So you want to prorogue Parliament

So the political blogosphere has been abuzz the last few days with the news that Stephen Harper was planning to, and then did, prorogue Parliament. According to pundits, the world is coming to an end and Prime Minister Harper is taking his dictatorial powers to a new extreme. In other words, this is The Worst Thing Ever to happen to Canadian Democracy.

Time for some sober second thought.

Remember that Parliament is an ancient institution consisting of the Crown, the Senate (House of Lords in England), and the House of Commons. Parliament is called by the Crown; the Executive is selected by the Crown; Parliament considers the Crown's business (although Parliament does claim a number of ancient rights. More on that in a later blog post). The Crown determines what business is conducted and in what order it happens. The Crown also decides when Parliament will sit and for how long.

Ultimately, of course, the Crown is vested in the person of the Queen of Canada: Her Majesty, Elizabeth II and power flows through her representative in Canada, the Governor General, Her Excellency Michaelle Jean. In practice, however, parliamentary business is determined by the government of the day. Barring special circumstances (more on that later), the Governor General must follow the advice of the Prime Minister.

Each election ends a Parliament and starts a new one. The 40th General Election resulted in the start of the 40th Parliament. Each Parliament is divided into "Sessions," during which the Government's business is done. Each Session begins with a Speech from the Throne that lays out the Government's agenda for that Session. The length of each Session is indeterminate in Canada (some Provinces prescribe the lengths of a Session, but the federal government does not) and can, to some extent, be used as part of the political tools of the Government. A Parliament could theoretically have only one Session or as many as the Government of the day wants. In practice, however, a four-year Parliament will generally have three or four Sessions.

To end a Session, the Prime Minister asks the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. All business on the Order Paper disappears, committees do not sit, and no business is done until the Governor General recalls Parliament. Parliament, in effect, resets itself to begin anew with the Government's agenda.

So what's the big deal?

Well, let's look first at the biggest part of this deal: this proroguement happens just when the Government is experiencing some serious scrutiny on the Afghan detainee issue and Parliament will not be able to continue its questioning or demand answers of the Government until after the Olympics, a new Throne Speech, and a Budget in March. The timing looks suspicious, and I can't deny it.

But.

The Tories will, for the first time in 15 years, have a plurality in the Red Chamber when the Prime Minister appoints 5 new Senators this month. The Senate is a great patronage tool for any Government and in spite of his desire to reform the Senate, the Prime Minsiter can, should, and must work with the tools he has at his disposal. So, he'll appoint the Senators and gain some political advantage in the Senate as well as keep the foot soldiers happy in the process.

While the Conservatives might have the advantage in the Senate Chamber, the only way they can hope to gain any kind of advantage in Senate committees is to prorogue Parliament to allow them to reset and realign with the new, more relevant, numbers. This is Parliamentary business and would probably go unnoticed without the detainee issue.

So the question at this point is: do we believe that the Government isn't also using proroguement to avoid the spotlight? You bet they are! Governments use this kind of tool to their advantage all the time! Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive at best. We have to remember that this is something that any Government might do and is not indicative of the Tories being any more evil than anyone else.

Is it an abuse of Parliament? No way. It's not ideal, and certainly not great, but it's not an abuse. We haven't even had an abnormally short Session! The Second Session of the 40th Parliament lasted just under a year, which is a little short of the average, but not outside the realm of possibility.

What does give a lot of people pause is the fact that the 40th Parliament started in Fall 2008 just after the election and was then almost immediately prorogued when Harper was less than tactically brilliant. So they're asking themselves "why prorogue now?" While it's a good and valid question, I think that in almost any other circumstance, these same people wouldn't even blink an eye over the prorogation. It's the Afghan detainee issue and the short First Session that are causing the hue and cry across the nation.

I argue that if it weren't for a general dislike of Prime Minister Harper, we wouldn't be hearing a word about a perfectly routine matter in dealing with Parliamentary business.