Absurd Logic of Opponents of Long gun Registry Revealed

In an intelligent release on their website, the LPC has shown how ridiculous arguments made by opponents of the long-gun registry are by substituting guns for other things you need to register.

Here are the interesting arguments they came up with, and which, if the Tories and others are logically consistent, you can expect to see sometime soon:

* Criminals won’t register their dogs anyway, so what’s the point?

* The government wants you to get a fishing license so they can seize all of your fishing poles!

* The car registration scheme in this country costs millions a year and does nothing to prevent road accidents!

* You already have to pass a driver’s test to be able to drive a car, so what’s the point of having to register your car?

* There was a boating accident last week, and the boating registration scheme did nothing to prevent that from happening!

Clearly, we are wasting money on futile registries. I expect Stephen Harper to do something about this. It is disgraceful.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Why we Might not Need F-35s

For starters, we already have CF-18s that are 30 years ahead technology wise over our most likely threat, the Russian TU-95s.

Secondly, as Philippe Lagassé, a defence analyst at the University of Ottawa has remarked, "it would be thoroughly against all [Russia's] national interests to ever contemplate sending a fleet of aircraft into our airspace.” Not to mention the rest of the world would be ill-advised to enter our airspace, as the US would probably view it as an action ultimately aimed against her.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Has Candice Hoeppner Even Read the RCMP on the Long-gun Registry

Tory MP Candice Hoeppner, in response to the report issued by the RCMP today on the long gun registry, said that it showed the long gun registry to be "“wasteful and ineffective.” She further claimed that "[t]he report also clearly shows that claims made by advocates of the unreliable long-gun registry about its so-called value to front-line officers are highly misleading.”

How can she possibly square these allegations with what the report actually says? The report says of the registry that it is a "useful tool," that it ensures "police are better equipped to respond to, for example, a situation of domestic violence, assess potential safety risks and confirm the possible presence of firearms and their legal status.” It also said that there is an "“ongoing need” for the regulation of firearms.

Opponents of the long gun registry can believe what they want, but it would be nice if, in such an important debate, they did not twist the facts so blatantly. If their position is tenable, then surely they do not resort to such tactics. Unless, of course, if their position is untenable.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Jack Layton Should Whip his MPs on Long-Gun Registry

When the bill to abolish the long gun registry was last put to a vote in the House of Commons, 8 Liberal MPs supported it. To avoid such an outcome on the upcoming decisive vote, Michael Ignatieff has whipped his MPs into opposing the bill. Ignatieff has understood that the registry is an important tool for police in their fight against crime. He also knows that the registry makes society safer.

Jack Layton probably knows these things, too. However, as of yet he is unwilling to whip his MPs on this issue, citing his principle of letting MPs vote their conscience on private member's bills. This is an admirable democratic principle. Yet, with the safety of citizens' at stake, Jack Layton should take a firmer stand. He should stand up for what is right. He should whip his MPs to oppose this dangerous bill.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Liberal Census Bill Shows Fundamental Difference Between Them and Conservatives

John McCallum announced today that the Liberals would introduce a private members bill reinstating the mandatory long form census, while removing the jail time penalty. The Conservatives are seeking to further hobble the power of government to take positive action in our society, whereas the Liberals are standing up for the admirable and desirable idea of a government that is able to help society. That shows the fundamental difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives believe in a government that maintains sovereignty, keeps markets free and supplies the military. Liberals believe government can do more.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Conservatives Making Shameful Use of Shock Politics

When Dmitri Soudas brought the media's notice to the incident that occurred in the arctic yesterday between two Russian bombers and two CF-18s, the intention was obvious. The Russian military often performs exercises in the Arctic near our airspace, about 12-17 times a year. Today's news was nothing of consequence.

Except for the fact that it was motivated by a desire to shock Canadians into plumping for the purchase of 65 F-35s to replace the CF-18s. This is flagrantly obvious, as such events are not normally brought to the public's attention. But with the government announcement of the purchase of the F-35s, they need some sort of justification for this $9billion and up purchase.

Does the government really believe that it can make most Canadians believe we are in danger from the Russians because they are performing routine exercises? They should be ashamed of trying to deceive the public this way.

PS: on a side note, the TU-95 Russian bombers (nicknamed bear) entered service in the Soviet airforce in 1956 and are intended for use until 2040. In comparison, the CF-18s were first put into service in 1983.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

What Tories are Missing in the Patronage Revelations

Liberal MPs Wayne Easter and Alexandra Mendes reported that since Harper's government has been in power, 20% of federal appointments had been given to Conservative supporters, constituting in their opinion a blatant case of patronage. Tory supporters thought they had the perfect mathematical defense.

Looking at the comments on news stories, you see a lot of Tories saying: "If he only appointed Tories to 20% of the jobs, then that means 80% went to Liberals, NDPers, Blocs and Greens. Why are the Liberals complaining?"

But that is not the case. When they said supporters, the Liberal MPs meant Conservative party insiders, people who had worked for the party or had given large donations to it. People that actually were Conservative party members. They did not mean anyone who voted Conservative in the last election.

Not every Canadian is a member of a political party, or is a donor to one. Far from it. To think therefore that the appointments can be divided into the ones that went to Tory supporters and the ones that went to Opposition party supporters is simply not accurate. There are plenty of public servants who, although they may have voted for a certain party, have never worked for a party or been a donor.

Those non partisan public servants have to be counted among the 80%. Which makes that 20% going to Tory insiders/members/donors look a whole lot bigger.

(However, it is true that if Easter and Mendes have the breakdown on the affiliations of the federal appointees since 2006, then surely they can release that information. They should let us see how many Liberal party members, NDP party members, Bloc party members, Green party members and non partisans were appointed. That would provide the transparency they maintain they seek.)

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Harper's Conservatives = Soft on Crime

Stephen Harper's Conservatives have prided themselves on being a party that is tough on crime, pushing for certain minimum sentences and announcing plans to build new prisons in order to convey that image. However, they are now coming into conflict with their partners in the war against crime, the police. If this isn't a signal of being soft on crime, then what is?

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) approved a resolution at its meeting earlier today that asserted the importance of the long form to police work. It reads that “ police agencies throughout Canada depend on reliable, comprehensive demographic statistical information provided by Statistics Canada to establish policing priorities and to determine policing services for their communities" and that “the long form census used by Statistics Canada is the basic tool for gathering the necessary statistical information while protecting the confidentiality of such information.”

In other words, the Harper government, by rendering the long form census impotent, are crippling the efforts of the police to reduce and stop crime. The police will no longer possess this crucial information, a tool they used to stop the crime Harper claims to want to stop also.

Perhaps more indicative is the further stance the CACP adopted on the long gun registry. They unanimously adopted a resolution calling on police leaders and officers to explain to the public and politicians the value and importance of the long gun registry.

Police across the country consult the database 11000 times per day. It is according to Chief Blair, the head of the CACP, "a tool that we need, that we use every day. And if you take it away from us, you are diminishing our capacity to keep our communities safe.”

Harper maintained today that "Canadians have been very clear they want us to spend our time and our money focusing on the criminal misuse of firearms and not going after law abiding duck hunters and farmers." The CACP, who should know about this area after all, are telling him loud and clear that if he wants to focus on public safety, he should not abolish the long gun registry. The two aren't irreconcilable. After all, the police are not putting duck hunters and farmers in prison.

Maybe Harper should listen to his partners in the war on crime. Maybe he should listen to those who actually are tough on crime, rather than to those that are blinded by ideology.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Conservative Party Workers Fraudulently Posing as PMO Staffers, "Elections Centre"?

In a letter to the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings asks him to look into allegations of the Conservative party soliciting donations from Conservative party members from the PMO. This would be in contravention of Section 92.1 of the Elections Canada Act that "requires that a donation in-kind to be declared to Elections Canada whenever an organization allows a political party to use its facilities to raise funds" if no such donation in kind was made. If the calls were in fact coming from party headquarters, that would constitute fraud.

Jennings goes on to bring Mayrand's attention to allegations she has received claiming that Conservative party workers have been making phone calls posing as a fictitious "Elections Centre" with the aim to gather information on voters. It would appear that if this is the case the Conservative Party is using the similarity between "Elections Centre" and "Elections Canada" to fraudulently obtain information from Canadians.

If proven true, these are very serious allegations. Marc Mayrand should give them the utmost attention.

Here is the link to the letter from Jennings to Mayrand.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Cheliak bilingual a year ago, but not any longer?

If it were not apparent that the Harper government does not believe in the independence and expertise of public servants, there is almost no doubt about it following the removal of Marty Cheliak from his post as acting Director General of the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP). The reason offered for his removal from the post, that he does not meet the bilingual requirement for the job, immediately arouses suspicion.

Cheliak was appointed Director General of the CFP in August 2009. It is safe to assume that he was no more bilingual then than he is now. After all, most people who are bilingual don't lose the ability to speak both languages in a year. Clearly, if Cheliak is not bilingual now, he was not bilingual then. It follows with undeniable logic that he therefore did not fulfill the bilingual requirements for the job.

The RCMP would have definitely known this a year ago. Unless the bilingual requirements for the job have been modified, which they have not because otherwise the RCMP would have said so in their press release. It appears that the RCMP was willing to overlook the bilingual requirement a year ago, if indeed it exists. The question thus becomes, who has brought the RCMP's attention to Cheliak's shortcomings? And if so why now?

The candidate that comes to mind is Stephen Harper. After all, there is the tell-tale sign of a classic Harper vs public servant duel, disagreement over a hot-button issue. Linda Keen disagreed with the Harper government over the handling of the Chalk River reactor. She was fired. Pat Strogan criticized Ottawa's handling of veterans' and he is now being shown the door. Cheliak was an advocate of the long gun registry, a system he said protected Canadians. He had also formed a coalition of various groups, including front line officers, in favour of the long-gun registry.

Now he is fired. Interestingly the final vote on the bill to abolish the long gun registry will be held when Parliament resumes in September and the outcome is by no means certain. With Cheliak organizing significant and telling opposition (who would know better than officers whether or not the long-gun registry is effective), the Conservatives had a formidable adversary.

This is the only possible reason for the timing of the decision. True, this firing looks subtler than that of others who have defied Harper. However, the point remains: Cheliak could not have been bilingual a year ago, but not be any longer.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Let's Make the Census Crisis as Big as Prorogation

With Jack Layton calling for an emergency debate when the House reconvenes, we can provide support by joining the facebook group advocating the retention of the mandatory long form census. Let's show Stepehn Harper there's just as much anger over this issue as over prorogation.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Clement's version of robust and reliable data

On the CBC Radio program The House, Tony Clement stated today that there would be no further census concessions. The reason it seems is that Clement believes that he "[is] meeting the objections of those who are concerned about robust and reliable data." I guess he thinks that a 50% response rate is robust and reliable.

The sad fact though is that it isn't. It is fair to say that experts at Statscan, who have made it their life's work to deal with statistics, would know more about what constitutes robust and reliable data than he does, and that therefore we should follow their advice of maintaining the status quo. That is if you're not talking to the experts Clement alleges exist at Statscan that believe that a voluntary long form is a perfectly acceptable substitute for the mandatory long form

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Tony Clement shows very worrying incompetence

In his interview earlier today with Evan Solomon on Power and Politics, Tony Clement showed two worrying signs of incompetence when attempting to establish the credibility of his new voluntary National Household Survey.

Contrasting the government's decision to scrap the mandatory long form census with the recommendation of StatsCan experts to keep the status quo, Clement offered what he seemed to think was an explanation showing that the new voluntary survey would be a statistical equivalent to the former mandatory long form census.

"We knew, Clement said, that the response rate would be lower, that's why we doubled the sample size. So the evidence is there that we're making it clear that of course you're going to have a lower response rate from a voluntary form versus a mandatory form. That's why you double the sample size and that's why even if you go down to 50% you have a fairly large sample to draw from."

The first issue in this comment is that Clement does not know his own plan. The former mandatory long form census was sent to 20% of households. The new voluntary form is proposed to be sent to 30% of households. Last time I checked 20 times two did not equal 30. For a minister that whose portfolio encompasses responsibility for Statistics Canada, this is worrying.

Secondly, Tony Clement seems to be implying that the by increasing the sample size, you're doing away with the main problem of a voluntary survey. While it is true that this might mean a similar final sample size, due to lower rates of participation on a voluntary survey, it does not mean that the two options would be comparable. The quality of the two different samples is not the same just because they are the same size.

With a voluntary survey, the sample is no longer as random. In fact, it becomes somewhat self-selecting. Certain groups will be less willing, due to factors such as busyness, to participate in a voluntary survey. So the sample that Clement's new survey will yield will not be as random or varied. Therefore the results will be much less of an indicator of the life of an average Canadian. Increasing the sample size of a voluntary survey does nothing to prevent this.

Tony Clement and the rest of the government have shown contempt for government based on evidence and information. The decision to scrap the mandatory long form census further showed that. Now they are either proving their incompetence, or believing that Canadians cannot see through such specious arguments.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Harper continues to be unconstitutional

University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes told opposition MPs the Tories' refusal to hand over documents on Afghan prisoners makes a “mockery” of Parliament and is unconstitutional.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Take Away Harper's Right to Prorogue

Technically, of course, it is not within the Prime Minister's purview to prorogue Parliament, as he is required by law to make this request to the Governor General. The Governor General could refuse, but, as with all monarchical powers, usually does not exert her right to deny Prime Ministers' requests. Effectively then, the Prime Minister now wields power he was not intended to have. We have seen the abuses, thanks to Stephen Harper, that can occur when this power is granted to a Prime Minister. Therefore, it seems only sensible that this power should be taken away from the Prime Minister, and given to those who would stop such an abuse of power.

Jack Layton has proposed to give this power to the MPs in the House of Commons. Only if a majority of MPs were to agree to the suspension of Parliament would Parliament be prorogued. The intent is obviously to prevent Prime Ministers from succumbing to their undemocratic and partisan tendencies.

This is proposal is well-founded and is the right approach to take, but it is nevertheless not perfect. Due to the stringent, and some say excessive, party discipline in our parliamentary system, such a proposal does not negate the possibility of an abusive prorogation if the government in power has a majority. In that case, all that the government would have to do is to whip the vote, and it would obtain the prorogation it desires.

Hence, it is necessary to curb as much as possible the potential for party discipline to essentially reprovide the Prime Minister with his power to prorogue. One necessary measure would be to ensure that votes on whether or not to prorogue would not be allowed to be confidence votes.

The ideal would be to give the power to prorogue to an impartial observer, in theory the Governor General. But the Governor General is hampered by constitutional convention, and would potentially face outrage if she were to use her power to deny prorogation. With certain provisions however, it seems a vote of MPs is the closest we'll get to this ideal.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

What the House of Commons is now being used for, thanks to Harper

The product of all of Harper's hard work. From the Rick Mercer report:

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Harper's Disdain for democracy continues

Stephen Harper will propose new Senate Reform bills in the next session, according to the Hill Times. It may look to some like Harper is acting to bring more democracy to Canada, after he has exhibited shameful disdain for democracy in prorogation. However, the way in which Harper proposes to bring this reform goes against our form of government just as much as prorogation.

Stephen Harper is seeking to superimpose bills passed by Parliament onto the Constitution, and make them override the clauses in the constitution regarding the Senate. The proper procedure that experts have identified would be to follow the usual procedure for such amendments, namely obtaining consent of 7 provinces with more than 50% of Canada's population.

Stephen Harper may say he wants to bring more democracy with these bills, but if he proposes them, that will be yet another undemocratic action in a growing list.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Harper Calls his own Prorogation Anti-democratic

Here is what Stephen Harper thinks about governments avoiding dissent: "When government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern."

Too bad for Canadians that that was in 2005. I guess even the great tactician has to change his mind sometimes.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Harper on Democracy: It causes instability

It seems that, instead of sticking to his mediocre defences for proroguing Parliament, Stephen Harper has felt the compunction to provide another defence more ludicrous than the rest. In an interview with BNN, Harper first claimed that his move to prorogue Parliament has not hurt Canadian democracy. He followed this willfully blind comment with the following:

"As soon as parliament comes back, we're in a minority Parliament situation and the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there will be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year That's the kind of instability I think that markets are actually worried about."

Harper claimed this so as to be able to purport that prorogation was of benefit to the economy, as it eliminates the instability caused by democracy. This shows either a great lack of political tact, or a profound undervaluing of democracy.

Democracy does not exist to serve the economy. It exists rather to allow the governed to enter into a social contract with their government, which stipulates that they can determine the formation of that government. If this were to interfere with markets, then so be it.

In addition, there is no foundation on which Stephen Harper can base this argument. Canada has been growing at rates faster than the rest of the G8 for the last few years, and all of these have been years of minority government, governments yielding the instability Harper decries. Therefore, it cannot be the case that minority government instability has a negative effect on the economy.

Stephen Harper got his economics wrong, and what's more, provided yet another episode evidencing contempt of democracy in the saga that has been his relationship with Parliament.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

The Speakers should protect Parliament

Both Houses of the Canadian Parliament, the Senate and the HOC have their own speakers. These speakers have many roles, including moderating debate. However, they also have a role that has progressively become ceremonial, that of representing their Houses to any other bodies, such as the Crown (in Canada effectively the Governor General).

This is the role that they should fulfill in the current parliamentary crisis. This, for once, is a matter in which Parliament, through its two speakers, needs to be represented. This is entirely within the purview of the Speakers, as although this role of representing their Houses has taken on a ceremonial character, they are still the only individuals who could legally fulfill it.

This idea of representing Parliament may sound nebulous, but in this current prorogation it has the potential of being concrete. If the Speakers were to take their roles as representatives of the two houses of Parliament seriously, they should be dutifully appalled by the total disregard, disdain, and contempt for Parliament that this prorogation shows. They should make a public announcement to this effect, calling for the reconvening of Parliament, and solicit the governor general on this issue, and if that is to no avail, then perhaps even the Queen.

Of course, it is unlikely that the last option would have much weight, and neither is it likely that the governor-general would now overturn her decision to allow prorogation. However, what is certain is that it would heighten public awareness of the issue and exemplify the extent to which our democracy is being taken from us.

Speakers used to be killed for the news they brought their sovereign of deliberations within the forums of democracy. It is at such a historic and significant time as now that the Speakers should assume that mantle of courage of their predecessors and defend the institution they represent. It is at times such as these that they should use their legally conferred powers to the true extent of their original intention.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

This Prorogation Should Trigger Reform of Parliament

At a time like this, when our Parliamentary government has been abused, we are made more aware of the disrepair the whole edifice is falling into. The most urgent problem we face is the loss of authority Parliament has suffered. Parliament's committees are ineffectual, and more importantly, Parliament can be cowed into following the Prime Minister's wishes through threats of confidence votes.

One of the roots of this loss of authority is the lack of deliberation that occurs in Parliament. Parliamentary debate in Canada is determined for the large majority of issues on the basis of party affiliation. This, along with the growing impotence of committees, is leaving MPs with a less significant role. Consequently, Parliament is on its way, gradually, of becoming a rubber stamp as there is no doubt as to how MPs will vote.

Party discipline is often essential for efficient government. You need only look to the US Congress to see the rampaging effects of loose party discipline. However, it is still possible to have a Westminster style for of government and still give MPs more leeway. One way this could be done is to require confidence votes to be on budgets and Opposition days. This would prevent the fearmongering by overzealous and domineering PMs who render every vote a confidence matter.

I have by no means examined this proposal thoroughly, or examined others in depth either. However, it is clear that their are problems endemic to our Parliament that should be reformed. And what better time to do this than when the case for reform is being most eloquently put by a PM's prorogation of Parliament?

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

The Economist takes note of Harper's high handedness

The Economist's article on Harper's prorogation of Parliament mentions two interesting ideas that, while they have been cursorily addressed, are deserving of more consideration than have been given them by the media and the public here.

We have concentrated much on the disdain for Parliament that this chronic prorogation represents. However, Harper's case is not just one of disdain for Parliament, it is a desire to make "Parliament accountable to him rather than the other way around." This idea has been grasped, but it is emphasized further when stated this way. It really reveals the sheer incongruity between Harper's actions and democratic principles.

What's more, and this is the second thing the Economist picks up on, Stephen Harper's announcement itself confirmed a disdain for our democratic constitution. He announced, through his spokesman, that Parliament had been prorogued, prior to an announcement from the Governor General. He has effectively taken over her role of approving prorogation. If there were any doubts, this is confirmed by the irreverent manner in which Harper petitioned the Governor General: a phone call. Instead of acknowledging prorogation as within her powers, not his, Harper heavy handedly took control of this.

We see then that Stephen Harper has taken two things unto himself which were never meant for a Prime Minister: Parliament is now accountable to him, and he has taken the power of prorogation from the rightful wielder of that power. He is continuing not only his tradition of avoiding scrutiny and democratic accountability. He is also ensuring through this prorogation that his power continues to grow inexorably.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Liberal MPs to defy Prorogation, Show up to work on Jan. 25

In a news bulletin published an hour ago on macleans.ca, Liberal MPs will meet in the House of Commons or near it in defiance of prorogation. Instead of not showing up on Parliament Hill, they will carry out to the best of their abilities Parliamentary work.

This would not seem to be only a handful of MPs doing so unofficially, as Bob Rae announced that “[Harper] can’t shut down the issues. He can’t stop people from asking questions about the Afghan detainee issue. He can’t stop people from asking questions about the budget. He can’t stop people from talking about politics.” The intention clearly is to keep the spotlight on these issues, whether the government likes it or not.

This was the right move as critics were lambasting the opposition parties for whining about prorogation without even being willing to engage in a mock Parliament. Now that criticism is refuted and the contrast between the Liberals and the Conservatives should emerge, showing the one's willingness to acquit themselves of the duties they were elected to perform, and the other's growing disregard for democracy.

What has to happen now is that the NDP and the Bloc sign on. This will give this form of protest legitimacy. It would give validity to the claim that Parliament is sitting despite being prorogued. It would hearken to the days of the French Revolution when the Third Estate met in the tennis court, in defiance of the rest of the Estates General oppression of the masses.

Only if the other parties join in can this have its maximum impact. Now if only there were courageous Conservative MPs that joined in. They would be doing their country a great service by putting the national interest above partisan politics and party discipline.

This, coupled with the now 79, 310 members strong Facebook group should show the Conservatives that the nation is truly incensed by his disdain for democracy.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Debunking Conservative Myths on Prorogation

As fig leaves covering the real reasons Parliament was prorogued (the Afghan detainee issue and the composition of Senate committees), Stephen Harper and his Conservatives have advanced two myths or half truths regarding prorogation: that is a common procedure and that it is necessary for the government as it seeks to recalibrate its agenda.

While prorogation is common, occurring 105 times, as the Conservatives are fond of reminding us, since Confederation, it is highly uncommon to have such long prorogations This is important because it reveals that prorogation was often a matter of course, necessary, and that it was never used to suspend Parliament for extended periods of time. This is what the Conservatives have done, with 37 days of prorogation.

A look at the length of a Parliament (this is the duration between elections) and the proportion of that Parliament being spent in session bears this out. (Consult this website for parliament lengths and session lengths) With 354 of 416 days of this current Parliament spent in session, the percent of this Parliament spent in session is 86%.

Compare that with Harper's own previous Parliament. For some reason the percentage of the Parliament spent in session was 96%. Notice any discrepancy? The trend continues with further historical data. Previous Parliaments had rates of 100%, 92%, 98% and the list goes on.

So, for Harper to say that prorogation is common is right, but this obfuscates the fact that it has never previously been used to lock out MPS for any substantial portion of the duration of that Parliament.

As for the second myth, that the government needs prorogation to set their agenda for next year, that could not be further from the truth. Consider Harper's own previous Parliament. If that is the case, then why wasn't he proroguing so much, and locking out MPs for months at a time? Either Mr. Harper has to admit that he was previously incompetent in this matter or that he is twisting the truth. And as we know the first proposition is false, it must be the latter.

Shame on the Conservatives for such twisting of the truth. They deprive us of democracy and attempt to convince us that this has been commonplace, and that moreover it is necessary.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere