Categories: Coyne v. Wells

Coyne v. Wells on the prime minister's prorogative

Our Video podcast

by macleans.ca on Tuesday, January 5, 2010 12:16pm - 56 Comments

Download | Feed | iTunes

Tags: Andrew coyne, paul wells, Stephen Harper

http://intensedebate.com/people/Accelar Accelar

Prorogation has been used more than 150 times since confederation, in fact Jean Chretien prorogued parliament on average once a year! Prorogation is part of the legislation tool kit!

The use of prorogation this time is particularly justified given the volume of legislation stalled, gutted or blocked over the past 3 sessions of parliament by Liberal senators. By proroguing parliament, appointing senators and placing them on committees, he will likely be able to break the current impasse. The only other alternative would be to dissolve the house and call an election – a much more lengthy and expensive process than a one month break.

Stephen Harper has proven he can work with the opposition parties over the past four years. The government has not suffered defeat on a confidence measure and legislation passed by all parties in the house still suffer ill at the hands of Liberal Senators in the upper house?

What is the matter with the Liberal Senators? Why won't they work with their own party and colleagues in the lower house? Why won't they work with other political parties to get the best legislation through parliament for the benefit of all Canadians? Why are they holding the country hostage for a Liberal Government – Democracy be damned?

Can Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Senators and Members of Parliament really be that ignorant and arrogant?

Mike T.

Liar.

Dahl

"This comment has been deleted by the administrator."
Good retort!
Laughably pathetic.

Democracy in action for the 0.06%-ers…you sure you guys are not liberal senators LOL!!
Dahl

Run for office
http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

I look forward to the Coyne/Wells Parliament.

Fellow Tories: they made just as much heavy weather when Paul Martin was doing his thing in 2005. They're consistent — and that's what you want in your press. Not partisan hacks who switch their arguments based on who's in power. (Exhibit A: New York Times Editorial Board.)

(Did it matter back then? Nope. Martin hit 40%. And then lost b/c he was out-campaigned in '06.)

Just sit back and enjoy the show.

Mike T.

Except Martin was acting much more properly (I do note that you can't say "was doing the same thing in 2005' with a straight face, for which i do give you credit).

http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

Really?

I'd say Martin was acting much less properly — the opposition shut down the house for a week and was winning votes left and right, and he ran and hid till he could get Stronach to cross.

Harper just prorogued Parliament last month — no-one was claiming they were going to topple his government.

On the other hand, I'd say Martin in May 2005 acted marginally more properly than Harper in December 2008, if we're classifying sins against parliamentary government.

Anyway, I'd quite enjoy watching a Coyne/Wells-chaired mock parliament. So I hope it does happen.

shouldIsellyourwheat

Andrew is giving the opposition "great" advice to gather in a mock parliament.

The photoop of Dion, Layton, and Dusceppe worked really well last year. I'm sure Harper would love one fo Iggy, Layton, and Dusceppe.
Dahl

Well according to Dan Cook in Globe today; only 0.06% of Canadians are Mad about prorogation; so it appears you, Wells and Coyne are in a "distinct" minority…but then you probably knew that already!
Dahl

Just like you and Coyne.. without video
orval

A journalist once told me that when journalists interview other journalists, what you have is a failure of journalism.

I am glad Mr Coyne has moderated his "civil war" commentary, but, really, seriously, prorogation is an arcane element of parliamentary practice and procedure. I know the opposition and the media are becoming increasingly impatient, but they must continue to wait for a real scandal to be exposed before turning on the "threat to democracy itself" rhetoric.

Prorogation, like the meme last year about the PM breaking the fixed election law, is about politics, not democracy. Canadians understand this. Ignatieff has to know that "righteous outrage" is a precious commodity and must not be debased and wasted on non-scandals and routine parliamentary manoeuvring.

Here's a question for journalists: how many time did the Species at Risk bill die due to prorogations and early election calls? I recall that David Anderson found that very frustrating.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Accelar Accelar

After you prorogue parliament, it takes time to prepare a throne speech, reset the legislative agenda, reorganize committees and get parliament started again takes time. The later he prorogued, the later the start of the next session of this parliament.

The house was not due to sit again until January 25, so I think it was prudent to prorogue in December and start sitting again in March. It makes much more efficient use of the winter break than if the Prime Minister had prorogued parliament the day before the house was scheduled to sit again.

Where the Special Committee on Afghanistan is concerned, you have to love Members of Parliament of all political stripes behaving badly – opposition members of that committee have been meeting without quorum during the winter break and without giving proper notice to the Government, if you listen to the Government, or failed to have quorum when members of the Government failed to attend committee meetings if you listen to the opposition. Either way – the committee has not had quorum and opposition members have demonstrated their contempt of parliament by purporting to meet and hear witnesses even though they cannot extend parliamentary protection without quorum.

The Afghan issue itself is not dead. The committee will meet when the house reconvenes in March and they can carry on then. In the meantime, I suspect we will see more opposition committee members behaving badly.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Accelar Accelar

The house has been prorogued more than 150 times. I believe Paul Martin and Jean Chretien have prorogued the house more times then Stephen Harper has.

Afghanistan is not an occupation as we have been invited in by the Government of Afghanistan and the mission is sanctioned by the UN, thus more peace keeping than anything else. Because this is not an occupation, the former Liberal Government negotiated to turn prisoners and detainees over to the Afghan Government, an agreement that has since been revised by the new Conservative Government to include inspections. Since this agreement has been put in place, detainee transfers have been suspended on several occasions.

I cannot see how the so called economic disaster is largely Harper's doing when our largest trading partner and largest economy in the world has seen nearly 1 in 4 houses foreclosed on and its largest banks and largest industrial businesses fail. A little more than a year afterwards, none of our banks have failed and our debt and deficit to GDP ratios are the envy of the developed world. Our success is his badge of honor! Stephen Harper is doing a great job!

I can see where you might be concerned about political turmoil however. While the Conservative Party, New Democratic Party and Bloq Quebecois have only had 1 leader each since 2003, the Liberals with Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff still can't seem to get it right. Maybe Stephen Harper should prorogue even longer so that they can get their act together!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Accelar Accelar

It takes time to restart parliament after prorogation. A throne speech has to be prepared, committees have to be re-organized, the legislative agenda has to be reset and both houses have to be readied. The later you prorogue parliament, the later it is that parliament can restart.

The house wasn't sitting until January 25, so by proroguing now, the house will actually sit more than 3 weeks earlier than had the Prime Minister prorogued the house on January 24 as you suggest. By proroguing the house during the winter recess, that time can be used more effectively to ready both houses than if the house were sitting – plenty of logical reasons to prorogue earlier rather than later!

Where the Special Committee on Afghanistan is concerned, you have to love when Members of Parliament behave badly. We have an issue left behind by the former Liberal Government that agreed to transfer Afghan detainees to the Afghan Government by whom they were tortured and a Conservative Government, in light of conflicting information, was slower to correct the mistake than the former Liberal Government would have liked. You have opposition members of the committee meeting without proper notice or quorum during the Christmas break or Government members of the committee who don't show up to meetings during the Christmas break, depending on who you speak with.

This issue and the facts will remain long after March 3 when parliament reconvenes for only the second time of this parliament. Had Prime Minister Harper prorogued on January 24 as you suggest, we would have had to wait even longer for this committee to continue.

All said, the benefits of appointing 5 more Senators and having them sit on committees outweigh the costs of delaying the work of parliament by 1 month.

I have an idea – why not shorten MP's Summer break in order to make up time!
Mike T.

Decent points on both sides but not a lot of difference between the presenters.
bettie

I believe he is in Question Period every day except when he is out of town. It would be interesting to find out how many days Ignatieff has missed… and I'm not sure it is always because he is out of town.

http://www.thishotplace.com B. L. Wagner

QP is but one part of the day, the part from which we get to see 20 second sound bites on the evening news, parts mediated by the corporate-owned media. There are other debates going on outside of QP, like the Afghan detainee issue.

And perhaps the media are not talking about Harper's rejigging of the sacred "economic plan" is because the recognize it for the propaganda it is.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Accelar Accelar

Fact Check Mike T:

Prorogation has been used more than 150 times since confederation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_fed… – TRUE

Jean Chretien prorogued parliament on average once per year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_fed…
Seven sessions between 1994-2001 – TRUE

Legislation has been stalled, gutted or blocked in the Senate:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomm… – TRUE
An aside, I would love to see our Senators on TV hard at work! Mike Duffy deserves to be on TV! :P

The Government has not suffered defeat on confidence measure and legislation passed by all parties in the house still suffer ill at the hand of Liberal Senators:

See Ivison above. Most Notable is the consumer protection legislation passed unanimously by the House of Commons that was gutted in the Senate – TRUE
Had Stephen Harper lost a confidence measure, we would have had another election, or he wouldn't be Prime Minister anymore. – TRUE

The rhetorical questions are neither true nor false, they just have to asked!
Dirk

How can anyone stand up for Harper ignoring the democratic process?

Prorogue is for political turmoil, or economic disaster or war.

Afghanistan is an occupation.
The economic disaster is largely Harper's doing and not acute.
Political turmoil? Don't we usually make fun of the Liberals for just agreeing with everything Harper wants?

Either 1 – Liberals are agreeing, and Harper is lying
2 – Liberals are effective opposition, and Harper is scared
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Happy to enlighten you KRB.

1. 30 of the bills Harper killed were at the House level almost all of them at a stage waiting for the government to bring them forward, either to a second reading or present them in committee. So their status was in Harper's hands.

2. Some of those bills were first introduced in his first Parliamentary session. Upon prorogation (which in that case was appropriate because most of the agenda had been fulfilled), they died. He reintroduced them, only to kill them again when he called an unnecessary election. And then he reintroduced them again this year and then killed them again. I read somewhere that happened a 4th time with some of them but I admit to being fuzzy on those details.

3. Not many of these bills received unanimous consent the first time round so what makes you think they will get fast tracked with unanimous consent? Especially when Harper has shown us he doesn't care too much about them. Some of the bills, those in the Senate, cannot be reinstated and must start from scratch.
jarrid

I think the economy is the biggest issue on the minds of most Canadians. But clearly some people have some concerns about what happened to a few Afghan detainees back in and around 2006 as well as the Prime Minister's use of the prorogue power which has been used by several administrations many times before.

Sounds like it may be time to clear the air.

Let's have an election when Parliament reconvenes.

This is the only way to deal with disagreements on these issues.
sbt

I'd hardly describe the Belinda Stronach shenanigans as "acting much more properly" but to each his own.
ex canuck

Mr Coyne, righteous outrage, your evident default journalistic position, should really be the province of old fogies and undergraduates writing for fringe publications. In a person of your own accomplishments and position in the Canadian firmament, righteous outrage is undignified and will come back to bite you, to say nothing of its erosion of your (precious) credibility.

A question: Why are Canadian journalists such screamers?
Tuco

A conversation with sorted and selected facts. Meaningless drivel.
L S

This response is very obvious the writer has done his homework. 22 days is not a long time especially when the Winter Olympics are near. Ottawa is working just not that fiasco of 'Question period' that the present opposition has made it.
The previous prorogued was for the destruction of Canada as we know it. Let the members work, then when parliament resumes if what is tabled is good pass it, if not object strongly
We all have a short memory Chretien prorogued parliament for 80 days with some weak excuses.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

What the hell am I doing with my mouth at 3:30? Dentist!