On ground rules

In making the case for the progressive coalition over the course of the break from Parliament, it's worth remembering that there were two primary factors behind the push for a cooperative alternative: first, the Harper government's attempts to put off dealing with the economic crisis which continue unabated, and second, the fact that Harper had demonstrated a constant refusal to deal with any of the opposition parties in anything even remotely resembling good faith. And while most of the Cons' current public push seems to be based on pretending to deal with the first issue, there's every reason for the opposition parties to shine a spotlight on the second as well.

As with the economy, the starting point has to be that the Cons have already lost the confidence of the House of Commons. Accordingly, it'll take a massively different position than the Cons have shown to date to justify a change in outlook among parties who have agreed that Harper can't be trusted in office.

And as with the economy, the Cons have shown that there's no value in mere assurances that they intend to be more constructive than they have been. Instead, what's required are mechanisms in Parliament to make sure that the Cons have no choice but to listen to the opposition majority at all times.

With that in mind, I'll suggest a few steps that the opposition parties should be discussing as requirements for government accountability whenever Parliament resumes (and regardless of who holds power). I'm not sure off hand what mechanisms would work best for enforcing these requirements, but I presume there should be some means available based on the standing orders and committee rules which govern the House of Commons.

First, the Cons have continued to get away with holding back their dirty tricks manual. For them to even pretend to be dealing honestly with the opposition parties, they need to make that public - and all parties need to work together in closing the loopholes which would otherwise enable one party to shut down committees which dare to actually examine issues critically.

Second, some measures need to be taken to ensure that no government can stay in power without the confidence of the House. While the power of prorogation may be a constitutional one which can't be negotiated away, a public apology for shutting down Parliament and clear promise never to do so again - along with a similar commitment from the coalition in the event it takes power - would help to make sure there's a serious price to be paid for such actions. And amendments to the House's procedures to lock in the dates of opposition motions would prevent any government from avoiding a confidence vote through the date-switching mechanisms which both Martin and Harper abused.

Third, an information imbalance between government and others should be rectified as well. Rules should be put in place to ensure that all MPs can get accurate information from the civil service where required, rather than having to rely on the word of the government as to Canada's financial picture and state of government operations. And indeed some formal requirements should provide for open communication between civil servants and Canadians generally, rather than allowing the PMO to control and twist all messages from the public service for political purposes.

In sum, the opposition parties should be able to get plenty of mileage out of a vision of cooperation that actually involves informed and reasoned discussions among equals, rather than a control freak PM brow-beating others into submission. And a consistent message about the necessary underpinnings for any respect and trust in the House of Commons should go a long way in turning the Cons' current bleating about cooperation into an impetus to permanently loosen Harper's stranglehold on Parliament and the civil service.

Update: Scott Reid suggests that the NDP should take the lead in defining the type of mea culpa required from Harper. I'd certainly be happy to see Layton front and centre in shaping public expectations, but for the reasons noted above the most important point is that mere words shouldn't be enough - and indeed it's surprising that Reid would implicitly figure otherwise.