Today, sources within the Prime Minister’s Office announced that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was going to ask Governor General Michaelle Jean to prorogue parliament, suspending its sittings from now until March. The move would kill several pieces of legislation that Harper himself called critical; they would have to be reintroduced in March. In return, the move would allow him to restructure various senate committees to reflect the new Conservative majority he expects to appoint to the senate next month. It would also theoretically stop the work of various house committees, including those investigating what the government knew about the transfer of Afghan detainees in possible contravention of the Geneva Convention.
It’s important to note that, if the composition of the senate committees were really his issue, Harper could resolve this problem far earlier than March. He could, in fact, prorogue parliament in one day. Shut it down, appoint his senators, restart, and issue a new throne speech. That he isn’t doing this; that parliament is to be out of session for two whole months, is a telling statement of what it is he truly wants to avoid.
The title of this post is hyperbole. However, it is the exact language used last year by Conservative supporters when the three opposition parties reached an accord to vote to defeat the minority government, and replace it with a working coalition by parties that had together collected over 62% of the vote. Conservative supporters, displaying a shocking lack of knowledge for or disrespect of our constitution, our history and parliamentary tradition, used this phraseology with impunity, along with other words like ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’, even though the coalition was not illegal, and indeed was a proper expression of democracy by members of parliament, elected by popular vote within their ridings, who held the majority of seats of parliament. But that fact meant little to Conservative officials in their war of words.
Here, now, we have a prime minister who seeks to suspend the work of parliament — not, as it could have been argued last year, to establish a seven week cooling period before facing the prospect of changing a government in the middle of an economic crisis, but to thwart the work of various committees asking questions in the name of accountability. This is a prime minister who has defied the principle of parliamentary supremacy, ignoring a direct order by vote of parliament to turn over uncensored documents to a parliamentary committee for investigation, in order to save his own political skin. Whatever high ideals the move to suspend parliament last year might have had, they’re not present here. The move is nakedly political, and shames our democracy.
Why should we care? Well, Conservative supporters should care because every action taken here justifies any future excesses taken by a Liberal government. Jean Chretien prorogued parliament four times during his thirteen years in office; not one of those times was this done to avoid a no-confidence motion or to restructure senate committees. Even so, his action was seen as an arrogant dismissal of the work of parliamentarians in a parliament that did not sit long enough to do the work of the people.
That Paul Martin even thought of proroguing parliament to try and avoid the no-confidence motion that was going to bring him down was rightly seen as the affront to democracy that it was. In four years, Stephen Harper has prorogued parliament in a pace that makes Chretien look relaxed. If any Liberal in the future tried to suspend parliament indefinitely, to avoid accountability, or defeat within a minority parliament, the Conservatives would have no moral high ground on which to object. Indeed, Stephen Harper would have been the one to set the precedent for such appalling behaviour.
Step by step, this prime minister who campaigned on establishing a new era of transparency and accountability, has sought to strip away the very checks and balances he promised to reinforce. If Canadians are cynical about their political institutions, it’s because political accountability has been removed by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, and we should care about the actions taken here because Stephen Harper clearly wants to make the situation worse, not better.
In the end, I expect that parliament will be prorogued. As much as I would like Governor General Michaelle Jean to refuse Harper’s request, I can appreciate that, traditionally, her hands are tied. There is no precedent, since Lord Byng, for a Governor General to refuse a direct request by a sitting prime minister. It’s out of her hands, but it’s not out of the opposition’s hands, who are just as much representatives of the people as the government is. Stephen Harper wants the opposition members to go home, stop asking questions, and stop doing the work of parliament. They don’t have to.
Andrew Coyne, no Liberal shill, takes this idea and runs with it. The opposition parties would do well to follow his advice:
what will Parliament do now? If historical precedent is any guide, it should meet anyway. Let those MPs who wish to do the people’s business convene on the usual timetable, and let those with other loyalties) disport themselves as they may.
If MPs are barred at the doors to Parliament — and wouldn’t that be an interesting scene — let them meet somewhere else. A tennis court would do nicely.
Mr. Ignatieff, this is your moment. You either step up, or you let the prime minister walk all over you. And if you do the latter, and Mr. Harper gets away with his anti-democratic acts, ultimately, you will have no one to blame but yourself.
Further Reading
- Dr Dawg: “Harper’s continuing assault on democracy is by now too obvious for anyone to ignore.”
- POGGE: “Anyway, my simple-minded question concerns the CPCCA. If all the other committee hearings are suspended, will the proceedings of that curious hybrid be suspended as well? They claim to be independent of the government, independent of just about everybody”
- Stageleft: “Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Stephen!”; see also Accidental Deliberations.
- The Equivocator: “Prime Minister Harper has been slowly eroding democracy in this country. The Prime Minister’s war on democracy has had many battles on many fronts”
- James Bowie on the list of bills killed thanks to Harper’s prorogation.
- More from Andrew Coyne
Counterpoint
- Stephen Taylor, co-founder of the Blogging Tories: “The case for prorogation is constitutional.The case against it is political.”. I have to say that Stephen’s argument mostly comes down to: “we do this because we can, and Canadians don’t care enough to stop it,” which, I have to say leaves the cynicism of this move quite plain. Stephen Taylor has essentially agreed that the move is nakedly political, and while from a pragmatic point of view, this might be valid, Stephen should be aware that he has surrendered every right he had to criticize future Liberal governments should they choose to act the same way, or worse.
P.S. Stephen: the case for the coalition last year was at least as constitutional as the so-called case for prorogation, here. Indeed, at the time, the opposition parties didn’t taint the process with a potentially unconstitutional move as Stephen Harper has done here, by defying an order of parliament ahead of proroguing it.
December 30, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply
I concur with every word of this. Bravo.
December 30, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply
I’m no Parliamentary expert, but while the move for the G-G to say NEIN is unprecedented, it seems that Harper’s moves are similarly unprecedented. If the one is breaking new ground, why not the other?
I’ve been somewhat ambivalent towards Harper’s Cons (although I’ve not voted blue and white since Campbell was the incumbent) but if he’s trying to pull this again, I’ll be writing Peter Braid or his successor off before the next election is even called. Last election I placed every candidate on level ground before deciding, but this is ridiculous.
December 30, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply
I’d be impressed if the Governor General stood up to the Prime Minister, but there is a danger, in my opinion, of twisting or playing against the constitutional limits of power, even to slap down a prime minister who is doing the same. Indeed, that’s the whole point: I’m angry because the prime minister isn’t respecting the constitutional process, and it would be hypocritical of me to bend the rules myself in order to get my way.
The opposition, however, defy no laws or rules by continuing to work in the face of a prorogation. We the people have open to us the means to express our displeasure at this state of affairs. And ultimately, if we want change to happen, we can’t rely on an unelected Governor General to suddenly exercise her largely ceremonial powers. We have to rely on ourselves. It’s time to take our displeasure to parliament itself and to the various constituency offices and let our representatives know personally what we think of all this.
December 30, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply
I’d be impressed if the Governor General stood up to the Prime Minister, but there is a danger, in my opinion, of twisting or playing against the constitutional limits of power, even to slap down a prime minister who is doing the same.
She had a leg to stand on last year, but this year, it is much more straightforward (though no less odious). This is completely within Harper’s right to do. The GG would cause a constitutional crisis if she did anything other than say yes, in this case.
I agree with you that the genie is out of the bottle for future governments. I expect there are operatives in the Liberal Party asking for copies of the Conservatives manual on how to subvert Parliament, even as we speak.
December 30, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply
Great post, James. I’m just trying to track the history of the announcement through the first news reports we’re getting, and it looks as though Soudas went ahead and made the announcement before we’ve heard anything from Rideau Hall. That in itself seems highly improper to me.
And then, in answer to questions about the Afghanistan committee, he sneaks in the strawman argument that is also a nasty attack on the patriotism of the opposition — no one has produced evidence of any wrongdoing by the forces.
The PMO are just sneering at us.
December 30, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply
James, great post. I wish there was someway to say that without this awkward-feeling post, but that’s that. I’ve emailed the GG and am about to do so to my MP (a Dipper), for all the good that might do.
December 30, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply
I was lazy and didn’t do all the clicking to your links. Is your reference to an order of parliament about document release by detainees? If so, that’s not driven by the government of the day, that’s driven by government employees applying the letter of existing laws to documents requested.
Re: last year’s coalition - it may have been a constitutionally valid move, but it would have made Dion, a man resoundingly denied the role of PM by voters what, 8 weeks earlier, Prime Minister of the country. THAT’s what truly stunk about that move, combined with the fact that the coalition “majority” required the support of a regional, one-province-one-trick-pony party in order to survive a single vote in the House.
Political junkies like you & I can argue the finer points of this move and all the attendant issues until the cows come home, but I doubt there’s going to be much traction with the general voting public (see recent polls).
December 30, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply
On the matter of the order of parliament, this matter has still to go to the courts, but there are many non-partisan sources within parliament which suggest that the government is simply stonewalling. Parliamentary privilege overrules the statutes being quoted, and the responsibility for ducking that goes directly to the Ministers and the Prime Minister. They had the ability to do the right thing, and they chose not to, and I expect them to be slapped down for them.
And as I said in the post, the previous prorogation at least had some argument behind it — specifically, a cooling off period before potentially changing the government during an economic crisis. This prorogation has no such urgency. Changing the make-up of Senate committees could be done in a day. Sitting out parliament until March? That’s the actions of a government that has something to hide.
And from a government that promised to increase openness and accountability, that’s shameful. I can only imagine that if the Liberals were doing this, you’d be incensed. In my opinion, you’d be right to do so. Jean Chretien prorogued parliament four times in his thirteen years as prime minister. At no time did he do so to avoid a confidence measure, or thwart the work of committees. Harper has prorogued parliament twice in one year. If you think that’s okay, then you’ve justified similar actions for similar spurious reasons by future governments, Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat.
The cynicism surrounding the political institutions of this land started with Trudeau and the consolidation of power away from the hands of parliament. Harper is accelerating this process. At what point do even partisan supporters stand up and say ‘stop’?
December 30, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply
And, really, just because something “stinks” in your opinion doesn’t justify bending the constitutional rules in order to prevent it, because you’ve given permission for others in the future to bend the rules when things don’t “stink”.
December 30, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply
And it’s not just me who’s saying this, and not just people on the left or centre. Connie Fournier of the Free Dominion is equally incensed at Harper’s abuse of power.
December 30, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply
Great post James. The greater the lengths Harper goes to to prevent the Colvin memos from being released, the clearer it is that he has something to hide. (This is to say nothing of the fact that his government claims to be the cause of everything good that happened to Canada in the past four years and at fault for none of the bad stuff.) The important thing now is ignoring the individual scandals and getting the electorate to realize how Harper’s actions are different from his media image.
December 30, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply
Rather than waste my time discussing the semantic political virtue or legal niceties of Mr. Harper’s choice….
I would rather suggest that I see no merit in prorogation at all, ever.
That the only exuse for wiping out the legislative agenda of parliament ought to be a change in the government (wholesale, ie. new PM)
That’s it.
We elect these folks for what, all things being equal should be a 4-5 year term. It is so utterly infuriating that both major parties federally and even more provincially have cynically used this power to kill legislation that they pretend to publically support, but don’t actually wish to enact.
It is legal; it is done; it should be neither, for any party, ever.
If you want to defeat bills, you should have to vote them down for the record, not defeat them by an act of political subterfuge.
December 30, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply
Hiho,
The Olympics. Eyes of the world on Canada. My guess is that, on top of everything else, Harper realized this and felt that it might be in his best interest to reduce the potential for embarrassing parliamentary headlines during this time.
That said, I wonder if there is any historical precedent for proroguing for the Olympics?
CU, Andrew
December 31, 2009 7:19 AM | Reply
As you observe, there’s a precedent for Parliament continuing to meet, and if they don’t, then while the government isn’t using the House I’m sure they won’t mind if the citizens of Canada borrow it for a day. I think February 12 would be a good date.
December 31, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply
The response from my MP’s office (note particularly the last sentence of the second paragraph):
Thank you very much for your email. I shall pass along your comments to Paul.
It is indeed unconscionable for the government to dismiss all the work that’s gone on in this session, and to pre-empt the ongoing work of parliamentarians, all for political expediency. You can be assured that Paul and his colleagues will continue to do the work that they were elected for.
Paul was also on the Current on CBC Radio this morning speaking about this.
Thanks again for your ongoing support. We appreciate your taking the time to write - all the best for the New Year,
Audrey Moey Parliamentary Assistant
Paul Dewar, MP Ottawa Centre
December 31, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply
This proroguation is not much worse then most any other. You mentioned that Chretien did it four times. The fact that people don’t remember why he did it suggests he did it for even fewer reasons then Harper is doing it.
The difference is last year at this time, in my opinion, the House had lost confidence in Harper and he was only hanging on by a technicality. That should have been reason enough for the Governor General to turn him down.
“It may have been a constitutionally valid move, but it would have made Dion, a man resoundingly denied the role of PM by voters what, 8 weeks earlier, Prime Minister of the country.”
Noone had earned the right to be PM from the last election becaused no party had gotten a majority. Harper was just less rejected then Dion, but the House of Commons decides who the Prime Minister is. If you don’t think it should work like that, write your own constational admendments.
December 31, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply
For three of those four times, Chretien wasn’t abusing the process. Prorogation is a tool used to close a parliamentary session that’s largely finished. Since the parliament has accomplished most, if not all, of the things it set out to do in its throne speech, tradition has it that parliament is prorogued, so a new set of priorities can be established, through a new throne speech.
The prorogation that occurred in November 2003 was a bit controversial, however. It happened during the release of AdScam, and during the transition between Chretien and Martin as PM. The latter was the reason given, although it was said that Paul Martin was incensed by Chretien’s move. Certainly Stephen Harper blasted it as an anti-democratic attempt by the Liberals to duck questions about the noises that were starting to come out of the Auditor General’s office.
January 7, 2010 12:10 PM | Reply
Rick Mercer adds his two cents:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/proroguing-is-for-children-and-stephen-harper/article1420026/
January 13, 2010 2:54 PM | Reply
As I posted the response from my MP’s office when I received it, I thought I’d pass along a response that signed with his name (which is different from all other correspondence I’ve had with the office on various issues in the past, always signed with his assistant’s name rather than his)::
Thank you for your email. I share your outrage at the Prime Minister’s latest attempt to avoid scrutiny and accountability.
It is indeed unconscionable for the government to dismiss all the work that’s gone on in this session, and to pre-empt the ongoing work of parliamentarians, all for political expediency.
Please be assured that my colleagues and I will continue to attend to the nation`s business, and keep the government accountable, despite this flagrant abuse of parliamentary privilege by the Prime Minister. On January 25th, the NDP caucus will be back on Parliament Hill to work on behalf of our constituents.
We have received a large number of messages from people across the country protesting Harper’s abuse of prorogation to avoid accountability. I’ve set up a page on my website to stay connected with my constituents on this issue.
If you would like to sign a petition against the prorogation, please go to http://www.pauldewar.ca/en/component/content/article/15-story/165-speak-out-against-prorogation.html
Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns with me. I appreciate very much your thoughtful comments.
Best wishes,
Paul