News broke today that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is going to once again prorogue government for a few weeks this fall and will present a new throne speech. You may recall the last time the PM prorogued government during the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, opposition MPs (led by Ignatieff) went bananas and decried the move as destroying our democracy, blah, blah, blah. This in turn inspired some college kid to start a Facebook page against prorogation, which tried to organize mass protests across the country (with plenty of promotion from the CBC) where attendance fell far short of expectations. A year later we had a new election and Stephen Harper won a majority government, proving this "grassroots movement" had died off, or never really existed.
Now the PM is proroguing again in 2013, and the same day this announcement was made, CBC blogger Kady O'Malley wrote a piece titled "3 reasons not to freak out over the upcoming prorogation" where she writes in her opening paragraph "let's all take a deep breath before hauling the anti-prorogation picket signs out of storage and hitting the barricades, shall we?" She then proceeds to outline why it is perfectly reasonable for the Prime Minister to prorogue parliament, in a perfectly rational article. Kady is not well known for writing articles favourable of Prime Minister Harper, where bloggers like me have long complained about her flagrant left wing bias as a CBC employee. Ironically if you scroll down to the comment section of her latest post, it seems as though her readers have turned on her (at least for this piece), all but accusing her of being a lap dog for the PMO. Here are some of the comments:
"Posted no doubt at the request of the PMO Commissar, to try to placate the masses."
-hughy294
"The headline itself is meant to sway your opinion."
-holyhannah
"This article courtesy of The Criminal Party of Canada."
-WatsonDatelli
"Kady O'Malley...is there a senate appointment upcoming for you that we don't know about?"
-rink rat
"Kady, when did you go on the PMO payroll? CBC isn't even under direct control yet but you sound like you're reading from a Harper script."
-garbal54
"Perhaps Kady has lost her spine now that the conservatives control the CBC. We don't want to speak badly about our bosses lest we find ourselves on the street"
-againstthewind
"If you seriously believe and or support anything that Stephen Harper says, you are in need of counselling."
-Citizen Joe
Wow, these are the type of comments generally reserved for Conservative writers, and I didn't even read them all! It feels like Kady almost deserves some credit for writing this piece, judging by the animosity coming from blowhards who normally agree with her. She was among the "CBC bloggers" who went bananas in 2010 and pushed the anti-prorogation agenda as hard as anyone in the national media. Now she believes it is reasonable to prorogue parliament, or at least when the PM has a majority government.
The times sure are a changing!
There is one more reason; that being that the "progressive" shills in the media know that we will roast them over the Ontario Liberal's/McQuinty's prorogation like a Texas BBQ if they bleat even one word against prorogation.
ReplyDeleteSauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. :D
Kady may perhaps have spent to much time in the summer sun with no hat on.
ReplyDeleteON has been hotter then Hades lately.
One cannot understand the left-wing rants on Kady's best day, and this comes as quite any surprise. Who would have thought and witnessed how quickly the staunch left would turn on one of their own?
Keep em coming Kady, I like the new profile.
I must say for a change, this is refreshing - No?
Or...
ReplyDeleteThere is the use of prorogation that is a customary, measured practice of government when it has more or less finished it's legislative agenda and needs to set new horizons, something every Prime Minister has done...
And then there is the use of prorogation to avoid accountability and democracy when the government still has more than half its legislative agenda to accomplish but is being brutalized for its efforts to avoid difficult accountability questions.
The prorogation coming is of the first sort. The prorogations past - 2 of the 3 prior prorogations by Harper (one to avoid a non-confidence vote he had already said he would hold and the other to avoid a contempt vote on his refusal to release detainee documents he was required to release) - have only one real precedent (MacDonald proroging Parliament to avoid the report on the Pacific Scandal), and Harper has done it twice.
There is a difference. That's why O'Malley, other journalists and even many Liberals (like Scott Reid) are noting the difference. It's that "nuance" and "context" thing conservatives often rail against.
This is for Ted: you conveniently forgot to mention that Jean Chretien prorogued to avoid questions from the Auditor General over the Sponsorship scandal, by the way The Liberal Party ended up pocketing 40 million taxpayers dollars into their bank account. The Gomery Commission ordered the Liberals to repay in 2005.Here we are in 2013 amount repaid (0), zero, nada. This scandal was the biggest in Canadian History.
ReplyDeleteRich,
ReplyDeleteChretien did do that, but the timing of the report was not delayed and his legislative agenda was pretty much completed. So it's definitely arguable both ways, I grant you that. Prorogation to take the heat off and change the channel, but not really to avoid accountability. Very similar to what Harper is doing now: avoid his senate spending scandal, but the accountability on that will still happen as the hearings and criminal investigations will not be stopped. Which is why I don't have an issue with either prorogation. As possibly distasteful as they may be, they are consistent with past prorogations.
The rest of your comment is just partisan claptrap that has only a loose connection to the actual facts. The $40 million is a myth created by opponents of the Liberals so no need to address.
That's funny. Just last week I sent her an email complaining of her left wing bias. She emailed back denying it.
ReplyDeleteSorry Ted, but the auditors hired for the finery commission, the Same ones who did enron, stated $43 million was unaccounted for. As for Chretien he prorogued to avoid having to face being the pm at the time the ah report came out.
ReplyDeleteThat is correct, Paul. But that is not what was stated up above. $43M was unaccounted for. Several million of that was actually stolen from the Liberals. The balance no doubt went to many who some operatives were trying to get to help the Liberals. Some went from the government to the Liberals and was repaid.
ReplyDeleteAs for Chretien proroging, I also don't disagree with that statement. But it is also more in line with other regular prorogations since the prorogation was not done to avoid accountability: the report was not delayed, investigations were not stopped, etc. Convenient for him, without a doubt, and face saving, helped the Liberals try to change the agenda, yes.
But the oversight of the government was not affected and the work of the oversight bodies (i.e. in that case the Auditor General; in Harper's case now the RCMP, the Auditor General, etc.) continued along its ordinary course unaffected.
Harper is clearly trying to avoid question period and save some face here, and to change the channel, so it leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, looks cowardly, shows a lack of leadership, as did Chretien, a lot of partisan political benefit to the prorogation without a doubt.
But this latest prorogation by Harper and Chretien's are/were much more in line with ordinary prorogations of the past (especially in the transition from one leader to the next), unlike Harper's other two prorogations which were really only about avoiding accountability and votes in Parliament and therefore anti-democratic and setting a dangerous precedent.
If a PM can simply stop votes he will use or avoid investigations he doesn't want by proroguing, surely even the partisans can admit that is not an appropriate use of Prime Ministerial privilege.
That should read "stop votes he will lose", i.e. the vote of confidence he said he would hold but cancelled and prorogued when he realized he would lose that vote and government.
DeleteLiberals are bottom feeding dogs!
DeleteKady O'Malley has some company in the article "Prorogue nation" by Colin Horgan (iPolitics).
ReplyDeleteEven though the article is kind of snarky against Conservatives, it nevertheless points out "Turning it [prorogation] into a dirty word helps nobody and is short-sighted at the very least."
One possible reason for grudgingly accepting prorogation in some media circles, if not welcoming it this time around, was suggested by someone on a political panel (I can't remember where). Supporters of Justin Trudeau realize his performance in QP is less than stellar, so the less exposure he has there, the better. Better for him to concentrate on the BBQ & dinner circuit pressing the flesh & flashing his smile, especially now that another little Trudeau is on the way. That will set even more hearts aflutter.
-- Gabby in QC
O/T could this be another Liberal scandal
ReplyDeletehttp://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=99186
fhl
very little about this in MM
ReplyDeletePM Harper speech Hay River
http://www.stephenharper.ca/NorthernTour/