Opposition Day motion by the NDP on Prorogation call to action

"Seven calendar days", eh?

• Dec. 1, 2008: Coalition announced.

• Dec. 4, 2008: Bootlicker M. Jean prorogues Parliament.

• Dec. 10, 2008 (six days later): Ignatieff replaces Dion, announces he will form a coalition IF he doesn't like the January budget, and starts bargaining that same evening on a phone call with Harper.

Kinda sad...

Why seven calendar days, given that history? Or is political memory that short around the Hill?

Well!  I think the resiolution looks just fine, don't you remind?  One has to recall the perfect answer to that philosophical quesion : WHY ?  has always been WHY NOT  ,at least, in the absence of an answer to that question from the people who are actually in there trying to force the bastards to respect Parliament.  

If a fixed election law could not stop the Prime Minister from giving advice to the Governer General about the operations of Parlement, I don't see what a resolution could possibily accomplish. What is needed is a constational admendment. The NDP could introduce one, possiblely coordinated with Provincal NDP governments. While it would unlikely to have passed, it might lead to a serious discussion on constatutional reforms to improve Canada's democracy. Spending the NDP's valuable opposition day time debating a useless resolution is a waste of time.

I would like to see more emphasis on electoral reform than constitutional reform at this time. While I support limits on the PM's ability to prorogue (including the NDP's motion), it's just one of many problems of Canada's democratic deficit. Wondering why the NDP didn't introduce this motion last year after the even more egregious prorogation in December 2008?

Why not?

Let's see. If Layton's motion passes:

• Harper (via the G-G) could prorogue for one day and thwart a crucial nonconfidence motion.
• Harper could prorogue for six days - and then do it again shortly after - and then again shortly after. If you say, "but that would be egregious!", I'd retort: "That's par for the course!"
• Parliament (and likely all the parties) will be on record in recognizing the right of the PM to prorogue - the only debate being, for how long.
• A Harper majority could prorogue indefinitely, using the very wording of Layton's motion, and plead that the NDP was fine with that.

If anyone actually cares about this prorogation scandal (especially the Dec. 2008 one - the more recent one was irrelevant and already largely forgotten), what is required are fixed conditions and fixed terms of prorogation, which neither a dictatorial majority nor an unscrupulous and unhealthy Harper-Jean collaboration could undo.

The resolution probably won't pass because the Liberals don't want to pass anything that jeopardizes their own ability to prorogue at will if and when they come to power again. Ultimately, if the bill passes while it might not create an ironclad legal obstacle to prorogation - it does create a political problem. Similarly, while BC, Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick have fixed election dates - technically if Dalton McGuinty decides he doesn't want to have an election in the Fall of 2011 after all and eh wants to wait until 2012 - all he has to do is ignore his own law. But it would be humiliating for him and create a wave of bad publicity.

The only reason Harper "got away" with breaking his own fixed election bill was that none of the opposition parties, nor the media chose to take him to task for it. If they had - it could have been a lot more politically damaging to him.

The point was made by the NDP blogger "the Jurist" at Accidental Deliberations that the 7 days was intended to be be a nod in the Liberals' direction, to incorporate some of what they were saying.

If they still fail to support it, why it just continues to make Jack look like a reasonable person who's trying to work with everyone, and the Liberals like Conservative wannabes.

So it's all for show, OO? Seems an odd way to nail the coffin of the anti-prorogation movement - show that "we're so reasonable" while declaring defeat. Did Layton try to negotiate with the other two opposition parties to come up with a motion that could actually enjoy majority support? That would have shown some leadership. Maybe he did, I don't know... do you?

Didn't Jack form a coalition with Duceppe and Dion before? What does it take for Iggy, a formal re-invitation? A sky banner and offer of a pony from Jack?

Taped Raitt talk reflects poorly on Liberals Cash-strapped party said to have been influenced by bankers, CEOs

Interesting DOConner, however perhaps we need something until then.....

Harper firing himself and his fixed election law is still before the courts no?

Yep I do George.....

I don't, but the leaders have to talk reasonably frequently during minority parliaments, plus they see one another behind the curtain in the Opposition Lobby regularly, and of course they listen closely to what one another is saying so they have a pretty good idea of where the others are at.

You and I likely disagree on the best ways to negotiate in every situation.  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds a little bit like you would rather lose so long as you could be completely right on the given issue at the time.  In this situation -- since even if the motion would pass it would almost certainly not be enacted by the government -- Layton would be trying to obtain corollary benefits from the exercise, and not just of the "for show" variety.  This type of negotiation requires a lot more creativity than the typical two-party zero-sum game negotiations you might be more familiar with, Unionist.

Certainly I don't think Layton has to prove his credentials in reaching out to try and negotiate creative outcomes in this Parliament.  Surely you would give him credit for at least that much.

Meantime, one of the characteristics driving his recent upward movement in the leadership numbers seems to have been the public's perception that he is the most willing to try and work with others.  In light of the daily torrent of "no I didn't, yes you did, mine's bigger, no it's not, yes it is" streaming from the Commons, that's got to be a plus (I know it is for me).

Until then we need the Coalition.

No.

That's a pretty breathtaking misreading of my world, OO. Two-party zero-sum? Is that how you seen union-management negotiations - where (contrary to the one-off deals made in commercial and political arenas) we have to carefully balance a multi-year, or multi-decade, relationship where both parties have no choice but to live together until the current contract expires and make the necessary compromises for a new one? Where you can't cheat your negotiating partner and turn a quick profit, or betray them and go with another supplier?

Not just alliances, but even entire bargaining relationships, are made and broken in swift succession in the political field. Have a look at the Martin-Layton deal in spring 2005 - or better yet, the coalition.

You think I'd rather be right and lose? Have you actually seen a union that tells its members: "You deserved a 50% wage increase, so we held out for that until the plant closed, and we're damned proud of it"?

Back to the topic. Let me tell you what I think Layton should have done (or should do, if he still can). If indeed he has bargained and failed to reach agreement with Ignatieff and Duceppe (which I personally don't believe, because there hasn't been a hint of that), he should address the public and say:

And - he should set aside partisan b.s. and actually work for a compromise which will help to achieve such an agreed solution - not to be right, but to be successful. Then, if Harper doesn't act, we can be sure that (a) he will be very discredited, and (b) any future government that comes to power will have a huge problem not enacting that measure. Either way, Layton wins.

unionist, perhaps because you know so perfectly what all politicians should do, you should be going into politics yourself, and do it, as opposed to arm chairing from the sidelines, eh?

Thanks DO'C, was not up to date on that.

Now onwards to partisan bs, when people start yapping about that here in respec to Layton, who is the only one who has shown a willingness to work with all,  for the good of Canadians, then one has to realize people are intoning the Liberals as the rescuing hero of Canadians, and shedding the notion to vote strategically for them,  as they will have to have a coalition with the NDP to survive.

Iggy and the Liberals have shown a willingness to work with others most certainly, except that those others are the Conservatives, and  it has been against what has been for the good of Canadians. They're giving Harper  a virtual majority, good coalition people that they are.

There is no room in their coalition for another with the NDP, or Bloc. As one has to realize that both the Cons and Libs really do think things are quite fine the way they are, being 2 sides of the same coin and all.

.

Unionist, if you don't like having your world overly simplified by people you don't think have been paying close enough attention to it, stop doing the same yourself.

Where exactly were you looking for such evidence of Layton talking or not talking to the other leaders? I'm afraid you don't have a very nuanced understanding of how Parliament works ... you know the part about people needing to "carefully balance a multi-year, or multi-decade, relationship where [the political] parties have no choice but to live together until the current [political mandate] expires and make the necessary compromises for a new [minority parliament]".

As for your suggested quote: too long. You get about 8 seconds (or 140 characters) to make a point these days, if you have any hope at all of it reaching outside the bubble on Parliament Hill.

It might be time for you to acknowledge that things are in fact a little more complicated that they seem at first, and the people trying their best up there are not total dum-dums after all.

I.e. One could just imagine the scene in a Parliament elected on the basis of proportional representattion, OO?

Well, George, having the parties talk to one another would become more explicit in that situation, which would be a good thing, I agree.

BTW, Unionist, Marlene Jennings has just risen to speak on Layton's motion, and said as their Deputy House Leader that the Liberals would be supporting it.

I suspect that the NDP voting in favour of the Liberals' motion to ban ten-percenters yesterday, even though our original position was that they should be scaled back and prevented from being negative, probably helped on that score.

See, working together can work.

The Bloc has just declared its intention to vote in favour as well.

Excellent - I hope this was the fruit of Jack's work - if so, I'm pleased, and he is to be congratulated. I took Stockholm's statement that the Liberals would vote against as something he had heard, rather than a prediction.

Excellent news OO, thank you!

Yes, I never realized the truth of that statement before. You and I have had entirely respectful exchanges for many months, I think. When you have a moment, scroll up and ask why that changed and who changed it - but more importantly, how about continuing to work together without condescending comments about each other?

The motion just passed the Commons by the way.

Unionist, you're a big boy and so am I (well, big girl actually).  If you say things like "So it's all for show, OO? Seems an odd way to nail the coffin of the anti-prorogation movement - show that "we're so reasonable" while declaring defeat", when there was no evidence it was just for show (and you know it), you know perfectly well that's provocative.

So, I give back as good as I get, and we respect each other in the morning.

Let's not get too overwraught about it.  We know where each other is coming from perfectly well.  I'm totally not in the mood to spend hours "talking about our relationship" or anything.

Execellent news, and now they can work on having it  embedded into the Constitution, so legal challenges do not have to be made.

Democracy Watch is appealling that ruling (no link on this, but that's what the fundraising appeal that they sent out recently said).

". . . the prime minister shall not advise the Governor General to prorogue . . ." is pretty clear parliamentary language. If Harper attempted to prorogue again in a few days before the House could vote on, for example, Derek Lee's contempt motion, clearly the opposition could immediately request the G-G to postpone any decision on his request until after the House has a chance to meet, and I think her advisors would recommend following the opinion of the House.

Why did her advisors recommend agreeing to prorogation 4 days before a confidence vote was scheduled, and parties representing a clear majority of the House told her they were prepared to govern?

Because the majority doesn't rule? 

Most likely because Parliament hadn't expressed non-confidence in Harper YET. Anyone could take a good guess that it was going to happen if that vote occurred, but it didn't get to happen since prorogation preempted it. The GG has to take the advice of the PM until Parliament says she can't and it didn't get the chance.

We still don't know, because she gave no reasons.

We do know that Dion was so preoccupied with the wording of his letter to her that he screwed up his crucial speech to the country.

I expect the technical argument was this: the G-G is bound by the PM's advice until he loses the confidence of the House, and a letter from MPs is NOT the equivalent of a vote. You may recall that, until prorogation, there was speculation that a crucial few Liberal MPs would have been so opposed to sharing power with the NDP that they would have stayed away from the confidence vote.

He said "I respectfully request that you refuse the Prime Minister's call for prorogation until he has demonstrated to you that he still commands the confidence of the House of Commons." Perhaps he should have added "or at least postpone your decision on his request until the House can meet." He did not include any authority for acting on letters from opposition MPs. There is authority in India where this is the common practice, but I don't know if there is any authority in British or Canadian history. 

There is (was) president. During the King-Byng Affair, Governer General Lord Byng refused an election call from Prime Minister Mackenzie King even though he had not lost a vote of confidence, although there was every reason to believe he was about to.

The two events where very similar except Harper asked for a prorogation, rather then an election. I would have thought that the Governer General would have had a even stronger case to refuse a prorogation then a election, because a prorogation suspends democracy, while a election invokes it.

Wilf (or anyone), do you think yesterday's motion, very narrowly passed, would have any weight with the G-G a few months or years from now - or after some future election, especially - when a PM asks for prorogation for longer than 7 days?

If she had been following the King-Byng precedent should would have exercised her reserve powers and denied the request for prorogation. She erred in not recognizing the supremacy of parliament.

Two facts may have had some impact in the GG's first prorogation decision:

(i) The Throne Speech had already passed in a little-noticed voice vote, right after the Economic Statement was tabled,

(ii) It came out in Brian Topps' Globe online columns on the coalition negotiations that the Liberals had taken responsibility for getting that signed letter to Rideau Hall, but apparently did not follo through, since Rideau Hall had not received it by the time Harper arrived.

The first is probably explained by the uproar caused by the Economic Statement, and ensuing scrums outside the Chamber.

The second I strongly suspect to be the result of deliberate sabotage, but when speaking of the Dion leader's office of course sheer incompetence could never be ruled out.

I hit the roof when I read that in Topp's book, because as many may remember - the reason the Liberals gave for the poor quality of the Dion video addressing Canadaians was that they spent all day writing and re-writing this letter.

That the letter didn't even make it to the GG's office, just shows what a freak show the Liberal operation was at the time.

How the rules get written

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/how-the-rules-get-writte...