How long can Harper refuse to meet the House?

Re: meeting once a year, my guess is that legally he could, but politically it would be catastrophic. Even waiting until January might cause serious damage. And of course, there is a certain precedent for the constitutional convention that a new government has face a confidence vote in a reasonable amount of time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure that our focus should be on what "could" happen.

So Harper can stop the clock on the political game perhaps?  But he cannot stop the clock in the real world and the economic tanking of the Canada cannot be ignored for 3 or 4 months when he plays his mind games.

Isn't it now clear, even to many conservatives, that power drove him barmy? 

How long before the men in white coats come to take him away? 

George Victor wrote:

Re: meeting once a year, my guess is that legally he could, but politically it would be catastrophic. Even waiting until January might cause serious damage. And of course, there is a certain precedent for the constitutional convention that a new government has face a confidence vote in a reasonable amount of time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure that our focus should be on what "could" happen.

Wilf Day wrote:

From another thread:

ottawaobserver wrote:

If the Conservatives try to prorogue now without passing their Economic Statement, and with Parliament sitting just two weeks, Parliament will be in an uproar I predict.  MPs would send the Speaker to see the Governor General and demand she fire the PM.

Great theory. Any precedent or authority for that being the Speaker's role? Maybe several centuries old, but you'd have to go back almost to the days when parliament was struggling against the divine right of kings to find a case where the prime minister thought he could dispense with parliament.

Divine right of kings.  Stephen Harper.  I'm not getting the distinction, Wilf ;-)

But seriously, the Speaker's role is to protect the privileges of Parliamentarians, as just about every candidate for the job said in their speeches the other week.  I suspect he would be summoned to play some role in that circumstance.

One picky point to another commenter though ... technically the government did pass one vote of confidence, because the Throne Speech did pass on a voice vote on division right after the Economic and Fiscal Update.  One point in the government's favour.  But really ... a sitting of less than a month?  With no Supply Motion adopted?  I don't think that fits the bill for prorogation.

Captain Obvious wrote:

but the Meighen Conservatives were quickly defeated as well, since all their potential Ministers had to resign to run in by-elections.

Not quite, Meighen appointed them all acting ministers. The Progressives found the move so abhorrent they voted NO in a VONC. Meighen (and the Progressives) were crushed in the ensuing election, as King campaigned against Byng's move. Indeed, King-Byng isn't that good for precedent because it took place so long ago, and because reaction was so universally harsh. It may have set off a convention of not refusing requests for dissolution (of course you can't tell that, except perhaps from Adrienne Clarkson's memoirs).

There are two other scenarios of relevance here - 1985 Ontario is the most similar - with one exception: Miller advised the governor-general to make the coalition the government and did not request dissolution so soon after an election.

I think the best example is Australia's 1975 constitutional crisis. Gough Whitlam's Labour party controlled the house but not the senate. The senate, however, was controlled by the Lib-National coalition which DEFERRED voting on money bills, preventing them from being passed. Of course it is a matter of debate - since the turn of the century in Britain, the Lords didn't vote on supply bills. Instead of dissolving parliament, Malcolm Fraser was made PM. Fraser soon called an election and won - Labour lost because it focused on the dismissal, and not the economy.

Other precedents that don't get mentioned:

John A Macdonald resigned after a scandal in 1873. The Governor-general put the Liberals in charge as a caretaker government (I think), and an election was called later in 1874.  

Fadden (of  the United Australia Party) was removed as PM in 1941 without an election, replaced by a Labour government without an election.

Budgets can't be approved by order in council so it would be incredibly irresponsible for Harper to suspend Parliament for any extended period, particularly in the middle of an economic crisis.

I have no means of keeping on tops of all the changes, and don't have a very good grasp on House procedure.

But my understanding is that the Ways and Means tax bill stiff comes up today. If it does, it has only the changes to RRIF plans still in it. Everything else- all the substance, including the Liberal non-confidence motion- has been put off till Dec 8.

But the one today is still a money bill. What I don't know is if there are other ways the government can simply dispose of it so that it 'doesn't count'. But even if they cannot dispose of it, would the coalition partners bring down the government over changes to RIFF?

Yes, they'd say why it was really happening. But before also there has been a chance for public debate of what is going on?

And hardly an auspicious start for taking your case to the GG.

The day Harper prorogues is the Day I join a general strike.  Events in Bangkok are a warning of what occurs in the world. 

---------------------------------------------------------

why is it that polling booths look like cattle chutes?

The pay equity portion of the spending, is still a go, and I believe it is that that comes forward today too. If the CPC are allowed to have this pass today, it is a slap in the face to women across Canada. So one would hope that if it is part of the Bill coming forward today for a vote, that the CPC would be brought down over it. If it is not, I as a woman would pull all support from the coalition, as none of the parties would be showing that women's rights are pertinent.

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

aka Mycroft wrote:

It would behoove the Opposition to use whatever vote they can to defeat the government given rumours that Harper will prorogue, given the chance.

Scott Reid's words will be ringing in everyone's ears today:

Quote:

kill him. Kill him dead. Do not, whatever you do, provide him with an opportunity to extend his hold on power. Because you can be damn certain he will never again be so reckless as to give you a chance to finish him off.

I really wish Scott Reid hadn't written those particular words.  He could have found a less objectionable metaphor.  I know he was trying to stiffen Liberal spines a bit at the first sign of Conservatives trying to set the cat amongst the pigeons, but I fear those particular words may come back to haunt him.

There's a good article (in French) on the issue of prorogation in today's Devoir.

Basically, the argument goes this way: it is arguable in the current situation that the PM, not having obtained the confidence of the House, is not allowed to take controversial decisions. He would constrained to a limited range of decisions in the same way that a PM in the course of an electoral campaign is, according to British parliamentary rules.

The expert cited in the article argues that prorogation in the current context is akin to ask for dissolution and, in the same way that the GG can refuse to accede to the PM's demand that the House be dissolved, the GG could refuse to prorogue Parliament till January.

Bärlüer wrote:

There's a good article (in French) on the issue of prorogation in today's Devoir.

Basically, the argument goes this way: it is arguable in the current situation that the PM, not having obtained the confidence of the House, is not allowed to take controversial decisions. He would constrained to a limited range of decisions in the same way that a PM in the course of an electoral campaign is, according to British parliamentary rules.

The expert cited in the article argues that prorogation in the current context is akin to ask for dissolution and, in the same way that the GG can refuse to accede to the PM's demand that the House be dissolved, the GG could refuse to prorogue Parliament till January.

Now that is interesting, as Harper is now in a much smaller box.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Harper is claiming that the Throne Speech was a vote of confidence:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/question-period.html

What I find fascinating about all of this is just how badly Harper has played his hand. Coming out of the election with the Liberals in self-immolation mode, rather than be a leader, he chose to be a pricky little schoolboy. Okay, so major blunder. How to get out of it? To get out of it, he would need to win the support of at least one other party. The Liberals are out, pure and simple. But with eavesdropping on the NDP and releasing the tape, an act of desperation (Layton came across eonderfully), that route is blocked and now he, himself, has just blocked any potential deal with the Bloc.

HAHAHA! What an idiot. 

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I have mentioned it before- but one of the most dispiriting things about all this is the fundamental lack of understanding so many have about how a Parliamentary democracy works and how ours has evolved.  That is assuming you can go by online comments on news sites anyway.

 

I agree entirely. It is quite depressing to read people arguing this is a "coup." These are the same types you rail about how "kids these days" don't know any of their own history.