On December 30^th, 2009, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper rang up Canada’s Governor General, Michaelle Jean to prorogue the Canadian Parliament.  Jean granted permission (as a good Governor General always does), and the Canadian legislative assembly was officially put into suspension until March 2010.

Since then, Canadians have been divided into two camps:
A) ones who are appalled by Harper’s seemingly despotic power and
B) people who just don’t care.
(Personally, I do not know anyone from a camp C who is ecstatic for prorogation.  If you do, let me know.)

It’s an interesting phenomenon as I find myself sharing sentiments on both camps, with an ironic concoction of outrage and indifference.

Outrage

It is easy to explain the rage.  Single-handedly halting the institution that makes decisions for the nation; evading public inquiries regarding our nation’s indirect use of torture; ‘shutting down democracy’ in the face of opposition.

On the other hand, are these concerns genuinely troubling or are they largely symbolic?

Indifference

As it appears, the Parliament isn’t really all that useful in a developed nation like Canada.  It has already been a month since the Senators and House of Commons representatives have taken their breaks from the Parliament and we haven’t heard of any national crisis: no urgent legislatures, no debates, no discussions required.  Nothing.  Aside from the symbolic outrage poured on by the opposition, there really have been little concerns over the three-month inactive legislative period, where these politicians are all chill-laxing.  No wonder Canadian politics is so boring.  It seems much of their work are optional.  (Also, please see below for a recent history of when our Parliament has been prorogued.)

As for the public inquiries over the torture of Afghan prisoners, if the issue is really pressing for Canadians, it will be reintroduced when Parliament resumes, and it will remain in the thoughts of Canadians.  Much like the Abu-Ghraib photos are forever associated with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their cronies in the minds of the public.  Would the outcome of any committee inquiries result in a different resolution had there been no prorogation?

Confusion

In a theoretical framework, it is outrageous to suspend a legislative assembly without a compelling reason that can be agreed upon by all members of the government.  The use of prorogation should be limited to a minimum as it wastes the nation’s money, and time and symbolically reduces the value of the democratic integrity of the legislative branch as a whole.

In a practical sense, however, has prorogation (now and in the past) affected the lives of Canadians?  Is there a need to restructure the legislature?  Does it really have the capability to steer Canada away from democracy?  Does it grant the Prime Minister unlimited power to evade all responsibilities?  It doesn’t seem so.  Judging by the response of Canadians nationwide, the potential for the abuse of power to prorogue Parliament has its consequences.  Canadians can easily actualize this consequence at the voting booth at the next federal election.  And future Prime Ministers would be hesitant to illegitimately pull another prorogue trick.

The fact that Canadians and weak opposition parties allowed the Harper government to remain after they pulled the trick the first time in 2008, highlights the inherent problem that is more than just the Prime Minister’s capacity to prorogue.

Now What

There are definitely something upsetting about this prorogation (and any unjustified prorogation in general), but I question if any part of that outrage was simply a result of the frustration of the economic recession, the Conservative leadership, and Mr. Stephen Harper’s ineptness.

The many dissenting voices and protests are healthy signs of Canadian democracy.  I truly support the voices.  Yet, ask yourself where you stand on the issue and where your anger originates.

• Do you simply want the Parliament to resume without changes in the way Ottawa works?
• Do you want legislative change to strip the Prime Minister’s power to prorogue the Parliament in the future?  What are the alternatives?
• If the Parliament resumes, will the problems currently not being addressed in the absence of a Parliament be realistically confronted?
• If the Parliament resumes, how many of us will continue to push for a legislative amendment regarding prorogation or would we just wait until the next one to make noise?

Personally, I don’t know.  I think I’m going to go do some soul-searching.

Interesting Facts of Parliament Prorogation in Canada (That You Have Probably Heard)

In an attempt to understand my mixed emotions of rage and indifference, here are some facts to consider.

The principal effect of ending a session by prorogation is to end business. All government bills that have not received Royal Assent prior to prorogation cease to exist; committee activity also ceases. Thus, no committee can sit after a prorogation.

In order for government bills to be proceeded with in a new session, they must be reintroduced as new bills or they may be reinstated, if the House agrees to this.

– House of Commons Procedures & Practice

History of Past Parliament Prorogations

Lester B. Pearson (3)	Dec 21, 1963 Apr. 3, 1965 May. 8, 1967
Pierre Trudeau (11)	Oct. 22, 1969 Oct. 7, 1970 Feb 16, 1972 Feb. 26, 1974 Oct. 12, 1976 Oct.17, 1977 Oct. 10, 1978 Oct. 30, 1983
Bob Rae (3)	(Ontario Provincial Parliament) Dec.19, 1991 – Apr. 6, 1992 Dec.10, 1992 – Apr. 13, 1993 Dec. 9, 1994 – Apr. 28, 1995
Jean Chretien (4)	Feb 2, 1996 Sep. 18, 1999 Sep. 16, 2002 Nov. 13, 2003 – Jan. 13, 2004
Stephen Harper (2)	Dec. 4 2008 – Jan. 27, 2009 Dec. 30 2009 – Mar. 3 2010

Related Posts

• Who Is Our Neighbour Up North?
• Why Canadian PM Missed the G20 Photoshoot
• Irrationality of Canadian GM/Chrysler Bailout
• Canadian Journalist Beverly Giesecrecht Deserves Our Sympathies
• Canadian Federal Election 2008 – Political Platforms