The Economist slams prorogation

Not once, but twice, in the newest edition.  There's a story about our Parliamentary shutdown here, and a biting commentary. Here's what The Economist's international audience -- some of whom, presumably, we're trying to impress/attract  with our big Olympics and G-8, G-20 gatherings, are reading about Canada today in the respected magazine.

Never mind what his spin doctors say: Mr Harper’s move looks like naked self-interest. His officials faced grilling by parliamentary committees over whether they misled the House of Commons in denying knowledge that detainees handed over to the local authorities by Canadian troops in Afghanistan were being tortured. The government would also have come under fire for its lack of policies to curb Canada’s abundant carbon emissions. Prorogation means that such committees—which carry out the essential democratic task of scrutinising government—will have to be formed anew in March. That will also allow Mr Harper to gain immediate control of committees in the appointed Senate, where his Conservatives are poised to become the biggest party.

Mr Harper has form. He prorogued Parliament last winter, too—to dodge a short-lived threat by the three opposition parties to bring his minority government down. Having gone to the polls three times since 2004 Canadians do not want another election. He might say that governing in a minority obliges him to play fast and loose with parliamentary nicety. He has nursed the economy and he has confounded those who feared that he would impose his supporters’ loathing of abortion and liking for the death penalty on a generally tolerant country.

A legislature matters more than the luge

Mr Harper is a competent tactician with a ruthless streak. He bars most ministers from talking to the media; he has axed some independent watchdogs; he has binned campaign promises to make government more open and accountable. Now he is subjecting Parliament to prime-ministerial whim. He may be right that most Canadians care more about the luge than the legislature, but that is surely true only while their decent system of government is in good hands. They may soon conclude that it isn’t.

Comments

[MyThought]

I saw one of the so-called "Power Panel" on Evan Solomon's show last night say that parliament costs about $600 MILLION a year and I wondered how much money is being wasted for this lengthy run away. This guy said lots of money being wasted.

[maggialder]

I think Harper has pushed too far this time. Canadians understand taking 2 months off work but have paid little attention to his way of governing, contempt for parliamentry democracy, his lack of knowledge in foreign affairs, his crippling of our finances thru' his fiscal policies, his petty mean vintictive way of dealing with opposing views. Hopefully, finally Canadians are paying attention. Harper is not fit to be Prime Minister.

[wascally wabbit]

Interesting!
A media outlet that Harper's core supporters read (no offence Susan - but I don't think that Conservatives form the core of readership of the Toronto Star) smacks him hard!
And that following a snippy editorial in the Globe today!
Heavens - if Jane Viper takes a cheap shot at him tomorrow - it will be a tipoff that she isn't following Senator Duffy into the Red chamber!

[Observant]

Prorogation of Parliament does not mean government stops, or that MPs are not working. Changing 22 working days from Parliament Hill, over to the Constituencies of MPs, and allowing Cabinet Members to more directly connect with their Ministries, should be good for a re-set, from the unproductive scrapping perpetrated by the Opposition. The NDP make the mistake in behaving as if the country is only about their narrow view.

[sandi]

I am wondering why, when old man Chretien closed down the HOC for 80 EIGHTY days, as in prorogued! where was the outcry then? ahh but then he was a liberal.Amusing you lot at the star!

[Jim M]

This video summarizes Stephen Harper's record as Prime Minister in one minute and five seconds.
(Not sure why it took so long.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTQl_0nSoP8

[geo]

Love it.
The (news?) media making a comment about an opinion from the (news?) media,that creates more opinionated media comments.

[anonlinereader]

"Parliament costs about $600 million /year " ?

Unelected appointed total approx $ 290 million / year
Cost of Governor General appox. $ 35 million /year (2002)
Cost of Senate approx. $80 million /year (2006)
Cost of Prime Minister's Office approx. $ 175 million / year (2009)

Elected M.P.s and House of Commons approx. $ 488 million (2006)

In this year of restraint the PMO cost jumped from roughly $150 million to $175 million but surely Parliament has not jumped from $ 488 to $ 600 million under harper ?

[Ted]

Susan:

Last night you pointed out that, with prorogation, the government can't hold the usual hearings it would normally hold in preparation of the budget, with different groups presenting to... I don't know the process. Perhaps in a blog post you could enlighten us on how the budget process normally works and what gets cut out from Harper's "roundtable" process.

Much appreciated.

Thanks.

[Ted]

Susan: Last night on At Issue you pointed out that, with prorogation, the government can't hold the usual hearings it would normally hold in preparation of the budget, with different groups presenting to... I don't know the process. Perhaps in a blog post you could elaborate for us on how the budget process normally works and what gets cut out from Harper's "roundtable" process.

[rick]

"Mr Harper’s move looks like naked self-interest"

It just doesn't LOOK like it, it IS naked self-interest.

The concern I have about Harper and his cronies is the outright contempt they have for the institution of Parliament.

Every time they, or the conservative commentators, say, "Parliament's not working," (meaning 'Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are opposing our plans, damn them!') or "Look how much it costs to run Parliament," (as if Democracy should be free and Western farmers should have more bucks to spend in MacAllan Texas during the winter months), I keep seeing the spectre of Oliver Cromwell and his "Barebones" Parliament.

Cromwell, you will remember I'm sure, wanted to set up a constitutional monarchy as against an absolute monarchy, but ended up controlling everything and becoming the dictatorial Lord Protector of England. He was a right-wing religious fanatic who persecuted Catholics--and anyone else who stood in his way.

You understand the obvious attraction Harper has for the modern-day roundheads who would emasculate the democratically elected Parliament of all the people. What care they for Democracy as long as their boys get to "rule" without having to answer embarrassing questions in the House and in committee.

The City set on a Hill has become a rather small tent with them inside and the rest of us outside.

This isn't how Parliament is supposed to work.

[Bugzy]

that parliament costs about $600 MILLION a year and I wondered how much money is being wasted for this lengthy run away. This guy said lots of money being wasted.

I also wonder how much money Harper and his parrots spent from Canadians Tax payers promoting themselves via 10 per centers, bill boards contracted out to the Us firms, photo shoots and steady campaigning since he was elected in 2005 ish and the elections since then. How about PMs giving away stimulus checks with their personal names and reform con logos on them as well as painting transit buses Blue and again with their own logos with a picture of the inept Pm on them. How about the cost of parouging Parliament after all the bills that were passed and awaiting passed ones that will have to be done again at our expense again. How about his appointment of 26 senators, you know the ones he said he would elect on his campaign promises/ I am quite sure others could add some more expenditures of Harper's promoting himself that I have missed. What a sad man and leader he has turned out to be.

[anonlinereader]

Typical Canadian Fed. Gov. Budget Cycle :

June - Cabinet review of priorities
Sept.-Oct - Cabinet review of consultation strategies
Oct. - Release of consultation papers
Oct -Dec. - Budget consultation process
Dec.-Jan. - Cabinet review of Budget strategy
Jan.-Feb. - final decisions on budget
Feb. - budget speech tabling of estimates
March -June - preparation and review of dept.s business plans
May - June - review and release dept. outlooks

harper is going to inject new consultations ? Was this not last years scam ?

[Gabby in QC]

Since this post is about the topic of two The Economist articles: "The Economist slams prorogation Not once, but twice, in the newest edition. ... "
it would perhaps be worthwhile for commenters to read this blog post by Werner Patels, who commented in Ms. Delacourt's latest thread entitled "Prorogation: The view from the West" and left a link to an interesting post of his called "Prorogation is no big deal" http://www.news-spectator.com/2010/01/prorogation-is-no-big-deal.html
That post leads to an even more interesting article entitled "The Economist article planted by leftist correspondent" http://www.news-spectator.com/2010/01/the-economist-article-planted-by-leftist-correspondent.html
Yes, yes, I know some will bray "What media bias?" or "Articles planted? Absurd!" Well, consider some of the extreme opinions expressed and language used by supposedly knowledgeable people, calling Harper a dictator, a despot, an enemy of democracy, in contempt of Parliament, not to mention imperious and/or imperial.
Media bias? Or at least, an agenda? Nah! I mean, Ms. Delacourt alone has devoted only a mere 11 blog posts to the topic here, plus a couple more articles written for The Star:
“House shut? Liberals to report for work anyway”
Susan Delacourt January 06, 2010
“Grassroots fury greets shuttered Parliament”
Susan Delacourt, Richard J. Brennan January 05, 2010
No, the media has absolutely no particular POV. It just publishes “all the news that fitz.”