Avalon

Prorogation common occurrence

By MICHAEL L. MACDONALD
The Chronicle Herald Thu. Jan 28 – 4:53 AM

I am writing in response to my friend Wilfred Moore’s Jan. 23 opinion article on prorogation.

Parliament’s return on March 3 marks the 105th time since Confederation that prorogation has provided for a throne speech to open a new session. With 105 examples in over 143 years, it’s fair to say it’s a common occurrence. Most Parliaments have two or three sessions, some as many as six or seven.

With only one previous prorogation in almost four years in office (when Prime Minister Stephen Harper rightly stopped the Liberal-NDP-Bloc “coalition” from subverting the will of the electorate), it’s not unreasonable that the PM ask for Parliament to be prorogued — as all previous prime ministers have done — to write a throne speech, shuffle the cabinet and prepare a budget.

Pierre Trudeau prorogued 11 times in 16 years; Jean Chretien four times in 10 years, including a four-month delay after Paul Martin became PM, to give Martin time to get his government ready. Newly elected governments take over within a few weeks, yet we’re asked to believe a sitting cabinet minister needed four months to set up shop!

Of course, Mr. Chretien’s true agenda was distancing himself from the auditor general’s report on the sponsorship scandal and dropping the mess into Paul Martin’s lap. I don’t recall manufactured outrage at the time by either the press or the opposition — certainly nothing resembling the contrived performance Canadians have been subjected to of late. Senator Moore was in that Liberal caucus and ignores their conduct, yet now expresses concern about an “affront to our democratic process.”

Prorogation did not “shut down Parliament” — it was already in recess. Prorogation merely extended the recess by 22 days. Prorogation doesn’t mean a prolonged shutdown of Parliament because that is not its purpose. Prorogation is a reset button — a government can prorogue and open a new Parliament on the same day if it wishes.

Suggestions that Parliament not sitting stops the business of the nation are ludicrous. I can assure Canadians that the members of the Conservative government are working — actively responding to the earthquake in Haiti and delivering the Economic Action Plan. I was in Ottawa last week with a full schedule, and am just as busy at home.

I’m surprised Senator Moore raised the issue of the consumer protection bill. Bill C-6 strengthened Canada’s product safety laws, protected Canadians by prohibiting the manufacture and importation of unsafe goods, and created the ability to order recalls of unsafe products. A good piece of legislation, it should have been passed expeditiously. Senator Moore’s Liberal colleagues in the House of Commons must have thought so too, because C-6 passed unanimously in the House.

However, in the Senate, it was attacked by the Liberals. When claiming they gave the issue “sober second thought,” perhaps they should consider this sober thought: Senators aren’t elected, at least not yet. When elected members of the House of Commons unanimously pass a bill, it’s a clear indication of what Canadians want.

Did Liberal senators get approval from their appointed leader, Michael Ignatieff, to ignore the vote of every elected MP in Canada?

Liberal MPs and senators sit in the same caucus, yet they voted against each other on this bill — surely unacceptable behaviour. This stunt, coupled with the chance now to establish a Conservative plurality in the Senate by appointing five new senators to help blunt future irresponsible conduct by the Liberals, is in itself reason enough to prorogue.

We have a minority Parliament. The government’s fate is in the hands of the opposition. If PM Harper’s conduct is so unacceptable, surely the Liberals and their coalition cohorts are obliged to defeat the government at the first opportunity, in order to rescue the country from such dire straits. If they choose to do nothing after March 3, it will certainly speak volumes about their sincerity, will it not?

Michael L. MacDonald is a Conservative senator for Nova Scotia.

I have no doubt all of what Senator MacDonald says is true. Partisanship exists and the power of prorogation (like any other power) gets used for partisan ends from time to time. Yes, the Prime Minister has the authority and it has been used many times. However this is not the point. The point is should the head of government, regardless of their political affiliation, have the power to interfere in the working of our legislatures which are tasked with overseeing and restraining government, whether at the provincial or federal level? Prorogation is a symptom of this larger problem and whether you support or condemn the current instance of it, it has had the salutary effect of causing Canadians to raise questions about how our governance system works. And that is how real reform starts. So this is a good thing.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 28th, 2010 at 10:09 am and is filed under Miscellaneous. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.