Prorogue

• transitive verb:
  1 : defer , postpone
  2 : to terminate a session of (as a British parliament) by royal prerogative
• intransitive verb:
  to suspend or end a legislative session

Canada has been in the international headlines recently as Stephen Harper’s minority conservative government faces dissolution from a coalition of opposition parties.

The best overview I found is What Is Happening In Canada by yarnharlot.

To quickly summarize, a coalition government of the Liberals (center-left), the NDP (left-left) would become the government with a cabinet of about 2/3 Liberals, 1/3 NDP. The Bloc Quebecois (“devoted to both the protection of Quebec’s interests on a federal level as well as the promotion of its sovereignty”^[1]) has agreed to support that government for 18 months.

Yarnharlot observed:

the Prime Minister has been rather aggressive, and instead of moderating his motions to the point where the opposition might vote for them anyway, he has instead taken to attaching a confidence motion to just about everything. This means that every time the house votes, they can either vote with him, or force an election. All last year, this strategy worked beautifully. The opposing parties (particularly the Liberals, who were having leadership troubles) didn’t want an election. Forcing the opposition to choose between forcing an election and agreeing with him rammed through a lot of legislation, but bred a lot of contempt. (Depending on whether you are a conservative or not, this strategy has alternately been called “being an aggressive parliamentarian who makes the most of the system” or “being a big fat bully”.)

It looks like this strategy has backfired. The opposition parties believe that the Conservatives haven’t done enough to address the economic crisis and are going to vote against the Conservatives, thus having a vote of no confidence. This is where it gets interesting…

Upon a vote of no confidence responsibility falls to the Governor General. The GG can either call an election (the last one was about 7 weeks ago – October 14th 2008) or ask the opposition to form a government.

But Harper had another option as well – ask the GG to prorogue parliament. This means parliament shuts down for a while. The GG decided to prorogue until January 26th.

I think this was a wise decision on the GG’s part. It allows her office some time to monitor public opinion over the next month or so and decide whether or not to favor a new election or the coalition’s government. In Harper’s favor, the coalition could break down during the time the parliament is prorogued.

The most realistic scenario is that at the first opportunity after parliament reconvenes, the Conservatives will be replaced by the coalition government. I doubt the GG will call a new election both because of the $300 million price tag during an economic crisis and because the results would be nearly the same (a Conservative minority).

Stay tuned for 2009, things should be interesting.

(Justin’s Note: In 2006, Gordon wrote about Canada in four great posts called:

• Would You Mind If I Told You How We Do Things In Canada?
• How We Do Things In Canada : Minority Goverments
• How We Do Things In Canada : A Conservative Work Ethic
• How We Do Things In Canada : Liberal Leadership

Definitely try to check them out for even more insight into how Canadian politics works.)

[Listen Online] or [Download]

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

And this idea comes from no less than the Conservative government…

Canadians will be offered bicycles, public transit passes or cash if they agree to scrap their old gas-guzzling vehicles, the government said on Wednesday.

Ottawa says five million of the 18 million cars and trucks in Canada were made before 1996, when tougher emissions standards were introduced. The older vehicles produce about 19 times more pollutants than newer models, the government said. [...]

The National Vehicle Scrappage Program will be up and running by January 2009. Other incentives include C$300 ($297) in cash, membership in a car-sharing program or a rebate on the purchase of a new vehicle.

An interesting idea…that would never ever fly here.

Well, at least not yet.

Currently, the “Human Rights Courts” in Canada are busy punishing conservative Canadian bloggers because of their opinions. A gentleman by the name of Richard Warman has taken it upon himself to cleanse the nation of viewpoints with which he disagrees and has brought suits against some of Canada’s most popular conservative bloggers and discussion boards, labeling those citizens as “extreme right-wing” and thus punishable by the Human Rights Courts. Warman can do this because Canada has no immutable right to free speech. Classical Values has a comprehensive post on the situation and I urge you to read it. He does a far better job than I can in dealing with Canadian law and laying out the details of this matter.

This story is not just an opportunity for us to be thankful for our Constitution. It’s a moment for us to realize why we defend the First Amendment, why many of us go out of our way to vigorously support other people’s right to an opinion, even if we find that opinion ignorant, cruel or profoundly distasteful (or all three).

There are people in America who support hate speech laws and such rules exist on many college campuses. The idea is that certain opinions are so dangerous they should be banned entirely, not permitted in intellectual debate or common discourse. That idea is an affront to the very principle behind the First Amendment. As Richard Warman is proving, it only takes one determined, corrupt man to use hate speech laws to punish those with whom he disagrees.

There is no way to protect against the abuse of speech laws. That’s why they’re antithetical to the very meaning of the First Amendment. I’m sorry to see that the Canadian system has fallen into the trap of believing the regulation of speech can be beneficial. It’s not. It’s inherently oppressive. Fortunately we Americans have firmer protections. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be vigilant.

Thanks to regular reader Dos for alerting us to this story.

From TPM:

The Canadian Press — Canada’s domestic equivalent of the AP — is reporting that the original source of the leak was Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. And as it turns out, Brodie’s original conversation with reporters focused much more on Hillary as the candidate whose people were reassuring Canada that the anti-trade rhetoric was all just campaign talk.

“He said someone from Clinton’s campaign is telling the Embassy to take it with a grain of salt,” said one participant in the conversation. The source added, “someone called us and told us not to worry.”

It’s been established that Obama’s economic aide, Austan Goolsbee, didn’t promise Canada anything about NAFTA, but the lack of an appropriate response from the Obama camp hurt them.

What I want to know is why did the Canadian press only focus on Obama? How was that decision made? Because that story REALLY hurt him in Ohio and Texas. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that now.

In any event, now it’s Hillary’s turn to figure out who said what and when and how much. This should be interesting.