On non-consultation

In case there's any doubt, we're not yet done with the list of Con MPs who - by their own party's account - couldn't be bothered to do anything during their Harper Holiday. For today, let's take a look at what the list tells us about the level of public input in the Cons' impending budget, as well as how seriously we can take the Cons' excuses for prorogation.

Remember that one of the major attempts to spin the prorogation consisted of Stephen Harper's argument that Con MPs needed to spend the time consulting with constituents on the upcoming budget. And after Jim Flaherty seemingly contradicted that claim by saying that budget consultations wouldn't actually be affected, here's how Flaherty reconciled the two statements:

Mike Storeshaw, Mr. Flaherty's director of communications, takes exception to the Ottawa Notebook’s suggestion that the Finance Minister and Prime Minister are saying two different things about prorogation:

“They’re not, and stating otherwise is just semantics,” Mr. Storeshaw writes. “Minister Flaherty does wide-ranging consultations all over the country in advance of presenting the budget. That’s what he’s doing in Winnipeg today, and would have been doing whether the House was prorogued or not. As you know, the House wasn’t even scheduled to be sitting this week, so the Minister is making use of the time to consult with Canadians, in much the same way he has done in years past. Just like the government as a whole, he is hard at work.

"… What the Prime Minister said was that the government, as a whole, would be taking advantage of this time in this way. I don’t know what’s inconsistent between the Prime Minister saying what all members of the government would be doing, and the Finance Minister actually doing it."

In case that wasn't clear enough, the Cons had thus set a clear public expectation by January 11 that all members of the government would be carrying out public budget consultations as the main reason for shutting down Parliament in the meantime.

And presumably any such consultation would have been included in the Cons' list. After all, here's what the list features according to Gordon O'Connor:

We have been governing and continue to govern during the constituency break as demonstrated by the attached list, which is by no means exhaustive and does not include the majority of MPs' constituency events.

The list focuses on:

- Our meetings with Canadians to listen to their views on the economy;
- Important Economic Plan investments to protect and create jobs; and
- Our Government's actions representing Canada's global interests.

That wording looks to nicely reflect the distinction drawn by Flaherty between normal MP work and the additional consultations expected during the course of prorogation. One might not anticipate extra work on the general constituency front (though we'll deal with that more in a later post), nor for the list to focus on MPs' work other than budget consultations. But one would absolutely have reason to expect that the Cons' economic consultations would be included, given that they were both the supposed highest priority during the Harper Holiday, and the primary focus of the list itself.

So is it fair then to say that 60 Con MPs didn't bother to actually follow through on their government's instructions? And that their constituents' interests thus won't be reflected in the upcoming budget to the extent the consultations actually had any effect?

Actually, the first question can be answered with a hearty "no" - but only because the list is significantly longer than 60. On a quick look from the Libs' analysis of days worked, 23 Con MPs worked only one day during the period included (though I'm not sure the list is entirely accurate on my own review). And of those, only 5 are listed as engaging in anything resembling budget consultations, with the other 18 merely announcing funding or attending public events.

That puts us at 78 Members of Parliament - a strong majority of the Cons' caucus - who responded to the instruction that all MPs were to carry out budget consultations by yawning, blinking and resuming their mid-winter naps. And that's without going into detail about the Con MPs who nominally worked two or more days who may have similarly omitted to include any consultation events from their meager activities.

And what's more damning, this is likely the portion of the Cons' activities which couldn't have been made up later. It wouldn't make too much difference whether a funding announcement or community event took place early or late in the prorogation period. But for budget consultations, one would think that any input would have to have been provided by the time the Cons compiled their letter to have had any chance of being taken into account.

So the end result is that the Cons have themselves provided evidence that the vast majority of their MPs can't be bothered to do anything about the party's supposed top priority. And plenty of voices who may have had a strong interest in the Cons' budgetary decisions will end up going unheard as a result.