You have it wrong, Marilyn

Marilyn Baker writes today in the Winnipeg Free Press that the mainstream (and I have no idea how to define that) press is biased against President Steve because of their coverage of prorogation in 2009/10 is massively more than when Chretien did it in 2003.

Well, duh...

Let's compare the two events, shall we?

In 2009/10 Steve prorogued parliament for a month when the opposition demanded documentation about who knew what and when did they know it with respect to the Afghan detainee issue.  Forget this spin about the upcoming budgets and such.  Only brain dead Con loyalists fall for those lines.

In 2003, a retiring Chretien prorogued parliament for a month thus allowing Paul Martin to take over as PM and establish his new cabinet.  Now that sounds like a correct use or prorogation.

Apples and oranges, Marilyn.  Maybe a little research is in order.

But let's not lose sight of the real problem here - semantics aside.  Harper floated into Ottawa with a mantra of accountability and transparency.   His use of prorogation, thus stopping the work of a Commons committee,  subverted accountability in the same way his refusal to turn over documents to the committee and the Commons subverted transparency.