Prorogation in Canada: Difference between revisions
Miesianiacal (talk | contribs) →Calls for reform in the federal jurisdiction: rm subsections, trim redundant |
Miesianiacal (talk | contribs) →Calls for reform in the federal jurisdiction: c/e, trim excess again |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Prorogations of the federal parliament in 2008 and 2009 triggered speculation that such use of the [[Royal Prerogative]] had been advised by the sitting prime minister for political purposes. [[2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute#The Governor General prorogues parliament|The first prorogation]] took place on December 4, 2008, in the midst of [[2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute|a parliamentary dispute]] and immediately after the opposition parties made public their intention defeat the incumbent [[minority government]]. [[40th Canadian Parliament#Second prorogation|The second prorogation]] occurred on December 30, 2009, and was suspected by opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) to be a way to avoid investigations into [[Canadian Afghan detainee issue|the Afghan detainees affair]]. |
Prorogations of the federal parliament in 2008 and 2009 triggered speculation that such use of the [[Royal Prerogative]] had been advised by the sitting prime minister for political purposes. [[2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute#The Governor General prorogues parliament|The first prorogation]] took place on December 4, 2008, in the midst of [[2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute|a parliamentary dispute]] and immediately after the opposition parties made public their intention defeat the incumbent [[minority government]]. [[40th Canadian Parliament#Second prorogation|The second prorogation]] occurred on December 30, 2009, and was suspected by opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) to be a way to avoid investigations into [[Canadian Afghan detainee issue|the Afghan detainees affair]]. |
||
Through early 2010, [[2010 Canada anti-prorogation protests|protests took place]] in various cities across the country and,<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/01/23/prorogue-protests.html| title=Thousands protest Parliament's suspension| publisher=CBC| date=23 January 2010| accessdate=24 January 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/12/30/parliament-prorogation-harper.html| title=PM shuts down Parliament until March| publisher=CBC| date=31 December 2009| accessdate=31 December 2009}}</ref> within a week after the latter prorogation, the [[non-partisan|multi-partisan]] organization [[Fair Vote Canada]] had gathered the signatures of 132 political scientists to a letter condemning the move and calling for [[electoral reform]].<ref name=Halted /><ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.fairvote.ca/en/fvc-news/132-political-scientists-call-for-action-on-democratic-deficit| title=132 political scientists call for action on the democratic deficit| publisher=Fair Vote Canada| date=January 5, 2010| accessdate=February 5, 2010}}</ref> Writing in ''[[Canada's History]]'' about the protests, Christopher Moore opined that changes to the internal operations of [[List of political parties in Canada|Canada's political parties]], specifically the selection of party leaders by extra-parliamentary competitions, had decreased the prime minister's accountability to the House of Commons, including for his or her advice on prorogations; as the prime minister is typically the leader of a party, but was selected as such via a vote by party members, rather than by party [[Caucus#In Commonwealth nations|caucus]], [[backbencher]]s had a minimised ability to wield influence over their leader. Moore suggested new constitutional procedures to rein in the abuse of prime ministerial powers.<ref name=Moore-1 /> |
|||
[[New Democratic Party]] (NDP) leader [[Jack Layton]] called on January 20 and 23, 2010, for limits to prorogation, stating his party would call for legislative changes that would require a majority vote of MPs for the prorogation of parliament.<ref name=CBCLayton>{{Cite news| title=Layton calls for limits on powers to prorogue| publisher=CBC| date=Jan 20, 2010| url=http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/01/20/ndp-prorogue-limits.html| accessdate=February 2, 2010}}</ref><ref name=cbc1>{{cite news| url=http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/01/23/prorogue-protests.html| title=Thousands protest Parliament's suspension| date=January 23, 2010| publisher=CBC| accessdate=January 24, 2010}}</ref> Five days later, [[Liberal Party of Canada]] leader [[Michael Ignatieff]] also called for limits to the ability of the prime minister to advise the prorogation of parliament,<ref name=CBCLayton /> his plan requiring the consent of the [[Canadian House of Commons]], following ten days written notice and debate.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/25/parliament-prorogue.html| title=Liberals unveil prorogation proposal of their own| date=January 25, 2010| publisher=Canadian Broadcasting Corporation| accessdate=January 29, 2010}}</ref> Ignatieff brushed off questions about the constitutionality of the proposed changes, saying if new rules are established, governors general "will respect those constitutional conventions" as they always have, adding: "The problem is not with the governor general. The problem is with the Prime Minister of Canada."<ref>{{Citation| last=Greenaway| first=Norma| title=Opposition seeks to limit Harper’s prorogation powers| newspaper=National Post| date=January 25, 2010| url=http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=2481830| accessdate=January 29, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{Citation| last=Leblanc| first=Daniel| title=Opposition pushes for new rules on prorogation| newspaper=The Globe and Mail| date=January 28, 2010| url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prorogation/opposition-pushes-for-new-rules-on-prorogation/article1443657/| accessdate=January 29, 2010}}</ref> These proposals echoed the arrangements within the [[Long Parliament]] of [[England]], between 1640 and 1648, which could only be dissolved with the agreement of its members.<ref>{{Citation| last=Charles I| author-link=Charles I of England| publication-date=May 11, 1641| title=Act against Dissolving the Long Parliament without its own Consent| publication-place=Westminster| publisher=King's Printer| url=http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/c1.html#198| accessdate=June 15, 2010}}</ref> |
|||
In the April-May, 2010 issue of [[Canada's History]], Christopher Moore discussed the [[2010 Canada anti-prorogation protests]] and the historical evolution of the accountability for prorogation in Canada: "[Since the 1800s] the other evolution in Parliament was the changing relationship between backbenchers and leaders. [In the 1800s] [[John A. Macdonald|MacDonald]] himself became one of the inventors of the "party machine" --the party as a disciplined, centralized, loyal team that would not dare to turn on him as it had in 1873. By the mid-twentieth century, when party leaders became chosen by extra-parliamentary leadership competitions, party leaders began to dare to tell backbenchers that they had no right to question what a leader did or said."<ref name=Moore-1 /> Hence, according to Moore, "no great web of new legislation or constitutional procedure is needed to rein in the abuse of prime ministerial powers. Other parliaments around the world regularly see party leaders and prime ministers dumped when their own backbenchers and prime ministers grow tired of them. If our premiers and prime ministers knew that legislatures would rebuke them for abusing Parliament, ([[Prorogation_in_Canada#Unique_cases|as did the backbenchers in the legislature of 1873]]), we would not have to worry about rogue prorogations."<ref name=Moore-1 /> |
|||
==Motion in Parliament passes in 2010== |
==Motion in Parliament passes in 2010== |
||
Revision as of 16:18, 14 June 2010
 |
|---|
Prorogation is the end of a parliamentary session in the Parliament of Canada and the parliaments of its provinces and territories. It differs from a recess or adjournment, which do not end a session, and from a complete dissolution of parliament, which ends both the session and the entire parliament, requiring a following election.
In the Canadian parliamentary system, the legislature is typically prorogued upon the completion of the agenda set forth in the Speech from the Throne and remains in recess until the monarch or governor general, in the federal sphere, or lieutenant governor, in a province, summons parliamentarians again. In 2008, 2009, and 2010, prorogation of the Parliament of Canada was the subject of discussion among academics, the Canadian public, and their political representatives.
Mechanism
- Further information: Parliament of Canada > Term
It is the Canadian monarch's prerogative to prorogue the legislatures, though this is usually done for the federal parliament by the sovereign's representative therein, the Governor General of Canada, and always for the provincial parliaments by the monarch's representatives in those areas, the lieutenant governors.
A parliamentary session lasts until a prorogation, after which, without ceremony, the one or both chambers of the legislature cease all legislative business until the governor general or lieutenant governor issues another proclamation calling for a new session to begin. For the federal paliament, except for the election of a speaker for the House of Commons and his or her claiming of that house's privileges, the same procedures for the opening of parliament are again followed.
History
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, prorogations in Canada lasted at least half of any given year. Parliament would typically be in session from February until June, give or take a few months, and would be prorogued for the remainder of the year, giving Members of Parliament the opportunity to spend a substantial amount of time in their home ridings. Only when vast amounts of legislation needed debated and passed during the Second World War did parliament begin to sit for longer sessions. This was followed by an expansion of the government's role in Canadian life through the 1950s and 1960s, requiring even shorter prorogations.[1] Additionally, the advent of modern communication tools and air travel rendered long prorogations even more unnecessary; Members of Parliament may contact their home ridings whenever they want and can visit their home ridings during adjournments. Today, sessions of parliament still last about one year each, but the prorogation in between sessions is often only a few days and new sessions are started more for organizational or political reasons than for the purpose of giving members of parliament time away. Between 1867 and 2010 the average period of prorogation was 151 days. However, in the 30 year period between 1980 and 2010, the average was just 22 days.[2]
In 1873, during the 2nd Canadian Parliament, Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald asked Governor General the Earl of Dufferin to prorogue parliament in order to stop the work of a committee investigating Macdonald's involvement in the Pacific Scandal. While the governor general did reluctantly prorogue parliament, he limited it to a period of ten weeks, appointed a commission to continue the hearings, and gave it ten weeks to report; when parliament returned and the commission tabled their findings, Macdonald was censured and had to resign.[3]
Calls for reform in the federal jurisdiction
Prorogations of the federal parliament in 2008 and 2009 triggered speculation that such use of the Royal Prerogative had been advised by the sitting prime minister for political purposes. The first prorogation took place on December 4, 2008, in the midst of a parliamentary dispute and immediately after the opposition parties made public their intention defeat the incumbent minority government. The second prorogation occurred on December 30, 2009, and was suspected by opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) to be a way to avoid investigations into the Afghan detainees affair.
Through early 2010, protests took place in various cities across the country and,[4][5] within a week after the latter prorogation, the multi-partisan organization Fair Vote Canada had gathered the signatures of 132 political scientists to a letter condemning the move and calling for electoral reform.[2][6] Writing in Canada's History about the protests, Christopher Moore opined that changes to the internal operations of Canada's political parties, specifically the selection of party leaders by extra-parliamentary competitions, had decreased the prime minister's accountability to the House of Commons, including for his or her advice on prorogations; as the prime minister is typically the leader of a party, but was selected as such via a vote by party members, rather than by party caucus, backbenchers had a minimised ability to wield influence over their leader. Moore suggested new constitutional procedures to rein in the abuse of prime ministerial powers.[1]
New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jack Layton called on January 20 and 23, 2010, for limits to prorogation, stating his party would call for legislative changes that would require a majority vote of MPs for the prorogation of parliament.[7][8] Five days later, Liberal Party of Canada leader Michael Ignatieff also called for limits to the ability of the prime minister to advise the prorogation of parliament,[7] his plan requiring the consent of the Canadian House of Commons, following ten days written notice and debate.[9] Ignatieff brushed off questions about the constitutionality of the proposed changes, saying if new rules are established, governors general "will respect those constitutional conventions" as they always have, adding: "The problem is not with the governor general. The problem is with the Prime Minister of Canada."[10][11] These proposals echoed the arrangements within the Long Parliament of England, between 1640 and 1648, which could only be dissolved with the agreement of its members.[12]
Motion in Parliament passes in 2010
On March 17, 2010, opposition members of Parliament joined together to pass a motion that would prevent the prime minister from proroguing Parliament for longer than seven days unless supported by the House of Commons of Canada. The motion was introduced by New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton and passed by a vote of 139 to 135, but is not considered binding. The motion stated: "That, in the opinion of the House, the prime minister shall not advise the Governor General to prorogue any session of any Parliament for longer than seven calendar days without a specific resolution of this House of Commons to support such a prorogation.”[13]
On March 22, 2010, Liberal, Bloc Québécois and NDP MPs used their majority in the Commons committee in charge of MPs' privilege and rules to approve an official review of the convention of prorogation. This review could require a Prime Minister to seek approval from the House before asking the Governor General to end a Parliamentary session in the future.[14]
See also
References
- ^ a b Moore, Christopher (2010). "A (pro)rogue's gallery". Canada's History (April-May 2010): 45–46.
- ^ a b ?, ? (January 7, 2010). "Halted in mid-debate". The Economist. ? (?). London: Economist Group: ?. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved February 3, 2010.
{{cite journal}}:|last=has numeric name (help) - ^ Valpy, Michael (December 5, 2008), "There's no hint whether prorogation came with strings attached", The Globe and Mail, retrieved December 5, 2008
- ^ "Thousands protest Parliament's suspension". CBC. 23 January 2010. Retrieved 24 January 2010.
- ^ "PM shuts down Parliament until March". CBC. 31 December 2009. Retrieved 31 December 2009.
- ^ "132 political scientists call for action on the democratic deficit". Fair Vote Canada. January 5, 2010. Retrieved February 5, 2010.
- ^ a b "Layton calls for limits on powers to prorogue". CBC. Jan 20, 2010. Retrieved February 2, 2010.
- ^ "Thousands protest Parliament's suspension". CBC. January 23, 2010. Retrieved January 24, 2010.
- ^ "Liberals unveil prorogation proposal of their own". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. January 25, 2010. Retrieved January 29, 2010.
- ^ Greenaway, Norma (January 25, 2010), "Opposition seeks to limit Harper's prorogation powers", National Post, retrieved January 29, 2010
- ^ Leblanc, Daniel (January 28, 2010), "Opposition pushes for new rules on prorogation", The Globe and Mail, retrieved January 29, 2010
- ^ Charles I (May 11, 1641), Act against Dissolving the Long Parliament without its own Consent, Westminster: King's Printer, retrieved June 15, 2010
- ^ CBC News (March 17, 2010). "Motion to limit PM's prorogation power passes". CBC News. Retrieved 20 March 2010.
- ^ Tim Naumetz (March 22, 2010). "Opposition parties push for a showdown over Afghan documents, PM's power to prorogue". The Hill Times. Retrieved 21 March 2010.
External links
