Harper, prorogation and the slow death of democracy
I really do try to keep my mind off of Canadian politics while on vacation, especially at Christmas and into New Year's Day but wow, Stephen Harper makes that tough. At a time when most members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery were like me, lounging at home, the prime minister decided to prorogue Parliament and announce a new session would start with a Speech from the Throne on March 3rd, a budget would follow the day after.
Maybe it's all the interrupted holidays that are behind some of the rhetoric aimed at Harper's decision. Since the prorogation was confirmed on December 30th the PM has been called "imperial," an enemy of democracy, "a despot." The running theme is that Harper's decision is hurting Parliamentary democracy and eroding our national institutions. I'll have to disagree based not only on history but also because there are far greater attacks on the influence of Parliament than this latest adjournment.
For a start, this is the way our institutions are meant to work; Harper is playing well within the rules. Now arguments can be made that Harper is stretching the rules or using them to his advantage, fine, but he is not breaking any rules. Yet Liberal MP Bob Rae tells the Toronto Star the Parliamentary system has to change, "I don't believe we can continue with the kind of one-man show, unilateral decisions about when and how Parliament meets and what it does. This has to be subject to a greater sense of rule of law rather than the rule of whim."
I'm not sure what kind of system Mr. Rae has in mind but as far as I can tell, short of adopting a republic, or radically altering our constitution, this is the system we are stuck with. The Governor General, in place of the Queen, adjourns a Parliamentary session on the advice of the Queen's first minister, which would be the prime minister. Unless Rae seems to think that we can adjust this somehow so that a multi-party committee of the Commons now takes on the function, duty and responsibility for advising her majesty, I don't see this changing.
Historically, as the prime minister's staff were quick to point out on their conference call last Wednesday, this current session that has just been adjourned is not that short. The average number of sitting days for a session of Parliament, since confederation, has been 109 while the current session came in at 128. Between September 1949 and August 1950, Louis St. Laurent oversaw the opening of three Parliamentary sessions, proroguing Parliament in December of 1949 and then again the following June. Critics may scoff at that as ancient history but in the context of Canadian Parliamentary tradition, which takes in British tradition, this is not such old news. Trudeau himself had three sessions shorter than the current one plus the longest session on record, 1980 to 1983.
Canadians, even supposed experts, quoted by media outlets seem unaware of the nature of prorogation in our Parliamentary system. In a story on the possibility that the Harper Conservatives might seek to make it standard for Parliament to prorogue every year, The Canadian Press quotes David Mitchell, Presidenet and CEO of Public Policy Forum, as saying, "It's not easy to see how this can work. It raises the question: Why do we have a Parliament?"
To listen to these experts you would think that this new fangled prorogation was a concept invented by this dastardly prime minister to foil his opponents. In fact, if Mitchell had glimpsed over Canadian history at all he would have learned that annual prorogation was at one time the norm and Harper, if he went in that direction, would be returning Canada to it's roots.
If all of these people were truly concerned about the collapse of power in Parliament they would not be harping about prorogation but would rather be questioning the rise of the "independent" bodies that now govern how our political system works. The first job of a Member of Parliament, regardless of party, is to hold the government of the day to account for the allocation and spending of tax dollars. This is why defeat on a money bill always results in the defeat of the government.
Today though most MPs leave any real leg work on government spending to the Auditor General Sheila Fraser and as of late Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page. These two individuals and their staff are now doing the work that MPs, their staff and opposition parties should be doing, yet it is hard work so most would rather go for the partisan sound bite and leave the addition and subtraction to Fraser and Page.
One of the reasons the opposition parties put forth for Harper shutting down Parliament in the first place is that he wants to avoid the Special Committee on Afghanistan and its investigation into claims of detainee abuse. Yet if Harper had listened to those same MPs and committee members last month he would have called a public inquiry which would have likely shut down any further investigation by the committee.
When it comes to Canada's obsession with public inquiries, special officers and offices designed to oversee or advise the government, I'm prone to ask David Mitchell's question, "Why do we have a Parliament?"
We elect our members to govern, advise, oppose and hold to account, yet on both the opposition side and the government side the first reaction when it comes to controversy or hard work is to call for "independent review." When Harper wanted advice on what the country should be doing with the mission in Afghanistan, he didn't reach across the aisle and tap key Liberals to join some of his own people in forming a committee, he called on former Liberal MP John Manley and a panel of independent experts.
MPs could fight back against this tendency to farm out their jobs, but understaffed, under resourced and most importantly, unwilling to do the job properly, they happily join in. They call on the government to launch inquiries into Afghan prisoners, salmon fisheries, Brian Mulroney's business dealings. They applaud when the government appoints outsiders to advise on crucial policy questions such as Afghanistan failing to see that we already elect 308 people to the House of Commons to do that very role.
The power of Parliament is eroding, the influence of MPs dropping, but it is not prorogation that is the cause, the problem is much bigger, much deeper than that.
Brian Lilley is the Ottawa Bureau Chief for Newstalk 1010. Follow Brian on Twitter to get the latest as it happens.
Traffic Map
