He let go the heads of both the RCMP's Public Complaints Commission and the Military Police Complaints Commission. Both were competent individuals, doing their job with distinction. But both had a serious flaw in Stephen Harper's eye: they were critical of the government.

He cut off public funding for the ecumenical charitable group KAIROS, despite their lauded work and broad public support, because, according to one of his ministers, they held dissenting views from the government on foreign policy.

This approach to government - intimidating all who stand in its way - can have severe and corrosive consequences. Look at our nation's capital today: a cowed and demoralized public service and a constantly bullied national press gallery, both trying to serve a disenchanted public.

More at Link

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/745951

 

[Rifleman62]

The old saw: would you buy a car from the LPC, let alone the "leader"? Would you buy a car from the NDP, let alone Jack?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Typical of the 'Red' Star, their great leader's article is not open to comments. Wouldn't want any of the plebes to counter his tired and regurgitated spin with truth. If these are the best examples he can cobble together, it only shows how well Harper has actually done. They were non starters when they happened and are even less so now. Ah well, it's only Prince Igor after all. The princely rant has already been read, glossed over and forgotten. True liebrals are huddling with Bob (Brutus) Rae and sharpening their daggers.

Caesar:
Who is it in the press that calls on me?
I hear a tongue shriller than all the music
Cry "Caesar!" Speak, Caesar is turn'd to hear.

Soothsayer:
Beware the ides of March.

Caesar:
What man is that?

Brutus:
A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March.

 

[Rifleman62]

Baden Guy, it is very clear, you and I will never vote for the same political party. I am sure you try to keep informed of what is going on. I am sure you know that the Toronto Star is one of the mouth pieces of the LPC. I am sure you are aware of what Rex Murphy and Matthew Fisher have said about the media and the opposition politicans re the Afghan detainee (non) issue. I am sure you have read ERC's earlier post "Just to put prorogation into some sort of perspective". I am sure you know that Mr. Ignatieff has been on vacation in southern Europe for the last three weeks, and doesn't answer his telephone.

I am sure Mr Ignatieff wrote this puff piece same old whine based on the speculation that Parliament would be prorogued, handed it to the friendly editor at The Star, and said "Hey Fred, I will be on vacation and out of contact, if Harper goes the prorogued route, publish this about a week later. That's a good boy. I'm outta here.'

 

[observor 69]

This is the part that concerned me:

" He has lashed out at public servants - like Richard Colvin, in the case of the detainees - for daring to speak the truth, and cowed others into silence.

He fired Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, for blowing the whistle on the repairs needed at Chalk River to ensure the reactor's safety.

He starved Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, of the necessary resources to do his job because he was critical of the poor management of our public finances under this Conservative government.

He let go the heads of both the RCMP's Public Complaints Commission and the Military Police Complaints Commission. Both were competent individuals, doing their job with distinction. But both had a serious flaw in Stephen Harper's eye: they were critical of the government."

None of these four items were handled pragmatically, first priority was kill/discredit the messenger. I agree the LPC is playing the Afghan thing for political reasons but the ones listed above involve a response like John Baird standing up in parliament and blasting the opposition vice reasoned debate.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is the part that concerned me:

" He has lashed out at public servants - like Richard Colvin, in the case of the detainees - for daring to speak the truth, and cowed others into silence.

He fired Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, for blowing the whistle on the repairs needed at Chalk River to ensure the reactor's safety.

He starved Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, of the necessary resources to do his job because he was critical of the poor management of our public finances under this Conservative government.

He let go the heads of both the RCMP's Public Complaints Commission and the Military Police Complaints Commission. Both were competent individuals, doing their job with distinction. But both had a serious flaw in Stephen Harper's eye: they were critical of the government."

None of these four items were handled pragmatically, first priority was kill/discredit the messenger. I agree the LPC is playing the Afghan thing for political reasons but the ones listed above involve a response like John Baird standing up in parliament and blasting the opposition vice reasoned debate.

I respectfully disagree:

1. I think there is both more and less to Colvin's accusations than have been explored by the inept questioning of the Parliamentary committee. It was neither wise nor just to shoot the messenger but Colvin's stories need careful, thoughtful scrutiny by somebody a whole helluva lot smarter and more credible than Ujal Dosanjh;

2. Keen's firing was poorly handled, from the political optics perspective, but it was justified. Caveat lector, the fellow who replaced her, Michael Binder, is a friend - not a close friend, but something more than an acquaintance;

3. Page's TOR need a major review and overhaul. Harper should be criticized for giving him too much 'room' to operate too soon; and

4. Neither commissioner was bad or even less than competent, but I do not think you can say they were doing their jobs "with distinction."

My take, anyway.

 

[observor 69]

Thanks for your usual thoughtful response ER.
We aren't that very far apart on our take of these stories.
Honest!