Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

The real issue

by Andrew Coyne on Friday, January 8, 2010 8:54pm - 266 Comments

Absolute must read by the great John Ibbitson: Few countries can claim such a pathetic Parliament. Every single word…

It is a small symptom of a grave condition. Our Parliament has become the most dysfunctional in the English-speaking world, weaker and more irrelevant than the U.S. Congress or the parliaments of Britain, Australia or New Zealand.

If Britain is the mother of Parliaments, her Canadian daughter is a fallen woman. Government MPs are cowed; parliamentary committees are too often irrelevant. Three consecutive minority governments haven’t strengthened the powers of the House to hold the government to account; instead, they’ve encouraged new methods by which the Prime Minister’s Office seeks to centralize authority…

It isn’t prorogation, as such, that’s the issue. It’s everything around it: the motive, the precedent, and most of all, that our Parliament should be in such a degraded state already that the Prime Minister would think he could slap it around with impunity. All parties have contributed to this, and it is time for all parties to clean up the mess they have created.

That’s what all the facebook fury should be aimed at. That’s what the rallies later this month should take as their subject: not bemoaning the past, but fixing the future. It isn’t as if Parliament is going to be “unprorogued.” It’s what happens after Parliament returns that counts. The first week of March could prove to be a historic moment in the life of Canadian democracy: the opportunity, at long last, for Parliament to stand up, and start to take back the powers and rights that have been stripped from it by successive prime ministers.

And if Parliament won’t stand up on its own, then maybe it will need a little bit of encouragement.

NOTE: There is one sure way to stop anything useful from coming of this, and that is for the opposition parties to try to turn the whole thing into a chance for partisan point-scoring, rather than a genuine reform moment. No doubt there will have to be some barking of shins to impress upon the PM that Parliament means business. But the Liberal leader would make a sign of his sincerity if he were to publicly accept his party’s share of the blame for the damage that has been done to our democracy over the years.

Offer to cooperate with the government on a comprehensive plan of parliamentary reform. Make suggestions; challenge the government to match them. But be constructive. If statesmanship is met with indifference, the voters will be able to draw their own conclusions as to who is interested in restoring popular rule to Canada, and who is not. But first they have to see some statesmanship.

Tags: democracy, electoral reform, Parliament, prorogation

More by Andrew Coyne

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

No, the GG needs to consider whether the opposition can establish a stable government once the House votes – she would've been in an untenable position, and Harper may have consulted with Ignatieff before the prorogation to assure her there was an alternative solution.

kcm

you're making it up as you go along…same as Harper.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Not at all – I'm waiting until March before I make anything up, same as Ignatieff.

Mike T.

Also ridiculous. Patently so.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

"In light of the recent events, it has become clear that many Canadians are unfamiliar with some of the basic rules of our constitutional democracy. …When the general election does not return a majority of seats to any one party, the governor general will then have to appoint as prime minister a Member of Parliament who is able to gather enough support to *sustain the confidence of the House for a reasonable period of time*."

Given Dion's speedy departure, it's obvious he couldn't sustain the confidence of his party, never mind parliament.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

If the Liberals' behaviour has done so little to undermine Parliament, it can't be in such bad shape after all and we can ignore Coyne's entire post.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

So I see that facebook group passed Stephen Taylor's litmus test of 127,000 members. So I guess it's legitimate now right?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

Uh no.. apparently Taylor moved the goalposts.. NOW the FB #s dont matter.. they have to get 20K out to rallies like his for it to be legit.

wilson

Getting 15% of Canadian university students to click a mouse is the easy part.
Will they share their lunch money with the LPC is the real test?

Gayle

Until they do, and then the CPC supporters will make up another "real" test.

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

Actually, InsideFacebook.com says that the fastest growing demographic on Facebook is Female, 55+. <http://www.insidefacebook.com/2009/02/02/fastest-…

And, the 35-54 demographic grew 276.4% in the 6 months previous to iStrategyLabs' Jan 2009 Facebook stats, doubling every two months. <http://www.istrategylabs.com/2009/01/2009-faceboo… I haven't yet read the 2010 stats. (And it's too late at night to bit.ly)

mediawatch

Few countries can claim such a pathetic media…
Phil

The Conservatives are slipping to the extent that they are letting the Liberals take control of the narrative on prorogation. (Or maybe it's intentional?) It's not about avoiding committee processes in Parliament as Coyne and alnost everyone else suggests; it's about getting control of the Senate and its committees. That's where the real story is, and almost everyone is missing it for the sake of pursuing a partisan red herring.

Gayle

Actually, that is only what Harper said it was about – and even then he backed away from that.

He is about to have a majority in the Senate. He did not need to prorogue the House to get it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

This has nothing to with the Senate and everything to do with weasling out from under the microscope on the detainee issue.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

But was either maneover appropriate? I think that we are both saying that neither was justifiable, that both were done solely for the advantage of the political party that initiated the maneover, not for the good of the country that they are supposed to be governing.

I'm not sure that it really matters which move was more egregious. The point is that LPC supporters have had the ability and opportunity to influence the LPC to do better and CPC supporters now have a similar opportunity; will they take it?

Mike T.

Hooookay, hopefully for the last time:

Chretien stacked the deck against Day by calling an election some months (possibly many months) before an election was necessary or was usually called. The reason was almost certainly to highlight the unsuitability of his opponent before it could be camouflaged.

Harper stacked the deck again and called an election after even fewer months (although, yes, it was a minority). This after claiming Chretien's actions were so bad that he purported to pass a law that no one, including himself, could ever do it again! Here, the reason was almost certainly to avoid an election during a recession – a recession he spent the entire campaign denying would come to pass.

I can see how somebody could be upset with both. I cannot for the life of me see how somebody could say the second is not considerably more reprehensible than the first. Or that it doesn't matter which is worse, unless you want to make the conservatives look better than they are.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Hooookay…ultimately I could hardly care less which was worse, and believe me, it has got nothing to do with trying to make the CPC look good.

I'm interested in supporting a political party that is interested in making 'things' better, things being the country and the way government / Parliament operates. I judge political parties by many factors, one of the factors is what efforts is the party making to improve its own 'house' and another factor is what type of person seems to become a supporter of that party. Your arguments are not convincing me to support the LPC.

Wascally Wabbit

Gna Gna wilson – or william or whoever you are in this appearance.
Is that the best that Dimitri is offering this morning…?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

More degradation and dysfunction from the US Senate: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/0…

Is this really the path we want to follow with our Parliament? Empowering individual MPs sounds like a great idea until you see how that empowerment might be wielded…

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Surely there is a middle ground somewhere between what we have now (MPs as 'trained seals') and the situation described in your link, where a single 'loose cannon' can obstruct the will of the other 307 MPs because there are no consequences.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Hopefully – but it raises questions about whether Canada's parliament is really the most dysfunctional in the English speaking world.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Yeah, I try not to get hung up on the hyperbole and END OF THE WORLD characterizations, about ths topic or any other for that matter. But still, there is room for our Parliament to improve, and giving MPs more independence – or getting them to reclaim the independence that they already have? – while trying to be aware of unintended consequences is worth some effort.

wilson

Rex Murphy gets tossed from the G&M
because he wouldn't 'hide the decline'…..
Yup,
and the media thinks Parliament has muzzling issues
free speech anyone?

http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

Did he get tossed or did he leave? Isn't he at the National Post now?

wilson

'…So, “climate change denial” is widely rumored to have been the last straw. Perhaps sensing the loquacious Newfoundlander would prompt unneeded bad PR if sacked;
I’m told Stackhouse offered to move him to Mondays. As evidenced by the quick decampment to the National Post, it seems that went over like a tonne of bricks with Murphy…'

They made him an offer he had to refuse,
Rex refused to Hide the Decline and got tossed.

The champions of freedom of speech silenced one of the good ones.
I will be asking all contributors to the Globe and Mail if they have to swear on the climate change bible, if they will Hide the Decline

wilson

Times are different now. The BLOC makes a majority near impossible.
The Cons have no natural allies so have to bargain with at least one party for every vote, so have to work much harder (game play) at it.
Where as the Libs had a dependency on the Dippers, a consistant easy appeasement. Such a dependency that Dusanj and Rae are front row Libs now.
wilson

The Liberal attempt to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives,
lands them on Jack Layton's ice.
The price yah pay for riding the fence for 15 years, someday, you have to jump off.
That day was December 1, 2008
orval

Wow. Just when I thought our host had calmed down over his Cromwellian "Parliament will Fight!" and his call to start the civil war (I thought he had calmed down after reading his thought-provoking piece on the politics of climate change post-Copenhagen), now he goes off again. I am almost nostalgic for the old Andrew Coyne and Canada should make an extradition request to Germany and get Karl-Heinz Schreiber returned so we can once again read those magnificent columns on "what's at stake" in the vilification of Brian Mulroney.

The media is so un-serious I don't know what to think anymore. Prorogation is procedural trivia. Harper must be thinking "that's the best they got?" He breezed through Copenhagen (climate change being the Conservative's "achilles heel" as I recall) without a scratch. I had thought his release of economic report card in a plane over Siberia was the great insult to Parliament? Or the "unprecedented" rebuke by the Chinese PM was the great insult to Canadian pride on the international stage?

Meanwhile we have just learned that the US and world intelligence services failed utterly to stop the underwear bomber even when they knew all the facts necessary to stop a terrorist attack from happening. Next month the Vancouver Olympics start , a beautiful, fat terrorist target if ever there was one. A demonstration of such catastrophic and staggering incompetence that I would expect the Government to be now working flat out to ensure that the Games are safe and nothing bad happens, because I am not sure we can accept the "intelligence community" reassurances that they know what they are doing. This is a huge story for Canadian media but they are wasting my time and theirs on arcane trivia because they seem to get their jollies out of being able to criticize Harper.

I want the Canadian media to get real, please, I beg you.

wilson

Getting real? Not our national media.
They all live in the Enchanted Forest, where terrorists can be rehabilitated with group hugs, and pretending climategate doesn't exist means it doesn't exist.
http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

Yep, the underwear bomber TOTALLY justifies Harper's disrespect of parliamentary democracy. Thanks for getting so real for us here Orval.

hosertohoosier

The key word should be pathetic parliament. When people rage about Harper (or Chretien) they miss the cause. Our institutions encourage bad behaviour and must be reformed… or perhaps REFOOOOOOOOOOOOORMED!

wilson

Preston Manning was a decade too early.
Slow learners in the East.

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

Andrew Coyne, I quiver at the realization that you and I are on the same page. I am not a partisan, but a grassroots activist who has been concerned about the deterioration of our democratic structures over the past couple of decades.

I've seen the democracy I have lived in my whole life, change. I've seen politicians come and go. I've seen movements come and go. But this, this one seems different. It is definitely non-partisan. Yes, Iffy's trying to ride the wave, but he lacks compassion and sincerity and the capacity to lead such a movement. Jack's hanging back until his after his caucus retreat, but he says they may have to "get creative" — whatever that means! May is too far on the fringe to be of any use to any of us. And Gilles, well, there's that whole Quebecois thing.

So, my point is, who do we have who can take this energy and move it forward into a real pro-democracy movement? That is what we so desperately lack in this country. And that, my new-found friend, is what we need — a real leader. Perhaps that someone will arise from the fledgling movement. I live in hope.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Savant Savant

The problem with the crocodile tears being shed by people for our 'tattered democracy' is that the objections are falling squarely on party lines. People aren't annoyed because of what has happened, they are annoyed because they don't like Harper. Had the Liberals been in power the same thing would have happened. Those opposed to the Liberals would have objected, those that support them would not.

I think it is naive for anyone to think that for the first time in Canadian history the Canadian public is somehow annoyed at the house being prorogued.

Are they annoyed? Sure.

However, this is all about Harper, and has nothing to do with the house or prorogation. Opponents of the Tories are making political hay out of this, as I would expect the Tories to do if they were on the opposition benches.

Let's not make this out to be more than it is. It's just another partisan issue, no different than the last, and no different from the next.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

On the same note, the only people saying "It's all just partisan politics" are Harper supporters.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

That'd be a great point, if only it were true.

There's a large portion of conservative supporters who are very angry at this move, and a number I've seen who've decided they can no longer vote for a conservative party being lead by Harper.

Will they, en masse, vote Liberal? Doubtful.

But we've seen last election what happens when party supporters just stay home.

TedTylerEzro

Conservatives also have a habit of forming protest parties when they feel they are not represented by their party of choice. See: Reform, Wild Rose.

orval

Since 1990, we have had MPs seated in our national Parliament, the House of Commons, who are dedicated to the break-up and dismemberment of our country. How do we react to such disloyalty? We pay them, give them budgets and taxpayer subsidies, grant them pensions, and listen respectively to them while they mock our country and do everything in their power to tear Canada up!

I can't thing of anything that has been more destructive of the "dignity" of Parliament. .There are many members there who want fervently for Canada to fail, not to succeed.

When Louis Riel was elected MP for Provencher with a price on his head, he had to sneak into Parliament in the middle of the night to sign the Register of the Clerk of the House before vanishing back into exile in the US, knowing if he was caught in Canada he would have been arrested. He never would have been able to sit Parliament and speak treason against Canada.

If Canadians are prepared to accept separatist MPs in the House of Commons year after year, then they are not going to "rise up" because a PM prorogued Parliament for a few weeks.

As Rene Levesque was (purportedly) fond of saying "take a valium"

wilson

Liberals signed a coalition government agreement with the seppies, for the sake of seizing power.
Never forget.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Indeed. One that would have prevented the "seppies" from wielding any power for a couple of years. Too bad you guys had to spoil it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

If Canadians are prepared to accept separatist MPs in the House of Commons year after year, then they are not going to "rise up" because a PM prorogued Parliament for a few weeks.

I don't follow why Canadians in general would link those two ideas together the same way that you appear to connect them.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Savant Savant

Thanks for making my point! :-) Even in the discussion about this subject, people are STILL trying to make it a partisan issue. You can call it what you will, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck.

The issue of prorogation is partisan politics.

Just like it was partisan politics for the issues of the cheques with MPs names on them, or the issue where Harper was 63 seconds late for a photo at the G20, or the issue where he was accused of pocketing a communion wafer and so on. It's the JOB of partisans to pick on these issues and try and make political hay out of them. I would expect no less of the Tories to do the same. That's what politics is about.

The problem is that the public is tired of these partisan politics, and their attention span is short. So mark my words, this story will be buried by Olympic coverage, and you won't be able to buy a news story about this once the Olympics start.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

But within the neverending whirligig of partisan sniping, some lines can't be crossed. For example, arresting your opponents, or setting the dogs on them (Baird doesn't count), or . . . suspending Parliament and governing without the consent of the governed.

Even as we speak, the PM is passing on OiC's to Mme. Jean for her signature. That's how the country is governed, not with legislation. Why is Harper allowed to sit in Langevin? Only because the People allow him to. But he has given the People — or rather the People's only representatives — an enforced holiday.

To do that is to pass well beyond the usual partisan sniping.

wilson

So the first 100 prorogations, mostly by Liberal governments, was okey dokey with you Jack?

It's just when Harper uses a power exercised by Prime Ministers before him, all hell breaks loose?

Stephen Harper won a mandate from the people, twice. ACCEPT it.
Stephen Harper is afforded every lever of power afforded those before him, ACCEPT it.
Stephen Harper is heads above the last 2 Lib leaders, and will remain PM until the Libs can earn back Canadians trust, ACCEPT it.

Note to Donolo,
every time Iffy calls PM Harper 'the guy', he entrenches in Canadian's brains what a 'my shit don't stink' kinda guy he is.
Carry on.

orval

Our host definitely needs some time away from Ottawa to regain his perspective. If he is truly interested in dysfunctional politics and the struggle for democracy, I hope he will relocate to Tehran or Moscow and report from there and try to make a real difference.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"weaker and more irrelevant than the U.S. Congress or the parliaments of Britain, Australia or New Zealand."

I have no opinion about US/AUS/NZ but UK parliament is about as weak as it's possible to be since more than 70% of all new laws MPs pass originate from Brussels.

All UK MPs do now is act as rubber stamp for Belgian bureaucrats.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

That's another way of endorsing Iranian or Russian authoritarianism.
wilson

Now the detainee issue IS about the troops,
Iffy finally admitted it:

'..Liberals want to examine documents “whether Canada complied with International law and whether it has respected human rights – and a document about the conduct of our troops in the field”..

You can hear him say it here at the 16:55 mark

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/ID=138040…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

And your point is, wilson? We're attacking the troops because we want to examine those documents?

For someone who claims not to have voted Conservative in 2008, you sure do say their attack lines well, if not better.

wilson

Iffy wants to scrutinize 'a document about the conduct of our troops in the field'

I just can't make it anymore simple for yah Scott.
The troops in the field make the decisions,
following guidelines set out for them by the Generals, Cabinet and NATO.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Or by the UN. As in the Geneva Conventions. As in *against* the guidelines set out for them by the Generals and Cabinet.

Wanting to examine the document about the conduct of our troops in the field would simply be to add proof to the point that the Conservative government left our troops in the field hanging with the choice to obey the orders from a Cabinet that was too weak, too slow, or too incompetent to change a bad agreement once information had gotten back to them, or to obey their own upstanding moral code and go against those orders and not transfer detainees into a situation where there was a known, high liklihood that they'd be totured.

Gayle

She's in overdrive. She always is when Harper is on the defensive.

Personally I think she has a crush on him.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Norman_OustonBC Norman_OustonBC

Detainee stuff

Now it seems to me, and I’m not any historian on this, but if the Liberals sent the troops to Afghanistan when in power there must have been some captured detainees during that period before losing to the Conservatives.

Well, I’ll ask did the troops hand over anybody before the Conservatives won the next election? Were the Liberals as concerned about today’s “false bravado” in those early days of our military men and women’s methods?

So, if some more informed person than I could answer, I’d be appreciating it muchly.

Thanks ahead.

Gayle

They handed captured detainees over to the US troops. The government decided to work out an agreement with the Afghan government for transfer of detainees to the Afghans instead. They were also concerned about torture so they made sure that agreement contained safe-guards to protect the detainees.

It was only after Harper won the election and was Prime Minister that it became known the safe guards were inadequate and the detainees being handed over were at risk for torture. Approximately 18 months after learning this, when they were under considerable pressure from the opposition, the Harper government finally reworked that agreement.
Gayle

I should also note the original agreement was negotiated and signed in December of 2005. Harper won the election a couple weeks later.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

He had too many wackos in tow, who were there just to blow off steam. It was only when his party realised power was possible and desirable that they agreed to be muzzled (by Harper).

You can't reform this country from the outside. There are too many entrenched interests.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

As well as having too many wackos in tow, the Reform Party jettisoned too many of the Good Ideas that they had and held onto too many of the Bad Ideas.

wilson

Be specific Phil
Canada needs elected Senators and referendums, Reform ideas are not dead.
Killing the Gun Registry is now a reality.
And the choice for CWB growers is still in the works.
Ending/revamping the Indian Act is on the horizon.
Special Interest groups are being defunded.,

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

I liked the Reform ideas around Senate reform, referendums, free votes, recall and so on, with the understanding that some of those ideas needed some refining; the general intent was good. Yet, I don't see much real evidence that those ideas have survived the process of becoming the CPC.

Killing the gun registry is an example of a Bad Idea that continues to live on. I'm not totally convinced of the registry's merits, but the huge bulk of the money was spent years ago, so killing it now is mostly about emotion. Btw, does the legislation to eliminate the registry survive the prorogation?

Not sure which special interest groups you are talking about, but the one that comes to mind is the Court Challenges Program; I didn't see the problem it. For my reference, do you have a list of Special Interest Groups that have been defunded and a list of Special Interest Groups that are still receiving funding?

As for the other items in your list, in general I am supportive of revamping the Indian Act and I am skeptical about changes to the CWB.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Btw, does the legislation to eliminate the registry survive the prorogation?

No, it's dead, dead, dead. Along with much, much else.

I can't find a list of the dead bills but here are the Government's and the Private Members' bills in toto. The long gun registry was to have been scrapped via Bill 391 (a Private Member's bill).
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Somewhere, within the last few days, I have a vague memory of reading a post that indicated that Private Member's bills live on, and I did recall that the registry was being eliminated by a Private Member's bill.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Oh, really? That's interesting; and could be a factor in the Spring, eh?
Gayle

I understand that to be correct, however because Parliament was prorogued, that bill will now be delayed and will not have the opportunity to see the light of day until late 2010, or early 2011.

In the meantime, I predict we will still see the CPC using that bill for fundraising, while at the same time blaming the liberals for the delay.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Savant Savant

You seem to be assuming that I approve of the stoppage, and by extention that I am a Conservative partisan, when in actual fact I didn't think there was any real need for a prolonged prorogation. He could have prorogued and come back on the same day the house was supposed to have resumed sitting, and it would have accomplished the same thing.

With that said, the whole issue of prorogation is a big 'meh' to many people, facebook members notwithstanding. The Angus-Reid poll clearly showed that objections to this rest firmly on party lines. I would expect no different had the Liberals been in power.

The 'faux outrage' over prorogation will be replaced when the next issue comes along. Come talk to me after the Olympics and see if people (regardless of their political stripe) are still interested in this. It's the flavour of the moment, and just another partisan issue to may hay out of until something else comes along.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Well, I for one would have been just as outraged had Martin or Chretien suspended Parliament. I honestly don't see how you can class this with wafergate or what have you — whatever the unwashed masses may think (or not think, more precisely).

http://intensedebate.com/people/Savant Savant

But Chretien prorogued the house 4 times when he was PM. Heck, this is Canada's 143rd birthday this year and we've had 105 prorogations. On average that is one every 16 months. Yet why is it *now* – out of over a hundred prorogations – are people anoyed? Simple answer is that partisans are making political hay out of this and people are eating it up. It's political theatre at its finest, and I give full credit to the opposition for drumming up their support. This is really the first of the many non-stories that they have tried to get traction on that has actually gotten them more than a passing 'meh'.

The Afghan detaineee issue was the last issue that the opposition tried to get traction on, and their talking points were nearly identical. Outrage and blustering over something that people really didn't care about. (which the polls showed)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

The polls are irrelevant unless you don't have the courage to argue one side or the other, i.e. are a complete relativist. If the only things that mattered were things 80% of the population agreed were important, nothing would matter at all. Since things do matter, polls don't. Also, pretending to be the wise hands-off "Aye, weel, that's life for ye" sage is per se ridiculous.

AFAIK, only one of Chretien's prorogations is relevant (and it's quite relevant): the time he prorogued to avoid taking heat on Adscam. That's about 75% relevant, IMO, since he had a majority and could not be accused of proroguing in order to avoid a potential confidence vote; also, the very issue on which Mackay is taking such heat is whether or not he misled the House, i.e. treated Parliament with unforgiveable contempt.

Still, Chretien's prorogation in 2003 (?) was scandalous, and if Maclean's and its comment boards had existed in them days he'd have been witheringly attacked from the pro-Parliament camp, no question. But public opinion was much less vigorous in 2003 or whenever it was: all we had was letters to the editor and the odd pompous Globe editorial. Not so today. Arguments from the "Well, here's what you would have said" are both disingenous and presumptuous.

As to the other 104 prorogations, we can consult the scholars to see if any of them were as underhanded as Chretien in 2003 or (a new low) Harper's second one, but rather doubt it. You're surely aware that prorogation is supposed to be a normal part of Parliamentary procedure and is normally used as such; it's the way the PM is now using it as a tactical nuke that's exceptional and highly scandalous.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Savant Savant

But you don't think Chretien was the first to utilize prorogation as a tool to 'turn down the heat' now do you? I don't have a list of all the prorogations at hand, but I don't think it is irresponsible to suggest that if one looked through them all we would find plenty of other examples where this 'parliamentary proceedure' was used to benefit the sitting government in some manner.

As for that there were no 'comment pages' when Chretien did it, why should that matter? Does 'outrage' need to be attached to a particular social medium?

In the end it's all partisan politics at its finest. It doesn't matter what side one is on to see that this would have played out completely differently had the parties in power been reversed.

Gayle

"Yet why is it *now* – out of over a hundred prorogations – are people anoyed?"

Because he used the power to prorogue as a means to avoid accountability for lying about the Afghan detainee issue. What is it about that you have a hard time understanding?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Savant Savant

Yeah and Chretien prorogues to avoid accountability for adscam. I would suggest that both are in the same 'ball park' as far as accountability goes, and while there was the usual partisan howls of 'outrage' from the Tories, you didn't see the kind of annoyance then – lest those dastardly Conservatives sweep to power.

Like I said, this is all about partisan politics, and if it was Chretien still in power we would not be seeing the same outrage from these people who purport to be 'offended' by the actions of Harper.

Let's be clear here. I never said that I approve of this prorogation. I simply suggested that the bulk of the 'outrage' is crocodile tears being shed by partisans who would be silent had the Liberals been in power. What's more, I think the Liberals would be fools if they *didn't* try and capitalize on this, since if the tables were turned I know the Tories would.
Gayle

Probably because Harper did the same thing for the same reason 12 months ago. That time he got away with it without much upset.

I would respectfully suggest that if Chetien had done that twice in a year for the same reason you might have a point.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Savant Savant

I think you're missing my point though. The fact that Chretien did it before doesn't make it right for Harper to do the same thing. My point is that the 'outrage' back then was partisan in nature, just as it is now.

Do people honestly think that if the parties were reversed, and the circumstances identical, that the same people would be complaining? That's not point here. It's not about the leaders, it's about the partisans who are crying crocodile tears when they know full well had the shoe been on the other foot they would be defending the Liberals for the exact same thing.

I think this is why so many people don't want an election right now is since they know that they will get the same partisan politics regardless of the party they vote for.
Gayle

You hope it is partisan in nature.

Time will tell.

Mike T.

That's two, con-boy!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Savant Savant

It's funny since people mistakenly believe that just because it is a hot issue amongst those with an interest in politics that everyone in Canada is aware of it. The polls show barely half of Canadians are even following this story. The Angus Reid poll had 65% of people either not following the story closely, or not following it at all. A similar Ekos result had that number at 48%.

Like it or hate it, this is just not the big deal people make it out to be.

In the end the problem with trying to make every issue (the cheques MPs signed, the communion wafer, late to a photo op, afghan detainees etc) into an 'outrage' is much like the boy who cried "wolf" – pretty soon the public will tune it out since it becomes background noise.

wilson

I voted Indy in 2008.
Liberals are such sensitive beasts, everything is an attack!
Greg MacDonald

I am becoming increasingly disappointed with Andrew's latest efforts. His tongue in cheek article about the relevance of Parliament was a weak effort and not nearly far enough in his cheek so that a great many idiots out there will actually take him seriously and begin a movement to install a benevolent dictator a la Trudeau (his "Hero"). That was bad enough but when he comments that some bad actors in the scientific community have tarred the reputations of all scientists he goes to far. Are all writers to be condemned because they are not all honest and above board? Of course not!
Come on Andrew as that other hero of yours, Brian Mulroney once famously said "You can do better!