On constituency work

As hinted at earlier, let's take a look at the Cons' "constituency work" excuse for prorogation - and why whatever one thinks the Cons did during the course of their Harper Holiday, the explanation speaks poorly to Con MPs' representation of their constituents. (We'll leave aside for now the question of whether it's MPs or constituency staff who actually perform most actual riding-level work, though that factor will emerge later on in the discussion.)

To start with, let's note that the prorogation had the effect of extending what was already an extended stay away from Ottawa. The last sitting day for the House of Commons had been December 10, 2009 - meaning that to the extent MPs had constituency work to catch up on, they already stood to have a month and a half in which to do it before the scheduled resumption of Parliament on January 25.

Presumably, MPs' normal planning would involve getting done what needed to be done before heading back at that time. And if so, then anything more done as a result of prorogation simply serves as a signal that a particular MP wasn't able to keep up with the needs of his or her riding under normal circumstances.

Mind you, one might say that MPs could need plenty of time to catch up after a fall sitting of Parliament which saw MPs spend all but two weeks of a three-month span in Ottawa. But if it's the case that the Cons actually need to match a full month of time away from Ottawa with each one spent in Parliament to get their work done, then Stephen Harper's more recent talk about eliminating breaks in the new spring session only figures to ensure that his party's MPs once again fall months behind in their constituency work. And it would be entirely reasonable for voters to start wondering whether they should be backing a party which can actually keep pace with work that needs to be done both at home and in Ottawa.

Of course, there is another possibility, which is that MPs generally didn't actually do more within their constituencies as a result of the prorogation. That could be because the work is really done by constituency staff anyway, or because the MPs themselves had planned out their workload well enough to complete it under a normal Parliamentary schedule.

But if that's the case, then prorogation served to replace an MP's normal constituency work plus five weeks of Parliament with...an MP's normal constituency work plus nothing. Which would result in Harper having given his MPs an unnecessary vacation while falsely claiming the time was needed for the purposes of work which was going to get done anyway.

In sum, then, there are two possible theories of the Harper Holiday's impact on constituency work. It could be that Con MPs did more in their constituencies as a result of prorogation than they would have otherwise - which would mean that Con MPs aren't keeping up with what needs to be done at home under normal circumstances. Or it could be that Con MPs didn't need extra time off from Ottawa to get their work done at home, making the prorogation nothing but a free vacation for them.

Either way, the Cons' attempt to use constituency work as an excuse for prorogation looks to be based on some combination of flat-out dishonesty and implicitly admitted incompetence. And whichever of those is actually at play for a particular MP, there's little reason to trust the government as a whole when its actions can only be explained by such factors.