The Liberals and the NDP are working together to change the rules on Parliamentary prorogation, but Minister of State for Democratic Reform Steven Fletcher says prorogation "enhances" the ability of the government to do its job, and most Canadians don't care about this "inside baseball" controversy.

Last week the Liberal and NDP House leaders and democratic reform critics met in Grit House Leader Ralph Goodale's (Wascana, Sask.) office to discuss plans to either table legislation, or change the Standing Orders in the House of Commons to limit the Prime Minister's ability to prorogue Parliament. Also in attendance were Liberal democratic reform critic Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine, Que.), her NDP counterpart David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, Ont.), and NDP House Leader Libby Davies (Vancouver East, B.C.).

Currently, if the Prime Minister wants to prorogue Parliament all he has to do is ask the Governor General, who by convention is obliged to heed his advice. The opposition parties' proposal would require a Prime Minister to give advance notice of his intent to suspend Parliament and would seek a full debate on the issue, which would then be voted on in the House of Commons. It would also prevent a Prime Minister from proroguing to avoid a confidence vote.

They acknowledge that in order for their initiative to be legally binding it would require changing the constitution, an arduous process that would need the consent of the provinces. But they say that although any law would not withstand a court challenge, if it were adhered to for long enough the combination of convention and political pressure would effectively accomplish the same thing. The other option is to put forward a motion to change the Standing Orders, the rules that govern the House of Commons.

But Mr. Fletcher (Charles-St. James-Assiniboia, Man.) said the government's position is that prorogation, which has been used 105 times since Confederation, is a legitimate power and therefore the Conservatives will oppose any proposals to change the rules around the Prime Minister's power to prorogue.

"This is just some theatrics by the opposition parties and it is a valuable Parliamentary convention and it prevented the catastrophic coalition of the Bloc, the Liberals, and the NDP. So no, the government will not support something like that because it just goes against hundreds of years of tradition," Mr. Fletcher said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) prorogued Parliament last year to escape a confidence vote on which his government would have been defeated, which depending on the Governor General's decision would have led to either an election or a coalition Liberal-NDP government propped up by the Bloc Québécois. Then on Dec. 30, under much less dramatic circumstances, Mr. Harper prorogued Parliament again; critics say to escape scrutiny on the Afghan detainee issue.

The last time the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament public opinion was on his side, with Facebook groups and rallies popping up across the country to protest the prospect of a coalition government led by former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Que.). This time, however, the prorogation has been political poison for Mr. Harper; in addition to mass public protests on Jan. 23, the Conservative lead over the official opposition Liberals has completely evaporated and the two parties are now neck-and-neck.

Mr. Christopherson said he thinks the public's reaction to the suspension of Parliament will be what makes the law stick in the long run.

"If a Prime Minister is hell-bound for leather that they're going to ignore all the rules constitutionally we may not be able to stop them, but the Speaker of the House ultimately finding a Prime Minister in contempt of their own Parliament is a public relations nightmare. And at the end of the day in democracy the other court of final opinion after the Supreme Court is still the Canadian public," he said.

University of Toronto political science Professor Nelson Wiseman, author of the book In Search of Canadian Political Culture, said if the opposition parties' proposal was passed into law and is then adhered to in Parliament then it would have teeth. He noted that in British Columbia the prerogative of the premier to ask the Lieutenant Governor to call an election is still constitutionally enshrined, but because the province has adhered to its fixed election date law for two elections now it would be politically detrimental for him to call a snap election.

Prof. Wiseman said he is skeptical this would be the case at the federal level, however, because the opposition parties "rolled over" when Prime Minister Harper ignored his own fixed election date law by asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament in 2008. Citizens' organization Democracy Watch subsequently took the federal government to court over the matter, however the judge ruled that the Constitution trumped the law.

Prof. Wiseman said getting a law passed, or changing the Standing Orders, or the House rules, would just be the first step to changing the way that a Prime Minister goes about proroguing Parliament. In order for it to work it would require sustained political commitment by the political parties.

"This is just pandering to the current reaction. ... The leaders and the parties have to commit themselves, but what evidence is there that they're willing to?"

hmacleod@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times