Prorogued parliament: good or bad?

Posted by admin on Jan 19, 2010 in Issues & Ideas | 0 comments

If Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s New Year’s resolution was to cause a furor in Ottawa and throughout the media, he’s been successful. The prorogation of Parliament on December 30 came at a time when many Canadians were focused on the hockey picks for Team Canada rather than watching the news. Party leaders such as Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff were caught off guard as they were still out snorkelling in Belize and vacationing in Europe, respectively. The fallout of the decision to prorogue has been a hotbed of discussion and opinion over the acceptable limits of the PM’s control over our democracy.

While The Opposition has pronounced a perversion of democracy and Canadians are dumbfounded as to why parliamentarians should have an extended vacation, the fact is that prorogation is still a constitutionally legitimate tool for the recalibration of government. Section 5 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “there shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.”
Harper has stated “the government is going to take advantage of this time…to look carefully at our agenda, to continue to deliver the economic measures that are being delivered here and elsewhere across their country…” Just because parliamentary procedures are on hold does not mean that Members of Parliament are not busy probing their constituents or in Ottawa readying the March budget.

So then, what is all the fuss about? Opponents of the prorogation state that the Conservatives are avoiding democracy and accountability by trying to cover-up several pressing issues. These include the allegations surrounding the treatment of Afghan detainees after being transferred from Canadian to Afghani authorities and Harper’s weak performance at the Copenhagen climate talks. Also, more than 30 bills will die on the order paper, with over half of them relating to the government’s tough-on-crime agenda. Parliamentary committees will not be able to sit, including the committee probing the Afghan detainee issue.

Historically speaking, Jean Chrétien prorogued Parliament back to back in both September 2002 and November 2003 without such a media uproar. Both times were for relatively trivial and self-serving reasons: first to test the strength of Paul Martin, and the second in order for Sheila Fraser’s report on the sponsorship program to fall on Martin’s lap as Chrétien made his exit.

The 22 extra days of “suspended” Parliament by Harper may be for strategic purposes to avoid the Afghan detainee issue and the Copenhagen debacle, but should it be treated any differently than the other 105 times it has been used since confederation?

As Harper noted in his CBC interview, Canadians don’t really seem to care too much about the Afghan or Copenhagen issues. And he’s right. Polls show that there isn’t a clear consensus amongst Canadians on these issues. Of course, that doesn’t give Harper the right to shut down debate over such issues, and it stands to reason that the public finds the prorogation an insult to democracy.

On the flip side, the break offers Harper the ability to appoint five more Conservative senators to the Senate—a move which won’t give the Conservatives a majority but will make them the largest party in the Senate. This may help with passage of important crime and consumer protection legislation that has been stalled by Liberal Senators, and will also revive the chance of passing Senate reform legislation.

So while there is no question Harper is employing some clever politics, there are still two sides to the coin. Whether democracy has been pushed aside or if prorogation offers the government a chance to focus, the fact is that Harper has manipulated the system in his favour. But because there isn’t a clear right or wrong, it is up to Canadians to discern whether it impacts Canada positively or negatively.