A
Are Be
Guest
               
Nov. 25, 2003. 01:00 AM
`Rump' that doesn't sit well
NDP upset that spillover divides opposition in Legislature
Long-standing parliamentary tradition ignored, Kormos says
RICHARD BRENNAN
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU
The provincial government is being accused of being petty and vindictive by using a Liberal "rump" in the Legislative Assembly to physically divide the opposition parties.
"We have to protect ourselves against moves, however subtle, that are designed to undermine the effectiveness of opposition," New Democrat MPP Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre) said in an interview yesterday after rising on a point of order.
Because the Liberals have 72 members, they spill on to the opposition side of the Legislature. While this so-called government rump is not new, it is virtually unheard of that they are placed between the opposition benches.
"The Liberals are being petty, vindictive and mean-spirited; but having said all that, they are also displaying an arrogance," Kormos said.
Both the official opposition Conservatives and the NDP, which is one seat short of full-party status, urged new Speaker Alvin Curling to study past practices and rule that what Liberals are doing runs counter to parliamentary convention. Curling reserved his decision. (The NDP won only seven seats in the Oct. 2 election, one less than needed for official party status; the Tories won 24 of the 103 seats in the Legislature).
"We believe there is a case to be made for the Speaker to consider this point of order and for the very simple reason that the seating arrangement appears to stand against long-standing parliamentary convention in Ontario," said Tory House Leader Bob Runciman (Leeds-Grenville).
"Mr. Speaker, we're looking to you to consider the seating plans for the last 75 years as an example, indeed a standard of parliamentary tradition in Ontario, when making your decision. Note a few brief examples."
Said Kormos: "Never before have opposition members (at Queen's Park) been divided by a government rump."
Government house leader Dwight Duncan said later he wanted to talk "about more substantive issues, not where somebody is sitting in the house," adding the NDP members, all now classified as independents, aren't even a party."
Kormos charges that it is all part of the Liberal government's "heavy-handed" attempt to drive a stake into the heart of opposition benches, in particular the NDP, which has been pressing the government to give it party status and the $2 million budget that comes with that.
"It genuinely inhibits New Democrats' ability to communicate with and work with, as we must, other opposition members ... and it creates a peculiar camera angle for the Tories ... because it effectively puts Liberal backbenchers behind Tory frontbenchers when they are posing questions," he said.
In making his argument in the Legislature, Kormos cited several rulings that agreed with parliamentary convention that opposition party should sit closest to the Speaker's left hand and that government rumps be the furthest away.
Former House of Commons Speaker Gib Parent in 1994, when faced with a similar dilemma, ruled that the seating should be modified to allow the NDP and Tory caucuses to be seated together, Kormos said.
"What I'm suggesting to you is that the documentation demonstrates that the seating plan that has been convention has been one of the official opposition; to their immediate left the third party; and then to their immediate left, in descending order, other opposition parties or groups of opposition members," Kormos told the Legislature.
Kormos suggested the Liberals were being hypocritical given when they were opposition they railed against the then Tory government for not following democratic convention when it delivered a budget at an auto parts facility in Brampton.
"The Liberals were front and centre for condemning the Tories for their contemptuous violation of tradition and convention and now we find the Liberals themselves engaging in a major breach of convention that has a significant impact on how effective the opposition can be," he said later.
Runciman also agreed that there "is an element of pettiness here ... if they (the Liberals) wanted it to happen it could happen, it's a simple as that."
› Get 50% off home delivery of the Toronto Star.
FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice:- Copyright 1996-2003. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form.
Nov. 25, 2003. 01:00 AM
`Rump' that doesn't sit well
NDP upset that spillover divides opposition in Legislature
Long-standing parliamentary tradition ignored, Kormos says
RICHARD BRENNAN
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU
The provincial government is being accused of being petty and vindictive by using a Liberal "rump" in the Legislative Assembly to physically divide the opposition parties.
"We have to protect ourselves against moves, however subtle, that are designed to undermine the effectiveness of opposition," New Democrat MPP Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre) said in an interview yesterday after rising on a point of order.
Because the Liberals have 72 members, they spill on to the opposition side of the Legislature. While this so-called government rump is not new, it is virtually unheard of that they are placed between the opposition benches.
"The Liberals are being petty, vindictive and mean-spirited; but having said all that, they are also displaying an arrogance," Kormos said.
Both the official opposition Conservatives and the NDP, which is one seat short of full-party status, urged new Speaker Alvin Curling to study past practices and rule that what Liberals are doing runs counter to parliamentary convention. Curling reserved his decision. (The NDP won only seven seats in the Oct. 2 election, one less than needed for official party status; the Tories won 24 of the 103 seats in the Legislature).
"We believe there is a case to be made for the Speaker to consider this point of order and for the very simple reason that the seating arrangement appears to stand against long-standing parliamentary convention in Ontario," said Tory House Leader Bob Runciman (Leeds-Grenville).
"Mr. Speaker, we're looking to you to consider the seating plans for the last 75 years as an example, indeed a standard of parliamentary tradition in Ontario, when making your decision. Note a few brief examples."
Said Kormos: "Never before have opposition members (at Queen's Park) been divided by a government rump."
Government house leader Dwight Duncan said later he wanted to talk "about more substantive issues, not where somebody is sitting in the house," adding the NDP members, all now classified as independents, aren't even a party."
Kormos charges that it is all part of the Liberal government's "heavy-handed" attempt to drive a stake into the heart of opposition benches, in particular the NDP, which has been pressing the government to give it party status and the $2 million budget that comes with that.
"It genuinely inhibits New Democrats' ability to communicate with and work with, as we must, other opposition members ... and it creates a peculiar camera angle for the Tories ... because it effectively puts Liberal backbenchers behind Tory frontbenchers when they are posing questions," he said.
In making his argument in the Legislature, Kormos cited several rulings that agreed with parliamentary convention that opposition party should sit closest to the Speaker's left hand and that government rumps be the furthest away.
Former House of Commons Speaker Gib Parent in 1994, when faced with a similar dilemma, ruled that the seating should be modified to allow the NDP and Tory caucuses to be seated together, Kormos said.
"What I'm suggesting to you is that the documentation demonstrates that the seating plan that has been convention has been one of the official opposition; to their immediate left the third party; and then to their immediate left, in descending order, other opposition parties or groups of opposition members," Kormos told the Legislature.
Kormos suggested the Liberals were being hypocritical given when they were opposition they railed against the then Tory government for not following democratic convention when it delivered a budget at an auto parts facility in Brampton.
"The Liberals were front and centre for condemning the Tories for their contemptuous violation of tradition and convention and now we find the Liberals themselves engaging in a major breach of convention that has a significant impact on how effective the opposition can be," he said later.
Runciman also agreed that there "is an element of pettiness here ... if they (the Liberals) wanted it to happen it could happen, it's a simple as that."
› Get 50% off home delivery of the Toronto Star.
FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice:- Copyright 1996-2003. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form.
