Last one out, turn off the light.
January 8, 2010
Tim Powers, Conservative gadfly and Harper apologist, today challenged the Opposition to contribute t0 a set of rules for prorogation. Here’s one which I posted as a comment on the Globe and Mail blog:
Earlier prorogations were often for as little as one day at the end of a legislative session. How about not leaving Canada without a government for over two months at a critical time? That would be one rule.
Let’s say Canadians would like some say in the imposition of the security measures in airports?
What if there is a major disaster between now and March? Parliament can’t come back in a flash. There is no speaker, even. The whole structure came apart with the act of prorogation.
One man rule, then? Are Canadians prepared to face a crisis with PMO press secretary Dimitri Soudas in charge?
“Last one out, turn off the light!” is not a valid governing principle for my country.
——–
January 8, 2010
The war of words heats up. This morning John Ivison in an article in the National Post (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2414457)
coined the term herbivores for those individuals expressing dismay on the Internet over the latest prorogation escapade. Call us herbivores if you wish (meaning “cattle”), but our numbers are growing.
John Ivison’s comment may be a story in itself. His fawning profile of Stephen Harper in the National Post was not unexpected. When he called me and others like me “herbivores” because we express our objections online to prorogation, that’s when he crossed the line. No doubt the Harper camp and its adherents view those who oppose their plans as subhuman, but I object to the reference. When those who have seized power view others as objects, can the cattle cars be far behind?
Prorogation: the view from Leeds-Grenville
January 4, 2010
For a column in the Review Mirror Rod Croskery asked candidates in the forthcoming federal election for their views on the recent prorogation of Parliament. At press time responses had arrived from MP Gord Brown and Liberal candidate Marjory Loveys.
MP Gord Brown’s office responded:
Thank you for your email.
On December 30, the Prime Minister announced that the next phase of our Economic Action Plan will be launched, following the Olympic Games, with a Throne Speech on March 3 and a Budget on March 4.
The call for a new Throne Speech to launch the 3rd Session of the current Parliament is routine. The average Parliament comprises three or four sessions (and three or four Throne Speeches) and some Parliaments have had as many as six or seven Throne Speeches.
This is the 105th time in Canada’s history that a new Throne Speech will launch a new session of an existing Parliament.
The economy remains Canadians’ top priority and our top priority and a new Throne Speech allows the government to respond to the country’s economic priorities.
The three economic themes of the new session will be: (1) completing implementation of the Economic Action Plan introduced in the last Session, (2) returning the federal budget to balance once the economy has recovered – which is a priority for Canadians – and (3) building the economy of the future.
As well, the new Parliament allows us to re-introduce important legislation. Since a Bill can not be introduced twice in any Session, a new Session is required to further a government’s mandate.
I trust this answers your questions.
And I hope you and yours had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Mark King
Legislative Assistant
Gord Brown
Member of Parliament
—
Liberal Candidate Majory Loveys:
Rod:
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the issue of Mr. Harper’s premature prorogation of Parliament.
There are several aspects of Mr. Harper’s decision to prorogue Parliament and close it for over two months that have been much discussed already.
First, it will enable the Conservatives to use their new-found majority in the Senate to gain more control of the Senate, including the Senate Committees. However, if this were the only objective there would be no need for a two-month Parliamentary shut-down.
Second, prorogation will delay many bills forcefully promoted by Mr. Harper as urgent and crucial, for example bills to reduce crime. His past bluster can now be seen as just that.
Third, Parliamentary scrutiny of the Afghanistan Detainee issue will cease. There has been much speculation that this was the real motive behind Mr. Harper’s decision, and I agree with this assessment.
However, in my view the impact of the duration of the closure of Parliament deserves more attention.
This two-months-plus closure will render Parliament mute until March. During this time Parliament will be unable to quickly respond to any emergency that arises, and the budget will be written with no input from the general public or our Members of Parliament.
If events create the need for Parliamentary action – for example to deal with a work stoppage that is causing hardship for Canadians – the process of recalling Parliament, electing a Speaker, etc. will slow any response. For this reason past governments have learned to prorogue Parliament just a few days before it is scheduled to be recalled. Mr. Harper did not take this precaution. He clearly does not care if Parliament is Missing In Action for months on end.
More importantly, before each budget Parliamentary Committees normally hear from a broad cross-section of Canadians and debate the ideas they hear. Their advice is given to the Minister of Finance well before the budget is written.
Mr. Harper’s stated intent is to recall Parliament on March 3 and have a budget the very next day.
Given this timetable, our elected MPs will have no opportunity to advise the Minister of Finance on actions to help us deal with the effects of the recession, deal with the deficit or improve our pensions. And the Canadian public will have no opportunity for their voices to be heard and participate in an open and transparent discussion on their proposals.
This means that Mr. Flaherty will hear the opinions of big companies who can hire lobbyists and the select few he invites to his meetings; those without an “in” with the government or big bucks to hire well-connected lobbyists will be shut out.
It is the unnecessary length of time that Parliament will be closed that will impact Canadians the most. It suggests that Mr. Harper is placing his partisan interests in shutting down uncomfortable questions about his decisions on our Afghan mission ahead of the interests of Canadians. Perhaps he even sees not having to listen to the likes of us about budget proposals as an added bonus.
In leaving Parliament unable to quickly respond to emergencies or to listen to the public and debate their concerns about the recession, the deficit and pensions, he is preventing our elected Members of Parliament from doing their work.
I can only conclude that Mr. Harper sees Parliament as an inconvenience rather than an essential voice of the Canadian people.
Note: These articles made their way to the Brockville Recorder and Times in its Friday, Janary 8, 2010 edition.
Ignatieff? He’ll do. Let’s get to work.
December 10, 2008
The crowning of Michael Ignatieff gives the Liberal Party a unique opportunity to attract young Canadians, especially those at universities and those planning to attend. Face it, the guy’s a world-renowned and respected academic. Who wouldn’t want to be on his team?
Following Stephen Harper’s self-mutilation over the last two weeks, the CPC’s main competitive advantage is its bank account. It’s time to refill the Liberal coffers to neutralize that edge. Bob Rae had a good point about the need for grass roots support for a resurgent Federal Liberal Party in Canada. The Achilles’ heel of the one member-one vote leadership campaign he proposed was the creation of instant Liberals to distort the vote. I once joined the Conservative party just so that I could vote against Jim Flaherty in a leadership contest. Those new memberships might work very well as a fund raising strategy, though.
When Rick Mercer’s online petition to ask Stockwell Day to change his name scored hundreds of thousands of signatures in a short time, it signalled that the Internet was here to stay as a force in Canadian politics. Internet use has replaced pubbing as the time-waster of choice of this generation. You Tube, Facebook, Twitter, blogs and websites attract active minds during their times of idleness. These minds look for interesting, arresting ideas which they can’t find in the mainstream.
Ignatieff and company should be able to capitalize on this opportunity. The Green Shift was a good idea sold badly. Liberalism is a compelling idea which has captivated young minds since the days of Bertrand Russell. My opinion of Ignatieff stems from his address to the Liberal National Convention back in 2005(?). It was a terrific speech on what it is to be a liberal.
Who says Canadian federal politics has to be grimy and dull? The mud wrestling of the last month has certainly drawn attention, but it shouldn’t be that hard to raise the level of discourse — if Ignatieff and team act quickly.
Another thing. In Eastern Ontario where I live the ridings are traditionally safe Tory seats. But this may have occurred because strong Liberal candidates haven’t made the commitment while out of power. Kingston MP and Speaker Peter Miliken for twenty years has taken his duties to his constituency seriously. His approach seems to be, “If there are five events to attend and you can’t get to all of them, go to four.”
If a Liberal candidate showed that kind of commitment in Leeds and Grenville, and even in Lanark, the outcome might be very different in a few years.
In the meantime, we geezers should get out our chequebooks… Uh… I don’t use cheques any more. Iggie: how about an email address to which we can send online contributions?
the Walnut Diary 