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