We Are Not the Good Guys

An editorial in the March 13 Globe & Mail starts, "While Canada keeps its human-rights reports on Afghanistan... strictly secret, the U.S. state department posted its 2009 report on its website Thursday for anyone who cares to read it. The report says about its Afghan ally, in part: 'Torture and abuse methods included, but were not limited to, beating by stick, scorching bar, or iron bar; flogging by cable; battering by rod; electric shock; deprivation of sleep, water, and food; abusive language; sexual humiliation; and rape...'"

The US report certainly backs up Richard Colvin's testimony that Afghans detained by Canadian troops were routinely tortured in Afghan jails. Not long ago PMO talking points claimed that the only torture was one detainee having a shoe thrown at him. They were claiming that since Colvin hadn't seen the torture firsthand, his testimony was bogus and the torture never occurred. Plus they were claiming that all detainees were murderous terrorists, rather than Colvin's testimony (backed up by the US reports) that many detainees were just ordinary Afghans who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Conservatives also claimed these things in the Comments sections of this blog (eg here). My question is: what do you have to say now? Is the US government lying too?

It's clear now why Harper prorogued parliament. He needed to create a gap in time between all those hateful things MacKay shouted last fall and the exposure of everything MacKay said as utter, self-serving lies. It also gave him time to come up with a new strategy: try to smear the previous Liberal government as much as possible before the full truth comes out so that he can say that he wasn't the only one to blame. (Not that I oppose exposing actions by the Martin government; as Ignatieff has stated all along, the investigation should not exclude Martin.)

Harper's deceitful, undemocratic actions are shameful. But the most important part of this affair continues to be this: When we have armed troops in another country, we have an absolute obligation to respect the human rights of the people in that country - and to be seen to do so. We have failed so spectacularly that we are not only in contravention of the Geneva Convention, but our government is known to be engaged in a coverup of our abuses. We must withdraw from Afghanistan immediately, have a full investigation, and start to think about reparations.

###

When Prorogation Ends

For the NDP and Liberals, this is not an ideal time for an election. Jack Layton is laid up with treatments for his recently-diagnosed cancer. The Liberals (according to James Travers) are "a policy conference, an election platform and at least six months away from campaign readiness."

For Harper, an election might not look so bad. It's increasingly looking like Harper's advantage in the polls last fall was a blip brought on by Ignatieff's goof of saying he wanted an election less one year after the previous one. These current polls may be as good as Harper is going to get: Ignatieff will only get stronger over the next few months. Plus, Harper could be in big trouble once those Afghan detainee papers come out: as is frequently the case, the cover-up (and blatant lies) may be more harmful than the base issue. Some politicians would hold off on an election when a rival is getting cancer treatments, but we all know that Harper is not that kind of guy. His only concern will be to pin the blame of an election on the opposition.

Given this situation, what can we do to take a stand against Canada's rogue PM and his precedent-setting dismissal of our democracy?

We could try again to get him to release the Afghan detainee documents (perhaps with a point of privilege), and if he refused we could hold him in contempt of parliament. But that would make it hard to avoid an election - and worse, avoid having it look like we caused it.

Travers suggests that Parliament could force Harper to seek parliamentary approval to shutter the House again during March and April breaks. But doesn't that highlight the wrong issue? Harper should not be unilaterally cancelling parliamentary breaks, but his more serious transgression was shutting down parliament through prorogation.

I think the solution is to push the Afghan detainee torture papers, but stop short of holding Harper in contempt. Compromise on how they're released, if necessary, but get them into play.

Secondly, we cannot let this egregious prorogation slide. Ignatieff and Layton could propose a joint motion aimed at restoring the supremacy of parliament by restricting a PM's use of prorogation.

The trick is to hit Harper hard without letting him make an election out of it.

###

This is Who K-W Elected to Represent Us in Federal Parliament

Watch this:



Update: I'm re-imbedding in the hopes that this won't start automatically anymore. (Thanks, Bert!) While doing that I noticed that someone changed the title from something like, "Peter Braid lies, sweats, nearly cries" to "Conservative MP Peter Braid is dressed down and upbraided on CTV". I'm not sure who that change benefits...

###

Waterloo Anti-Prorogation Rally a Great Success

The Record estimated 500 at today's rally in front of Waterloo Square, but I made it more like 600.

It was a great event. The atmosphere was upbeat but serious. The speakers were excellent (in part because their remarks were brief) and they crossed the spectrum: all the opposition parties, independents, religious groups, and so on. It was organized brilliantly: many thanks to those behind it. Afterwards there was free hot chocolate and then a benefit for Haiti at a nearby eatery.

###

Only in Canada: Harper's prorogation is a Canadian thing

From Only in Canada: Harper's prorogation is a Canadian thing in today's Montreal Gazette:

Go searching for the last time a Westminster-style parliament was shut down to free its leaders from unwanted censure or scrutiny — and you'll end right back in Canada, where you started.

It turns out, no other English-speaking nation with a system of government like ours — not Britain, Australia or New Zealand — has ever had its parliament prorogued in modern times, so that its ruling party could avoid an investigation, or a vote of confidence, by other elected legislators.

Only three times has this happened, all in Canada — first in 1873, when Sir John A. Macdonald asked the governor general to prorogue Parliament, in order to halt a House of Commons probe into the Pacific Scandal. Lord Dufferin gave in to the demand, but when Parliament reconvened Macdonald was forced to resign.

No prime minister dared use prorogation to such effect again, until Stephen Harper convinced Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to suspend Parliament in 2008, so the Conservatives could evade a confidence vote.

About 12 months later, he did it again.

...

But as Ned Franks points out, the strength of the federal government — and the prime minister's own authority — must flow through Parliament. If Parliament is weak, and if the prime minister ignores its members and tries to rule without their consent, then his legal right to govern evaporates.

In a Westminster system, this is Parliament's core democratic function — to legitimize executive power.

King Charles I learned this lesson the hard way more than 300 years ago, by trying to govern without the English Parliament's consent. When he finally dismissed it, political opponents responded by cutting off his head.

"By shutting down Parliament all by himself, Harper is acting in muchthe same fashion," says Franks. "We should call him King Stephen the First of Canada, for that, in effect, is the way he is behaving."

The Conservative Lie Machine has been so effective that many Canadians actually believe that prorogations by Chretien and Trudeau were equivalent to Harper's prorogations. Eventually knowledgeable people will prevail in getting out the truth, but it will be too late and we may very well be saddled with a dangerous extremist majority government.

###

The Harper Attack on Canadian Democracy Documented

Seriously. The best source of links on a topic I've ever seen. Check it out:

Defend Parliament's Facebook topic "Harper Attack on Canadian Democracy Documented"

If you have any time left over, read this Fair Whistleblower site on Richard Colvin.

###

Make Perogies Not Prorogies!

After a Ukranian friend taught me how to make perogies, I played with the recipe to make it foolproof, added some non-traditional options, and published it in my 1994 cookbook, Akiddeleediveydoo. Here it is, for your foodemocractic pleasure...

Perogies

These are extremely tasty perogies, and easy to make. The mix of flavors is wonderful. Use fairly smooth mashed potatoes, made with potatoes, milk and butter - or however you usually make it.

Dough:
1 egg, lightly beaten
1 tsp salt
2 T oil
1 cup milk
3 cups flour

Filling base:
8 oz pressed cottage cheese (250 g)
4 oz cream cheese (125 g)
1 cup mashed potato
1/2 tsp salt
1 large garlic clove, minced

To make the dough, mix the egg, salt and oil, and then stir in the milk. Stir in the flour. Knead for 5 minutes, adding more flour to keep the dough from sticking.

To make the filling, blend the pressed cottage cheese, cream cheese, potato, salt and garlic. Optionally, separate into four small bowls and add one of the following seasonings to each bowl.

Bacon and cheese:
2 slices bacon, cooked, drained and crumbled
1 tsp bacon fat
1 T grated cheese (provolone, cheddar, or whatever you like)

Sauerkraut:
1/4 cup sauerkraut, drained
1 tsp caraway seeds

Dill:
1/2 tsp dried dill weed
1 T pine nuts, diced
1 tsp butter, softened
1/2 tsp Tabasco

Tarragon:
1/2 tsp dried tarragon
1/4 cup green onion, diced
1 tsp softened butter

Walnut:
1 T walnuts, dcied
1 T Romano or Parmesan cheese, grated
I T grated cheese (cheddar, provolone, or whatever you like)
1 tsp softened butter

Cheese:
2-3 T cheese, grated (cheddar, provolone, or whatever you like)

Roll the dough out very thin, using more flour to keep it from sticking. Place a mug of warm water next to you. With a sharp knife, cut a piece about 4" square. It doesn't matter if the piece is irregular or if it is larger or smaller. Put a glob of filling on the dough, as much as will fit, and stretch the dough over it. Dip your index finger in the water and use it to seal the dough. If desired, press it with the tines of a fork. Seal well. Do this with all the dough and filling: each of the four bowls will make six large or ten small perogies.

To cook, bring a large pot of water to a low boil. drop one batch of perogies in at a time, and boil about 5 minutes, until they float to the surface. do not let the water boil too hard or the perogies will burst. Drain the perogies and pour a little melted butter over them. If you like, you can lightly fry the perogies in butter after boiling them.

Serve with sour cream. Optionally, also serve with fried onions.

The cooked perogies freeze very well if spread out (not touching) on wax paper.

###

PM creates 'dictatorial environment' by shutting down Parliament

From today's Hill Times:

PM creates 'dictatorial environment' by shutting down Parliament

Peter Tinsley says the latest confrontation between the opposition and the government over the detainee issue could lead to a 'crisis' in Canada's system of government.

By TIM NAUMETZ
Published January 11, 2010

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament for two months has added to a "dictatorial environment" that took root during a military police watchdog inquiry into the fate of Afghanistan war detainees and a Commons inquiry into the same controversy, says the former head of the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Former commission chair Peter Tinsley, whose tenure Prime Minister Harper (Calgary Southeast, Alta.) declined to renew last month when the commission was locked in a battle with the government over access to witnesses and documents, said the latest confrontation between the opposition and the government over the detainee issue could lead to a "crisis" in Canada's system of government.

Mr. Tinsley said in an interview with The Hill Times one of the country's democratic foundations—the supremacy of Parliament—is at stake in the unprecedented standoff.

As public rejection grew last week over Mr. Harper's decision to ask Governor General Michaëlle Jean to end the Parliamentary session on Dec. 30, Mr. Tinsley appeared to have little doubt the move was primarily aimed at removing the opposition's ability to continue to probe allegations of detainee torture through a special Commons committee on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

The committee launched an inquiry into the torture allegations after the government began challenging the Military Police Commission inquiry in Federal Court and invoked the Canada Evidence Act to prevent testimony from a key witness who served with the Foreign Affairs Department as a political affairs officer in Kandahar.

The suspension of Parliament also allows Mr. Harper to delay a confrontation in the Commons over a motion the opposition majority passed ordering the government to disclose evidence, in the form of redacted and undisclosed military and government documents, that could prove or refute allegations by the Foreign Affairs officer that the government attempted to suppress his warnings detainees Canadian troops transferred to Afghan civil and secret police were likely tortured.

Mr. Tinsley said the sudden end to Parliamentary business—which Mr. Harper insists was necessary to allow the government to "recalibrate" itself and begin planning for a March 4 budget while taking control over Senate committees from the Liberals—is the culmination of a disturbing trend that began in late 2007 when his commission began an inquiry into allegations of detainee torture.

"That's where it all started," Mr. Tinsley said, adding that the government's refusal to cooperate with the commission, including a successful Federal Court case limiting the extent of its inquiry, has contributed to public speculation, also spurred on by statements from diplomat Richard Colvin, the former political officer with Foreign Affairs, that there is "some sort of cover-up."

"That heats up as public servants are attacked [the government attempted to discredit Mr. Colvin after he testified at the Commons committee and invoked national security to prevent him from testifying at the commission], a Parliamentary committee becomes involved and now we have constitutional issues, supremacy of Parliament issues, being raised to the point that we could have a form of crisis in our government system," said Mr. Tinsley.

"We have now, with the prorogation, moved to a point that one could say Parliament has been dismissed," said Mr. Tinsley. "For one, like myself, who believes that fundamental to our legal structure is the supremacy of Parliament, that's very disturbing, so I would use the term dictatorial, in a metaphorical fashion."

The chief law clerk of the Commons has advised the Special Afghanistan Committee that Parliament is supreme under the Canadian Constitution and has the authority to compel the government to disclose the documents and information it is withholding on grounds of national security. The opposition has proposed receiving the contested documents in camera, and even swearing-in selected opposition MPs as members of the Queen's Privy Council, an office normally reserved to members of Cabinet, who take an oath of secrecy when assuming their titles.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, Ont.) has challenged the opposition to take their demand to court, even though Conservatives hold a longstanding view that courts have too often interfered with Parliament by striking down controversial laws for Charter of Rights violations. Some opposition MPs have raised the possibility of calling Cabinet ministers to the bar of the Commons to compel disclosure of the evidence.

Mr. Tinsley was a United Nations war crimes prosecutor in Kosovo following the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, a former director of the Ontario Special Investigations Unit that investigates police incidents resulting in death or serious injury, and served in the Canadian Forces for 28 years as a member of the Military Police and a lawyer. He took part in the prosecution of Canadian Forces members following the beating death of a Somali civilian at the hands of a Canadian soldier during an ill-fated international peacekeeping mission in 1992. Mr. Harper named a former chief of the Windsor, Ont., police service, Glenn Stannard, as acting chair of the commission.

Evidence the police commission obtained before Mr. Tinsley's departure were explosive statements from military police officers who served in Kandahar in 2006 and 2007, when the government secretly ordered a halt to transfers as the controversy over possible torture began. The documents have never been aired publicly at the commission because of government court delays and objections.

An Ipsos Reid public opinion poll last week found 38 per cent of respondents across Canada agreed with the opposition that Prime Minister Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament was intended to "curtail" the Parliamentary inquiry into the torture allegations. Only 23 per cent agreed with the government's claim the break was necessary to begin planning the second stage of the Conservative economic recovery plan. Thirty-nine per cent of the respondents were unsure.

In Ontario, however, 40 per cent of respondents agreed with the opposition, and only 20 per cent sided with the government. In the Atlantic provinces, 49 per cent agreed with the opposition.

Liberal MPs Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, B.C.) and Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Ont.) and NDP MP Paul Dewar (Ottawa South, Ont.) said the three oppositions parties have informally agreed to join forces and resume informal meetings of the Afghanistan committee after Jan. 25, the day the Commons had been scheduled to resume sittings following the Christmas recess.

"Why did they prorogue now?" said Mr. Dewar. "They could have prorogued two days before we were to come back and then had a Speech From the Throne. They didn't want this issue to have any more oxygen."

Conservative MP Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, Ont.) said the issue had nothing to do with prorogation, adding that although he has received several phone calls and emails objecting to the Parliamentary suspension, no constituent has raised the Afghanistan controversy.

"I can tell you I have had zero calls and zero emails from anyone in my constituency about that issue," said Mr. Dykstra, Parliamentary secretary for Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Alta.).

Extending the Protest

Across Canada, rallies are scheduled for January 23, and tens of thousands of Canadians have already signed up to participate.

That's fabulous, but most Canadians are older and many older people are not comfortable with the idea of rallies. In addition many Canadians live too far away from a scheduled rally to attend, or they won't be able to get off work, or they have kids, or lots of other reasons why the rally won't work for them. In addition, it is quite possible (given that it's January) that the weather will prevent many people from attending.

We need to think of some ways of extending the January 23 protest... preferably something that Canadians can do on January 23 to participate in the protest without attending a rally.

That's as far as I've got. Any ideas?

Update: Some ideas:

Wear a black armband on January 23.

Ask people to sign a symbolic protest - e.g. a giant pink slip for Harper, or a giant "Get Back to Work" notice, and display this signed banner/notice in a public place, like the local shopping mall/community centre.

###

The Most Likely Outcome

The most likely outcome of the current democratic crisis is that the opposition will come to nought. Harper will get most Canadians to believe that there is no difference between his prorogations and the 104 that went before. When parliament resumes, the new parliamentary committees will shuffle off the Afghan detainee issue to the dustbins of history. Harper will successfully set a precedent that strips all power from the majority of elected federal representatives. He will not suffer in the polls.

Why do I think this? It's the third time in 15 months that he's dissolved parliament under highly dubious circumstances (starting with breaking his own fixed election law in September 2008), and he got away with it the first two times. He doesn't care about those of us who joined the Facebook group or who will march on January 23: we weren't going to vote for him anyway. In fact, it is his goal to polarize Canadians as a way to intensify the support of his base. That's an old Republican trick that was also used successfully by Mike Harris.

So what can we do?

I think we need to keep three goals in mind:

• Loudly express our objection to the prorogation. The January 23 rallies are great but they aren't enough. Keep this issue on the front page.


• Loudly demand that the Afghan inquiry continue. This whole issue is about not wanting certain documents and facts to be revealed. They must be.


• Punish Harper in the next election. Right now, this means sending money to the nonCon party of your choice (you get most of it back in a tax credit, anyway).

Any other ideas on how to stop Harper from getting away with this?

###

Chretien Did the Same Thing and Other Myths of Proroguing

The PMO sent out some talking points about Chretien's history of prorogation. Conservative operatives have been posting them in comments all over the place and they have totally muddied the debate. There is nothing normal about this prorogation.

Harper has NOT run standard or even acceptable sessions of parliament. He has made three controversial and questionable dissolutions of parliament since he took power less than four years ago, in February 2006:
(1) September 2008 - Harper dissolved parliament and called an election (or rather, forced the Governor General to) despite his own law, passed in 2007, that created fixed election dates every four years. He did this because two months later Canadians would have known that he had created a structural budget deficit.
(2) December 2008 - Harper prorogued parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote.
(3) December 2009 - This prorogation.

This prorogation was NOT done so that MPs can watch the Olympics or create a budget or have time to think. Parliament was prorogued because the special House of Commons committee focusing on the 2006-07 treatment of Afghan detainees had attained such overwhelming evidence that they held an emergency meeting on December 14 and then announced that they would widen the inquiry. On December 15, rumours started swirling that Harper would prorogue parliament.

It is NOT the case that Harper's use of prorogation is the same as the 104 other prorogations in Canada's history. Other than incidents in 1873 and 1926, prorogation has not been used to avoid being accountable to parliament.

It is NOT true that Chretien's 2003 prorogation was the same as this one. (1) In the 2003 incident, Chretien prorogued when Martin was voted in to replace him as PM, so the parliamentary agenda needed to be reset, which is the purpose of proroguing. (2) Chretien had a majority, so there was no contempt of parliament. Yes, it was probably a side benefit for Chretien that he got to let Martin take all the heat on the A-G's report, but that wasn't the main purpose or justification of the prorogation. See this news article from the time.

Update: Only in Canada: Harper's prorogation is a Canadian thing

###

No Prorogue! Protest Update

The No Prorogue! web site is up.

The Waterloo protest will be:
Where: Waterloo Public Square (King Street, in front of Waterloo Town Square)
When: Saturday, January 23, from 11 am to 1 pm
Questions/Comments/Concerns: waterloo.prorogation.rally@gmail.com
Facebook page: Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament (Waterloo Region Chapter)
NoProrogue page: noprorogue.ca/waterloo

Other protests:
Where: Canada-wide
When: Saturday, January 23, 2010
Info: Facebook rallies page or noprorogue.ca/events

If you haven't yet joined the main Facebook group, do so here: Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament

###

More on the Democratic Crisis

• For those who are complaining that Ignatieff and Layton are on holiday... did it occur to you that Harper timed this to embarrass them by choosing a time when it would be difficult for them to get back to Canada quickly? Just have a little patience. We need leadership from Ignatieff and Layton - not just one but BOTH - and it needs to be good. But quality is more important than fast in this case. We can wait a few more days or weeks.


• To Ignatieff and Layton... I hope you are working on something and that it is good. Something like... a press conference denouncing this act in firy tones, and announcing a public conference to be held immediately, called "Democracy in Crisis" at which a line-up of respected speakers (including all our living ex-PMs, ex-GGs, ex- supreme court justices, etc etc) denounce this assault on our parliamentary system and explain to the people why annual prorogations to avoid accountability cannot be tolerated.


• The latest: Harper is asking Canadians for budget advice. At first I thought it was a stunt to deflect attention from his very unpopular prorogation of parliament (which has caused a massive fall in his polling numbers), but on a little reflection I see that this is all part of his plan. He repeatedly circumvents our elected representatives, and now tries to slip in a form of direct democracy. Geeze, maybe those old Liberal/NDP "Harper is scary" ads weren't just fear-mongering... as I said at the time.


• Day of Action: Saturday, January 23, 1 pm - 5 pm, Canada-wide. Details to follow.

###

Why Parliament is Prorogued

In a nutshell, Harper is trying to destroy our parliamentary democracy.

From the Hill Times:

Harper assumes powers of executive privilege, U.S.-presidential style

A dispute that began with stonewalled reports of Afghan prisoner abuse is set to become the crucible that determines if the Prime Minister or Parliament is now supreme.

By JAMES TRAVERS
Published December 21, 2009

OTTAWA—Pierre Trudeau first freed the genie of expansive prime ministerial power. Now an increasingly feeble Parliament is trying to stuff the monster back into the bottle by demanding Stephen Harper release uncensored documents on Afghanistan prisoner abuse.

At stake is the ability to hold the ruling party accountable between elections. Already dangerously diminished, that capacity will shrink to irrelevance if the Prime Minister wins what is fast becoming an annual Parliament Hill showdown.

On the surface, the current clash favours opposition parties. Armed with legal opinion and the majority of seats won in the 2008 campaign, they have the theoretical right and political numbers to insist the government reveals what Conservatives are desperate to keep secret.

Worse still for the ruling party, the defence is porous.
National security concerns can be easily satisfied either by releasing the documents to MPs under the protection of secrecy laws or, by naming a judge—as Ottawa did in the Maher Arar case—to decide what is damaging to the country as opposed to injurious to politicians.

But the opposition's upper hand is deceptive. As the coalition parties learned during last year's Christmas crisis, a cornered Prime Minister is formidable prey.

Facing certain defeat, Harper escaped by persuading the Governor General to suspend Parliament and by convincing a surprising number of civics-challenged citizens that he alone could rule. On balance, Michaëlle Jean was right. By any measure beyond a propaganda triumph, Harper was wrong.

Americans directly choose presidents; Canadians elect Members of Parliament. In the absence of U.S. checks and balances, prime ministers are controlled by the confidence of the Commons.

How loose that control has become was exposed by the Quebec sponsorship scandal. Not only were MPs in the dark about how Liberals were misspending public money, Justice John Gomery couldn't follow the dollars through the maze of "mechanics" up the command chain to a responsible minister.

Conservatives won the 2006 election in part by promising transparency. Since then, Ottawa has become only more opaque as the result of the resolute Conservative effort to mute public watchdogs, pass the buck to civil servants and continue concentrating power among appointed partisans in the Prime Minister's Office.

Those factors are coalescing again in a replay of recent history. Denied vital facts, MPs are lost along the Afghanistan prisoner paper trail. Bureaucrats, most notably diplomat Richard Colvin, are the designated scapegoats. By balking at Parliament's demand for information, Harper is assuming powers of executive privilege normally associated with U.S. presidents, not Canadian prime ministers.

Forcing compliance and re-establishing the democratic balance of power is as straightforward as it is twisted. At the first opportunity, opposition parties can defeat Conservatives in the Commons, forcing election-weary voters back to the polls.

Not an appealing political proposition. The loss of Commons confidence is still the appropriate democratic response if the threat of an unwanted campaign, the possible embarrassment of a court challenge or Parliamentary censure fail to cool overheated heads. If not, a dispute that began with stonewalled reports of Afghan prisoner abuse is set to become the crucible that determines if the Prime Minister or Parliament is now supreme.

James Travers is a national affairs columnist with The Toronto Star. This column was released on Dec. 15.

Join Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament here.

Anti-Prorogation

Rallies are planned for January 23. I'm no good at initiating things, but if anyone plans one for Waterloo I'll be there.

Update: An event is being organized for K-W; sign up here. Info about rallies in other cities is here.

............

There are two Facebook groups I know of that anti-proroguers can join:

* Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament
* Canadians Against Suspending Parliament - Rally for the Cause

On each site, click on the Discussion tab to see information about rallies in cities across Canada, and to add your own ideas. There is more information about events here.

............

Sign the petition.

............

Harris Decima announced that they did a poll that showed that most Canadians don't care about prorogation. Turns out that the survey was done on December 17-20, nearly two weeks before prorogation occurred.

###

Conservative Talking Point: Prorogation is Routine

Just this morning I have heard or read several Conservatives say that prorogation is routine, and happens approximately every 1.4 years. On CBC, Hugh Segal said that parliament has been prorogued 15 times in the last 20 years. On CTV and in the Globe & Mail, Tim Powers said that parliament has been prorogued 105 times in the history of Canada.

This is disingenuous. Prorogation is usually done for short periods, at times that make sense, such as elections or the expected end of work. They are seldom controversial. Harper's current prorogation - shutting down parliament for a prolonged period to halt a parliamentary committee's investigation into government malfeasance - is most definitely not routine.

We should have learned during last year's federal crisis that we can't allow Harper's spin team to turn lies into conventional wisdom. Last year, Harper managed to convince Canadians that the coalition was undemocratic. This year, he's revving up the spin to convince Canadians that this prorogation is perfectly normal, business as usual.

I haven't been able to find information about the exact context of past prorogations. If anyone has that info, please let me know.

Update: The PMO released another talking point on prorogation, claiming that Chretien did it more than Harper, and specifically citing his 2003 prorogation as a way to avoid release of the Adscam report. This has been widely pasted into comments sections of newspaper articles and blogs, including this one. They neglect to mention that the prorogation occurred when Paul Martin took over as leader of the party. Since prorogations are supposed to occur when it is time to reset a legislative session, this seems in keeping with tradition, as a new PM would surely be resetting the agenda.

Update: Only in Canada: Harper's prorogation is a Canadian thing

###

The Flip Side of Bully

A pattern is emerging, and it ain't pretty.

We have all noticed that the Harper government likes to circumvent democratic procedure when it suits them. What has slowly been dawning on me is when/why they do this.

It's not to support policies they believe in. It's when they screw up on the PR front.

A month after the election last year, Harper thought he could throw his weight around because the opposition couldn't topple him so soon after the vote. He went too far with his economic update, announcing he was cutting off all funding for federal parties and announcing that the government would [fly in the face of every other developed nation and the IMF to] enact no fiscal stimulus. When the opposition balked, he prorogued parliament - an option never used for this political purpose before, and very dodgy.

Recently the opposition has been trying to get to the bottom of the Afghan detainee torture issue. The Liberals have said they want to air any problems that occurred under a Liberal government as well as Conservative, but the Cons decided to take it as a personal assault and fought back in their inimitable no-holds-barred style. Peter Mackay thundered that it was all lies and had never happened. When a top general testified before a parliamentary committee that yes, it had indeed happened, the red-faced government decided to pull all Conservative members from the committee, leaving it without a quorum so it had to shut down.

A more minor occurrence of this pattern happened just yesterday. Harper didn't seem at all embarrassed about showing up at Copenhagen after lobbying furiously against any progress there, but then his spokesman was caught on camera screaming at an environmentalist, accusing him of perpetrating a fraud on Canada. The environmentalist, who throughout the ordeal protested his innocence, turned out to have nothing to do with it. Now Harper is delaying his arrival at the conference.

The flip side of bully is coward. They behave badly; they won't back down; so when they're called on their bullshit their tactic is to shut down democracy till the public has lost interest.

###

Canada During the Suspension of Democracy

The online publication of Osgoode Hall law school (The Court) wrote last July, "Canada's tradition of mostly centrist jurisprudence at the Supreme Court level seems, by comparison [to the US], to be much more levelheaded, and this is a result largely attributable to a selection process that, whatever its flaws, has tended in the past to be primarily apolitical and most concerned with good jurisprudence rather than with ideological conformity."

Yesterday's appointment of Thomas Cromwell to the Supreme Court was not an apolitical process and the appointee is not centrist. The Globe says that "Judge Cromwell... can be expected to use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms sparingly to strike down legislation, and generally place the interests of policing ahead of the rights of the accused." In other words, he's a thoroughly Conservative appointment, chosen by Harper to further Harper's pro-jail approach to justice.

Harper's activities during prorogation are scandalously undemocratic. He suspended parliament because he doesn't have the confidence of the majority of MPs and was about to be booted out of office. Now he's thumbing his nose at democracy even more thoroughly by making senate appointments and bypassing the advisory committee on supreme court appointments.

Why are we not crying foul? Far from complaining about prorogation, most of the media has taken to calling it a "time out", as if MPs were naughty school children who need to sit in the corner for a while. Lawrence Martin is one of the few media figures to write seriously about the prorogation, and he makes an excellent case that Michaele Jean should explain her decision to Canadians. He quotes political pundits who describe Canada as "Zimbabwe run by the Queen" and "a banana republic."

People may complain about the senate, but senators serve important functions: on a daily basis they sit on parliamentary committees, but more importantly, from time to time they are required to be our chamber of "sober second thought." The Governor General, or at least this Governor General, has not undertaken the serious responsibility of being Canada's representative of our head of state. She has been unable or unwilling to put any reins on the undemocratic tendencies of our corrupt prime minister, and he is riding roughshod over our democratic traditions. Docile, obedient Canadians are just letting it happen.

###

The Coalition Was Necessary... Period

What Canadians seem to be forgetting is that the coalition was necessary. Stephen Harper, after three years of bullying, disrespecting and riding roughshod over the majority of MPs in parliament, went way way too far in his November 28 economic update. Had the opposition parties continued to play along, the fabric of democracy would have been torn asunder; the statement that the economy does not need fiscal stimulus would have been allowed to stand; the government would have been allowed to give the finger to women and unions. The opposition parties would have been completely irresponsible and spineless if they hadn't said No to Harper on the economic update.

Saying No meant voting against the economic update, and since it was a confidence vote, that meant voting out the Conservative minority government. There is no other way to do it. But instead of just waiting till the vote and kicking out the government, thus triggering a second election in less than two months, they did the responsible thing and decided to exert pressure. They (1) announced in advance that they wouldn't agree to the update, giving the PM time to back down; and they (2) said they would form a coalition government so that an election would not be needed.

Talking about this as Liberal opportunism and Dion making a power grab is nonsense. Dion had announced just weeks before that he didn't want to be part of a coalition. It did not provide any benefits for the Liberal party and it was full of risk. The Liberal party took on the challenge of a coalition because it was the only responsible reaction to Stephen Harper's economic update.

Michael Ignatieff has never been a proponent of the coalition and now appears to be backing off. The question is whether he has other means to keep the PM in line, especially in his January budget. Is the threat of a coalition enough, or have the public opinion polls removed that means for exerting pressure?

Harper's current appointment of senators is puzzling and I haven't found any commentator who understands what he's up to. The most obvious explanation, which may or may not be true, is that he's playing his favorite game, "Dominant Dog," and letting everyone know that he won the scrimmage. Sort of like, after emerging victorious from a fight, the top dog pees on the loser. By doing something that constitutional scholars think is suspect during this sort of prorogation, he is demonstrating his power.

Another explanation for his bizarre behavior is that he is scared he'll lose the budget vote, and is shoring up support - support for his party, his leadership, or maybe even his career post-politics. Neither explanation seems likely. With Harper, we have a national leader whose ego, arrogance and adherence to extremist ideology transcend the rational.

Update: Chantal Hebert explains the senate appointments as being unrelated to the current crisis, and something he signaled he would do prior to this.

###

British Parliamentary System

I'd be really interested to hear what constitutional experts in other countries think about the circumstances under which our government just prorogued parliament.

Also, I'd like to know if they think this action creates a precedent that would affect other parliamentary democracies. ...After all, pundits have been quoting precedent in Australia and Britain as if it adds something to the discussion here.

I'd also like to know what the precedent is in other countries for the Governor General (or Queen) to deny a request from a prime minister, and the consequences in those cases. We keep hearing that if Jean had turned down Harper's request for prorogation, he would have to resign: Where does that come from?

My guess on these issues is:
* Constitutional experts in other countries say that no other prime minister in a western democracy has ever tried to use prorogation to escape a no-confidence vote.
* They're horrified at the precedent set for other parliamentary systems.
* They think the GG should have resigned herself rather than accede to Harper's antidemocratic demand to escape a no-confidence vote.

###