On Wednesday the NDP passed a motion in their opposition day to put new limits on the ability of a Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament. While the leader of the opposition did not deem the legislation important enough for his attendance, neither did the Government make an attempt to whip their vote into defeating it (which they had the votes to do). We can debate whether or not the vote should be legally binding, which it isn't, but I would have thought with the "success" of CAPP that the opposition should want the PMO to try it again. Is the reason that the PMO didn't see the need to whip the vote because he doesn't intend to prorogue again? If the opposition wants to go nuts, why postpone sitting days in the legislature?
So what do people think? What should my poll question be? Should it be legally binding, or is it all moot?
Prorogation is a Constitutional rpower of the GG/PM whyd did the opps want to fight a losing battle?
ReplyDeleteAnd heh, if the Opps want unredacted docs,
the Govt should release the docs from 2001-2005, and retaine the docs under review from this administation.
That would keep them busy for awhile
It's moot. Prorogation is a power of the Governor General, not of the Prime Minister, even if by convention that power is exercised only on the advice of the PM. Changing the GG's powers requires a constitutional amendment.
ReplyDeleteMuch the same about dissolving Parliament and calling an election. It's a GG power, not a PM power, so all fixed-election-date laws in the country are not truly binding (as the province's Lieutenant Governors fill the same role w.r.t. their provincial legislatures).
It can't be legally binding, since the Constitution obviously trumps House Motions.
ReplyDeleteThe coalition stooges are clearly playing games, just to score some cheap talking points. Yes, we had the votes to defeat the motion, and maybe we should have, who knows. So now we give the coalition a small "victory". Whoopdedoo.
So next time, Harper will play his cards close to his chest, and prorogue a couple of days before the House is set to return (say after the Xmas or summer break). And the coalition will AGAIN scream and howl. This time, that they weren't given more warning, so that they could plan other stuff.
My understanding is that, if committees meet during a recess, the members on the committee are paid extra. So during the prorogue, Dosanjh et al lost a few bucks.
The government could decide to treat this as legally binding...
ReplyDelete