Appoint the NDP the Official Opposition
The Governor General ought to consider the way in which Stephane Dion and the Liberals have abrograted their responsibilities and use her power to appoint the NDP as Canada's Official Opposition.
The role of the Official Opposition has two elements. One as a critic of government action, and second as the government-in-waiting:
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (French: L'Opposition Loyale de Sa Majeste) in Canada is usually the largest parliamentary opposition party in the House of Commons or a provincial legislative assembly that is not in government either on its own or as part of a governing coalition. This is usually the second-largest party in a legislative house, although in certain unusual circumstances, it may be a third or fourth party or even the largest party.
The Official Opposition is viewed as the caucus tasked with keeping the government in check. It is also generally viewed as the alternative government.
By default, the second largest party forms the Official Opposition.
Why?
As I see it, it seems to be driven by the second element in the definition, government-in-waiting. If the government falls, the second largest party takes over. But of course that is not what happens at all. If the government falls, there is an election. The governing party might win again. A third party might win. There is no notion of predefined alternation between parties that would support the notion of a government "in waiting" in any formal sense.
This "government in waiting" thing is just meaningless verbiage. It seems to have no basis in law that I know of.
The real role of the Official Opposition is to keep the government in check. In order to perform that role, there are real-world distinctions. The time allotted in Question Period, the chairmanship and number of seats on committees, funding for research and other activities -- these are all adjusted and allocated in such a way as to give the Official Opposition the tools it needs to function as a check on government.
What if a party is not willing to use these tools to perform that function?
When the Bloc Quebecois was the second largest party elected to parliament in 1993, the argument was made by the Reform Party that a party dedicated to the dismantling of Canada could not form the Official Opposition. How could such a party be a "government in waiting"? Well, the simple answer is that it couldn't, and yet the Bloc Quebecois was allowed to form the Official Opposition because, even though I don't recall this argument being made, the "government in waiting" aspect is irrelevant. But the Bloc Quebecois could act as a check on government action -- nothing in its platform suggested that it would ever help the government do anything.
That to me set the precedent that the Official Opposition is defined by a willingness to oppose government action (ideally in a constructive way, but a belligerent opposition would be punished by the electorate, so there is a natural tendency to constructive opposition).
Now turn this on its head. Consider the Liberals and the NDP. The Liberals have the second largest number of seats in parliament, while the NDP hold far fewer seats. Certainly history suggests that the Liberals form the only party currently in opposition that could ever form a government. The NDP has never come close. The Liberal Party is the "government in waiting".
Does that mean the Liberals ought to form the Official Opposition?
From L. Ian MacDonald the Montreal Gazette:
[Stephane Dion] took 45 minutes to say Canadians didn't want an election and he wouldn't force one. Then he offered a four-part amendment to the Throne Speech on Afghanistan, Kyoto, social programs and corporate tax cuts, knowing full well the NDP want our troops out of Afghanistan now, not in 2009 as Dion proposed, and that the socialists would never support tax breaks for corporate Canada.
When their own amendment is defeated on Monday, the Liberals will abstain on the main motion next Wednesday, allowing it to pass and the government to survive. This was all Dion's brilliant idea.
And it was as feeble as the rest of his speech.
From Lorne Gunter, writing in the Edmonton Journal:
"The official Opposition certainly remains very critical of the throne speech," Dion insisted.
But he explained, that same Opposition intended to nothing, absolutely nothing, about its displeasure.
Despite being really, really angry, Dion and his caucus plan to sit out the confidence vote on the throne speech.
From Michael Harris in the Ottawa Sun:
Before the prime minister is done the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is going to look like Stephen Harper's butler, caving in on the crime bill, the war in Afghanistan and, perhaps deadliest of all for the Grits, the environment. After all, Dion is allowing a legislative blueprint to stand that pronounces Kyoto targets unattainable and therefore irrelevant.
From Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe and Mail:
Liberal weakness, real and imagined, has emboldened the other three parties in Parliament. How else to explain the adroit positioning by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the take-no-prisoners stand adopted by the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party?
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's white flag - the Liberals will not vote against the Throne Speech - removes whatever threat the Harperites might have felt of parliamentary defeat.
Mr. Harper can now prod the retreating Liberals on a range of bills knowing that the Liberals will not stand and fight, just skirmish, delay and groan but ultimately yield. The Liberals are much more afraid of Mr. Harper than he is of them. For all intents and purposes, Liberals have now yielded all initiative to the government for the foreseeable future.
Until Mr. Dion can steady his leadership - if he can - the Liberals will be a hemi-demi opposition, throwing up alternative ideas but not willing to risk them in an election.
The best comes from Chantal Hebert writing for the Toronto Star:
The omnibus anti-crime bill brought forward by the federal government yesterday is primarily meant to yank the chain of an official opposition that can no longer back up its bark with a bite.
Dion may have dodged the bullet of a snap election on the throne speech this week but his capacity to function as an effective leader of the official opposition has taken a big hit. The main watchdog of the minority Parliament has become the government's best friend.
And the editorial in the Ottawa Citizen comes closest to actually saying what I'm about to say:
Mr. Dion's Liberals have had their chance to get united and get organized. It wasn't a very long chance, granted, but that's politics. Instead of gaining momentum since Mr. Dion was elected as leader last December, they've lost it. They lost three byelections, have slipped in the polls and let their Quebec wing fall into disarray.
All of this is the Liberals' own business, and for them to sort out. Meanwhile, though, the people of Canada require an effective Opposition in Parliament. Mr. Dion has a job to do, a job that is at least as important as rescuing the Liberal party. His job is to keep the government in check and test its arguments before the gaze of the people. He must also present the image of an alternative, a government-in-waiting should Canadians decide they've had enough of the Conservatives. He can't do that well if he's afraid of the political consequences.
Stephane Dion and his Liberal Party have been characterized over and over again as a Official Opposition unwilling to truly act as a check on government action. Why? Because in their hope to form the next government, as a "government in waiting" would expect to do, the Liberals are working hard to avoid an election that could result in crippling losses. Given the two roles of the Official Opposition -- check on government and government in waiting -- the Liberals have chosen to throw away the job of being a check on government action since it threatens their chances to form a government.
In a sense, I don't blame them. Circumstances have conspired to create this situation in which these two aspects that traditionally define the Official Opposition are at odds with each other.
But the traditions also provide a solution. The Official Opposition has not always been the second largest party. I might be wrong, but I think the Governor General has it in her power to appoint an Official Opposition she believes would function adequately in that role.
The Liberals have admitted that it is not in their interests to attempt to fulfill both aspects of that role, and in true Liberal style, they have chosen power (or at least the promise of power) over principle. Many political observers have commented on this.
So why don't we decouple these aspects? As the second largest party, the Liberals can enjoy the dream of one day being the next government. They can strut about Parliament Hill telling anyone who will listen that they are just waiting for the moment to form the next government.
Bully for them.
But in the mean time, parliament needs an effective check on government action. I have no problems saying that -- anyone honest will know that a government without strong opposition to keep it honest runs the risk of following a path that leads to corruption. I don't care if you support the Conservatives, the Liberals, or the NDP -- we're all human and we're all subject to the same human failings.
But even if you think the NDP is pure as the driven snow and could never be corrupted by power, it doesn't matter. You'd also likely believe that the Conservatives and the Liberals are always a half-step from dropping into a cesspool of corruption, maybe even permanently with one leg deep in that pool, up to the hip. Fine. Whatever. You would also buy into Jack Layton's argument that the NDP forms the only effective opposition:
“A Throne Speech is a rare but important opportunity to indicate whether you support the direction of the government or not. If Mr. Dion fails to show leadership, to oppose the Harper government, the NDP will do it.”
Jack Layton: Leader of the Effective Opposition
I agree with Jack Layton on that point. And I think we should change "Effective" to "Official".
NDP supporters, and for that matter any Canadian who believes that Canada benefits from a working democracy, ought to call on the Governer General to strip the Liberal Party of its role as Official Opposition and grant that title, and all the benefits and responsibilities that come with it, to the NDP.
I don't think it would create a constitutional crisis. A constitutional headache at best.
But a move in that direction, or even just musing about such a change, would do a great deal to either galvanize the Liberals into doing their job, or splinter the Liberals and allow the NDP to move in to do the job they've been itching to do.
I think it would be good for Canada.
If you think this is a unique opportunity for the Governor General to help steady this parliament and make it work effectively, you can contact her office in a number of ways.
If you want to encourage the NDP to pursue this change in role and make it official, they would probably appreciate it.
Addendum: I should point out that such a change, on one level, accomplishes nothing. Official Opposition or not, if the Liberals sit in the corner mewling about polls and such, and so refuse to vote down a confidence measure, the government will stand. Nothing Jack Layton says as Leader of the Opposition can change the number of votes each party wields. But then that's the point. At least Jack Layton is saying something and acting on it. His NDP is presenting an alternate vision for Canada (not one I like, to be sure) against which to compare the Conservative vision. More importantly, as the Official Opposition, the NDP would be able to put that vision front and centre, instead of obscured behind the spectacle Stephane Dion's Cirque du Soleil contortions in which he presents an alternate vision and then explains why he won't vote for it.
Update: I'm not the only conservative blogger who thinks we need to consider the proper role of the Official Opposition, and act accordingly:
The NDP has parsed the opposition benches into the absent opposition (Liberals) and the effective opposition (NDP).
The Prime Minister should play along this theme.
Since Dion is effectively silent on the Prime Minister's mandate by abstaining from voting on the Throne Speech, Harper should simply rebuke Dion's future questions and remind him of the opportunity he had to support or oppose the government's outlined agenda. Harper should then proceed to only debate the points of the NDP and the Bloc as the effective opposition since these parties are the ones fulfilling their parliamentary roles.
Makes sense to me.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Stephen Harper Conservative Party Stephane Dion Liberal Party Jack Layton NDP Bloc Quebecois Official Opposition Governor General Canada parliament
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
No not Taliban Jack.
Posted by: Simeon Drakich at October 19, 2007 10:59 AM
Liberals and Dippers should just bite the bullet and merge their parties .. calling it the New Liberal Party (NLP). This would better define the centre-left and provide dumbo Canadians with an easy choice in any next election. Do not overestimate the intelligence of the average Canadian voter .. they have the attention span of a fruit fly. Canadians are rather dumb.
What would happen if they merged? The vote would split again, and probably result in a 50-50 split between New Libs and New Cons .. and that's how it should be. Proportional representation will not be needed unless the Green Party is considered a legitimate political party.
Posted by: Observer at October 19, 2007 11:00 AM
I think the Prime Minister would have to suggest this to the GG in order for it to happen.
Poor Stephane could lose his much vaulted new "Gym" in Stornoway.
Posted by: Lore_Weaver at October 19, 2007 11:27 AM
The Official Opposition has not always been the second largest party.
Absolutely correct, Steve. After the 1921 election, the newly formed Progressive Party took about 64 seats, compared to only 50 seats for the Tories (there were also 116 Liberals and 5 others for a total of 235). However, I think it was the decision of the Progressives not to take the title of "Official Oppisition." I think the reason was that they couldn't decide amongst themselves whether to conduct themselves as an actual political party, or as just a group of like-minded individuals.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at October 19, 2007 11:42 AM
QUEEN JEAN actually looked SOBER during the Throne Speech. I'm impressed. But I bet she sucked back a $1,000 bottle of rotgut hooch later, tho'...
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at October 19, 2007 11:46 AM
Essentially what we have is a coalition government With the conservatives and the liberals forming the government. Granted, the liberals are not happy to be part of this coalition, and will protest vehemently that such a coalition exists, but in reality it does. Obviously, a member of a coalition can not be the official opposition.
It follows that either the BQ or the NDP should form the offical opposition.
Posted by: mecheng at October 19, 2007 12:02 PM
Will the Liberals vote with the Conservatives on ANYTHING they table, or are there limits? As long as they have some limits then they still are keeping the government in check. I believe the best way to describe this would be that the Conservatives have a STRONG minority, due to the fact that they have the conditional (but not necessarily willing) support of one of the other parties.
Posted by: Grook at October 19, 2007 12:43 PM
BQ as official opposition would not serve the country well. NDP as Official Opposition with Jack Layton in Stornoway would be preferable.
Posted by: Lore_Weaver at October 19, 2007 12:45 PM
Steve said:"... If the government falls, the second largest party takes over. But of course that is not what happens at all. If the government falls, there is an election. The governing party might win again. A third party might win. There is no notion of predefined alternation between parties that would support the notion of a government "in waiting" in any formal sense.
This "government in waiting" thing is just meaningless verbiage. It seems to have no basis in law that I know of."
***
Actually, there was the King-Byng affair in 1926 that would makes today's political theatre look like Saturday afternoon at the matinée fare. Lord Byng refused MacKenzie King's request to have Parliament dissolved, offering instead Arthur Meighen and his Conservatives as Official Opposition, hence the 'government-in-waiting', an opportunity to form a government. It didn't last long.
My point is that there is a precedent to the gov't-in-waiting concept.
Posted by: Phil in Ottawa at October 19, 2007 01:01 PM
1.The Governor General has no say in this whatsoever.That is decided by the Speaker. (The wikipedia entry you link to states that the 1993 ruling was made by the Speaker)
2.The Bloc is the party with the next largest of seats, not the NDP. In fact they fulfilled this role between 1993 and 1997.
3.Should the Conservatives have been stripped of this status when they abstained from the 2005 Budget vote? Should the Nova Scotia NDP have been stripped of this status when they voted for the 2007 Budget in a minority situation?
Posted by: Brendan Kane at October 19, 2007 01:09 PM
Good points, Brendan:
1. In this case, the Speaker simply ruled that convention would be followed. Since I'm suggesting that convention be overturned, I have a suspicion that it goes up the food chain to the GG. But I could be wrong on that point. It would be interesting to see what an expert would say (probably that I ought to sit down and be quiet!)
2. Since I'm considering that the number of seats is not a determinant of Official Opposition status, the fact that the BQ has next largest number of seats is not a consideration for me. Since I'm suggesting that the GG simply bypass the Liberals and select an Official Opposition, the GG ought to be able to select from any party in opposition. The NDP seems like a natural choice. It has representatives from across the country, including now Quebec! Though in absolute numbers it has fewer seats than the BQ, it might better represent Canada as a whole in offering an alternative vision of Canada.
3. That's a good point that I did not address. Simply deciding to forgo a specific opportunity to oppose the government is not enough to trigger this sort of action. Stephane Dion went on at length to explain why the government's plan was bad, bad, bad, and then said it would be OK to proceed with it. The CPC in 2005 said the budget was a workable document for them. Moreover, there is a serious risk in the current case of the Liberals being utterly unable to coherently function as an effective opposition for the reasons I explained, as opposed to a single tactical decision made by the CPC in 2005 (and that they insisted was not a critical issue to start with, compared to the Liberals just yawning about dumping Kyoto). In other words, this is not just about the Throne Speech, but on how the Liberals are going to react to every piece of legislation that is to come. If the threat of an election is enough to cause the Official Opposition to run and hide on any issue, then the Official Opposition is broken and needs to be fixed.
I won't pretend that what I'm suggesting is obiously right and should be adopted forthwith. But I am drawing attention to the fact that political observers in Canada have all realized that the Official Opposition has been rendered impotent by its own fears of facing the electorate. Think about it. If the Official Opposition is afraid of facing Canadians, how can the Official Opposition be trusted to stand up for Canadians?
Jack Layton has shown no hesitation in presenting his vision to Canadians in a vote. I think that earns him consideration for the job as Leader of the Opposition.
Posted by: Steve Janke at October 19, 2007 01:35 PM
NDP supporters, and for that matter any Canadian who believes that Canada benefits from a working democracy, ought to call on the Governer General to strip the Liberal Party of its role as Official Opposition and grant that title, and all the benefits and responsibilities that come with it, to the NDP.
Hmmmm...Steve makes a good point, but...well, as much as I love a robust, functional democracy, I really hate the NDP, and I really, REALLY LOVE to watch the liberals flopping around in the bottom of the boat, gasping...and I also REALLY LOVE watching the left burning itself with cigarettes in despair as the CPC behaves like a majority government, with the active (or inactive, as the case may be) assistance of the Liberals.
Whenever I find myself pitying the Liberals, I recall Jean Chretien laughing off accusations of wrongdoing by the opposition of the day, knowing he didn't have to answer, and calling elections just 'cause he knew he'd win them...juvenile and petty, I know, but.
Nope! I'm OK with things are they are, for the moment anyway.
Posted by: Darrell Goodman at October 19, 2007 01:44 PM
What would happen when the vote for the throne speech is taken, and only one conservative voted yes, the rest just sat?
It would be a gutsy show of brinkmanship and it would force the opposing parties to put the money where it counts.
I could see Harper doing that.
With Dion it basically comes down to how much of a legend he thinks he is in his own mind, will determine the political course of events. And if that is true, it won't take much too push him over the edge (because I think he's got that type of personality.)
Posted by: GaryinWpg at October 19, 2007 02:00 PM
Steve, this may be off topic, but I hope you'll do a post on what the Liberals' new obsession seems to be, judging from their questions in QP.
During today's QP, Garth Turner and Marlene Jennings asked how the Conservatives got lists of people's names so that they could send New Year's greetings to them.
I find that question of Mr. Turner's risible, given the number of posts you did regarding his use of franked mail to publicize his Western Tour during the summer. Some Western posters were wondering how THEIR names had gotten on the MP from Halton's list.
I wonder if either Jason Kenney (P.S. for Multiculturalism) or Peter Van Loan (House Leader) are aware of Mr. Turner's lists.
Posted by: Gabby in QC at October 19, 2007 02:41 PM
"Liberals and Dippers should just bite the bullet and merge their parties .. calling it the New Liberal Party (NLP)."
That's the last thing we need!...Merging loony leftard votes would just make it more difficult for a Conservative majority.
The fact the left is now split in 4: NDP, Green, Bloc and now the Liberals playing in left field is the best thing for us Conservatives.
Posted by: Grind a Grit at October 19, 2007 03:13 PM
Steve,
I don't understand how you can be promoting the Dippers and Wacky Jack for official opposition. The Liberals may be disorganized, demoralized and ineffective, but the moonbat factor in the NDP is still a lot higher. Ok so they are "principled" moonbats, but they are still moonbats.
Give your head a shake!
Posted by: felis corpulentis at October 19, 2007 05:45 PM
Didn't Chretain appoint the Bloc as official opposition, instead of Reform, a few years ago, when both elected about the same number of MPs.
Posted by: Mary T at October 19, 2007 09:06 PM
Puh-lease! What a joke! I remember when Harper was struggling and abstained from voting on the liberal budget. I don't recall this statement up on this website then.
Posted by: at October 20, 2007 10:00 AM
Strange Steve.. I don't recall you making this same proposal when the Conservatives under one Steve Harper abstained from voting on the Throne Speech when Martin presented his in 2005.
The Cons aren't entitled to pick and choose their opposition, Steve,
Posted by: Scott Tribe at October 20, 2007 12:33 PM
This "government in waiting" thing is just meaningless verbiage. It seems to have no basis in law that I know of.
I believe it's most likely a product of the times. I'm not sure the constitutional drafters anticipated a political system that had more than the 2 traditional brokerage parties. Now, Canadians have shown there's room for 5.
Posted by: Kuri at October 20, 2007 12:38 PM
Nah, they don't have the numbers for starters, Jack Layton is insufferable as it is, with little man syndrome already, think what giving him more power would be like!
Of course it would make former Dipper, Bob Rae, jealous being stuck in the Liberal quagmire for what could be a long spell.
Posted by: Libby at October 20, 2007 02:16 PM
Steve,
Be my guest! As a Liberal, I highly encourage you, your party and the NDP to get behind this idea and get behind it quickly. It's so smart.
I mean what better PR stunt could so badly backfire for your party than to ignore the Parliamentary rights of the Bloc? I mean it's brilliant.
Do it and do it fast because I'm sure Quebecers would crush you and your party and the NDP in the next election for ignoring a political party's rights... whether they're separatists or not.
Brilliant really! Quick, do it!
Posted by: Darren McEwen at October 20, 2007 03:13 PM
I mean what better PR stunt could so badly backfire for your party than to ignore the Parliamentary rights of the Bloc? I mean it's brilliant.
I'll get right on it then. First call the GG and the Speaker, then a conference with all the party leaders...no wait...I'm just a blogger. Like anyone important is reading this, much less taking it seriously. Sheesh.
But if it brings the poor performance of the Liberals are an Official Opposition into focus, well, then maybe it accomplishes something.
Posted by: Steve Janke at October 20, 2007 05:17 PM
Ah yes Steve, coming from the party that prorogued Parliament....kind of a mulligan for the way Connie acted.....
Go ahead and ask for that... It should be funny. Hey maybe we can do away with elections and have Harper decide who's in power, who's the opposition... you know a new form of Conservative Communism...
Posted by: cherniak_wtf at October 20, 2007 09:00 PM
The theme of the liberal party divided and needing the renewal that comes from merging with another party is what I read from your post Mr Janke.
They should call it the Liberal Democratic Party and get Heady Fry to be interm leader.
Of course such a move would force the blue side of the liberal party to consider having their voice silenced in this new leftwing party or moving to the other federalist option.
Posted by: gimbol at October 21, 2007 08:55 AM
I'm just a blogger. Like anyone important is reading this, much less taking it seriously. Sheesh.
I think the comment you were responding to was making the point that you are an incredibly stupid man.
Posted by: Angry on a Great White Toilet at October 21, 2007 01:07 PM
Funny to see indignant liberals crawling out from under the baseboard to comment here, like Toilet Guy ("you are..incredibly stupid.."). Oooh, toilet guy- where did you hone that rapier-like wit?
Fact is I agree with Darrell (not Darren of the power before people Fiberals):
"I really hate the NDP, and I really, REALLY LOVE to watch the liberals flopping around in the bottom of the boat, gasping...and I also REALLY LOVE watching the left burning itself with cigarettes in despair as the CPC behaves like a majority government, with the active (or inactive, as the case may be) assistance of the Liberals.
"Whenever I find myself pitying the Liberals, I recall Jean Chretien laughing off accusations of wrongdoing by the opposition of the day, knowing he didn't have to answer, and calling elections just 'cause he knew he'd win them...juvenile and petty, I know, but."
Priceless! I also remember the incessant ridicule and taunts flung like monkey doo-doo from the Fiberal side of the house at Reform and then the CA when they were learning the ropes in Parliament. The fibs never, ever missed a chance to castigate the other side for any real or imagined gaffe. Cherniak, Darren, toilet guy— flopping around in the boat...looks good on ya!
Posted by: Larry at October 22, 2007 08:41 AM
Abstract paintings
Angel painting
animal paintings
ballet paintings
beach painting
Boat painting
building painting
Children painting
Christ painting
church painting
City painting
Cottage painting
Dancer painting
field painting
Floral paintings
Garden painting
Hunting paintings
impressionist painting
Knight painting
Lady painting
Landscape painting
Lighthouse paintings
Music painting
Nude painting
Oriental paintings
Piano painting
Seascapes paintings
Still Life paintings
street painting
sunset painting
Tropical paintings
Venice paintings
Village painting
wine paintingsalvador dali paintings
thomas kinkade paintings
pablo picasso paintings
vincent van gogh paintings
claude monet paintings
diego rivera paintings
Posted by: aswkin at July 17, 2008 08:40 AM
 
|
|
