Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Exposing Karen Redman's spin

Just goes to show that even after you toss a Liberal MP out of the House, you still can't trust a word that comes out of their mouth... or in this case, their pen. (the hat tip goes to "Orange Tory" for this one)

A Letter to the Editor in KW's "The Record" yesterday exposes and refutes many of the talking points being used by Liberals, including turfed Kitchener Liberal MP Karen Redman. Looks like she's desperate to get her old seat back... guess she's having trouble finding work in the private sector?
Partisan spin distorts debate
March 01, 2010
Re: Prorogue issue hurts Canada — Feb. 11

Public discourse on the workings of Canada’s Parliament should be encouraged and informed by parliamentarians. Sadly, many politicians try to fill any void in public understanding with partisan spin instead of objective information. The recent article by Liberal candidate and former MP Karen Redman regarding prorogation is a case in point.

Redman should know very well that during prorogation MPs are not on an “extended vacation,” or taking “several weeks off work with full pay.” Diligent MPs are very busy serving and consulting their constituents whenever Parliament is not sitting.

Members of Parliament must take their seats in the House of Commons often enough to thoroughly debate the nation’s issues, while also maintaining an adequate presence in their ridings. This balance is not currently in jeopardy. The House of Commons sat for 131 days in 2009 — 14 days more than the average year under the Liberal government to which Redman belonged.

Redman is also wrong to say, “Typically, Parliament would end when the legislative agenda was completed.” She complains that the current prorogation left several government bills “suspended mid-process.” However, Jean Chretien, in whose government she served, stranded 27 government bills on the parliamentary agenda when he prorogued parliament in 1996; 19 in 1999; 13 in 2002; and 29 in 2003. In each case, the Liberals held majorities in both the House of Commons and the Senate, and could have passed every bill. The current Conservative government has minorities in both houses.

Redman is wrong again when she says, “Only with unanimous consent from all parliamentarians will a bill be returned to the stage it was at when Parliament was interrupted.” All private members’ bills are automatically reinstated at their previous stage when the new session begins. Government bills can be reinstated by a motion temporarily amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, which requires only a majority of MPs, and not unanimous consent. The Liberal government used this method to reinstate its bills after Chretien’s first prorogation.

Redman criticizes the prime minister for proroguing Parliament three times in four years, but this is not extraordinary. Canada’s average parliamentary session has lasted just under a year. The only current member of the Liberal caucus who has led a government, former Ontario Premier Bob Rae, also used prorogation three times in four years. Each of Rae’s prorogations lasted four months, whereas the current prorogation will last just over two months, effecting only 21 days on which Parliament was scheduled to sit.

There is nothing wrong with critically examining Canada’s parliamentary practices for the purpose of improving them. But it is very disturbing to see politicians sowing misinformation about the parliamentary process for partisan advantage. Such scorched-earth political tactics only destroy public confidence in our parliamentary system, which ultimately benefits no one.

Aaron Hynes
Carleton Place



  • At Tue. Mar. 02, 01:25:00 p.m. EST, Blogger NB Tory Gal said…

    ...why am I not surprised about ms. Redman...she reads from the red book and has the taste of sour grapes still in her mouth...a nice person and hard working she may be...but she belongs to a party who cannot cement their party down and take up the reigns of power.

  • At Tue. Mar. 02, 04:03:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said…

    I read the original op-ed by Redman and was surprised to find that it never reached the online Record site.

    Now why would that be, I wonder? Is it possible that she didn't want it on the internet?

    If anyone can find it I will be very pleased to be corrected.

  • At Tue. Mar. 02, 06:51:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The difference is when Chretien prorogued parliament, it wasn't to hide his government's actions. As I've said before, BIG DIFFERENCE you boneheads always seem to forget.

  • At Tue. Mar. 02, 09:51:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous gimbol said…

    Chretien proroged to hide Adscam as did Martin.

    Lets review.

    Chretien was allocated by the Finance minister Paul Martin, 50 million a year to disburse without the oversight of cabinet or caucus indirect consultation with a liberal party operative, the object to direct cash disbursments to Quebec ridings under the cover of contracts for little to no work. These pay outs where to fund liberal election campaign activities under the guise of government contracts.
    That would be conspiracy and fraud.
    How is that more offensive than Harper's prorogation to keep documents that contain the names of Afghans that have come forward to Canadian troops with information.
    Did it ever occur that if that info came out the Taliban would jump at the chance to dish out some retribution?
    Its not just our troops that would be at risk, but the Afghanis they are trying to protect.
    And you trolls want to sacrifice that just for some political payback over Adscam.
    Pathos thy name is liberal.

  • At Wed. Mar. 03, 01:25:00 a.m. EST, Anonymous TS said…

    Anonymous said...

    "The difference is when Chretien prorogued parliament, it wasn't to hide his government's actions"

    Actually, Cretien prorogued Parliament on November 12th, 2003 to avoid the report on Adscam. He prorogued Parliament in order to resign and instill Paul Martin as the new Prime Minister before the report came out, so that Martin would have to take the fall for Adscam..

    get your facts straight before you start pounding the keys..


Post a Comment

<< Home