The reviews are in

You know the NDP is on to something when even the National Post can't help but to agree with its ideas. And that looks to be the case with Jack Layton's proposal to limit the power of prorogation:

In general, we believe that the controversy surrounding Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament was overblown. But clearly, many Canadians disagree, and would like to see limits placed on the federal government's right to shut down Parliament. Of the various ideas we have seen in this regard, Jack Layton's recent proposal...strikes us as best.
...
Prorogation, (Layton) argues, should happen "when it is needed, not simply when the prime minister feels like it." More specifically, he says, Parliament should be closed only when a majority of MPs vote to close it.

This idea would be a logical bookend to the opposition's other major weapon: the direct motion of non-confidence. Just as the opposition already has the power to vote for a government to be dissolved because it no longer enjoys the confidence of a majority of Members of Parliament, a majority should also be able to vote to keep Parliament's doors open if it so chooses, even against the will of the government.
...
In most cases, prorogation would not be controversial: Unless a majority government's own caucus is deeply divided, it would be able to evoke prorogation whenever it chose and avoid non-confidence at will. But in the case of a minority government, eager to avoid scrutiny over a touchy subject -- say the current Tory government and the Afghan-detainee issue-- Mr. Layton's proposal would keep the government's feet to the fire.

Far from making our democratic institutions more dysfunctional, Mr. Layton's bill would keep their doors open more consistently and reduce the number of closures-of-convenience. We hope the government will learn from the controversy surrounding its current prorogation by giving Mr. Layton's proposal serious consideration.