Prorogue This!

Canadians must ensure that the prime minister can't harm our democracy any further.

The energy and enthusiasm among those organizing against the prime minister’s unprecedented use of prorogation is impressive. Canadians appear united in their desire for a more transparent and accountable government. As this nascent movement begins to take shape, it is useful to consider what sparked it.

Prorogation is a routine procedure to end a parliamentary session when both Houses of Parliament have finished the business of the session. The prime minister has the right to request prorogation and the Governor General can choose to accept his advice.

What is unusual about Harper’s two uses of prorogation is that they both have come before the legislative session is complete. In addition, both have been used to avoid parliamentary accountability. In 2008 he used prorogation to avoid a confidence vote he was sure to lose. In 2009, he used it to avoid politically difficult questions about the Afghan detainee issue.

The key principle in our system is that governments must be accountable to Parliament. Using prorogation in this way undermines parliamentary democracy and harms the principles of responsible government.

One popular theory about how harm occurs views it as the product of three distinct elements – a motivated actor, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian.

With respect to prorogation in Canada, Harper can be seen as a motivated actor for his repeat offenses against Parliament, while the Canadian electorate, despite its recent interest, has been a suitable target, often ignorant of their system of governance. Using this scenario, we could also say that the Governor General has proven to be an incapable guardian. Caught between two competing principles, namely to act on the advice of the prime minister and to ensure Canada’s government enjoyed the confidence of Parliament, the Governor General chose the prime minister over the people.

Absent a strong parliamentary “guardian,” a constitutionally illiterate population is no match for a motivated political movement. These three elements have come together in Canada over the last years and resulted in the subversive constitutional proposition that a government can simply suspend Parliament when faced with a potential non-confidence vote.

What can be realistically done about this situation? The model above suggests three ways to address the harm caused by the prime minister. The first is to ensure Harper faces political accountability in any subsequent election. If people feel these prorogations represent an abuse of power, a lack of transparency, and a disrespect for Parliament, they must vote their conscience on election day.

The second is to push for a requirement that Parliament OKs all future requests for prorogation. By keeping up the pressure in the media, online, and, of course, with their local MPs, Canadians can push for a resolution in the House of Commons. As Andrew Heard suggests, this could state unequivocally that any prime minister to advise prorogation or dissolution without being authorized to do so by the House would be in contempt of Parliament. This would ensure the primacy of Parliament and offer a means toward greater prime ministerial accountability. However, this would not clear up the confusion in Canada about our system of governance.

A third and broader strategy would be to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Crown, Parliament, and the prime minister. As Peter Russell argues, based on the New Zealand example, instead of trying to secure a complex constitutional amendment, Canadians can be involved in a transparent process to clarify the general principles of responsible government. The result would be an authoritative and publicly accessible set of guidelines to serve as a resource for those inside and outside Parliament. Although not legally binding, they would offer a means to resolve politically difficult situations based on accepted constitutional convention.

The speed and intensity with which Canadians have united against Harper’s use of prorogation is a reminder that political allegiances to parties are but one way the electorate can engage their government. If Canadians want to participate in a national conversation about the way we govern ourselves, we need a process that can both educate Canadians about their system of governance while explicitly detailing the principles upon which it is based.