Prorogation - where do we go from here?

Two weeks after my last post, Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament has grown by leaps and bounds (217,000 members and counting), rallies have been held on January 23 in around 60 locations across Canada and abroad (even in Oman!), bringing together over 30,000 concerned Canadians. It's in the news every day, as unlikely as this may seem, alongside the devastation in Haiti. Clearly, the objective of bringing the issue to light and into the public consciousness has been achieved and surpassed. Fine, but, now what? Parliament will not be un-prorogued. What is it exactly that we want?

There are many negatives flowing from the prorogation of Parliament on December 30.
- Yes, the MPs are on extended holiday. But that's not the big issue. Parliament could have been adjourned for an extended Christmas recess instead and no one would have minded.
- Many bills have been killed and all the time, money and effort expended in getting them to the stage at which they were when Parliament was prorogued has been wasted. This is a serious issue, but not the fundamental one.
- All the committees of Parliament have been disbanded, including the special committee examining the issue of the Afghan detainees. This is an extremely serious issue, but still not the fundamental one.

No, at the heart of this prorogation debacle stands the most serious menace to our democratic institutions in living memory: the executive branch of government (ie the Prime Minister) has twice in one year dismissed the legislature arbitrarily, for the sole purpose of self preservation (or naked self-interest, as The Economist, from a neutral perspective, has correctly characterised it). We cannot stand idly by while the King dismisses the people's representatives. This is a battle that we thought had been settled long ago, but that we are called upon to fight once more. It is such a grievous attack on our democracy that we cannot let it stand nor can we allow it to occur again in the future.

So what can be done about it? At a minimum, we would want the perpetrator to pay such a heavy price that no future PM would ever consider using a similar stratagem. The ultimate price of course for the PM is to lose control of the government. How can that be accomplished? The PM could be found in contempt of Parliament and forced to resign; or the government could lose a vote of non-confidence, and the PM forced to resign, with the Leader of Opposition invited to form a government; or the government could be defeated in a future election, whenever it is called.

You will note that absent from these solutions are the types of legislative or House rule changes currently proposed by the NDP and Liberal parties. The proposed measures are woefully inadequate in that they do not in any way bring to justice the perpetrator of the current attacks on our democracy nor do they strike fear in the hearts of any future potential perpetrator. In addition, they introduce all kinds of opportunities for new House shenanigans. In any event, the problem is not with our institutions and conventions. We have managed very well for 143 years with the unwritten rules as they are. But, as they are unwritten, compliance depends on the goodwill and respect for Parliament of the government of the day. All, until the current government, have shown the necessary deference to our institutions. The solution then is to replace the government of the day and to make it clear that a similar fate awaits any future government that attempts to so subvert our democracy.

Of the possible outcomes of resignation, defeat in the House or defeat in a future election, which is most achievable?

Resignation seems the least likely. It could result from intense internal dissension within the ruling party (as in the case of Diefenbaker in 1962, or even Chrétien in 2004). Resignation could also be the outcome if the PM were found to be in contempt of Parliament. Contempt of Parliament is the crime of obstructing the parliament in the carrying out of its functions. It could be argued that this is exactly what the PM has been doing.

Defeat in the House is much more likely. There will be a Throne Speech and a budget tabled when Parliament reconvenes in March. The opposition has the votes to bring the government down, if not on the budget, then on a motion of non-confidence specifically addressing the abuse of the PM's prorogation powers. Maybe we can't expect the opposition to act on principle in this matter, even though it is the most fundamental principle of representative government. Whether they muster the courage to defeat the government will probably depend on their electoral prospects. This is where the Governor General might play a role. It is not an immutable law that an election must follow the defeat of the government in the House. Some would argue that convention makes it imperative that an election be called. However, there are not many precedents.

Of the 40 Parliaments elected in Canada since 1867, 11 have led to minority governments. Of these 11 minority governments, only four have fallen as the result of a non-confidene vote. The first one, in 1925-26 led to the famous King-Byng affair. In the election of 1925, the Conservatives under Arthur Meighen garnered the most seats, but the Liberals under McKenzie-King remained in power thanks to an alliance with the Progressive party. However, this alliance eventually fell victim to revelations of scandals and McKenzie-King, facing a vote of non-confidence, asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament so that elections could be held. Elections had been held less than six months before, in October 2005, and the GG refused the request and instead asked Arthur Meighen to form a government. This was exactly within the GG's authority and duty to do, even though it has been contested. In the case of the other three defeats in the House, (Diefenbaker in 1962, Clark in 1979 and Martin in 2005), Parliament was dissolved and elections were held. (In all three cases, the opposition party was elected to form a government.) How would the current Governor General deal with a request for dissolution should the Government fall in March? Would elections necessarily be held or could she invite the Leader of the Opposition to form a government and try to maintain the confidence of the House? I suspect that many Canadians would prefer to give this a try rather than go to the polls for the fourth time in six years.

However, if the PM does not resign, and if the Government is not defeated in the House, then it will be up to the people to mete out the required punishment in the next elections. It will be difficult to maintain the momentum until the election call and the splintering of the electorate makes the outcome of elections very unpredictable, and so there is no guarantee that the current government will pay the price. It's a very big challenge but our democracy deserves our best efforts to make it happen.