Oy, Canada! Conservative PM Uses Rare Act To Suspend Parliament

If you think the economic crisis is putting strain on the American government, go stand on your back porch and look at what happened, today, in Canada.  With the fiscal situation worsening up North, the current Prime Minister has gone rogue -- or rather 'prorogue.'

OK, just in case you were wondering,  'prorogue' is not the name of a new X-Men character or some newfangled baldness prevention cream.  It is a particular condition of a commonwealth parliamentary government and it has everyone north of the border on the edge of their seats wondering about the fate of their country.

Let's start off with the actual news, after which we will try to figure out what it means.  This is the most recent report on the Canadian prorogation crisis as reported by the CBC (and...just so nobody is forced to embarrass themselves by asking, Steven Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada):

Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean has granted a request from Stephen Harper to suspend Parliament until late next month, a move that avoids a confidence vote set for Monday that could have toppled his minority government.

"Following my advice, the Governor General has agreed to prorogue Parliament," Harper said outside Rideau Hall after a 2.5-hour meeting with Jean.

Harper would not reveal the content of the discussion, citing constitutional traditions, but he said the first order of business when Parliament resumes on Jan. 26 will be the presentation of the federal budget, to be delivered the following day.

"The economy is the priority now, and the public is very frustrated with the situation in Parliament. We're all responsible for that," Harper said in French.

Monday's no-confidence vote could have precipitated the rise of a proposed Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc Quebecois, or could have resulted in another election, depending on the Governor General's response.  (link)

Suspend parliament until late next month--goodness. Has this ever happened before?  Well, it has happened before in England--in 1628 when King Charles I gave a prorogation speech and dissolved parliament.  

Yep, 1628.  Getting the picture, now?

OK, now take a big sip of coffee and prepare for some Canadian civics 101 (yawn...OK, I'm ready).

The technical definition of 'prorogue' is as follows:

To suspend (parliament) without dissolving it. (link)

Uh...thanks Mr. Webster, but that is not very helpful.  Here is what the open source Wikipedia says about 'prorogation,' preceded first by a quick intro to how a parliamentary session generally works in a commonwealth system:

In Commonwealth realms, each session begins with a speech from the throne and a pro forma bill to allow the Parliament to deviate from that speech. Sessions can thereafter last from a few weeks to over a year. Between two elections, there are usually anywhere from one to six sessions of parliament.

Bills are numbered within each session and they expire if they do not become law by the time the session ends. In Canada, for example, each session's government House bills are numbered from C-2 to C-200 and when a new session starts, the first new bill is numbered C-2 again.

OK, that makes sense, and on a personal note:  I like any definition that manages to use the word 'realm.'  So, a parliamentary system in a commonwealth takes place under the symbolic authority of the crown, but in reality the legislators use a quick maneuver allowing them to do what they want. Still, individual sessions of parliament cover a specific agenda, and when that agenda is over, the session ends and a new one begins. Sounds nice and tidy. Let's keep reading:

Historically, sessions would run for several months continuously and be followed by a prorogation of several months when members of parliament would spend time in their home constituencies. This pattern has become less necessary in modern times; transportation and communication technology make it easy for members to return home for short visits throughout each session. It is not uncommon for a session of parliament to be put into recess during holidays and then resumed a few weeks later exactly where it left off. Governments today end sessions whenever it is most convenient, and often, a new session will begin on the same day that the previous session ended.

Ah! So 'prorogation' is actually a kind of normal thing or was a normal thing back in horse and buggy times.  It simply meant the period between a session of parliament, but within the same electoral period. And--here's the crucial point--once parliament is prorogued, as opposed to being put on temporary recess, the session and all it's remaining bills and motions were thereby annulled, which made sense at one time to do when the agenda was complete.

Well, what happened today in Canada--not unlike 1628 England--was not an ordinary prorogation, but a strategic prorogation sent down by the Governor General of Canada, Michaelle Jean, at the request of Conservative Prime minister, Stephen Harper, specifically to head off a direct challenge by a Left coalition--after only two weeks of the current session of parliament.  Two weeks--that's it. 

By requesting prorogation in this unprecedented way, Harper successfully headed off a challenge that would have brought down his government at a time when more and more Canadians seemed to be blaming the Conservative Party for the nation's economic woes. 

All of this drama came about on the eve of a no confidence vote that was to be put to Mr. Harper's government this Monday.  The amazing circumstances that brought about the no confidence vote was a coalition of two parties--the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party--with non coalition support from the Bloc Quebecois. 

What set the whole crisis off was the economic crisis in Canada.  Specifically, last week (Nov 27) the Finance Minister of the Conservative Party delivered a dire 2008 fiscal update to the Canadian House of Commons.  In the update, he proposed a series of spending cuts that enraged just about everybody else in the Canadian government.  The updated included proposals to "suspend the right of public employees to strike until 2011, sell off crown assets to raise capital, and eliminate political party subsidies, in which parties receive $1.95 for each vote they win" (link). 

Well, yep, that would get the other parties upset.  But more than that, the Conservative fiscal proposal was widely lambasted as a recipe for tipping Canada into a broad scale economic tailspin.  And since the Harper government controlled only a minority of the seats in Parliament as a result of the last federal election (Oct 14, 2008--in case you missed it), the opposition to his fiscal report was enough to set in motion the LP-NDP coalition.  With the main Conservative stronghold in Ontario, it seems that the rest of the Canadian provinces would not mind seeing Harper exit stage right--or stage left, as the case may be.

So, as bad as it may seem down here--with every investment bank on earth and the Big 3 to boot busking for change in the halls of Congress--at least the demoralized Republican Party still shows up for session. Canadian conservatives, on the other hand...they've have gone prorogue.

(cross posted from Frameshop)

Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman

Comments

[MPeter]

Absolutely. For the next eight weeks Harper and Flaherty intend to let the economy get so bad, uninformed Canadian voters will simply run back to these rabid ideologues, especially once they throw in the bogeyman voters here call 'separatists'. This was never about National Unity but Harper made it and Canadians swallowed all the bool. It is sad.

[Archie1955]

Well that is one interpretation of the situation. I prefer to call the opposition's coalition the wrong answer to the wrong question at the wrong time. The GG did the right thing to prorogue parliament for several weeks. The holidays are coming up and nothing of great interest or value usually takes place for at least three weeks during Christmas. The prorogation therefore is really a non problem either constitutionally or practically. On the other hand this gives the Conservative Government the time to review and repair any potential policies dealing with stimulus to the budget rather than have to start from scratch with a coalition of parties who have not participated in the government for at least three or more years (actually I don't think the NDP has ever been part of the Canadian Government). The job of the opposition is to oppose goverment legislation and policies that it believes will not serve the best interests of Canada. In this instance Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister will attempt to prepare a budget that incorporates certain policies of the opposition parties that will convince them to vote for his budget. That is the way things are supposed to operate. Cooperation gets things done and minority governments have historically been the best governments for Canadians. The great majority of our social net was created by minority governments so to my mind the GG did a wonderful job!

[jacqmac]

This IS huge, from a Canadian/Brit standpoint! I had to be reminded that Parliament was last CLOSED (i.e.doors locked) during the reign of Charles I in England. The reason that this is all perfectly LEGAL, although it reeks, is that the Canadian Gov't. is 'strange'. Yes, they are a sovereign nation, HOWEVER, the QUEEN of ENGLAND is the HEAD OF STATE. As pointed out above, usually Parliament can do a 'work around' and run the country without interference from across the pond, BUT, the QUEEN through her Governor General IS the HEAD of STATE. Therefore, the QUEEN of ENGLAND through her Governor General closed down Canada's Parliament at the request of Stephen Harper. As I told my sister, who is a Canadian citizen by choice, "I'm GLAD we had a REVOLUTION and made a clean break! Otherwise, W., Cheney, et. al. could have complained to OUR Governor General and 'closed Congress'. How's THAT for a nightmare?!!

[Wavehog]

Why do dopey seeming Americans have such a hard time understanding how this works, and accepting it's actually a much fairer and more representative system of democracy than their own system?

The Queen's simply representative fulfills the executive role (a rubber stamp) like the president of the US - but with way less power. There can be no interference in government

The whole point of the G-G not interfering is that to do so would undermine the basis of constitutional monarchy, which as the first modern system of representative democracy (a model for the infant US) has been running continuously for over 300 years.

This current situation might be unusual but it at least guarantees a government that can't govern won't govern.

Harper will lose a no-confidence vote in parliament, have to call an election sometime in the New Year and let the people decide - or cave in and let the Opposition can form government.

So we have a lame duck government replaced according to the wishes of the people - not the wishes of the Queen, as jacqmac seems to think.


Americans shouldn't be so smug. The US is government by lobby group and cash donation. Even the electoral college is a nod to the idea that the great unwashed (the people) can't be trusted.


Canadians should be forever glad they and the British gave the US a belting in the War of 1812 and are today a soverign nation not simply a half-dozen states of the US.

[sonoffestus]

It seems to me that conservatives both south and north just do not like democracy. A coalition government is a legal entity in a parliamentary system. So what's the problem. Harper over played his hand. The GG gave him a free pass hoping the kids could sort out their differences. "Go to your rooms and don't come out till you know how to behave", but they don't. So, if the government comes down in Jan, (still questionable), then the coalition will have to produce. It is kind of like being on a play ground and playing on the see-saw, right,left,right left......­.........a­nd the citizens get to watch because they are not as important as either parties' power.

It seems that the world is in need of some real leaders. I believe the US may have found one, I think Canada is searching.

[gro]

Canadian politics are exciting? How unusual...
While Harper clings to power with a prorogation device never used in Canada before, we have seen the ancient right of habeus corpus restricted by the Bush regime. Maybe we need something better than neofeudalism for our future.

[pixy242a]

A large number democracies have this parliamentary system because the British were the largest colonisers and I imagine many of their ex-colonies have this system of government. Where there are 3 or more parties, coalition governments are not uncommon. When a government loses a non-confidence vote, other parties can form a government or a new election is called.

Harper is playing on the dislike of most Canadians for the Bloc, a separatist party, to discredit the coalition. He used language that was quite inflammatory, and which could stir up passions in Quebec. If the Liberals and NDP cannot articulate their positions effectively, they will be the losers in this. Pity. Let's see how this plays out.

[boing007]

The Coalition said Yes, we can. The Governor General replied No, you cannot.
I wonder if Prime Minister Harper has any dirt on her? He loves to spy on those who don't agree with him. Sort of like President Nixon. Paranoid.

[MPeter]

I think Haper has dirt on her. He pulled off a 'Nixon' on the NDP.

[boing007]

Ontario has a habit of hedging its political bets,

And so does Quebec.

[boing007]

The Liberals left them with a 60 plus billion dollar surplus but Harper's Conservative Party prefers to pay down the debt rather than invest in infrastructure, housing, public transportation, child poverty, ad nauseum. They would rather sell off Crown corporations and give more tax cuts to corporations and the already obscenely rich. Etc. Sound familiar?

[flifishun]

I love Canadian government rules. Its like a parlour game.

[Skepticat]

In Canada right now the pickings are slim. Harper used to chair a neocon think tank - is secretive - no great people skills, unco-operative with parliament and called an opportunistic election figuring he could beat the lacklustre Liberal Stephan Dion. He didn't and we ended up with another minority government. Harper's Tories got about 38% of the popular vote - the other parties got even less - hardly a strong endorsement for anybody. The country appears evenly split over keep or dump Harper

[Jimmyboyo]

Question to Canadians

Can this be taken to court and over ruled? Do you guys and gals have something equiv to our supreme court? Is there any way this could be chalanged and overturned?

[hudsuckerproxy]

None of the Canadian constitutional experts I've seen interviewed this week have mentioned the possibility, so I assume no.

[debRam]

Nope, can't take them to court. It's all completely legal ... in spite of also being completely ridiculous. Even if we could, Parliament will be back in session long before the case would ever come to court. So now we go until Jan 26 with a government that can't make any decisions about anything until then (not that they were in the habit of making very good decisions prior to now). Except spending lots of money on media, trying to convince Canadians that a coalition government would be somehow worse than the one these jerks are in charge of. One can only hope their propoganda falls on deaf ears, and on the 27th of January, we kick Harper back under the rock from which he crawled and let Dion and Layton an Duceppe have a go.

[cdnnewsjunky]

Your right, they could hardly do any worse.

[NYCPub]

I thought we had a Banana Republic south of the 49th parallel. That takes the cake!

[Jimmyboyo]

yeah, I was envying canada for so long during bush.....now, not so much

[JoeSausage]

Really? A coalition of the Left is wrenching power from the unpopular Conservatives. It's a dream come true for Canadians!

[Northreader]

I love my country as I shovel snow here in Manitoba, land of the guaranteed White Christmas. But, alas there is no northern Obama in sight. Boy do we Canadians envy you Americans at the moment. I am so glad I can escape the mess in Ottawa by watching American channels on cable. Part of the problem is the Liberals, our version of the Democrats, have a leader who puts voters to sleep, struggles with English and should have left right after the October 14th federal election. Meanwhile the Conservatives, our version of the Republicans, have a leader who tries to con people into believing he is a moderate. But this is impossible as his dark, Dick Cheney side keeps popping through the disguise. The situation is complicated by five political parties and a first past the post electoral system. In many ways we are lucky Americans usually ignore us. We are truly nuts with two official languages and a French province that sometimes threatens to leave but never does.Mexico took one look at the energy concessions we made to the U.S. in the first Conservative free trade deal and said no way before joining NAFTA. Even the Mexicans think we're crazy.

[Kassandra]

I've been watching, sorta, with incredulity. I'm glad Huffpo finally posted something about it.

Maybe I'm ignorant, but it seems like a coup is going on up North. I never could understand why Canada, after seeing what Bush was doing down here, elected a "conservative"????? Or did they steal the elections like Bush did?

When Canada elected Harper, I thought, "one step closer to the NAU". I'm very glad to see this dissent, but troubled by this suppression.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/world/americas/05canada.html?hp

[kanester]

Nope, not a coup. Perfectly legal under the system (no-confidence vote, proroguing, coalition govts, forming a government after no-conf without election). What's never happened before in Canada is the prorogue and a true coalition govt; hey, this is confusing some Canadians too.
As for electing a con, 37ish% of Canadians who voted last time elected the CP -- some because they are con and some because he's the incumbent (better the devil you've just gotten used to).
Two things: 1. Canadians tend to vote-switch (different parties in different elections, different parties at the local/provincial level than at the federal level) more than Americans -- voting for the person, as it were, over the party affiliation. 2. The cons and libs in Canada are more middle-of-the-road than the repigs and dems pretend to be in the US.
The "suppression" will probably work against Harper personally and the CP on a general basis -- the economy's not going to get better before Jan27 -- and could be a benefit to the coalition partners IF they can hold the coalition together that long. The only other thing that might prevent a vote of no-conf in Jan is if the economy gets so bad the coalition says "The CP should run the country."

[cdnnewsjunky]

"The only other thing that might prevent a vote of no-conf in Jan is if the economy gets so bad the coalition says "The CP should run the country." - kanester 11:46 AM on 12/05/2008

lol. Funny but true! Flagged as favorite!