World

What is Prorogation and why does Harper want it?

by Tina Kells | December 4, 2008 at 08:57 am

805 views | 22 Recommendations | 4 comments

Stephen Harper is facing a vote of non-confidence in Parliament and is trying to ward off an opposition coalition. In a last bid to stop this from happening he has asked Governor General Michaelle Jean for a prorogation.

This begs the question... what exactly is prorogation?

Wikipedia explains:

A prorogation is the period between two sessions of a legislative body. When a legislature or parliament is prorogued, it is still constituted (that is, all members remain as members and a general election is not necessary), but all orders of the body (bills, motions, etc.) are expunged. (In the British parliament, this has now changed somewhat in that Public Bills can be carried over from one session to another.)

In the British and Canadian parliamentary systems, this is usually due to the completion of the agenda set forth in the Speech from the Throne (in the UK, called the legislative programme, and also "the Queen's Speech"). Legislatures and parliaments, once prorogued, remain in recess until summoned again by the Queen, Governor General, or Lieutenant Governor, and a new session is begun with the State Opening of Parliament and the Speech from the Throne.

In short, prorogation means that Stephen Harper is asking for parliament to be suspended to buy his Conservative government some time.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has formally asked the Governor General to shut down Parliament until January.

It's a bid to avoid Monday's non-confidence vote that would bring down his minority Conservative government.

Harper - his job on the line - has spent nearly two hours at Rideau Hall today talking with Michaelle Jean.

He cancelled an afternoon appearance in Woodstock, Ont., as the critical meeting dragged on.

The Governor General has already been consulting with constitutional experts about her options, but it's unclear when she will announce her decision.

The opposition coalition told Jean that Harper no longer enjoys the confidence of the House of Commons and asked her to refuse prorogation.

The Liberal and NDP leaders have requested a meeting with Jean before she makes her decision.

3 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | Digg | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Paschen

at 10:12 on December 4th, 2008

Hum, well I hope not. It does not sound Democratic nor would it achieve much other then delaying the inevitable.

Tina Kells

at 11:35 on December 4th, 2008

I just stumbled upon this blog about the prorogue. Thought I would share it with all of you.

The coalition was quick to respond to this decision with Dion admitting that it would take a 'monumental change' for the coalition not to go ahead as planned when parliament reconvenes in seven weeks. Always the orator, Layton declared, "I cannot have confidence in a prime minister who would throw the locks on he door of this place, knowing that he's about to lose a vote in the House of Commons. That's denying about as fundamental a right as one has in a democracy."

Without any bias, I would have to agree with Layton on this, if the coalition legally taking over the government is undemocratic, the parliament being shut down to avoid a non-confidence vote is down right anti-democratic. What is this, 16th century France? Are we really just shutting down parliament because of partisan squabbling? This vote should have happened, and we should be going through another elections process. Has anyone ever stopped to think that, maybe, if we didn't make elections into such circuses there really wouldn't be a problem with holding another election so quickly?

I'm quickly coming to believe that if the Canadian government is ever to be viewed as legitimate again, we need to have another election. The coalition was never going to be a legitimate leader, and now with this move, Harper isn't either. I can just imagine how this is all going to play out in the international media. I bet American publications are already referring to the coalition as some communist threat, or questioning the stability or legitimacy of Canada on the international stage.

mofiac

at 18:03 on December 4th, 2008

If Harper gets the chance to write it, you can bet it will be filled with threatening references and Bush style reasoning. That's one of the reasons that has pushed the opposition into the murky waters that they're about to tread. And you can bank on the Rhetoric King capitalizing on every step they make.

Barbara McPherson

at 13:37 on December 4th, 2008

I'm glad to see that people in Canada are finally waking up to the importance of voting in elections. I disagree with most of the comments tho. Harper miscalculated in his gamesmanship and needs to bear some blame here, but to expect a responsible budget within two weeks of election and before we see what the elephant to the south of us is doing would be irresponsible. The real issue that brought the NDP and Liberals together was the threat of withdrawing the parties subsidies. The Bloc(a provincial separatist party) will support that which is good for Quebec but not necessarily the rest of Canada. All the party leaders must share blame for this mess they are presenting to the electorate. Perhaps in the next month they can learn to "play nice" with each other. We certainly don't need to waste 400 million on another election.