Monday, January 18, 2010

Ms.Glenna Hanley, Mr.Peter Hogg, Please Get Your Facts Straight

Posted by Christian  |  at  18.1.10

Ms. Hanley has published an article this morning which includes an interview with Peter Hogg, "Canada's leading scholar in constitutional law." In it, she asserts Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff pledged to abandon the practice of prorogation, should he become Prime Minister. Mr.Hogg takes the statement as truth and advises against it. However, Hanley's version of what Ignatieff said, is wrong.
Ignatieff is now pledging, if he becomes prime minister, to never prorogue Parliament.

Hogg said that's not a wise promise to make.

"It is quite normal to have several sessions of Parliament in the course of the life of a Parliament," the professor said.

"If Mr. Ignatieff were elected and had a majority and his government continued for four years, he might want to have more that one session. That would require prorogation."
What Ignatieff actually said.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he would never prorogue Parliament to avoid controversy if he became prime minister.

....telling reporters that while prorogation is a legitimate constitutional power, using it to avoid "tight spots" is completely unacceptable.

"To use it every time you're in a tight spot seems to me is a flagrant abuse of a constitutional power and that's why Canadians are angry about it," said Ignatieff. "So therefore, I take from this a commitment not to do the same thing, period."


  1. Has Mr Ignatieff told Mr Chretien that it's not acceptable to prorogue Parliament to get out of a tight spot?

    Seriously. The NDP I can understand protesting the proroguation. They have some credibility.

    But Liberals need to STFU on the matter. They didn't merely prorogue Parliament when they got into a tight spot (Auditor General's report on the Sponsorship Scandal), but Chretien also prorogued himself to short-circuit Paul Martin's maneuverings within the party.

  2. Patrick, numero uno: You don't address the fact that the reporter was clearly mistaken.

    #2... I don't care what Chrétien did. It is 2010. harper promised Canadians transparency and accountability, and he has done a 180. Let's address those facts.

    As far as Iggy goes, why would you hold him responsible for Chrétien's actions?

  3. Well, OK.

    Point numero uno - Yes, the reporter clearly was incorrect. I thought this was evident. As such, I didn't comment on it.

    Numero deuce - You very much should care what Chretien did. It sets a track record for your party, as an institution, that its leadership has to be prepared to account for.

    I'm more than willing to say the same thing about the Conservative Party -- although for the life of me, I really can't see what issue the Conservatives are allegedly avoiding accountability on.

    If you say "torture" I'm afraid I'll have to sit you down and give you a good talking to. ;)


Get our latest posts directly in your email inbox.

What they says

Contact information

Proudly Powered by Blogger.
back to top