Canadian parliament prorogued again

The last thread ended with polunatic2 and unionist discussing the merrits of Opposition MP's reforming parliament on the 25th of January without respect to the minority dictatorship's actions, when it should have been resumed.

Thoughts on whether this should become a movement?

As a movement its good.

There are a lot of things that would have to be dealt with and cleared for the parties to convene Parliament.

For starters, the Liberals would not join in from the NDP  saying we are going ahead and trying to push the Liberals into it. And I think it would too much a dismissed grand gesture without the Liberals. I seriously doubt the Speaker would go along with it.

Something achievable might be an essentially symbolic opening. Trying to deal with a range of business, I can't see having a chance. And it will get ignored anyway later.

Not that it should get bogged down in details. But something achievable and substantive in its own right. Like a re-opening of Parliament, which then proceeds to the re-opeing of Committee hearings dealing with the detainee issues. Followed by more committee hearings, such as the ones dealing with inquiries into pensions. The advantage of committee hearins is that even under normal procedure, their results are not binding. So you end run the credibility issues of trying to work Parliament as if there was a government. Committee hearing results have their own credibility, and will get more attention without the circus of Question Period, and being the media focus.

What Ken says sounds good, but I just wanted to address a question from the previous thread:

Just procedure. This isn't a call for a coalition (although I have nothing against those in other circumstances). The basic compromise would be: stop attacking each other for a few minutes and put together a procedural approach along the lines of what Ken is suggesting above, but I hasten to add I have no clue about the parliamentary rules that would be involved.

Now, I also agree that if the NDP makes the approach, it can't be too pushy or partisan or self-serving. They should call for talks with the other two leaders. If the others refuse to take the matter seriously, the NDP can then go public and ask people of all persuasions to put pressure on their parties - still without launching partisan attacks if possible. Or something along those lines.

You don't have to know a lot about the Parliamentary rules to know that there are severe limitations on trying to run Parliament without the government. There are also the optics of what could easily turn into looking highly presumptuous.

So call it something else, with the parties actually meeting in the House. In their negotiations they would work out the questions about how to make the optics work.

There would actually be an advantage in the Committee doing the detainee hearings, versus had the House not been prorogued. The government was boycotting anyway. And as nasty and self serving as that is, you can't do anything meaninful without them even if they don't have the Chiar in that particular committee.

But with them boycotting the House in general, and temporary rules being expected for anything to happen, the optics of doing the hearings without the government would be no sweat. Provided of course, that the real and prior hurdle was cleared: sufficient public support for any kind of sitting of the House.

Well Peter Milliken is the house speaker, so assuming the political hurdles can be cleared is there any procedural reason he can't "show up for work" despite the GG's directive?

He's just not going to do it. Its just way too far outside the expected role of the Speaker's neutrality.

And the work can't be normal anyway. Even a semblance of normal.

It's interesting that The Globe and Mail's editorial board has come out against Stephen Harper on this.  They have been moderately behind him over the past few years and so this may indicate that he no longer has them in his corner.

And why the need for it to be as if normal?

Let alone that isn't feasible; and if it was, would be a much greater risk of appearing presumptuous.

I think the idea of the other opposition parties sitting in the House regardless has merit.  But the most effective accountability mechanism available is simply for Layton, Duceppe and Ignatieff to hold a news conference on Monday to say they will all vote non-confidence on the Throne Speech unless the following conditions are met in the speech (for example): full public inquiry into the Afghan detainee issue, release of all documents demanded by the House of Commons, a comprehensive climate change and cap-and-trade plan to be presented by June 1, etc.  Either Harper does these things or we have an election and let the people pass the final judgment on him.

Canadians have twice elected a minority government and the only reason Harper gets away with all this undemocratic abuse of process is that the other parties let him do it with no consequences.  The one time the Libs finally stood up to Harper last year with the brief coalition interlude, Harper did a total reversal of his economic and fiscal policies.  As unionist said in the other thread, the issue is not PR or other process changes, the challenge is getting the opposition parties to do their jobs and to stand up to this "nobody wants elections" media drumbeat. 

Ironically Peter Milliken might be too absorbed in the traditions of parliamentary democracy to do so.

I'll actually be surprised if Layton isn't already on the phone with his caucus and with other party leaders seeing what support there might be for some combination of (a) a jointly sponsored draft Act of Parliament providing that Parliament can't be prorogued without a two-thirds resolution of the House of Commons, (b) a citizens' assembly of elected MPs from as many parties as possible represented in the House, to sit maybe in 200 West Block daily with translation services, (c) a joint visit to the Governor-General to discuss something weighty (I'd have to think about exactly what a bit more), (d) a joint legal intervention of some kind to advance the case of the documents Parliament has asked to have produced, and possibly (e) some kind of joint legal intervention to request an injunction on discretionary spending.  I suspect they are also probably revving up the infrastructure from their coalition website to collect names and signatures.  But I agree with Unionist: it can't be done in a partisan or petty way.  It has to be serious in line with the severity of the action being criticized.

Based on the outcome of those consultations I wouldn't be surprised to see a news conference of some kind on Monday, if not earlier.  I suspect all the parties will be falling over themselves to give something exclusive to CTV's Question Period for Sunday morning.  I'm also guessing that Peter Mansbridge will convene a special panel on At Issue tonight to debate it, and I think we already know the topic for the weekend Cross-Country Checkup show.  Everyone will watch to see how the issue develops, but if Paul Wells' foray into the shops earlier today is any indication, the government will probably now be polling all weekend to see how damaging this has turned out to be.  The comment boards at the CBC and Globe and Mail are filling up, in many cases with people identifying themselves as folks who are centre-right and voted Conservative, but DO care thank you very much about whether the House sits.

So, I come back to what L.Ian MacDonald said yesterday [12] on CTV Newsnet: in making this apparently clever tactical move, the Conservatives may have sacrificed their longer-term strategic interest in the message-track of avoiding an election in favour of letting Parliament do its work.  And that may turn out to be have been a lot more damaging to them than the Liberal majority in the Senate or the Afghanistan committee, unless they know something that we don't know, which is a whole lot worse still.  For sure, that's not the kind of question to be begging at this stage of the game ... certainly not when the international community is about to be taking a close-up look at Canada.

I'm not even sure how I'd define "neutrality" in this case. Are there examples in other constitutional monarchies of the legislative branch convening parliament despite the government's wishes? What were the outcomes?

Didn't Byng tell King to shove it when King asked for dissolution of Parliament? It's not government that decides how Parliament works. The legislative "branch" as you call it is supposed to be absolutely supreme, except when it comes to changing the constitution. Parliament can stop 90% of the ugly manoeuvres dead in their tracks. What is needed here is not precedent - it's chutzpah.

MPs could sit as a Committee of the Whole.  While practically this still has partisan overtones, technically it does not.

MPs could then debate issues of the day, including what 'must' be in a throne speech.

In less that two years we have had object lessons on how little Canadians know about their government and how cynically the Conservatives will use that ignorance.  First there was the whole coalition thing with the Conservatives just making shit up about how it was unconsititional and so on.  Now we have the Conservatives pretending this is a normal poroguement (if that's a word).  Normally the government would porogue right before the next session begins, thus allowing business as usual to continue irrespective of whether the House was sitting or not.  Instead, the Conservatives have pre-porogued (if that's a word) essentially shutting down Parliament indefinetly.  Sure they say they are coming back on March 3rd with a new throne speech, but they don't have too.  They could just decide that date doesn't suit and move it ahead to a time of their chosing.

I know we have convention that the GG must accept the advice of Her Majesty's First Minister.  But you and I also have a constitutionally and convention guarenteed right to responsible government.  The GG has, in allowing a government facing possible censure, violated my and your right to responsible government.  Yet the media, supposedly the watchdog on government for the common people, is barely making more than a peep.  If the media really was that watchdog they would refuse to report all the self-congratulatory pap that will continue to be cranked out by the government because it has lost its responsible government legitimacy. 

I don't see Michael Ignatieff heading down this road again anytime soon. His last foray into attempting to set the government's agenda was so badly mishandled, I doubt he has much appetite for a repeat.

The noun is prorogation, FYI.

I'm not sure it's correct to say that the media is barely making more than a peep.  A front-page editorial from the Globe and Mail is pretty significant for them, and I haven't seen such passionate engagement from columnists (both print and online) in a long time.  And it's still going.  We'll see for how long.

The Conservatives are betting that "we'll see for how long" doesn't extand through the Olympics. They are almost certainly right.

The outrage doesn't have to last anywhere near until the Olympics, only through some movement by the opposition parties.

I quite like the idea of Opposition MPs showing up, even if it's a symbolic gesture only. At least it would show they can come together even briefly.

Proroguing Parliament has traditionally  been about "wrapping up a parliamentary session that has run it's course", but this time there are several major bills left to work on. I think this action is actually ILLEGAL [so was the previous one!].

So what of our Gov.Gen? Is she going to cave in again and let Harper do this? She should be aware of historical use of perogue, and that it isn't for this kind of thing.

Legal or not, it is certainly abusive and treacherous behavior on the part of PM Harper and the cons. 

PM Harper is protecting himself but it looks more 'cowardly and clever' than something to be proud of.

Will conservative supporters really still vote for this party?

You are less cynical than I am.  My expectation is the moment Auld Lang Syne fads into memory tomorrow the media will be back to business as usual.  I agree there is some noise right now, but I wouldn't expect them to do anything actually significant like treatings the governments bleatings on everything from the Olympics to spending as coming from a government side-stepping our traditions of responsible government and thus ignore it.  This filler fills the space between comercials and I expect it will continue right on as if nothing happened, even if privately many will bemoan it.

Exactly.  Harper has now established a precedent where the Government gets to call an extended timeout whenever they are facing a difficult issue.  It's beyond ridiculous but until the sleepy, apathetic citizens rouse themselves and figure out what's going on, it's going to continue.  The PM is supposed to be responsible to parliament but Harper is showing open disdain for the insitution.  And very few people appear to care.  I'm starting to wonder if we are going to have to change to a presidential form of governance.  Harper is governing like a president but without all the checks and balances that normally go with it.

If the polls are correct (and there's no reason to believe they aren't), the answer is yes.  They will rationalize by saying the Liberals were just as bad.

Unfortunately, as Norman Spector pointed out this morning, they very nearly were.

I'm not sure one waits until January 25. What Harper has done is shut down the Commons committee hearings on the Afghanistan detainee transfer issue. So why not resume them informally, attended by all the opposition members, who are a majority of the committee anyway? Recently the Conservatives boycotted anyway, so it would look no different.

That's what the Globe implies:

Fair enough Wilf, I only  stated the 25th as that was when parliament was supposed to reconvene....

when were the committees to stat up again after the season's break?

Typically on the Tuesday.

Reality Check:2009: Stephen Harper's Year on the Run

From the should be closed thread

Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=225434253378&ref=ts

And if that is the case the committees should start up again on the Tuesday

Actually, Spector implies this, but in no way makes his case. While it might have seemed clever to pair Chretien with Harper as 'masters of the dark side of politics', it seemed to me just lingering resentment against Chretien, petty leftovers from Spector's days on the Mulroney team. 

He mentions Chretien suspending Parliament twice - once to deal with the internal party challenge from the Martinites, and once to step down. In neither case was it done to thwart the will of Parliament or to silence the opposition.

...agree LTJ, it was Spector at his slimiest.

Nor to avoid a possible crimes against humanity investigation, plus plus plus.....

Neither prorogation fit the bill of "normally Parliament is only prorogued when Parliamentary [ETA the missing word:] business is concluded" either.  And I had forgotten about both of them until I read him this morning.

Your points about the differing orders of magnitude are well taken, however.

That is the whole thing about the spin  that Spector and his brethern put on things. Take a small aspect of reality and pretend it is equal and the same.

It floats by enough people to give it  use as a propaganda tool, time and time again.

I am not sure if the other parties should help Harper dig his grave, when he is doing such an excellent job digging his own.

Would it not be an excellent oportunity for the Unions to show some leadership and try to organise a rotating general strike. One day people whose social insurance number ends with an even number go on strike and the next day those with an odd number take a break, till Harper resigns. Most people I talked to seem royaly pissed off about his suspension of parliament.

And the Unions could certainly use a bit more profile.

Happy new year BTW.

Going Prorogue:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/31/stephen-h...

"Did Canada's prime minister suspend parliament to shut down investigations into the torture of Afghan detainees?...It will take a special kind of apathetic populace to collectively shrug off back-to-back cut-and-run attempts like these..."

Canada's Conservatives Shut Down Parliament Again

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/parl-d31.shtml [37]

"In response to the Conservatives' insinuations that they are in bed with the Taliban, the Liberals and the NDP have been reduced to bleating that they "stand with the troops"..."

'Stephen Harper's not-so-benign dictatorship'

by Professor Michael Behiels, University of Ottawa

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Stephen+Harper+benign+dictatorship/239...

Following that theme of wondering whether Harper is again being too clever by half, Radwanski:

Clever or clumsy?

Radwanski talks about the Conservatives being taken to task over the mid-term... that this could easily hound them more in March than if they had just gone ahead and taken their lumpos over the dtainee crisis [which was probably containable].

But there is a real possibility Harper will have set off a much nearer peril. I agree with OO that the opposition parties are by now at least gaugung each other for possibilities, if not having already decided they want to do something other than fulminate, and are now talking about what and how. [With each having to weigh internally what it would mean for them, with feedbacks to and from the inter-party discussions.]

Again.

Last year, it was Harper so stupidly risky that some form of destabilizing reaction from the opposition parties was guaranteed. Not that stupid this time around. But sufficiently provocative that its a safe bet the tentaive opposition party discussions have at least begun.

Here's my own read.

The NDP is in, and initiating the background scene again.

The Bloc- depends. They'll be reading the internal polls to gauge where they come out if there is an election. If it doesn't look good, they won't even be talking. My guess is that their polling will tell them they will be OK. I think it will be a safe prediction that the Conservative narrative playing against the opposition parties trying to  'usurp power', however effective it may be in the ROC, is pretty unlikely to play well in Quebec. And the Bloc will reap substantial benefits if there is even a hint of replaying 'in bed with the seperatists'. They would probably benefit from the francophone backlash on that even if its only replaying of last years tapes.

Liberals- the biggest question mark of course. But for all the Liberals newfound realization that they have to back up and get their act together... thats about being an election machine. I don't think they'll worry about whether they can govern. And they only have to survive the election, without a Harper majority. The latter is still not very likely, and bleeding seats to the NDP probably a containable fear because at worst its unlikley to be many... and a short term price theyd willingly pay for the chance to govern.

The governing would certainly pose risks that they could do really serious long term harm to the Liberal brand, but its not like they by now don't know that is an all too likely outcome of the status quo of trying to slowly get their groove back while in opposition... with all the internal and external factors not working well and only potentially redeemable.

Newman votes for the theory that this is a clever move and the plan is that this is the path to going for a majority in the Spring.

Thats going to be a popular theory around here.

I don't think so. I think its simply that Harper thinks he can get away with this and its the way he does things. I think hes banking that the opposition parties will do nothing but talk.

Hes likely to be right. But Radwanskis point still stands: its another completely unforced gamble, and this may be the one too many.

As Radwanski and others say, Harper is no "genius".

He's just light years smarter and gutsier than his adversaries.

What's that saying about the one-eyed man?

So, without a serious popular movement kicking them in the rear end, can OO or anyone else seriously foresee cooperation on the part of the opposition to put a crimp in this dictatorship, let alone end it?

The point has been made that all it will take to topple Harper is a non-confidence motion on the budget.

 Rather than endless pissing and moaning about Harper, just grow a pair and vote him down.

My opinion is that self-entitlement will trump service to the nation. No-one who isn't vetted for the gold-plated MP pension plan wants an election.

To answer Unionists question, I think they can cooperate.

Cant elaborate now. But I sould note that above I was just talking about the parties strategic evaluatiuon of being willing to risk the outcome of what they do being an election. In the first place, they can do a lot without necessarily having to take that step.

But if they are willing to at least entertain that risk, all the other possibilities get a lot more clout. And the more those have clout, the more the cards are in their hands, including escape hatches if pushing where an election might be the outcome starts to look risker than it did when they started pushing.

Unionist and others IMO base their analysis too much on as if this was two guys having a piss fight. Harper isn't just more 'gutsy', hes shrewd about keeping all the cards in his hand. When you can't control those cards backing off or not is not just a question of guts.

But Harpers persitent problem, every several months or once a year at most, is that he pushes too hard. And I think that in this case hes handing the opposition a LOT of new cards to play. And that changes the probability of what people might be willing to do... including overcoming all their heretofore much haibutated respenses.

Later to elaborate. But I bet at least one other person is thinking on similar lines.

I hope during the Olympics while Canada is on the world stage there is also fairly decent coverage of the government being AWOL.

Whatever the likehihood or not the opposition parties will do something with some teeth.... this serious popular movement isn't going to happen. Not even close to the engaged numbers required.

Lack of guts I guess.

No, lack of leadership with guts, I guess. Same problem as in Ottawa. There is no shortage of troops who are willing to do whatever is necessary. It takes a serious effort to keep them quiet and in eternal waiting mode.

concerted effort that keeps them quiet, eh.

guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Yes indeed. Concerted effort:

(a) by the mainstream media, which preaches that nothing can be done.

(b) by the likes of Ignatieff, Layton, and Duceppe, who have no demand on their followers and on the population at large, except to donate money and votes at the appropriate time (prove me wrong, Ken - show me some call to action of any kind whatsoever).

(c) by the pragmatic opportunism of party leading cliques, who never ever follow the wishes of their members as expressed through conventions and other vehicles - thus creating cynicism, apathy, and inaction.

It's not easy to convince active and engaged people that there is no role for them to play in the crystal palaces of power in our allegedly democratic society. It takes constant, daily attention. When a mood of excitement swept the country in December 2008 at the prospect of actually defeating Harper, it suddenly occurred to the political cliques that this was too dangerous and unpredictable - it had to be aborted - and so it was. Likewise with an overwhelming demand by NDP convention delegates for immediate troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Actually, the examples are legion. What is inspiring is that although Canadians continue to express their contempt for the cowardly leaders by staying home in elections which change nothing, they continue to be engaged in 1001 ways in their communities, their workplaces, their educational institutions. The movement is there - its political expression is not. When it arises, it will sweep away the sorry excuses of talking heads that get all the attention of the MSM.

"Layton said urgent action is needed on the pension crisis, the Afghan detainee issue, the high jobless rate and Canada's follow-up to the Copenhagen climate-change summit"

This work has to be done.  Whoever is able to do it, should.  Harper is just going to be talking with his 'stakeholders' and lawyers, writing up reams of crap to hide nasty clauses that will make pensions and jobs and environment and rights worse.  Just like he did with the last budget. 

Instead of having to pull together 'heroic' last minute negotiations, as per that recent blog on coalition back-and-forth, MPs of all sorts should be talking now and not shouting in the House.  It may be a useful practice. 

There is alot that can get done or at least discussed in a month- even processes for resident/ constituent input on issues.

@Unionist:

I have still been a movement activist far longer than I have been a partisan of an electoral party. And I have always seen this differently than you and many others do.

While I would essentially agree that there are consistent and deeply dissapointing failures in leadership, and that this is crucial... I have always been VERY opposed to views that the people would rise up if they were not being actively held back.

This is a much bigger discussion than this issue. And while arguing the various merits could and no doubt will be expressed around the unfolding of current issues, I doubt it leads compellingly to any particular conclusions about what is to be done.

Actually, I think the window of opportunity is going to be pretty short this time too. They may not have to come up with a complete plan quite as quickly. But if they do not make a public pronouncement of intentions pretty quickly, the opportunity will pass. And they cannot even make a general statement of intent without having worked out all the most important issues.

The advantage this time around isn't more time- its that they have done this before.

Hue and cry right now from both the media and the masses is important to carry that along. And while blogging about it is not by any means enough... its part of the process in todays politics.

Layton 'says' a lot of things but all he has to DO is get off his knees and vote NO to the March 4 budget.

Just quit the endless grandstanding, get on his hind legs and say NO! The other parliamentary weasels may or may not join him but to this voter, the first craven weasel to stand up and say "enough" will garner all the credibility while the rest choke on their words in their haste to get onside.

If Count Iggy and the Libranos support Harper, Jack is going to look downright good in the coming election.

Happy New Year, Bubbles!

Helluva good idea you have there!

I knew those SIN cards would have a better purpose!

But based on what I've seen at the MFL convention in Brandon, a general strike is the last thing on the leadership's minds.  At least in Manitoba.  It's all too depressing.

I noticed that there are even some objections at FD over Harper's decision to prorogue.

Wait and see what folks do Monday. I don't mean Layton and Ignatieff. I mean all the civil society leaders, starting with journalists and political science professors, who are very concerned.

Hardly anyone I know read, or heard of, the Globe's front-page editorial Friday. It was New Year's Eve, ffs. So it was prologue, a dress rehearsal.

Those who want to follow through are planning what they'll do Monday.

It should be an exciting time.

Norman Spector is arguing that Harper won't even let the budget get to a vote, but will table it on the Thursday, and then ask the GG to dissolve Parliament over the following weekend for an election on the second Monday in April.

I would actually go further than you and say that the forthcoming two months should be used to develop an alternative budget that can become the major part of the party's platform, and travel across the country to build support for it.

Isn't tabling a budget and not letting it even be voted on almost unheard of?

I think Harper is playing with fire, and hopefully this time he will get burnt.

It happened 2003 in Nova Scotia. Don't think it was particularly novel then. At any rate, didn't seem to burn.

Not so unheard of that I've never heard of it.  Although I couldn't cite you chapter and verse of when it's happened before (I note that KenS has just come up with one example, though).  I do believe the Conservatives think it looks weak to lose a confidence vote, and would always prefer to end the Parliament on their own terms and their own timing.

But just 6 short years later Ken, there is an NDP government.....around here in the backwater of Canada, it was the main talk of New Years Eve and Day, by those who are not "politically minded".

None got why he did it particulaiuly correctly, lots of weird reassons floated, but that he has done it x2 in a year, and the politicans are not working for their money sticks in people's craw, it seeems.

i was looking for the CCPA Alternative Budget transcripts from last month- seems only some CPAC visuals are up.  my internet connection doesn't do videos very well-keep timing out. 

in any case, working on an alternative budget is a good idea.  if one alternative budget has already been started, it's worth floating that around as something to get comments on.  letting liberals and others fight it out in a backroom first, then floating an alternative around to residents at the end is backwards.

That and a very material reason for moving up the end and doing it on their message.

The norm is Throne Speech, then at least a couple weeks of debate before the confidence vote. Long time for the opposition parties to push framing towards the ballot questions they want. While bringing in the Budget and immediately pulling the plug eliminates those opportunities, and puts the ballot question four square where Harper wants it.

Plus, one of the opportunities for the opposition parties in that normal period after the Throne Speech, is to present the GG with an alternative govenment. Thats not certain to be overuled, and even if it was, it is very much a discussion the government wants NOT to have even when the ultimate decision in their favour is pretty certain. Neither is the framing they want tio avoid something that would just pop up and therefore be easily swatted down in the court of public opinion. If the opposition parties did go to the GG, it would be after weeks of the Liberals and NDP framing the benefits.

But all that said about why I can see Spectors scenarion happening- for me, its a case of IF its Harpers plan to have an election in the Spring, then this is the way we could expect it to unfold. But I'm not convinced thats the plan. Though I can see that it is at least one option they have set up for... and armed options easily become what happens.

That people are talking about the opposition getting the guts (the "growing a pair comment" is extremely offensive by the way) to vote down the government, is a symptom of the problem rather than the solution.

All parties are focusing on electioneering and positioning rather than contributing to governing and Canadians have responded by telling pollsters they just have not changed their minds from their previous choice-- although if you asked the question if this parliament has disgusted the citizenry you might find a majority answer for the first time in a while.

A case in point is that the opposition keep talking about making government work (when they are not talking about making it not work) but by that they mean rolling over and accepting what the worst government in living memory is proposing with few proposals none of which have been communicated effectively to the population.

What Canadians might respond to (assuming that they have not turned off altogether for an indefinite time) is a sustained campaign on a series of opposition proposals that mean something to them. This is different than announcing the odd proposal here and there between machinations for the next election. The idea that these will provide a target or be stolen is cover for a lack of substance in the opposition. This is not a government that is listening to the opposition's ideas - it won't steal anything. If the ideas are well thought out, it can't successfully attack them either.

The problem is the opposition -- all of them have a sustained lack of confidence in themselves, one that is more critical than their lack of confidence in the government.

The Liberals in particular after showing such poor judgment as the proposals included in their last platform won't risk making any proposals of substance at all.If the opposition wants to make any headway, it will not come through forcing an election they will lose or pretending to be brave enough to face the voters on a losing proposition. It will come through moving the polling numbers and that can only be done by proposing something Canadians want. At some point the opposition all have to realize that winning government is not going to come by trying to convince the Canadian people that the governing party is bad-- too many support that party and many of them are naturally right wing. The way to defeat them is to move those people who are supporting Harper who remain open to other options. To do that will only happen by offering those other options-- and doing that over a sustained period of time.

The NDP made the right first move by backing down on voting against the government in the short term. That was the first move only. The second is to come to the people (no matter if the house is open or closed) and present something worth supporting and fight for it. At this point the issue remains the economy and the economy is directly associated with the sustainability of the environment. The NDP must present budget proposals and then campaign publicly for them, it can call out the other opposition parties and ask them if they prefer these over Harper's. Those proposals have to directly address how to move to a Green economy without creating further hardship. It must identify what the investments need to be, where they are to go, how they are to be paid for and how to manage the current deficit. And they need to be packaged in to a coherent form-- a name for the package so that as the elements are released they are fit in to it.

The Liberals have already recieved this advice. They are holding a "thinkers' conference" early this year. They will take what comes out of that and try to ride it in to government as they did the Red book from 1992-- which was a big part of their victory in 1993.

If the NDP want to be relevant they will need to bookend the Liberal "thinkers' conference" with their own ideas lest they allow the Liberals to reclaim status as an alternative government. This is a train wreck that we have been seeing for some time. If the NDP does not package its proposals in to a "governing plan" the Liberals will open up on them and even if they do not beat the Cons leave the NDP irrelevant.

Then the NDP should say that it will not concentrate on initiating a vote of no confidence until this is communicated to the people-- although each situation will be considered (thereby leaving all other options open). In practice the party should avoid such votes until there is an indication that the people have bought in to what is being proposed. It is even reasonable for the NDP to address this directly saying that it will not propose a no-confidence vote until there is an indication that it might result in a change of government-- and this is separate from NDP fortunes but simply a question of the purpose of such a vote which is to replace a bad government.

But this all come back to the central theme of an opposition that claims that it has no confidence in the government but has even less in itself.

Never has there been so much corporate and political propaganda surrounding the Olympics since 1936.  And never has there been such manipulation and circumventing of parliamentary democracy since 1935.

Sean, I read your whole post #62 and have a question: What should the NDP's goal be in all that manoeuvring? Looking responsible? Getting some ideas across? Coming up with some ideas? Winning a plurality in the next election (I'm Jack Layton and I'm running for Prime Minister)!!?? Getting some bills through the House? Trying for the balance of power in another minority House? Averting irrelevancy for a while? Setting the stage for another coalition with the Liberals and BQ? Strategic voting?

Without a goal, what's the point of all this advice?

My own view (as expressed above) was very short term - that the NDP should call on MPs, senators, committee members (all of them - individually and through party leaders) to defy the move by M. Jean and S. Harper to throttle Parliament and to continue business as usual. Not "making government work", which is impossible - rather, making Parliament work, which is eminently possible - but requires extreme courage and sound tactics.

Not so, on that particular point.  The first confidence vote usually comes on a vote on the first amendment to the Throne Speech motion, often within a few days or debate.

As to your point about the PM not necessarily following the approach Spector suggests, just reserving it as one option of several, I would tend to agree.  But as I'm looking forward at the calendar, the fall is not likely due to conflicting municipal and provincial elections.

A thoughtful post, Sean.  I think the parties have two months to get it together, though, because I don't think Harper will let the session end on a confidence vote.  The game will be well over or substantially changed by the time the Liberals' thinkers conference is slated for the end of March.

I generally agree with Unionists point/question to Sean there. But its worth noting that there is no reason to be either/or about 'making Parliament work'. Its a good launching point- inherently tainted to you- but it isn.t aimed at you. It IS what Canadians of all persuasions want... and the NDP has some earned capital on that. You thinking its bunk is beside the point.

And thats not just a spin/narrative point. I think there is a substantive link between what has been done, and getting back to Parliament despite the government.

OK, my "at least 2 weeks" is a material exxageration. I think it easily and generally tends to be more than a few days of elapsed time, and certainly more with procedures if thats what the opposition wants. But even several days would be sufficient, especially with all the advance prep, for the opposition parties to do their own framing of ballot questions.

And even if there is no election, it will be because of a particulary embarrasing cave by the Liberals. Early March is set up as lose-lose for them. Seriously blown of course again as they go to the 'thinkers conference'.

As I mentioned before my election night prediction was an election in the fall of 2010 - I still think we are on track with that.

I was to the rink today (two different ones in fact)  I have a suspicion, and at this point it is only a suspicion, that Harper and Co may have been too clever by half.  People were actually talking about this, but not about the details as mentioned above, but about Harper (actually all politicians) giving themselves an extended holiday.  I was actually fairly shocked, because I expected we would be talking about Christmas, the holidays, pending return to school, the weather, whatever.   However, people who know I am involved in some things were asking me about this, and making scathing remarks about it.

I am more convinced than ever that the really smart move by the oppositon will be to be seen to be trying to 'work' and being thwarted by Harper in doing so.  Move the pox on all their houses over to the neighbours as it were.

B.A., it's interesting what you were picking up at the rink.

I can't see an opening in the calendar in the Fall, though.  The NB provincial is September 27, and I think the provincial PCs will be gunning for Shawn Graham (and the issue may help to revive the moribund provincial NDP there, which has been posting some wild polling numbers lately), and then the Ontario municipal elections are on the fourth Monday in October (new dates, further to recent provincial legislation; they used to be in November).  Unless you think late in November is a possibility, but it's hard for me to see now how that would unfold.

Another reason I think the Conservatives pick the dates they do, is to minimize the voting and electoral participation of university students.  Mid-April puts them either in the middle of exams, packing up to go home, or in job-hunting mode.

Yes thanks, but that was at the provincial level.  I'm wondering when it last happened at the federal level.

I don't think it's happened in a long time at the federal level - that is what would make it so unorthodox.

It is just as unusual at the provincial level. My point is that it didn't substantially rasie eyebrows despite it being so unusual.

I think it will this year. 

The Facebook group is already trying to cross-country rallies for January 23, 2009.  There are actually a couple of Facebook groups I've seen now.  If people actually show up, then we're into something different, but I think the Conservatives are counting on it fizzling out in the cold of winter.

I would actually argue that municpal elections would be one of the reasons the Conservatives would target the fall, not a barrier to go in the fall.  A number of potential opposition candidates reside at the municipal level (it is one route to being in the public eye)  So targeting that time takes some potential threats away in some potential moveable ridings as many will not jump unless it looks like a sure, or close to sure thing.  As well it looks like there might be some blood letting amongst Liberals in the Toronto contest for Mayor.  With attention focused there is takes some big brains out of the mix, and more importantly cash.

 New Brunswick is a more likely barrier, but certainly it is not without precedence for provincial/federal level elections to follow on the heels of each other.

I have no better idea than anyone else though.

I take your point on Ontario ... especially the mayoralty race in Toronto.  On the other hand, the HST gets implemented on July 1 in BC and Ontario, and Spector's argument goes that they would want to get the election out of the way before the second round of outrage.  Which I can see, for sure, especially when it risks being an issue municipally in Ontario as well.

BA, what you were hearing at the rink mirrors what people are saying to me (you know that an issue is pissing people off if they want to talk politics with you). Interestingly, it also mirrors what the guy who sold Paul Wells a coffee was saying (although, as he notes, that's not quite as reliable a measure of public opinion as talking to taxi drivers).

SeanInOttowa...  I'm puzzeled by the phrase, or idea, you used twice:

"

But this all come back to the central theme of an opposition that claims that it has no confidence in the government but has even less in itself."

Giving political parties "feelings" make them seem human.  They are not. 

I'm for the party leaders meeting during a prorogue.  But let the MPs return to their ridings.  In some Con strongholds, the sustained presence of their MP, along with headlines popping out of Ottowa from all three party leaders, will do more damage in the long run, Games or not. 

Harper will then be forced to keep spending public money on stimulus projects, the effects of which have been debatable, while selling off assets and trimming services.  He'll then retire, for family reasons.

Did someone suggest a rollling general strike by public servants as a good idea right now?  I'm having trouble grapsing how this would accomplish anything other than helping the Cons.

It was a silly suggestion. Lurching into battle without leaders or aims is the political equivalent of a tantrum. The adults always end up getting their way.

I was thinking more about deflecting public opinion away from the Cons, and giving the Cons a wedge. 

Leadership is in short supply in Ottowa these days, Unionist.  Just give them all a little more time... like until March.  Then, by gosh, sparks will fly.

Ah, hell.  That's me being cynical.  What is needed is a strong, sensible spokesperson to keep this alive.  Otherwise the back to back prorogue will be a dead issue in less than two weeks.

Maybe one should not see this as a battle. But more as 'Joe Public' immitating the cons, and taking a few Harperrogie Days too. I am not sure why one needs a leader in what seems to be a general concensus issue. Leaders are easy tagets. And the aim seems to be pretty clear. Get rid of Harper and bring back a parliament that reflects the will of Canadians.

there are so many strange ideas in the last set of posts- as if selling off public assets could ever be a good thing !? as if members of opposition parties, MPs or leaders, have 'lack of confidence'?? if they did, they wouldn't be there.

people are talking about what to do.  in terms of energy, other than dancing, the subject raised the loudest vocality on new year's.  from people of different political persuasions. 

in terms of platforms of what can be discussed, i'm still waiting to see options floated in public.  two months is good time, particularly in winter, for people at the grassroots to get access to options and discuss them.

Re: Spector's point about Chretien's prorogues. 

Talking point: If Parliament had the power to prorogue itself, Chretien would have had a majority of MPs in line to do so. Harper could not carry such a vote. Therefore, Harper's maneuvers are a lot more undemocratic and egregious (motives aside).

The opposition parties not only have a collective majority of seats, but also a majority of voters. I agree that they could make a strong argument to continue "working" during the prorogue. Who cares if there deliberations would be legally binding.

April 13th for the next election?

Unlike Norman Spector, I wouldn't want to predict a specific date but I think his arguments for the general timing hold up.

Here's a parliamentary question. If Harper brought down a throne speech and budget but then immediately dissolved parliament, wouldn't the budget and throne speech be null and void? Wouldn't he need to do that again were he to form the next government? 

If so, wouldn't that be even more cynical than this prorogue? After all, his main excuse for the prorogue was to work on the economy. 

The throne speech is little more than a priority setting exercise, so it wouldn't matter so much.  However, the budget could only be seen as a set of promises as there would be no force and effect of anything in it without something being passed in the House.  I guess they could pay some bills by order in council, but I can't think of a time when that was done with a whole budget.  Presenting a budget as a shopping list of promises to go into an election has a pretty long and inglorious history. 

I still don't buy Spector's arguments.  I can't see Harper risking the glow of the G8 and G20 meetings.  Totally free, positive coverage.  My expectation is still a fall election, perhaps called after those meetings as a pretence of dealing with something coming out of them around positive economic 'plans' with a need for a 'strong mandate' to implement them.  It will all be BS, but that is what I am expecting.

But as I said no one knows.

As BA said- budget tabled would be dead. Nothing more than en election platform.

And you are right, transparently cynical: prorogue House to concentrate on economy, have election instead.

While transparent, not to as a narrative on the public stage IMO.

I tend to agree Doug.

And BA Harper will not be risking much. It's not as if Ignatieff, all of a sudden, is gonna suddenly finally see the light. My bigger concern is that Harper will get his elusive majority, unless the NDP strongly steps up to the plate.

If a majority of members of parliament in the next two months did come up with consensus, supported by their constituents, on key policy, why couldn't those policies then be passed in the House when it resumes?

Because spending bills have to have the recommendation of the Crown (i.e., for all practical purposes, they have to come from the government).  That's the whole underpinning of why budgetary measures are confidence measures.  The government proposes the spending, and the members of the House of Commons decide whether they have confidence in the government.

so the assumption here is that any members of parliament who want to meet in the interim would be focussing on an alternative budget.

still, wouldn't this work have to be done anyway by members of parliament?  how can they usefully critique whatever Harper comes up with if they haven't put the time in to consider budget options themselves?

also, it would be very clear to the public what the choices were- and if there was a majority of parliamentarians who had a substantially different and useful set of budgetary proposals, they'd be election ready.

Agree with you on that point, for sure.

The Liberals don't want to play House.

That article says that both the Liberals and the NDP appear uncommitted to working during prorogation.

It is not a total surprise.  Both parties do not have the courage of their convictions to stand up to Harper.  They are not in the same league as he is.  He regularly outwits them.  As the year end articles on Harper said, he towers over the opposition in Parliament.  He is a giant.

He certainly stands out in the deceit department, Augustus. There's also his enormous ignorance of meteorological science.  Yes, he is big in many ways.

"He towers, like Zeus, over the opposition."

quote: "Regrettably, Mr. Harper's success is based much more on politics - his brutally partisan wielding of executive power - than on inspired policy. The key is his Vlad the Impaler toughness. He's got more venom than your average cobra."

Yeah, he sums him rather well...Good luck to the kids.

I would like to be surprised, I would like them to stand up to Harper and the dictatorship he brings to Canadian politics.

He lies, he promised an elected Senate and now will stack it, he promised fixed elections and instead calls them whenever it suits him,  and we know how he can do that, he does that with the support of those who call it greatness.  LOL

so very disappointing.

interesting that some Liberals support protest, while it was Iggy that went along with Harper.

very disappointing in NDP reaction too..

they'd at least should have said what their alternative plans were for the period.  maybe the Globe just didn't report that bit?

IT IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS !!!

I don't care how many Liberals or Conservatives or Reform in the past have prorogued Parliament for a bit here or there.  This guy just did it last year, for pathetic reasons.

It is Harper that is the coward.  A true coward. 

Apparently we're all just supposed to watch the Olympic circus now and cheer Harper at the G8 when he boldly promotes free trade in global uranium under the guise of stopping nuclear terrorism.

We're supposed to numb out over shiny skates while Harperites get off scot-free for complicity in war crimes in Afghanistan.

We're supposed to ignore the sound of the transport bombers overhead, carrying our made-in-Canada uranium DU ammunition and bombs for Pakistani and Yemeni villagers.

We're supposed to forget the 200 billion in bailouts to the bankers from Harper, while our public services are cut and the land and waters are gutted for this minority non-government's buddies.

AN OUTRAGE.

Prorogation with a minority Parliament is clearly an abuse of the democratic process. It may be seen as a politically astute move by some in the mainstream media but it is really pushing the limits of the PMO and sets a damaging precedent for the future of the democratic institutions of the country. As an aside, would Canadians be more outraged if we no longer had a Governor General as the representative of the Queen and Stephen Harper had to explain to the voters that he was doing this on his own? Its all a question of the appearance of the crime.

How will the opposition parties react if Canadian citizens send letter after letter, e-mail after e-mail and telephone call after telephone call urging them to stand up to Harper and defy the prorogue order?

By the sounds of it (according to the latest poll) the majority of Canadians polled are displeased with Harper's stunt - this latest prorogation of Parliament.

steps to the abyss.

maybe when they can't pay their electricity bills anymore and the TV gets shut off they'll talk to their neighbours about something other than the @%&!! olympics.

Having the opposition MPs turn up for the previously scheduled sitting day would be great theatre.

But that's all it would be.  The GG has prorogued Parlaiment.  There is no session.  'S'Rall 's'ris, 's'rain't no more.

Frankly, this isn't going to be a cause celebre or a ballot issue.  First of all, the vast majority of Canadians (ie, all but a handful of politically obsessed wunderkind) see this as bureaucratic semantics.  Second of all, annual proroguation was the standard practice until the 1980s.

I fail to see the strategic or tactical advantage of barking up this tree.

Call Harper a coward and move on.

Well at least that's something.  Glad to see that the majority of Canadians are against Harper's decision.  Hopefully it will lead to a loss of a couple of points in support for him, and in the next election.

I guess the opposition parties are hoping it will benefit them.

At suppertime some CBC pundit said that the Facebook group against prorogation had only 15,000 members. Nicely done. People started joining: 7,000 in one evening. It's now over 22,000.

Something is happening here [110]

But you don't know what it is [110]

Do you, Mister Harper? [110]

Unionist-- sorry for taking so long to respond.

You asked what should the NDP's goal be: there are more than one.

The NDP likely is the least ethically tainted in the house and this is a strong point that can be built on. To do so-- avoid any chatter that is not policy focused. Produce substantive policies-- in a coherent package rather than individually-- this is different than claiming an ability to govern- it is showing one. The NDP needs to stake out the ground of a party that is at the centre of a community of ideas; one with the initiative to gather them. Those ideas must be driven from the party's principles and philosophy (not a desperate rush to the so-called centre). The goal is essentially to stake out first the language and terms of the next election based on a program for Canada rather than an attack on the other parties (all the others will take care of that nicely).

The party should be up-front about its objectives: those ought to be to see through the house a better program for Canada with as many seats as possible to do so. Forcing an election will only be used if there is a realistic chance of changing the government. It is reasonable to conclude that where the leading party in every poll remains the Conservatives, there is no sense in posturing for an election-- the job is to present ideas an win people over-- only once this is done do you bring down the government and count the votes. We can be honest about that.

There are three themes we can focus on that have resonance: 1) the economy in a plan that is fair, workable and inspired for the longer term 2) founding the economic plan in an environmentally sustainable context such that the measures /investments both advance the economy along with priorities for responding to climate change-- this means public transit, environmental regulation, investment in green technologies and products 3) A series of specific measures to address the widening democracy deficit -- these should be explained  and campaigned on-- they include measures for accountability and transparency-- but they need to be detailed. The latter will include a wide variety of needed measures to restore a more democratic government and enhance it with specific proposals for more a representative electoral system. Every time anyone speaks from the NDP a reference to the plan should be made-- not using the word platform but emphasizing that the party has a coherent set of policies that it is prepared to bring to parliament.

This should be backed up with public consultations-- public meetings in each riding held by the NDP is a start. So Unionist-- yes, getting ideas, communicating them as a package rather than piecemeal. Leaving the Liberals out looking like they are fiddling while the serious business of policy proposals are coming from the NDP.

And while I do not think the NDP has the seats required to make parliament work (the Cons are not interested and the Liberals are too cowardly and incompetent), the NDP can meet and discuss the nations business asking the others to join them. The NDP can call on the public and experts to speak to the gatherings -- like with hearings-- discussing the issues that are important.

Ottawa Observer: I am not so sure that the Cons can change the game here-- they can threaten but are not in a position to call an election themselves. I think if they thought they could they would have done so-- taking Ignatief up on his demand for an election when things were better. That said this might be the time when the Cons bring back the party financing legislation-- this remains popular as the parties have done little to fix the perception that there is no need for financing legislation to even out the playing field.

Kens is right-- there is capital here for the NDP to build on-- and a desire among Canadians (craving even) to seea solid record over time of constructive governance with less posturing-- to that end the NDP I think holds an advantage over the others.

BA's point 70 I also thin is right on.

Farmpunk-- I said the opposition does not have confidence in itself-- by this I mean avoiding any discernible strategy, ostensibly out of fear that it will be either attacked or co-opted. The idea is that it is better to do nothing than to expose ideas to attack. It is this cowardice that I think is behind the popularity of the Cons in spite of their record and behavior. People I think are waiting for the opposition to give them a reason to back another horse and are being let down. Having confidence allows some risks-- taking a stand on issues, proposing policy.

There are several things the NDP can do-- mock parliament is one and that is risky-- would need to be content focused not a PR stunt or it will backfire. An agenda must be set for the period and work done not grandstanding. This is why it all comes back to substantive proposals everything else is cheesy.

Continued over here

Excellant post Sean, thanks. It gave me a lot to think about